/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240820.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, August 20, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 167
Headlines
3M COMPANY: Darnell Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: Nelson Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Sullivan Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
ACTIVEHOURS INC: Illegally Collects Cash Advances, Johnson Alleges
ADAPTHEALTH CORP: Continues to Defend Allegheny County Class Suit
ADAPTHEALTH CORP: Settlement in Faille Class Suit Gets Court Nod
ADVANCE AUTO: Arkett Sues Over Inadequate Safeguarding of PII
AGILON HEALTH: Continues to Defend Hope Class Suit in Texas
AGILON HEALTH: Continues to Defend IPRS Class Suit
AIRBNB INC: Ly Sues Over Rental Property's Hazardous Conditions
ALLEGHENIES UNITED: Hannan Seeks Service Coordinators' Unpaid OT
ALLIANCE ENTERTAINMENT: Discloses Video Habits to Meta, Feller Says
ALTAMED HEALTH: Moore Sues Over Unpaid Compensations
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Jones Sues Over Disability Discrimination
AMGEN INC: Carefirst Sues Over Unlawful Delaying of Competition
ANES MECHANICAL: Faces Lukovic Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
ARISA HEALTH INC: Crow Files Suit in W.D. Arkansas
AT&T INC: Faces Pop Suit Over Failure to Protect Customers' Info
AUSTRALIAN FOOTBALL: Discloses Video Habits to Meta, McCormick Says
AVENTURA MALL: Miami Snow Carnival Not ADA Compliant, Fuentes Says
B & S PLASTICS INC: Juarez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
BALDWIN INSURANCE: Continues to Defend Wagner Class Suit
BEACHBODY CO: Continues to Defend Lyons Class Suit
BEACHBODY CO: Continues to Defend Reilly Class Suit
BELLRING BRANDS: Continues to Defend Federal Class Suit in Calif.
BH MANAGEMENT: Court Extends Discovery Deadline in Chiodini
BIOVENTUS INC: Settlement Deal in Ciarciello Suit for Court OK
BIOXCEL THERAPEUTICS: Bid to Dismiss Martin Class Suit Due Sept. 6
BLOOMBERG LP: Syeed Sues Over Sex & Race Discrimination in S.D.N.Y.
BLUE RIDGE: Bishop Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
BLUE RIDGE: Continues to Defend Hunter Class Suit
BRADCON LLC: Enriquez Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
BYTEDANCE INC: Illegally Collects Children's TikTok Info, Suit Says
CARIBOU BIOSCIENCES: Settlement Deal in Bergman Suit for Court OK
CEDAR REALTY: Continues to Defend Consolidated Sydney, Kim Suit
CENTRAL BUCKS: Judge Decertifies Equal Pay Class Action Suit
CENTRAL FALLS: Hellested Sues Over Failure to Safeguard Data
CHAUTAUQUA COUNTY, NY: Gworek Alleges Violations of Taking Clause
CHICKEN SOUP: Skajem Sues Over Scheme to Defraud Compensation
CIRCLE C DEVELOPMENT: Hires Langley & Banack as Bankruptcy Counsel
CLARIVATE PLC: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit Pending
CLARIVATE PLC: Continues to Defend Securities Act-Related Suit
CLEAN HARBORS: Delgado Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Calif.
COASTAL ORTHOPEDICS: Comarsh-White Sues Over Data Security Failure
COLUMBIA BANKING: Continues to Defend Ponzi Scheme-Related Suit
CONAIR LLC: McCabe Sues Over Coffee Maker's False 14-Cup Label
CORTES STEEL: Villa FLSA Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Welders
COUPANG INC: Continues to Defend Choi Class Suit in S.D.N.Y.
CRAFT REVOLUTION: Bell Seeks to Certify Class of Tipped Employees
DARREN K. INDYKE: Court Narrows Claims in Bensky, et al. Lawsuit
DELTA AIR LINES: Bajra Sues Over Refusal to Secure Refunds
DESKTOP METAL: Oct. 16 Hearing on Bid to Dismiss Campanella Suit
DINE BRANDS: Clarks Sues Over Improper Food Delivery Charges
DXC TECHNOLOGY: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set October 1
DXC TECHNOLOGY: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set October 1
EOS ENERGY: Continues to Defend Houck Class Suit
EOS ENERGY: Hearing on Settlement in Delman Suit Set for Oct. 17
EVENT TICKETS: Hernandez Sues Over Drip Pricing Practice
EVOLVE BANK: Fails to Safeguard Customers' Info, Page Says
EXER HOLDING COMPANY: Gaige Files Suit in C.D. California
EXTREME NETWORKS: Steamfitters Sues Over Inflated Stock Price
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Florida
FORD MOTOR: Faces Guzman Suit Over 18.36% Drop of Stock Price
FORD MOTOR: Guzman Files Securities Fraud Class Action Suit
FORD MOTOR: Nelson Sues Over Vehicles' EcoBoost Engine Defect
FOUNDEVER OPERATING: Underpays Customer Service Reps, McCoy Claims
FRONTIER AIRLINES: Hartsfield Appeals Suit Dismissal to 10th Cir.
FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Extension of Class Cert Bid Filing Sought
FUSCHETTO HOME: Jerez Class Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Painters
GENERAC HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Haak Consumer Class Suit
GENERAC HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Oakland County Class Suit
GENERAC HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Walling Securities Class Suit
GETZ INDUSTRIAL: Faces Liggins FLSA Suit in C.D. Illinois
GPB AUTOMOTIVE: Consolidated Kinnie Ma Class Suit Stayed
GPB AUTOMOTIVE: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in New York
GPB AUTOMOTIVE: Deluca Class Suit Deadlines & Proceedings Stayed
GRAND CANYON: Settlement in ERISA-Related Suit for Court OK
HEALTHEQUITY INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Booth Alleges
HEALTHEQUITY INC: Kukitz Sues Over Customers' Compromised Info
IDC TECHNOLOGIES: Radus Sues Over Breach of Contractual Obligations
INNOVATIVE INDUSTRIAL: Continues to Defend Mallozzi Securities Suit
INTERACTIVE LIFE: Court Denies Browsewrap Agreements to Arbitrate
IONQ INC: Defeo Appeals Consolidated Suit Dismissal to 4th Circuit
JAGUAR LAND: Collects Drivers' Data Without Consent, Hupper Claims
JERICO PICTURES: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Burgen Alleges
JERICO PICTURES: Jones Sues Over Data Breach
JERICO PICTURES: Wilcox Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII
JP MORGAN: Updated Joint Case Management Statement Due Nov. 27
KENTUCKY: Healey May Supplement 3rd Amended Suit v. Metro Gov't
KIMCHICHIC BEAUTY: Bishop Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website
KIRIN TRANSPORTATION: Judge Recommends Class Cert Bid Denial
LAKES/NATIONAL EMERGENCY: Faces Muniz Wage-and-Suit in D. Mass.
LEGACY FLEXO: Esquibel Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Supervisors
LHNH LAVISTA: Class Certification Bid in Lanz Suit Due August 28
LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit
LYNBROOK 5 INC: Fails to Properly Pay Servers, Quirke Suit Alleges
M. BERKSON LLC: Liu Files Suit in N.D. Texas
MDL 2873: Faces Trail Suit Over Side Effects of Using AFFF Products
MEDICAL MUTUAL: Unlawfully Ends Insureds' Coverage, Peters Alleges
MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Thrower Sues Over Unlawful Telemarketing Calls
MOON ACTIVE: Allows Real Money for In-Game Purchases, Wick Alleges
MURPHY REHABILITATION: Fleming Seeks Nurse Assistants' Unpaid OT
NATIONAL PUBLIC: Faces Multiple Class Suits Over Data Breach
NESTLE HEALTH: Bowler Sues Over Mislabeled Fish Oil Products
NEW YORK: District Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Ugo-Alum v. DMV
OLAPLEX HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Lilien Securities Suit
ONEIDA COUNTY, NY: Dipippo Seeks Compensation for Seized Property
PACIFIC MARKET: Seeks to Dismiss Drinkwares Class Action Lawsuit
PANERA LLC: Faces Buchanan Suit in E.D. Missouri
PENNSYLVANIA: Lee Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling to 3rd Cir.
PLAYSTUDIOS INC: Continues to Defend Felipe Class Suit
PLAYSTUDIOS INC: Continues to Defend Kuhk Class Suit
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Costa Sues Over Laundry Products' False Ads
RAAC MANAGEMENT: Gomez Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct.
READING INTERNATIONAL: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Oct. 18
RIB CITY GROUP: Calabrese Seeks Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages
SELENITE BEAUTY: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Conner Says
SHALANDA HOUSTON: JPAY LLC Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
SHERFIZ II INC: Wentz Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Delivery Drivers
SHOALS TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit
SLING TV LLC: Arias Alleges Disclosure of Info to Third Parties
SOLAREN RISK: Underpays Security Guards, Jordhamo Suit Alleges
SONY ELECTRONICS: Court Narrows Claims in Riddick Class Suit
SUMMIT MATERIALS: Continues to Defend Taylor Class Suit
SUNBEAM PRODUCTS: McCabe Sues Over Rice Cooker's False 6-Cup Label
TARGET CORP: Chen & Kessler Sue Over Unlawful Biometrics Collection
TILRAY BRANDS: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in NY
TILRAY BRANDS: Ruing on Bid to Dismiss Suit Expected in December
TILRAY BRANDS: Subsidiary Continues to Defend Suit in Canada
TULARE COUNTY, CA: Underpays Fire Battalion Chiefs, Doyle Alleges
UIPATH INC: Brunozzi Sues Over Securities Exchange Act Violation
UNITED OF OMAHA: Viverette Sues Over Failure to Protect Info
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Hertzberg Sues Over Failure to Protect Info
USERWAY INC: Bloomsybox.com Sues Over False Ads on Widget
VALVE CORP: Bid to Seal Entries in Updated Appendix Tossed
WARDADDY AVIATION: Seeks to Hire Peachtree CPA Group as Accountant
WAREHOUSE HOME: Surgeon Debt Collection Suit Removed to W.D.N.C.
WESTERN UNION: Subsidiary Continues to Defend CFA Suit
WESTERN UNION: Subsidiary Continues to Defend Class Suit in Calif.
WG UNDERGROUND: Gonzalez Seeks Utility Installers' Unpaid Overtime
WILDERDOG LLC: Calcano Sues Over Blind's Equal Access Online Store
WOW RESTAURANT: Court Extends Mediation Deadline in Chen Suit
XPEL INC: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit
ZOOMINFO TECHNOLOGIES: Subsidiary Continues to Defend Class Suit
[*] Judge Allows Parents and Teachers to Join Class Action
[*] SCOTUS Should Face Class Suit Over Bias, Actress Goldberg Says
*********
3M COMPANY: Darnell Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry Darnell, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY, f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co.; AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AGC, INC., f/k/a Asahi Glass Co., Ltd.; AMEREX CORPORATION;
ARCHROMA MANAGEMENT, LLC; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.,
individually and as successor-in-interest to Atofina S.A.; BASF
CORPORATION, individually and as successor-in-interest to Ciba
Inc.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION,
individually and as successor-in interest to Kidde-Fenwal, Inc.;
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHUBB
FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORPORATION, individually and as
successor-in-interest to Sandoz Chemical Corporation; CORTEVA,
INC., individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical
Solutions Enterprise; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS
INC, f/k/a Dowdupont Inc., individually and as
successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY,
individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical
Solutions Enterprise; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM,
INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, individually and as
successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise; THE
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, individually and as successor-in-interest
to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
individually and as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company;
UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; and UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS
CORPORATION, f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-04317-RMG
(D.S.C., Aug. 6, 2024), is brought for damages for personal
injuries resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams
("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per
and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not
limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
PFAS, known as "forever chemicals" because they resist
biodegradation, persist in the environment, and accumulate in
people and other living organisms, have contaminated the land, air,
and water, through the use of AFFF containing PFAS for fire
suppression activities. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to
extinguish petroleum-based fires. Defendants' AFFF contained PFOS,
PFOA, PFBS, and/or the chemical precursors to PFOS and/or PFBS.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are man-made compounds that are
persistent, toxic, and bioaccumulative when released into the
environment, and pose a significant risk to human health and
safety. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals.
Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the
human body while presenting significant health risks to humans.
Not knowing the true nature of the products consumers were required
to use, PFAS, and/or AFFF containing PFAS has been used for decades
by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in
training and in response to Class B fires.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages, costs incurred and to be incurred by Plaintiff,
and any other damages that the Court or jury may deem appropriate
for bodily injury arising from the intentional, malicious, knowing,
reckless and/or negligent acts and/or omissions of Defendants in
connection with 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 during Plaintiff's service as a seaman in the
United States Navy.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq.
THE FERRARO LAW FIRM
600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor
Miami, FL 33131
Phone (305) 375-0111
Email: james@ferrarolaw.com
3M COMPANY: Nelson Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Clarence Nelson, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No.
0:24-cv-04226-RMG (D.S.C., July 21, 2024), is brought for damages
for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is
not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of Decedent's exposure to
Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of
Decedent's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further
seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from
the same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
prostate cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF
products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Phone: 631-600-0000
Facsimile: 631-543-5450
- and -
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Phone: 205-328-9200
Facsimile: 205-328-9456
3M COMPANY: Sullivan Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
--------------------------------------------------------------
James Sullivan, 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-04342-RMG (D.S.C., July
19, 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 Testicular Cancer as a result of exposure to
Defendants' AFFF.
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
ACTIVEHOURS INC: Illegally Collects Cash Advances, Johnson Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
ALISA JOHNSON, LAURA DAY, KOREY THOMAS, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ACTIVEHOURS, INC.
d/b/a EARNIN, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-02283-ABA (D. Md., August
7, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of
the Maryland Consumer Loan Law (CLL), Maryland Consumer Protection
Act (CPA), and Truth in Lending Act.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged illegal practice of
collecting, charging, contracting for, and receiving cash advances
in connection with EarnIn's cash advance product. Users cannot
obtain advances without verifying their employment, without linking
the bank account into which their paychecks are deposited to
EarnIn's app, and without allowing EarnIn to automatically debit
the linked accounts on payday. Maryland law prohibits EarnIn from
receiving or retaining any amount on any advance, including
principal and fees, because EarnIn is not licensed to make or issue
loans in Maryland. Moreover, EarnIn never discloses the cost of its
cash advance product, despite federal law requiring EarnIn to
disclose the cost of its tips and fees in terms of an annual
percentage rate. As a result of these practices, the Plaintiffs and
Class members have been damaged, says the suit.
Activehours, Inc., doing business as EarnIn, is a technology
company headquartered in Palo Alto, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin Abramowicz, Esq.
Kevin Tucker, Esq.
Chandler Steiger, Esq.
Stephanie Moore, Esq.
Kayla Conahan, Esq.
EAST END TRIAL GROUP LLC
6901 Lynn Way, Suite 215
Pittsburgh, PA 15208
Telephone: (412) 223-5740
Facsimile: (412) 626-7101
Email: kabramowicz@eastendtrialgroup.com
ktucker@eastendtrialgroup.com
csteiger@eastendtrialgroup.com
smoore@eastendtrialgroup.com
kconahan@eastendtrialgroup.com
- and -
Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
Randy Chen, Esq.
MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
412 H. St. NE
Washington, DC 20002
Telephone: (202) 470-3520
Email: jrathod@classlawdc.com
rchen@classlawdc.com
ADAPTHEALTH CORP: Continues to Defend Allegheny County Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AdaptHealth Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 6, 2024, that the Company continues
to defend itself from Allegheny County class suit in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
On October 24, 2023, Allegheny County Employees' Retirement System,
a purported shareholder of the Company, filed a purported class
action complaint against the Company and certain of its current and
former officers, and certain underwriters in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
On January 23, 2024, the court entered an order appointing
Allegheny County Employees' Retirement System, International Union
of Operating Engineers, Local No. 793, Members Pension Benefit
Trust of Ontario, and City of Tallahassee Pension Plan as Lead
Plaintiffs.
On May 14, 2024, Lead Plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint
against the Company and certain of its current and former officers
and directors, and certain underwriters, on behalf of shareholders
that purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's stock between
August 4, 2020 and November 7, 2023 (as to the complaint the
"Allegheny County Consolidated Complaint"; as to the action, the
"Allegheny County Consolidated Class Action").
The Allegheny County Consolidated Complaint alleges, among other
things, that the defendants violated federal securities laws by
making allegedly false and misleading statements and/or failing to
disclose material information regarding (i) the Company's billing
practices with respect to its diabetes business, and (ii) the
Company's compliance programs and integration with respect to
acquired companies.
The Allegheny County Consolidated Complaint seeks unspecified
damages.
On July 23, 2024, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Allegheny County Consolidated Complaint.
Plaintiffs' opposition brief is due to be filed on October 1, 2024;
and defendants' reply brief is due to be filed on November 15,
2024.
The Company intends to vigorously defend against the allegations
contained in the Allegheny County Complaint, but there can be no
assurance that the defense will be successful.
AdaptHealth Corp. and subsidiaries provides home medical
equipment, medical supplies and related services.
ADAPTHEALTH CORP: Settlement in Faille Class Suit Gets Court Nod
----------------------------------------------------------------
AdaptHealth Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 6, 2024, that the Faille class suit
settlement is approved by the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania on July 10, 2024.
On July 29, 2021, Robert Charles Faille Jr., a purported
shareholder of the Company, filed a purported class action
complaint against the Company and certain of its current and former
officers in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania for alleged violations of the federal
securities laws arising from allegedly false and misleading
statements and/or failures to disclose material information
regarding changes made to the methodology used to calculate the
Company's organic growth trajectory.
On October 14, 2021, the court appointed Delaware County Employees
Retirement System and the Bucks County Employees Retirement System
as Lead Plaintiffs.
On November 22, 2021, Lead Plaintiffs filed a consolidated
complaint against the Company and certain of its current and former
officers and directors on behalf of shareholders that purchased or
otherwise acquired the Company's stock and options between November
8, 2019 and July 16, 2021 (as to the complaint, the "Consolidated
Complaint"; as to the action, the "Consolidated Class Action").
The Consolidated Complaint generally alleged that the defendants
violated federal securities laws by making allegedly false and
misleading statements and/or failing to disclose material
information regarding changes made to the methodology used to
calculate the Company's organic growth trajectory and the
Company’s former Co-CEO's alleged tax fraud arising from certain
past private activity.
The Consolidated Complaint sought unspecified damages.
On January 20, 2022, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Consolidated Complaint, which the court denied on June 9, 2022.
On June 7, 2023, the court entered an order staying the
Consolidated Class Action pending the outcome of a private
mediation between the parties.
On February 26, 2024, the defendants entered into a stipulation and
agreement of settlement with the Lead Plaintiffs (the "Securities
Settlement").
On March 5, 2024, the court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement.
On July 10, 2024, the court entered a judgment approving the class
action settlement.
The judgment certified the putative class for settlement purpose,
found that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate in all
respects, and subject to certain exclusions and limitations,
releases claims on behalf of the settlement class that were
asserted or could have been asserted in the Consolidated Class
Action against the defendants.
Subject to any appeals, the judgment will become final under the
Securities Settlement within 30 days of entry.
The Company's portion of the settlement consists of (i) $32.2
million of cash from the Company's insurance carriers; (ii) $17.8
million of cash from the Company; (iii) 1 million shares of the
Company's Common Stock (the "Settlement Shares"), which had a fair
value of $7.3 million recognized at December 31, 2023; and (iv) the
implementation of certain corporate governance reforms.
All of the aforementioned cash consideration has been paid
consistent with the Securities Settlement during the six months
ended June 30, 2024.
AdaptHealth Corp. and subsidiaries provides home medical
equipment, medical supplies and related services.
ADVANCE AUTO: Arkett Sues Over Inadequate Safeguarding of PII
-------------------------------------------------------------
James Arkett and Virginia Nickels, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. ADVANCE AUTO PARTS, INC, Case No.
2:24-cv-01122 (W.D. Pa., Aug. 6, 2024), is brought to address
Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Plaintiffs' and Class
Members' PII that it collected and maintained, and for failing to
provide adequate notice to the Plaintiffs and other Class Members
that their information had been stolen by criminals and listed for
sale on the dark web.
The Defendant confirmed that its data was stolen from a third-party
cloud database environment (hereinafter referred to as the "Data
Breach"). After investigating the stolen files, Defendant states
"it believes contain personal information for current and former
employees and job applicants, including social security numbers and
other government identification numbers" (hereinafter referred to
as "Personally Identifiable Information" or "PII").
The Defendant stored and utilized Plaintiffs' and Class Members'
PII. By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from
the PII of the Plaintiffs and Class Members, Defendant assumed
legal and equitable duties to those individuals to protect and
safeguard that information from unauthorized access and intrusion.
By voluntarily undertaking the collection of this sensitive PII,
Defendant assumed a duty to use due care to protect that
information. Despite its responsibilities to Plaintiffs and Class
Members, Defendant stored its PII on a database that was
negligently and/or recklessly produced. This misconfiguration
allowed files on the database to be accessed without a password or
any form of multifactor authentication.
As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiffs and Class Members
suffered ascertainable losses including, but not limited to, a loss
of privacy, the loss of the benefit of their bargain, out-of-pocket
monetary losses and expenses, the value of their time which was
reasonably spent to remedy or mitigate the effects of the attack,
the diminished value of their PII, and the substantial and imminent
risk of identity theft. Given the theft of information that is
largely static--like Social Security numbers--this risk will remain
with Plaintiffs and Class Members for the rest of their lives, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiffs put their faith in the Defendant to keep their PII
confidential and securely maintained.
The Defendant is an American automotive parts provider,
headquartered Raleigh, North Carolina.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Sara J. Watkins, Esq.
D. Aaron Rihn, Esq.
ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
707 Grant Street, Suite 125
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Phone: 412-281-7229
Fax: 412-281-4229
Email: swatkins@peircelaw.com
arihn@peircelaw.com
AGILON HEALTH: Continues to Defend Hope Class Suit in Texas
-----------------------------------------------------------
Agilon Health Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 6, 2024, that the Company continues
to defend the Hope class suit in Western District of Texas.
In March, a putative class action lawsuit, Hope v. agilon health,
inc. et al., 1:24-cv-00305 (W.D. Tex., March 25, 2024) was filed.
The lawsuit names the Company and certain current and former
members of the Company's executive team and Board of Directors as
defendants.
The lawsuit generally asserts securities fraud claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended and under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended, in connection with statements made in the
Company's annual and quarterly reports and earnings releases
related to, among other things, the Company's medical utilization
and claims rates, medical margin, incurred but not reported
reserve, and profit margins between April 2021 to February 2024.
The lawsuit seeks compensatory damages, attorney's fees and other
unspecified equitable and/or injunctive relief.
The Company is unable to estimate the ultimate individual or
aggregate amount of monetary liability or financial impact due to
the early stages of the litigation.
Headquartered in Austin, TX, Agilon Health, Inc is a healthcare and
technology company that acts as an intermediary between physician
groups that provide medical services to senior citizens and
Medicare and Medicare Advantage insurers. [BN]
AGILON HEALTH: Continues to Defend IPRS Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Agilon Health Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 6, 2024, that the Company continues
to defend the Indiana Public Retirement System class suit in
Western District of Texas.
In April, a putative class action lawsuit, Indiana Public
Retirement System v. agilon health et al., 1:24-cv-02506 (S.D.N.Y.,
April 2, 2024) was filed. The lawsuit names the Company and certain
current and former members of the Company’s executive team and
Board of Directors as defendants.
The lawsuit generally asserts securities fraud claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended and under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended, in connection with statements made in the
Company's annual and quarterly reports and earnings releases
related to, among other things, the Company's medical utilization
and claims rates, medical margin, incurred but not reported
reserve, and profit margins between April 2021 to February 2024.
The lawsuit seeks compensatory damages, attorney's fees and other
unspecified equitable and/or injunctive relief.
The Company is unable to estimate the ultimate individual or
aggregate amount of monetary liability or financial impact due to
the early stages of the litigation.
Headquartered in Austin, TX, Agilon Health, Inc is a healthcare and
technology company that acts as an intermediary between physician
groups that provide medical services to senior citizens and
Medicare and Medicare Advantage insurers.[BN]
AIRBNB INC: Ly Sues Over Rental Property's Hazardous Conditions
---------------------------------------------------------------
MOHAMED LY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. AIRBNB, INC., BRIAN CHESKY, and STEPHEN BRIGHENTI,
Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00921-UNA (D. Del., August 7, 2024) is
a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Federal
Trade Commission Act, the Consumer Product Safety Act, the
Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act, and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
The case arises from the Defendants' failure to take appropriate
action to address property's hazardous conditions or disclose them
to potential renters. The Defendants knew or should have known the
property's dangerous conditions based on previous guest complaints,
routine maintenance reports, and Airbnb's own data analytics but
failed to address the problem. As a result, the Plaintiff and
similarly situated renters suffered damages.
Airbnb, Inc. is a vacation rental company headquartered in San
Francisco, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
ALLEGHENIES UNITED: Hannan Seeks Service Coordinators' Unpaid OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
CARA HANNAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ALLEGHENIES UNITED CEREBRAL PALSY and UPMC,
Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-00187 (W.D. Pa., August 8, 2024) is a
class action against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a service coordinator
from January 2021 through April 2023.
Alleghenies United Cerebral Palsy is a nonprofit corporation
located at 119 Jari Drive, Johnstown, Pennsylvania.
UPMC is a nonprofit corporation with its principal place of
business located at 200 Lothrop Street, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
Camille Fundora Rodriguez, Esq.
Michael J. Anderson, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 875-4635
Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
Email: scarson@bm.net
crodriguez@bm.net
manderson@bm.net
- and -
Scott Brady, Esq.
BOHRER BRADY, LLC
8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B
Baton Rouge, LA 70809
Telephone: (225) 925-5297
Facsimile: (225) 231-7000
Email: scott@bohrerbrady.com
ALLIANCE ENTERTAINMENT: Discloses Video Habits to Meta, Feller Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DOUGLAS FELLER, JEFFRY HEISE, JOSEPH MULL, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ALLIANCE
ENTERTAINMENT, LLC; and DIRECTTOU, LLC d/b/a Collectors' Choice
Music, Critics' Choice Video, Movies Unlimited, DeepDiscount, and
WOW HD, Defendants, Case No. 0:24-cv-61444-RAR (S.D. Fla., August
8, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for violation of
the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA).
According to the complaint, the Defendants have disclosed to Meta
Platforms, Inc. (Facebook) information regarding the video viewing
habits of the visitors to their websites without consent. The
Defendants embedded within their websites a "Meta Pixel" that was
provided by Facebook. That pixel tracked the Plaintiffs' and the
Class members' video viewing history while on the Defendants'
websites and reported their viewing history to Facebook along with
their unique Facebook Identification numbers. As a result, the
Defendants violated the Plaintiffs' and the Class members'
statutorily protected privacy rights, says the suit.
Alliance Entertainment, LLC is a provider of home entertainment
products headquartered in Plantation, Florida.
DirectToU, LLC is a subdivision of Alliance Entertainment Holding
Corporation, with its headquarters in Plantation, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
Arun G. Ravindran, Esq.
Elliot O. Jackson, Esq.
HEDIN LLP
1395 Brickell Ave, Suite 610
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 357-2107
Facsimile: (305) 200-8801
Email: fhedin@hedinllp.com
aravindran@hedinllp.com
ejackson@hedinllp.com
ALTAMED HEALTH: Moore Sues Over Unpaid Compensations
----------------------------------------------------
Shawnte Denise Moore, on behalf of the general public as private
attorney general v. ALTAMED HEALTH SERVICES CORPORATION, a
California Non-Profit Corporation and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case
No. 24STCV18120 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 19, 2024), is brought for
recovery of penalties under the Private Attorney General Act of
2004 ("PAGA") and violations of the California Labor Code as a
result of unpaid compensations.
In this case, the Defendant violated various provisions Of the
California Labor Code. The Defendant implemented policies and
practices which led to unpaid wage resulting from Defendant's:
failure to pay minimum and overtime wages, failure to provide meal
periods, failure to provide rest periods, failure to provide
accurate itemized wag statements, and failure to reimburse
necessary business expenses. As a result Plaintiff seek penalties
under Labor Code on behalf of the general public as private attorn
general and all Other aggrieved employees, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant in August 2023 as a
Non-Exempt Employee with the title of Care Coordinator and worked
during the liability period for Defendant.
ALTAMED HEALTH SERVICES CORPORATION is a California Non-Profit
Corporation that operates as a medical clinic.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James R. Hawkins, Esq.
Gregory Mauro, Esq.
Michael Calvo, Esq.
Lauren Falk, Esq.
Ava Issary, Esq.
JAMES HAWKINS APLC
9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92618
Phone: (949) 387-7200
Fax: (949) 387-6676
Email: James@jameshawkinsaplc.com
Greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com
Michael@jameshawkinsaplc.com
Lauren@jameshawkinsaplc.com
Ava@jameshawkinsaplc.com
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Jones Sues Over Disability Discrimination
--------------------------------------------------------------
Othea Jones, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Amazon.com Services LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-01806-L (N.D.
Tex., July 15, 2024), is brought about disability discrimination
and a blatant failure to engage in the interactive process.
The Plaintiff suffered a stroke at work and Defendant still refused
to provide her a reasonable accommodation. The Class Members are
putative Plaintiffs who work for Defendant in various warehouses
across the country. Defendant requires all employees utilize
Defendant's human resources app to process requests for an
accommodation. Requests for accommodation are routinely denied and
Defendant does not engage in the interactive process as the app
simply is not designed to allow such an interactive process.
Defendant's app is called Amazon A to Z.
After Defendant's doctor requested Plaintiff be accommodated at
work, Defendant denied Plaintiff her accommodations through the A
to Z app without any explanation or justification. Plaintiff
repeatedly submitted her accommodation request, and each time it
was denied. Sporadically, this led Plaintiff to be forced to take
time off work, because Plaintiff's elevated blood pressure put
Plaintiff at risk of another stroke at work. The Plaintiff could
have been easily accommodated in a variety of ways, including by
giving her the opportunity to sit at work, by placing Plaintiff in
another role with similar job responsibilities, or by allowing
Plaintiff a leave of absence without punishing her for time off
work.
On January 14, 2024, Plaintiff was abruptly terminated. Plaintiff
was told that she had accrued too many absences, particularly in
November when Defendant refused to allow Plaintiff to work.
Plaintiff only ever missed work pursuant to either Defendant's
direction or because her health demanded it. Rather than discuss
Plaintiff's accommodations, let alone actually accommodate her,
Defendant terminated Plaintiff, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a woman with disabilities in the form of
hypertension and elevated blood pressure who was employed by the
Defendant.
Amazon.com Services LLC was and is a corporation incorporated under
the laws of the State of Delaware.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Walker G. Harman, Jr.
HARMAN GREEN PC
824 Exposition Ave., Suite 8
Dallas, TX 75226
Phone: (646) 248-2288
Email: wharman@theharmanfirm.com
erichardson@theharmanfirm.com
AMGEN INC: Carefirst Sues Over Unlawful Delaying of Competition
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carefirst of Maryland, Inc., Group Hospitalization and Medical
Services, Inc., and Carefirst Bluechoice, Inc., on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. AMGEN, INC., AMGEN
MANUFACTURING, LIMITED, and IMMUNEX CORPORATION, Case No.
2:24-cv-00484-AWA-RJK (E.D. Va., Aug. 6, 2024), is brought against
Amgen for unlawfully delaying competition for its blockbuster drug,
Enbrel (etanercept).
Amgen engaged in a long-running and successful scheme to build and
buttress its monopoly power over Enbrel, reaping billions in
profits while denying purchasers and patients access to the lower
prices they would have paid in a competitive market.
Amgen's anticompetitive strategy has worked. Once it controlled the
Roche patents, Amgen was able to illegally prolong its U.S. Enbrel
monopoly for at least 10 more years—so far. Despite Amgen's
chokehold on the U.S. etanercept market, biosimilar etanercept
launched in Europe eight years ago. Meanwhile, although it launched
in the United States more than a quarter-century ago, Enbrel
worldwide gross sales exceeded $3.6 billion in 2023 alone.
Because of Amgen's unlawful acts, purchasers of etanercept in the
United States have overpaid at least $3–4 billion to date and
continue to pay supracompetitive prices for the drug. If Amgen's
conduct is not enjoined, purchasers' damages will continue to mount
for at least five more years until the Roche patents expire.
CareFirst, on behalf of a class of purchasers, alleges violation of
federal and state antitrust and related laws. Injunctive relief is
sought to, among other things, enjoin Amgen's exclusive use of the
Roche etanercept patents. Monetary relief is sought for overcharges
caused by the wrongdoing, and, where appropriate, the damages
should be doubled or trebled under law, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs provide healthcare benefits to millions of
Americans.
Amgen Manufacturing, Limited is a corporation existing under the
laws of the Territory of Bermuda.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William H. Monroe, Jr., Esq.
Marc C. Greco, Esq.
GLASSER AND GLASSER, P.L.C.
Crown Center, Suite 600
580 East Main Street
Norfolk, VA 23510
Phone: (757) 625-6787
Email: bill@glasserlaw.com
marcg@glasserlaw.com
- and -
Thomas M. Sobol, Esq.
Abbye R. K. Ognibene, Esq.
Rachel Downey, Esq.
Claudia Morera, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
One Faneuil Hall Square, 5th Floor
Boston, MA 02109
Phone: (617) 482-3700
Email: tom@hbsslaw.com
abbyeo@hbsslaw.com
racheld@hbsslaw.com
claudiam@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Peter D. St. Phillip, Esq.
Uriel Rabinovitz, Esq.
Raymond Girnys, Esq.
LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
White Plains, NY 10601
Phone: (914) 997-0500
Email: PStPhillip@lowey.com
URabinovitz@lowey.com
ANES MECHANICAL: Faces Lukovic Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
DENIS LUKOVIC, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ANES MECHANICAL, INC., HAKO KANDIC, and
ASMIRA KANDIC a/k/a ASMIRA BATILOVIC, Defendants, Case No.
1:24-cv-05560 (E.D.N.Y., August 8, 2024) is a class action against
the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the New York Labor Law including failure to pay minimum wages,
failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay spread-of-hours
compensation, failure to provide wage notice, failure to provide
accurate wage statements, and failure to timely pay wages.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a mechanic, plumber, and
general laborer from in or about 2013 through 2018. He was further
employed by the Defendants from approximately 2019 until in or
about February 2022.
Anes Mechanical, Inc. is a construction/contracting company located
at 28-19 50th Street, Woodside, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joey Tsai, Esq.
TSAI PLLC
535 Fifth Avenue, Fourth Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (646) 829-9001
Facsimile: (646) 829-9002
ARISA HEALTH INC: Crow Files Suit in W.D. Arkansas
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Arisa Health, Inc.
The case is styled as Brian Crow, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Arisa Health, Inc., Case No.
5:24-cv-05170-TLB (W.D. Ark., Aug. 6, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Arisa Health -- https://www.arisahealth.org/ -- provides
School-Based Mental Health Services to the Cabot School District
schools.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher Duran Jennings, Esq.
JENNINGS PLLC
PO Box 25972
Little Rock, AR 72221
Phone: (501) 247-6267
Email: chris@jenningspllc.com
AT&T INC: Faces Pop Suit Over Failure to Protect Customers' Info
----------------------------------------------------------------
ALIN POP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AT&T INC. AND SNOWFLAKE INC., Defendants,
Case No. 3:24-cv-02008-K (N.D. Tex., August 7, 2024) is a class
action against the Defendant for breach of fiduciary duty,
negligence, breach of implied contract, breach of third-party
beneficiary contract, unjust enrichment/restitution, and invasion
of privacy.
The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff
and similarly situated individuals stored on their network 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.
AT&T, Inc. is a telecommunication company with its headquarters in
Dallas, Texas.
Snowflake, Inc. is an American cloud computing–based data cloud
company headquartered in Bozeman, Montana. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Keith L. Gibson, Esq.
KEITH GIBSON LAW P.C.
586 Duane Street, Ste 102
Glen Ellyn, IL 60137
Telephone: (630) 677-6745
Email: keith@keithgibsonlaw.com
- and -
Bogdan, Enica, Esq.
KEITH GIBSON LAW P.C.
1200 N Federal Hwy., Ste.375
Boca Raton, FL 33432
Telephone: (305) 306-4989
Email: bogdan@keithgibsonlaw.com
AUSTRALIAN FOOTBALL: Discloses Video Habits to Meta, McCormick Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
IAN MCCORMICK and JOSH BLAKELEY, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. The AUSTRALIAN FOOTBALL
LEAGUE, an Australian Public Company, FOX SPORTS AUSTRALIA PTY
LIMITED, an Australian Private Company, and FOX SPORTS STREAMCO PTY
LIMITED, an Australian Private Company, Defendants, Case No.
3:24-cv-04929 (N.D. Cal., August 9, 2024) is a class action against
the Defendants for violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have disclosed to Meta
Platforms, Inc. information regarding the video viewing habits of
the visitors on Watch AFL's website, www.watchafl.com.au, without
consent. The Defendants embedded within the website a "Meta Pixel"
that was provided by Facebook. That pixel tracked the Plaintiffs'
and the Class members' video viewing history while on the website
and reported their viewing history to Facebook. As a result, the
Defendants violated the Plaintiffs' and the Class members'
statutorily protected privacy rights.
The Australian Football League is a sporting organization
headquartered in Melbourne, Australia.
Fox Sports Australia Pty Limited (Fox Sports) is a company that
owns and operates the Fox Sports television networks and digital
properties in Australia.
Fox Sports StreamCo Pty Limited is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Fox
Sports headquartered in Artarmon, New South Wales, Australia. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Julian Hammond, Esq.
Adrian Barnes, Esq.
Ari Cherniak, Esq.
Polina Brandler, Esq.
HAMMONDLAW, P.C.
1201 Pacific Ave., 6th Floor
Tacoma, WA 98402
Telephone: (310) 807-1666
Email: jhammond@hammondlawpc.com
abarnes@hammondlawpc.com
acherniak@hammondlawpc.com
pblandler@hammondlawpc.com
AVENTURA MALL: Miami Snow Carnival Not ADA Compliant, Fuentes Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
ADRIAN ANTONIO FUENTES and JOSE FUENTES, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AVENTURA MALL
VENTURE, MIAMI SNOW CARNIVAL 2023, LLC, INTERNATIONAL SPECIAL
ATTRACTIONS, LTD., and FEVER LABS, INC., Defendants, Case No.
1:24-cv-23048 (S.D. Fla., August 9, 2024) is a class action against
the Defendants for violations of Title III of the Americans with
Disability Act of 1990 and the Florida Americans with Disability
Accessibility Implementation Act and for negligent
misrepresentation.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate the 2023-24 Miami Snow Carnival in
Miami-Dade County, Florida to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiffs and other persons with
disabilities. The Defendants have discriminated and continue to
discriminate against the Plaintiffs and others who are similarly
situated by denying them the opportunity to participate in or
benefit from the full and equal enjoyment of goods, services,
facilities, privileges, attractions, rides, advantages, and/or
accommodations at the Miami Snow Carnival. Moreover, the premises
and rides at the Carnival are not fully ADA compliant as advertised
because the Plaintiffs and similarly situated disabled individuals
encountered architectural barriers. As a result of the Defendants'
misconduct, the Plaintiffs and Class members have suffered
damages.
Aventura Mall Venture is a shopping mall located in Aventura,
Florida.
Miami Snow Carnival 2023, LLC is the operator of the Miami Snow
Carnival in Florida.
International Special Attractions, Ltd. is a provider of theatrical
productions and events, headquartered in Los Angeles, California.
Fever Labs, Inc. is a software solutions company headquartered in
New York, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Simeon Genadiev, Esq.
THE G LAW GROUP, P.A.
1501 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 501
Miami, FL 33132
Telephone: (305) 709-8877
Facsimile: (786) 460-8333
Email: sgenadiev@theglawgroup.com
B & S PLASTICS INC: Juarez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against B & S Plastics, Inc.
The case is styled as Juan Juarez an individual and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. B & S Plastics, Inc., Case No.
2024CUOE027766 (Cal. Super. Ct., Ventura Cty., July 15, 2024).
The case type is stated as " Civil Unlimited - Other Employment."
B & S Plastics, Inc. designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells
pool, spa, and bath equipment.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
BIBIYAN LAW GROUP PC
1460 Westwood Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3243
Phone: 310-438-5555
Email: david@tomorrowlaw.com
BALDWIN INSURANCE: Continues to Defend Wagner Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
The Baldwin Insurance Group Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report
for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2024, that the
Company continues to defend itself from the Wagner class suit in
the Delaware Court of Chancery.
During 2023, Ruby Wagner, a putative Class A stockholder of the
Company, filed a class action lawsuit (the "Lawsuit"), on behalf of
herself and other similarly situated stockholders in the Delaware
Court of Chancery against the Company seeking declaratory judgment
that certain provisions of the Stockholders Agreement between the
Company and the Pre-IPO LLC Members are invalid and unenforceable
as a matter of Delaware law.
On May 28, 2024, the Court of Chancery issued an opinion (the
"Chancery Court Opinion") that certain provisions of the
Stockholders Agreement granting approval rights related to amending
the Company's certificate of incorporation and making significant
decisions relating to the Company's senior management, are facially
invalid, void, and unenforceable under Delaware law.
An implementing order, presently in effect, was entered on June 20,
2024.
The Chancery Court Opinion also held that a severability provision
in the Stockholders Agreement allows the Pre-IPO LLC Members to
demand a "suitable and equitable substitute" for the approval
rights that were deemed invalid.
A final order has not yet been entered in the Lawsuit and the time
for taking an appeal has not yet run.
Management is unable at this time to estimate the potential loss or
range of loss from the ultimate disposition of this matter.
The Baldwin Insurance Group, Inc. operates as an insurance company.
The Company offers personal and commercial insurance, risk
mitigation, employee benefits, advisory, and wealth management
solutions. Baldwin Insurance Group serves businesses and
individuals throughout the United States. [BN]
BEACHBODY CO: Continues to Defend Lyons Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------
The Beachbody Co. Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 6, 2024, that the Company continues
to defend the Lyons class suit in the Los Angeles County Superior
Court.
On May 22, 2023, Jessica Lyons, an individual, and a group of other
plaintiffs filed a class action complaint with the Los Angeles
County Superior Court alleging that the Company misclassified its
Partners as contractors rather than as employees and committed
other violations of the California Labor Code.
The Company understands that the plaintiffs in this matter intend
on filing additional claims under the Private Attorney General Act
of 2004.
The Company and certain executive officers are listed as defendants
in the complaint.
The plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages.
This matter is pending as of the date of this quarterly report.
The Company denies the allegations in the complaint, believe they
are without merit, and intend to vigorously defend ourselves in
this action.
The Beachbody Company, Inc. is a subscription health and wellness
company and the creator of some of the world's most popular fitness
programs.
BEACHBODY CO: Continues to Defend Reilly Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------
The Beachbody Co. Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 6, 2024, that the Company continues
to defend the Reilly class suit.
On June 14, 2024, Bryan Reilly on behalf of himself and similarly
situated current and former stockholders of Forest Road Acquisition
Corp., which later became the Beachbody Company, Inc. ("Forest
Roa"”), filed a verified class action complaint (the "Reilly
Action") against the former directors and officers of Forest Road,
as well as Forest Road Acquisition Sponsor LLC, Forest Road Company
LLC, Zach Tarica, and Jeremy Tarica (together the "Forest Road
Sponsor Defendants") alleging claims for breach of fiduciary duty
in connection with the merger among Forest Road, The Beachbody
Company, Inc., and Myx in 2021 (the "Merger").
The lawsuit also brought claims against the Company, Kevin Meyer,
and The Raine Group LLC ("Raine") alleging aiding and abetting
breach of fiduciary duty, and against the former Forest Road
directors and officers, the Forest Road Sponsor Defendants, Raine,
and Meyer for unjust enrichment.
The Company have certain indemnification obligations as to some or
all of the former Forest Road directors and Raine as to certain
claims.
The Reilly Action generally alleges that the proxy that Forest Road
issued prior to the Merger contained numerous material
misstatements and omissions that impaired the Forest Road
stockholders' ability to make an informed decision regarding
whether to redeem their stock in connection with the Merger.
The plaintiff also asserts that the Merger was a conflicted
transaction because the Forest Road Sponsor Defendants and the
former Forest Road directors were incentivized to close the Merger
even if it was a value-decreasing transaction for Forest Road's
public stockholders.
As to the Company, Meyer, and Raine, the complaint alleges that
these defendants aided and abetted the Forest Road defendants'
disclosure violations.
The Company denies the allegations in the complaint, believe they
are without merit, and intends to vigorously defend itself in this
action.
The Beachbody Company, Inc. is a subscription health and wellness
company and the creator of some of the world's most popular fitness
programs.
BELLRING BRANDS: Continues to Defend Federal Class Suit in Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BellRing Brands Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 6, 2024, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the California federal class suit in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.
In March 2013, a complaint was filed on behalf of a putative,
nationwide class of consumers against Premier Nutrition in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California seeking
monetary damages and injunctive relief.
The case asserted that some of Premier Nutrition's advertising
claims regarding its Joint Juice line of glucosamine and
chondroitin dietary supplement beverages, which it discontinued in
the first quarter of fiscal 2023, were false and misleading.
In April 2016, the district court certified a California-only class
of consumers in this lawsuit (this lawsuit is hereinafter referred
to as the "California Federal Class Lawsuit").
In 2016 and 2017, the lead plaintiff's counsel in the California
Federal Class Lawsuit filed ten additional class action complaints
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
on behalf of putative classes of consumers under the laws of
Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York,
Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan and Pennsylvania (the "Related
Federal Actions").
These complaints contain factual allegations similar to the
California Federal Class Lawsuit, also seeking monetary damages and
injunctive relief.
The action on behalf of New Jersey consumers was voluntarily
dismissed.
Trial in the action on behalf of New York consumers was held
beginning in May 2022, and the jury delivered its verdict in favor
of plaintiff in June 2022.
In August 2022, the Court entered a judgment in that case in favor
of plaintiff in the amount of $12.9, which includes statutory
damages and prejudgment interest.
In October 2022, each plaintiff and Premier Nutrition filed Notices
of Appeal to the Ninth Circuit, which appeals are pending.
The other eight Related Federal Actions remain pending, and the
court has certified individual state classes in each of those cases
(except New Mexico).
In April 2018, the district court dismissed the California Federal
Class Lawsuit with prejudice.
This dismissal was upheld on appeal by the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit in 2020, and plaintiff’s petition for an en
banc rehearing by the Ninth Circuit was denied.
In September 2020, the same lead counsel re-filed the California
Federal Class Lawsuit against Premier Nutrition in California
Superior Court for the County of Alameda, alleging identical claims
and seeking restitution and injunctive relief on behalf of the same
putative class of California consumers as the California Federal
Class Lawsuit.
In March 2023, the Alameda Superior Court granted in part and
denied in part Premier Nutrition's motion for judgment based on res
judicata and in May 2023, the Court reaffirmed its ruling.
In July 2023, Premier Nutrition filed a petition for writ of
mandamus in the California Court of Appeal, which writ was denied
in March 2024.
In November 2023, the Court certified the case as a class action.
Trial is anticipated in fiscal year 2024.
In January 2019, the same lead counsel filed an additional class
action complaint against Premier Nutrition in California Superior
Court for the County of Alameda, alleging claims similar to the
above actions and seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief on
behalf of a putative class of California consumers, beginning after
the California Federal Class Lawsuit class period.
In July 2020, the court issued an order certifying a statewide
class.
Premier Nutrition moved for summary judgment on July 7, 2023, which
motion remains pending.
Trial is anticipated in fiscal year 2024.
The Company continues to vigorously defend these cases and intends
to appeal any adverse judgements and awards of damages.
BellRing Brands, Inc. is a consumer products holding company
operating in the global convenient nutrition category and is a
provider of ready-to-drink protein shakes, other beverages and
powders. Its primary brands are "Premier Protein" and "Dymatize."
BH MANAGEMENT: Court Extends Discovery Deadline in Chiodini
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Chiodini v. BH Management
Services, LLC, Case No. 6:23-cv-00147 (M.D. Fla., Filed Jan. 27,
2023), the Hon. Judge Carlos E. Mendoza entered an order granting
agreed motion to extend the discovery deadline only as to the
Plaintiff's request for production of lease agreements.
-- The discovery deadline is extended to the 45th day after the
date
the Court issues an Order resolving the motion for class
certification, but the extension is for the sole purpose of
Defendant producing the "over 6,000 lease agreements" at issue
in
the motion.
-- The discovery deadline is not extended for any other purpose.
Provided, however:
(1) this extension in no way relieves the parties of other
obligations and deadlines set forth in the Scheduling Order,
including the deadlines for dispositive and Daubert motions;
(2) this extension shall not be the basis for seeking relief
from
the Scheduling Order; and
(3) any discovery conducted after the dispositive motions
deadline
will not be available for summary judgment, Markman, or
Daubert
motions.
The nature of suit states Other Contract.[CC]
BIOVENTUS INC: Settlement Deal in Ciarciello Suit for Court OK
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bioventus Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 6, 2024, that the Ciarciello class suit
settlement agreement is subject to the approval of the Middle
District of North Carolina court.
On January 12, 2023, the Company and certain of its current and
former directors and officers were named as defendants in a
putative class action lawsuit filed in the Middle District of North
Carolina (the "Court"), Ciarciello v. Bioventus, Inc., No. 1:23–
CV – 00032-CCE-JEP (M.D.N.C. 2023).
The complaint asserted violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act and of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act
and generally alleges that the Company failed to disclose certain
information regarding rebate practices, its business and financial
prospects, and the sufficiency of internal controls regarding
financial reporting.
The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount.
On April 12, 2023, the Court appointed Wayne County Employees'
Retirement System as lead plaintiff.
The plaintiff's amended consolidated complaint was filed with the
Court on June 12, 2023.
On July 17, 2023, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint raising a number of legal and factual deficiencies with
the amended consolidated complaint. In response to the defendants'
motion to dismiss, the lead plaintiff filed a second amended
complaint on July 31, 2023.
The defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint on
August 21, 2023, which the Court granted in part and denied in part
on November 6, 2023.
The Court dismissed the plaintiff's Securities Act claims, but
allowed the plaintiff's Exchange Act claims to proceed into
discovery.
On July 15, 2024, a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement (the
"Settlement Agreement") by and between the lead plaintiff and the
defendants was filed with the Court. The Settlement Agreement,
which is subject to Court approval, provides among other things for
(i) the dismissal of all claims against the defendants, including
the Company; (ii) a settlement amount of $15.3 million, together
with interest earned thereon, to be paid by the defendants and/or
the defendant's insurers within 30 days after the later of (x) the
date of entry by the Court of an order preliminarily approving the
terms of the settlement or (y) receipt by the defendants from lead
counsel of the information necessary to effectuate a transfer of
the settlement funds; and (iii) no admission of liability or
wrongdoing by any party.
The Company incurred $12.5 million and $13.7 million of net
shareholder litigation costs (including estimated settlement and
reimbursement) during the three and six months ended June 29, 2024
under the Settlement Agreement, which were recorded in selling,
general and administrative expense within the consolidated
condensed statements of operations and comprehensive loss.
The Company expects to be reimbursed approximately $6.5 million of
the fees incurred to date, which was recorded in other current
assets within the June 29, 2024 consolidated condensed balance
sheets.
Bioventus operates as a medical device company.
BIOXCEL THERAPEUTICS: Bid to Dismiss Martin Class Suit Due Sept. 6
------------------------------------------------------------------
BioXcel Therapeutics, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2024, that the motion to
dismiss the Martin class suit is due on September 6, 2024.
On July 7, 2023, plaintiff Katelyn Martin filed a class action
complaint against the Company and certain executives in the United
States District Court for the District of Connecticut, captioned
Martin v. BioXcel Therapeutics, et al., 3:23-cv-00915 (D. Conn).
On October 4, 2023, pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act, the court appointed two co-Lead Plaintiffs.
The co-Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on December 5,
2023, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20A of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and SEC
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
The amended complaint alleges that defendants made false or
misleading statements regarding the TRANQUILITY II trial and the
development of BXCL501 for an expanded indication related to the
treatment of certain Alzheimer’s-related agitation.
On July 11, 2024, the Court dismissed the amended complaint without
prejudice and, on August 1, 2024, co-Lead Plaintiffs filed a second
amended complaint.
The Company expects to move to dismiss the second amended
complaint.
The motion to dismiss is due September 6, 2024.
New Haven, CT-based BioXcel Therapeutics, Inc. is a
biopharmaceutical company utilizing artificial intelligence to
develop transformative medicines in neuroscience and, through the
Company's wholly owned subsidiary, OnkosXcel Therapeutics LLC,
immuno-oncology. The Company is focused on utilizing cutting-edge
technology and innovative research to develop high-value
therapeutics aimed at transforming patients' lives.
BLOOMBERG LP: Syeed Sues Over Sex & Race Discrimination in S.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
NAFEESA SYEED and NAULA NDUGGA, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BLOOMBERG L.P., Defendant,
Case No. 1:24-cv-06101-GHW (S.D.N.Y., August 12, 2024) is a class
action against the Defendant for violations of Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the New York Human Rights Law, and for
retaliation.
Plaintiff Ndugga has worked for Defendant Bloomberg since September
2017, when she began as a paid intern. She has been a fulltime
employee since January 29, 2018. Plaintiff Syeed worked for
Defendant Bloomberg from October 2014 until June 8, 2018. They
bring individual claims of sex and race discrimination against the
Defendant.
BLOOMBERG L.P. is an American privately held financial, software,
data, and media company headquartered in Midtown Manhattan, New
York. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Donna H. Clancy, Esq.
THE CLANCY LAW FIRM, P.C.
40 Wall Street, 61st Floor
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 747-1744
Facsimile: (646) 693-7229
Email: dhc@dhclancylaw.com
- and -
Christine E. Webber, Esq.
Rebecca Ojserkis, Esq.
Dana Busgang, 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
rojserkis@cohenmilstein.com
dbusgang@cohenmilstein.com
BLUE RIDGE: Bishop Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-------------------------------------------------------
Cedric Bishop, for himself and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, v. BLUE RIDGE HOME FASHIONS, INC., Case No.
1:24-cv-05984 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 6, 2024), is brought against the
Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and
operate its interactive website to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons.
The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a
violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's interactive website,
https://www.blueridgehome.com/, including all portions thereof or
accessed thereon (collectively, the "Website" or "Defendant's
Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired
consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent
injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies,
practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become
and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. By
failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with
computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and
visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods,
content, and services all benefits it affords nondisabled
individuals--thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma
among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer.
BLUE RIDGE HOME FASHIONS, INC., operates the Blue Ridge online
retail store, as well as the Blue Ridge interactive Website and
advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and
throughout the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, N.Y. 10003-2461
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
dana@gottlieb.legal
jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
BLUE RIDGE: Continues to Defend Hunter Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------
Blue Ridge Bankshares Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2024, that the Company
continues to defend itself from the Hunter class suit in the United
States District for the Eastern District of New York.
In December 2023, a purported shareholder of the Company commenced
a putative class action in the U.S. District for the Eastern
District of New York (No. 1:23-cv-08944) (Hunter v. Blue Ridge
Bankshares, Inc., et al).
The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws against
the Company and certain of its current and former officers based on
alleged material misstatements and omissions in the Company's
filings.
The complaint seeks certification of a class action, unspecified
damages, and attorneys fees.
The putative class has filed an amended complaint, and the Company
has filed a letter seeking permission to file a motion to dismiss.
The Company believes the claims are without merit and no loss has
been accrued for this lawsuit as of June 30, 2024.
Headquartered in Virginia, Blue Ridge conducts its business
activities through its "wholly-owned subsidiary bank, Blue Ridge
Bank, and its wealth and trust management subsidiary, BRB Financial
Group, Inc." Its common stock trades on the NYSE American Exchange
under the ticker symbol "BRBS". [BN]
BRADCON LLC: Enriquez Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Adrian Perez Enriquez, individually, and on behalf of all other
aggrieved employees v. BRADCON, LLC DBA BRADLEY CONCRETE, a
California limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 24STCV17566 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty.,
July 15, 2024), is brought to recover penalties for the Labor and
Workforce Development Agency ("LWDA"), on behalf of themselves and
all other similarly situated Aggrieved Employees under the Private
Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") as a result of Defendant' systematic
violations of the law as a result of the Defendant failure to pay
the Plaintiff proper overtime wages.
As a result of systematic policies and procedures, Defendant has
violated California's wage and hour laws promulgated in the
California Labor Code and all applicable Industrial Welfare
Commission ("IWC") Wage Orders. For example, Defendant has
implemented unlawful policies with respect to meal periods and rest
breaks. Defendant also requires its non-exempt employees, who are
informed that the needs of the businesses take top priority, to
work through meal and rest breaks, and to take untimely meal
periods.
The Plaintiff and Other aggrieved employees are not always afforded
full 30-minute meal periods and are often under pressure to return
to work early or work through their meal periods since they are too
busy to complete their assigned work during scheduled shifts. As a
result, Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees have been denied
the ability to take the meal periods and rest breaks that they were
and are legally entitled to take.
Moreover, Defendant has uniformly failed to pay Plaintiff and other
aggrieved employees proper overtime wages due the fact that they
improperly calculate the regular rate of pay, and willfully turns a
blind eye to off-the-clock work that Plaintiff and other non-exempt
employees perform as a direct consequence of Defendant'
understaffing and imposition of an unreasonable workload. Further,
Defendant did not provide a designated clock-out system for meal
periods, only for the workday. Plaintiff would attempt to leave
work early when he was not allowed a meal period but was denied and
not paid his proper overtime, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant and assigned to work in the
County of Los Angeles in the state of California.
The Defendant provides concrete construction services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Marcia Guzman, Esq.
Victoria Tokar, Esq.
GUZMAN & TOKAR LLP
440 N. Barranca Avenue, Suite 1354
Covina, CA 91723
Phone: (213) 347-4529
Facsimile: (213) 342-6329
Email: service@guzmanandtokar.com
BYTEDANCE INC: Illegally Collects Children's TikTok Info, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A.A., a minor, by and through their guardian ad litem, MARCELO
MUTO; A.B., a minor, by and through their guardian ad litem HEATHER
BRESSETTE; and A.C., a minor, by and through their guardian ad
litem DARRYL MAULTSBY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BYTEDANCE INC; BYTEDANCE LTD;
TIKTOK LTD; TIKTOK INC; TIKTOK PTE. LTD; and TIKTOK U.S. DATA
SECURITY INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-06784 (C.D. Cal.,
August 9, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of California's Constitutional Right to Privacy,
California's Unfair Competition Law, Connecticut Unfair Trade
Practices Act, and Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices
Act, intrusion upon seclusion, and unjust enrichment.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have knowingly permitted
and encouraged children under the age of 13 to create user accounts
on the TikTok app for the purpose of collecting intimate, deeply
intrusive data points about them and their online behavior without
notice and parental consent. The Defendants use this unlawfully
collected personal information for the purpose of providing
personally curated content that will keep children engaged with
TikTok, so that Defendants can serve them copious amounts of
behavioral advertising and/or share their information with third
parties. The Defendants were unwilling or unable to cease their
unlawful business practices in the face of a Permanent Injunction
and a Civil Penalty that they entered into with the U.S. Government
on March 27, 2019, which prohibited the Defendants from their
continued collection and use of the personal information of
children without verifiable parental consent. As a result of the
Defendants' unfair and deceptive conduct, the Plaintiffs and the
members of the Classes have suffered economic loss and injury, says
the suit.
ByteDance Ltd. is a Chinese internet technology company
headquartered in Beijing, China.
ByteDance Inc. is a technology company with its principal place of
business in Mountain View, California.
TikTok Ltd. is a social media application company with its
principal place of business in Singapore.
TikTok Inc. is a social media application company with its
principal place of business in Culver City, California.
TikTok Pte. Ltd. is a social media application company with its
principal place of business in Singapore.
TikTok U.S. Data Security Inc. is a social media application
security company in the U.S. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Patrick Carey, Esq.
Mark Todzo, Esq.
LEXINGTON LAW GROUP, LLP
503 Divisadero Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 913-7800
Email: pcarey@lexlawgroup.com
mtodzo@lexlawgroup.com
- and -
David S. Golub, Esq.
Steven Bloch, Esq.
Ian W. Sloss, Esq.
Jennifer Sclar, Esq.
John Seredynski, Esq.
SILVER GOLUB & TEITELL LLP
One Landmark Square, 15th Floor
Stamford, CT 06901
Telephone: (203) 325-4491
Facsimile: (203) 325-3769
Email: dgolub@sgtlaw.com
sbloch@sgtlaw.com
isloss@sgtlaw.com
jsclar@sgtlaw.com
jseredynski@sgtlaw.com
CARIBOU BIOSCIENCES: Settlement Deal in Bergman Suit for Court OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Caribou Biosciences Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 6, 2024, that the Bergman class suit
settlement agreement is subject to the approval of the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California.
On April 11, 2023, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against
the company and certain of its officers and current and former
members of its board of directors, Bergman v. Caribou Biosciences,
Inc., et al., Case Number 4:23-cv-01742-YGR ("Bergman Case").
The Bergman complaint challenges disclosures regarding the
company's business, operations, and prospects, specifically with
respect to the alleged durability of CB-010's therapeutic effect
and the product candidate's clinical and commercial prospects, in
alleged violation of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933, as amended ("Securities Act"), and Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act.
On September 18, 2023, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding
the IPO underwriters as defendants and making substantially the
same allegations as the original complaint.
On November 14, 2023, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint for failure to state a claim.
Motion to dismiss briefing was completed on February 21, 2024.
On April 22, 2024, it reached an agreement in principle with
plaintiffs to settle the Bergman Case for $3.9 million, which is
included in general and administrative expense for the three months
ended March 31, 2024, in exchange for a full release of the
putative class's claims against the Company and all of its current
and former officers, current and former members of its board of
directors, the IPO underwriters, and the other named defendant.
The parties filed a settlement agreement with the court on June 26,
2024, which the court must approve before settlement is final.
Caribou Biosciences, Inc. is a clinical-stage Clustered Regularly
Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats (CRISPR) genome-editing
biopharmaceutical company. Its genome-editing platform, including
our novel chRDNA (CRISPR hybrid RNA-DNA) technologies, enables
superior editing precision to develop cell therapies that are
armored to improve antitumor activity. It is advancing a pipeline
of allogeneic, or off-the-shelf, cell therapies as readily
available therapeutic treatments for patients.
CEDAR REALTY: Continues to Defend Consolidated Sydney, Kim Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cedar Realty Trust Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 6, 2024, that the Company continues
to defend itself from consolidated the Kim and Sydney class suit in
the Montgomery County Circuit Court, Maryland.
On April 8, 2022, several purported holders of the Company's
outstanding preferred stock filed a putative class action complaint
against the Company, the Board of Directors prior to the Merger,
and WHLR in Montgomery County Circuit Court, Maryland entitled
Sydney, et al. v. Cedar Realty Trust, Inc., et al., (Case No.
C-15-CV-22-001527).
On May 6, 2022, the Plaintiffs in Sydney filed a motion for a
preliminary injunction.
Also on May, 6, 2022, a purported holder of the Company's
outstanding preferred stock filed a separate putative class action
complaint against the Company and the Board of Directors prior to
the Merger in the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, entitled Kim v. Cedar Realty Trust, Inc., et al., Civil
Action No. 22-cv-01103.
On May 11, 2022, the Company, the former Board of Directors of the
Company and WHLR removed the Sydney action to the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland, Case No.
8:22-cv-01142-GLR.
On May 16, 2022, the court ordered that a hearing on the Sydney
Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction be held on June 22,
2022.
On June 2, 2022, the Plaintiffs in Kim also filed a motion for a
preliminary injunction.
The court consolidated the motions for preliminary injunction.
On June 23, 2022, following a hearing, the court issued an order
denying both motions for preliminary injunction, holding that the
Plaintiffs in both cases were unlikely to succeed on the merits and
that Plaintiffs had not established that they would suffer
irreparable harm if the injunction was denied.
By order dated July 11, 2022, the court consolidated the Sydney and
Kim cases and set an August 24, 2022 deadline for the Plaintiffs in
both cases to file a consolidated amended complaint.
Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint on August 24, 2022.
The amended complaint alleges on behalf of a putative class of
holders of the Company's preferred stock, among other things,
claims for breach of contract against the Company and the former
Board of Directors with respect to the articles supplementary
governing the terms of the Company's preferred stock, breach of
fiduciary duty against the former Board of Directors, and tortious
interference and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty
against WHLR.
On October 7, 2022, Defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint.
Plaintiffs opposed the motion to dismiss and filed a motion to
certify a question of law to Maryland's Supreme Court.
On August 1, 2023, the court issued a decision and order granting
Defendants' motions to dismiss.
The Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Case No. 23-1905.
The appeal has been fully briefed and oral argument was held before
the Fourth Circuit on May 9, 2024.
The Fourth Circuit took the appeal under advisement.
At this juncture, the outcome of the litigation remains uncertain.
Cedar Realty Trust, Inc. is a real estate investment trust that
focuses on owning and operating income producing retail properties
with a primary focus on grocery-anchored shopping centers primarily
in the Northeast. At June 30, 2023, the company owned a portfolio
of 19 operating properties. Cedar Realty Trust Partnership, L.P. is
the entity through which the company conducts substantially all of
its business and owns (either directly or through subsidiaries)
substantially all of its assets.
CENTRAL BUCKS: Judge Decertifies Equal Pay Class Action Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Linda Stein of Delaware Valley Journal reports that after a jury
was unable to reach a verdict in August in a massive equal pay
lawsuit brought against the Central Bucks School District, federal
Judge Michael M. Baylson decertified the plaintiffs' class action.
The lawsuit alleged about 320 female teachers were underpaid by the
district, which is the third largest in the state. The women
claimed gender discrimination, alleging the district paid them less
than comparable male teachers.
Previous attempts to settle the lawsuit involved amounts in excess
of $100 million, a sum administration officials say the district
cannot afford.
Neither the plaintiffs' lawyer, Ed Mazurek, nor attorney Mike
Levin, who represented the district, responded to requests for
comment.
The school district, however, issued two statements.
"The plaintiffs alleged the district had violated the Equal Pay Act
(EPA). According to the EPA, plaintiffs can prove discrimination if
employees who are similarly situated (i.e., their work requires the
same effort, skill, and responsibility) are compensated differently
based on their gender.
"The court issued an order decertifying the collective action suit,
citing that the jury was unable to come to a unanimous verdict and
that it was clear that all plaintiffs are not similarly situated.
The order also states that individual plaintiffs may initiate their
own lawsuits if they believe that they can prove that their claims
are not barred by the statute of limitations.
"We reiterate our commitment to refining and enhancing our hiring
practices, just as we seek to continually improve in all areas of
operations. We also once again wish to underscore how much we value
and respect all of our employees," the statement said.
It was signed by school board President Karen Smith, Vice President
Mariam Mahmud, and members Rob Dugger, Dana Foley, Susan Gibson,
Jim Pepper, Heather Reynolds, and Jenine Zdanowicz.
In a July 30 statement after the hung jury, the district said it
wished "to express how greatly we value and respect the more than
3,000 teachers, staff members and administrators who educate and
care for the approximately 17,000 students across our 23 schools.
Their work is essential to developing and sustaining the excellent
educational and extracurricular experience we strive to provide at
CBSD, and we are immensely grateful for their dedication to our
students and schools."
The class action lawsuit became a political football in the 2023
school board election, where the Democrats wrested control of the
district from a Republican-majority board. Two of the Republicans
members resigned from the board in February, leaving Pepper as the
sole GOP member.
Board Member Rick Haring, one of the newly-elected Democrats and
husband of one of the litigants, Rebecca Cartee-Haring, did not
sign the district's messages. In a previous email, Cartee-Haring
decried the board's decision not to settle the case in January
after "many of us worked diligently to support all of you
candidates. We supported you because you said you were running on
compassion and common sense."
Asked about the case on August 5, Cartee-Haring said, "A hung jury
does not mean there was no evidence of discrimination. In fact, the
jury was 6-2 on whether or not the plaintiffs met their burden of
the preponderance of the evidence proving discrimination on the
basis of sex."
"The lawsuit for me and Dawn [Marinello] is still pending a motion
for directed verdict for the plaintiffs and is able to be retried
after the judge rules on that motion, which he has not done yet.
[There is] no need to refile. [The] judge will schedule a new
trial." [GN]
CENTRAL FALLS: Hellested Sues Over Failure to Safeguard Data
------------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Hellested, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CENTRAL FALLS DETENTION FACILITY CORPORATION d/b/a
DONALD W. WYATT DETENTION FACILITY, Case No. 1:24-cv-00284-WES-LD
(D.R.I., July 19, 2024), is brought arising out of Donald W. Wyatt
Detention Facility's failures to properly secure, safeguard,
encrypt, and/or timely and adequately destroy Plaintiff(s)' and
Class Members' sensitive personal identifiable information that it
had acquired and stored for its business purposes, resulting in a
2023 data breach ("Data Breach") of documents and information
stored on the computer network of Wyatt, a quasi-public corporation
operating as a maximum security correctional facility, including
Plaintiff(s) and Class Members.
The Defendant's data security failures allowed a targeted
cyberattack in November 2023 to compromise Defendant's network (the
"Data Breach") that contained personally identifiable information
("PII") and protected health information ("PHI") (collectively,
"the Private Information") of Plaintiffs and other individuals
("the Class"). The Defendant launched an investigation into the
Data Breach and confirmed that an unauthorized actor accessed its
system and may have copied and exfiltrated certain files containing
Plaintiff(s)' and Class Members' Private Information.
Despite learning of the Data Breach on or about November 2, 2023,
and determining that Private Information was involved in the
breach, Defendant did not begin sending notices of the Data Breach
(the "Notice of Data Breach Letter") until July 9, 2024. On its
computer network, Wyatt holds and stores certain highly sensitive
personally identifiable information ("PII" or "Private
Information") of the Plaintiff(s) and the putative Class Members,
who are applicants who sought employment from Wyatt or are current
or former employees of Wyatt, i.e., individuals who provided their
highly sensitive and private information in exchange for
employment.
As a result of Wyatt's Data Breach, Plaintiff(s) and thousands of
Class Members suffered ascertainable losses in the form of
financial losses resulting from identity theft, out-of- pocket
expenses, the loss of the benefit of their bargain, and the value
of their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects
of the attack, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a former job applicant of Wyatt.
Central Falls Detention Facility Corporation d/b/a Donald W. Wyatt
Detention Facility is a public corporation governed by a board of 5
members appointed by the Central Falls Mayor.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter N. Wasylyk, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF PETER N. WASYLYK
1307 Chalkstone Avenue
Providence, RI 02908
Phone: 401-831-7730
Facsimile: 401-861-6064
Email: pnwlaw@aol.com
- and -
Gary E. Mason, Esq.
Danielle L. Perry, Esq.
Lisa A. White, Esq.
MASON LLP
5335 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 640
Washington, DC 20015
Phone: (202) 429-2290
Email: gmason@masonllp.com
dperry@masonllp.com
lwhite@masonllp.com
CHAUTAUQUA COUNTY, NY: Gworek Alleges Violations of Taking Clause
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sandra L. Gworek et al. v. Chautauqua County, New York et al., Case
No. 1:24-cv-00679 (W.D.N.Y., July 21, 2024) seeks to redress the
constitutional violations practiced by Defendants in collecting
from Plaintiffs and the putative class more than they owed the
government, in violation of the Takings Clause of the U.S.
Constitution, and in violation of other state and federal rights.
The process established by New York state law provides not just for
the levying and collection of property taxes, but also for placing
of liens and taking of property for unpaid or delinquent taxes.
Moreover, the Plaintiffs allege that Defendants are taking their
property without just compensation. Plaintiffs' property were sold
by Defendants and the sale produced surplus equity, being an excess
above and beyond the amount lawfully owed by Plaintiffs for
delinquent taxes and charges. The Defendants retained all the
proceeds of the sale and did not provide adequate procedure to seek
just compensation for the taking of their surplus proceeds, the
suit alleges.
Chautauqua County is a political subdivision and body politic of
the State of New York. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Steven E. Cole, Esq.
Robert P. Yawman, Esq.
ADAMS LECLAIR LLP
1200 Bausch and Lomb Place
Rochester, NY 14604
Telephone: (585) 327-4200
Facsimile (585) 327-4200
E-mail: scole@adamsleclair.law
ryawman@adamsleclair.law
- and -
Patrick J. Perotti, Esq.
Nicole T. Fiorelli, Esq.
Frank A. Bartela, Esq.
Patrick J. Brickman, Esq.
Shmuel S. Kleinman, Esq.
DWORKEN & BERNSTEIN CO., L.P.A.
60 South Park Place
Painesville, OH 44077
Telephone: (440)352-3391
Facsimile: (440) 352-3469 Fax
E-mail: pperotti@dworkenlaw.com
nfiorelli@dworkenlaw.com
fbartela@dworkenlaw.com
pbrickman@dworkenlaw.com
skleinman@dworkenlaw.com
- and -
Ronald P. Friedberg, Esq.
MEYERS, ROMAN, FRIEDBERG & LEWIS
28601 Chagrin Blvd., Suite 500
Cleveland, OH 44122
Telephone: (216)831-0042
Facsimile: (216) 831-0542
E-mail: rfriedberg@meyersroman.com
- and -
Gregory P. Hansel, Esq.
PRETI FLAHERTY BELIVEAU & PACHIOS, CHARTERED, LLP
One City Center
P.O. Box 9546
Portland, ME 04112
Telephone: (207)791-3000
E-mail: ghansel@preti.com
- and -
David M. Giglio, Esq.
DAVID M. GIGLIO & ASSOCIATES, LLC
13 Hopper Street
Utica, NY 13501
Telephone: (315)797-2854
E-mail: davidgigliolaw@yahoo.com
- and -
George F. Carpinello, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
30 South Pearl Street, 11th Floor
Albany, NY 12207
Telephone: (518)434-0600
Facsimile: (518) 434-0665
E-mail: gcarpinello@bsfllp.com
- and -
Joseph C. Kohn, Esq.
KOHN SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
1600 Market Street, Suite 2500
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215)238-1700
E-mail: jkohn@kohnswift.com
- and -
Nathan J. Fink, Esq.
FINK BRESSACK
38500 Woodward Avenue Suite 350
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
Telephone: (248)971-2500
E-mail: nfink@finkbressack.com
- and -
Jonathan D. Pincus, Esq.
JONATHAN D. PINCUS, ESQ.
10 Whitestone Ln
Rochester, NY 14618-4118
Telephone: (585)732-8515
E-mail: jdp@jdpincus.com
CHICKEN SOUP: Skajem Sues Over Scheme to Defraud Compensation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Skajem, Lisa Papazimas, Erin Tuttle, David Ellender, Dara
Cohen, Matt Loze, Jessica Stoeckeler, Heather Bundy, Carey
Campbell, Kelly Burke Hopkins, Courtney Smith, on behalf of
themselves and behalf of all others similarly situated v. CHICKEN
SOUP FOR THE SOUL ENTERTAINMENT, INC.; REDBOX AUTOMATED RETAIL,
LLC; WILLIAM J. ROUHANA, JR., AMY NEWMARK, and DOES 1-500,
inclusive, Case No. 24STCV18214 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty.,
July 19, 2024), is brought under California Labor Code, California
Code of Regulations, California Business and Professions Code,
(Unfair Practices Act), and Fair Labor Standards Act as a result of
the Defendants engaged in a scheme to defraud employees not only
out of their hard-earned compensation and siphon such money away
for their own personal benefit, but also deducted wages from
employees' pay checks.
This complaint challenges systemic illegal employment practices
resulting in violations of law and fundamental public policy and
human decency. The Plaintiffs seek relief on behalf of themselves
and the members of the plaintiff class as a result of employment
policies, practices and procedures, which violate the California
Labor Code, and the orders and standards promulgated by the
California Department of Industrial Relations, Industrial Welfare
Commission, and Division of Labor Standards, and which have
resulted in the failure of Defendants to pay Plaintiffs and members
of the plaintiff classes all wages due to them.
The Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Defendants have
engaged in, among other things a system of willful violations of
the California Labor Code, California Business and Professions
Code, and applicable IWC wage orders by creating and maintaining
policies, practices and customs that knowingly deny employees the
above stated rights and benefits.
The policies, practices and customs of Defendants have resulted in
unjust enrichment of Defendants and an unfair business advantage
over businesses that routinely adhere to the structures of the
California Labor Code, California Business and Professions Code,
and Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants willfully and
knowingly failed to pay Plaintiff and the members of the plaintiff
class, upon termination of employment, all accrued compensation,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs were victims of the policies, practices and customs
of Defendants.
Chicken Soup For the Soul Entertainment, Inc. is a Delaware
Corporation authorized to do business throughout the United
States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Alder, Esq.
Elana R. Levine, Esq.
ALDERLAW, PC
12800 Riverside Drive, 2nd Floor
Valley Village, CA 91607
Phone: (310) 275-9131
Fax: (310) 275-9132
Email: cmalder@alderlaw.com
llevine@alderlaw.com
CIRCLE C DEVELOPMENT: Hires Langley & Banack as Bankruptcy Counsel
------------------------------------------------------------------
Circle C Development, LLC seeks approval from the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the Western District of Texas to hire Langley & Banack,
Inc. as attorneys.
The firm will advise the Debtor with respect to its duties and
powers in this case and handle all matters which come before the
court in this case.
William Davis, Jr., Esq., an attorney at Langley & Banack, will be
paid at his hourly rate of $400.
The firm estimated that a retainer in the amount of $26,738 will be
needed for this case.
Mr. Davis disclosed in a court filing that the firm is a
"disinterested person" as the term is defined in Section 101(14) of
the Bankruptcy Code.
The firm can be reached through:
William R. Davis Jr., Esq.
Langley & Banack, Inc.
745 E. Mulberry, Suite 700
San Antonio, TX 78212
Telephone: (210) 736-6600
Facsimile: (210) 735-6889
Email: wrdavis@langleybanack.com
About Circle C Development, LLC
Circle C Development, LLC sought protection for relief under
Chapter 11 of the Bankrutpcy Code (Banr. W.D. Tex. Case No.
24-10933) on August 6, 2024, listing up to $50,000 in both assets
and liabilities.
Judge Shad Robinson presides over the case.
William R. Davis, Jr., Esq. at Langley & Banack, Inc. represents
the Debtor as counsel.
CLARIVATE PLC: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Clarivate PLC disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 6, 2024, that the bid to dismiss the
consolidated securities class suit are pending in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
Between January and March 2022, three putative securities class
action complaints were filed in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of New York against Clarivate and certain
of its executives and directors alleging that there were weaknesses
in the Company's internal controls over financial reporting and
financial reporting procedures that it failed to disclose in
violation of federal securities law.
The complaints were consolidated into a single proceeding on May
18, 2022.
On August 8, 2022, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint, seeking damages on behalf of a putative class of
shareholders who acquired Clarivate securities between July 30,
2020, and February 2, 2022, and/or acquired Clarivate ordinary or
preferred shares in connection with offerings on June 10, 2021, or
Clarivate ordinary shares in connection with a September 13, 2021,
offering.
The amended complaint, like the prior complaints, references an
error in the accounting treatment of an equity plan included in the
Company's 2020 business combination with CPA Global that was
disclosed on December 27, 2021, and related restatements issued on
February 3, 2022, of certain of the Company's previously issued
financial statements.
The amended complaint also alleges that the Company and certain of
its executives and directors made false or misleading statements
relating to the Company's product quality and expected organic
revenues and organic growth rate, and that they failed to disclose
significant known changes to the Company's business model.
Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on October 7,
2022.
Without deciding the motion, the court entered an order on June 23,
2023, allowing plaintiffs limited leave to amend, and plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint on July 14, 2023.
On August 10, 2023, the court issued an order deeming defendants'
prior motions and briefs to be directed at the amended complaint
and permitting defendants to file supplemental briefs to address
the new allegations in the amended complaint.
Supplemental briefing on the motions was completed on September 8,
2023.
Defendants' motions to dismiss the amended complaint are currently
pending.
Clarivate PLC is a provider of proprietary and comprehensive
information, analytics, professional services and workflow
solutions that enable users across government and academic
institutions, life science and healthcare companies, corporations
and law firms to power the entire innovation lifecycle, from
cultivating curiosity to protecting the world's critical
intellectual property assets.
CLARIVATE PLC: Continues to Defend Securities Act-Related Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Clarivate PLC disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 6, 2024, that the Company continues to defend
itself from Securities Act-related class suit in the Pennsylvania
state court in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia.
On June 7, 2022, a class action was filed in Pennsylvania state
court in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia asserting claims
under the Securities Act of 1933, based on substantially similar
allegations, with respect to alleged misstatements and omissions in
the offering documents for two issuances of Clarivate ordinary
shares in June and September 2021.
The Company moved to stay this proceeding on August 19, 2022, and
filed its preliminary objections to the state court complaint on
October 21, 2022.
After granting a partial stay on January 4, 2023, the court denied
a further stay of the proceedings on April 17, 2023.
On April 24, 2024, the court sustained the Company's preliminary
objections, but permitted plaintiff leave to file an amended
complaint, which plaintiff filed on May 28, 2024.
The court also permitted plaintiff to take jurisdictional discovery
over the former individual defendants and to move on the basis of
such discovery to amend the complaint to add such individuals as
defendants; plaintiff's deadline to move to amend on such basis is
September 23, 2024.
On July 12, 2024, the Company filed its preliminary objections to
the amended complaint.
Clarivate does not believe that the claims alleged in the
complaints have merit and will vigorously defend against them.
Clarivate PLC is a provider of proprietary and comprehensive
information, analytics, professional services and workflow
solutions that enable users across government and academic
institutions, life science and healthcare companies, corporations
and law firms to power the entire innovation lifecycle, from
cultivating curiosity to protecting the world's critical
intellectual property assets.
CLEAN HARBORS: Delgado Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled FERNANDO DELGADO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CLEAN HARBORS ENVIRONMENTAL
SERVICES, INC., a corporation; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. CIVSB241242, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of San Bernardino
to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
on July 19, 2024.
The Clerk of Court for the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California assigned Case No. 5:24-cv-01515 to the
proceeding.
The case arises from Defendant's violations of the California Labor
Code and the California Business & Professions Code.
Headquartered in Massachusetts, Clean Harbors Environmental
Services, Inc. provides hazardous and non-hazardous waste
management services. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Alexander M. Chemers, Esq.
Isabella B. Urrea, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 239-9800
Facsimile: (213) 239-9045
E-mail: zander.chemers@ogletree.com
isabella.urrea@ogletree.com
COASTAL ORTHOPEDICS: Comarsh-White Sues Over Data Security Failure
------------------------------------------------------------------
VIKKI COMARSH-WHITE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. COASTAL ORTHOPEDICS & SPORTS MEDICINE OF
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, P.A., Defendant, Case No. 8:24-cv-01707 (M.D.
Fla., July 19, 2024) arises from Coastal Orthopedics' its failure
to properly secure and safeguard personal identifiable information
of Defendant's current and former patients, including name, Social
Security number, date of birth, health insurance information, and
medical information.
On or around June 11, 2023, the Defendant became aware of
suspicious activity affecting certain systems within its network,
during which there was unauthorized access to Defendant’s
network, likely between June 6, 2023 and June 11, 2023, and that
certain files and folders within the network were taken without
authorization. However, on or around June 26, 2024, the Defendant
only began notifying Plaintiff and Class members of the data breach
via mail. Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserts claims for negligence,
breach of implied contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and for
violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices
Act.
Coastal Orthopedics provides comprehensive orthopedics, sports
medicine, and physical therapy and services in Manatee County and
Sarasota County. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Patrick A. Barthle, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 229-4023
Facsimile: (813) 222-4708
E-mail: pbarthle@ForThePeople.com
- and -
Ryan D. Maxey, Esq.
MAXEY LAW FIRM, P.A.
107 N. 11th St. #402
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 448-1125
E-mail: ryan@maxeyfirm.com
COLUMBIA BANKING: Continues to Defend Ponzi Scheme-Related Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Columbia Banking System Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2024, that the Company
continues to defend itself from a Ponzi scheme-related class suit
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.
In August 2020, a class action complaint was filed in the United
States District Court (ND Cal) alleging aiding and abetting claims
against the Bank associated with the failure of two commercial real
estate investment companies, Professional Financial Investors, Inc.
and Professional Investors Security Fund, Inc., allegedly effected
through a Ponzi scheme.
Both companies maintained their primary deposit account
relationship with the Bank's Novato, Marin County, California
branch office, acquired by the Bank from Circle Bank.
The Bank's motion to dismiss was denied in January 2021, and its
motion for summary judgment was denied in December 2022, and at the
same time the District Court certified the plaintiffs' proposed
class.
The Bank intends to defend these matters vigorously and believes
that it has meritorious defenses.
Columbia Banking System, Inc. is a State Commercial Bank based in
Tacoma, WA.
CONAIR LLC: McCabe Sues Over Coffee Maker's False 14-Cup Label
--------------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN MCCABE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CONAIR LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-05594 (E.D.N.Y., August 9, 2024) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of various consumer protection laws
and trade practices laws in the U.S.
The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and
misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of a DCC-3200
series coffee maker. The Defendant represents the coffee maker to
have 14-cup capacity, but in reality, its capacity was
approximately 72 fluid ounces or nine standard cups, which is
materially less than 14 standard cups. Had the Plaintiff and
similarly situated consumers known the truth, they would not have
purchased the product or would have paid less for it, says the
suit.
CONAIR LLC is a manufacturer of consumer products, with its
principal place of business in Stamford, Connecticut. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd C. Bank, Esq.
ATTORNEY AT LAW, P.C.
119-40 Union Turnpike, Fourth Floor
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Telephone: (718) 520-7125
CORTES STEEL: Villa FLSA Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Welders
---------------------------------------------------------------
OSVALDO VILLA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CORTES STEEL ERECTIONS, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 4:24-cv-00726 (E.D. Tex., August 13, 2024) is a class
action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff worked as a welder at the Defendant's fabrication
facility in Krum, Texas from approximately October of 2023 until
April of 2024.
Cortes Steel Erections, Inc. is a construction company based in
Grand Prairie, Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Beatriz-Sosa Morris, Esq.
SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
4151 Southwest Freeway, Suite 515
Houston, TX 77027
Telephone: (281) 885-8844
Facsimile: (281) 885-8813
Email: BSosaMorris@smnlawfirm.com
COUPANG INC: Continues to Defend Choi Class Suit in S.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
Coupang Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 6, 2024, that the Company continues to defend
itself from the Choi class suit in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York.
On August 26, 2022, a putative class action was filed on behalf of
all purchasers of Coupang Class A common stock pursuant and/or
traceable to Coupang's registration statement issued in connection
with our initial public offering.
Choi v. Coupang, Inc. et al was brought against Coupang, Inc., and
certain of its former and current directors, current officers, and
certain underwriters of the offering.
The action was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York alleging inaccurate and misleading or
omitted statements of material fact in Coupang's Registration
Statement in violation of Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933.
The action was amended on May 22, 2023, and added allegations of
securities fraud under Sections 10 and 20 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.
The action seeks unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys' fees,
and reasonable costs and expenses.
The Company believes all the aforementioned action are without
merit and intend to vigorously defend against the aforementioned
actions.
Coupang, Inc. is a retailer in Korea with operations in the United
States, Taiwan, Singapore and China with a preeminent online
presence in the market.
CRAFT REVOLUTION: Bell Seeks to Certify Class of Tipped Employees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAURA ELIZABETH BELL, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. CRAFT
REVOLUTION, LLC d/b/a ARTISANAL BREWING VENTURES; et al. Case No.
3:24-cv-00012-MOC-SCR (W.D.N.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order granting class certification of the Plaintiff's
Pennsylvania state claims, specifically the Pennsylvania Minimum
Wage Act ("PMWA") and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment Collection Law
("WPCL"), against the Defendant.
In particular, the Plaintiff seeks certification of the following
class:
"All current and former Tipped Employees who have worked for
the
Defendant in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania during the
statutory
period covered by the Plaintiff's Complaint and who do not
opt-out
of this action (the "PA State Class")."
The Plaintiff contends that the proposed class meets all the
requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P.23(a) and (b)(3), thereby warranting
class certification.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 2, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AQpd6q at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq.
Robert J. Gray, Esq.
CONNOLLY WELLS & GRAY, LLP
101 Lindenwood Drive, Suite 225
Malvern, PA 19355
Telephone: (610) 822-3700
Facsimile: (610) 822-3800
E-mail: gwells@cwglaw.com
rgray@cwglaw.com
- and -
J. Alexander Heroy, Esq.
JAMES, MCELROY & DIEHL, P.A.
525 North Tryon Street, Suite 700
Charlotte, NC 28202
Telephone: (704) 372-9870
Facsimile: (704) 333-5508
E-mail: aheroy@jmdlaw.com
DARREN K. INDYKE: Court Narrows Claims in Bensky, et al. Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases captioned as DANIELLE BENSKY and JANE DOE 3,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, -against- DARREN K. INDYKE and RICHARD D.
KAHN, Defendants, Case No. 24-cv-1204 (AS) (S.D.N.Y.) and JANE DOE
3, Plaintiff, -against- DARREN K. INDYKE and RICHARD D. KAHN,
Defendants, Case No. 24-cv-2192 (AS) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Arun
Subramanian of the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York granted in part and denied in part Defendants'
motions to dismiss.
Plaintiffs Danielle Bensky and Jane Doe 3 allege that they were
sexually abused by Jeffrey Epstein, who died in federal custody in
2019. In the first of these two related cases, Plaintiffs bring
claims for themselves and on behalf of a putative class of victims
against Darren Indyke, Epstein's lawyer, and Richard Kahn,
Epstein's accountant. The complaint alleges that "[n]o one, except
perhaps Ghislaine Maxwell, was as essential and central to
Epstein's operation as these Defendants.". In Jane Doe 3's separate
case, she brings claims for herself against Indyke and Kahn, but
solely in their capacities as co-executors of Epstein's estate.
(For convenience, the Court will refer to these claims as being
against the estate.) In both cases, Defendants have moved to
dismiss the complaints and strike various allegations. The Court
held a hearing on the motions on June 26, 2024.
Bensky's and Jane Doe 3's stories are horrific. Epstein lured them
in, sexually abused them, and then threatened their careers, lives,
and families to keep them quiet. And Epstein repeated this pattern
"hundreds, perhaps thousands, of times" in this district alone,
creating a vast "sex-trafficking venture" involving countless
"young women and girls."
Bensky and Jane Doe 3 allege that Indyke and Kahn were critical to
the venture; they were its moneymen. First, Indyke and Kahn ensured
that "Epstein always had reliable access to resources from banks --
including cash -- to recruit, lure, coerce, and entice young women
and girls to cause them to engage in commercial sex acts and other
degradations, and to pay off persons who might otherwise reveal
what was going on."
Second, Indyke and Kahn kept the flow of funds under the radar.
Some examples: Indyke probed a bank's policies to figure out how to
withdraw funds without triggering alerts, and he structured
withdrawals accordingly.
Third, Indyke and Kahn "directed, approved, enabled, and justified
millions of dollars in payments" to keep victims quiet -- or
available.
Fourth, Indyke and Kahn controlled Epstein's business affairs. They
were officers of Epstein's many corporations (whose only purpose
was, allegedly, to conceal Epstein's sex-trafficking enterprise)
and had signatory authority for them, Kahn oversaw the accounting
and tax reporting for "many entities affiliated with the Epstein
sex-trafficking enterprise," and both Indyke and Kahn were "deeply
involved in the financial activities of the Epstein-owned
entities."
Bensky and Jane Doe 3 allege that Indyke and Kahn did all this
while knowing that they were facilitating Epstein's sex-trafficking
operation. And they were, of course, being paid every step of the
way
The class complaint against Indyke and Kahn brings claims on behalf
of Bensky, Jane Doe 3, and all women who were sexually abused or
trafficked by Epstein between January 1, 1995, and
August 10, 2019. The claims are:
(1) aiding, abetting, and facilitating battery;
(2) intentional infliction of emotional distress;
(3) negligence;
(4) participation in a sex-trafficking venture in violation of
the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA), 18 U.S.C. Secs.
1591(a)(2), 1595;
(5) obstruction of the TVPA's enforcement in violation of
Sec. 1591(d);
(6) conspiracy to violate the TVPA in violation of Secs.
1594(c), 1591, 1595; and
(7) violations of the Victims of Gender-Motivated
Violence Protection Law ("Victim-Protection Law"), N.Y.C. Admin.
Code Sec. 10-1104.
Jane Doe 3's separate complaint is against Epstein's estate. It
alleges:
(1) sex trafficking in violation of the TVPA, 18 U.S.C. Secs.
1591(a)(1), 1595;
(2) participation in a sex-trafficking venture in violation of
the TVPA, Secs. 1591(a)(2), 1595;
(3) violations of the Victim-Protection Law;
(4) battery; and
(5) intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Defendants argue that the complaint's class allegations should be
stricken.
For this motion to succeed, Defendants must (1) "address[] issues
separate and apart from the issues that will be decided on a class
certification motion," or (2) "demonstrate from the face of the
complaint that it would be impossible to certify the alleged class
regardless of the facts the plaintiffs may be able to obtain during
discovery."
Judge Subramanian says, "Here, Defendants rely on the second
ground, arguing that 'the Complaint cannot plausibly meet the
requirements for class certification' because many of the class
members have executed releases. The Court disagrees. To start,
Defendants haven't explained how the Court could consider potential
nonparty class members' releases at this stage."
"And even if those who executed releases were excluded, Defendants
haven't shown that it would be 'impossible' to certify the class.
On numerosity and superiority, the complaint alleges that the class
involves 'dozens of women, making joinder impracticable.' The Court
takes this allegation as true, and there's no definitive proof that
all these women executed binding releases," Judge Subramanian adds.
Defendants argue that Jane Doe 3's claim for aiding, abetting, or
facilitating battery should be dismissed for "failure to establish
Defendants' knowledge of, or substantial assistance in any
battery."
Judge Subramanian holds, "Here, the complaint plausibly alleges
Defendants' knowledge and substantial assistance. According to the
complaint, Defendants got the cash and paid the victims, kept the
books, managed the companies, hired immigration lawyers for sham
marriages, were in direct contact with Epstein, were aware of his
criminal and civil cases, dealt with the settlements, and were at
the houses and on the plane, all while 'Epstein was sexually
abusing three to four young females every single day of his life.'
These allegations permit the reasonable inference that Indyke and
Kahn knew what was going on and had a hand in keeping it going."
Defendants argue that Jane Doe 3's
intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim should be
dismissed.
Defendants make three arguments: first, this claim is duplicative
of Jane Doe 3's negligence claim; second, Defendants' alleged
conduct is not sufficiently "extreme" and "outrageous"; and third,
the alleged conduct was not "directed at" the victims, including
Jane Doe 3.
As to the first argument, the intentional-infliction and negligence
claims are supported by different facts and have different
potential damages, so they aren't duplicative, the Court finds.
The second argument also fails, the Court says. The conduct must
"go beyond all possible bounds of decency . . . and [be] utterly
intolerable in a civilized community."
Nor does the third argument justify dismissal, the Court notes.
Defendants say they didn't even know who Jane Doe 3 was, so their
conduct could not have been "directed" to her. But the Court can't
consider that assertion on a motion to dismiss.
Jane Doe 3 pleaded three violations of the TVPA as three separate
counts: participation in a sex-trafficking venture, obstruction of
the TVPA's enforcement, and conspiracy to violate the TVPA.
Jane Doe 3 plausibly pleads that Indyke and Kahn knowingly
benefited from participation in a sex-trafficking venture.
Defendants say she "fail[s] to plead that Defendants knew, or
should have known, that Epstein was causing any person to engage in
commercial sex acts by force, fraud,
or coercion." This argument fails, the Court says. As noted
throughout, the complaint robustly alleges Defendants' intimate
involvement with the sex-trafficking enterprise. Those allegations
are more than enough to permit the reasonable inference that
Defendants knew or should have known that Epstein was coercing
women to engage in commercial sex acts, the Court concludes.
Jane Doe 3 has pointed to nothing else to overcome the presumption
against retroactivity, so her claim under the Victim-Protection Law
is dismissed.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated August 5,
2024, is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tv7pVM
DELTA AIR LINES: Bajra Sues Over Refusal to Secure Refunds
----------------------------------------------------------
Arben Bajra, John Brennan, Asher Einhorn, and Melanie Susman,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
DELTA AIR LINES, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-03477-MHC (N.D. Ga., Aug.
6, 2024), is brought to secure refunds for each and every similarly
situated consumer Delta has wronged by refusing to issue full
refunds for flights cancelled or significantly affected as a direct
and proximate result of the CrowdStrike outage.
On the morning of Friday, July 19, 2024, an automatic update to a
cybersecurity software developed by CrowdStrike resulted in
millions of computers running Microsoft Windows to crash and
display blue screens of death (the "CrowdStrike outage"). When the
CrowdStrike outage crashed these online systems, the affected
airlines resorted to manual operations, such as checking passengers
in on paper. The CrowdStrike outage resulted in massive delays
throughout the global airline industry. According to flight
tracking firm FlightAware, there were more than 4,000 flight
cancellations and 35,500 flight delays worldwide by Friday
afternoon.
Delta, for example, reportedly canceled more than 4,500 flights
between Friday, July 19 and Sunday, July 21, 2024. By the end of
the weekend, nearly every airline had managed to recover and resume
normal operations. Delta, however, did not resume normal
operations. By the start of the workweek, Delta continued to cancel
a staggering number of flights. On Monday, July 22, it was reported
that Delta canceled more than 1,250 flights. These cancellations
accounted for nearly 70% of all flights within, to, or from the
United States that had been canceled on Monday. No other US airline
had canceled one-tenth as many flights.
When affected passengers requested prompt refunds for their
canceled or delayed flights, Delta refused or ignored these
requests. In addition, Delta refused to provide all affected
passengers with meal, hotel, and ground transportation vouchers,
despite its previous commitments, and continues to refuse or ignore
requests for reimbursements of these unexpected expenses.
As a result of Delta's failures, affected passengers were forced to
spend thousands of dollars in unexpected expenses, including
flights from other airlines, hotels, rental cars, ground
transportation, and food. Further, Delta separated thousands of
passengers from their luggage, leaving many without necessary
medication, clothes, and other belongings. These unfair, unlawful,
and unconscionable practices resulted in Delta unjustly enriching
itself at the expense of its customers, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs purchased tickets through Delta.
Delta is one of the top three biggest airline companies, serving
more than 200 million travelers annually.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
E. Adam Webb, Esq.
G. Franklin Lemond, Jr., Esq.
WEBB, KLASE & LEMOND, LLC
1900 The Exchange, S.E., Suite 480
Atlanta, GA 30339
Phone: (770) 444-9325
Facsimile: (770) 217-9950
Email: Adam@WebbLLC.com
Franklin@WebbLLC.com
- and -
Joseph G. Sauder, Esq.
Joseph B. Kenney, Esq.
Juliette T. Mogenson, Esq.
SAUDER SCHELKOPF
1109 Lancaster Avenue
Berwyn, PA 19312
Phone: 888.711.9975
Email: jgs@sstriallawyers.com
jbk@sstriallawyers.com
jtm@sstriallawyers.com
DESKTOP METAL: Oct. 16 Hearing on Bid to Dismiss Campanella Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Desktop Metal Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 30, 2024, that the hearing on the
motion to dismiss the Campanella class suit is set for October 16,
2024.
On October 20, 2023, purported stockholder Pietro Campanella filed
an amendment to the November 21, 2021 class action complaint in
Delaware Court of Chancery against Desktop Metal, Inc., and former
directors and officers of The ExOne Company, alleging breach of
fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty
claims in connection with the ExOne Merger (Campanella v. Rockwell,
et al., Case No. 2021-1013-LWW).
In particular, Mr. Campanella alleges that ExOne's proxy statement
and supplemental disclosures did not adequately disclose
information related to a whistleblower investigation at one of
Desktop Metal's subsidiaries, EnvisionTEC, and the resignation of
EnvisionTEC's CEO, prior to the ExOne stockholder vote.
Defendants filed their motion to dismiss the complaint on January
12, 2024.
The parties completed briefing on the motion to dismiss on May 22,
2024, and a hearing on the motion to dismiss is scheduled for
October 16, 2024.
Desktop Metal, Inc. is pioneering a new generation of additive
manufacturing technologies based in Massachusetts.
DINE BRANDS: Clarks Sues Over Improper Food Delivery Charges
------------------------------------------------------------
MICHELLE CLARK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DINE BRANDS GLOBAL, INC.; and APPLEBEE'S
RESTAURANTS, LLC,, Defendants, Case No. 4:24-cv-04679 (N.D. Cal.,
Aug. 1, 2024) alleges violation of the California's Consumers Legal
Remedies Act, the California's False Advertising Law, and
California's Unfair Competition Law.
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, every time a customer
places a delivery order on the Applebee's Website or App, the
customer is charged a carefully concealed 11 percent "Service Fee,"
separate from the delivery charge and applicable taxes. As a result
of this automatic hidden fee, customers ordering delivery pay a
uniformly higher price for Applebee's food than what is advertised
on the menu, says the suit.
Applebee's alleged misconduct has caused Plaintiff and putative
Class Members to suffer damages, including economic damages.
Accordingly, Plaintiff brings this suit to halt Defendants' unfair
and deceptive trade practices.
Dine Brands Global Inc. is a publicly traded food and beverage
company based in Pasadena, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sarah N. Westcot, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 2100
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 330-5512
Facsimile: (305) 676-9006
Email: swestcot@bursor.com
- and -
Joshua R. Wilner, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
Email: jwilner@bursor.com
DXC TECHNOLOGY: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set October 1
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, a nationally recognized law
firm, notifies investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against DXC Technology Company ("DXC" or "the Company") (NYSE: DXC)
and certain of its officers.
Class Definition
This lawsuit seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws on behalf of all
persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired DXC
securities between May 26, 2021, and May 16, 2024, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this case by
visiting the firm's site: bgandg.com/DXC.
Case Details
The complaint alleges throughout the Class Period, the Company
misrepresented its ongoing "transformation journey" and the
Company's ability to integrate previously acquired companies and
business systems. The complaint continues to allege that while
touting its ongoing success in implementing that integration, DXC
repeatedly stressed its commitment to reducing the Company's
restructuring and transaction, separation, and integration ("TSI")
costs in order to increase its free cashflow and "unleash [its]
true earnings power." In truth, Defendants knew or recklessly
disregarded that the Company was only able to reduce its
restructuring and TSI costs by limiting its integration efforts. As
a result of Defendants' misrepresentations, shares of DXC common
stock traded at artificially inflated prices throughout the Class
Period. DXC also announced it would need to spend an additional
$250 million to achieve the restructuring and integration process
it falsely claimed to have been successfully implementing during
the Class Period. These disclosures caused the price of DXC common
stock to decline nearly 17%, from $19.88 per share to $16.52 per
share.
What's Next?
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint, you can visit the firm's site:
bgandg.com/DXC or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his
Client Relations Manager, Nathan Miller, of Bronstein, Gewirtz &
Grossman, LLC at (332) 239-2660. If you suffered a loss in DXC you
have until October 1, 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 lead plaintiff.
There is No Cost to You
We represent investors in class actions on a contingency fee basis.
That means we will ask the court to reimburse us for out-of-pocket
expenses and attorneys' fees, usually a percentage of the total
recovery, only if we are successful.
Why Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a nationally recognized firm
that represents investors in securities fraud class actions and
shareholder derivative suits. Our firm has recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for investors nationwide.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
Peretz Bronstein or Nathan Miller
(332) 239-2660 | info@bgandg.com [GN]
DXC TECHNOLOGY: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set October 1
--------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP notifies investors in DXC Technology Company
("DXC Technology" or the "Company") (NYSE: DXC) of a class action
securities lawsuit.
CLASS DEFINITION: The lawsuit seeks to recover losses on behalf of
DXC Technology investors who were adversely affected by alleged
securities fraud between May 26, 2021 and May 16, 2024. Follow the
link below to get more information and be contacted by a member of
our team:
https://zlk.com/pslra-1/dxc-technology-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=94558&wire=4
DXC investors may also contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. via email at
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500.
CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that defendants made
false statements and/or concealed that: 1) the Company had
misrepresented its ongoing "transformation journey" and its ability
to integrate previously acquired companies and business systems.;
2) DXC had reduced costs such as restructuring and integration by
merely deferring them; and 3) despite touting its ongoing success
in implementing that integration and repeatedly stressing its
commitment to reducing costs, defendants knew or recklessly
disregarded that the Company was only able to reduce its
restructuring and TSI costs by limiting its integration efforts.
WHAT'S NEXT? If you suffered a loss in DXC Technology during the
relevant time frame, you have until October 1, 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]
EOS ENERGY: Continues to Defend Houck Class Suit
------------------------------------------------
EOS Energy Enterprises Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2024, that the Company
continues to defend the Houck class suit in the United States
District Court of New Jersey.
On August 1, 2023, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court of New Jersey by plaintiff William Houck
against the Company, the Company's Chief Executive Officer, its
former Chief Financial Officer and its current Chief Financial
Officer (with the Company, the "Houck Defendants").
The Complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by making knowingly false or misleading statements
about the Company's contractual relationship with a customer and
about the size of the Company's order backlog and commercial
pipeline.
Defendants deny the allegations and, on February 13, 2024, moved to
dismiss the Complaint.
On March 5, 2024, plaintiff filed an amended complaint that dropped
the Company's former Chief Financial Officer as a defendant.
On April 4, 2024, defendants filed a renewed motion to dismiss the
lawsuit.
The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend against this
action.
Eos Energy Enterprises, Inc. designs, develops, manufactures, and
markets zinc-based energy storage solutions for utility-scale,
microgrid, and commercial & industrial applications.[BN]
EOS ENERGY: Hearing on Settlement in Delman Suit Set for Oct. 17
----------------------------------------------------------------
EOS Energy Enterprises Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2024, that the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware scheduled the Delman class suit
settlement hearing on October 17, 2024.
On March 8, 2023, a class action lawsuit was filed in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware by plaintiff Richard Delman
against certain defendants including the Company's former directors
(the "Delman Defendants").
Neither the Company nor Eos Energy Storage LLC were named as a
defendant but each was identified in the Complaint as a relevant
non-party and the Company has indemnification obligations relating
to the lawsuit.
On February 1, 2024, the parties agreed to a binding Settlement
Term Sheet (the "Settlement") whereby plaintiff agreed to resolve
the lawsuit in exchange for a settlement payment of $8,500, to be
fully funded by the Company's Directors and Officers ("D&O")
liability insurance policies subject to a retention by the Company
of approximately $1,000 consisting of the Company's payment of
legal fees related to this matter.
On June 1, 2024, the parties submitted to the Court of Chancery a
definitive Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, Compromise, and
Release, and related documents, and on July 1, 2024, the Court of
Chancery entered a scheduling order with a hearing on the proposed
Settlement scheduled for October 17, 2024.
Eos Energy Enterprises, Inc. designs, develops, manufactures, and
markets zinc-based energy storage solutions for utility-scale,
microgrid, and commercial & industrial applications.[BN]
EVENT TICKETS: Hernandez Sues Over Drip Pricing Practice
--------------------------------------------------------
KRISTINA HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EVENT TICKETS CENTER, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:24-at-00920 (E.D. Cal., July 19, 2024)
accuses the Defendant of engaging in unfair and illegal drip
pricing, in which it advertises only part of a product's total
price to lure in consumers, and does not mention other mandatory
charges until late in the buying process.
Prior to March 2024, the Defendant used drip pricing, and hid the
true price of the ticket until the purchase was almost complete.
For each of the tickets, Defendant used drip pricing and added a
mandatory fee at the end of the checkout process. The fee was
hidden from consumers throughout the checkout, and only disclosed
in small, fine print at the very end of the checkout process.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserts claims for quasi-contract and
for violations of California's False Advertising Law, Consumer
Legal Remedies Act, and Unfair Competition Law.
Headquartered in Gainesville, FL, Event Tickets Center, Inc. is a
secondary ticket marketplace where consumers can purchase resale
tickets to thousands of national and local events. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christin Cho, Esq.
Simon Franzini, Esq.
Jonas Jacobson, Esq.
DOVEL & LUNER, LLP
201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Telephone: (310) 656-7066
Facsimile: (310) 656-7069
E-mail: christin@dovel.com
simon@dovel.com
jonas@dovel.com
EVOLVE BANK: Fails to Safeguard Customers' Info, Page Says
----------------------------------------------------------
RYAN PAGE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. EVOLVE BANK AND TRUST, Defendant, Case No.
2:24-cv-00143-BSM (E.D. Ark., August 7, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for negligence and negligence per se, breach
of fiduciary duty, breach of confidence, intrusion upon
seclusion/invasion of privacy, breach of implied contract, breach
of express contract, unjust enrichment.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff
and similarly situated individuals stored on its information
systems following a data breach on or about June 18, 2024. The
Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly
situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the
private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was
compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown
and unauthorized third parties, says the suit.
Evolve Bank and Trust is a chartered bank and trust with a
principal place of business located in Memphis, Arkansas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher D. Jennings, Esq.
JENNINGS PLLC
500 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 110
Little Rock, AR 72201
Telephone: (501) 255-8569
Email: chris@jenningspllc.com
- and -
Sophia Gold, Esq.
KALIELGOLD PLLC
490 43rd Street, No. 122
Oakland, CA 94609
Telephone: (202) 350-4783
Email: sgold@kalielgold.com
EXER HOLDING COMPANY: Gaige Files Suit in C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Exer Holding Company,
LLC. The case is styled as Nick Gaige, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Exer Holding Company, LLC, Case No.
2:24-cv-06099-SPG-AJR (C.D. Cal., July 19, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Wire Interception.
Exer -- https://exerurgentcare.com/ -- is Southern California's
fastest growing urgent care provider.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew John Langley, Esq.
ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC
849 West Webster Avenue
Chicago, IL 60614
Phone: (954) 579-0027
Email: matt@almeidalawgroup.com
EXTREME NETWORKS: Steamfitters Sues Over Inflated Stock Price
-------------------------------------------------------------
STEAMFITTERS LOCAL 449 PENSION & RETIREMENT SECURITY FUNDS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. EXTREME NETWORKS, INC., EDWARD B. MEYERCORD III, REMI
THOMAS, CRISTINA TATE, and KEVIN RHODES, Defendants, Case No.
5:24-cv-05102 (N.D. Cal., August 13, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.
According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding Extreme Networks' business,
operations, and financial condition in order to trade Extreme
Networks securities at artificially inflated prices between July
27, 2022, and January 30, 2024. The Defendants' Class Period
statements created the false and misleading impression that Extreme
was experiencing strong organic customer demand, a sustained
backlog, and market share gains that would result in record
revenues over the next several years. Unbeknownst to investors,
however, during the Class Period Extreme was suffering from adverse
client demand trends as its clients had ordered more product from
Extreme than needed in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic to avoid
supply shortages and because of a lack of alternative sourcing
options and thereby cannibalized their Class Period purchasing
needs.
As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, which
caused the precipitous decline in the market value of the company's
common stock, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant economic losses and damages.
Steamfitters Local 449 Pension & Retirement Security Funds is a
multi-employer-defined contribution union pension in California.
Extreme Networks, Inc. is a provider of computer networking
solutions doing business in California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shawn A. Williams, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
Post Montgomery Center
One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 288-4545
Facsimile: (415) 288-4534
- and -
Brian E. Cochran, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101-8498
Telephone: (619) 231-1058
Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
- and -
Richard W. Gonnello, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1832
New York, NY 10170
Telephone: (212) 432-5100
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. disclosed in its Form
10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2024, that
the Company continues to defend itself from a securities class suit
in the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida.
On March 6, 2023, a putative class action was filed in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Florida by a
shareholder of the Company.
The action was consolidated with another action and the
consolidated case is now captioned In re Fidelity National
Information Services, Inc. Securities Litigation.
A lead plaintiff has been appointed, and a consolidated amended
complaint was filed on August 2, 2023.
The consolidated amended complaint names the Company and certain of
its current and former officers as defendants and seeks damages for
alleged violations of federal securities laws in connection with
our disclosures relating to our former Merchant Solutions segment,
including with respect to its valuation, integration, and
synergies.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint with prejudice on September 22, 2023.
The Company intends to vigorously defend this case, but no
assurance can be given as to the ultimate outcome.
Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. is a multinational
corporation which offers a wide range of financial products and
services, most known for its development of Financial Technology,
or FinTech. As of 2020 it offers its solutions in three primary
segments: Merchant Solutions, Banking Solutions, and Capital Market
Solutions.
FORD MOTOR: Faces Guzman Suit Over 18.36% Drop of Stock Price
-------------------------------------------------------------
ALBERT GUZMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, JAMES D. FARLEY, JR.,
and JOHN T. LAWLER, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-12080-LVP-KGA
(E.D. Mich., August 8, 2024) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.
According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding Ford Motor's business,
operations, and prospects in order to trade Ford Motor securities
at artificially inflated prices between April 27, 2022, and July
24, 2024. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that Ford Motor had deficiencies in its quality
assurance of vehicle models since 2022; (2) that, as a result, the
company was experiencing higher warranty costs; (3) that the
company's warranty reserves did not accurately reflect the quality
issues in vehicles sold since 2022; (4) that, as a result, the
company's profitability was reasonably likely to suffer; and (5)
that, as a result of the foregoing, the Defendants' positive
statements about the company's business, operations, and prospects
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
When the truth emerged, Ford Motor's share price fell $2.51, or
18.36 percent, to close at $11.16 per share on July 25, 2024, on
unusually heavy trading volume.
As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, which
caused the precipitous decline in the market value of the company's
common stock, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant economic losses and damages, says the suit.
Ford Motor Company is an automobile manufacturer headquartered in
Dearborn, Michigan. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq.
THE MILLER LAW FIRM
950 W. University Dr., Suite 300
Rochester, MI 48307
Telephone: (248) 841-2200
Facsimile: (248) 652-2852
- and -
Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
- and -
Rebecca Dawson, Esq.
745 5th Avenue, 5th Floor
New York, NY 10151
Telephone: (212) 935-7400
Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
- and -
Frank R. Cruz, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF FRANK R. CRUZ
2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 800
Century City, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 914-5007
FORD MOTOR: Guzman Files Securities Fraud Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") announces that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan, captioned Guzman v. Ford Motor
Company, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-12080-LVP-KGA, on behalf of
persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Ford
Motor Company ("Ford" or the "Company") (NYSE: F) securities
between April 27, 2022 and July 24, 2024, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").
Investors are hereby notified that they have 60 days from the date
of this notice to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this
action.
If you suffered a loss on your Ford investments or would like to
inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss
under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact
information at www.glancylaw.com/cases/Ford-Motor-Company-1/. You
can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at
shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights.
On July 24, 2024, after the market closed, Ford announced second
quarter 2024 financial results, revealing that the Company's
"[p]rofitability was affected by an increase in warranty reserves"
and "higher warranty costs." As a result, the Company also revised
its outlook for full year earnings for its electric vehicle segment
to "reflect[] higher warranty costs than originally planned."
Analysts and journalists, including The Associated Press and The
Washington Post, reported that, in the second quarter, warranty and
recall costs totaled $2.3 billion, $800 million more than the first
quarter and $700 million more than a year prior.
On this news, the Company's share price fell $2.51, or 18.36%, to
close at $11.16 per share on July 25, 2024, on unusually heavy
trading volume.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that the Company had deficiencies in its quality
assurance of vehicle models since 2022; (2) that, as a result, the
Company was experiencing higher warranty costs; (3) that the
Company's warranty reserves did not accurately reflect the quality
issues in vehicles sold since 2022; (4) that, as a result, the
Company's profitability was reasonably likely to suffer; and (5)
that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements
about the Company's business, operations and prospects were
materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all
relevant times.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Ford securities during the
Class Period, you may move the Court no later than 60 days from the
date of this notice to ask the Court to appoint you as lead
plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need not take any action
at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no
action and remain an absent member of the Class.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contacts
Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
Facsimile: (888) 773-9224
www.glancylaw.com
shareholders@glancylaw.com [GN]
FORD MOTOR: Nelson Sues Over Vehicles' EcoBoost Engine Defect
-------------------------------------------------------------
TREVOR NELSON and SARAH NELSON, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 2:24-at-01011 (E.D. Cal., August 7, 2024) is a
class action against the Defendant for violations of California's
Consumer Legal Remedies Act and California's Unfair Competition
Law, breach of express warranty, and breach of implied warranty.
The case arises from the Defendant's design, manufacturing,
distribution, and selling of certain Ford vehicles equipped with
allegedly defective 2.3L EcoBoost engines. The EcoBoost engines in
the Class Vehicles have a critical defect that causes engine
coolant, which is vital to the safety, functionality and longevity
of the engine, to leak into the engine's cylinders. The lack of
coolant caused by the leaks results in overheating, and can, even
at low mileage, result in catastrophic engine failures and
potential engine fires. As a result of Ford's alleged misconduct,
the Plaintiffs and Class members were harmed and suffered actual
damages. Furthermore, the Plaintiffs and Class members have
incurred, and will continue to incur, out-of-pocket, unreimbursed
costs and expenses relating to the engine defect.
Ford Motor Company is an automobile manufacturer headquartered in
Dearborn, Michigan. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq.
Cody R. Padgett, Esq.
Laura E. Goolsby, Esq.
Nate N. Kiyam, Esq.
CAPSTONE LAW APC
1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 556-4811
Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
Email: Tarek.Zohdy@capstonelawyers.com
Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com
Laura.Goolsby@capstonelawyers.com
Nate.Kiyam@capstonelawyers.com
- and -
William A. Kershaw, Esq.
Stuart C. Talley, Esq.
Ian J. Barlow, Esq.
KERSHAWTALLEY BARLOW PC
401 Watt Avenue
Sacramento, CA 95864
Telephone: (916) 779-7000
Facsimile: (916) 244-4829
Email: bill@ktblegal.com
stuart@ktblegal.com
ian@ktblegal.com
- and -
Mark P. Chalos, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
One Nashville Place
150 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1650
Nashville, TN 37219-2423
Telephone: (615) 313-9000
Email: mchalos@lchb.com
- and -
Annika K. Martin, Esq.
Gabriel A. Panek, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10013
Email: akmartin@lchb.com
gpanek@lchb.com
- and -
Russell D. Paul, Esq.
Abigail Gertner, Esq.
Amey J. Park, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 875-3000
Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
Email: rpaul@bm.net
- and -
Patrick Newsom, Esq.
NEWSOM LAW PLC
40 Music Square East
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 251-9500
Email: patrick@newsom.law
- and -
Thomas P. Thrash, Esq.
Will T. Crowder, Esq.
THRASH LAW FIRM
1101 Garland Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
Telephone: (501) 374-1058
Facsimile: (501) 374-2222
Email: tomthrash@thrashlawfirmpa.com
willcrowder@thrashlawfirmpa.com
FOUNDEVER OPERATING: Underpays Customer Service Reps, McCoy Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
PARIS MCCOY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FOUNDEVER OPERATING CORPORATION, f/k/a,
Sitel Operating Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-01442 (D.
Nev., August 7, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for
failure to pay employees for all hours worked, including overtime
wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Nevada
Revised Statute.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a customer service
representative from approximately April 2023 through October 2023.
Foundever Operating Corporation, formerly known as Sitel Operating
Corporation, is a customer experience company doing business in
Nevada. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Esther C. Rodriguez, Esq.
RODRIGUEZ LAW OFFICES, P.C.
10161 Park Run Drive, Suite 150
Las Vegas, NV 89145
Telephone: (702) 320-8400
Facsimile: (702) 320-8401
Email: info@rodriguezlaw.com
- and -
Matthew S. Grimsley, Esq.
Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
The Heritage Building, Suite 250
34555 Chagrin Boulevard
Moreland Hills, OH 44022
Telephone: (216) 696-5000
Facsimile: (216) 696-7005
Email: matthew@lazzarolawfirm.com
anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
FRONTIER AIRLINES: Hartsfield Appeals Suit Dismissal to 10th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JERIYMA HARTSFIELD, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
in the lawsuit entitled Jeriyma Hartsfield, et al., individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Frontier Airlines, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-02093-RMR-KAS,
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.
The suit is brought against the Defendant for contract violation.
On Nov. 29, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which
the Defendant moved to dismiss on Jan. 9, 2024. On same day, the
Defendant also filed a motion to compel arbitration.
On June 14, 2024, Magistrate Judge Kathryn A. Starnella filed a
recommendation to grant the Defendant's motion to compel
arbitration and motion to dismiss class action complaint. She
further recommended that the Plaintiffs' claims be dismissed
without prejudice.
On July 1, 2024, District Judge Regina M. Rodriguez adopted Judge
Starnella's recommendation.
The appellate case is captioned Hartsfield, et al. v. Frontier
Airlines, Case No. 24-1305, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Tenth Circuit, filed on July 31, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants JERIYMA HARTSFIELD, et al., individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Blake Garrett Abbott, Esq.
COPELAND STAIR VALZ & LOVELL
40 Calhoun Street, Suite 400
Charleston, SC 29401
Telephone: (843) 727-0307
- and -
Paul Doolittle, Esq.
POULIN, WILLEY, ANASTOPOULO
32 Ann Street
Charleston, SC 29403
Telephone: (843) 834-4712
Defendant-Appellee FRONTIER AIRLINES, INC. is represented by:
Anna Sweat Day, Esq.
HOLLAND & KNIGHT
1801 California Street, Suite 5000
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: (303) 974-6545
FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Extension of Class Cert Bid Filing Sought
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMBER WILSON, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FRONTIER
COMMUNICATIONS PARENT INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-01418-L-BN (N.D.
Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
-- extending the deadline to move for class certification by six
months, to April 23, 2025, and
-- directing the parties to conduct a Rule 26(f) conference
forthwith.
The extension of time is necessary for the Plaintiffs to conduct
discovery on facts pertinent to class certification and develop a
sufficient record for the Court to conduct a rigorous analysis of
certification issues as required.
Moreover, as the present deadline to move for class certification
is the same as the deadline for Defendant's responsive pleadings,
the Plaintiffs will not be able to address any defenses in their
certification motion without an enlargement of the current
deadline.
The Plaintiff Wilson filed the first Class Action Complaint against
the Defendant on June 10, 2024, seeking to hold the Defendant
liable for its alleged unauthorized disclosure of personally
identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information
("PHI") belonging to her and 751,895 other individuals affected by
the Data Breach.
On July 25, 2024, this Court granted Plaintiff's unopposed motion
to consolidate her case with 16 related actions.
Frontier Communications is an American telecommunications company.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 5, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PGmhPG at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joe Kendall, Esq.
KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC
3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825
Dallas, TX 75219
Telephone: (214) 744-3000
Facsimile: (214) 744-3015
E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com
- and -
Tyler Bean, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
745 Fifth Ave., Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Telephone: (212) 532-1091
E-mail: tbean@sirillp.com
- and -
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
One West Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 525-4100
E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com
- and -
Gary Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com
FUSCHETTO HOME: Jerez Class Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Painters
----------------------------------------------------------------
GUILLERMO ALEJANDRO JEREZ and GUILLERMO ERNESTO JEREZ, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
FUSCHETTO HOME IMPROVEMENTS, LLC and GERARDO MARTIN FUSCHETTO,
Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-05587 (E.D.N.Y., August 9, 2024) is a
class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to
pay overtime wages, failure to pay spread-of-hours compensation,
failure to provide wage notice, failure to provide accurate wage
statements, failure to timely pay wages, failure to pay workers in
accordance with the terms of employment, and illegal deductions
from wages.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a painter from on or
about August 1, 2017, through on or about May 20, 2024.
Fuschetto Home Improvements, LLC is a renovation, demolition and
construction company based in East Meadow, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Benjamin B. Xue, Esq.
Michael S. Romero, Esq.
XUE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
1 School Street, Suite 303A
Glen Cove, NY 11542
Telephone: (516) 595-8887
Email: benjaminxue@xuelaw.com
mromero@xuelaw.com
GENERAC HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Haak Consumer Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Generac Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 6, 2024, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Haak consumer class suit in the Middle
District of Florida.
On October 28, 2022, Daniel Haak filed a putative consumer class
action lawsuit against Generac Power in the Middle District of
Florida.
The complaint alleges breaches of warranty, tort-based, and unjust
enrichment claims against Generac Power relating to the sale and
performance of certain clean energy products, and seeks to recover
damages, including consequential damages, that the plaintiff and
putative class allegedly incurred.
Additional putative class actions were filed by consumers raising
similar claims and allegations in other district court cases.
These putative class actions have been consolidated into a
Multidistrict Litigation, In re: Generac Solar Power Systems
Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation
currently pending in the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Case No.
23-md-3078.
Generac Power and the Company filed their answer to the
consolidated master complaint after the court denied the motion to
dismiss on May 24, 2024. Generac Power and the Company intend to
vigorously defend against the consolidated master complaint.
Generac Holdings Inc. is a global designer and manufacturer of a
wide range of energy technology solutions for power generation
equipment, energy storage systems, energy management devices &
solutions, and other power products and services serving the
residential, light commercial, and industrial markets.
GENERAC HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Oakland County Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Generac Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 6, 2024, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Oakland County securities class suit in
the Eastern District of Wisconsin.
On December 1, 2022, Oakland County Voluntary Employees'
Beneficiary Association and Oakland County Employees' Retirement
System filed a putative securities class action lawsuit against the
Company and certain of its officers in the Eastern District of
Wisconsin.
The court subsequently consolidated a later filed action and
appointed a lead plaintiff.
The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint alleging
violation of federal securities law related to disclosures of
quality issues in Generac Power's clean energy product, accounting
for warranty reserves, reliance on channel partners, and demand for
home standby generators (the "Oakland County Lawsuit").
The Company moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint on October
9, 2023.
The Company disputes the allegations in the operative consolidated
complaint and intends to vigorously defend against the claims in
the consolidated class action.
Generac Holdings Inc. is a global designer and manufacturer of a
wide range of energy technology solutions for power generation
equipment, energy storage systems, energy management devices &
solutions, and other power products and services serving the
residential, light commercial, and industrial markets.
GENERAC HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Walling Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Generac Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 6, 2024, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Walling securities class suit in the
Western District of Wisconsin.
On November 21, 2023, Christopher Walling filed a putative
securities class action lawsuit against the Company and certain of
its officers in the Western District of Wisconsin and was later
appointed lead plaintiff.
The complaint asserts claims for alleged violation of federal
securities law related to statements concerning the Company's
financial outlook and the impact of macroeconomic trends on the
demand for its products.
The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of individuals who
purchased or otherwise acquired common stock between May 3, 2023,
and August 3, 2023, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and
other relief on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the
Company's stock (the "Walling Lawsuit").
The Company moved to dismiss the amended complaint on June 21,
2024, and intends to vigorously defend against the claims in the
amended complaint.
Generac Holdings Inc. is a global designer and manufacturer of a
wide range of energy technology solutions for power generation
equipment, energy storage systems, energy management devices &
solutions, and other power products and services serving the
residential, light commercial, and industrial markets.
GETZ INDUSTRIAL: Faces Liggins FLSA Suit in C.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------
SAMORY LIGGINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GETZ INDUSTRIAL CLEANING INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:24-cv-01275-JBM-JEH (C.D. Ill., August 8, 2024) is a
class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime
wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a non-exempt, hourly
employee from approximately August 2001 through November 2023.
Getz Industrial Cleaning Inc. is an industrial kitchen exhaust
cleaning service company headquartered in Peoria, Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
Kathryn E. Milz, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
One Towne Square, 17th Floor
Southfield, MI 48076
Telephone: (248) 355-0300
Email: kstoops@sommerspc.com
kmilz@sommerspc.com
- and -
Jesse L. Young, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
141 E. Michigan Avenue, Suite 600
Kalamazoo, MI 49007
Telephone: (269) 250-7500
Email: jyoung@sommerspc.com
- and -
Jonathan Melmed, Esq.
Meghan Higday, Esq.
MELMED LAW GROUP, P.C.
1801 Century Park E., Suite 850
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 824-3828
Email: mh@melmedlaw.com
jm@melmedlaw.com
GPB AUTOMOTIVE: Consolidated Kinnie Ma Class Suit Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------
GPB Automotive Portfolio LP disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2024, that the United States
District Court for the Western District of Texas granted the
defendants motion to stay the consolidated Kinnie Ma class suit
pending resolution of the related Criminal Case.
In October 2019, plaintiffs filed a putative class action in the
United States District Court for the Western District of Texas
against GPB, certain GPB-managed limited partnerships, including
the Partnership, for which GPB is the General Partner, AAS, and
Ascendant, as well as certain principals of the GPB-managed limited
partnerships, auditors, broker-dealers, a fund administrator, and
other individuals.
The Complaint alleges violations and/or aiding and abetting
violations of the Texas Securities Act, fraud, substantial
assistance in the commission of fraud, breach of fiduciary duty,
substantial assistance in breach of fiduciary duty, and negligence.
Plaintiffs allege losses in excess of $1.8 billion and are seeking
compensatory damages in an unspecified amount, rescission, fees and
costs, and class certification.
Any potential losses associated with this matter cannot be
estimated at this time.
On June 1, 2022, the Western District of Texas Court consolidated
this matter with Barasch v. GPB Capital, et al. (19-cv-01079); only
the Kinnie Ma case continues, including the claims at issue in the
Barasch v. GPB Capital matter and Loretta Dehay (as described
below), which were consolidated under the Kinnie Ma docket number.
On June 23, 2022, the Court denied Defendants David Gentile and
Jeffry Schneider’s motion to stay the case pending the resolution
of the Criminal Case, U.S. v. Gentile, et al., No. 1:21-CR-54-DG
(E.D.N.Y. Jan. 29, 2021).
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on July 1, 2022, and
defendants filed answers thereafter.
On August 21, 2023, the Court granted the indicted defendants' May
2023 motion to stay proceedings pending resolution of the related
Criminal Case.
On March 21, 2024, the District Judge denied Plaintiffs’ appeal
of the Magistrate Judge's order staying the case, and affirmed the
order granting Defendants’ motion to stay.
GPB Capital Holdings, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and
registered investment adviser, is the Partnership's General Partner
pursuant to the terms of the Fifth Amended and Restated Agreement
of Limited Partnership, pursuant of which, GPB conducts and
manages its businesses. It owned and operated multiple retail
automotive dealerships, including in most cases their related real
estate.
GPB AUTOMOTIVE: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GPB Automotive Portfolio LP disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2024, that the Company
continues to defend itself from the GPB-managed funds consolidated
class suit in the New York Supreme Court.
In May 2020, plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint
in New York Supreme Court, New York County, against GPB, GPB
Holdings, GPB Holdings II, GPB Holdings III, the Partnership, GPB
Cold Storage, GPB Waste Management, David Gentile, Jeffrey Lash,
Macrina Kgil, a/k/a Minchung Kgil, William Edward Jacoby, Scott
Naugle, Jeffry Schneider, AAS, Ascendant, and Axiom Capital
Management.
The Complaint alleges, among other things, that the offering
documents for certain GPB-managed funds, include material
misstatements and omissions.
The plaintiffs are seeking disgorgement, unspecified damages, and
other equitable relief.
Any potential losses associated with this matter cannot be
estimated at this time.
GPB Capital Holdings, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and
registered investment adviser, is the Partnership's General Partner
pursuant to the terms of the Fifth Amended and Restated Agreement
of Limited Partnership, pursuant of which, GPB conducts and manages
its businesses. It owned and operated multiple retail automotive
dealerships, including in most cases their related real estate.
GPB AUTOMOTIVE: Deluca Class Suit Deadlines & Proceedings Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
GPB Automotive Portfolio LP disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2024, that the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York stayed the
Deluca class suit deadlines and proceedings.
In November 2019, plaintiffs filed a putative class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against GPB, GPB Holdings II, LP, the
Partnership, David Gentile, Jeffery Lash, AAS, Axiom, Jeffry
Schneider, Mark Martino, and Ascendant.
The Complaint alleges fraud and material omissions and
misrepresentations to induce investment and losses in excess of
$1.27 billion.
The plaintiffs are seeking disgorgement, compensatory,
consequential, and general damages; disgorgement; rescission;
restitution; punitive damages; and the establishment of a
constructive trust.
While the parties to the action stipulated in 2021 to stay this
action pending resolution of the Criminal Case against defendants
David Gentile and Jeffry Schneider, the Court nevertheless ordered
the stay lifted as to the so-called "Auditor Defendants" in January
2023.
On June 24, 2024, in response to a June 20, 2024 joint letter
request filed by several parties to the case to stay all
proceedings pending the preparation of a formal stipulation of
settlement, a Magistrate Judge in the case entered an Order that
all deadlines and proceedings related to the action are stayed with
respect to all parties until further order of the Court.
Any potential losses associated with this matter cannot be
estimated at this time.
GPB Capital Holdings, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and
registered investment adviser, is the Partnership's General Partner
pursuant to the terms of the Fifth Amended and Restated Agreement
of Limited Partnership, pursuant of which, GPB conducts and
manages
its businesses. It owned and operated multiple retail automotive
dealerships, including in most cases their related real estate.
GRAND CANYON: Settlement in ERISA-Related Suit for Court OK
-----------------------------------------------------------
Grand Canyon Education Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2024, that the ERISA
securities class suit settlement is subject to the approval of the
United States District Court for the District of Delaware.
On May 12, 2020, a securities class action complaint was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware by the City of
Hialeah Employees' Retirement System naming the Company, Brian E.
Mueller and Daniel E. Bachus as defendants for allegedly making
false and materially misleading statements regarding the
circumstances surrounding the Company's sale of Grand Canyon
University (the "University") to a non-profit entity on July 1,
2018 and the subsequent decision of the U.S. Department of
Education to continue to treat the University as a for-profit
institution for education regulatory purposes (collectively, the
"Conversion").
The complaint asserted a putative class period stemming from
January 5, 2018, the date when the Company announced that it had
applied to the University's accreditor for approval of the
Conversion, to January 27, 2020, the date prior to the publication
of a short-seller report focused on the Conversion.
A substantially similar complaint was filed in the same court by
Grant Walsh on June 12, 2020, making similar allegations against
the Company, Mr. Mueller and Mr. Bachus.
Both complaints alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder and sought unspecified monetary relief,
interest, and attorneys’ fees.
On August 13, 2020, the two cases were consolidated and the Fire
and Police Association of Colorado, the Oakland County Employees'
Retirement System and the Oakland County Voluntary Employees'
Beneficiary Association Trust were appointed as lead plaintiffs.
Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint
on October 20, 2020, and the Company filed a motion to dismiss on
December 21, 2020.
On August 23, 2021, the Court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss in its entirety but permitted plaintiffs to file a further
amended complaint to correct deficiencies in the initial complaint.
The plaintiffs filed further amended complaints on September 28,
2021, and January 21, 2022, and the Company filed a further motion
to dismiss on March 15, 2022.
On March 28, 2023, the Company's motion to dismiss was denied.
On January 5, 2024, plaintiffs moved for class action status and
the briefing on plaintiffs' motion commenced.
On March 25, 2024, the parties executed a Stipulation and Agreement
of Settlement to resolve this action. Subsequently, on March 29,
2024, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking entry of an order
preliminarily approving the settlement and establishing notice
procedures, and on May 1, 2024, the Court granted an order
preliminarily approving the settlement and authorizing
dissemination of notice.
The settlement remains subject to final approval by the Court.
The Company's insurance carriers will fund the entire settlement
amount.
Grand Canyon Education, Inc. is a publicly traded education
services company dedicated to serving colleges and universities.
HEALTHEQUITY INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Booth Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
COLIN BOOTH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HEALTHEQUITY, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:24-cv-00553-DBB (D. Utah, Aug. 1, 2024) is an action arising out
of the recent data breach involving Defendant, a financial
technology company that specializes in administering health savings
accounts and other consumer-directed benefits.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant failed to
properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable
information that it collected and maintained as part of its regular
business practices, including Plaintiff's and Class Members' names,
addresses, phone numbers, employee IDs, employers, dependent
information, payment card information, and Social Security numbers
(collectively defined herein as "PII").
The Defendant failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class
Members PII –– and failed to even encrypt or redact this highly
sensitive information. This unencrypted, unredacted PII was
compromised due to Defendant's negligent and/or careless acts and
omissions and its utter failure to protect customers' sensitive
data. Hackers targeted and obtained Plaintiff's and Class Members'
PII because of its value in exploiting and stealing the identities
of Plaintiff and Class Members. The present and continuing risk of
identity theft and fraud to victims of the Data Breach will remain
for their respective lifetimes, says the suit.
HealthEquity, Inc. provides technology-enabled services platforms
that allow consumers to make healthcare saving and spending
decisions. The Company offers consumers to access their
tax-advantaged healthcare savings, compare treatment options, pay
healthcare bills, receive personalized benefit and clinical
information, and earn wellness incentives. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason R. Hull, Esq.
MARSHALL OLSON & HULL, PC
Ten Exchange Place, Suite 350
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Tel: (801) 456-7655
Email: jhull@mohtrial.com
- and -
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON P HILLIPS
G ROSSMAN PLLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Tel: (866) 252-0878
gklinger@milberg.com
HEALTHEQUITY INC: Kukitz Sues Over Customers' Compromised Info
--------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS KUKITZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HEALTHEQUITY INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:24-cv-00567-DBB (D. Utah, August 7, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for negligence and negligence per se, unjust
enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of implied
contract.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected
health information (PHI) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated
individuals stored on its network systems following a data breach
that occurred on or about March 9, 2024. The Defendant also failed
to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals
about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the
Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through
access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties,
says the suit.
HealthEquity Inc., is an American financial technology and business
services company with its principal place of business in Draper,
Utah. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rachel Sykes, Esq.
PEARSON BUTLER
1802 S. Jordan Parkway, Suite 200
South Jordan, UT 84095
Telephone: (801) 495-4104
Email: rachel@pearsonbutler.com
- and -
Jean S. Martin, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN
COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 559-4908
Email: jeanmartin@ForThePeople.com
IDC TECHNOLOGIES: Radus Sues Over Breach of Contractual Obligations
-------------------------------------------------------------------
RADUS TEK SERVICES, INC., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. IDC TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a
California corporation; PRATEEK GATTANI, an individual; TATA
CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD., an Indian corporation; and DOES 1-20,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 5:24-cv-04793 (N.D. Cal., August 7,
2024) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of
contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, services rendered account stated, open book account,
promissory estoppel, intentional misrepresentation, negligent
hiring of an independent contractor, negligent supervision of an
independent contractor, negligent retention of an independent
contractor, negligent misrepresentation, and violation of
California's Business and Professions Code.
The case arises from the Defendants' failure to fulfill their
contractual obligations in connection with Tata Consultancy
Services' preferred partner program. According to the complaint,
TCS's preferred partner, IDC Technologies, is involved in a bribery
scandal and rather than addressing the scandal transparently and
informing all affected parties, Defendant TCS opted to quietly
blacklist several preferred partners by simply allowing the
existing contracts to expire without renewal and then attempted to
conceal the scandal's details. By failing to inform the Plaintiff
and other similarly situated businesses, it allowed Defendant TCS
to profit by not having any customer projects disrupted. Carrying
on with business as usual gave Defendant TCS time to replace any
personnel supplied by affected preferred partners and then simply
state that it was not renewing the contract with the affected
preferred partners. As a result of the Defendants' misconduct, the
Plaintiff and Class members suffered damages, says the suit.
Radus Tek Services, Inc. is global professional services firm based
in New Jersey.
IDC Technologies Inc. is a staffing agency with its principal place
of business in Milpitas, California.
Tata Consultancy Services, Ltd. is a provider of information
technology services and consulting services based in Mumbai, India.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Xhavin Sinha, Esq.
SINHA LAW
3901 Lick Mill Blvd., Ste. 356
Santa Clara, CA 95054
Telephone: (408) 791-0432
INNOVATIVE INDUSTRIAL: Continues to Defend Mallozzi Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Innovative Industrial Properties Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q
Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2024, that the
Company continues to defend itself from the Mallozzi securities
class suit in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey.
On April 25, 2022, a federal securities class action lawsuit was
filed against the Company and certain of its officers. The case was
named Michael V. Mallozzi, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc., Paul
Smithers, Catherine Hastings and Andy Bui, Case No. 2-22-cv-02359,
and was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey.
The lawsuit was purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's common stock and alleges that the firm and certain of its
officers made false or misleading statements regarding its business
in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), SEC Rule 10b-5, and Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act.
According to the filed complaint, the plaintiff is seeking an
undetermined amount of damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs
and other relief on behalf of the putative classes of all persons
who acquired shares of the Company's common stock between May 7,
2020 and April 13, 2022.
On September 29, 2022, an Amended Class Action Complaint was filed
under the same Case Number, adding as defendants Alan D. Gold and
Benjamin C. Regin, and asserting causes of action under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
According to the Amended Class Action Complaint, the plaintiff is
seeking an undetermined amount of damages, interest, attorneys'
fees and costs and other relief on behalf of the putative classes
of all persons who acquired shares of the Company's common stock
between August 7, 2020 and August 4, 2022.
On December 1, 2022, defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Class
Action Complaint.
On September 19, 2023, the court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint without prejudice.
On October 19, 2023, a Second Amended Class Action Complaint was
filed under the same Case Number, and asserted causes of action
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
According to the Second Amended Class Action Complaint, the
plaintiff is seeking an undetermined amount of damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and costs and other relief on behalf of the
putative classes of all persons who acquired shares of the
Company's common stock between August 7, 2020 and August 4, 2022.
On December 18, 2023, defendants moved to dismiss the Second
Amended Class Action Complaint; on February 1, 2024, plaintiff
responded with their opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss
the Second Amended Class Action Complaint; and on March 1, 2024,
defendants replied to plaintiff’s response.
It is possible that similar lawsuits may yet be filed in the same
or other courts that name the same or additional defendants.
The Company intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously.
Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc. is an internally-managed
real estate investment trust focused on the acquisition, ownership
and management of specialized industrial properties leased to
experienced, state-licensed operators for their regulated cannabis
facilities.
INTERACTIVE LIFE: Court Denies Browsewrap Agreements to Arbitrate
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alejandro Moreno & Cameron Gates, writing for Class Action Defense
Strategy, report that consent is generally a precondition to an
enforceable contract. Some website operators have attempted to
enforce arbitration clauses set forth in the terms and conditions
listed on their websites just because a consumer visited the
website -- a practice commonly known as a "browsewrap" agreement.
Prior California case law has disapproved of browsewrap agreements
to arbitrate. In Weeks v. Interactive Life Forms, LLC (2024) 100
Cal.App.5th 1077, the California Court of Appeal held that visiting
a website, without any indicia of affirmative consent to its terms
of use, is insufficient to create a binding agreement to arbitrate.
The Court further confirmed that California's precedent on this
point is not preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA").
In Weeks, a consumer sued an online vendor alleging the vendor
falsely advertised and misrepresented products sold on its website.
The vendor moved to compel arbitration based on a dispute
resolution provision contained in the website's hyperlinked "terms
of use," which appeared in small gray text at the bottom right
corner of every page of the website. The vendor moved to compel
arbitration. The trial court denied the motion noting that the
vendor failed to show that the plaintiff had assented to the
"inconspicuous" terms of use.
The vendor appealed the denial of the motion to compel arbitration
arguing that: (i) the Court should overrule prior precedent
disapproving of browsewrap as insufficient to demonstrate consumer
assent to arbitration and (ii) the FAA was inconsistent with and
thus preempted California law refusing to enforce browsewrap
arbitration agreements.
The Court of Appeal rejected both arguments. In line with prior
authority, the vendor's browsewrap arbitration agreement was not
enforceable because there was insufficient evidence of the
consumer's assent to the terms of use on the website. While the
Court did not categorically reject browsewrap agreements, it
recognized they are generally disfavored because they "do[] not
require the user to take any unambiguous action to agree to the
terms of use[.]" Accordingly, courts must determine whether the
website (e.g., its design and content) puts a "reasonably prudent
user" on inquiry notice of the terms of the contract -- a high
standard that the vendor failed to satisfy. The vendor also failed
to introduce sufficient empirical evidence to show that a
reasonably prudent user in today's society would expect a
browsewrap agreement to govern his or her use of a website.
The Court of Appeal also rejected the vendor's "novel" claim that
the FAA preempted California law disfavoring browsewrap agreements.
Under the FAA, courts must "ordinarily defer[] to state law on
questions of contract formation" unless such state law improperly
discriminates against arbitration. California's rejection of
browsewrap agreements to arbitrate did not discriminate against
arbitration because any contract would be subject to the same
challenge. Merely visiting a website is generally not sufficient to
show mutual assent to assume any contractual obligations.
It is easy to see how the result would have been different if the
vendor had recorded its customer's affirmative consent to the terms
and conditions on its website when the customer placed an order.
The Court of Appeal's decision in Weeks serves as a reminder for
any business that sells online to periodically review its practices
with respect to its online customers to ensure that such practices
comply with applicable law. [GN]
IONQ INC: Defeo Appeals Consolidated Suit Dismissal to 4th Circuit
------------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY DEFEO, et al. are taking an appeal from court orders in the
lawsuit entitled Anthony Defeo, et al., individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. IonQ, Inc., et
al., Defendants, Case No. 8:22-cv-01306-DLB, in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Maryland.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
bring this complaint against the Defendants for making materially
false and misleading statements about IonQ's business, operations,
and prospects to artificially increase stock price in violation of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
On Feb. 7, 2023, the Defendants filed motions to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' consolidated amended class action complaint, which the
Court granted through an Order entered by Judge Deborah L. Boardman
on Sept. 29, 2023.
On Oct. 26, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file
consolidated amended class action complaint and to seek post
judgment relief, which the Court denied on July 10, 2024. The Court
held that the Plaintiffs fail to adequately plead loss causation
for their Section 14(a) and Section 10(b) claims. Accordingly,
amendment would be futile.
The appellate case is captioned Anthony Defeo, et al. v. IonQ,
Inc., et al., Case No. 24-1709, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on July 30, 2024. [BN]
JAGUAR LAND: Collects Drivers' Data Without Consent, Hupper Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
GAIL J. HUPPER and WILLIAM H. WOOD, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JAGUAR LAND ROVER
NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-12054-PBS (D.
Mass., August 9, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for
violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, Chapter 93A and other
state consumer protection acts, and for tortious interference,
invasion of privacy, and unjust enrichment.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged collection of
consumers' driver behavior and other personal data through computer
software installed in its automobile vehicles and the sharing
and/or sale of that data without notice to, knowledge of, or
consent by consumers. The Plaintiffs and other class members
suffered actual harm and the risk of future harm as a result of the
Defendant's alleged illicit activities, including but not limited
to invasion of their privacy interest in their own data, loss of
control over their own data, the sharing and/or sale of their own
data without compensation, and adverse credit reporting and
impaired credit scores.
Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC is an automobile manufacturer
based in Mahwah, New Jersey. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
John Peter Zavez, Esq.
Noah Rosmarin, Esq.
Brendan M. Bridgeland, Esq.
ADKINS, KELSTON & ZAVEZ, P.C.
90 Canal Street, Fourth Floor
Boston, MA 02114
Telephone: (617) 367-1040
Email: jzavez@akzlaw.com
nrosmarin@akzlaw.com
bbridgeland@akzlaw.com
JERICO PICTURES: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Burgen Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
YVETTE BURGEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JERICO PICTURES, INC. d/b/a NATIONAL PUBLIC
DATA, Defendant, Case No. 0:24-cv-61384-WPD (S.D. Fla., Aug. 1,
2024) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to
properly secure and safeguard sensitive information of its clients'
customers.
According to the complaint, the Data Breach was a direct result of
the Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable
cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect
consumers' PII from a foreseeable and preventable cyber-attack.
The Defendant maintained, used, and shared the PII in a reckless
manner. In particular, the PII was used and transmitted by the
Defendant in a condition vulnerable to cyberattacks. Upon
information and belief, the mechanism of the cyberattack and
potential for improper disclosure of the Plaintiff's and Class
Members' PII was a known risk to Defendant, and thus, the Defendant
was on notice that failing to take steps necessary to secure the
PII from those risks left that property in a dangerous condition,
says the suit.
Jerico Pictures is a studio that provides consultancy services for
production of film and television content. [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
JERICO PICTURES: Jones Sues Over Data Breach
--------------------------------------------
James Thomas Jones, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. JERICO PICTURES, INC. d/b/a NATIONAL PUBLIC DATA, Case
No. 0:24-cv-61412-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Aug. 3, 2024), is brought
relating to the data breach that, upon information and belief,
occurred in or around April of 2024 involving Defendant NPD
(otherwise known as the "Data Breach").
The Plaintiff contends that Defendant failed to adequately secure
and safeguard the personally identifiable information that it
accumulated and maintained as part of its standard business
practices. Upon information and belief, such sensitive information
includes, but is not limited to, Plaintiff's and Class Members'
full names; current and past addresses (spanning at least the last
three decades); Social Security numbers; information about parents,
siblings, and other relatives (including some who have been
deceased for nearly 20 years); and/or other personal information
(collectively defined herein as "PII").
The Defendant scrapes the PII of potentially billions of
individuals from non-public sources. At no time did Plaintiff and
Class Members knowingly provide Defendant with their PII. Defendant
instead took possession of their PII from non-public sources. To
make matters even worse, Defendant did this without Plaintiff's and
Class Members' consent or knowledge.
By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the
PII of Plaintiff and Class Members, Defendant assumed legal and
equitable duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that
information from unauthorized access and intrusion, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff was alerted by Experian that his PII had been
compromised from the "nationalpublicdata.com" breach.
The Defendant is a background check company that allows customers
to search billions of records.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (954) 332-4200
Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com
- and -
Isabel C. DeMarco, Esq.
MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
119 E. Court Street, Suite 530
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Phone: (513) 665-0206
Email: idemarco@msdlegal.com
JERICO PICTURES: Wilcox Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII
----------------------------------------------------------
Lowanda Wilcox, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. JERICO PICTURES, INC. d/b/a NATIONAL PUBLIC DATA, Case
No. 0:24-cv-61413-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Aug. 3, 2024), is brought
against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard
the personally identifiable information that it collected and
maintained as part of its regular business practices.
Such sensitive information includes, but is not limited to,
Plaintiff's and Class Members' full names; current and past
addresses (spanning at least the last three decades); Social
Security numbers; information about parents, siblings, and other
relatives (including some who have been deceased for nearly 20
years); and/or other personal information (collectively defined
herein as "PII").
This class action arises out of the data breach that upon
information and belief occurred in or around April of 2024
involving Defendant NPD (the "Data Breach"), a background check
company that allows its customers to search billions of records
with instant results
Upon information and belief, Defendant scrapes the PII of
potentially billions of individuals from non-public sources.
Plaintiff and Class Members at no point knowingly provided their
PII to Defendant and Defendant instead scraped their PII from
non-public sources. To make matters even worse, Defendant did this
without Plaintiff's and Class Members' consent or knowledge.
By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the
PII of Plaintiff and Class Members, Defendant assumed legal and
equitable duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that
information from unauthorized access and intrusion, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff Wilcox received a notification from her identity
theft protection service provider notifying her that her PII was
compromised.
Jerico Pictures, Inc. d/b/a National Public Data ("NPD") is a
background search company that "many different businesses use to
obtain criminal records, background checks and more all via XML
integration."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
Steven Sukert, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (954) 332-4200
Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com
sukert@kolawyers.com
JP MORGAN: Updated Joint Case Management Statement Due Nov. 27
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Turner v. JPMorgan Chase &
Co., et al., Case No. 4:22-cv-05827 (N.D. Cal., Filed Oct. 6,
2022), the Hon. Judge entered an order that:
-- The deadline to amend the pleadings to Sept. 12, 2024
add parties, claims or defenses is
extended to:
-- The parties shall file an updated joint Nov. 27, 2024
case management statement by:
The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Injury -- Other
Personal Injury.
JPMorgan Chase is an American multinational finance company.[CC]
KENTUCKY: Healey May Supplement 3rd Amended Suit v. Metro Gov't
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled JACOB HEALEY, et al., PLAINTIFFS v.
LOUISVILLE METRO GOVERNMENT, et al., DEFENDANTS, Case No.
3:17-cv-00071-RGJ-RSE (W.D. Ky.), Judge Rebecca Grady Jennings of
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky,
Louisville Division, grants the Plaintiffs' motion to supplement
their third amended complaint.
The Plaintiff Class ("Class") moves to supplement the Third Amended
Complaint to add Joshua Yates and Paula Thompson as additional
named class representatives. The Defendants responded and the Class
replied.
The Class brings claims against Louisville-Jefferson County Metro
Government, Mark Bolton, Director of the Louisville Metro
Department of Corrections ("LMDC"), Arnetta Al-Amin, Coordinator of
LMDC's records department, and Dwayne Clark, Chief of Staff of
LMDC, alleging violations of state law and seeking relief under 42
U.S.C. Section 1983 for violating the Fourth, Eighth, and
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
The Class alleges that the Defendants regularly imprison, detain or
incarcerate persons longer than ordered by Courts of the
Commonwealth of Kentucky, and under conditions that violate the
orders of such Courts. Such actions have been perpetrated by the
Defendants even though there exists no objectively reasonable legal
grounds or justification for denying such persons timely and proper
release from incarceration.
On Jan. 15, 2021, the Court certified a class, Counts I, II, III,
IV, V, VII, and VIII of the Third Amended Complaint based on two
subclasses, defined as:
Subclass A: All persons who from Feb. 3, 2016, to present
were imprisoned in the Louisville Metro Department of
Corrections for more than four hours after satisfaction of
their term of imprisonment set by prior court order due to
the failure of the Defendants to implement and maintain an
adequate process for timely releasing imprisoned inmates.
Subclass B: All persons who from Feb. 3, 2016, to present
were detained in the Metro Government Department of
Corrections for more than twelve hours after receipt of an
order directing their release due to the failure of the
Defendants to implement and maintain an adequate process for
timely releasing detained inmates.
The primary distinction between the two subclasses is Subclass A
pertains to individuals imprisoned more than four hours after they
were set to be released and Subclass B pertains to individual, who
were detained more than twelve hours after they were set to be
released.
Named Plaintiffs Jarvis and Melloan are members of Subclass A,
while named Plaintiffs Healey and Cynthia Yates are members of
Subclass B. After the class was certified, Cynthia Yates was
dismissed as a party pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(a)(1) due to
her death. Also, since that time, it appears that Jarvis cannot be
found.
The Class now seeks to supplement the Third Amended Complaint to
add two additional class representatives: Joshua Yates and Paula
Thompson. The proposed supplement to the Third Amended Complaint
would add allegations as to these two individuals.
The Class's motion makes no mention of which subclass Yates and
Thompson would fall, but it appears Yates would be in Subclass B as
he was ordered released by a Judge, while Thompson would be in
Subclass A as she was released after completing a court ordered
sentence.
The Defendants object to the Class's motion to supplement their
complaint to add two additional class representatives. First, the
Defendants point out that the Class gives no reason for seeking to
add two additional named Plaintiffs. Second, the Defendants object
that the motion is too late in the litigation, filed seven years
after the original complaint and more than five years since the
most recent, Third Amended Complaint. Finally, the Defendants state
the current class representatives are adequate and, thus, no legal
basis exists to add additional class representatives.
In reply, the Class concedes that the two currently named
representatives are adequate to represent the interests of the
Class. It also states, for the first time, that it seeks to add
Yates and Thompson to assist with settlement.
This is the sole basis of the Class's motion, Judge Jennings notes.
The Class argues the Defendants cannot demonstrate they would be
prejudiced by the amendment.
As an initial matter, Judge Jennings says the Defendants are
correct that the Class's motion provides no reason for seeking to
add two additional class representatives. The grounds for the
motion are provided for the first time in the reply. This could be
unfair to the Defendants, as they did not have a chance to respond
to an argument that should have been raised in the motion.
However, Judge Jennings notes, a review of the parties' joint
status reports reveals that the Defendants have been aware of
Cynthia Yates's death and Jarvis's disappearance, as well as the
Class' intent to replace these representatives with members of the
existing class. The Defendants have maintained in the joint status
reports that they object to Cynthia Yates and Jarvis being
replaced. Thus, it does not appear the Defendants are unfairly
surprised by the Class' motion.
Thus, the Court considers the factors for allowing a party to
supplement the complaint. As noted, it has been over five years
since the Third Amended Complaint was filed in this matter on Nov.
28, 2018. Discovery was set to close on Aug. 1, 2024. The case was
set for mediation on Aug. 5, 2024. But the Court sees no unfair
prejudice to the Defendants as the parties advised in their most
recent status report that the two remaining named Plaintiffs have
yet to be deposed and additional discovery issues remain. Thus, if
the case does not resolve through mediation, discovery will likely
need to be extended.
Based on the parties' status report, Judge Jennings says the
Defendants have had notice of the Class's intent two add two named
Plaintiffs, and it does not appear the Class has waited an
unreasonable amount of time to seek two new named Plaintiffs.
Additionally, futility is not in issue as the two individuals
sought to be added are already members of the Class. The Class
believes addition of two additional named Plaintiffs will assist in
settlement.
Thus, all factors considered, Judge Jennings holds justice requires
allowing the supplement to add as named class representatives
Joshua Yates and Paula Thompson, as well as the circumstances under
which their claims arose.
Accordingly, the Court being sufficiently advised, orders that the
Plaintiff Class's motion to supplement the Third Amended Complaint
to add Joshua Yates and Paula Thompson as additional named class
representatives is granted.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion & Order dated
July 26, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/3uvesc7b from
PacerMonitor.com.
KIMCHICHIC BEAUTY: Bishop Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CEDRIC BISHOP, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KIMCHICHIC BEAUTY LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-06047 (S.D.N.Y., August 8, 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://kimchichicbeauty.com/, contains access barriers which
hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its
online goods, content, and services offered to the public through
the website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but
not limited to: lack of alternative text (alt-text), 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.
Kimchichic Beauty LLC is a company that sells online goods and
services, doing business in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, 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: Michael@Gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
KIRIN TRANSPORTATION: Judge Recommends Class Cert Bid Denial
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as QIAN WANG, a/k/a SARAH
WANG, ZHANWEN CHI, on their own behalf and on behalf of others
similarly situated, TIANDE WANG, YA XU, and LU YANG, v. KIRIN
TRANSPORTATION INC., d/b/a KIRIN TRANSPORTATION, QIANG CHEN, a/k/a
FRANK CHEN, MARRIANA YUHUA SONG, a/k/a NANCY SONG, and QIUXIANG
SHI, a/k/a QIU XIANG SHI, Case No. 1:20-cv-05410-OEM-TAM
(E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Taryn Merkl recommends that the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification be denied.
The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to establish that
the proposed class satisfies the requirements of numerosity,
commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation.
The Court also finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to establish
predominance as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(b)(3).
Objections to this report and recommendation must be filed, with a
courtesy copy sent to the Honorable Orelia E. Merchant, at 225
Cadman Plaza East, Brooklyn, New York 11201, within 14 days of
filing. Failure to file objections within the specified time waives
the right to appeal both before the district court and appellate
courts.
Failure to file objections within the specified time waives the
right to appeal the District Court's order.
SO ORDERED
The Plaintiffs seek class certification under Rule 23 for claims
brought under the FLSA and the NYLL for the following class:
"All Commuter Van Drivers, Billings, Payroll, and Sanitation
Workers and other employees who were employed or are currently
employed by the Defendants during the six years immediately
preceding the initiation of this action, or Nov. 6, 2014, up to
the date of the decision on this motion."
As noted above, the Plaintiffs Qian Wang and Zhanwen Chi initiated
this action on Nov. 6, 2020. Opt-in Plaintiff Tiande Wang consented
to join the litigation on Dec. 2, 2020.
Kirin is a Queens-based private transportation service for
seniors.
A copy of the Court's report and recommendation dated Aug. 2, 2024,
is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TtARp1 at no extra charge.[CC]
LAKES/NATIONAL EMERGENCY: Faces Muniz Wage-and-Suit in D. Mass.
---------------------------------------------------------------
CARLY MUNIZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LAKES/NATIONAL EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS, INC.,
JOSE AGUIRRE, and JENNIFER MOORE, Defendants, Case No.
1:24-cv-12050 (D. Mass., August 9, 2024) is a class action against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and failure to pay earned wages
pursuant to Massachusetts General Law.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a physician's assistant
at Holyoke Medical Center, located in Holyoke, Massachusetts from
in or around November 2017 until June 30, 2024.
Lakes/National Emergency Physicians, Inc. is a staffing agency with
its principal place of business located at 39 Main Street, Tiburon,
California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raven Moeslinger, Esq.
Nicholas F. Ortiz, Esq.
Matthew Patton, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF NICHOLAS F. ORTIZ, P.C.
One Boston Place, Suite 2600
Boston, MA 02108
Telephone: (617) 338-9400
Email: mdp@mass-legal.com
LEGACY FLEXO: Esquibel Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Supervisors
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AUSTIN ESQUIBEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LEGACY FLEXO CORP., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-01000-WCG (E.D. Wis., August 8, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages and failure
to pay an agreed-upon wage in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a supervisor from
approximately February 2024 until approximately June 2024.
Legacy Flexo Corp. is a flexographic printing services provider
based in Green Bay, Wisconsin. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James A. Walcheske, Esq.
Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
David M. Potteiger, Esq.
WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240
Brookfield, WI 53005
Telephone: (262) 780-1953
Facsimile: (262) 565-6469
Email: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com
LHNH LAVISTA: Class Certification Bid in Lanz Suit Due August 28
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEXANDER LANZ, et al., v.
LHNH LAVISTA LLC, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-05344-LMM (N.D. Ga.),
the Hon. Judge entered Leigh Martin May an order granting the
parties' Joint Motion for Class Certification Briefing Schedule.
The following class certification briefing schedule is imposed:
-- Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is due on Aug. 28,
2024.
-- Defendants' response to said motion is due within 30 days of
the filing of the class certification motion.
-- Plaintiffs' reply to Defendants' response is due within 30
days
of the filing of said response.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 5, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SpF7Mx at no extra
charge.[CC]
LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), announces that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, captioned Patel v. Lululemon
Athletica Inc., et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-06033, on behalf of
persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Lululemon
Athletica Inc. ("Lululemon" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: LULU)
securities between December 7, 2023 and July 24, 2024, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act").
Investors are hereby notified that they have 60 days from the date
of this notice to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this
action.
If you suffered a loss on your Lululemon investments or would like
to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss
under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact
information at www.glancylaw.com/cases/Lululemon-Athletica-Inc/.
You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at
shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights.
On March 21, 2024, after the market closed, the Company issued a
press release announcing its financial results for the fourth
quarter and full year ended January 28, 2024, revealing the
Company's growth was stagnating in the Americas region.
Specifically, net revenue in the Americas grew 9% in the quarter
and 12% in the fiscal year 2023, short of the 29% growth in the
year-ago period and 12% growth in the previous quarter. On this
news, the Company's share price fell $75.65, or 15.80%, to close at
$403.19 per share on March 22, 2024, on unusually heavy trading
volume.
Then, on July 24, 2024, Bloomberg reported that several analysts
posited Lululemon's inventory allocation seemed inconsistent,
particularly as to the Breezethrough legging launched earlier that
month, both in-store and online. On this news, the Company's stock
price fell $9.31, or 3.3%, to close at $272.06 per share on July
24, 2024, on unusually heavy trading volume.
Then, on July 25, 2024, before the market opened, Bloomberg
reported that a Lululemon spokesperson told the agency that the
Company "made the decision to pause on sales [of the Breezethrough
yoga wear] for now to make any adjustments necessary to deliver the
best possible product experience." On this news, the Company's
share price fell $24.74, or 9.09%, to close at $247.32 per share on
July 25, 2024, on unusually heavy trading volume.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that the Company was struggling with inventory
allocation issues and color palette execution issues; (2) that, as
a result, the Company's Breezethrough product launch
underperformed; (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company
was experiencing stagnating sales in the Americas region; and (4)
that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were
materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Lululemon securities during
the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than 60 days from
the date of this notice to ask the Court to appoint you as lead
plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need not take any action
at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no
action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you wish to
learn more about this action, or if you have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire,
of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles California
90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contacts
Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
Facsimile: (888) 773-9224
www.glancylaw.com
shareholders@glancylaw.com [GN]
LYNBROOK 5 INC: Fails to Properly Pay Servers, Quirke Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
ROSS QUIRKE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LYNBROOK 5 INC. d/b/a JOHNNY McGOREY'S
LYNBROOK, JFMB REST. INC. d/b/a McGOREY'S MASSAPEQUA, and DAVE
BAKER, MARY BAKER, and JOANNE FONTAINE, Defendants, Case No.
1:24-cv-05585 (E.D.N.Y., August 9, 2024) is a class action against
the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the New York Labor Law including failure to pay minimum wages,
failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay spread-of-hours
compensation, failure to provide wage notice, failure to provide
accurate wage statements, and retaliation.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a server at Johnny
McGorey's pub from May 2024 through July 2024.
Lynbrook 5, Inc., doing business as McGorey's, is a company that
owns and operates McGorey's pub in Massapequa, New York.
JFMB Rest, Inc., doing business as Johnny McGorey's, is a company
that owns and operates Johnny McGorey's pub in Lynbrook, New York.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq.
JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP
32 Broadway, Suite 601
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 688-5640
Facsimile: (212) 981-9587
M. BERKSON LLC: Liu Files Suit in N.D. Texas
--------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against M. Berkson LLC. The
case is styled as Yan Liu, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated v. M. Berkson LLC doing business as: Newborn
Advantage Surrogacy, Mindy B. Berkson, Santa Monica Fertility
Center, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-01999-K (N.D. Tex., Aug. 6, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud for Tort/Non-Motor
Vehicle.
M. Berkson LLC doing business as Newborn Advantage --
https://www.newbornadvantage.com/ -- is the first surrogacy agency
in the world that focuses on an optimized birthing environment and
a high-quality genetic selection process.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
CK Lee, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP LLC
148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10011
Phone: (212) 465-1188
Fax: (212) 465-1181
Email: cklee@leelitigation.com
MDL 2873: Faces Trail Suit Over Side Effects of Using AFFF Products
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MARK TRAIL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing
Company); ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF
CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL
CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS,
INC.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS,
INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX
CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; NATION FORD
CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; THE
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP; UTC FIRE &
SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC., Defendants, Case No.
2:24-cv-04394-RMG (D.S.C., August 12, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendants for products liability; strict products
liability; negligence; concealment misrepresentation and fraud;
negligence per se; past and continuing trespass and battery; and
negligent, intentional, and reckless infliction of emotional
distress.
The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the
Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous
film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn military and/or civilian
firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would
foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of
and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human
health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to
toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with liver cancer, says the
suit.
The Trail case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
BASF Corporation is a chemicals company based in New Jersey.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with its principal place of business at 1007
Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a fire protection system supplier in West
Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
The Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc. is a manufacturer of
security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tessa G. Cuneo, Esq.
Alexandra W. Robertson, Esq.
ASK LLP
2600 Eagan Woods Drive, Suite 400
St. Paul, MN 55121
Telephone: (651) 406-9665
Facsimile: (651) 406-9676
Email: tcuneo@askllp.com
arobertson@askllp.com
MEDICAL MUTUAL: Unlawfully Ends Insureds' Coverage, Peters Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
BEVERLY PETERS and TIM PETERS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MEDICAL MUTUAL OF OHIO,
RESERVE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, and KEMPER LIFE AND HEALTH
COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-06949 (N.D. Ill., August 7,
2024) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of
contract and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing.
The case arises from the Defendants' practice of terminating
insureds' coverage while receiving ongoing benefits for their
claim. Moreover, the Defendants did not provide reason or
explanation for the termination.
Medical Mutual of Ohio is an Ohio corporation with its principal
place of business in Cleveland, Ohio.
Reserve National Insurance Company is an insurance provider with
its principal place of business in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
Kemper Life and Health Company is an insurance provider with its
principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Brian K. Murphy, Esq.
MURRAY MURPHY MOUL + BASIL LLP
1114 Dublin Road
Columbus, OH 43215
Telephone: (614) 488-0400
Facsimile: (614) 488-0401
Email: murphy@mmmb.com
- and -
Robert G. Methvin, Jr., Esq.
James M. Terrell, Esq.
P. Michael Yancey, Esq.
Courtney C. Gipson, Esq.
METHVIN, TERRELL, YANCEY, STEPHENS & MILLER, P.C.
2201 Arlington Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 939-0199
Facsimile: (205) 939-0399
Email: rgm@mtattorneys.com
jterrell@mtattorneys.com
myancey@mtattorneys.com
cgipson@mtattorneys.com
MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Thrower Sues Over Unlawful Telemarketing Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gene Thrower, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
MOLINA HEALTHCARE, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-00785 (M.D. Fla., Aug. 3,
2024), is brought to enforce the consumer-privacy provisions of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("the TCPA") alleging that the
Defendant made telemarketing calls to numbers on the National Do
Not Call Registry, including his own.
The Plaintiff also alleges that by making such calls and based on
the fact that Molina used automated systems to make telemarketing
calls into Florida, Molina has violated the provisions of the
Florida Telephone Solicitations Act. Because telemarketing
campaigns typically use technology capable of generating thousands
of similar calls per day, Plaintiff sues on behalf of a proposed
nationwide class of other persons who received similar calls. A
class action is the best means of obtaining redress for the
Defendant's illegal telemarketing and is consistent both with the
private right of action afforded by the TCPA and FTSA, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff received telemarketing calls from the Defendant.
Molina Healthcare is an insurance company that offers healthcare
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
Rachel E. Kaufman
KAUFMAN P.A.
237 S Dixie Hwy, 4th Floor
Coral Gables, FL 33133
Phone: (305) 469-5881
Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com
rachel@kaufmanpa.com
MOON ACTIVE: Allows Real Money for In-Game Purchases, Wick Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
ALISHA WICK AND SHAWNTE FLORES, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MOON ACTIVE LTD.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-02175-WBS-DMC (E.D. Cal., August 13,
2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the
California Business and Professions Code and the Washington
Consumer Protection Act and for unjust enrichment.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged unfair, deceptive, and
unlawful acts or practices of allowing players to pay real-world
currency to gamble on winning in-game items such as Chests and
Packs for the video game Coin Master. The Defendant also used
undisclosed "dark patterns" that steered players towards making
such purchases and making it particularly difficult to advance in
the game otherwise, as well as refusing to provide refunds to users
who made in-game purchases. The Plaintiffs and other consumers, as
well as the general public, have been impacted or injured as a
result of the Defendant's practices, including, but not limited to,
having suffered out-of-pocket loss, says the suit.
Moon Active Ltd. is a video game developer with a principal place
of business in Tel Aviv, Israel. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
Sophia G. Gold, Esq.
KALIELGOLD PLLC
490 43rd Street, No. 122
Oakland, CA 94609
Telephone: (202) 350-4783
Email: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com
sgold@kalielgold.com
- and -
Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
1925 Century Park E #1700
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (305) 975-3320
Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com
MURPHY REHABILITATION: Fleming Seeks Nurse Assistants' Unpaid OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
TERESA FLEMING, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MURPHY REHABILITATION, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:24-cv-00206-MOC-WCM (W.D.N.C., August 8, 2024) is a class
action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a certified nurse
assistant from on or about July 7, 2023, to November 11, 2023.
Murphy Rehabilitation, Inc. is a residential nursing care and
rehabilitation company based in Cary, North Carolina. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jacob J. Modla, Esq.
CROMER BABB & PORTER, LLC
1418 Laurel Street, Suite A
Post Office Box 11657
Columbia, SC 29211
Telephone: (803) 799-9530
- and -
Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
WAGE AND HOUR FIRM
5050 Quorum Drive, Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75254
Telephone: (214) 489-7653
Facsimile: (469) 319-0317
Email: rprieto@wageandhourfirm.com
marbuckle@wageandhourfirm.com
NATIONAL PUBLIC: Faces Multiple Class Suits Over Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Kimery, writing for BiometricUpdate.com, reports that in
the last week, at least four class action lawsuits have been filed
in response to what has been described as the biggest breach of
Personally Identifiable Information (PII) on record. More than 200
gigabytes of nearly 3 billion records containing the PII of an
unknown number of "U.S., Canadian, and British citizens" --
including Social Security numbers and criminal records -- were
stolen in a hack of the computer systems of National Public Data, a
Florida-based data broker.
Data brokers in the U.S. buy, aggregate, disclose, and sell
billions of data elements on Americans with virtually no oversight
and "little financial incentive to protect consumer data," says the
Electronic Privacy Information Center.
One of the proposed class action suits alleges that the compromised
PII has already been used "in identity theft and fraud and can in
the future [be used to] commit a variety of crimes including
opening new financial accounts in class members' names, taking out
loans in class members' names, using class members' information to
obtain government benefits, filing fraudulent tax returns . . .
obtaining driver's licenses in class members' names but with
another person's photograph, and giving false information to police
during an arrest."
The suit alleges that every class member has "been exposed to a
heightened and imminent risk of fraud and identity theft," and
"must now and in the future closely monitor their financial
accounts to guard against identity theft."
The suits assert that class-wide treatment is appropriate because
the plaintiffs can prove the elements of their claims on a
class-wide basis using the same evidence as would be used to prove
those elements in individual actions alleging the same claims. The
suits allege that all individuals in the United States whose PII
was compromised in the data breach represent a class.
National Public Data is a DBA of Jerico Pictures, Inc., a film and
television production company with offices in Los Angeles and Coral
Gables, Florida, the website for which makes no reference to
National Public Data. The National Public Data website says the
company is "a public records data provider specializing in
background checks and fraud prevention" and that it "obtain[s]
information from various public record databases, court records,
state and national databases and other repositories nationwide" for
customers which include "private investigators, consumer public
records sites, human resources, [and] staffing agencies" who pay to
"obtain criminal records" and "[conduct] background checks" through
the company's XML-API Gateway.
The breach came to light when it was revealed in the first proposed
class action lawsuit filed August 1 in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida. Since then, Biometric Update
learned, at least three other proposed class action lawsuits were
also filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida alleging that National Public Data "failed to properly
secure and safeguard the PII that it collected and maintained as
part of [its] regular business practices."
Based on the case numbers given to the two suits filed on August 1,
they both were filed at the same time, one after the other. All the
suits allege that National Public Data never provided any notice to
the affected individuals, nor did it disclose whether it ever
opened "an official investigation" into the hack.
Despite numerous media requests for comments, the company has yet
to issue a public statement.
Also, no U.S. federal department or agency with cybersecurity
responsibilities has provided an official comment.
The proposed class action suits allege that companies like National
Public Data "are particularly vulnerable to cyberattacks because of
the sensitive nature of the information that they collect and
maintain."
Noted cybersecurity expert MacDonnell Ulsch, who served as the
global cyber threat advisor to the CIA from 2012 to 2014 and former
senior managing director of cybercrime for PriceWaterhouseCoopers
and vice president of information security for Dun & Bradstreet,
told Biometric Update that "companies that possess large volumes of
valuable data often do not possess the ability to fully protect
data," pointing out that "managing data is a for-profit business"
and that "protecting data is a cost-intensive business. Finding the
right balance at the right price is extremely difficult. That is
why we have so many successful data breaches."
The first suit filed against National Public Data August 1 by
Christopher Hofmann of Fremont, California (0:24-cv-61383) alleges
he was only made aware of the breach when he "received a
notification [in July] from his identity theft protection service
provider notifying him that his PII was compromised as a direct
result of the nationalpublicdata.com breach, and that his PII had
been found on the dark web."
In the second case (0:24-cv-61384), also filed August 1, the
plaintiff, Yvette Burgen, says she was "informed by Experian and
TurboTax that her PII had been "disseminated on the dark web."
A third class action suit (0:24-cv-61396-MD), filed August 2,
alleges that the plaintiffs, Barry Cotton and Gary Lake, as well as
"class members," on or about July 29 "received notice that their
personal data, including their PII and social security numbers, was
compromised in the data breach and found on the dark web," and that
they only learned about it when they "received these notices from
various credit and identity protection monitoring services."
A fourth proposed class action suit (0:24-cv-61412) was filed
August 3, naming James Thomas Jones and "class members" as
plaintiffs.
Legal sources said with so many class-action lawsuits having been
filed in the same Florida U.S. district court -- and probably more
to come -- they will likely necessarily need to be consolidated
into "one big, certified class action."
Indeed. Already, more than half-a-dozen law firms are
"investigating claims on behalf of victims." They include Oklahoma
City-based Federman & Sherwood; Cincinnati, Ohio-based Markovits,
Stock & DeMarco; Marlton, New Jersey-based Console & Associates;
New York-based Levi & Korsinsky, LLP; Orlando, Florida-based Morgan
& Morgan; Fort Lauderdale, Florida-based Kopelowitz Ostrow PA;
Haverford, Pennsylvania-based Chimicles Schwartz Kriner &
Donaldson-Smith LLP; Sacramento, California-based Clayeo C. Arnold,
A Professional Corporation; and El Segundo, California-based
Wucetich & Korovilas LLP.
Also beginning to be heard are reinvigorated discussions in
Washington, DC about the need to regulate third-party PII data
aggregators and data brokers, if not the outright prohibition on
the resale of publicly available data.
Congressional sources told Biometric Update that the unprecedented
National Public Data breach is invigorating action in the Senate on
its version of the bipartisan Fourth Amendment Is Not for Sale Act
that recently was passed in the House. The bill would bar
governments, law enforcement and intelligence agencies from
purchasing Americans' data from data brokers -- data governments
would otherwise need a warrant to obtain. The bill, however, is
opposed by the White House and law enforcement associations,
despite its support by top Democratic members of Congress.
While the legislation only addresses the purchase of third-party
PII by governments and entities, Biometric Update has learned that
there also are rumblings on Capitol Hill about restricting what
types of information about individuals that data brokers can obtain
and sell. The debate almost certainly will grow louder as more
details of the National Public Data breach emerge.
"Federal and state government cybersecurity and privacy laws are
valuable, but they will never stop data breaches," warned Ulsch,
founder of Gray Zone Research & Intelligence, a division of SkyTop
Media Group and host of the TV program Gray Zone Report-China.
"They may discourage some attackers, they may in some cases reduce
or limit damages, but they will never stop a determined,
well-funded attacker."
Ulsch explained, somewhat pessimistically, that "cybercrime groups,
especially sophisticated, experienced criminal groups, operate with
several critical advantages. One, they often operate outside of
U.S. jurisdiction, so prosecution can be extremely difficult. Two,
these criminal groups sometimes cooperate with rogue nations, which
enable them to operate with impunity. Such complicity between crime
gangs and nation states can render cyber insurance useless since
such attacks may then be considered instruments of war or acts of
war. Also, chances are, if one of these groups is intent on
compromising a company's defenses, they probably will, simply
waiting until they find the right vulnerability to exploit. Time is
on their side."
The first-class action suit filed against National Public Data was
the first one to allege the acquires at least some of the data it
sells by scraping the PII of individuals from non-public sources,
and that "at no point [did class members] knowingly provide their
PII to" to the company. "To make matters even worse," the suit
alleged, the company "did this without plaintiff's and class
members' consent or knowledge."
The suit further alleges that "by obtaining, collecting, using, and
deriving a benefit from the PII of plaintiff and class members,
defendant assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals
to protect and safeguard that information from unauthorized access
and intrusion."
While no details have yet been revealed by National Public Data as
to how or when the data breach occurred, the lawsuit says "a
cybercriminal group by the name of USDoD gained access to [the]
defendant's network prior to April 2024 and was able to exfiltrate
the unencrypted PII of billions of individuals stored on [the]
defendant's network. Furthermore . . . the PII was published,
offered for sale, and sold on the Dark Web by cybercriminals."
In early April, USDoD posted a database called "National Public
Data" on the Dark Web hacker forum called Breached, alleging it
contained the PII of 2.9 billion individuals, and that the database
could be had for $3.5 million.
Subsequently, VX-Underground, a website about malware and
cybersecurity, stated on X that "we were informed USDoD intends on
leaking the database. We requested a copy in advance to confirm the
validity of the data. We reviewed the massive file -- 277.1GB
uncompressed, and can confirm the data present in it is real and
accurate."
Soon after that post, VX-Underground wrote that "USDoD was a broker
and/or middleman for the initial posting," and they they "were
instructed to explicitly state that credit for the compromise is to
be given to an individual operating under the moniker "SXUL."
According to Crowdstrike, "since at least 2020, USDoD has conducted
both hacktivism and financially motivated breaches, primarily using
social-engineering tactics to access sensitive data. Over the last
two years, [USDoD] has focused on high-profile targeted intrusion
campaigns. Additionally, since January 2024, [USDoD] has sought to
diversify and expand their cyber activities from solely conducting
cyber operations into administering eCrime forums."
USDoD was behind the December 2022 breach of the FBI's InfraGard
database which compromised the PII of over 87,000 InfraGard
members.
On July 24, 2024, USDoD claimed on the cybercrime forum
BreachForums that it was responsible for leaking CrowdStrike's
"entire threat actor list." CrowdStrike said USDoD alleged to have
obtained CrowdStrike's "entire IOC [indicators of compromise]
list."
In April, however, USDoD stated on BreachForums that he was giving
up hacking, saying, "it is my time to go into the shadows and think
about myself, my family, and my life."
On July 29, Cyber News published an interview with USDoD. [GN]
NESTLE HEALTH: Bowler Sues Over Mislabeled Fish Oil Products
------------------------------------------------------------
YESENIA BOWLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NESTLE HEALTH SCIENCE U.S., LLC (D/B/A
NATURE'S BOUNTY), Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-06521 (C.D. Cal.,
Aug. 1, 2024) alleges that the Defendant makes, sells, and markets
mislabeled Nature's Bounty brand fish oil capsules ("Nature's
Bounty Fish Oil Capsules" or "Products").
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant sells a
fish oil supplement that purports to promote "heart health,". The
Defendant is misrepresenting to customers that taking their fish
oil supplement is beneficial to heart health.
The Plaintiff and the subclass assert that they were injured as a
direct and proximate result of the Defendant's conduct because: (a)
they would not have purchased Nature's Bounty Fish Oil Capsules at
the price they paid if they had known that the Products do not
actually promote heart health and, in fact, may harm heart health,
and (b) they received products that were, in truth, worthless.
Nestle Health Science SA was founded in 2010. The company's line of
business includes providing management consulting services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Lyon, Esq.
DOVEL & LUNER, LLP
201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Telephone: (310) 656-7066
Facsimile: (310) 656-7069
Email: rick@dovel.com
NEW YORK: District Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Ugo-Alum v. DMV
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge John P. Cronan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
lawsuit styled UCHENNA UGO-ALUM and ASHER BERKOVIC, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NEW
YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, MARK J.F. SCHROEDER,
Commissioner (in his official capacity), JOSHUA VINCIGUERRA, Deputy
Commissioner and General Counsel (in his official and personal
capacities), SARYA CRAFT, Deputy Commissioner and Chief Information
Officer (in her official and personal capacities), and CHRISTINE M.
LEGORIUS, First Assistant Counsel (in her official and personal
capacities), Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-07458-JPC (S.D.N.Y.).
In this putative class action, Plaintiffs Uchenna Ugo-Alum and
Asher Berkovic challenge the mechanism by which the New York State
Department of Motor Vehicles ("DMV") notifies drivers of a monetary
assessment upon the accumulation of a certain number of driving
infractions and the subsequent suspension of their driving
privileges in the state if that assessment is not paid. They assert
a host of claims against the DMV; Mark J.F. Schroeder, the
Commissioner of the DMV, in his official capacity; Joshua
Vinciguerra, the Deputy Commissioner and General Counsel of the
DMV, in his official and personal capacities; Sarya Craft, the
Deputy Commissioner and Chief Information Officer of the DMV, in
her official and personal capacities; and Christine M. Legorius, an
attorney with the DMV, in her official and personal capacities
(collectively with Schroeder, Vinciguerra, and Craft, the
"Individual Defendants").
The Plaintiffs allege violations of the Fourteenth Amendment and
the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution, Article I
of the New York State Constitution, and 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, and
seek injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and damages.
After their litigation in state court was unsuccessful, the
Plaintiffs filed the Complaint in this action on Aug. 23, 2023,
asserting eight causes of action: (1) a request for injunctive
relief against all Defendants arising from violations of the
Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution ("Count
One"); (2) a request for injunctive relief against all Defendants
arising from violations of the Eighth Amendment of the United
States Constitution and Article I of the New York State
Constitution ("Count Two"); (3) a request for an injunction
requiring all Defendants to "remedy" the alleged "database flaws"
and to segregate and hold in escrow any future monies collected in
connection with the New York's Driver Responsibility Assessment
("DRA") that are attributable to the database flaw," ("Count
Three"); (4) a request for a declaratory judgment that the
Defendants will continue to violate federal law by not addressing
the alleged database flaw and that some of the funds being
collected by the DMV on a continuing basis in connection with the
DRA are derived from violation of the law ("Count Four"); (5) a
request for an injunction enjoining the Individual Defendants in
their official capacities from continuing to maintain, and refusing
to remedy, the database flaw, citing 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and the
Fourteenth Amendment ("Count Five"); (6) a request for an
injunction enjoining the Individual Defendants in their official
capacities from continuing to maintain, and refusing to remedy, the
database flaw, citing 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and the Eighth
Amendment ("Count Six"); (7) a cause of action under 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983 for Fourteenth Amendment violations against
Vinciguerra, Craft, and Legorius in their personal capacities,
seeking damages ("Count Seven"); and (8) a cause of action under 42
U.S.C. Section 1983 for Eighth Amendment violations against
Vinciguerra, Craft, and Legorius in their personal capacities,
seeking damages ("Count Eight").
On Dec. 8, 2023, the Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to
state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1).
As explained in this Opinion and Order, Judge Cronan opines that
subject matter jurisdiction is lacking over the Plaintiffs' causes
of action seeking injunctive and declaratory relief, and the causes
of action that survive the Defendants' jurisdictional challenges
are time-barred. The Defendants' motion to dismiss, therefore, is
granted.
Judge Cronan notes that the Plaintiffs appear to concede that their
claims against the DMV are barred by sovereign immunity.
Accordingly, Counts One through Four are dismissed without
prejudice to the extent asserted against the DMV.
Judge Cronan finds, among other things, that the case does not
present, as the Plaintiffs argue, unconstitutional agency policies
that have hurt the Plaintiffs before and will continue to harm them
and the Class of similarly situated motorists in the future.
Accordingly, the Court dismisses without prejudice the Plaintiffs'
causes of action that seek injunctive relief--Counts One, Two,
Three, Five, and Six--for lack of standing and, therefore, lack of
subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1).
Given the overlapping standing analysis, Judge Cronan holds that
the Plaintiffs lack standing to seek declaratory relief for the
same reasons that standing is lacking for injunctive relief. They
have not sufficiently alleged facts indicating that they face a
real and immediate threat that they will sustain their injuries
again in the future.
With standing lacking, the Court dismisses without prejudice Count
Four for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1).
The Court also dismisses without prejudice for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction Counts One through Six. The Plaintiffs' only
two surviving counts--Counts Seven and Eight--are dismissed without
prejudice as time-barred.
The Plaintiffs have asked the Court for leave to amend their
Complaint should the Court rule in the Defendants' favor. Because
the Complaint is the first complaint filed by the Plaintiffs in
this action, the Court grants them leave to amend. The Court
emphasizes that the Plaintiffs should only file an amended
complaint if they are able to remedy the pleading deficiencies
identified here.
For the stated reasons, the Court rules that the Defendants' motion
is granted and the Complaint is dismissed without prejudice. In the
event the Plaintiffs decide to file an amended complaint, they must
do so within thirty days of this Opinion and Order. If the
Plaintiffs fail to file an amended complaint within this time
frame, the Court will direct the Clerk of Court to enter judgment
in the Defendants' favor and close this case. The Plaintiffs'
request for oral argument is denied as moot. The Clerk of Court is
directed to close the motions pending at Docket Numbers 31 and 35.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated July 26,
2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/554mej5u from
PacerMonitor.com.
OLAPLEX HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Lilien Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Olaplex Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 6, 2024, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Lilien securities class suit in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California.
On November 17, 2022, a putative securities class action was filed
against the Company and certain of its current and former officers
and directors in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California, captioned Lilien v. Olaplex Holdings, Inc.
et al., No. 2:22-cv-08395.
A consolidated complaint was filed on April 28, 2023, which names
as additional defendants the underwriters for the Company's IPO and
various stockholders that sold shares of common stock of the
Company in the IPO.
The action is brought on behalf of a putative class of purchasers
of the Company's common stock in or traceable to the Company's IPO
and asserts claims under Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933.
The action seeks certification of the putative class, compensatory
damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and any other relief that the
court determines is appropriate.
The defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint on July
19, 2023.
The court held hearings on the defendants' motions to dismiss on
October 16, 2023 and July 1, 2024.
A decision has yet to be issued.
The underwriter defendants have notified the Company of their
intent to seek indemnification from the Company pursuant to the IPO
underwriting agreement regarding the claims asserted in this
action.
The Company intends to vigorously defend the pending lawsuit.
Olaplex Holdings, Inc. operates indirectly through its wholly owned
subsidiaries, Penelope and Olaplex, Inc., which conducts business
under the name "Olaplex." Olaplex develops, manufactures and
distributes a line of hair care products developed to address three
key uses: treatment, maintenance and protection.
ONEIDA COUNTY, NY: Dipippo Seeks Compensation for Seized Property
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KIMBERLY DIPIPPO, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, TERRENCE RYAN, Administrator for the Estate of
John F. Ryan, on behalf of the Estate itself and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ONEIDA COUNTY, NEW YORK,
ANTHONY R. CARVELLI, ONONDAGA COUNTY, NEW YORK, STEVEN P. MORGAN,
Defendants, Case No. 6:24-CV-0902 (LEK/CFH) (N.D.N.Y., July 21,
2024) seeks to redress the constitutional violations practiced by
Defendants in collecting from Plaintiffs and the putative class
more than they owed the government, in violation of the Takings
Clause of the U.S. Constitution, and in violation of other state
and federal rights.
Plaintiffs DiPippo and Ryan have not received just compensation for
the property seized and taken from them. In addition, the
Defendants have not provided Plaintiffs or the class members
adequate procedure to seek just compensation for the taking of
their surplus proceeds even if the value of the property, or the
proceeds from the sale thereof, exceeded the amount owed for the
taxes or other charges for which the property was seized and taken,
says the suit.
Oneida County is a political subdivision and body politic of the
State of New York. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Steven E. Cole, Esq.
Robert P. Yawman, Esq.
ADAMS LECLAIR LLP
28 East Main Street, Suite 1500
Rochester, NY 14614
Telephone: (585) 327-4200
Facsimile: (585) 327-4200
E-mail: scole@adamsleclair.law
ryawman@adamsleclair.law
- and -
Patrick J. Perotti, Esq.
Nicole T. Fiorelli, Esq.
Frank A. Bartela, Esq.
Patrick J. Brickman, Esq.
Shmuel S. Kleinman, Esq.
DWORKEN & BERNSTEIN CO., L.P.A.
60 South Park Place
Painesville, OH 44077
Telephone: (440) 352-3391
Facsimile: (440) 352-3469
E-mail: pperotti@dworkenlaw.com
nfiorelli@dworkenlaw.com
fbartela@dworkenlaw.com
pbrickman@dworkenlaw.com
skleinman@dworkenlaw.com
- and -
Ronald P. Friedberg, Esq.
MEYERS, ROMAN, FRIEDBERG & LEWIS
28601 Chagrin Blvd., Suite 500
Cleveland, OH 44122
Telephone: (216) 831-0042
Facsimile: (216) 831-0542
E-mail: rfriedberg@meyersroman.com
- and -
Gregory P. Hansel, Esq.
PRETI FLAHERTY BELIVEAU & PACHIOS, CHARTERED, LLP
One City Center
P.O. Box 9546
Portland, ME 04112
Telephone: (207)791-3000
E-mail: ghansel@preti.com
- and -
David M. Giglio, Esq.
DAVID M. GIGLIO & ASSOCIATES, LLC
13 Hopper Street
Utica, NY 13501
Telephone: (315) 797-2854
E-mail: davidgigliolaw@yahoo.com
- and -
George F. Carpinello, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
30 South Pearl Street, 11th Floor
Albany, NY 12207
Telephone: (518) 434-0600
Facsimile: (518) 434-0665
E-mail: gcarpinello@bsfllp.com
- and -
Joseph C. Kohn, Esq.
KOHN SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
1600 Market Street, Suite 2500
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 238-1700
E-mail: jkohn@kohnswift.com
- and -
Nathan J. Fink, Esq.
FINK BRESSACK
38500 Woodward Avenue Suite 350
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
Telephone: (248) 971-2500
E-mail: nfink@finkbressack.com
- and -
Jonathan D. Pincus, Esq.
JONATHAN D. PINCUS, ESQ.
10 Whitestone Ln
Rochester, NY 14618-4118
Telephone: (585) 732-8515
E-mail: jdp@jdpincus.com
PACIFIC MARKET: Seeks to Dismiss Drinkwares Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Market International, which manufactures Stanley drinkware,
has requested that a federal judge in Seattle throw out a class
action lawsuit after the company allegedly failed to warn customers
that its products contain lead.
The Stanley Quencher was arguably the hottest promotional product
of 2023.
Attorneys for Pacific Market filed a motion on July 31 to dismiss
the case on the grounds that the consumers behind the four lawsuits
that have been consolidated into a single class action have failed
to show how the tumblers pose a safety threat.
"Simply put, the complaint does not allege that lead in Stanley
cups causes harm," the attorneys wrote in their filing to U.S.
District Judge Tana Lin. "Since plaintiffs' lawsuit seeks to impose
massive liability for nondisclosure of lead in Stanley cups because
that lead purportedly poses a ‘safety and health-related
concern,' the absence of any such factual allegations is the
overarching, fundamental defect in the complaint."
In a separate motion also filed on July 31, Pacific Market argued
that the plaintiffs erred by relying on Washington state consumer
laws to bring claims on behalf of a nationwide class of consumers.
As a result, the attorneys have asked Judge Lin to strike down the
allegations.
John Rushing of Rushing McCarl, one of the firms representing the
plaintiffs, told Reuters that the company's motion mischaracterizes
the allegations in the complaint. "We have every confidence that we
will defeat this motion," Rushing said.
Viral Rumors Spark Litigation
In January, many customers took to social media to share stories
about using at-home tests to determine whether there's lead in any
of their Stanley products. Pacific Market responded by admitting
that lead is used as part of the tumbler's vacuum insulation, but
that a stainless-steel layer prevents the toxic metal from coming
into contact with consumers.
Several consumers, who claim they wouldn't have bought the products
if they had known about the lead, sued Pacific Market for consumer
protection law violations, deceptive trade practices and fraud by
omission. The consolidated lawsuit is seeking refunds for the cups
purchased, punitive damages and an injunction requiring Stanley to
disclose the presence of lead in its products.
At the time of the viral controversy, multiple suppliers in the
promotional products industry who carry Stanley drinkware expressed
no concerns over the safety of the products.
"Stanley has passed safety and compliance tests -- all compliance
documents are accessible on PCNA's asset portal and our product
pages," said Liz Haesler, global chief merchandising officer at
PCNA -- the No. 3 supplier in the PPAI 100.
Brian Porter, chief revenue officer at Starline -- the No. 15
supplier in the PPAI 100 -- said that it was a case of "social
media gone a little wild, as it can do from time to time." [GN]
PANERA LLC: Faces Buchanan Suit in E.D. Missouri
------------------------------------------------
NIA BUCHANAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PANERA, LLC; and PANERA BREAD COMPANY,
Defendants, Case No. 4:24-cv-00943-JSD (E.D. Mo., July 10, 2024).
The case is assigned to Magistrate Judge Joseph S. Dueker.
Panera Bread is an American chain of bakery-cafe fast casual
restaurants with over 2,000 locations, all of which are in the
United States and Canada. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Laura Grace Van Note, Esq.
COLE AND VAN NOTE
555 12th Street Suite 2100
Oakland, CA 94607
Telephone: (510) 891-9800
Email: lvn@colevannote.com
PENNSYLVANIA: Lee Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling to 3rd Cir.
-------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT LEE, JR. is taking an appeal from a court order granting the
Defendants' motion for summary judgment in the lawsuit entitled
Robert Lee, Jr., individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Marirosa Lamas, et al., Defendants, Case
No. 2-19-cv-00241, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is
brought against the Defendants for unpaid post-shift work in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (PMWA).
On Dec. 18, 2020, the Defendants moved for summary judgment,
asserting that they are entitled to sovereign immunity, which the
Court granted through an Order entered by Judge Cynthia M. Rufe on
Oct. 26, 2023. The Plaintiff's FLSA claim was dismissed with
prejudice and his PWMA claim was dismissed without prejudice. The
Clerk was directed to close the case.
On Nov. 7, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration
of the Oct. 26 Order, which the Court denied on July 10, 2024. The
case remains closed.
The appellate case is captioned Robert Lee, Jr. v. Marirosa Lamas,
et al., Case No. 24-2414, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit, filed on July 30, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant ROBERT LEE, JR., individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
David J. Cohen, Esq.
STEPHAN ZOURAS
604 Spruce Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Telephone: (215) 873-4836
- and -
Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
James B. Zouras, Esq.
STEPHAN ZOURAS
222 W. Adams Street, Suite 2020
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 233-1550
Defendants-Appellees MARIROSA LAMAS, et al. are represented by:
Matthew R. Skolnik, Esq.
OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL OF PENNSYLVANIA
1600 Arch Street, Suite 300
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 560-2136
PLAYSTUDIOS INC: Continues to Defend Felipe Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
PlayStudios Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 6, 2024, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Felipe class suit in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California.
On April 6, 2022, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court, Northern District of California, by a
purported Company shareholder in connection with alleged federal
securities law violations: Christian A. Felipe et. al. v.
PLAYSTUDIOS, Inc. (the "Felipe Complaint").
On July 15, 2022, the Felipe Complaint was transferred to the
United States District Court for the District of Nevada, Southern
Division.
On October 4, 2022, the plaintiffs filed an amendment to the Felipe
Complaint.
The Felipe Complaint names the Company, several current and former
board members of the Company, board members and officers of Acies
Acquisition Corp., and Andrew Pascal, the Company's Chairman and
CEO, as defendants.
The Felipe Complaint alleges misrepresentations and omissions
regarding the state of the Company's development of the Kingdom
Boss game and its financial projections and future prospects in the
S-4 Registration Statement filed by Acies that was declared
effective on May 25, 2021, the Proxy Statement filed by Acies on
May 25, 2021, and other public statements that touted Old
PLAYSTUDIOS' and the Company's financial performance and
operations, including statements made on earnings calls and the
Amended S-1 Registration Statement filed by the Company that was
declared effective on July 30, 2021.
The Felipe Complaint alleges that the misrepresentations and
omissions resulted in stock price drops of 13% on August 12, 2021,
and 5% on February 25, 2022, following (i) the Company's release of
financial results for the second quarter of 2021, ended on June 30,
2021, and (ii) the filing of the Company's Annual Report on Form
10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021 and issuance of a press
release summarizing financial results for the fourth quarter and
year ended December 31, 2021, respectively.
The Felipe Complaint seeks an award of damages for an unspecified
amount.
The Company believes that the claims are without merit and the
Company intends to vigorously defend against them; however, there
can be no assurance that the Company will be successful in the
defense of this litigation.
The Company is not able to reasonably estimate the probability or
amount of loss and therefore has not made any accruals.
PLAYSTUDIOS, Inc. develops and operates online and mobile social
gaming applications. Its games are free-to-play and available via
the Apple App Store, Google Play Store, Amazon Appstore, and
Facebook. It creates games based on its own original content as
well as third-party licensed brands. The Company generates revenue
through the in-game sale of virtual currency and through
advertising.
PLAYSTUDIOS INC: Continues to Defend Kuhk Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------
PlayStudios Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 6, 2024, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Kuhk class suit in the Superior Court of
the State of Washington.
On February 20, 2024, Tyler Kuhk, a purported citizen of
Washington, filed a class action lawsuit against PLAYSTUDIOS US,
LLC in the Superior Court of the State of Washington for the County
of King, alleging that PLAYSTUDIOS US, LLC makes available online
games of chance that constitute illegal gambling under Washington
law, that PLAYSTUDIOS US, LLC engaged in unfair and deceptive
practices by advertising to and soliciting the general public in
Washington state to play its unlawful online casino games of
chance, and that PLAYSTUDIOS US, LLC was unjustly enriched by this
conduct.
The plaintiff seeks to recover all sums paid by Washington
residents to PLAYSTUDIOS US, LLC in its online gambling games
during an unspecified period of time under Washington's "Recovery
of money lost gambling" statute, for treble damages under
Washington's Consumer Protection Act, and for disgorgement and
restitution of any money PLAYSTUDIOS US, LLC has retained through
unlawful and/or wrongful conduct alleged in the lawsuit.
The Company believes the claims are without merit and intends to
vigorously defend against them; however, there can be no assurance
that the Company will be successful in the defense of this
litigation.
The Company is not able to reasonably estimate the probability or
amount of loss relating to this litigation and therefore has not
made any accruals.
PLAYSTUDIOS, Inc. develops and operates online and mobile social
gaming applications. Its games are free-to-play and available via
the Apple App Store, Google Play Store, Amazon Appstore, and
Facebook. It creates games based on its own original content as
well as third-party licensed brands. The Company generates revenue
through the in-game sale of virtual currency and through
advertising.
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Costa Sues Over Laundry Products' False Ads
-------------------------------------------------------------
NICOLE COSTA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE PROCTER AND GAMBLE COMPANY, Defendant,
Case No. 5:24-cv-04390 (N.D. Cal., July 19, 2024) arises from
Defendant's misleading representations about their Gain Flings!
Laundry Detergent Pacs and Gain Aroma Boost Laundry products.
According to the complaint, Procter & Gamble Company markets and
sells the said products with packaging claims of "50% more" in
large, bold lettering on the top of the containers. Due to
Defendant's misleading Representations, Plaintiff and Class Members
purchased the Products under the reasonable belief they were
receiving "50% more" Laundry Detergent at a discount. However, the
products' "50% more" Representation refers to an increased amount
of scent instead of a greater quantity of detergent.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserts claims on behalf of herself, a
nationwide class, and a California subclass of purchasers of the
Products, for breach of express warranty, breach of the implied
warranty of merchantability, breach of the implied warranty of
fitness for a particular purpose, unjust enrichment, violation of
the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, violation of the
California Unfair Competition Law, and violation of the California
False Advertising Law.
Headquartered in Cincinnati, OH, the Procter & Gamble Company
manufactures, sells, and/or distributes Gain laundry products and
is responsible for the advertising, marketing, trade dress, and
packaging of these products. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Boulevard, 9th Floor
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
- and -
Julian Diamond, Esq.
Matthew Girardi, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1330 Avenue of the Americas, Floor 32
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
E-mail: jdiamond@bursor.com
mgirardi@bursor.com
RAAC MANAGEMENT: Gomez Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against RAAC MANAGEMENT LLC,
et al. The case is styled as Tomas Enrique Gomez, on behalf of
himself and similarly situated v. RAAC MANAGEMENT LLC, ACCELERATION
CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LLC, REVOLUTION SPECIAL OPPORTUNITIES LLC, JOHN
J. DELANEY, STEPHEN M. CASE, STEVEN A. MUSELES, PHYLLIS R.
CALDWELL, JASON M. FISH, and THOMAS WAGNER, Case No. 2024-0744-PAF
(Del. Chancery Ct., July 15, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Civil Action."
RAAC Management LLC is a Delaware limited liability company, was
RAAC's Sponsor.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rebecca A. Musarra, Esq.
Jonathan C. Millis, Esq.
GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
123 Justison Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
Phone: (302) 622-7000
Fax: (302) 622-7100
Email: rmusarra@gelaw.com
jmillis@gelaw.com
- and -
Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
Eitan Kimelman, Esq.
BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
60 East 42nd Street, 46th Floor
New York, NY 10165
Phone: (212) 697-6484
Email: peretz@bgandg.com
eitank@bgandg.com
- and -
Michael Klausner, Esq.
BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
559 Nathon Abbott Way
Stanford, CA 94305
Phone: (650) 740-1194
READING INTERNATIONAL: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Oct. 18
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL VALENTINI and
DALLACE BUTLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. READING INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No.
2:24-cv-00255-RFB-MDC (D. Nev.), the Hon. Judge Richard Boulware,
II entered an order
extending the deadline for the Plaintiffs to file their class
certification 60 days to Oct. 18, 2024.
On May 29, 2024, the Court issued an order setting August 19, 2024,
as the deadline for the Plaintiffs to file their motion for class
certification. In that same order, the deadline for parties to
complete class certification related discovery was July 19, 2024.
Reading International owns and operates cinemas and develops, owns,
and operates real estate assets.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 5, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tSsnDB at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Robert T. Eglet, Esq.
Erica D. Entsminger, Esq.
EGLET ADAMS EGLET HAM HENRIOD
400 South Seventh Street, Suite 400
Las Vegas, NV 89101
Telephone: (702) 450-5400
Facsimile: (702) 450-5451
E-mail: eservice@egletlaw.com
- and -
Anthony G. Simon, Esq.
Jeremiah W. Nixon, Esq.
THE SIMON LAW FIRM, P.C.
800Market Street, Suite 1700
St. Louis, MO 63101
Telephone: (314) 241-2929
Facsimile: (314) 241-2029
E-mail: asimon@simonlawpc.com
jnixon@simonlawpc.com
RIB CITY GROUP: Calabrese Seeks Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
PAMELA CALABRESE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RIB CITY GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:24-cv-00663-SPC-NPM (M.D. Fla., July 19, 2024) arises from
Defendant's failure to pay restaurant servers state and federal
minimum wages and federal overtime wages in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the Florida Minimum Wage Act, and Article X,
Sec. 24 of the Florida Constitution.
The Plaintiff has worked for Defendant as a server since September
2022 and is still currently employed at Defendant’s 11561
Majestic Palms Boulevard, Fort Myers, Florida 33908 location. The
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant committed state and federal
minimum wage violations because it: (1) compensated servers at the
reduced wage for tipped employees, but required her and all others
similarly situated to perform non-tipped side duties and side work
that exceeded 20% of all work performed in at least one workweek;
and (2) required her and all others similarly situated to perform
non-tipped duties and side work in excess of 30 continuous minutes
in at least one shift.
Rib City Group, LLC owns and operates restaurants in the State of
Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jordan Richards, Esq.
Michael V. Miller, Esq.
USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS-JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC
1800 SE 10th Ave, Suite 205
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
Telephone: (954) 871-0050
E-mail: Jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com
Michael@usaemploymentlawyers.com
SELENITE BEAUTY: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Conner Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARY CONNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SELENITE BEAUTY, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
3:24-cv-00710-FDW-SCR (W.D.N.C., Aug. 1, 2024) alleges violation of
the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, http//:www.Selenitebeauty.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.
Selenite Beauty, LLC owns and operates Selenite Beauty Shops, and
maintains a physical Selenite Beauty Shop in Charlotte. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sanjay R. Gohil, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF SANJAY R. GOHIL, PLLC
2435 Plantation Center Drive, Suite 200
Matthews, NC 28105
Telephone: (704) 814-0729
Facsimile: (704) 814-0730
Email: srg@gohillaw.com
- and -
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Telephone: (917) 373-9128
Email: ShakedLawGroup@Gmail.com
SHALANDA HOUSTON: JPAY LLC Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as JPAY LLC, behalf of a class of all natural
persons v. SHALANDA HOUSTON, Case No. 3:23-cv-01875 was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on
Aug. 6, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:24-cv-61420 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Injunctive &
Declaratory Relief.
Shalanda Houston is a citizen of Georgia and resides in Brookhaven,
Georgia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Velvel (Devin) Freedman, Esq.
Colleen L. Smeryage, Esq.
FREEDMAN NORMAND FRIEDLAND LLP
1 S.E. 3rd Avenue, Suite 1240
Miami, FL 33131
Phone: (305) 971-5943
Email: vel@fnf.law
csmeryage@fnf.law
- and -
Christopher J. Schwegmann, Esq.
LYNN PINKER HURST & SCHWEGMANN, LLP
2100 Ross Avenue, Suite 2700
Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-981-3800
Facsimile: 214-981-3839
Email: cschwegmann@lynnllp.com
SHERFIZ II INC: Wentz Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Delivery Drivers
----------------------------------------------------------------
RENAE WENTZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SHERFIZ II, INC. d/b/a PAPA JOHN'S,
Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-03839-ALM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, August 13,
2024) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a delivery driver at
Papa John's store located in Marietta, Ohio from approximately
April 2023 to March 2024.
Sherfiz II, Inc., doing business as Papa John's, is an operator of
Papa John's franchise stores in Ohio. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alyson S. Beridon, Esq.
HERZFELD, SUETHOLZ, GASTEL, LENISKI AND WALL PLLC
600 Vine Street, Suite 2720
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Telephone: (513) 381-2224
Facsimile: (615) 994-8625
Email: alyson@hsglawgroup.com
SHOALS TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shoals Technologies Group Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report
for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2024, that the
Company continues to defend itself from the consolidated securities
class suit in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee.
On March 21, 2024, a purported stockholder filed a putative
securities class action against the Company and certain of its
current and former executive officers in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division,
captioned Westchester Putnam Counties Heavy & Highway Laborers
Local 60 Benefits Fund v. Shoals Technologies Group, Inc., et al.
The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, based on
allegedly false and misleading statements and omissions relating to
the wire insulation shrinkback matter.
The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages, recovery of fees
and costs, and other relief that the court may find appropriate.
On May 8, 2024 and May 15, 2024, respectively, similar class action
complaints were filed in the same court against the Company and
certain current and former officers, but these complaints also
named as defendants the Company's Board of Directors, and the
selling shareholders and underwriters of the Company's secondary
public offering.
While the allegations are largely similar to the first complaint,
these new complaints also alleged violations of Sections 11,
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.
The new cases are captioned Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement
System v. Shoals Technologies Group, Inc. and Kissimmee Utility
Authority Employees Retirement Plan v. Shoals Technologies Group,
Inc.
On May 24, 2024, all of these cases were consolidated into one
action.
Plaintiffs Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement System and Erste
Asset Management GmbH have filed Lead Plaintiff Motions, which are
currently pending. Although the Company intends to vigorously
defend against these claims, there is no guarantee that the Company
will prevail.
Accordingly, the Company is unable to determine the ultimate
outcome of this consolidated lawsuit or determine the amount or
range of potential losses associated with the consolidated
lawsuit.
Based in Portland, TN, Shoals Technologies provides EBOS products
for solar energy projects in the United States. It sells solar
products principally to engineering, procurement, and construction
firms that build such solar energy projects. [BN]
SLING TV LLC: Arias Alleges Disclosure of Info to Third Parties
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Arias, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Sling TV, LLC d/b/a Sling, Defendant, Case
No. 1:24-cv-05493 (S.D.N.Y., July 19, 2024) accuses the Defendant
of violating the Video Privacy Protection Act.
Plaintiff Arias alleges that Defendant knowingly and intentionally
discloses its users' personally identifiable information --
including a record of every video viewed by the user -- to an
unauthorized third party without first complying with the VPPA. The
Defendant's website and apps use first-party and third-party
cookies, software development kits, pixels, Facebook's Business
Tools, including Advanced Matching and Conversion API, and related
tracking tools to purposely track, record, and transmit its digital
subscribers' interactions on Defendant's website, says the
Plaintiff.
Sling TV, LLC. d/b/a Sling provides streaming television service
and operates online and mobile streaming applications, including
www.sling.com. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adrian Gucovschi, Esq.
Benjamin Rozenshteyn, Esq.
GUCOVSCHI ROZENSHTEYN, PLLC
140 Broadway, FL 46 New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 884-4230
E-mail: adrian@gr-firm.com
ben@gr-firm.com
SOLAREN RISK: Underpays Security Guards, Jordhamo Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
CONSTANTINE JORDHAMO, MICHAEL SIRIYUTWATANA and MICHAEL TEYECHEA,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. SOLAREN RISK MANAGEMENT, LLC and JACK BYRD III,
Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-00968 (M.D. Tenn., August 8, 2024) is
a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as security guards in
Tennessee.
Solaren Risk Management, LLC is a provider of security services,
with its principal address located in Mt. Juliet, Tennessee. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
J. Joseph Leatherwood IV, Esq.
Joshua Autry, Esq.
JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT OWEN & BRYANT
Attorneys at Law
262 German Oak Drive
Memphis, TN 38018
Telephone: (901) 754-8001
Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
Email: gjackson@jsyc.com
jbryant@jsyc.com
jleatherwood@jsyc.com
jautry@jsyc.com
SONY ELECTRONICS: Court Narrows Claims in Riddick Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Cynthia Bashant of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California grants in part and denies in part the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the lawsuit entitled BERT RIDDICK, et
al., Plaintiffs v. SONY ELECTRONICS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case
No. 3:24-cv-00319-BAS-JLB (S.D. Cal.).
The matter is a case of purported gender discrimination against
men. Defendant Sony is an electronics and equipment company.
Beginning in 2018, Sony launched its "Alpha Female Creator In
Residence" ("Alpha Female") program for photographers,
videographers, and filmmakers. Winning applicants would receive
mentorship, a monthly stipend, new equipment, and trips to various
exhibitions to display their work.
The 2018–2019 and 2019–2020 programs were restricted to only
female applicants. When prospective applicants visited the
program's website, the terms and conditions required entrants "must
be a female" and limited winners to "female creators." For the
2020–2021 and 2021–2022 programs, Sony retained the "Alpha
Female" name but eliminated the requirement that only females could
enter.
Defendants Ion and Parnell are employees of Sony. They created the
idea for the "Alpha Female" program and marketed the program on
Sony's website, social media pages, and newsletters.
Plaintiff Bert Riddick allegedly visited Sony's websites for its
2018-2019 and 2019-2020 "Alpha Female" programs. He intended to
submit an entry but did not once he encountered Sony's terms
restricting participation to only females. On May 10, 2021, he
filed a class action complaint in the Superior Court of California
asserting violations of the Unruh Civil Rights Act ("Unruh Act"),
and California Civil Code Section 51.5 for alleged discrimination
on behalf of himself and all similarly situated parties. The
Superior Court of California consolidated the Plaintiff's action
with another class action complaint.
After a series of motions, the Plaintiff filed the operative
complaint on Feb. 5, 2024. On Feb. 20, 2024, Sony filed a notice of
removal under the Class Action Fairness Act removing the action to
this Court.
On Feb. 28, 2024, the Defendants filed the instant motion to
dismiss asserting the "Alpha Female" program was non-actionable
under the Unruh Act as a promotional gift, the alleged
discrimination was neither arbitrary nor invidious, the latter
programs did not discriminate, and the Plaintiff fails to plead
sufficient allegations for individual liability against Defendants
Ion and Parnell.
On April 4, 2024, Defendant NSO, Inc., filed a notice of joinder to
the Defendants' motion to dismiss. The Plaintiff opposes. The Local
Civil Rules for the Southern District of California permit joinder
if a motion is pending and the joinder specifically identifies the
party and the particular motion to which the joinder applies.
Defendant NSO, Inc., has met these obligations such that joinder is
proper here, Judge Bashant holds.
The Defendants argue the "Alpha Female" contests are giveaways and
are not actionable discrimination under the Unruh Act. The
Plaintiff contends there was an exchange of consideration as part
of the contest such that these are not gifts outside the reach of
the statute.
Judge Bashant finds, among other things, that the Plaintiffs
sufficiently allege the "Alpha Female" program was not a
promotional gift. Accordingly, the Court denies the Defendants'
motion to dismiss on this basis.
The Court is sympathetic to attempts to rectify historic or present
imbalances in an industry's gender composition. The reasonableness
or arbitrariness of alleged discrimination to address a disparity,
however, Judge Bashant says asks more questions than can be
answered at a motion to dismiss.
Whether there is a gender disparity requires fact finding that is
not appropriate for a motion to dismiss, Judge Bashant explains.
The question of whether the Defendants' stated motivation is
pretextual requires fact finding that is not appropriate for a
motion to dismiss. Accordingly, the Court denies the Defendants'
motion to dismiss on this basis.
The Defendants contend the Plaintiff's allegations with respect to
its 2020–2021 and 2021–2022 "Alpha Female" contests should be
dismissed because these later contests were not limited to only
female applicants. The Plaintiff admits Sony removed the
"female-only" requirement from the terms and conditions but insists
these contests are still actionable under the Unruh Act because the
prior restrictions led people to believe the subsequent contests
were also limited to only females.
The Court disagrees. Judge Bashant opines that men, who did not
apply to the 2020–2021 and 2021–2022 "Alpha Female" contests,
lack an injury under the Unruh Act. They did not suffer any
discriminatory exclusion because the contest rules did not formally
exclude them. Their subjective beliefs about their eligibility
based on prior contests' rules is not sufficient, Judge Bashant
points out. If that were the case, the specter of prior
discrimination would grant any future parties an actionable injury
out of their subjective beliefs the discrimination would continue
or restart.
Because the 2020–2021 and 2021–2022 "Alpha Female" contests do
not exclude entries according to gender, the Plaintiff's claims
with respect to these contests are dismissed, Judge Bashant holds.
Further, because the Plaintiff's pleading could not "possibly be
cured by the allegation of other facts" with respect to these
contests, his claims with respect to the 2020–2021 and
2021–2022 contests are dismissed with prejudice.
The Defendants move to dismiss the claims against Defendants Ion
and Parnell asserting the Plaintiff fails to sufficiently allege
individual liability under the Unruh Act. The Plaintiff alleges
Defendants Ion and Parnell created the idea for the "Alpha Female"
program, promoted and marketed the Alpha Female program on Sony's
social media accounts and newsletters, and created documents
demonstrating their knowledge of and assistance in the "Alpha
Female" program.
The Defendants contend these allegations are insufficient to plead
Defendants Ion and Parnell "aided" and "assisted" in the alleged
discrimination. The Court disagrees. By this plain meaning, any
party that gave support or provided something useful to the
discrimination would potentially be liable, Judge Bashant says.
Accordingly, the Court denies the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
Plaintiff's claims with respect to Defendants Ion and Parnell.
For these reasons, the Court rules that the Defendants' motion to
dismiss is granted in part and denied in part. The Plaintiff's
claims with respect to the 2020–2021 and 2021–2022 "Alpha
Female" contests are dismissed without leave to amend. The
Defendants must file their answer to the Plaintiff's complaint in
due course.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated July 31, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yuxc7f9a from PacerMonitor.com.
SUMMIT MATERIALS: Continues to Defend Taylor Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Summit Materials Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 6, 2024, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Taylor class suit in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware.
On December 15, 2023, plaintiff Bruce Taylor ("Plaintiff"), on
behalf of himself and all other similarly situated stockholders of
Summit Materials, Inc. ("Summit"), filed a putative class action
complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
("Court") captioned Taylor v. Summit Materials, Inc., et al., Case
No. 2023-1258-KSJM (Del. Ch.) (the "Action"), against Summit and
its directors (collectively "Defendants") alleging breaches of
fiduciary duty in connection with certain disclosures relating to
the transaction between and among the Company, Argos North America
Corp. ("Argos USA"), Cementos Argos S.A., Argos SEM, LLC, and Valle
Cement Investments, Inc., pursuant to which the Company acquired
all of the outstanding equity interests of Argos USA (the
"Transaction").
Summit and the director defendants do not believe that the
disclosures were deficient and deny that any breach of fiduciary
duty or other wrongful conduct occurred, and solely to avoid the
costs, distractions, and uncertainties inherent in litigation, on
December 28, 2023 issued additional disclosures that mooted
Plaintiff’s claims.
On February 21, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Motion for an Award of
Attorneys' Fees and Expenses (the "Fee Motion"). Counsel for the
Parties thereafter entered into arm's-length negotiations, and, to
avoid the time and expense of continued litigation, the parties
have agreed to fully resolve the Fee Motion in exchange for a
payment by Summit of $160,000 to Plaintiff's counsel.
The Court has not been asked to review, and will pass no judgment
on, the payment of attorneys' fees and expenses or their
reasonableness.
Summit Materials, Inc. provides construction materials. The Company
offers cement, asphalt, ready mix concrete, and other aggregates,
as well as delivery, trucking, and paving services. Summit
Materials serves customers in the United States. [BN]
SUNBEAM PRODUCTS: McCabe Sues Over Rice Cooker's False 6-Cup Label
------------------------------------------------------------------
ELIZABETH MCCABE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SUNBEAM PRODUCTS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-05510 (E.D.N.Y., August 7, 2024) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of various consumer protection laws
and trade practices laws in the U.S.
The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and
misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing Oster 6-Cup Rice
Cooker with Steamer product. The Defendant represents the Rice
Cooker to have 6-cup capacity, but in reality, its capacity was
approximately 36.5 fluid ounces or 4.56 standard cups, which is
materially less six standard cups. Had the Plaintiff and similarly
situated consumers known the truth, they would not have purchased
the product or would have paid less for it, says the suit.
Sunbeam Products, Inc. is a manufacturer of electric home
appliances, with its principal place of business in Atlanta,
Georgia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd C. Bank, Esq.
ATTORNEY AT LAW, P.C.
119-40 Union Turnpike, Fourth Floor
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Telephone: (718) 520-7125
TARGET CORP: Chen & Kessler Sue Over Unlawful Biometrics Collection
-------------------------------------------------------------------
BENJAMIN CHEN and RORY KESSLER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TARGET CORPORATION and
TARGET BRANDS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-05494 (S.D.N.Y.,
July 19, 2024) seeks damages and other legal and equitable remedies
resulting from the illegal actions of Defendants in collecting,
retaining, and storing theirs and other similarly situated
individuals' biometric identifier information without properly
disclosing or notifying Plaintiffs and Class Members in direct
violation of the New York City Biometric Identifier Information
Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendants never disclosed to
Plaintiff, through clear and conspicuous signage near all of the
Target location's customer entrances, that it collects, retains,
converts, stores or shares biometric identifier information,
including that of Plaintiff Chen.
Headquartered in Minneapolis, MN, Target Corporation is a retail
corporation that operates a chain of discount department stores and
hypermarkets. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Matthew A. Girardi, Esq.
Caroline C. Donovan, Esq.
1330 Avenue of the Americas, Fl 32
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com
mgirardi@bursor.com
cdonovan@bursor.com
TILRAY BRANDS: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tilray Brands Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 30, 2024, that the Company continues to
defend itself from securities class suit in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.
On December 5, 2018, a putative securities class action was
commenced in SDNY against Aphria and certain current and former
officers and directors.
The action claims that the defendants misrepresented the value of
three cannabis-producing properties Aphria acquired in Jamaica,
Colombia, and Argentina (the "LATAM Assets").
On December 3, 2018, two notorious short-sellers issued a report
about the acquisitions, claiming the LATAM Assets were
non-functional or non-existent, which allegedly caused Aphria's
stock price to fall.
On April 15, 2019, Aphria took impairment charges on the LATAM
Assets, which also allegedly caused Aphria's stock price to
decline.
The putative class action claims that Aphria artificially inflated
the price of its publicly-traded stock by making false statements
about the LATAM Assets, and when the purported truth was revealed
by a short-seller report and write-down, the stock price declined,
harming investors.
On September 30, 2020, the Court denied the motion to dismiss the
complaint as to Aphria, Vic Neufeld, and Carl Merton, and granted
the motion as to Cole Cacciavillani, John Cervini, Andrew
DeFrancesco, and SOL Global Investments.
On October 1, 2020, Plaintiffs moved for reconsideration of the
order dismissing DeFrancesco and SOL or, in the alternative, to
amend their complaint.
On October 14, 2020, Aphria, Neufeld, and Merton moved for
reconsideration of the order denying their motion to dismiss.
On September 28, 2021, the Court denied all motions for
reconsideration and provided Plaintiffs with the opportunity to
amend their complaint.
Plaintiffs did not amend, and so the dismissals of Cacciavillani,
Cervini, DeFrancesco, and SOL Investments became dismissals with
prejudice.
On January 28, 2022, Plaintiffs moved for class certification, and
briefing on the motion was complete as of June 28, 2022.
The motion was granted, and a class was certified.
On April 12, 2024, the parties filed a revised schedule for the
remainder of the proceeding through trial, a key element of which
includes setting trial for a "date convenient to the court after
April 17, 2025".
The parties engaged in mediation in March 2021 and December 2022,
but neither mediation resulted in a settlement.
The parties are as of the date of this Form 10-K engaged in fact
discovery and have sought to extend fact discovery into September
2024.
It is too early to determine any potential damages from this
proceeding.
The Company and the individual defendants believe the claims are
without merit and intend to vigorously defend against the claims,
but there can be no assurances as to the outcome.
Tilray Brands, Inc. is a global cannabis-lifestyle and consumer
packaged goods company based in Ontario.
TILRAY BRANDS: Ruing on Bid to Dismiss Suit Expected in December
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tilray Brands Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 30, 2024, that the decision on the
motion to dismiss Ganesh Kasilingam's Third Amended Complaint is
expected in December 2024.
On May 4, 2020, Ganesh Kasilingam filed a lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
("SDNY"), against Tilray Brands, Inc., Brendan Kennedy and Mark
Castaneda, on behalf of himself and a putative class, seeking to
recover damages for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Kasilingam
litigation").
The complaint alleges that Tilray and the individual defendants
overstated the anticipated advantages of the Company's revenue
sharing agreement with Authentic Brands Group ("ABG"), announced on
January 15, 2019, and that the plaintiff suffered losses when
Tilray's stock price dropped after Tilray recognized an impairment
with respect to the ABG deal on March 2, 2020.
On August 6, 2020, SDNY entered an order appointing Saul Kassin as
Lead Plaintiff and The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. as Lead Counsel.
Lead Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on October 5, 2020, which
asserts the same Sections 10(b) and 20(a) claims against the same
defendants on largely the same theory, and includes new allegations
that Tilray's reported inventory, cost of sales, and gross margins
in its financial reports during the class period were false and
misleading because Tilray improperly recorded unsellable "trim" as
inventory and understated the cost of sales for its products.
On September 27, 2021, the U.S. District Court entered an Opinion &
Order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint in
the Kasilingam litigation without prejudice.
On December 3, 2021, the lead plaintiff filed a second amended
complaint alleging similar claims against Tilray and Brendan
Kennedy.
The Defendants successfully moved to dismiss the second amended
complaint on February 2, 2022.
In dismissing the second amended complaint, the court granted the
Plaintiff leave to amend one final time.
On September 27, 2023, the Plaintiff filed its Third Amended
Complaint.
The Defendants' materials for a motion to dismiss the Third Amended
Complaint were filed on November 8, 2023.
A decision on the motion is expected by December 2024.
Tilray Brands, Inc. is a global cannabis-lifestyle and consumer
packaged goods company based in Ontario.
TILRAY BRANDS: Subsidiary Continues to Defend Suit in Canada
------------------------------------------------------------
Tilray Brands Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 30, 2024, that the HEXO Coro, the
Company it acquired in 2024, continues to defend itself from the a
securities class suit in Canada.
In November 2019, a Canadian securities class action was instituted
against HEXO Corp. ("HEXO") and its former CEO, Sebastien St.
Louis.
The plaintiff claims that between April 11, 2018 and March 30,
2020, the defendants misrepresented material facts, in both
documents and oral statements and failed to disclose material
changes in a timely manner as it relates to: (a) revenue certainty
in the first year post-legalization (2018 supply agreement with the
province of Québec); (b) additional revenue generation
(acquisition of Newstrike); (c) HEXO inventory and internal
controls; and (d) licensing at the Newstrike Niagara facility.
On January 23, 2023, the class action was dismissed in its entirety
at the certification stage in Quebec.
On March 14, 2023, the plaintiff appealed this decision to the
Quebec Court of Appeal.
The appeal was heard on January 18, 2024.
A decision is expected in or before the end of the calendar year.
The Company believes the plaintiff's claims are without merit and
intends to vigorously defend against them.
Tilray Brands, Inc. is a global cannabis-lifestyle and consumer
packaged goods company based in Ontario.
TULARE COUNTY, CA: Underpays Fire Battalion Chiefs, Doyle Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD DOYLE, BRIAN DUFFY, JASON ELIZONDO, MARK FLEMING, CASEY
LEWIS, KYLE NEWTON, JOE ROSA, RAYMOND RUSSELL, DEREK STEIDLEY, and
DAVID VASQUEZ, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. COUNTY OF TULARE, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-00936-JLT-SKO (E.D. Cal., August 12, 2024) is a class
action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs are currently employed by the Defendant as Fire
Battalion Chiefs with the Tulare County Fire Department.
County of Tulare is a political subdivision of the State of
California. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David E. Mastagni, Esq.
Taylor Davies-Mahaffey, Esq.
Amanda R. McCarthy, Esq.
MASTAGNI HOLSTEDT
A Professional Corporation
1912 I Street
Sacramento, CA 95811
Telephone: (916) 446-4692
Facsimile: (916) 447-4614
Email: davidm@mastagni.com
tdavies-mahaffey@mastagni.com
amccarthy@mastagni.com
UIPATH INC: Brunozzi Sues Over Securities Exchange Act Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Simone Brunozzi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. UIPATH, INC., DANIEL DINES, ROBERT ENSLIN, and ASHIM
GUPTA, Case No. 1:24-cv-05959 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 6, 2024), is brought
asserts claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the
Defendants concerning the Defendants' misrepresentations regarding
the success of UiPath's turnaround strategy.
During the Class Period, Defendants stated that UiPath's Business
Automation Platform "enables us to close larger, more strategic
deals" and that its AI-powered products "set us apart from the
competition." Regarding its overhauled go-to-market strategy,
Defendants represented that the Company was "executing against that
strategy, and we're seeing the results in the deal quality and the
customer quality," asserted that "our strategic investments in
innovations and our go-to market ecosystem positions us well for
continued momentum," and insisted that "there's no doubt there's
been better execution" since the implementation of the turnaround
strategy.
In truth, UiPath's turnaround strategy had failed. Fruitless
investments and inconsistent execution plagued the Company's
overhauled go-to-market strategy. Additionally, far from a
competitive strength, UiPath's AI-powered Business Automation
Platform caused "confusion" among customers and was not able to be
adequately scaled. As a result, UiPath experienced significant
difficulties closing and/or expanding large multiyear deals.
The Class Period begins on December 1, 2023, the day after UiPath
issued a press release, after market hours, announcing its 3Q 24
financial results. In that press release, the Company reported
strong quarterly results, including revenue of $326 million, a 24%
increase year-over-year, which Defendants largely attributed to the
execution of the turnaround strategy. Investors were impressed by
the results and the apparent success of the turnaround strategy.
The price of UiPath stock increased nearly 27% on the news, from
$19.76 per share on November 30, 2023, to $25.04 per share on
December 1, 2023.
Defendant Dines indicated that the turnaround strategy was a
failure. He stated, "as we look to the future, we are laser focused
on enhancing our execution, driving higher efficiency across sales
and driving a deeper and more execution-oriented strategy for our
AI powered growth products." Dines also stated, "we are also
shifting the way we engage with customers to reinvigorate our line
of business engagement with an industry tailored approach" and "we
plan to go back to our roots, building a truly customer-centric
organization." On this news, the price of UiPath stock declined
$6.23 per share, or more than 34%, from $18.30 per share on May 29,
2024, to $12.07 per share on May 30, 2024, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased and sold UiPath securities during the Class
Period.
UiPath is a Delaware corporation with its corporate headquarters
and
principal place of business in New York City.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ross Shikowitz, Esq.
BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP
75 Virginia Road
White Plains. NY 10603
Phone: (914) 265-2991
Facsimile: (212) 205-3960
Email: rshikowitz@bfalaw.com
- and -
Adam C. McCall, Esq.
BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP
1330 Broadway, Suite 630
Oakland, CA 94612
Phone: (415) 445-4003
Facsimile: (415) 445-4020
Email: amccall@bfalaw.com
UNITED OF OMAHA: Viverette Sues Over Failure to Protect Info
------------------------------------------------------------
JAWAUN VIVERETTE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED OF OMAHA LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 8:24-cv-00317 (D. Neb., August 13,
2024) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence,
negligence per se, breach of contract, breach of implied contract,
unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, and declaratory
judgment.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected
health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated
individuals stored on its network systems following a data breach
between April 21, 2024, and April 23, 2024. The Defendant also
failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated
individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private
information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and
damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and
unauthorized third parties, says the suit.
United of Omaha Life Insurance Company is a life insurance company
based in Omaha, Nebraska. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tyler J. Bean, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Telephone: (646) 357-1732
Email: tbean@sirillp.com
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Hertzberg Sues Over Failure to Protect Info
---------------------------------------------------------------
SHIRLEY HERTZBERG and VICTOR WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP
INCORPORATED; UNITEDHEALTHCARE, INC.; OPTUM, INC.; and CHANGE
HEALTHCARE INC., Defendants, Case No. 0:24-cv-03178-DWF-DJF (D.
Minn., August 9, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for
negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust
enrichment, and declaratory judgment.
The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected
health information of the Plaintiffs and similarly situated
patients stored on their network systems following a data breach
that occurred in or around February 2024. The Defendants also
failed to timely notify the Plaintiffs and similarly situated
individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private
information of the Plaintiffs and Class members was compromised and
damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and
unauthorized third parties. Consequently, they now encounter
substantial risks of medical-related theft, financial fraud, and
various forms of identity-related fraud, both presently and in the
foreseeable future, says the suit.
UnitedHealth Group Incorporated is a health insurance company based
in Hopkins, Minnesota.
UnitedHealthcare, Inc. is a health insurance company headquartered
in Hopkins, Minnesota.
Optum, Inc. is a subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group, located in Eden
Prairie, Minnesota.
Change Healthcare Inc. is a subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group,
located in Nashville, Tennessee. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq.
Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq.
Emma Ritter Gordon, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
100 Washington Ave S., Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339-6900
Email: khriebel@locklaw.com
dwasp@locklaw.com
kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com
erittergordon@locklaw.com
- and -
Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq.
FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN
923 Fayette St.
Conshohocken, PA 19428
Telephone: (610) 234-6770
Email: jjagher@fklmlaw.com
- and -
Nicholas R. Lange, Esq.
FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN
100 Tri-State International Drive, Suite 128
Lincolnshire, IL 60069
Telephone: (224) 632-4510
Email: nlange@fklmlaw.com
USERWAY INC: Bloomsybox.com Sues Over False Ads on Widget
---------------------------------------------------------
Bloomsybox.com, LLC, Plaintiff v. Userway, Inc.; John Doe 1-5,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00844-UNA (D. Del., July 19, 2024) is a
class action seeking damages caused by Userway's misleading and
false representations in its advertising, its direct marketing, its
standard form correspondences with customers, and in its standard
form contract regarding its "overlay" products that purport to
adjust any website's underlying code to ensure that the website
meets all legal and regulatory standards needed to comply with
Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
In 2016, Defendant Userway, began marketing "overlay" products that
it claimed obviate the need for the labor-intensive process of
manually remediating a website to comply with WCAG standards.
Userway has claimed its product, that it calls a "widget" and
markets as an "Accessibility Widget," can be installed in a matter
of minutes and that it ensures ADA compliance in plug-and-play
fashion. However, Userway's product leaves most accessibility
issues unaddressed. In many cases, installing Userway's widget
actually hinders accessibility, in that Userway's widget interferes
with necessary accessibility technology tools widely used by users
with disabilities who require such accessibility tools to utilize
the Internet, says the suit.
Headquartered in Wilmington, DE, Userway is a digital accessibility
company sells products and subscription services throughout the
United States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian E. Farnan, Esq.
Michael J. Farnan, Esq.
919 North Market Street, 12th Floor
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 777-0300
E-mail: bfarnan@farnanlaw.com
mfarnan@farnanlaw.com
- and -
Joshua Urist, Esq.
URIST LAW OFFICES, PLLC
1441 Broadway, Suite 6147
New York, NY 10018
Telephone: (347) 827-1529
E-mail: jurist@uristlaw.com
- and -
David Stein, Esq.
David Nieporent, Esq.
STEIN & NIEPORENT LLP
1441 Broadway, Suite 6090
New York, NY 10018
Telephone: (212) 308-3444
E-mail: dstein@steinllp.com
dnieporent@steinllp.com
- and -
Ari Brown, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF ARI BROWN, PLLC
3909 47th Ave. S
Seattle, WA 98118
Telephone: (206) 412-9320
E-mail: abrownesq@gmail.com
- and -
John Heenan, Esq.
HEENAN & COOK
1631 Zimmerman Trail
Billings, MT 59102
Telephone: (406) 839-9081
E-mail: john@lawmontana.com
VALVE CORP: Bid to Seal Entries in Updated Appendix Tossed
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wolfire Games LLC, et al.,
v. Valve Corporation (VALVE ANTITRUST LITIGATION), Case No.
2:21-cv-00563-JCC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge John Coughenour
entered an order:
-- denying the Defendant's revised request(s) to seal for the
entries
described in Defendant's Updated Appendix 1, as outlined in the
sealed exhibit, and
-- granting the revised request(s) to seal for all other entries
in Defendant's Updated Appendix 1.
Within 14 days, the parties shall meet and confer and file final
public redacted versions of the materials at issue in this motion,
in accordance with this order.
The Clerk is directed to maintain the following materials under
seal: Docket Numbers 182-1, 229, 230 et seq., 231 et seq., 232, 233
et seq., 242, 298 et seq., 305 et seq., 324, and 32
Valve Corporation is an American video game developer, publisher,
and digital distribution company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 6, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8GGwzg at no extra
charge.[CC]
WARDADDY AVIATION: Seeks to Hire Peachtree CPA Group as Accountant
------------------------------------------------------------------
Wardaddy Aviation, Inc. seeks approval from the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the Northern District of Georgia to hire Justin Uhland of
Peachtree CPA Group LLC as accountant.
The firm will provide accounting needs, including preparation of
operating reports, bookkeeping, and tax accounting (including
preparation of corporate tax returns), during this case.
The firm will charge a fixed monthly fee of $1,000 per month for
bookkeeping services. The accountant will charge an annual fee of
$750 for filing the business' corporate tax returns.
As disclosed in the court filings, Peachtree CPA is a disinterested
person as that term is defined in 11 U.S.C. Sec. 101(14).
The accountant can be reached through:
Justin Uhland, CPA
Peachtree CPA Group LLC
21 Eastbrook Bend, Suite 219
Peachtree City, GA. 30269
Phone: (770) 990-0206
About Wardaddy Aviation, Inc.
Wardaddy is an aviation company that provides technical expertise
and professional integrity to guide clients in making informed
decisions about their aircraft, whether it's acquiring new
aircraft, storage or aircraft maintenance.
Wardaddy Aviation, Inc. filed its voluntary petition for relief
under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. N.D. Ga. Case No.
24-10810) on June 21. 2024, listing $1 million to $10 million in
both assets and liabilities. The petition was signed by David R.
Ronig, president.
Judge Paul Baisier presides over the case.
Thomas T. McClendon, Esq. at JONES & WALDEN LLC represents the
Debtor as counsel.
WAREHOUSE HOME: Surgeon Debt Collection Suit Removed to W.D.N.C.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled GARY SURGEON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. WAREHOUSE HOME FURNISHINGS
DISTRIBUTORS, INC. d/b/a FARMERS HOME FURNITURE, Case No. 24 CVS
002605, was removed from the General Court of Justice Superior
Court Division, Gaston County, North Carolina, to the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of North Carolina on August 13,
2024.
The Clerk of Court for the Western District of North Carolina
assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-00739 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of North
Carolina's Fair Debt Collection Act and North Carolina's Unfair and
Deceptive Trade Practices Act by charging unfair and deceptive
processing fees.
Warehouse Home Furnishings Distributors, Inc., doing business as
Farmers Home Furniture, is a distributor of home furniture based in
Georgia. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Nicholas H. Lee, Esq.
PARKER POE ADAMS & BERNSTEIN LLP
620 South Tryon Street, Suite 800
Charlotte, NC 28202
Telephone: (704) 372-9000
Facsimile: (704) 334-4706
Email: nicholaslee@parkerpoe.com
- and -
Charles E. Raynal, IV, Esq.
Aislinn R. Klos, Esq.
PARKER POE ADAMS & BERNSTEIN LLP
301 Fayetteville Street, Suite 1400
Raleigh, NC 27601
Telephone: (919) 828-0564
Email: charlesraynal@parkerpoe.com
aislinnklos@parkerpoe.com
WESTERN UNION: Subsidiary Continues to Defend CFA Suit
------------------------------------------------------
The Western Union 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 30, 2024, that the Company's
subsidiary, Western Union Financial Services Argentina S.R.L.,
continues to defend itself from the Consumidores Financieros class
suit in Argentina's National Commercial Court No. 19.
In October 2015, Consumidores Financieros Asociacion Civil para su
Defensa, an Argentinian consumer association, filed a purported
class action lawsuit in Argentina's National Commercial Court No.
19 against the Company's subsidiary Western Union Financial
Services Argentina S.R.L. ("WUFSA").
The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that WUFSA's fees for
money transfers sent from Argentina are excessive and that WUFSA
does not provide consumers with adequate information about foreign
exchange rates.
The plaintiff is seeking, among other things, an order requiring
WUFSA to reimburse consumers for the fees they paid and the foreign
exchange revenue associated with money transfers sent from
Argentina, plus punitive damages.
The complaint does not specify a monetary value of the claim or a
time period.
In November 2015, the Court declared the complaint formally
admissible as a class action.
The notice of claim was served on WUFSA in May 2016, and in June
2016 WUFSA filed a response to the claim and moved to dismiss it on
statute of limitations and standing grounds.
In April 2017, the Court deferred ruling on the motion until later
in the proceedings.
The process for notifying potential class members has been
completed, and the case is in the evidentiary stage.
Due to the stage of this matter, the Company is unable to predict
the outcome or the possible loss or range of loss, if any,
associated with this matter.
WUFSA intends to defend itself vigorously.
The Western Union Company is into cross-border, cross-currency
money movement, payments, and digital financial services,
empowering consumers, businesses, financial institutions, and
governments.
WESTERN UNION: Subsidiary Continues to Defend Class Suit in Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Western Union 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 30, 2024, that the Company's
subsidiary, Western Union Financial Services, Inc., continues to
defend the Financial Privacy Act class suit in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California.
In December 2022, a purported class action complaint was filed
against several money transfer business defendants, including the
Company, in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, alleging that these defendants violated the
federal Right to Financial Privacy Act and California's Financial
Information Privacy Act.
The United States Department of Homeland Security and Immigration
and Customs Enforcement are also named as defendants.
The original complaint alleged that the defendants violated
plaintiffs' financial privacy rights by sharing private financial
information with law enforcement agencies through a program
coordinated by the Transaction Record Analysis Center.
On January 24, 2023, an amended complaint was filed naming the
Company's subsidiary Western Union Financial Services, Inc.
("WUFSI") as a defendant in place of The Western Union Company.
The court granted in part and denied in part WUFSI's motion to
dismiss the amended complaint on March 21, 2024.
On May 9, 2024, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint
that re-alleges the state law cause of action against WUFSI, but
does not re-allege the federal cause of action against WUFSI.
On February 21, 2024, another purported class action complaint was
filed in the United States District Court for the Central District
of California against the Company (d/b/a WUFSI) and other
defendants on behalf of California residents whose information was
sent to the Transaction Record Analysis Center.
On April 12, 2024, an amended complaint was filed naming WUFSI as a
defendant in place of the Company.
Due to the preliminary stage of these matters, the ultimate outcome
and any potential financial impact to the Company cannot be
reasonably determined at this time.
WUFSI intends to defend itself vigorously in these matters.
The Western Union Company is into cross-border, cross-currency
money movement, payments, and digital financial services,
empowering consumers, businesses, financial institutions, and
governments.
WG UNDERGROUND: Gonzalez Seeks Utility Installers' Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------------
ARIXON GONZALEZ, JR., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WG UNDERGROUND, LLC, GONZALO E.
CAMANO, WALTER CAMANO, and CONSOLIDATED WIRING, LLC, Defendants,
Case No. 1:24-cv-03535-CCB (N.D. Ga., August 9, 2024) is a class
action against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as an underground utility
installer from approximately June 2021 through December 2023.
WG Underground, LLC is an underground utility installation company
headquartered in Suwanee, Georgia.
Consolidated Wiring, LLC is a telecommunications services
contractor and project manager headquartered in Huntsville,
Alabama. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Larry Stine, Esq.
Sarah M. Kessler, Esq.
WIMBERLY, LAWSON, STECKEL, SCHNEIDER & STINE, P.C.
3400 Peachtree Road, N.E.
Suite 400, Lenox Towers
Atlanta, GA 30326
Telephone: (404) 365-0900
Facsimile: (404) 261-3707
Email: jls@wimlaw.com
smk@wimlaw.com
- and -
Christopher J. York, Esq.
Don G. Gaskill, Jr., Esq.
YORK GASKILL, LLC
1815 Satellite Blvd., Suite 404
Duluth, GA 30097
Telephone: (770) 817-4939
Facsimile: (678) 530-1088
Email: chrisyork@yorkgaskill.com
- and –
Hipolito M. Goico, Esq.
Albert J. Bolet, III, Esq.
GOICO & BOLET, P.C.
2021 N. Druid Hills Road, Suite 200
Atlanta, GA 30329
Telephone: (404) 320-3456
Facsimile: (404) 320-3026
Email: hgoico@goicobolet.com
abolet@goicobolet.com
WILDERDOG LLC: Calcano Sues Over Blind's Equal Access Online Store
------------------------------------------------------------------
MARCOS CALCANO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WILDERDOG, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-06152 (S.D.N.Y., August 13, 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.wilderdog.com, contains access barriers which hinder
the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the public through the
website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not
limited to: lack of alternative text (alt-text), or a text
equivalent, empty links that contain no text causing the function
or purpose of the link to not be presented to the user, redundant
links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, 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.
Wilderdog, LLC is a company that sells online goods and services,
doing business in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
Email: Michael@Gottlieb.legal
Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
WOW RESTAURANT: Court Extends Mediation Deadline in Chen Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Chen, et al., v. Wow
Restaurant TH, LLC, Case No. 8:23-cv-01602 (M.D. Fla., Filed July
17, 2023), the Hon. Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Cov entered an
endorsed order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs'
motion to extend time to move for class certification and
adjournment of mediation.
-- The Court will not extend the deadline to move for class
certification because Plaintiffs have not established good
cause
to do so and doing so would significantly extend the timeline
of
this case.
-- However, in light of the administrative issues with Plaintiff
Yang's estate, the Court believes there is good cause to extend
only the mediation deadline.
-- The parties are now scheduled to mediate with Mr. Burruezo on
October 10, 2024. The Court will not extend this deadline any
further. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on
8/6/2024. (DMD)
The nature of suit states Statutory Actions -- Fraudulent Filing of
Information Returns.
The Defendant operates a restaurant business.[CC]
XPEL INC: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP ("Scott+Scott"), an international
shareholder and consumer rights litigation firm, has filed a
securities Class Action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas against XPEL, Inc. ("XPEL" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: XPEL), and certain of its former and current
officers and/or directors (collectively, "Defendants"). The Class
Action asserts claims under Secs. 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. Secs. 78j(b) and 78t(a)) and U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder (17 C.F.R. Sec. 240.10b‑5) on behalf of all persons
other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired XPEL
securities between November 8, 2023, and May 2, 2024, inclusive
(the "Class Period"), and were damaged thereby (the "Class"). The
Class Action filed by Scott+Scott is captioned: Adishian v. XPEL,
Inc., et al., Case No. 5:24-cv-00873.
XPEL supplies automotive paint protection film, automotive window
film, ceramic coatings, architectural window film products, and
related tools and equipment to support the installation of these
products.
The Class Action alleges that, during the Class Period, Defendants
made misleading statements and omissions regarding the Company's
business, financial condition, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants misled the market to believe that it would increase its
market share penetration by reaching an increasingly large segment
of non-enthusiast car customers, which would in turn grow its
revenue by a substantial percentage in 2023 and 2024.
As the truth about XPEL's business reached the market, the price of
XPEL's stock suffered significant declines, harming investors. For
example, on May 2, 2024, XPEL filed a Form 8-K with the United
States Securities and Exchange Commission, only 5% revenue growth
year-over-year -- well below analyst expectations. During the
associated earnings call, Defendants admitted that they had been
losing customers in the aftermarket channel. On this news, XPEL's
stock price fell $20.93, or nearly 39%, to close at $32.86 per
share on May 2, 2024, on unusually heavy trading volume.
Lead Plaintiff Deadline
If you purchased XPEL securities during the Class Period and were
damaged thereby, you are a member of the "Class" and may be able to
seek appointment as lead plaintiff. If you wish to apply to be lead
plaintiff, a motion on your behalf must be filed with the United
States District Court for the Western District of Texas no later
than October 7, 2024. The lead plaintiff is a court-appointed
representative for absent class members of the Class. You do not
need to seek appointment as lead plaintiff to share in any Class
recovery in the Class Action. If you are a Class member and there
is a recovery for the Class, you can share in that recovery as an
absent Class member.
What You Can Do
You may contact an attorney to discuss your rights regarding the
appointment of lead plaintiff or your interest in the Class Action.
You may retain counsel of your choice to represent you in the Class
Action.
About Scott+Scott
Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major
securities, antitrust, and consumer rights actions throughout the
United States. The firm represents pension funds, foundations,
individuals, and other entities worldwide with offices in New York,
London, Amsterdam, Connecticut, California, Virginia, and Ohio.
This may be considered Attorney Advertising.
Contacts
Nicholas S. Bruno
Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP
230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor, New York, NY 10169
(888) 398-9312
nbruno@scott-scott.com [GN]
ZOOMINFO TECHNOLOGIES: Subsidiary Continues to Defend Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
ZoomInfo Technologies LLC disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 6, 2024, that Datanyze LLC, the
Company's subsidiary, continues to defend itself from Ohio Right of
Publicity Statute in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio.
On March 8, 2023, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against
Datanyze, LLC in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio alleging Datanyze's use of Ohio residents names in
a free trial violates the Ohio Right of Publicity Statute, and
seeking statutory damages, costs, and attorneys' fees.
On November 17, 2023, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims
with prejudice, and the plaintiffs have since appealed the
dismissal.
The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend against this
lawsuit.
ZoomInfo owns and operates a website that sells paid access to "the
world's leading business database."[BN]
[*] Judge Allows Parents and Teachers to Join Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
On August 8, 2024, U.S. District Court Judge Roger T. Benitez
allowed Thomas More Society attorneys to join parents and
additional teachers and proceed to file the proposed class action
complaint in Mirabelli v. Olson. The federal court order also
permits the addition of California Attorney General Rob Bonta as a
defendant in the proposed class action lawsuit challenging
"Parental Exclusion Policies."
On June 7, 2024, Thomas More Society asked the federal court to
permit additional teachers, parents, and a school district, to be
part of a proposed class action lawsuit, as representatives seeking
class-wide relief. While the August 8 order from Judge Benitez
denied the addition of a school district-plaintiff, Lakeside Union
School District, it does allow the case to proceed forward with
added parents and teachers, along with their associated classes and
claims.
Paul Jonna, Thomas More Society Special Counsel and Partner at
LiMandri & Jonna LLP, reacted:
"We are incredibly pleased that Judge Benitez has granted our
motion for leave to amend our complaint in Mirabelli v. Olson,
permitting us to proceed forward with filing a statewide class
action lawsuit that includes both teachers and parents. We intend
to file a motion for class certification in short order, which will
seek to expand our case to secure class-wide protection for not
only the teachers forced to keep parents in the dark through
unconstitutional Parental Exclusion Policies, but for all parents
who seek this critical information about their school-aged
children."
"Moreover, we look forward to prosecuting this case against
California Attorney General Rob Bonta, whose addition to the suit
has now been permitted with this order. Despite the clarity in the
law brought by the federal preliminary injunction we won before
Judge Benitez in Mirabelli v. Olson, in September 2023, Attorney
General Bonta has ignored it, and state officials have pursued
legal action in open defiance of the court's order. In doing so,
Attorney General Bonta is at the tip of the spear of the
institutional push to unconstitutionally violate the rights of
parents and teachers. Our clients hope to put this issue to rest
once and for all -- by obtaining class-wide relief on behalf of all
teachers and parents."
Read the Order Granting-In-Part and Denying-In-Part Plaintiffs'
Motion to Amend in Mirabelli, et al. v. Olson, et al., filed by
U.S. District Court Judge Roger T. Benitez, on August 8, 2024, in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California, here. [GN]
[*] SCOTUS Should Face Class Suit Over Bias, Actress Goldberg Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
Greta Bjornson, writing for Decider, reports that Whoopi Goldberg
is fed up with the Supreme Court, but a recent secret recording
really pushed her over the edge. This morning's episode of The View
began with the co-hosts discussing the unverified recordings from
liberal documentarian Lauren Windsor, who captured damning a
conversation with Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito.
In the leaked audio, Windsor pretends to be a religious
conservative while talking to the justice, who appears to say that
the left or right will eventually win, and the country can't
compromise.
"One side or the other is going to win," he says in the recording.
"There can be a way of working, a way of living together
peacefully, but it's difficult, you know, because there are
differences on fundamental things that really can't be
compromised."
After Goldberg asked her co-hosts if Alito's remarks compromise his
ability to serve on the court, Joy Behar said she had a bit of a
"problem" with the recordings, which she said could be "altered."
Still, she noted, "The Supreme Court at the moment is so biased and
so pro-theocracy, as you saw in what we just watched, that somebody
has to expose them."
She added, "They have the whole GOP on their side, and we're losing
the Supreme Court's objectivity, and someone needs to expose them.
They have no consequences whatsoever, these people. They're there
for the rest of their lives --"
Goldberg then cut in to ask, "Why can't we sue them in a class
action suit?"
Behar replied, "I'm not sure you can even do that. They're the
highest court," but Goldberg pushed on anyway, telling her, "Yeah,
but I don't know why -- listen, I don't know why you can't pull a
class action suit that says, listen, you are no longer doing the
job you're supposed to be doing. I don't understand why we can't do
that."
Behar then wrapped her remarks in a way only she could, peppering
in some new slang as she asked, "The question is, does [Justice
John] Roberts have the 'bazoos' -- that's a word I learned
somewhere, I don't know, but we all know what it is -- the 'bazoos'
to tell these people to recuse themselves, especially in the cases
of Trump?"
The View airs weekdays at 11/10c on ABC. [GN]
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2024. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.
*** End of Transmission ***