/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240821.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, August 21, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 168 Headlines 1ST LAKE: Plaintiff's Expert Disclosures Due Jan. 22, 2025 24 CAPITAL: Bid to Stay Class Certification Briefing OK'd in Peters ALTA CONCRETE: Vazquez Files Suit Over Labor Law Violation ARBOR REALTY: Faces Martin Suit Over Decline in Share Price BBLI EDISON: Cervantes Suit Removed to N.D. Ill. BINANCE HOLDINGS: Tribunal Court Allows Strike-Out Application BRITISH COLUMBIA: Faces Suit Over Prescribed Drug Supply Program CALIFORNIA: Court Approves Class Suit on Parental Secrecy Policies CANDID COLOR: Court Dismisses Mayhew, et al. Amended Class Action CARGILL INC: Court Defers Ruling in Beef Price Fixing Class Action CASH APP: Claim-Filing Deadline in Breach Suit Set November 18 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST: Seeks to Block Tithing Class Action Suit COMMUNITY CARE: Seeks to Decertify Conditionally Certified Action CROWDSTRIKE HOLDINGS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set Sept. 30 DESKTOP METAL: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in MA DR. DENNIS: Settles Collagen Class Action for $9.2MM ELANCO ANIMAL: Spradlin Balks at Topicals Market Conspiracy EQUITY LIFESTYLES: Continues to Defend Manufacturer Home Lots Suit ESTEE LAUDER: Website Breaches Cal. Trap & Trace Law, Price Says EXTREME NETWORKS: Faces Class Action Over False Statements EXTREME NETWORKS: Faces Class Suit Over Misleading Statements EZ FESTIVALS: Palie Plaintiffs Seek August 29 Opening Brief FARADAY FUTURE: Continues to Defend Stockholder Class Suit FEDERAL NATIONAL: Bid for Judgment on Securities Suit Pending FINDLAY AUTOMOTIVE: Smith Data Breach Suit Removed to D. Nev. FINDLAY AUTOMOTIVE: Stevens Data Breach Suit Removed to D. Nev. FIRSTENERGY CORP: Discovery in Consolidated Securities Suit Stayed FORD MOTOR: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set October 7 FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over 18.36% Stock Price Drop FRESHWORKS INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Calif. FTS USA: M.D. Pennsylvania Refuses to Quash Subpoena in Monroe Suit GENEDX HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Shareholder Class Suit GENEDX HOLDINGS: Negotiation on Settlement Stipulation Underway GIGACLOUD TECHNOLOGY: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Calif. HAYWARD HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suits HOMARY INTERNATIONAL: Lawyer Fraud Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. HOMESITE GROUP: Court Approves $725K FLSA Settlement in Herb Suit HUMANA INC: Marathe Sues Over False Registration Statements IBM: Dismissal of ERISA-Related Class Suit Under Appeal INARI Medical Inc: Continues to Defend MAEW Class Suit INDIVIOR PLC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set October 1 INTEGRA LIFESCIENCES: Faces Firefighters/Cops' Fund Securities Suit IROQUOIS NURSING: Settlement Has Prelim. OK in Pallotta FLSA Suit JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Court Dismisses Musikar-Rosner Consumer Suit KIRBY OPCO: Website Inaccessible to Visually Impaired, Wahab Says KIRSTEN JOHNSON: Court Affirms Dismissal of Threlkeld Federal Suit LEGO BRAND: Fernandez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website LIBERTY MUTUAL: Boyer Sues Over Failure to Include Overtime Pay LIMETREE BAY: Prelim. Injunction, Bond in Refinery Suit Affirmed LOFTUS: Boyce Bid for Class Certification Denied LOUISIANA REGIONAL: Faces Consolidated Suit Over Waste Odor LPL FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Cash Sweep Programs Class Suit LPL FINANCIAL: Faces Nevitt Suit for Breach of Fiduciary Duty LULL VENTURES: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Brown Says LULULEMON USA: Cantwell Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website MATTEL INC: Settlement in Sleeper-Related Suit for Court OK MDL 2873: Sutherland Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals METROHEALTH SYSTEM: Court Denies Savel's Bid to Quash Subpoena MIDLAND CREDIT: Bid to Compel Arbitration in Winkelman Suit Denied MITNICK LAW: Bid to Dissolve Writs in Balanced Bridge Suit Denied MODIVCARE SOLUTIONS: Class Certification Bid in Hines Due Dec. 2 NASHVILLE BOOTING: Class Action Lawsuit Nears Settlement NASSAU COUNTY, NY: Court Narrows Claims in Myers Suit NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Masterson Sues Over Junior Hockey Talent Ban NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response NCAA: Cornelio Sues Over Collusive and Illegal Practices NCR VOYIX CORP: Continues to Defend Retirement Plan Class Suit NEOGEONOMICS INC: Continues to Defend Goldenberg Shareholder Suit NESTLE PURINA: Denies Denver Plant's Foul Odor Claims NEW HAMPSHIRE: Seeks Extension to Answer Second Amend Complaint NEXTGEN LEADS: Robertson Alleges Illegal Telemarketing Practices OKTA INC: Proposes $60-Mil. Securities Class Action Settlement PALMER ADMINISTRATIVE: Class Cert Filing Due May 23, 2025 PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend PPH Securities Class Suit PDD HOLDINGS: Faces Securities Class Action Over False Statements PG&E CORP: Securities Suit Remanded to N.D. Cal. POND5 INC: Nixon Sues Over Illegal Disclosure of Personal Info PORSCHE AG: Settles Defective Vehicle Systems' Class Action Suit PRISMA LABS: Judge Dismisses "Magic Avatar" AI Class Action Suit PUBLIX SUPER MARKETS: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response RBS CITIZENS: Reinig Class Certification Bid Granted in Part RCP COMPANIES: Tenants Sue Over Negligence at Eclipse Apartments RETRO FITNESS: New Jersey Court Dismisses Membership Class Action REVANCE THERAPEUTICS: M&A Probes Proposed Merger With Crown Labs ROBERT HALF: Bids to Limit Expert Testimony in Magallon Suit OK'd ROGERS BAKERY: Court Directs Discovery Plan Filing in Barnes Suit RUSSELL INVESTMENTS: Wanek ERISA Suit Seeks to Certify Class SAN MARCO COFFEE: Wahab Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website SAVE MART: Must File Class Cert Opposition by Sept. 19 SELECT PORTFOLIO: Wins Bid for Judgment on Pleadings in Bowen Suit SEMA4 HOLDINGS: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Helo Securities Suit SHEVAUN HARRIS: Court Tosses Pineda Class Certification Bid SLEEP NUMBER: Continues to Defend California Labor Code Class Suit SNOWFLAKE INC: Rason Files Suit in D. Montana SPRINKLR INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Securities Fraud STANLEY BLACK: Continues to Defend Rammohan Class Suit SUMO LOGIC: Court Narrows Claims in Wasicek, et al. Lawsuit SYMPLE LENDING: Turizo Files TCPA Suit in S.D Fla. SYNGENTA CANADA: B.C. Court Certified Herbicide Class Suit TEGRIA HOLDINGS: $1.5MM Settlement in Chery Suit Has Prelim. Nod TERADATA CORP: Continues to Defend Ostrander Securities Class Suit TERRAN ORBITAL: S.D. New York Dismisses Mullen Securities Suit TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Class Suit Over Hydrogen Car Refueling Systems TRANSDEV NORTH: Bid for Class Cert. in Dudley Due March 14, 2025 UNITED HEALTHCARE: Koulouras Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duty UNITED PARCEL: Court Grants in Part Bid to Dismiss Wynn Class Suit US 1 LOGISTICS: Albizures Files Class Suit in Cal. Super. VENTURA COUNTY CREDIT: Alba Files Suit in Cal. Super. VICOR CORP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set Sept. 23 VISA INC: Court Extends Claim-Filing Deadline to August 30 VOLKSWAGEN AG: Hardy et al. Sue Over Defective Suction Jet Pumps VOYA FINANCIAL: Ravarino Must File Class Cert. Bid in 30 Days WELLS FARGO: Nadolny Suit Asserts Breach of Fiduciary Duty WESTERN GLOBAL: Court Stays ESOP Class Suit to Finalize Settlement WESTJET AIRLINES: Fox Seeks Compensation Over Cancelled Flight YUSEN LOGISTICS: Bermudez Files Labor Suit in Cal. Super. ZOOMINFO TECHNOLOGIES: Settlement in Illinois Suit for Final OK ZUFFA LLC: Court Directs Reza Parties to File Joint Status Report ********* 1ST LAKE: Plaintiff's Expert Disclosures Due Jan. 22, 2025 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEVIN MERRELL, v. 1ST LAKE PROPERTIES, INC. Case No. 2:23-cv-01450-SSV-DPC (E.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Sarah Vance entered a scheduling order as follows: -- Initial disclosures pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) must be exchanged no later than Aug. 12, 2024. -- If applicable, corporate and citizenship disclosures pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 7.1 shall be filed by Aug. 22, 2025. -- Amendments to pleadings, third-party actions, crossclaims, and counterclaims shall be filed no later than Aug. 12, 2024. -- Expert Disclosures: a) Plaintiff's expert disclosures shall be obtained and delivered to counsel for Defendant as soon as possible, but in no event later than Jan. 22, 2025. b) Defendant's expert disclosures shall be obtained and delivered to counsel for Plaintiff as soon as possible, but in no event later than Feb. 10, 2025. -- Depositions and all other discovery, including on class certification, shall be completed no later than March 10, 2025. 1st Lake Properties offers studio, 1, 2 & 3 bedroom apartments in Louisiana and Mississippi. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 8, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KidOXD at no extra charge.[CC] 24 CAPITAL: Bid to Stay Class Certification Briefing OK'd in Peters ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Peters Broadcast Engineering, Inc v. 24 Capital, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00236 (N.D. Ind., Filed July 14, 2022), the Hon. Judge Holly A. Brady entered an order granting the Defendants' motion for stay of briefing on motion for class certification pending a ruling on defendants' motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to extend response deadline. -- Briefing on Plaintiff's motion for class certification is stayed pending the court's ruling on the Defendants' motion to dismiss third amended complaint. The suit alleges violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. 24 Capital is an established merchant cash advance direct funder.[CC] ALTA CONCRETE: Vazquez Files Suit Over Labor Law Violation ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action has been filed against Alta Concrete Inc., a California Corporation, et al. The case is captioned as Vazquez, et al. v. Alta Concrete Inc., a California Corporation, et al., Case No. 24CV014360 (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., July 18, 2024). The suit is brought over Defendants' alleged labor law violation. The case is assigned to Hon. Richard K. Sueyoshi. Alta Concrete Inc. provides concrete and asphalt restoration services.[BN] ARBOR REALTY: Faces Martin Suit Over Decline in Share Price ----------------------------------------------------------- LOIS MARTIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ARBOR REALTY TRUST, INC., IVAN KAUFMAN, and PAUL ELENIO, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-05347 (E.D.N.Y., July 31, 2024) is a federal securities class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired ABR's securities between May 7, 2021 to July 11, 2024, inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act and Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants provided investors with false and/or materially misleading information concerning ABR's operational and financial health, including its balance sheet loan book and net interest income. The Defendants provided investors with this information in quarterly and annual reports filed with the SEC as well as orally during earnings conference calls. Investors discovered that these statements were false and/or materially misleading over the course of several corrective disclosures. First, on March 14, 2023, NINGI Research published a report on ABR, claiming inter alia that "ABR has been hiding a toxic real estate portfolio of mobile homes with a complex web of real and fake holdings companies for more than a decade." Next, on December 5, 2023, Viceroy published an in-depth study of ABR's Jacksonville, FL properties, declaring that in an "industry plagued with delusion and bad decisions, ABR stands out as the worst of the worst. Viceroy's dive into ABR's collateralized loan obligations suggest its entire loan book is distressed and underlying collateral is vastly overstated." On July 12, 2024, several months later, investor concerns stemming from the NINGI Report and Viceroy Report intensified when Bloomberg reported that ABR was "being probed by federal prosecutors and the Federal Bureau of Investigation in New York." According to the news report, "the investigators are inquiring about lending practices and the company's claims about the performance of their loan book." In response to the report, ABR's stock price declined from $15.53/share on July 11 to $12.89/share on July 12, says the suit. Arbor Realty Trust, Inc. is a Maryland corporation formed in 2003. The Company is an American real estate investment trust and direct lender, providing loan origination and servicing for commercial real estate assets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam M. Apton, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: aapton@zlk.com BBLI EDISON: Cervantes Suit Removed to N.D. Ill. ------------------------------------------------ The case styled Cervantes, et al. v. BBLI Edison LLC, et al., Case No. 2024 CH 05360, was removed from the Cook County Circuit Court, Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on July 18, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-06098 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to Honorable Jorge L. Alonso. The nature of suit is stated as real property: other. BBLI Edison LLC is a Delaware limited liability company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joan M. Fenstermaker, Esq. JOAN M. FENSTERMAKER, P.C 77 W. Washington St., Ste 1020 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 502-5288 E-mail: joanfenstermaker@gmail.com The Defendants are represented by: Cara M. Houck, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 150 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2600 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 715-5806 E-mail: cara.houck@hklaw.com BINANCE HOLDINGS: Tribunal Court Allows Strike-Out Application -------------------------------------------------------------- Macfarlanes reports that in July 2024, the Competition Appeal Tribunal (the Tribunal) partially allowed a strike-out application, whilst agreeing to certify, a class action brought by BSV Claims Limited (BCL) against a group of cryptocurrency exchanges for losses allegedly caused by collusion to delist the Bitcoin Satoshi Vision (BSV) cryptocurrency. Background Cryptocurrencies are decentralised digital currencies based on "blockchain" technology; blockchains being immutable digital ledgers of transactions that are distributed among users in peer-to-peer computer networks. Cryptocurrencies can be traded for state-backed "fiat" currencies on cryptocurrency exchanges. The first widely adopted cryptocurrency is Bitcoin, which was created in 2009 by an unknown inventor under the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto. As well as other, wholly independent cryptocurrencies, variants of Bitcoin have been created through protocol changes in the Bitcoin blockchain. One such variant is BSV, which was derived in 2018 from a precursor variant known as Bitcoin Cash and promoted by the computer scientist Dr Craig Wright. The de-listing of BSV Since 2015, Dr Wright has claimed to be Satoshi Nakamoto. This claim was disputed, resulting in proceedings against a number of software developers that contributed to the Bitcoin protocols for alleged infringement of Dr Wright's intellectual property rights. Dr Wright's claims were ultimately rejected in the High Court, which resoundingly concluded that he was not Satoshi Nakamoto. The controversy over Dr Wright's claims led to the defendant cryptocurrency exchanges in the present claim -- namely Bittylicious, Kraken, Shapeshift and Binance (the Defendants) -- making a series of tweets and other public announcements in April 2019, denouncing Dr Wright's conduct, declaring their intention to delist BSV, and calling upon other exchanges to do the same. The Defendants terminated the trading of BSV on their exchanges between April and June 2019. Claim by BCL On 29 July 2022 BCL issued a claim against the Defendants on behalf of all UK residents that were holders of BSV coins on 11 April 2019 (the Proposed Class). BCL alleges that the Defendants' announcements and subsequent de-listing of BSV from their exchanges constituted an anticompetitive agreement and/or concerted practice in contravention of the Chapter I Prohibition of the Competition Act 1998 and/or Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. BCL alleges that this: -- caused a crash in the price of BSV in the immediate aftermath of those events; and -- prevented BSV from developing, or meant it lost the chance to develop, into a "top-tier" cryptocurrency with a value similar to that of Bitcoin or Bitcoin Cash (the Forgone Growth Effect), each of which resulted in loss to the Proposed Class. The Proposed Class is broken down into three sub-classes, according to the effects of the alleged infringement (both immediate and longer-term) on their BSV holdings. Of those three sub-classes, Sub-Class B comprises those holders who continued to hold onto their BSV coins as at the date the claim was issued, and who allegedly suffered both of the above heads of loss. Application for strike-out Grounds for application Binance brought an application for strike-out and/or reverse summary judgment in respect of Sub-Class B's Foregone Growth Effect claim, which was the main category of loss claimed by that sub-class. The application was based on two grounds: -- First, that under the so-called "market mitigation rule", Sub-Class B members should have mitigated any future losses by selling their BSV coins following the de-listing and purchasing other cryptocurrencies. According to Binance, any loss caused by the retention of BSV coins was the consequence of speculation and irrecoverable in law. -- Second, BCL's "loss of a chance" claim was legally defective, as a claim for forgone growth cannot fall within the loss of a chance doctrine. Market mitigation rule: evidential question unsuitable for strike-out The market mitigation rule applies where loss concerns a product for which there is an available market, such that the claimant can readily obtain a reasonable substitute for it. In such cases, recoverable damages will generally be limited to the cost of entering into the transaction for the substitute product, at the time at which it was reasonable for the claimant to do so. If the claimant has chosen not to enter the available market to mitigate its loss, the law considers that this is generally an independent decision to take a risk, and not one for which the defendant is responsible. The principle presupposes that the claimant was actually aware of the wrongful conduct, or should reasonably have been aware. If the claimant is not aware until later, or there is no available market until later, damages will fall to be assessed at the later date. The Tribunal ultimately concluded that it was unable to summarily dismiss the claim for loss from the Forgone Growth Effect. However, this was only because there was at least a prospect of some of the Sub-Class B members having (reasonably) remained unaware of the de-listing. Further evidence was required to determine this point; the evidence before the court being very limited but "just about" enough to form a more than fanciful case. Otherwise, the Tribunal was supportive of Binance's submission that this was a paradigm case for application of the market mitigation rule and that it was not reasonable for the Sub-Class B members to have failed to mitigate their loss at the time the claim was filed. Loss of a chance claim: successful strike-out The Tribunal noted that BCL claimed for loss of a chance as a fallback position in case it is unable to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that BSV would have become a major cryptocurrency. It then concluded that such a claim was not sustainable as a matter of principle. Damages for loss of a chance may be claimed where a claimant alleges that, but-for the defendant's wrongdoing, they would have obtained a benefit which was contingent on the hypothetical decisions of a third party (such as the willingness of a buyer to purchase a particular asset). However, BCL's claim was not dependant on any particular actions or decisions of a third party, so could not be subject to the "loss of a chance" approach. Rather, it turned on the general question of whether BSV would have turned into a "top tier" cryptocurrency in the long term. This is an ordinary question of causation which should be determined by the Tribunal on the balance of probabilities, as is typical in competition litigation. To conclude otherwise would mean that claimants in every such case can simply fall back on a loss of a chance claim in the event they are unable to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that they would have traded profitably. The loss of a chance claim pleaded by BCL was therefore struck out. Next steps Whilst the Tribunal agreed to certify the claim (subject to an undertaking from the funder to comply with certain elements of the ALF Code of Conduct), it noted that elimination of the Forgone Growth Effect would have a dramatic impact on the overall size of the claim. Indeed, on one calculation -- using Bitcoin as the benchmark "top tier" cryptocurrency -- the Forgone Growth Effect accounted for the overwhelming majority of the nearly £10 billion claimed. That being the case, the Tribunal indicated that a preliminary issue trial to determine the extent to which this element of the claim can be maintained as a matter of principle is likely to be necessary. It also noted that a significant improvement in the evidential position regarding BSV holders' awareness of the de-listing is needed if BCL is to be successful in this regard. Commentary BCL's claim has passed the certification stage and -- just about -- survived a strike-out of most of the claim by value. Notwithstanding the Tribunal's concerns about a number of aspects of the claim, this serves to reiterate the relatively low threshold for collective proceedings to be certified in the UK. However, it appears likely that the claim will face significant challenges as it progresses. In addition to the difficulty of overcoming the market mitigation rule in circumstances such as these, the claim raises some relatively novel and/or untested substantive competition law issues. In particular, whilst collusion amongst competitors effected through public announcements can constitute a breach of competition law in some circumstances, there is little in the way of established precedent in respect of such conduct, and what precedent there is generally relates to coordination on price. Similarly, few allegations of collective boycott (which essentially form the basis of BCL's claim) have been pursued to their conclusion at UK or EU level, and available guidance suggests that only boycotts aimed at competitors (whether actual or potential) are likely to be viewed as inherently anticompetitive. [GN] BRITISH COLUMBIA: Faces Suit Over Prescribed Drug Supply Program ---------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Zussman & Amy Judd of Global News report that a proposed class action lawsuit has been filed in B.C. Supreme Court alleging both the province and federal government are responsible for the addictions and in one case the death of teens gaining access to diverted supply. Amelie North's family believes the B.C. government's prescribed drug supply program led the 17-year-old down a path of destruction. She's currently undergoing treatment for addiction. "I understand the purpose for it," mom Denise Fenske told Global News, "but I believe the repercussions are astronomically horrendous." On Wednesday, August 14, lawyers delivered a civil class action claim on behalf of North, represented by Fenske and Kamilah Sword. Amelie and Kamilah were best friends and both purchased drugs diverted from the government's program that they believed was safe. In the lawsuit, her father, Greg Sword is his daughter's proposed representative plaintiff. Amelie is currently receiving treatment but her mom believes her addiction was something that started with diverted pills. "I don't know what her life is going to be like going forward," Fenske said. "I don't know if she is going to be OK, if she is going to be able to get past the addiction." The class action lawsuit claim alleges that Kamilah and Amelie relied on the "negligent misrepresentations to begin consuming the Safe Supply Drugs, believing they were safe and they relied upon the negligent misrepresentations throughout the duration of their addictions." In addition, the lawsuit claims that the defendants, including both the province and federal government, "failed and continue to fail to monitor the Safe/Safer Supply Program and how the terminology 'safe', 'safe supply', 'safer supply' or 'prescribed safer supply' is used to motivate the innocent Class Members." At a press conference on August 14, Premier David Eby said his government will do "everything it can to keep everyone alive so if they have a moment of clarity they can get the help they need, that is why we had the prescribed alternatives program." As the statement was submitted on Wednesday, August 14, the defendants have not had the chance to respond. The allegations have not been proven in court. [GN] CALIFORNIA: Court Approves Class Suit on Parental Secrecy Policies ------------------------------------------------------------------ Greg Burt, writing for California Family Counsel, reports that in a landmark decision that could upend California's controversial parental secrecy policies, a federal judge has allowed a class action lawsuit to proceed, challenging the constitutionality of policies that keep parents in the dark about their children's struggles with gender dysphoria and gender confusion. The lawsuit, if successful, would render the recently signed AB 1955, banning gender notification policies, irrelevant and could open the door for teachers and parents to sue school districts statewide, effectively dismantling the gender secrecy system imposed by the California Department of Education, Governor Gavin Newsom, Attorney General Rob Bonta, and State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond. The Class Action Lawsuit: A Turning Point The class action lawsuit, spearheaded by concerned parents and teachers and supported by the Thomas More Society, targets the so-called "parental exclusion policies" adopted by several California school districts. These policies, which have been promoted by state education authorities, mandate that schools withhold information from parents regarding their children's gender identity and any related struggles, unless the child consents to such disclosure. The plaintiffs argue that these policies violate the constitutional rights of parents to direct the upbringing and care of their children. They also assert that the policies place children at risk by denying parents the ability to provide the necessary support and guidance during critical periods of their children's development. In a significant ruling last week, the federal judge overseeing the case brought by two Christian public school teachers in Escondido granted their request to amend the complaint. This decision allows the case to proceed as a class action on behalf of all California parents and teachers with children in public schools. Federal Judge Roger T. Benitez's decision not only legitimizes the concerns of the parents and teachers involved but also signals the court's willingness to consider the broader implications of these policies on parental rights and child safety. According to Thomas More Society Attorney Paul Jonna the decision is a "game changer." If they go on to win their case, it will affect every school district in the state. "And every school district would be prohibited from enforcing gender secrecy policies on teachers who have religious objections or even ideological objections to the policies and any parent that has a child that has gender dysphoria," Jonna explained. "School districts would face massive liability if they tried to enforce these policies statewide." The Impact on AB 1955 Governor Gavin Newsom recently signed AB 1955 into law, a bill codifying parental secrecy policies into state law by banning school policies requiring parents to be notified if a student asks to change their names and pronouns at school. The bill was framed by its supporters as a necessary measure to protect the safety of children from parents who might disapprove of gender transitioning and to protect the supposed privacy and autonomy rights of students grappling with gender identity issues. But if this federal class action is successful, AB 1955 will become toothless. "This is really, really, really big," Jonna said. "So, essentially, their whole gender secrecy system collapses if we win this case." California Family Council (CFC) agree that gender secrecy policies and AB 1955 undermine parental rights and persecute parents with Christian beliefs about gender and sex. They also believe these policies endanger children by promoting a culture of secrecy, where adults can manipulate kids and keep parents in the dark about important aspects of their children's lives. "This is a critical moment for parental rights in California," said Greg Burt, Vice President of California Family Council, expressing his support for the lawsuit. "For too long, the state has operated under the false assumption that it knows what's best for our children better than we do as parents. This lawsuit is a necessary step to restoring the rights and responsibilities God has given to families. If successful, it will send a clear message that parents must be involved in the most important decisions affecting their children's lives." A Tidal Wave of Legal Challenges The lawsuit also represents a broader backlash against the aggressive promotion of gender ideology in California's public schools. For years, parents and educators who questioned the state's approach to gender issues were dismissed or silenced. But now, with the federal judiciary taking their concerns seriously, the tide appears to be turning. At its core, this lawsuit is about more than just parental rights -- it's about parents' role in guiding their children's development and schools' responsibility to support, not undermine, that role. By allowing the lawsuit to proceed, the federal judge has opened the door to a potential collapse of the gender secrecy system that has been imposed on California schools by state authorities. [GN] CANDID COLOR: Court Dismisses Mayhew, et al. Amended Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case SPENCER MAYHEW, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and ROSALIE NOREN, Plaintiffs, vs. CANDID COLOR SYSTEMS, INC., an Oklahoma corporation, and KABANCE PHOTO SERVICES, INC., a voluntary unincorporated association based in Missouri, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-2964-DWD (S.D. Ill.), Judge David W. Dugan of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois ruled on Defendants' separate Motions to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Class Action Complaint. Defendant CCSI's Motion to Dismiss is granted for lack of personal jurisdiction. The claims against it are dismissed without prejudice. Defendant KPSI's Motion to Dismiss is denied. The stay of discovery is lifted. This case arises under the Biometric Information Privacy Act, 740 ILCS 14/1 et seq. Defendant CCSI, an Oklahoma corporation, provides photography-related products, services, and software to its customers, who operate their own photography businesses. Particularly relevant to this case, Defendant CCSI provides its photographer-customers, including Defendant KPSI, a Missouri-based business, with an online platform to market and sell the photographs that they take at graduation ceremonies, sports contests, and other events. Defendant CCSI also allegedly owns the trademark for and does business as Grad Photo Network, which "is 'the largest network of professional photographers for graduation and commencement ceremonies.' " Defendant KPSI belongs to the Grad Photo Network, which it uses to sell photographs. The Grad Photo Network website is part of the "Ecommerce platform." Further, Defendant CCSI allegedly claims the "benefits of its facial recognition feature include 'ID[ing] more images faster and more accurately.' "When a photograph on the Grad Photo Network website is selected, "a dotted-line rectangular field automatically appears" around the individual's face. By clicking inside the "rectangular field," the website user can reload the webpage and return other photographs of the same individual. The address of the reloaded webpage includes a "FaceID" unique to that individual. Plaintiffs allege this is only possible through the collection of biometric identifiers, i.e., through the scanning of photographs for facial images and the "extracti[on] from each photo of data representing the unique geometry of each facial image so that comparisons" can be made with other photographs. Defendant CCSI allegedly collects an "Ecommerce fee" from purchases of photographs on the platform. Plaintiffs allege they were subjected to Defendant CCSI's facial recognition technology after participating in their respective graduation ceremonies. Due to their relationship with each other and with other Illinois entities, as detailed in relation to the sale of photographs on the Grad Photo Network website, Defendants allegedly collected, stored, used, and/or profited from the biometric identifiers of hundreds of Illinois residents. Defendant KPSI's account on the Grad Photo Network website allegedly depicts "other participants in the Collinsville High School and Blackburn College graduation ceremonies[] as well as photos from other events in Illinois." Aside from Defendant KPSI, "other photographers operating in Illinois have [allegedly] used the various online platforms within the 'Ecommerce platform' to capture the biometrics of Illinois residents." On October 4, 2023, Plaintiff filed a 5-Count First Amended Class Action Complaint against Defendants CCSI and KPSI under BIPA. Plaintiffs allege each Defendant: (1) violated Sec. 15(a) of BIPA by failing to develop and comply with a publicly available written retention policy for biometric identifiers; (2) violated Sec. 15(b)(1) of BIPA by collecting, capturing, receiving through trade, or otherwise obtaining Plaintiffs' biometric identifiers without first informing them, in writing, that their biometric identifiers were collected or stored; (3) violated Sec. 15(b)(2) of BIPA by collecting, capturing, receiving through trade, or otherwise obtaining Plaintiffs' biometric identifiers without first informing them, in writing, of the specific purpose and length of term for the collection, use, and storage of their biometric identifiers; (4) violated Sec. 15(b)(3) of BIPA by collecting, capturing, receiving through trade, or otherwise obtaining Plaintiffs' biometric identifiers without first obtaining written releases; and (5) violated Sec. 15(c) of BIPA by profiting from Plaintiffs' biometric identifiers on Defendant CCSI's "Ecommerce platform." Plaintiffs seek the certification of a class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the appointment of class counsel, declaratory and injunctive relief, statutory damages, and attorney fees and costs. Defendant CCSI seeks a dismissal of the First Amended Class Action Complaint under Rule 12(b)(2) and (6). Defendant CCSI, an Oklahoma corporation, argues Plaintiffs failed to establish specific personal jurisdiction. Defendant CCSI emphasizes its belief that Plaintiffs' Illinois residences, and the fact that the photographs were taken in Illinois, are the only Illinois-specific factual allegations. That is, Plaintiffs do not allege the photographs were uploaded to Defendant KPSI's account on the "Ecommerce platform" in Illinois, or that Plaintiffs' faceprints were analyzed in Illinois rather than at Defendant KPSI's Missouri headquarters. In the absence of a direct connection between Defendant CCSI and Illinois, Defendant CCSI argues the Court cannot exercise specific personal jurisdiction based upon Illinois residents' interactions with its website or the conduct of Defendant CCSI's Missouri-based customer, Defendant KPSI. Judge Dugan finds Plaintiffs have failed to make a prima facie showing of specific personal jurisdiction against Defendant CCSI. Instead, the record reflects any contacts of Defendant CCSI with Illinois are random, fortuitous, attenuated, and contingent upon the independent conduct of Defendant KPSI and Plaintiffs or their families. Defendant KPSI seeks a dismissal of the First Amended Class Action Complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), which allows challenges to a pleading based upon the failure to state a claim for which relief may be granted. To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, which tests the sufficiency of the pleading but not its merits, the plaintiff must allege enough facts for the claim to be facially plausible. As an initial matter, Defendant KPSI argues Plaintiffs were photographed pursuant to agreements that it executed with Collinsville High School and Blackburn College. Therefore, in its view, Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the government contractor exception contained in Sec. 25(e) of BIPA, which states: "Nothing in this Act shall be construed to apply to a contractor, subcontractor, or agent of a State agency or local unit of government when working for that State agency or local unit of government." Plaintiffs respond that Defendant KPSI improperly seeks the application of an affirmative defense under Rule 12(b)(6). According to Judge Dugan, the Court agrees with Plaintiffs that it would be imprudent to apply the government contractor exception to BIPA, contained in Sec. 25(e), at this stage in the case. Plaintiffs were not required to plead around Sec. 25(e), and this is not one of the rare instances where the First Amended Class Action Complaint alleges all that is necessary to find that exception to BIPA is satisfied. As a result, the Court insists that Defendant KPSI comply with the structure of the Rules by filing an answer with any appropriate affirmative defenses. Defendant KPSI argues Plaintiffs make general and conclusory allegations that do not distinguish between the alleged wrongful conduct of Defendants, as required by Rule 8(a). Defendant KPSI also suggests Plaintiffs failed to adequately allege it obtained, collected, stored, or possessed or controlled their biometric identifiers under BIPA. Defendant KPSI argues it does not own the website, control the biometric identifiers related to the facial recognition technology, extract faceprints, or have biometric identifiers at its disposal. It also argues Plaintiffs failed to allege it profited from their biometric identifiers under Sec. 15(c). Defendant KPSI argues using biometric identifiers to increase the sale of photographs, which do not themselves implicate BIPA, does not entail sharing biometric identifiers. The Court finds Plaintiffs have alleged facially plausible claims to relief against Defendant KPSI under Sec. 15(a), (b), and (c) of BIPA. It agrees with Plaintiffs that technical questions about, inter alia, the manner in which biometric identifiers are extracted from the photographs and stored, are better suited for discovery. At present, it suffices to find, within a nonexclusive meaning of "possession," Plaintiffs plausibly allege Defendant KPSI exercised dominion over, controlled, or held their biometric identifiers. As to Sec. 15(b), Plaintiffs plausibly allege Defendant KPSI collected, captured, or otherwise obtained their biometric identifiers without first complying with the requirements of that statutory provision. The Court finds Plaintiffs plausibly allege Defendant KPSI did the following under Sec. 15(b): (1) "collected," i.e., received, gathered, or exacted, their biometric identifiers from the photographs; (2) "captured," i.e., took, seized, or caught, their biometric identifiers from the photographs; or (3) "otherwise obtained" their biometric identifiers from the photographs. Finally, the Court finds Plaintiffs plausibly allege Defendant KPSI was "in possession" of their biometric identifiers under Sec. 15(c). Moreover, under a plain reading of Sec. 15(c), the Court finds Plaintiffs plausibly allege Defendant KPSI "otherwise profited" from their biometric identifiers. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated August 5, 2024, is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tcyUfO CARGILL INC: Court Defers Ruling in Beef Price Fixing Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------------ Bernise Carolino, writing for Canadian Lawyer, reports that the B.C. Supreme Court recently decided to adjourn a procedural dispute in a proposed class action lawsuit alleging a conspiracy to fix beef prices until the certification hearing scheduled for next January. The certification hearing will determine whether the case meets the criteria for proceeding as a class action under B.C.'s Class Proceedings Act, 1996. The underlying action involves claims that the defendants conspired to manipulate the price of beef to the detriment of a proposed class, including the plaintiff in this case. The plaintiff filed the present application to exclude statements in the defendants' affidavits that denied the existence of the alleged conspiracy. The court should not admit these statements at the certification stage, as the task of the certification judge was not to adjudicate the merits of the case, the plaintiff argued. Instead, the judge should assess whether some basis in fact existed to establish that the claims raised common issues suitable for class-wide determination under s. 4(1)(c) of the Act, the plaintiff said. The defendants opposed and claimed that these statements were relevant to the certification process. Their evidence was admissible at this stage because deciding whether there was some basis in fact for the common issues would necessarily involve a preliminary assessment of the merits, the defendants said. The court's ruling In Bui v Cargill, Incorporated, 2024 BCSC 1364, the B.C. Supreme Court exercised its discretion to adjourn the application of the plaintiff to the certification hearing. The court found it inappropriate to provide a legal interpretation of the Act or to apply it to the facts of the case before the certification hearing. The court also deferred the issue of costs associated with the application. The court accepted that resolving the plaintiff's application would require determining the proper legal test under s. 4(1)(c). However, the court expressed concerns about tackling this issue before the certification hearing. Doing so would involve deciding upon conflicting interpretations of the law with only a partial evidentiary record and would lead to a piecemeal approach to the certification process, the court explained. The court gave the defendants the opportunity to fully argue the relevance of their affidavit evidence at the certification hearing. Preemptively excluding the challenged statements would not serve the interests of justice, the court noted. The court considered the plaintiff's argument that addressing this issue now would help clarify the legal test for certification and would help avoid potential surprises. Ultimately, the court held that the plaintiff failed to clearly articulate how refraining from striking the statements would cause prejudice at the certification hearing. In rejecting the plaintiff's arguments, the court noted that uncertainty regarding the legal test was a natural part of the litigation process and would not amount to a "trial by ambush". [GN] CASH APP: Claim-Filing Deadline in Breach Suit Set November 18 -------------------------------------------------------------- Elaine Mallon, writing for Washington Examiner, reports that Cash App was ordered to pay $15 million to app users who faced a security breach resulting in the release of millions of user's personal data. The breach occurred when one former Cash App employee downloaded the personal information of users without their knowledge. The December 2021 data breach resulted "in the unauthorized public release of the personally identifiable information of 8.2 million current and former Cash App Investing customers," the lawsuit noted. Plaintiffs sued Cash App Investing and Block, claiming the companies failed "to exercise reasonable care in securing and safeguarding consumer information." Now users are eligible to receive up to $2,500 for unauthorized or fraudulent activity on their Cash App accounts between Aug. 23, 2018, and Aug. 20, 2024. Users who have already been reimbursed by Block, Cash App Investing, or a third party do not qualify. Users can submit a claim for out-of-pocket losses, lost time, and transaction losses. For lost time, a user can submit a claim for up to three hours at a rate of $25 per hour for time spent dealing with the data breach. With out-of-pocket losses, a user must show that his or her account was involved in the data breach, and with a transaction loss, a user must show he or she lost money and has not been reimbursed. Users should only submit one claim, and if they have multiple accounts, they should list it on a single form. Users have until Nov. 18, 2024, to submit their claims. [GN] CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST: Seeks to Block Tithing Class Action Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tony Semerad, writing for The Salt Lake Tribune, reports that a new court filing makes clear that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is treating a class-action lawsuit over tithing as a multipronged attack on religious freedoms. In arguments unveiled Friday, August 9, church lawyers are urging U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby in Salt Lake City to put any court-sanctioned evidentiary probes in the newly formed case on hold until he can rule on an upcoming motion to throw out the fraud allegations. In moving to block the process, known as discovery, the Utah-based faith's attorneys are promising to mount a formidable challenge in September outlining how core lines of argument in the high-profile case jeopardize the U.S. Constitution's legal shields against intrusions into matters of religious belief. "This is anything but a garden-variety consumer class action based on misrepresentations about a product or service," the church's lawyers told Shelby, instead calling the suit "a sprawling class action against a worldwide religious organization" filed by "a handful of dissenters." Labeling the plaintiffs as nonbelievers, the church is also challenging their legal standing to represent millions of active Latter-day Saints in a class action over the sacred practice. "How can plaintiffs who do not share that faith adequately represent those who believe?" church lawyers write, adding that they "offer no reason why millions of faithful tithe-paying church members would want any part in plaintiffs' attack on the church." Noting that all but one of the nine who have sued the faith since October are "apparently no longer even church members," the new filing continues, "they offer no rationale for how persons who lack faith in the doctrine of tithing as taught by the church can adequately represent millions of persons who have faith on a matter that itself is deeply rooted in faith." And because they "do not and cannot adequately represent the members of the proposed class," the brief states, their lawyers should not be allowed to start evidentiary discovery "that conflicts with the interests of the class." Counterarguments from the plaintiffs' lawyers are expected to be filed in a few weeks. Claims of fraud and 'a slush fund' Nine plaintiffs in five states are suing the global church and its investment arm, Ensign Peak Advisors, alleging that senior church leaders and their money managers lied for decades about using member tithing donations solely for charitable causes while instead investing the cash in a multibillion-dollar "slush fund." The multiple federal cases pressed by former or disaffected Latter-day Saints in Utah, Illinois, Washington, Tennessee and California were rolled into one action last month and placed in Shelby's Salt Lake City courtroom, mere blocks from the church's worldwide headquarters. The class-action case accuses Ensign Peak and the church of fraud, unjust enrichment and breaching fiduciary duties. In the newly consolidated complaint, the plaintiffs seek the return of varying amounts in individual donations they gave -- ranging from $3,700 to $183,256 -- along with other remedies, including possible creation of a national class of plaintiffs with similar interests. In addition to refunds, the class-action suit calls for declaring the church's financial practices illegal and ordering a halt to tithing altogether while accountants sort through the faith's finances or the court appoints a special monitor. In several court venues and public statements until now, church officials and their lawyers have firmly denied that top leaders ever misled members on tithing. Faithful Latter-day Saints donate 10% of their incomes to the church. 'Refrain from trolling' Last week's church filing, its first major move in the class-action case, also paints an intriguing picture of how its lawyers plan to fight it. The new motion notes that the lawsuit takes direct aim at questions that are fundamentally matters of belief, including faith in the act of tithing itself, church attorneys argue, "based on deeply personal religious experiences developed over a lifetime." That puts probing the lawsuit's main allegations squarely off-limits to a class action, the lawyers contend, under the First Amendment's protections of church autonomy which preempt government intrusion. Allowing it to proceed, they proclaim, risks second-guessing decisions made by duly appointed ecclesiastical leaders regarding the church's mission, its prophesied future, the priorities and timing of its spending and programs, and "the amount of funds needed currently versus the future to fulfill the church's destiny and how to invest reserve funds." The assertions of "disenchanted members about how the church accomplishes its mission," the attorneys write, "implicate precisely the kind of internal church conflict the First Amendment prohibits courts from adjudicating." Those same arguments also apply to the process of discovery, argue the faith's lawyers, who at one point cite a previous ruling that says "courts should refrain from trolling through a person's or institution's religious beliefs." The lawyers argue that Shelby should at least put discovery on hold and decide the merits of the underlying case "at the earliest possible stage of litigation" to fully protect the church's autonomy and rights to free exercise of religion. A road map for the litigation issued by Shelby in July calls for the church to seek dismissal of the lawsuit in early September, followed by a response from the plaintiffs in mid-November. More on 'copycats' Church attorneys have labeled the suits that went into this latest class action case "copycats" stemming from a separate legal battle brought more than three years ago by prominent Utahn and onetime church member James Huntsman. The wealthy film distributor also accuses top Latter-day Saint leaders of misleading the faithful over how tithing donations were spent. A son of the late industrialist-philanthropist Jon Huntsman Sr. and brother to former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr., James Huntsman seeks the return of $5 million in tithing, plus penalties and interest, but is not pursuing class-action status. The 17.2 million-member church and its legal supporters are also mounting religious-liberty arguments in that case, saying that it risks trampling religious protections. The issue is being closely followed nationally for its implications on religious autonomy as well as its potential impact on a range of nonprofits relying on donations. Huntsman's case has focused on the church spending $1.4 billion on its commercial venture with City Creek Center in downtown Salt Lake City and statements made by then-President Gordon B. Hinckley. It is now pending before the California-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. New oral arguments in Huntsman's case are scheduled in late September. [GN] COMMUNITY CARE: Seeks to Decertify Conditionally Certified Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ORETHA BEH, RUBY CASON, BRIANA KINCANNON and KIMBERLY BALKUM, Individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, v. COMMUNITY CARE COMPANIONS INC., ALEXANDER J. CARO, MARK GATIEN, INTERIM HEALTHCARE OF ROCHESTER, INC., and JAMES WATSON, Case No. 1:19-cv-01417-JLS-MJR (W.D.N.Y.), the Defendants, by and through their undersigned counsel, will move the Court for an order granting Defendants' Motion to Decertify the Conditionally Certified Collective Action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b. In accordance with the Court's June 27, 2024 Scheduling Order, the Plaintiffs' Opposition Papers, if any, are to be served on the undersigned on or before Sept. 11, 2024, and Defendants' Reply Papers are to be served on or before Nov. 13, 2024. Community Care is a non-medical that provides healthcare and homecare services to seniors. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 7, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Rd534R at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ian Hayes, Esq. HAYES DOLCE 135 Delaware Avenue, Suite 502 Buffalo, NY 14202 Telephone: (716) 608-3427 - and - James Reif, Esq. Jessica Harris, Esq. GLADSTEIN, REIF & MEGINNISS LLP 39 Broadway, Suite 2430 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212)-228-7727 The Defendants are represented by: Noel P. Tripp, Esq. Brian J. Shenker, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 58 South Service Road, Suite 250 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 247-0404 CROWDSTRIKE HOLDINGS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set Sept. 30 ------------------------------------------------------------------- If you suffered a loss on your CrowdStrike Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ:CRWD) investment and want to learn about a potential recovery under the federal securities laws, follow the link below for more information: https://zlk.com/pslra-1/crowdstrike-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=95540&wire=1 or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. via email at jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or call (212) 363-7500 to speak to our team of experienced shareholder advocates. THE LAWSUIT: A class action securities lawsuit was filed against CrowdStrike Holdings, Inc. that seeks to recover losses of shareholders who were adversely affected by alleged securities fraud between November 29, 2023 and July 29, 2024. CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that defendants made false statements and/or concealed that: (1) CrowdStrike had instituted deficient controls in its procedure for updating the Company's main product software, Falcon and was not properly testing updates to Falcon before rolling them out to customers; (2) this inadequate software testing created a substantial risk that an update to Falcon could cause major outages for a significant number of the Company's customers; and (3) such outages could pose, and in fact ultimately created, substantial reputational harm and legal risk to CrowdStrike. As a result of these materially false and misleading statements and omissions, CrowdStrike stock traded at artificially high prices during the Class Period. WHAT'S NEXT? If you suffered a loss in CrowdStrike stock during the relevant time frame - even if you still hold your shares - go to https://zlk.com/pslra-1/crowdstrike-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=95540&wire=1 to learn about your rights to seek a recovery. There is no cost or obligation to participate. WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Over the past 20 years, Levi & Korsinsky LLP has established itself as a nationally-recognized securities litigation firm that has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders and built a track record of winning high-stakes cases. The firm has extensive expertise representing investors in complex securities litigation and a team of over 70 employees to serve our clients. For seven years in a row, Levi & Korsinsky has ranked in ISS Securities Class Action Services' Top 50 Report as one of the top securities litigation firms in the United States. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Levi & Korsinsky, LLP Joseph E. Levi, Esq. Ed Korsinsky, Esq. 33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 jlevi@levikorsinsky.com Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 https://zlk.com/ [GN] DESKTOP METAL: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in MA -------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Company continues to defend itself from a securities class suit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Four alleged shareholders of Desktop Metal stock filed purported securities class action complaints in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, alleging that Desktop Metal and certain of its officers and directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act by making false or misleading statements regarding EnvisionTEC's manufacturing and product compliance practices and procedures. Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Complaint on December 19, 2022. The parties completed briefing on the motion to dismiss in May 2023, and Judge Indira Talwani held oral argument on September 13, 2023. The Court issued a decision dismissing the Consolidated Complaint with prejudice and entered Judgment for defendants on September 21, 2023. On October 13, 2023, Lead Plaintiff Sophia Zhou filed a Notice of Appeal. The parties completed briefing on the Zhou Appeal in May 2024, and oral argument before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has been scheduled for September 10, 2024. The Company believes that these complaints are all without merit and intends to defend against them vigorously. Desktop Metal, Inc. is pioneering a new generation of additive manufacturing technologies based in Massachusetts. DR. DENNIS: Settles Collagen Class Action for $9.2MM ---------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that a $9.2 million Dr. Dennis Gross Skincare settlement resolves claims the skincare brand misled consumers about the collagen contained in its products. The settlement benefits consumers who purchased Dr. Dennis Gross Skincare's "C+Collagen" products between March 10, 2016, and June 28, 2024. Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit claim Dr. Dennis Gross Skincare deceived them regarding the collagen content in the C+Collagen products. Consumers argue they would not have purchased the products or paid a premium price if they had known they didn't actually contain collagen. Dr. Dennis Gross Skincare is a premium skincare brand founded by dermatologist and researcher Dr. Dennis Gross. Dr. Dennis Gross Skincare products are sold at med spas, Sephora and other retailers. Dr. Dennis Gross Skincare hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay $9.2 million to resolve the class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the Dr. Dennis Gross Skincare settlement, class members can receive $50 for each purchased product. Without proof of purchase, class members can claim two products for a maximum payment of $100. With proof of purchase, class members can claim up to ten products for a maximum payment of $500. Payments may be reduced or increased on a pro rata basis depending on the number of claims filed with the settlement. Pro rata increases are limited to $100 per class product. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Sept. 27, 2024. The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for Oct. 31, 2024. To receive Dr. Dennis Gross Skincare settlement payments, class members must submit a valid claim form by Sept. 27, 2024. Who's Eligible Consumers who purchased Dr. Dennis Gross Skincare's "C+Collagen" products between March 10, 2016, and June 28, 2024 Potential Award $100 without proof of purchase or $500 with proof of purchase Proof of Purchase Receipts, order confirmations and other documentation Claim Form Deadline 09/27/2024 Case Name Kandel, et al. v. Dr. Dennis Gross Skincare LLC, Case No. 1:23-CV-01967-ER, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Final Hearing 10/31/2024 Settlement Website CPlusCollagenLawsuit.com Claims Administrator DDG C Plus Collagen Settlement Administrator P.O. Box 3553 Baton Rouge, LA 70821 info@cpluscollagenlawsuit.com (844) 931-3243 Class Counsel Ryan J. Clarkson Yana Hart CLARKSON LAW FIRM PC Defense Counsel Claudia Vetesi MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP Jason Kerr PRICE PARKINSON & KERR PLLC [GN] ELANCO ANIMAL: Spradlin Balks at Topicals Market Conspiracy ----------------------------------------------------------- TRACY SPRADLIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ELANCO ANIMAL HEALTH, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-01299-JPH-MKK (S.D. Ind., July 31, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Sherman Act and State Antitrust Statutes due to its anticompetitive conduct. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged conspiracy to fix and stabilize the retail price of Imidacloprid topicals, created a monopoly in the relevant market, foreclosed generic Imidacloprid topicals from entering the market, and caused Plaintiff and consumers across the country to pay an inflated amount for Elanco's K9 Advantix II and Advantage II products. Elanco accomplished its scheme by pressuring Pet Specialty Retailers to agree to sell only the Advantix Products at the exclusion of generic brand Imidacloprid topicals in order to maintain a monopoly on the Imidacloprid topical market. Elanco and the Pet Specialty Retailers entered into verbal "no generics" deals where it offered to increase the retailer's profits if, and only if, the retailers refuse to carry generic Imidacloprid topicals, says the suit. The Plaintiff purchased K9 Advantix II (Large Dog) in-store at a PetSmart located in Missouri in the spring of 2021 and at a Petco located in Kansas in the spring of 2023. Elanco Animal Health, Inc. is the producer and manufacturer of squeeze-on, topical flea and tick prevention products that utilize Imidacloprid as the main active ingredient.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott D. Gilchrist, Esq. COHEN & MALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 Facsimile: (317) 636-2593 E-mail: sgilchrist@cohenandmalad.com - and - Eric. L. Dirks, Esq. Matthew L. Dameron, Esq. Clinton J. Mann, Esq. WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON LLC 1100 Main Street, Suite 2600 Kansas City, MO 64105 Telephone: (816) 945-7100 Facsimile: (816) 945-7118 E-mail: dirks@williamsdirks.com matt@williamsdirks.com cmann@williamsdirks.com EQUITY LIFESTYLES: Continues to Defend Manufacturer Home Lots Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Equity Lifestyles Property 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 the Manufactured Home Lots class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. Beginning on August 31, 2023 through December 4, 2023, certain private party plaintiffs filed several putative class actions in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, against Datacomp Appraisal Systems, Inc. ("Datacomp") and several owner/operators of manufactured housing communities, including ELS (the "Datacomp Litigation"), alleging that the community owner/operators used JLT Market Reports produced by Datacomp to conspire to raise manufactured home lot rents in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. ELS purchased Datacomp in connection with the MHVillage/Datacomp acquisition during the year ended December 31, 2021. On December 15, 2023, the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint captioned, In re Manufactured Home Lot Rents Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:23-cv-6715. Plaintiffs seek both injunctive relief and monetary damages, including attorneys' fees. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on January 29, 2024. The Company believes that the Datacomp Litigation is without merit, and it intends to vigorously defend our interests in this matter. Equity LifeStyle Properties, Inc. operates as a real estate investment trust company. The Company owns and manages manufactured home resort, retirement communities, rental homes, campgrounds, and residential properties. Equity LifeStyle Properties serves customers in the State of Illinois. ESTEE LAUDER: Website Breaches Cal. Trap & Trace Law, Price Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- CAROL PRICE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; Plaintiff v. THE ESTEE LAUDER COMPANIES, INC., a New York corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-06474 (C.D. Cal., July 31, 2024) is a class action arising from the Defendants' alleged violation of the California Trap and Trace Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant operates the website www.esteelauder.com. As part of Defendant's marketing regime, Estee Lauder has partnered with TikTok to install sophisticated software on its landing page to learn the location, source, and identity of consumers who happen to land on their website. Plaintiff Carol Price visited Defendant's website on February 7, 2024. Without Plaintiff's knowledge or consent, the Defendant deployed a de-anonymization process to identify Plaintiff using electronic impulses generated from Plaintiff's device. The Defendant's installation of the TikTok tracing process violates the state law, says the suit. The Estee Lauder Companies, Inc. engages in the manufacturing of skin care, makeup, fragrance and hair care products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Tauler, Esq. Narain Kumar, Esq. TAULER SMITH LLP 626 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 550 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 927-9270 E-mail: robert@taulersmith.com nkumar@taulersmith.com EXTREME NETWORKS: Faces Class Action Over False Statements ---------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that purchasers of Extreme Networks, Inc. (NASDAQ: EXTR) common stock between July 27, 2022 and January 30, 2024, inclusive (the "Class Period"), have until October 15, 2024 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff of the Extreme Networks class action lawsuit. Captioned Steamfitters Local 449 Pension & Retirement Security Funds v. Extreme Networks, Inc., No. 24-cv-05102 (N.D. Cal.), the Extreme Networks class action lawsuit charges Extreme Networks and certain of its top current and former executive officers with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Extreme Networks class action lawsuit, please provide your information here: https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-extreme-networks-inc-class-action-lawsuit-extr.html You can also contact attorneys J.C. Sanchez or Jennifer N. Caringal of Robbins Geller by calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at info@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the Extreme Networks class action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than October 15, 2024. CASE ALLEGATIONS: Extreme Networks is a global provider of cloud-based computer networking equipment and related services and support. The Extreme Networks class action lawsuit alleges that defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that, among other things, Extreme Networks was suffering from adverse client demand trends as its clients had ordered more product from Extreme Networks than needed in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic and that Extreme Networks was increasingly offsetting these adverse organic demand trends with the fulfillment of backlog orders in a manner that materially exceeded the proportion represented to investors. The Extreme Networks class action lawsuit further alleges that on January 25, 2023, Extreme Networks announced the resignation of defendant Rémi Thomas, Extreme Networks' CFO, and also revealed that compared to the first quarter of 2023, Extreme Networks' backlog had fallen to $542 million, its Product Book to Bill Ratio had fallen from 1.3x to 0.9x, and its Service Book to Bill Ratio had fallen from 1.4x to 1.2x. On this news, Extreme Networks' share price declined by nearly 15%, according to the complaint. Then, on August 24, 2023, Extreme Networks disclosed that its backlog stood at just $267.3 million, revealing a roughly $245 million decline year-over-year and a $275.7 million decline during the prior six months, according to the Extreme Networks class action lawsuit. On this news, Extreme Networks' share price declined by approximately 9%, according to the complaint. Thereafter, on November 1, 2023, Extreme Networks further revealed that working through its backlog was resulting in an "air pocket of demand" among end customers that resulted in "more tempered" revenue growth outlook of "mid-to-high single digits" for fiscal year 2024, and that Extreme Networks was now expecting normalized backlog of between $75 million to $100 million "by the end of Q4 fiscal '24," according to the Extreme Networks class action lawsuit. On this news, Extreme Networks' share price declined by approximately 13%, according to the complaint. Next, the Extreme Networks class action lawsuit alleges that on January 8, 2024 Extreme Networks provided a business update lowering its second quarter of 2024 and long-term revenue outlooks. On this news, Extreme Networks' share price declined by approximately 7%, according to the complaint. Finally, on January 31, 2024, Extreme Networks disclosed: that its revenues for the second quarter of 2024 were $296.4 million, down 7% year-over-year; that it had generated just $186.6 million in product revenue, a decline of 37% year-over-year; that its product backlog had already normalized during the quarter; and that Extreme Networks made the "conscious decision to put channel digestion behind [it] in the March quarter," leading to a "$40 million to $50 million reduction in channel inventory in the third quarter" that would result in "[d]emand . . . be[ing] masked by inventory flowing out of the channel," according to the complaint. Rather than increasing revenues as previously represented, Extreme Networks also provided new guidance that revealed Extreme Networks was in fact on track to suffer lower revenues in fiscal year 2024 and, in a related earnings call, defendant Edward B. Meyercord III, Extreme Networks' President and CEO, acknowledged that Extreme Networks' "baseline business" was on track to achieve only about $1.1 billion in annual revenues, according to the Extreme Networks class action lawsuit. On this news, Extreme Networks' share price declined by approximately 24% over three trading days, according to the complaint. The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions involving financial fraud. You can view a copy of the complaint by clicking here. THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Extreme Networks common stock during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Extreme Networks class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the Extreme Networks class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Extreme Networks class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery of the Extreme Networks class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law firms representing investors in securities fraud cases. Our Firm has been #1 in the ISS Securities Class Action Services rankings for six out of the last ten years for securing the most monetary relief for investors. We recovered $6.6 billion for investors in securities-related class action cases -- over $2.2 billion more than any other law firm in the last four years. With 200 lawyers in 10 offices, Robbins Geller is one of the largest plaintiffs' firms in the world and the Firm's attorneys have obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history, including the largest securities class action recovery ever -- $7.2 billion -- in In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig. Please visit the following page for more information: https://www.rgrdlaw.com/services-litigation-securities-fraud.html Attorney advertising. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices. Contact: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP J.C. Sanchez, Jennifer N. Caringal 655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101 (800) 449-4900 info@rgrdlaw.com [GN] EXTREME NETWORKS: Faces Class Suit Over Misleading Statements ------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that purchasers of Extreme Networks, Inc. (NASDAQ: EXTR) common stock between July 27, 2022 and January 30, 2024, inclusive (the "Class Period"), have until October 15, 2024 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff of the Extreme Networks class action lawsuit. Captioned Steamfitters Local 449 Pension & Retirement Security Funds v. Extreme Networks, Inc., No. 24-cv-05102 (N.D. Cal.), the Extreme Networks class action lawsuit charges Extreme Networks and certain of its top current and former executive officers with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Extreme Networks class action lawsuit, please provide your information here: https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-extreme-networks-inc-class-action-lawsuit-extr.html You can also contact attorneys J.C. Sanchez or Jennifer N. Caringal of Robbins Geller by calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at info@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the Extreme Networks class action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than October 15, 2024. CASE ALLEGATIONS: Extreme Networks is a global provider of cloud-based computer networking equipment and related services and support. The Extreme Networks class action lawsuit alleges that defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that, among other things, Extreme Networks was suffering from adverse client demand trends as its clients had ordered more product from Extreme Networks than needed in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic and that Extreme Networks was increasingly offsetting these adverse organic demand trends with the fulfillment of backlog orders in a manner that materially exceeded the proportion represented to investors. The Extreme Networks class action lawsuit further alleges that on January 25, 2023, Extreme Networks announced the resignation of defendant Remi Thomas, Extreme Networks' CFO, and also revealed that compared to the first quarter of 2023, Extreme Networks' backlog had fallen to $542 million, its Product Book to Bill Ratio had fallen from 1.3x to 0.9x, and its Service Book to Bill Ratio had fallen from 1.4x to 1.2x. On this news, Extreme Networks' share price declined by nearly 15%, according to the complaint. Then, on August 24, 2023, Extreme Networks disclosed that its backlog stood at just $267.3 million, revealing a roughly $245 million decline year-over-year and a $275.7 million decline during the prior six months, according to the Extreme Networks class action lawsuit. On this news, Extreme Networks' share price declined by approximately 9%, according to the complaint. Thereafter, on November 1, 2023, Extreme Networks further revealed that working through its backlog was resulting in an "air pocket of demand" among end customers that resulted in "more tempered" revenue growth outlook of "mid-to-high single digits" for fiscal year 2024, and that Extreme Networks was now expecting normalized backlog of between $75 million to $100 million "by the end of Q4 fiscal '24," according to the Extreme Networks class action lawsuit. On this news, Extreme Networks' share price declined by approximately 13%, according to the complaint. Next, the Extreme Networks class action lawsuit alleges that on January 8, 2024 Extreme Networks provided a business update lowering its second quarter of 2024 and long-term revenue outlooks. On this news, Extreme Networks' share price declined by approximately 7%, according to the complaint. Finally, on January 31, 2024, Extreme Networks disclosed: that its revenues for the second quarter of 2024 were $296.4 million, down 7% year-over-year; that it had generated just $186.6 million in product revenue, a decline of 37% year-over-year; that its product backlog had already normalized during the quarter; and that Extreme Networks made the "conscious decision to put channel digestion behind [it] in the March quarter," leading to a "$40 million to $50 million reduction in channel inventory in the third quarter" that would result in "[d]emand . . . be[ing] masked by inventory flowing out of the channel," according to the complaint. Rather than increasing revenues as previously represented, Extreme Networks also provided new guidance that revealed Extreme Networks was in fact on track to suffer lower revenues in fiscal year 2024 and, in a related earnings call, defendant Edward B. Meyercord III, Extreme Networks' President and CEO, acknowledged that Extreme Networks' "baseline business" was on track to achieve only about $1.1 billion in annual revenues, according to the Extreme Networks class action lawsuit. On this news, Extreme Networks' share price declined by approximately 24% over three trading days, according to the complaint. The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions involving financial fraud. You can view a copy of the complaint by clicking here. THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Extreme Networks common stock during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Extreme Networks class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the Extreme Networks class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Extreme Networks class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery of the Extreme Networks class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law firms representing investors in securities fraud cases. Our Firm has been #1 in the ISS Securities Class Action Services rankings for six out of the last ten years for securing the most monetary relief for investors. We recovered $6.6 billion for investors in securities-related class action cases -- over $2.2 billion more than any other law firm in the last four years. With 200 lawyers in 10 offices, Robbins Geller is one of the largest plaintiffs' firms in the world and the Firm's attorneys have obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history, including the largest securities class action recovery ever -- $7.2 billion -- in In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig. Please visit the following page for more information: https://www.rgrdlaw.com/services-litigation-securities-fraud.html Attorney advertising. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP J.C. Sanchez, Jennifer N. Caringal 655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101 (800) 449-4900 info@rgrdlaw.com [GN] EZ FESTIVALS: Palie Plaintiffs Seek August 29 Opening Brief ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Palie, et al., v. EZ FESTIVALS LLC et al., Case No. 1:23-CV-08422-VM (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the court to enter an order adjourning the deadline for the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, which is presently due on Aug. 8, 2024. Accordingly, the Plaintiff request the following briefing schedule: -- Plaintiffs' opening brief: Aug. 29, 2024 -- Defendants' opposition: Sept. 30, 2024 -- Plaintiffs' reply brief: Oct. 18, 2024 A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 6, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cYrBCf at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Shelly L. Friedland, Esq. PARKER POHL LLP 99 Park Avenue, Suite 1510 New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 202-8886 Facsimile: (646) 924-3100 E-mail: parkerpohl.com FARADAY FUTURE: Continues to Defend Stockholder Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Faraday Future Intelligent Electric 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 a \stockholder class suit in the Delaware Court of Chancery. On June 14, 2022, a verified stockholder class action complaint was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery against, among others, the Company, its former Global CEO and CFO, and its current Chief Product and User Ecosystem Officer alleging breaches of fiduciary duties (the "Yun Class Action"). On September 21, 2022, a second verified stockholder class action complaint was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery against, among others, FFIE, the Co-CEOs and independent directors of PSAC, and certain third-party advisors to PSAC, alleging breaches of fiduciary duties, and aiding and abetting alleged breaches, in connection with disclosures and stockholder voting leading up to the PSAC/Legacy FF merger (the "Cleveland Class Action"), which action subsequently was consolidated with the Yun Class Action with the complaint in the Cleveland Class Action being designated as the operative pleading (collectively, the "Consolidated Delaware Class Action"). In April, 2023, the defendants respectively filed motions to dismiss the complaint. The Company maintains that the Consolidated Delaware Class Action is without merit and has stated its intention to vigorously defend that action. Faraday Future Intelligent Electric Inc. conducts its operations through the subsidiaries of FF Intelligent Mobility Global Holdings Ltd. and its consolidated subsidiaries. The operate a global shared intelligent electric mobility ecosystem company with a vision to reformat the automotive industry. FEDERAL NATIONAL: Bid for Judgment on Securities Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- Federal National Mortgage Association 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 judgment motion on consolidated securities class suits is pending. District of Columbia (In re Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement Class Action Litigations and Fairholme Funds v. FHFA). Fannie Mae is a defendant in two cases filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, including a consolidated class action. The cases were consolidated for trial, and on August 14, 2023, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs and awarded damages of $299.4 million to Fannie Mae preferred stockholders. On March 20, 2024, the court entered final judgment and set the amount of prejudgment interest owed by Fannie Mae at $199.7 million. On April 17, 2024, the defendants filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law, which has been fully briefed. The parties will have 30 days to appeal following the court's decision on the motion. Federal National Mortgage Association provides liquidity and stability support services for the mortgage market in the United States. The Company was founded in 1938 and is based in Washington, the District of Columbia. FINDLAY AUTOMOTIVE: Smith Data Breach Suit Removed to D. Nev. ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled KAREN SMITH and PHOLISITH BOUPHAPRASEUTH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FINDLAY AUTOMOTIVE, INC., a Nevada corporation, Defendant, Case No. A-24-895258-C, was removed from the Eighth Judicial District Court for Clark County, Nevada, to the United States District Court for the District of Nevada on July 8, 2024. The Clerk of Court for the District of Nevada assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-01226-RFB-EJY to the proceeding. The complaint asserts claims for negligence, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment, and declaratory and injunctive relief, which allegedly arose from the recent targeted ransomware attack and data breach on Defendant's network that resulted in unauthorized access to highly sensitive data. Findlay Automotive, Inc. retails automotive vehicles.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: David A. Carroll, Esq. Anthony J. DiRaimondo, Esq. Robert E. Opdyke, Esq. RICE REUTHER SULLIVAN & CARROLL, LLP 3800 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 1200 Las Vegas, NV 89169 Telephone: (702) 732-9099 Facsimile: (702) 732-7110 E-mail: dcarroll@rrsc-law.com adiraimondo@rrsc-law.com ropdyke@rrsc-law.com FINDLAY AUTOMOTIVE: Stevens Data Breach Suit Removed to D. Nev. --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled SUSAN STEVENS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. FINDLAY AUTOMOTIVE, INC., a Nevada corporation, Defendant, Case No. A-24-895977-C, was removed from the Eighth Judicial District Court for Clark County, Nevada, to the United States District Court for the District of Nevada on July 8, 2024. The Clerk of Court for the District of Nevada assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-01226-RFB-EJY to the proceeding. The complaint asserts claims for negligence, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment, and declaratory and injunctive relief, which allegedly arose from the recent targeted ransomware attack and data breach on Defendant's network that resulted in unauthorized access to highly sensitive data. Findlay Automotive, Inc. retails automotive vehicles.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: David A. Carroll, Esq. Anthony J. DiRaimondo, Esq. Robert E. Opdyke, Esq. RICE REUTHER SULLIVAN & CARROLL, LLP 3800 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 1200 Las Vegas, NV 89169 Telephone: (702) 732-9099 Facsimile: (702) 732-7110 E-mail: dcarroll@rrsc-law.com adiraimondo@rrsc-law.com ropdyke@rrsc-law.com FIRSTENERGY CORP: Discovery in Consolidated Securities Suit Stayed ------------------------------------------------------------------ FirstEnergy Corp. 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 Southern District of Ohio stayed all discovery in the consolidated securities class suits during the pendency of the district court motion. On July 28, 2020 and August 21, 2020, purported stockholders of FE filed putative class action lawsuits alleging violations of the federal securities laws. Those actions have been consolidated and a lead plaintiff, the Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Association, has been appointed by the court. A consolidated complaint was filed on February 26, 2021. The consolidated complaint alleges, on behalf of a proposed class of persons who purchased FE securities between February 21, 2017 and July 21, 2020, that FE and certain current or former FE officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by issuing misrepresentations or omissions concerning FE’s business and results of operations. The consolidated complaint also alleges that FE, certain current or former FE officers and directors, and a group of underwriters violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 as a result of alleged misrepresentations or omissions in connection with offerings of senior notes by FE in February and June 2020. On March 30, 2023, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On April 14, 2023, FE filed a petition in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit seeking to appeal that order; the Sixth Circuit granted FE's petition on November 16, 2023, and conducted oral argument on July 17, 2024. On November 30, 2023, FE filed a motion with the S.D. Ohio to stay all proceedings pending the circuit court appeal. All discovery is stayed during the pendency of the district court motion. FE believes that it is probable that it will incur a loss in connection with the resolution of this lawsuit. Given the ongoing nature and complexity of such litigation, FE cannot yet reasonably estimate a loss or range of loss. FirstEnergy is a fully regulated electric utility based in Ohio. FORD MOTOR: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set October 7 ---------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that purchasers or acquirers of Ford Motor Company (NYSE: F) securities between April 27, 2022 and July 24, 2024, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), have until October 7, 2024 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff of the Ford class action lawsuit. Captioned Guzman v. Ford Motor Company, No. 24-cv-12080 (E.D. Mich.), the Ford class action lawsuit charges Ford and certain of Ford's top executives with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Ford class action lawsuit, please provide your information here: https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-ford-motor-company-class-acton-lawsuit-f.html You can also contact attorneys J.C. Sanchez or Jennifer N. Caringal of Robbins Geller by calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at info@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the Ford class action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than October 7, 2024. CASE ALLEGATIONS: Ford is an automotive manufacturing company that develops, delivers, and services a range of trucks, cars, and luxury vehicles worldwide. The Ford class action lawsuit alleges that defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Ford had deficiencies in its quality assurance of vehicle models since 2022; (ii) as a result, Ford was experiencing higher warranty costs; (iii) Ford's warranty reserves did not accurately reflect the quality issues in vehicles sold since 2022; and (iv) as such, Ford's profitability was reasonably likely to suffer. The Ford class action lawsuit further alleges that on July 24, 2024, Ford announced second quarter 2024 financial results, revealing that Ford's "[p]rofitability was affected by an increase in warranty reserves" and "higher warranty costs." As a result, Ford also revised its outlook for full year earnings for its electric vehicle segment to "reflect[] higher warranty costs than originally planned," according to the complaint. 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, according to the complaint. On this news, Ford's share price fell more than 18%, according to the Ford class action lawsuit. THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased or acquired Ford securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Ford class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the Ford class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Ford class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff of the Ford class action lawsuit. ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law firms representing investors in securities fraud cases. Our Firm has been #1 in the ISS Securities Class Action Services rankings for six out of the last ten years for securing the most monetary relief for investors. We recovered $6.6 billion for investors in securities-related class action cases -- over $2.2 billion more than any other law firm in the last four years. With 200 lawyers in 10 offices, Robbins Geller is one of the largest plaintiffs' firms in the world and the Firm's attorneys have obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history, including the largest securities class action recovery ever -- $7.2 billion -- in In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig. Please visit the following page for more information: https://www.rgrdlaw.com/services-litigation-securities-fraud.html Attorney advertising. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP J.C. Sanchez, Jennifer N. Caringal 655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101 800-449-4900 info@rgrdlaw.com [GN] FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over 18.36% Stock Price Drop ----------------------------------------------------------- Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a securities class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on behalf of all persons or entities who 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"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for the Company's investors under the federal securities laws. The Complaint alleges that Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) 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. The Complaint also alleges that on July 24, 2024, Ford announced second quarter 2024 financial results (the "2Q24 Press Release"). The 2Q24 Press Release revealed that the Company's "[p]rofitability was affected by an increase in warranty reserves" and "higher warranty costs." The complaint alleges that 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." The Complaint alleges that analysts and journalists 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 ago. 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. Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Ford should contact the Firm prior to the October 7, 2024 lead plaintiff motion deadline. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com. Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more information about the firm. [GN] FRESHWORKS INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Freshworks 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 Northern District of California. On November 1, 2022, a purported Company stockholder filed a securities class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company, certain of its current officers and directors, and underwriters of the Company's initial public offering (IPO). On April 14, 2023, the court-appointed lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended class action complaint. The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by making material misstatements or omissions in offering documents filed in connection with the IPO. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest, fees, costs, and rescission on behalf of purchasers and/or acquirers of common stock issued in the IPO. On September 28, 2023, the court issued an order granting in part and denying in part defendants' motion to dismiss. The Company and the other defendants intend to vigorously defend against the remaining claims in this action. Freshworks Inc. is a software development company that provides modern software-as-a-service products. It is headquartered in San Mateo, California. FTS USA: M.D. Pennsylvania Refuses to Quash Subpoena in Monroe Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Jennifer P. Wilson of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania denies the Defendants' motion to quash the subpoena in the lawsuit captioned EDWARD MONROE, et al., Plaintiffs v. FTS USA, LLC and UNITEK USA, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-mc-00243-JPW (M.D. Pa.). Before the Court is a motion filed by Defendants FTS USA, LLC ("FTS") and UniTek USA, LLC ("UniTek") to quash the subpoena served by Plaintiffs Edward Monroe, et al. Specifically, the Defendants move to quash a subpoena duces tecum served on non-party RSM US, LLP ("RSM") under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45. Alternatively, the Defendants request that the Court transfer the motion to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee. The case originates from a class action judgment entered against the Defendants in the Western District of Tennessee. The Plaintiffs are a class of nearly 300 cable installers, who won a jury verdict for unpaid overtime wages. After years of appeals and amendments of the judgment, the Western District of Tennessee entered the current judgment of $3.1 million on Feb. 2, 2023. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants are refusing to pay the judgment despite having the assets and cash to do so. The Plaintiffs sought post-judgment discovery from the Defendants in order to identify their assets and execute the judgment. Included in this post-judgment discovery was a non-party subpoena served on the Defendants' tax and audit services provider, RSM. The subpoena requested both testimony and documents related to work RSM performed for the Defendants. On June 12, 2023, the subpoena was served on RSM in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The Defendants filed motions to quash in both the Western District of Tennessee, where the underlying suit is located, and the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, where this case was initially filed. On Oct. 30, 2023, Magistrate Judge Charmiane G. Claxton found that the Western District of Tennessee was not the court of compliance and denied Defendant's first motion to quash for that reason. On March 25, 2024, Chief Judge Mitchell S. Goldberg found that the Eastern District of Pennsylvania did not have jurisdiction over the second motion to quash and transferred the case to this Court. On the same day, the Defendants filed the instant motion to quash and their brief in support. The Plaintiffs failed to file a brief in opposition by the deadline of April 8, 2024. Subsequently, the Court issued an order to show cause as to why the Defendants' motion to quash should not be deemed unopposed. The Plaintiffs filed their response to the show cause order on April 18, 2024, attaching their brief in opposition. The Defendants did not file a reply brief. In their brief in support of the motion to quash, the Defendants argue that the subpoena is "facially overbroad" and "unreasonably oppressive," leading to an undue burden under to Rule 45(d)(3)(A)(iv). The Defendants further contend that the subpoena is invalid because prior notice was not given to the parties as Rule 45(a)(4) requires. Lastly, the Defendants assert that the subpoena is impermissibly cumulative of earlier post-judgment discovery under Rule 26(b)(2)(C)(i). For these reasons, the Defendants believe the court should quash the subpoena. In the alternative, the Defendants request that the Court transfer the motion to the Western District of Tennessee. Because the Defendants are not the entity being subpoenaed, Judge Wilson holds that they do not have standing to argue undue burden on behalf of RSM. But even if the Court found that the Defendants have standing to argue undue burden, the next step would be for the Defendants to show that RSM suffered a "clearly defined and serious injury." Judge Wilson notes that the only allegation the Defendants offer to show an injury on RSM's behalf is the boilerplate conclusion that RSM will be oppressed by the burden imposed to produce such voluminous document requests and the likelihood that they will result in the production of privileged communications and confidential information. Judge Wilson holds that this assertion is conclusory and does not define a clear or serious injury. As a result, even if the Defendants had standing to challenge the subpoena on the basis of undue burden, the motion to quash would still be denied on the merits as no clearly defined injury was alleged on RSM's behalf. Judge Wilson also holds that the subpoena will not be quashed for failure to provide prior notice. Because the Defendants have so far failed to produce documents sufficient to identify their assets, the Plaintiffs assert that subpoenaing RSM for financial documents is essential to getting a full picture of the Defendants' finances and satisfying the judgment. To the extent any of the subpoenaed documents or testimony are cumulative of other post judgment discovery, Judge Wilson says they are not unreasonably so. Subpoenaing more financial documents from RSM in an attempt to uncover allegedly hidden assets of the Defendants is reasonable and relevant given the Defendants' apparent refusal to pay the judgment. Therefore, the Court will not quash the subpoena on the basis that it is unreasonably or impermissibly duplicative under Rule 26. Lastly, the Defendants request that instead of ruling on this motion, the Court should transfer it back to the Western District of Tennessee. Here, RSM's attorney has filed a declaration consenting to transfer this motion to the Western District of Tennessee. While it is within the Court's discretion to transfer the motion to the Western District of Tennessee given RSM's consent, the Court declines to do so. Among other things, Judge Wilson opines that transferring a motion to quash back to the Western District of Tennessee again would only impose a procedural hurdle upon the Plaintiffs and further delay resolution of this matter. While it is within the discretion of the Court to do so, the Court will decline to transfer the motion back to the Western District of Tennessee. For these reasons, the Court denies the Defendants' motion to quash the non-party subpoena on RSM and declines to transfer the motion to the Western District of Tennessee. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum dated July 26, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/ymdyyd4t from PacerMonitor.com. GENEDX HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Shareholder Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- GeneDx Holdings Corp. 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 a shareholder class suit in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. On September 7, 2022, a shareholder class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut against the Company and certain of the Company's current and former officers. The complaint purports to bring suit on behalf of stockholders who purchased the Company's publicly traded securities between March 14, 2022 and August 15, 2022. Following the appointment of a lead plaintiff, an amended complaint was filed on January 30, 2023. As amended, the complaint purports to allege that the defendants made false and misleading statements about the Company's business, operations and prospects in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended ("Exchange Act"), and seeks unspecified compensatory damages, fees and costs. The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on August 21, 2023. That motion is pending. The Company believes the allegations and claims made in the complaint are without merit. GeneDx Holdings Corp. through its subsidiaries Sema4 OpCo, Inc., formerly Mount Sinai Genomics Inc. and GeneDx, LLC, provides genomics-related diagnostic and information services and pursues genomics medical research. It provides a variety of genetic diagnostic tests, and screening solutions, and information with a focus on pediatrics, rare diseases for children and adults, and hereditary cancer screening. GENEDX HOLDINGS: Negotiation on Settlement Stipulation Underway --------------------------------------------------------------- GeneDx Holdings Corp. 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 is negotiating the settlement stipulation of a stockholder class suit. On February 7, 2023, a stockholder commenced a lawsuit in the Delaware Court of Chancery. The suit is brought as a class action on behalf of stockholders of CMLS who did not redeem their shares in connection with the Business Combination between CMLS and Legacy Sema4. The suit names as defendants all directors of CMLS at the time of the transaction, including certain directors who continue to serve on the Company's Board of Directors, as well as CMLS Holdings LLC. The Company is not named as a defendant. The complaint alleges that the July 2, 2021 proxy statement mailed to CMLS stockholders in connection with the transaction contained false and misleading statements, and purports to assert a claim of breach of fiduciary duty against all individual defendants, and a similar claim against CMLS Holdings LLC and certain individuals for breach of fiduciary duty as control persons. The suit seeks to recover unspecified damages on behalf of the alleged class, among other relief. After defendants moved to dismiss the case, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint on July 6, 2023, revising certain allegations and adding third parties as defendants. The defendants answered the amended complaint on September 15, 2023. The Company is subject to certain claims for advancement and indemnification by the individual defendants in this proceeding. During the second quarter of 2024, the parties reached an agreement in principle through mediation to resolve all claims for approximately $21 million. The agreement in principle is expected to be funded by the Company (based on its indemnification obligations) and available insurance of approximately $10 million. The parties are currently in the process of negotiating the formal stipulation of settlement, which must be approved by the Court in order to be finalized. There can be no assurance that the final stipulation of settlement will be executed, that the stipulation of settlement, if executed, will include the terms and conditions currently anticipated by the Company or that such stipulation of settlement will be approved by the Court. As of June 30, 2024, the Company reserved the aforementioned settlement and associated litigation costs of approximately $2.4 million in accounts payable and accrued expenses, and recorded insurance recoveries in prepaid expenses and other current assets on the condensed consolidated balance sheet. GeneDx Holdings Corp. through its subsidiaries Sema4 OpCo, Inc., formerly Mount Sinai Genomics Inc. and GeneDx, LLC, provides genomics-related diagnostic and information services and pursues genomics medical research. It provides a variety of genetic diagnostic tests, and screening solutions, and information with a focus on pediatrics, rare diseases for children and adults, and hereditary cancer screening. GIGACLOUD TECHNOLOGY: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------------- GigaCloud Technology 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 Central District of California. In October 2023, two GigaCloud shareholders separately brought putative securities class actions in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. On November 27, 2023, the United States District Court for the Central District of California granted the parties' stipulations to transfer both cases to United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On January 12, 2024, the Southern District of New York granted plaintiffs' stipulation to consolidate the two lawsuits into one and appoint Sashi Rajan and Meir Spear as co-lead plaintiffs. On March 18, 2024, lead plaintiffs filed the first amended complaint against the Company and certain of its current and former directors and officers, alleging that defendants made false and misleading statements concerning its use of artificial intelligence and machine learning in violation of U.S. securities laws. On May 17, 2024, it filed a motion to dismiss lead plaintiffs’ claims. On May 20, 2024, the Court entered an order giving lead plaintiffs one opportunity to amend their complaint to address issues raised in the May 17, 2024 motion to dismiss. On June 28, 2024, lead plaintiffs filed the second amended complaint. The second amended complaint alleges both false and misleading statements concerning our use of artificial intelligence and machine learning and false and misleading statements about revenue of the GigaCloud Marketplace. The Company believe that the claims asserted in the second amended complaint are without merit and will seek their dismissal. Although the outcome of any complex litigation is inherently uncertain, based on information presently known to management, the Company does not believe that the matters are likely to have a material impact on its financial condition. GigaCloud Technology Inc. -- http://www.gigacloudtech.com/-- operates as a holding company.[BN] HAYWARD HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suits ------------------------------------------------------------------- Hayward Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 29, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2024 that the Company continues to defend itself from the consolidated securities class suits in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. On August 2, 2023, a securities class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company and certain of its current directors and officers (Kevin Holleran and Eifion Jones) and MSD Partners and CCMP Capital Advisors, LP on behalf of a putative class of stockholders who acquired shares of the Company's common stock between March 2, 2022 and July 27, 2022. That action is captioned City of Southfield Fire and Police Retirement System vs. Hayward Holdings, Inc., et al., 2:23-cv-04146-WJM-ESK (D.N.J.) ("City of Southfield"). On September 28, 2023, a second, related securities class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company and certain of its current directors and officers (Kevin Holleran and Eifion Jones) and MSD Partners and CCMP Capital Advisors, LP on behalf of a putative class of stockholders who acquired shares of the Company's common stock between October 27, 2021 and July 28, 2022. That action is captioned Erie County Employees' Retirement System vs. Hayward Holdings, Inc., et al., 2:23-cv-04146-WJM-ESK (D.N.J.) ("Erie County"). On December 19, 2023, the Court issued a ruling consolidating the two securities class actions (City of Southfield and Erie County) under the City of Southfield docket (the "Securities Class Action") and appointing a lead plaintiff. In a consolidated class action complaint filed March 4, 2024, the Securities Class Action alleges on behalf of a putative class of stockholders who acquired shares of its common stock between October 27, 2021 and July 28, 2022, among other things, that the Company and certain of its current directors and officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by, among other things, making materially false or misleading statements regarding inventory, growth, and demand trends and the Company's financial projections for 2022. The complaints seek unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the putative classes and an award of costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees. The Company disputes the allegations of wrongdoing in the Securities Class Action and intends to vigorously defend itself in these matters. Hayward Holdings, Inc. is a global designer and manufacturer of pool and outdoor living technology with seven manufacturing facilities worldwide, which are located in North Carolina, Tennessee, Rhode Island, Spain (three) and China, and other facilities in the United States, Canada, France and Australia. HOMARY INTERNATIONAL: Lawyer Fraud Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled LAILA LAWYER, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HOMARY INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, Defendant, Case No. C24-00887, was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of Contra Costa to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on July 8, 2024. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned Case No. 4:24-cv-04113-HSG to the proceeding. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant engages in a pervasive online marketing scheme to artificially inflate the prices of its Products for the sole purpose of marking them at a discounted sale price. She asserts that Defendant violated California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California's False Advertising Law, California's Unfair Competition Law. She also asserts claims of fraud and unjust enrichment. Homary International Limited is an international home furnishings online platform.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Ana Tagvoryan, Esq. Erica R. Graves, Esq. Ping Zhang, Esq. BLANK ROME LLP 2029 Century Park East, 6th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (424) 239-3400 Facsimile: (424) 239-3434 E-mail: ana.tagvoryan@blankrome.com erica.graves@blankrome.com ping.zhang@blankrome.com HOMESITE GROUP: Court Approves $725K FLSA Settlement in Herb Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Julia E. Kobick of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts grants the Parties' joint motion for approval of FLSA collective action settlement in the lawsuit entitled ROBERT HERB, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HOMESITE GROUP INCORPORATED, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-11416-JEK (D. Mass.). The lawsuit is a putative collective action filed against Homesite Group Incorporated for nonpayment of wages to its sales agents. The complaint alleges that Homesite failed to pay its agents overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), violated Ohio law by not compensating them for either overtime or non-overtime work, and was unjustly enriched as result. The Parties have agreed upon settlement terms regarding the Plaintiff's overtime claims. The action was originally filed by Melissa Deaver in September 2022. In May 2024, the Court granted leave to file an amended complaint that substituted Robert Herb as Plaintiff. Homesite is a property and casualty insurance company based in Boston that employs non-exempt, hourly sales agents. Herb was employed by Homesite as a sales agent. Homesite allegedly fails to compensate its agents for their time spent at the start and end of each shift logging into or out of its computer system, phone system, and software applications. Herb estimates that he and other agents regularly perform 10 to 15 minutes at the start of each shift, and five minutes or more at the end of every shift, on such unpaid "off-the-clock" work. Mr. Herb, thus, claims that Homesite is liable for failing to pay him and other agents for all of the work that they perform, including overtime pay when they work over 40 hours and regular wages when they work under 40 hours in a given week. The complaint raises three claims. Count I asserts a claim under the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. Section 207(a), for failure to compensate Herb and similarly situated employees at 1.5 times their regular rate of pay for work performed in excess of 40 hours per week. Count II asserts a claim under Ohio law challenging Homesite's alleged failure to pay Herb and fellow agents not only overtime pay but also the contractual hourly wage for off-the-clock work performed in weeks when they work no more than 40 hours. Count III asserts that Homesite was unjustly enriched by failing to pay employees for all off-the-clock work performed. After filing its original answer in November 2022, Homesite answered the amended complaint in May 2024 denying Herb's allegations. Over the course of this litigation, the Parties engaged in extensive discovery. After unsuccessfully participating in mediation in November 2023, the Parties ultimately executed the terms of a proposed settlement agreement in June 2024. The eligible class members include all current and former employees employed by Homesite in the position of sales agent from June 6, 2020, to Feb. 15, 2024. As an initial matter, the Parties' requested one-step approval process is appropriate in this case because the proposed FLSA settlement does not include any Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 class releases, Judge Kobick notes. Since those who do not opt in to an FLSA collective may, in turn, initiate their own lawsuits, FLSA collective actions do not implicate the same due process concerns as Rule 23 actions. Judge Kobick finds the Parties' proposed settlement is fair and reasonable. The gross settlement amount of $725,000--of which $461,686.30 will go to members of the collective once fees, costs, and the service award are deducted--is a substantial sum that affords meaningful relief to agents who opt in. That sum is based on an additional 9.2 minutes per day of off-the-clock work during overtime weeks, which reflects a compromise between Herb's position of 20 minutes and Homesite's position that any time is de minimis. Because the settlement represents nearly half of what Herb sought in overtime pay, it constitutes a reasonable amount. The proposed method of allocation based on the number of weeks sales agents worked for Homesite is also reasonable because it adequately approximates the proportion of damages that each agent has suffered, Judge Kobick holds. Judge Kobick adds, among other things, that the settlement permits the Parties to avoid the burden and expense of establishing their respective claims and defenses. Were this case to continue, in order to prevail, Herb would have to, among other things, prove that his FLSA overtime claims should proceed on a collective basis under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), demonstrate that Homesite has a policy of excluding off-the-clock work, and establish how much time agents actually spend on such work before and after each shift. Judge Kobick notes that Herb protected the interests of potential collective action members by participating in this litigation, which resulted in a substantial benefit to the class: a settlement that would likely not have been reached otherwise. Given his contributions, even during the relatively short time period from the filing of the amended complaint to the settlement, the requested service award of $3,000 to Herb is approved, Judge Kobick holds. Judge Kobick finds that the requested $241,642.50 in attorney's fees is reasonable under both the "percentage of fund" and lodestar methods. This amount constitutes one-third of the settlement's $725,000 common fund, a percentage that is routinely approved. Herb's counsel is, accordingly, awarded in $241,642.50 in attorney's fees. The requested $5,693.20 in litigation costs and expenses is also approved. The Parties also request $12,978 in fees and costs for the agreed-upon settlement administrator, Optime Administration, LLC. Optime will be responsible for, among other duties, carrying out the notice plan and administering the settlement process. These fees are reasonable and, thus, approved, Judge Kobick holds. For these reasons, the Court grants the Parties' joint motion for approval of their FLSA collective action settlement. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated July 31, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2dr9fdk3 from PacerMonitor.com. HUMANA INC: Marathe Sues Over False Registration Statements ----------------------------------------------------------- MANOJ MARATHE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Humana Inc., Bruce D. Broussard, And Susan M. Diamond, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00898-UNA (D. Del., July 31, 2024) is a class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded Humana common stock, including purchasers of call options and/or sellers of put options between July 27, 2022 and January 24, 2024, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities and Exchange Commission Rules 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants continued to downplay the risk that pent-up demand for healthcare services would cause a utilization surge that would pressure the Company's profitability. For example, when the Company held its Investor Day on September 15, 2022, Defendant Diamond assured investors that medical costs for Humana's individual Medicare Advantage business were "running favorable to our expectations," driven by "lower-than-expected in-patient utilization." Defendant Diamond further touted that "those trends have continued in the recent weeks" with "in-patient unit costs and non-in-patient trends coming in lower than [the Company] initially estimated." Defendant Diamond also explained that while higher utilization in the first quarter of 2022 had been "potentially due to pent-up demand," the Company was "seeing positive current year restatements and moderating trends" in its group Medicare Advantage segment, including moderating surgical trends over the second quarter. Confident in its ability to sustain these utilization trends, Humana also raised its full year adjusted EPS guidance by $0.25 per share to $25.00 per share, says the suit. The Defendants' wrongful conduct directly and proximately caused the economic loss suffered by Plaintiff and the Class, asserts the suit. The price of Humana common stock significantly declined when the misrepresentations made to the market, and/or the information alleged herein to have been concealed from the market, and/or the effects thereof, were revealed, causing investors' losses. As a result of their purchases of Humana securities during the Class Period, Plaintiff and the Class suffered economic loss, i.e., damages, under the federal securities laws. Humana Inc. engages in the provision of health insurance services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip Kim, Esq. Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com lrosen@rosenlegal.com - and - Brian E. Farnan, Esq. Michael J. Farnan, Esq. FARNAN LLP 919 N. Market Street, 12th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 777-0300 Facsimile: (302) 777-0301 Email: bfarnan@farnanlaw.com mfarnan@farnanlaw.com IBM: Dismissal of ERISA-Related Class Suit Under Appeal ------------------------------------------------------- International Business Machines Corp. 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 plaintiffs appealed the ERISA class suit dismissal of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On June 2, 2022, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging that the IBM Pension Plan miscalculated certain joint and survivor annuity pension benefits by using outdated actuarial tables in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. IBM, the Plan Administrator Committee, and the IBM Pension Plan are named as defendants. On April 4, 2024, the court dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice. On May 6, 2024, the plaintiffs appealed. International Business Machines Corporation, nicknamed Big Blue -- https://www.ibm.com/ -- is an American multinational technology company headquartered in Armonk, New York.[BN] INARI Medical Inc: Continues to Defend MAEW Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------ INARI Medical 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 Michiana Area class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On May 13, 2024, purported stockholder Michiana Area Electrical Workers' Pension Fund filed a verified class action complaint on behalf of itself and similarly situated Inari stockholders in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Michiana Area Elec. Workers' Pension Fund v. Inari Medical, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-03686-JHR (the "MAEW Action"). On June 18, 2024, purported stockholder Paul Hartmann filed a verified class action complaint on behalf of himself and similarly situated Inari stockholders in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Hartmann v. Inari Medical, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-04662-JHR (the "Hartmann Action" and together with the MAEW Action, the "Related Actions"). Each of the Related Actions alleges the Company and certain of its officer and directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act by making false or misleading statements regarding the Company's revenue and expenses. Each of the Related Actions alleges the Company and certain of its officer and directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act by making false or misleading statements regarding the Company's revenue and expenses. On July 12, 2024, a group of pension funds consisting of Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement Systems, Local 353, I.B.E.W. Pension Fund, and City of Pontiac Reestablished General Employees' Retirement System, Mr. Hartmann, and purported stockholder Arvin Nazerzadeh-Yazdi, each filed motions seeking to consolidate the Related Actions, be appointed lead plaintiff, and have their counsel appointed lead counsel. The matter is at a preliminary stage. The Company believes that the complaint is without merit and intends to defend against them vigorously. Inari is a medical device company that specializes in developing, manufacturing and commercializing catheter-based technologies for treating venous thromboembolism.[BN] INDIVIOR PLC: 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 Indivior PLC ("Indivior" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: INDV) 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 Indivior securities between February 22, 2024, and July 8, 2024, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm’s site: bgandg.com/INDV. Case Details The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants (1) grossly overstated their ability to forecast the negative impact of certain legislation on the financial prospects of Indivior products, which forecasting ability was far less capable and effective than Defendants had led investors and analysts to believe; (2) overstated the financial prospects of SUBLOCADE, PERSERIS and OPVEE, and thus overstated the Company's anticipated revenue and other financial metrics; (3) knew or recklessly disregarded that because of the negative impact of certain legislation on the financial prospects of Indivior's products, Indivior was unlikely to meet its own previously issued and repeatedly reaffirmed FY 2024 net revenue guidance, including its FY 2024 net revenue guidance for SUBLOCADE, PERSERIS and OPVEE; (4) knew or recklessly disregarded that Indivior was at a significant risk of, and/or was likely to, cease all sales and marketing activities related to PERSERIS; and (5) knew or recklessly disregarded that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. 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/INDV 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 Indivior 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 E-mail: info@bgandg.com [GN] INTEGRA LIFESCIENCES: Faces Firefighters/Cops' Fund Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Integra Lifesciences Holdings Corporation disclosed in its Form 8-K report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in July 27, 2024, that on September 12, 2023, a securities class action complaint, captioned "Pembroke Pines Firefighters & Police Officers Pension Fund v. Integra LifeSciences Holdings Corporation," No. 23-cv-20321 (D.N.J.), was filed by a purported stockholder of the company in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against the company and certain of the company's current and former executive officers. The Pembroke Litigation, filed on behalf of a putative class of stockholders who purchased or acquired the company's common stock between March 11, 2019 and May 22, 2023, inclusive, alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, on the basis of purportedly materially false and misleading statements and omissions relating to certain quality systems issues identified by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration at the company's Boston, Massachusetts manufacturing facility, the company's efforts to remediate those issues, and the company's forecasts for certain products in its Tissue Technologies segment. The complaint seeks, among other things, compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, expert fees, and other costs. Integra Lifesciences Holdings Corp. is a manufacturer of surgical, medical instruments and apparatus for industrial applications and services. It is based out of Princeton, New Jersey. IROQUOIS NURSING: Settlement Has Prelim. OK in Pallotta FLSA Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge David N. Hurd of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York grants preliminary approval of a class action settlement in the lawsuit styled JORDAN PALLOTTA, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, and ALLIYAH RAWLINS, individually an on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. IROQUOIS NURSING HOME, INC., and any related entities, and MEDCOR STAFFING, INC., and any related entities, Defendants, Case No. 6:23-cv-01197-DNH-ML (N.D.N.Y.). On Sept. 22, 2023, Named Plaintiff Jordan Pallotta, a Certified Nursing Assistant, filed this putative collective action alleging that Defendants Iroquois Nursing Home, Inc., and Medcor Staffing, Inc., violated the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and New York Labor Law ("NYLL") by, inter alia, maintaining an unlawful policy or practice of deducting meal breaks from paychecks regardless of whether or not the employee actually took a break. The Parties later stipulated to amend the putative class complaint to include Alliyah Rawlins ("Rawlins") as a second Named Plaintiff. On May 21, 2024, the Parties notified the Court that they had reached a settlement in part: Named Plaintiff Rawlins had reached a class settlement with Iroquois. Named Plaintiff Pallotta's claims remain against Defendant Medcor. On June 21, 2024, Rawlins moved for: (1) certification of the settlement class; (2) preliminary approval of the settlement agreement; (3) approval of the proposed class notice; (4) an Order scheduling a Final Approval Hearing and related deadlines. The motion is unopposed. Upon consideration of the memorandum of law and supporting exhibits, and after reviewing the Settlement Agreement and the attached Class Notice materials, the Court grants the unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement between Rawlins and Iroquois. The Court finds, on a preliminary basis, that the class settlement memorialized in the Settlement Agreement falls within the range of reasonableness and, therefore, meets the requirements for preliminary approval as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) and other applicable laws. For settlement purposes only, the following Settlement Class is certified pursuant to the Settlement Agreement and FED. R. CIV. P. 23: all employees and former employees in the positions of Certified Nursing Assistant and Licensed Practical Nurse employed by Iroquois Nursing Home, Inc., between Feb. 28, 2018, and the date of this Order. The Court finds that the proposed Class Notice and proposed Claim Form are accurate, objective, and informative, and provide members of the Settlement Class with the information necessary to make an informed decision regarding their participation in the settlement. The Court finds that the Class Notice constitutes the best practicable means of providing notice under the circumstances and, when completed, will constitute due and sufficient notice of the proposed Class Settlement and the Final Approval Hearing to all persons and entities affected by and/or entitled to participate in the settlement, in full compliance with the notice requirements of Rule 23, due process, the Constitution of the United States, the laws of the State of New York, and other applicable laws. The Class Notice and Claim Form are approved and will be mailed to the Settlement Class in accordance with the procedure outline in this Order. Named Plaintiff Rawlins and Defendant Iroquois are ordered to carry out and effect the proposed class action settlement according to the terms of the Settlement Agreement. The Court adopts the following procedure for Final Approval: (1) Within 10 days of this Order, and no later than Aug. 12, 2024, the Defendant's counsel were to provide Class Counsel and the Settlement Administrator with the Class List; (2) Within 15 days of this Order, and no later than Aug. 16, 2024, the Class Notice and Claim Form were to be mailed to all putative Class Members; (3) Within 60 days of this Order, and no later than Sept. 30, 2024, putative Class Members may file a Claim Form to "opt-in" and qualify as a Settlement Class Member and submit any written objections OR may file a Claim Form to "opt-out" (the "Bar Date"); (4) On or before Oct. 30, 2024, Class Counsel will move for Final Approval; (5) On Nov. 20, 2024, at 1:00 p.m., the Court will conduct a Final Approval Hearing at 10 Broad Street in Utica, New York; and (6) The Final Approval Hearing may be continued or held remotely without further notice to the Settlement Class. The Clerk of the Court is directed to set deadlines accordingly, and terminate the pending motion. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated July 31, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/3fvtet8r from PacerMonitor.com. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Court Dismisses Musikar-Rosner Consumer Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Allison D. Burroughs of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss the lawsuit captioned RHONDA MUSIKAR-ROSNER, Plaintiff v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-11746-ADB (D. Mass.). Plaintiff Rhonda Musikar-Rosner filed this putative class action against Defendant Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. ("J&J"), alleging that the company's marketing of its over-the-counter ("OTC") rapid release gelcaps is false, misleading, and deceptive. Currently pending before the Court is J&J's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) or, in the alternative, to transfer venue to the District of New Jersey. The Plaintiff, a citizen and domiciliary of Massachusetts, brings this putative class action against Defendant J&J, specifically its consumer health care division. J&J is a leading consumer health and personal care products company and produces, manufactures, markets, and distributes over the counter products to customers worldwide, including analgesic or pain-relieving medicines under the Tylenol(R) brand name. Most of J&J's Tylenol(R) products contain acetaminophen, also known as paracetamol or N-acetyl-paraaminophenol (APAP), an OTC pain reliever and fever reducer used to treat various conditions, such as headaches, muscle aches, arthritis, and colds. Tylenol(R) is one of J&J's "most familiar product lines." As of 2005, adult Tylenol was the "fastest-growing brand in the Internal Analgesics category -- making it a bigger brand than Crest, Gillette, Dove or Listerine," resulting in Tylenol becoming "the only pharmaceutical franchise worth over $1 billion available without a prescription at that time. In total, J&J offers thirty-three Tylenol(R) medications, and only three do not contain acetaminophen. In 2005, J&J introduced a new line of Tylenol(R) products, the rapid release gelcaps, with the launch of Tylenol(R) Extra Strength Rapid Release Gels. The Plaintiff alleges that since introducing its rapid release gelcaps into the market, J&J has misled and continues to mislead consumers about the nature, quality, and effectiveness of its products. Specifically, the Plaintiff contends that J&J promises that its rapid release gelcaps "work faster than other acetaminophen products," when, in fact, they "dissolve more slowly than J&J's non-rapid release products," such as traditional Tylenol(R) tablets. In support of her allegations, the Plaintiff relies on a 2018 study entitled "Rapid and Fast Release Acetaminophen Gelcaps Dissolve Slower than Acetaminophen Tablets" (the "2018 Dissolution-Rate Study"), which indicated that the rapid-release products not only fail to work faster, but actually work slower than their traditional acetaminophen counterparts, such as tablets. As a result of J&J's false and misleading advertising, the Plaintiff asserts that unassuming consumers like herself have been deceived into paying a premium price for rapid release gelcaps when they could have bought the cheaper, but more effective, non-fast release products. The Plaintiff asserts claims for violation of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 93A, breach of implied warranty of merchantability under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 106, Section 2-314, breach of express warranty under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 106, Section 2-313, unjust enrichment, and declaratory relief. The Plaintiff initiated this action on July 31, 2023. The Defendant filed its motion to dismiss or, alternatively, to transfer venue to the District of New Jersey, on Oct. 20, 2023. The Plaintiff responded on Dec. 15, 2023, and the Defendant replied on Jan. 12, 2024. The Defendant argues that the Plaintiff's claims are expressly preempted under 21 U.S.C. Section 379r(a) for two reasons. First, the FDA, not the states, regulates the labeling of OTC acetaminophen products, and, second, the Plaintiff seeks to impose "additional" and "different" labeling requirements from what the FDCA requires for J&J's rapid release gelcaps. The Defendant contends that the rapid release gelcaps "readily satisfy" the USP Convention's "immediate release" criterion as incorporated in the 1988 TFM. As such, the Plaintiff's requested relief, requiring the removal of "rapid release," would create different and additional obligations for J&J. The Court first turns to Plaintiff's argument that the 1988 TFM does not apply to gelcaps because it only references tablets. Although the 1988 TFM does not reference "gelcaps," Judge Burroughs opines that other courts, when confronted with this exact same question, have noted that gelcaps are, by definition, gelatin-coated capsule shaped tablets and thus covered by the monograph. The Plaintiff's second argument that preemption does not apply because the USP and 1988 TFM only considered "immediate release," whereas the present action concerns "rapid release," is equally unavailing, Judge Burroughs holds. FDA preemption regulates dissolution standards generally, meaning state law is preempted even if the wordings slightly differ. Judge Burroughs opines that the Defendant has met the TFM dissolution standard, and, as a result, the Plaintiff's claims are preempted. The gravamen of the Plaintiff's case is that rapid release gelcaps do not dissolve as quickly as regular acetaminophen tablets, which renders J&J's advertising of its product false and misleading. However, Judge Burroughs points out, advertising gelcaps as "rapidly dissolving" is accurate pursuant to the TFM and FDA guidance on the dissolution standards for acetaminophen OTC tablets. For these reasons, Judge Burroughs finds that the Plaintiff's claims are preempted, as they would impose requirements on the labeling of J&J's rapid release gelcaps that are "different from or in addition to" federal regulation. The Defendant's motion to dismiss is, therefore, granted. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated July 31, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/42b7z2n9 from PacerMonitor.com. KIRBY OPCO: Website Inaccessible to Visually Impaired, Wahab Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- ANGELA WAHAB, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KIRBY OPCO, LLC, D/B/A THE KIRBY COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-05812 (S.D.N.Y., July 31, 2024) is a civil rights action against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and its website, www.kirby.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. The Plaintiff asserts that she was injured when she attempted multiple times, most recently on May 2, 2024 to access Defendant's website from her home in an effort to shop for Defendant's products, but encountered barriers that denied the full and equal access to Defendant's online goods, content, and services. The website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers include but are not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse, says the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Kirby OPCO, LLC, doing business as The Kirby Company, is a manufacturer of vacuum cleaners, home cleaning products and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com KIRSTEN JOHNSON: Court Affirms Dismissal of Threlkeld Federal Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, DALE PESHEK and BRIAN THRELKELD, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. KIRSTEN JOHNSON, Secretary of the Wisconsin Department of Health Services, Defendant-Appellee, No. 23-2303 (7th Cir.), Judge Michael Y. Scudder of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the decision of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin dismissing Brian Threlkeld's federal action for lack of federal subject-matter jurisdiction. Everything began for Brian Threlkeld in 2000, when a Wisconsin jury convicted him of sexually assaulting his 14-yearold half-brother. The Kenosha County Circuit Court sentenced him to 10 years' imprisonment. Threlkeld was released on parole in 2005. Two years later, he violated the terms of release and, after being reincarcerated, sexually assaulted his half-brother yet again inside -- of all places -- the Racine Correctional Institution. All of this led the Wisconsin Attorney General in 2008 to petition the Kenosha County Circuit Court to civilly commit Threlkeld as a sexually violent person under chapter 980. The ensuing jury trial ended in a finding that the state had met its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Threlkeld was a sexually violent person. The court ordered Threlkeld's civil commitment at the Sand Ridge Secure Treatment Center, where he has remained for the last 16 years. In February 2020 the Kenosha County Circuit Court determined that Threlkeld was eligible for supervised release subject to the identification of suitable housing under the standards prescribed by Wis. Stat. Sec. 980.08. That provision authorizes supervised release only when the county of the committed person's residence identifies a housing option "not less than 1,500 feet from any school premises, child care facility, public park, place of worship, or youth center" and not "adjacent to a property where a child's primary residence exists," among other criteria. With Threlkeld's county of residence being Kenosha, the Kenosha County Circuit Court has the final discretion to approve any proposed housing option. Kenosha County identified compliant housing in the Village of Trevor more than twelve months after the court agreed that Threlkeld was eligible for supervised release. But a week before Threlkeld's scheduled release, the Village notified the local sheriff that there was a park within 1,300 feet of the proposed home. This finding led the Kenosha County Circuit Court in May 2021 both to declare the proposed housing arrangement non-compliant with Wis. Stat. Sec. 980.08 and to order the preparation of a new supervised release plan. Meanwhile, in February 2022, and undoubtedly frustrated by remaining civilly committed a year after being approved for supervised release, Threlkeld went on the offensive. It was then that he petitioned the Kenosha County Circuit Court to discharge his ongoing civil commitment. That petition triggered a trial, which concluded with the state judge finding that Threlkeld remained a sexually violent person—a decision recently affirmed on appeal. Four years have now passed since the Kenosha County Circuit Court found Threlkeld conditionally suitable for supervised release. Efforts remain ongoing to identify compliant housing while Threlkeld's petition for supervised release remains on the Kenosha court's docket. Indeed, the court entered a treatment progress reevaluation report under Wis. Stat. Sec. 980.07 in April 2024. For today, though, Threlkeld remains civilly committed at Sand Ridge. In September 2021, Threlkeld joined Dale Peshek and Hung Tran -- who, at that time, were also civilly committed at Sand Ridge -- bringing a class action complaint in federal court against the Wisconsin Secretary of Health Services (presently Kristen Johnson) under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. The complaint alleged violations of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and urged the district court to declare unconstitutional and enjoin enforcement of the civil commitment statute's supervised release residency conditions in Wis. Stat. Sec. 980.08. The complaint continues, risks indefinite civil commitment -- a reality not allowed by the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court recognized the gravity of the allegations while also observing that proceedings remained ongoing in Wisconsin courts to identify compliant supervised release housing arrangements for Threlkeld, Peshek, and Tran. Those proceedings -- and the underlying efforts by county officials to identify housing options—led the district court to abstain from exercising federal jurisdiction under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) The district court determined that the broad federal constitutional challenge leveled by Threlkeld, Peshek, and Tran at Wis. Stat. Sec. 980.08 fell within an exceptional circumstance category. It reasoned that the ongoing chapter 980 proceedings were civil enforcement proceedings, making abstention warranted to avoid unduly interfering with the efforts of state and county officials to identify compliant housing. Threlkeld and Peshek now appeal as the only remaining plaintiffs in the federal action. Tran petitioned for and received a discharge from civil commitment leading to release before this appeal was filed. And while this litigation was pending, Peshek likewise received a discharge from civil commitment. Peshek's release thereby moots his federal claims, and by extension, his appeal. Judge Scudder says, at a broader level, and regardless of Younger's application, we see a fatal deficiency in the suit Threlkeld brought in federal court: he named the wrong defendant. Recognize the nature of Threlkeld's federal lawsuit. He named one and only one defendant -- the Secretary of the Department of Health Services in her official capacity -- and sought only a declaration of Sec. 980.08's unconstitutionality under the Fourteenth Amendment and an injunction precluding future enforcement of the provision's supervised release housing limitations. Put another way, Threlkeld brought what the law often calls an Ex parte Young suit, the Appellate Court notes. Ex parte Young suits embrace a legal "fiction" that permits private parties to sue state officials "for prospective relief to enjoin ongoing violations of federal law." The Secretary must have "'some connection with the enforcement' of an allegedly unconstitutional state statute for the purpose of enjoining that enforcement" for Threlkeld to take advantage of Ex parte Young and strip the Secretary of the official character of her duties, thereby leaving her open to liability. Otherwise, principles of Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity preclude the lawsuit against the Secretary. According to the Appellate Court, therein lies the critical deficiency with Threlkeld's federal action. All agree that the Department of Health Services (and thereby its Secretary) is responsible for devising the supervised release plan and maintaining legal custody of a person during a period of supervised release. And so too does the Department play a role in assisting Kenosha County with identifying suitable housing arrangements for sexually violent persons authorized for supervised release. But the Department's playing those roles does not mean the Secretary is the state official charged with overall enforcement of chapter 980 or even Sec. 980.08 specifically, the Appellate Court notes. Judge Scudder says the court sees the ultimate responsibility for enforcing chapter 980 as borne by the State's Attorney General, or in some instances, the district attorney in the relevant county. In short, the court cannot say that the Secretary has much of a role, if any, in enforcing chapter 980. She therefore lacks a sufficient connection with the enforcement of the law, so Threlkeld cannot lodge an Ex parte Young suit against her." Hudge Scudder adds no matter how the court approaches the appeal and view Threlkeld's federal claim, he sees no way to do anything other than affirm the district court's dismissal of Threlkeld's federal action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1)," Judge Scudder concludes. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated August 5, 2024, is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LHBqIW LEGO BRAND: Fernandez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------- JACQUELINE FERNANDEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LEGO BRAND RETAIL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-05827 (S.D.N.Y., July 31, 2024) is a civil rights action against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.lego.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was injured when she attempted multiple times, most recently on June 14, 2024 to access Defendant's website from her home in an effort to shop for Defendant's products, but encountered barriers that denied the full and equal access to Defendant's online goods, content, and services. Due to Defendant's failure to build the website in a manner that is compatible with screen access programs, she was unable to understand and properly interact with the website, and was thus denied the benefit of purchasing the Retro Radio that she wished to acquire from the website, says the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumer. Lego Brand Retail, Inc. manufactures play materials. The Company offers the retail sale of toys, games, hobby kits, and craft kits. Lego Brand Retail operates worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com LIBERTY MUTUAL: Boyer Sues Over Failure to Include Overtime Pay --------------------------------------------------------------- Candace Boyer, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF ILLINOIS, STATE AUTO MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANIES, LIBERTY MUTUAL GROUP INC., LMHC MASSACHUSETTS HOLDINGS INC., and LIBERTY MUTUAL HOLDING COMPANY INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-12051-BRM-CI (E.D. Mich., Aug. 6, 2024), is brought involving the reasonable value of family provided/non-agency provided attendant care benefits and to challenge the practice and policy of calculating the reasonable rate paid to Plaintiff and other class members' claims for family provided attendant care Benefits for failing to include overtime premium pay for those care hours in excess of 40 hours in a week. The Defendants engaged in a systematic underpayment of family provided/non-agency provided attendant care benefits ("Benefits") by failing to include a premium for overtime, that is time-and-a-half for hours over 40 in a week. The Defendants' actions represent a common policy, course of action, and conduct; it was uniformly applied to all class members; it violated the No-Fault Act and amounts to a breach of contract for the same reasons; and caused all class members the same injury–underpayment of Benefits, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was prescribed attendant care that exceeds 40 hours per week, and Candace Boyer has provided her mother's attendant care at over 40 hours per week. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (hereafter "Liberty") is a company duly organized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: E. Powell Miller, Esq. Dennis A. Lienhardt, Esq. THE MILLER LAW FIRM PC 950 W. University Drive, Suite 300 Rochester, MI 48307 Phone: (248) 841-2200 Email: epm@millerlawpc.com dal@millerlawpc.com - and - Robert M. Giroux, Esq. GIROUX PAPPAS TRIAL ATTORNEYS, P.C. 28588 Northwestern Highway, Suite 100 Southfield, MI 48034 Phone: (248) 531-8665 Email: rgiroux@greatmiattorneys.com LIMETREE BAY: Prelim. Injunction, Bond in Refinery Suit Affirmed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Stephanos Bibas of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the decision of the District Court for the Virgin Islands granting a preliminary injunction that required Limetree Bay Terminals and Limetree Bay Refining to give out bottled water to affected residents in St. Croix, Virgin Islands, who could not afford to buy it and for residents to collectively post a $50,000 bond. After a St. Croix oil refinery got fined millions of dollars for polluting the environment, it closed for about a decade. During that time, Terminals bought and then sold the refinery to its sister company, Refining. Terminals kept doing maintenance and repair work on the refinery and held onto its operating permit. In early 2021, the refinery reopened. Only three days later, it released "a mist with heavy oil in it" that settled on nearby properties. A few months later, it again spewed a heavy-oil mist and spat out flames dozens of feet high. The EPA ordered Terminals and Refining to stop running the refinery, so they did. Yet the damage was done. Some of the oil had gotten into cisterns, which, in the Virgin Islands, "are a way of life." Cisterns can hold more than half a million gallons, collecting rainwater runoff from roofs. Strainers in the pipes filter out large debris but cannot keep out oil. Because the islands have no reliable public water supply, many residents rely on these tanks for cooking, bathing, and drinking water. So the companies tried to fix their mess. First, they sent teams to identify and clean contaminated cisterns. Then they hired a company to inspect residents' properties and told it to pay residents if it found even a speck of oil. Still, not all residents had access to clean water. They brought these class-action suits against the companies, seeking damages plus injunctive relief. For about a year, the court put those suits on hold, while a mediation and bankruptcy plan required the companies to give out free bottled water. When that plan ended, the residents sought the preliminary injunction, requiring Terminals and Refining to keep giving residents bottled water. After a hearing, the District Court granted that injunction. First, it found that even though the companies' contracts listed Refining as the refinery's sole operator, the refinery's federal operating permit listed both companies. Based on testimony from residents and experts, it also found that Terminals had likely violated that duty by contaminating surrounding properties with oil. Because oil does not break down, it reasoned, the oil was still there. And because oil-contaminated water threatens human health, the court found a present and continuing harm to the residents. Since some residents could not afford to buy clean water, it concluded that they would suffer irreparable harm and should get injunctive relief. After another hearing, the District Court set the scope of the bottled-water program. Relying on data and expert testimony, the court limited relief to those living in certain neighborhoods who get need-based government financial assistance. It required the residents collectively to post $50,000 for the first thousand participating households, plus $50 for each household after that. Though the court found the bond amount "certainly minimal relative to the anticipated costs associated with the water program," it also "believed it more appropriate than an outright waiver of the bond." The residents posted that bond; Terminals now appeals. Judge Bibas says preliminary injunctions are proper only in extraordinary situations, like this one. The court properly ordered Terminals and Refining to give out bottled water to residents in polluted areas who are too poor to buy it for themselves. Given the residents' poverty, the court properly imposed an injunction bond that they could pay, even though it would not be nearly enough to cover the full cost of the bottled-water program. Because the District Court properly applied the law and thoughtfully exercised its discretion, he affirms its preliminary injunction and $50,000 bond. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated August 5, 2024, is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oeYdob LOFTUS: Boyce Bid for Class Certification Denied ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Boyce v. Loftus, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-03175 (C.D. Ill., Filed May 16, 2023), the Hon. Judge Jonathan E. Hawley entered an order on motion for miscellaneous relief. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification must be denied because, as a pro se litigant, he is not an adequate class representative, and there is no indication that he has tried to secure class counsel, the Court said. The nature of suit states Prisoner Petitions -- Habeas Corpus -- Prison Condition.[CC] LOUISIANA REGIONAL: Faces Consolidated Suit Over Waste Odor ----------------------------------------------------------- Waste Connections, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 25, 2024, that in July and August 2018, four separate lawsuits seeking class action status were filed against one of the company's subsidiaries, Louisiana Regional Landfill Company (LRLC) and certain other company subsidiaries, the Parish, and Aptim Corporation in Louisiana state court, and subsequently removed to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, before Judge Susie Morgan in New Orleans. The court later consolidated the claims of the putative class action by plaintiffs Ictech and Bendeck. Beginning in December 2018, a series of 11 substantively identical mass actions were filed in Louisiana state court against LRLC and certain other company subsidiaries. The consolidated putative class action complaint alleges that the company and/or its subsidiaries released "noxious odors" and asserts a range of liability theories—nuisance, negligence (since dismissed), and strict liability—against all defendants. Waste Connections is a Canadian full-service solid waste collection provider in North America. LPL FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Cash Sweep Programs Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- LPL Financial 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 July 30, 2024, that the Company continues to defend itself from the cash sweep programs class suit. In July 2024, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against LPL Financial in federal district court alleging certain violations of law in connection with its cash sweep programs. The Company intends to defend vigorously against the lawsuit. LPL Financial Holdings Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides an integrated platform of brokerage and investment advisory services to independent financial advisors and financial advisors at financial institutions in the United States. LPL Financial Holdings Inc. was founded in 1968 and is based in Boston, Massachusetts. LPL FINANCIAL: Faces Nevitt Suit for Breach of Fiduciary Duty ------------------------------------------------------------- DOUGLAS K. NEVITT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LPL FINANCIAL HOLDINGS INC. and LPL FINANCIAL LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-01358-RBM-KSC (S.D. Cal., July 31, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment caused by their alleged illegal conduct. The case arises from Defendants' failure to secure for their brokerage and advisory clients reasonable interest rates on their clients' cash balances. Instead, the Defendants implement a scheme whereby those clients' cash balances are used by Defendants to generate massive profits for themselves based primarily on prevailing market rates. During the rising interest rate environment from March 2022 through the present, the spread between what Defendants paid to or secured for its clients and what it made in the market, known as "net interest income," has grown exponentially: from 2022 to 2023, Defendants" net interest income increased by 107%. While that growth was and continues to be extremely lucrative for Defendants, their scheme was and continues to be extremely detrimental to its clients -- in flagrant violation of its duties to its clients, says the suit. Plaintiff Nevitt maintained an individual retirement account at LPL Financial LLC from 2020 through 2022. LPL Financial Holdings Inc. provides financial consulting, wealth management, and advisory services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Deborah Rosenthal, Esq. SIMMONS HANLY CONROY LLP 455 Market St., Ste. 1270 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 536-3986 E-mail: drosenthal@simmonsfirm.com - and - Thomas I. Sheridan, III, Esq. Sona R. Shah, Esq. SIMMONS HANLY CONROY LLP 112 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 784-6404 Facsimile: (212) 213-5949 E-mail: tsheridan@simmonsfirm.com sshah@simmonsfirm.com - and - Matthew L. Dameron, Esq. Clinton J. Mann, Esq. WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON LLC 1100 Main Street, Suite 2600 Kansas City, MO 64105 Telephone: (816) 945-7110 Facsimile: (816) 945-7118 E-mail: matt@williamsdirks.com cmann@williamsdirks.com - and - Bruce D. Oakes, Esq. Richard B. Fosher, Esq. OAKES & FOSHER, LLC 1401 Brentwood Boulevard, Suite 250 Saint Louis, MO 63144 Telephone: (314) 804-1412 Facsimile: (314) 428-7604 E-mail: boakes@oakesfosher.com rfosher@oakesfosher.com LULL VENTURES: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Brown Says -------------------------------------------------------------- ZEBONE BROWN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LULL VENTURES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-05815 (S.D.N.Y., July 31, 2024) is a civil rights action against Defendant for the failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate Defendant's website, www.lull.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. The Plaintiff was injured when she attempted multiple times, most recently on July 6, 2024 to access Defendant's website from her home in an effort to shop for Defendant's products, but encountered barriers that denied the full and equal access to Defendant's online goods, content, and services. Due to Defendant's failure to build the website in a manner that is compatible with screen access programs, she was unable to understand and properly interact with the website, and was thus denied the benefit of purchasing the mattress (Original Lull Mattress), that she wished to acquire from the website, says the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Lull Ventures, LLC is a direct-to-consumer mattress and bedding company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com LULULEMON USA: Cantwell Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------ LISA CANTWELL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LULULEMON USA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-05360 (E.D.N.Y., July 31, 2024) is a civil rights action against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, shop.lululemon.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was injured when she attempted multiple times, most recently on May 21, 2024 to access Defendant's website from her home in an effort to shop for Defendant's products, but encountered barriers that denied the full and equal access to Defendant's online goods, content, and services. Due to Defendant's failure to build the website in a manner that is compatible with screen access programs, she was unable to understand and properly interact with the website and was thus denied the benefit of purchasing the socks (Women's Power Stride Crew Socks), that she wished to acquire from the website, says the Plaintiff. Lululemon USA, Inc. designs and retails athletic clothing products. The Company produces fitness pants, shorts, tops and jackets for yoga, dance, running, and general fitness.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com MATTEL INC: Settlement in Sleeper-Related Suit for Court OK ----------------------------------------------------------- Mattel 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 consolidated Sleeper class suits settlement in principle is subject to the preliminary and final approval of the Court. A number of putative class action lawsuits filed between April 2019 and October 2019 are pending against Fisher-Price, Inc. and/or Mattel, Inc. asserting claims for false advertising, negligent product design, breach of warranty, fraud, and other claims in connection with the marketing and sale of the Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper (the "Sleeper"). In general, the lawsuits allege that the Sleeper should not have been marketed and sold as safe and fit for prolonged and overnight sleep for infants. The putative class action lawsuits propose nationwide and over 10 statewide consumer classes comprised of those who purchased the Sleeper as marketed as safe for prolonged and overnight sleep. The class actions have been consolidated before a single judge in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York for pre-trial purposes pursuant to the U.S. federal courts' Multi-District Litigation program. In June 2022, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion to certify damages and injunctive relief classes under New York law, but granted plaintiffs' request to certify a New York issue class to resolve two issues on a class-wide basis. In October 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied plaintiffs' petition to appeal the denial of certification of the damages and injunctive relief classes. On February 13, 2024, the parties filed a notice of settlement informing the court that they have reached a settlement in principle of this litigation. The settlement in principle is subject to preliminary and final approval by the court. As of June 30, 2024, Mattel assessed its probable loss related to this matter and has accrued an estimated liability, which is not material. Mattel specializes in different types of dolls, and related accessories including doll furniture, clothing, playsets, and books.[BN] MDL 2873: Sutherland Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals ---------------------------------------------------------- David Sutherland, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:24-cv-04226-RMG (D.S.C., July 31, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants seeking damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances. According to the complaint, the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to allegedly develop the serious medical conditions and complications. 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. He was diagnosed with prostate cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products, says the suit. The Sutherland case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq. Steven D. Gacovino, Esq. GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 270 West Main Street Sayville, NY 11782 Telephone: (631) 600-0000 Facsimile: (631) 543-5450 - and - Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 METROHEALTH SYSTEM: Court Denies Savel's Bid to Quash Subpoena -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge James S. Gwin of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio denies the motion to quash subpoena in the lawsuit styled FRANK SAVEL, et al., Plaintiffs v. METROHEALTH SYSTEM, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-02154-JG (N.D. Ohio). Plaintiff Frank Savel moves under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(d)(3)(A)(iii) to quash subpoenas issued by Defendant The MetroHealth System (MetroHealth) to former Plaintiffs Isaac Allison, Darlene Rutledge, and Kerry Stouges. Defendant MetroHealth opposes. The Court previously granted Defendant MetroHealth's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs Isaac Allison, Darlene Rutledge, and Kerry Stouges, and other named Plaintiffs. The Sixth Circuit upheld the Court's dismissal of all Plaintiffs save Plaintiff Savel and former Plaintiff Crockett. At Plaintiff Savel's May 29, 2024 deposition, Savel testified that he learned of a potential lawsuit against MetroHealth through membership in a Telegram Messenger (Telegram) group message with other MetroHealth employees. Afterwards, Defendant MetroHealth sought production of the Telegram group message as a document responsive to its discovery requests. After several follow-ups with Plaintiff Savel's counsel, Defendant MetroHealth issued records subpoenas to individuals that Savel mentioned that he communicated with via Telegram. Telegram is a "cloud-based, cross-platform, online instant messaging application that allows users to exchange messages, share media and files, and hold private and group voice or video calls." With their subpoenas, Defendant MetroHealth seek all Telegram communications "related to MetroHealth's COVID-19 vaccination program and/or exemption requests related to the same," and "[a]ny communications you had with Frank Savel and/or Danielle Crockett regarding MetroHealth's COVID-19 vaccination program and/or exemption requests related to the same." Plaintiff Savel moves to quash Defendant MetroHealth's subpoenas. He argues that the contents of a specific Telegram message group are shielded from production by the common interest exception to the third-party disclosure rule. This private, invitation-only Telegram group was created by MetroHealth employees to discuss legal options regarding MetroHealth's vaccine mandates. Savel says that at all times, the participants in the Telegram group shared a common legal interest pertaining to the mandates and the proper responses thereto. Defendant MetroHealth opposes the motion to quash. On July 11, 2024, the Court conducted a status conference, where it discussed the subpoena of the Telegram group. It ordered Plaintiff Savel to file the Telegram communications under seal for in camera review. Judge Gwin finds that Plaintiff Savel has not shown either that the Telegram group message members all share a common legal interest, or that the Telegram message thread is protected by the attorney-client privilege. So, Savel has not met his burden to quash Defendant MetroHealth's subpoena. Certain MetroHealth employees started the Telegram message thread on Sept. 1, 2021, in response to Defendant MetroHealth's vaccine policies. Over a hundred more individuals were added over the next two years. As of Dec. 19, 2021, the Telegram group had over one hundred members. Dozens of those members appear in the Telegram group transcript as "Deleted Account." From the Court's in camera review, Judge Gwin says there is no way of verifying many of these anonymous group members' identities or confirming if they had a common interest with Plaintiff Savel. Plaintiff Savel likewise does not explain how every anonymous member has "agreed to work toward a mutually beneficial goal." In fact, on July 14, 2023, after a period of diminished activity, a member mentions there are spies in the group as a reason why they no longer can discuss litigations strategy using that forum. This directly contradicts Plaintiff Savel's assertion that all members share a common legal interest. Without any way of knowing the "spies'" identities or when they joined, the Court must assume that at least one individual lacked a common interest from the group's outset. By the same reasoning, the Telegram group has waived any attorney-client privilege, Judge Gwin holds. From the group's Sept. 1, 2021 inception, many Telegram group members focused on legal action. Throughout, members discuss various legal strategies and float the names of potential lawyers--some of whom they pass on advice from. At the beginning of February 2022, Telegram group members contact current Plaintiff's counsel, Jon Troyer, for a free consultation and advice on filing Ohio Civil Rights Commission (OCRC) complaints. At the same time, members mention that "we aren't signed to a lawyer yet." At times, members suggest making a separate Telegram group for those interested in filing a lawsuit. On March 1, 2022, group members disperse information on how to retain Troyer for participation in an injunctive filing. Sixty-three group members indicate they wish to participate. Members mention that they are not involved, but are willing to financially assist with the lawsuit. Soon after, Defendant MetroHealth agrees to accommodate religious exemptions, so Troyer no longer represents the Telegram group members as a group. In August 2022, group members indicate they intend to renew efforts towards litigation and that those interested should opt into the planned class action lawsuit by emailing Troyer. At the same time, others mention instigating separate lawsuits pro se. Ultimately, there are forty-six original named Plaintiffs to the complaint, most of whom are named in the Telegram group. While Plaintiff Savel initially sought to establish the class, he has not shown that every other member in the Telegram group--including the anonymous ones--falls into the prospective class that would have been represented by attorney Troyer. Moreover, there is at least one Telegram group member who opted out of the class and proceeded pro se. Because any messages were published to these unrepresented Telegram group members, the attorney-client privilege is waived for the entire Telegram group message, Judge Gwin points out. For these reasons, the Court denies Plaintiff Savel's motion to quash Defendant MetroHealth's subpoenas to Isaac Allison, Darlene Rutledge, and Kerry Stouges. Plaintiff Savel must produce any relevant video, picture, or audio messages in addition to the text messages provided to the Court. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated July 26, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/y5vtsyks from PacerMonitor.com. MIDLAND CREDIT: Bid to Compel Arbitration in Winkelman Suit Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Victor A. Bolden of the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut denies, without prejudice to renewal, the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration in the lawsuit entitled ALEXANDRA WINKELMAN, individually and behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-00407-VAB (D. Conn.). Plaintiff Alexandra Winkelman initiated this putative class action on March 31, 2023, against Midland Credit Management, Inc., for alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (the "FDCPA"). On Sept. 12, 2023, Midland Credit moved to compel arbitration and to dismiss this action without prejudice pending arbitration. On Oct. 3, 2023, Ms. Winkelman filed an opposition to the motion to compel. No reply was filed. Midland Credit argues that Ms. Winkelman stopped making payments on the Account after a Dec. 3, 2019 payment, and then on Sept. 16, 2020, CitiBank sold all rights, title, and interest in the Account to Midland Credit, and the credit card agreement's arbitration clause was never amended. In Midland Credit's view, this arbitration clause--included in the terms of a credit card agreement for a CitiBank issued, Costco-branded, credit card account (the "Account"), which Ms. Winkelman opened--governs, and validly includes all of the claims brought by it against Ms. Winkelman because they "fall squarely within the arbitration provision's scope." As a result, Midland Credit argues that Ms. Winkelman must engage in arbitration under Section 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") and the Court should dismiss, or in the alternative, stay this matter pursuant to Section 3 of the FAA. In her response, Ms. Winkelman argues that Midland Credit's arbitration arguments fall short because Midland Credit failed to establish a valid assignment of the right to enforce the arbitration agreement. In her view, this is a "crucial omission" as courts distinguish between the assignment of rights to the underlying agreement, including the right to arbitrate, and the assignment of the right to enforce the debt. According to Ms. Winkelman, there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Midland Credit had been assigned the right to enforce the arbitration agreement because Midland Credit's motion and its attached evidence (the declaration and the bill of sale but not the Master Purchase Agreement) are insufficient. The Court agrees. To determine whether Midland Credit had been assigned the right to enforce the arbitration clause with respect to any claims brought by Ms. Winkelman, Judge Bolden opines that it is not enough to have documentation reflecting an assignment generally over any claim. There also must be specific documentation reflecting an assignment over Ms. Winkelman's claims. Here, while the Bill of Sale and Assignment that Midland Credit submitted with its motion states that subject to the terms and conditions of the Master Purchase and Sale Agreement, CitiBank does transfer, sell, assign, convey, grant, bargain, set over and deliver to Buyer Midland Credit, and to Buyer's successors and assigns, the Accounts, the Master Purchase and Sale Agreement has not been submitted. As a result, the Court cannot determine what "terms and conditions" came with the assignment to Midland Credit--and what rights, significantly here, regarding the arbitration provision, Midland Credit was assigned. Accordingly, as Midland Credit has failed to establish that no factual disputes exists as to whether Connecticut contract law allows it to enforce the arbitration provision of the agreement, the Court will deny its motion to compel arbitration, and does so without prejudice to renewal. A full-text copy of the Court's Ruling and Order dated July 27, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2pmbtffx MITNICK LAW: Bid to Dissolve Writs in Balanced Bridge Suit Denied ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned BALANCED BRIDGE FUNDING, LLC, Plaintiff v. MITNICK LAW OFFICE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-04073-GJP (E.D. Pa.), Judge Gerald J. Pappert of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denies the Defendant's motion to dissolve writs. Balanced Bridge Funding seeks to satisfy a judgment against Mitnick Law Office. To that end, it had writs of execution served on garnishees, including Locks Law Firm and BrownGreer. Mitnick Law moves to dissolve the writs. After considering the parties' submissions and holding a hearing, the Court denies the motions. Balanced Bridge advanced Mitnick Law Office cash in exchange for rights to attorneys' fees Mitnick Law earned from the National Football League Concussion Class Action Litigation, a multidistrict litigation overseen by Judge Anita Brody (In re Nat'l Football League Players Concussion Inj. Litig., 821 F.3d 410, 421 (3d Cir. 2016)). Balanced Bridge filed an arbitration claim against Mitnick Law, asserting it failed to pay Balanced Bridge and refused to update Balanced Bridge on the Concussion MDL's status. Balanced Bridge prevailed, and subsequently filed a petition to confirm the award. The Court granted the petition and entered judgment against Mitnick Law in the amount of $2,889,875, plus interest. Balanced Bridge then filed two praecipes for writs of execution, which were served in September 2022. The first was served on BrownGreer, the settlement administrator in the Concussion MDL. The second was served on Locks Law Firm, to which Mitnick Law referred legal work in exchange for referral fees. Early this year, Balanced Bridge filed praecipes for two additional writs which, in relevant respects, duplicate the prior two. Mitnick Law now seeks to dissolve the writs for several reasons. Mitnick Law's motions do not indicate whether it seeks to dissolve the 2022 or 2024 writs. The firm clarified its position at the hearing, explaining its motions apply to the 2024 writs only because it believes the 2022 writs are invalid. The 2022 and 2024 writs are essentially identical and are directed at exactly the same property. With the 2022 writs in the background, the 2024 writs add nothing new to the landscape. Because Mitnick Law's arguments that the 2022 writs are invalid fail, Judge Pappert says disputes about the 2024 writs are moot. Mitnick Law concedes as much. Mitnick Law requested the Court construe its motions to apply to the 2022 writs as well, if it finds they are valid. As a practical matter, the Court cannot resolve the 2022 writs' validity without construing Mitnick Law's motions to apply to them. Moreover, since the 2022 and 2024 writs are essentially the same, Mitnick Law's arguments regarding each set of writs are largely the same too, Judge Pappert explains. Resolving the 2022 writs' validity settles this matter, so the Court need not go further than that. Mitnick Law contends the writs should be set aside because the funds subject to them are exempt from garnishment. It argues several exemptions apply. Among other things, it asserts the monies are exempted as they are wages. This is incorrect, Judge Pappert holds. Even if Mitnick Law's status as a law office rather than an individual is put to the side, neither BrownGreer nor Locks Law Firm can be considered its employer, Judge Pappert opines. So Mitnick Law cannot avail itself of the wage exemption. Judge Pappert notes that Mitnick Law appears to be arguing the writ served on BrownGreer could not have attached any of the firm's property because BrownGreer did not possess any of its property at the time it was served with the writ. Judge Pappert opines, among other things, that this argument is contrary to Pennsylvania law because serving a writ of execution not only attaches the defendant's property currently held by the garnishee, it also attaches "property that comes into the garnishee's possession after service." A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum dated July 26, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/47334whf from PacerMonitor.com. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated July 26, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/v44kfs7t from PacerMonitor.com. MODIVCARE SOLUTIONS: Class Certification Bid in Hines Due Dec. 2 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Marquis Hines et al., v. ModivCare Solutions, LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-00273-HEH (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Henry Hudson entered an order as follows: -- all dispositive motions, including motions for summary judgment and motions for summary judgment and motions for class certification and/or decertification must be filed no later than Dec. 2, 2024. Modivcare is a technology-enabled healthcare services company. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 6, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fzL9XP at no extra charge.[CC] NASHVILLE BOOTING: Class Action Lawsuit Nears Settlement -------------------------------------------------------- Sam Chimenti, writing for WKRN, reports that a class action lawsuit involving a car booting company in Nashville could soon lead to settlements for thousands of people. The controversy over Nashville car booting, which dates back years, is a crucial reason why Tennessee enacted a law last month that regulates how booting companies operate within the state. This specific lawsuit -- filed by a Washington, D.C. firm, Kotchen & Law LLP -- encompasses all those who had their vehicles booted by Nashville Booting LLC and requested removal but were forced to wait over an hour for a response. According to the case's counsel, Nashville Booting does not possess the assets to pay out the requested settlement. Instead, the lawsuit is targeting the insurance company for the amount of $1 million. "Most of that has to be collected against their primary asset, which is their insurance policy with Liberty Mutual, so there will be further litigation to enforce the judgment," explained attorney Mark Hammervold, class counsel for the lawsuit. The timeframe for bootings in the lawsuit is just under five years, from July 2017 to June 2022. That makes the exact number of class members difficult to determine. "We estimated that it was between 2,000 to 5,000 people, so we haven't been able to notify every single person who is a member of the class," said Hammervold. With that said, Hammervold is hoping more people who were impacted come forward and join this legal fight. "We've fought long and hard for this settlement," Hammervold told News 2. "This has been over four years in the making and we believe that the settlement, once we are able to collect against the insurance company, is going to provide for substantial relief." He added that best way to reach the law firm or to learn more about the lawsuit is to follow this link. News 2 reached out to Nashville Booting for a comment but did not hear back. The deadline for people to opt-out or object to the settlement terms is Sept. 10. Final approval of this settlement is set to be heard in court on Oct. 25. [GN] NASSAU COUNTY, NY: Court Narrows Claims in Myers Suit ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JHISAIAH MYERS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. COUNTY OF NASSAU, NASSAU COUNTY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, and NASSAU COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT, Case No. 2:22-cv-07023-OEM-LGD (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Orelia Merchant entered an order: -- granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss as to Plaintiff's purported challenge of the steps of the hiring process other than the background check phase -- granting as to the NCPD and the Commission and denying as to the Plaintiff's remaining claims alleged against the County in complaint. Because the Equal Protection Clause carries a more stringent pleading standard than the NYSHRL, the Court finds that Plaintiff has adequately alleged his qualification for the same reasons that it found dismissal of Plaintiff's Equal Protection claim was not merited in light of Defendants' proffered non-discriminatory explanation: because Plaintiff has identified specific non-Black comparators who were found qualified despite allegedly having significantly more troubling background issues. The Court declines to strike Plaintiff's class allegations as narrowed by the Court's holding regarding standing supra. Motions to strike are "disfavored because they require a reviewing court to preemptively terminate the class aspects of litigation, solely on the basis of what is alleged in the complaint and before the plaintiffs are permitted to complete the discovery to which they would otherwise be entitled on questions relevant to class certification." The Plaintiff is a 36-year-old Black man, who currently serves as a patrol officer for the New York Police Department. Nassau County is a suburban county located on Long Island, immediately to the east of New York City, bordering the Long Island Sound on the north and the open Atlantic Ocean to the south. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 6, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3jHjZs at no extra charge.[CC] NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Masterson Sues Over Junior Hockey Talent Ban ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tyler Kuehl, writing for Daily Faceoff, reports that an athlete is trying to take a stand in regard to his future. On Tuesday, August 13, TSN's Rick Westhead reported that Rylan Masterson, a junior hockey player in Canada, has filed a proposed class-action against the NCAA and 10 universities, alleging they are violating antitrust laws, not allowing players who have played major junior hockey to play in the NCAA. Masterson, 19, is a current member of the Fort Erie Meteors, a Junior B team in the Greater Ontario Junior Hockey League. While playing Jr. B wouldn't prohibit Masterson from playing in the NCAA, he did appear in two exhibition games for the Ontario Hockey League's Windsor Spitfires in 2022, effectively costing him his eligibility. The Niagara Falls, Ontario native argued in a lawsuit filed on Monday night in U.S. District Court that the rule makes the schools and NCAA anticompetitive and violates antitrust laws. The 10 schools listed in the lawsuit are Canisius University, Niagara University, Rochester Institute of Technology, Boston College, Boston University, University of Denver, Quinnipiac University, University of Notre Dame Du Lac, Stonehill College and University of St. Thomas. The rule that players are not allowed to play major juniors before heading to the NCAA has been in place for over four decades. NCAA bylaw 12.2.3.2.4 specifically states that the NCAA considers CHL players to be deemed "professionals." The NCAA conducted a review of its bylaws to determine whether or not it should discontinue the "boycott" of Canadian Hockey League players. The NCAA turned the decision over to Division I coaches. After a vote, it was determined the current policy of not allowing CHL players into the NCAA ranks would continue. In May of this year, during the annual NCAA Ice Hockey meetings in Naples, Florida, coaches formed a committee to "monitor legal challenges to the rule." The committee is made up of each of the six conference commissioners, one coach from each conference and American Hockey Coaches Association director Forrest Karr. However, according to reports, 15-20 percent of coaches were willing to change the bylaw, making past major junior players eligible to play in the NCAA. The suit alleges that other professionals have been allowed to play NCAA hockey, most notably former Boston University standout, and current Vancouver Canucks prospect, Tom Wallinder. He spent time with Rögle BK of the Swedish Hockey League before coming to North America. [GN] NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARDO SALOM, CATHERINE PALAZZO as assignee for Ruben Palazzo, and PETER HACKINEN, on their own behalf and on behalf of other similarly situated persons, v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC d/b/a CHAMPION MORTGAGE And FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, on its own behalf and on behalf of similarly situated persons, Case No. 2:24-cv-00444-BJR (W.D. Wash.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order, pursuant to Section II.D of the Standing Order, granting the following extension of time: 1. Nationstar's time to respond to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification until the close of discovery in this case, or 2. In the alternative, grant Nationstar a 14-day extension to respond to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification through and including Aug. 28, 2024. Pursuant to Section II.C of the Standing Order Nationstar certifies it conferred with Plaintiffs on the subject of this Request for Extension of Time and was unable to resolve the subject matter of this motion. The Plaintiffs filed their Class Action Complaint on Feb. 28, 2024. The original Complaint asserted claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and violation of state consumer protection laws against Nationstar. Although Plaintiffs attempted to artfully plead around the issue, their complaint rests on allegations that Nationstar improperly charged a fee for expediting the processing and delivery of payoff statements. The Plaintiffs identify the following putative Plaintiffs' Class and Subclasses: "All persons who Nationstar imposed a Payoff Fee as part of a payoff statement issued to them who fall into one or more of the following groups (and subclasses): (1) were borrowers (or the assigns or successors in interest to the borrowers) on residential mortgage loans in the United States to which Nationstar acquired servicing rights when such loans were 30 days or more delinquent or in default on loan payment obligations or other standard default terms as defined by a Uniform Mortgage instrument ("FDCPA Subclass"); or (2) were borrowers (or the assigns or successors in interest to the borrowers) on residential mortgage loans secured by residential properties in the State of Washington in the four years before the commencement of this action to which Nationstar acted as a mortgage servicer ("Washington Subclass"); or (3) were borrowers (or the assigns or successors in interest to the borrowers) on residential mortgage loans secured by residential properties in the State of Maryland since Oct. 1, 2019 to the commencement of this action to which Nationstar acted as a mortgage servicer ("Maryland Subclass"); or (4) were borrowers on residential mortgage loans on properties located in the United States in the six years before the commencement of this action ("Nationwide Unjust Enrichment Subclass") in which Nationstar was not a party to the mortgage lender and merely acted as a collector on behalf of another. The Plaintiffs assert claims for violations of the FDCPA, state consumer protection laws, and the FDCPA against Nationstar Nationstar Mortgage provides mortgages loan, re-financing, and home equity loans. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Aug. 6, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6mlj5K at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Thomas N. Abbott, Esq. Justin D. Balser, Esq. TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP 100 SW Main Street, Suite 1000 Portland, OR 97204 Telephone: (503) 290-2322 E-mail: thomas.abbott@troutman.com justin.balser@troutman.com NCAA: Cornelio Sues Over Collusive and Illegal Practices -------------------------------------------------------- Riley Cornelio, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION; Case No. 1:24-cv-02178 (D. Colo., Aug. 6, 2024), seeks to ensure that the NCAA and its members follow through on the promise of eliminating this rule, and to recover the damages caused by their collusive and illegal practices in violation of the Sherman Act. NCAA Bylaw 15.5.4 limits NCAA schools to only offering 11.7 baseball scholarships. But that's not nearly enough players for a college baseball team. These scholarships are spread amongst 27 players (or sometimes 32 in recent years), so on average, each player is on a 43% scholarship. No matter the school's resources, and no matter how much a school wants to invest resources in baseball, the limit is the same. If permitted, NCAA schools would offer more scholarship money to their college baseball players. Certainly the better resourced schools would. The NCAA schools compete for talented baseball players for their baseball teams, and the 11.7 scholarship bylaw is an artificial cap on the amount of scholarship money that schools can provide. As the opening quote makes clear, the rule is harming thousands of baseball players every year. The Defendant and its members operate as a cartel, and the capping of scholarship money at artificially low levels in these sports results in wage fixing amongst horizontal competitors in a market for services. The anticompetitive effects are as clear as with any other wage fix, and it is an unlawful restraint under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Even if the rule is finally repealed, there will still be a need to make whole the athletes who suffered. Years of antitrust harm cannot be undone simply with the striking of a rule that already damaged thousands of athletes. And for now, of course, the rule persists and the harm continues, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked as a college baseball player at Texas Christian University from 2019 to 2022. NCAA is an unincorporated association that maintains its principal place of business in Indianapolis, Indiana.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen M. Tillery, Esq. Garrett R. Broshuis, Esq. Steven M. Berezney, Esq. KOREIN TILLERY, LLC 505 North 7th Street, Suite 3600 St. Louis, MO 63101 Phone: (314) 241-4844 Facsimile: (314) 241-3525 Email: stillery@koreintillery.com gbroshuis@koreintillery.com sberezney@koreintillery.com - and - Christopher M. Burke, Esq. KOREIN TILLERY, LLC 401 West A. Street, Suite 1430 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 625-5620 Email: cburke@koreintillery.com - and - Eric Olson, Esq. Sean Grimsley, Esq. Jason Murray, Esq. Olson Grimsley Kawanabe, Esq. HINCHCLIFF & MURRAY LLC 700 17th Street, Suite 1600 Denver, CO 80202 Phone: (303) 535-9151 Email: eolson@olsongrimsley.com sgrimsley@olsongrimsley.com jmurray@olsongrimsley.com NCR VOYIX CORP: Continues to Defend Retirement Plan Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- NCR Voyix 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 the deferred compensation retirement plans class suit. In November 2015, several participants and beneficiaries in five "nonqualified" deferred compensation retirement plans sponsored by the Company (collectively, the "Plans") filed a putative class action lawsuit against the Company and other named defendants. The plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that the Company breached the terms of the Plan agreements when, upon termination of the Plans, the Company paid lump sum payments based on mortality tables and actuarial calculations. In September 2017, the court certified a class. On February 6, 2024, the court entered summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that the Company breached the terms of the Plans when it paid the lump sums in lieu of actuarially equivalent replacement life annuities and ordered that the Company provide class members the amount reflecting the difference between the lump sums they received and the cost of the replacement life annuities. The court further ordered the parties to brief as to what the appropriate relief should have been based on the benefits due to each Plan participant ("Requested Relief Order"). On April 16, 2024, the Company filed its position on the Requested Relief Order. On June 10, 2024, the Court ruled against the Company's position to the Requested Relief Order, entered a final judgment against the Company, and ordered the Company to calculate the "benefits due" to the Plan participants, including pre-judgment interest, based on the sum that would have been sufficient to allow each participant to purchase a replacement annuity using discount rates prescribed by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation in effect as of the February 25, 2013 termination date. The Company intends to contest this matter vigorously. On July 2, 2024, the Company filed a notice of appeal. NCR Voyix Corporation (NYSE: VYX) operates as a software, services and hardware enterprise solutions provider, with products targeted at the banking, restaurant and hospitality sectors. Its offerings include software, hardware and payment solutions for retail and hospitality customers and digital banking solutions for financial institutions. NEOGEONOMICS INC: Continues to Defend Goldenberg Shareholder Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Neogenomics 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 the Goldenberg shareholder class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On December 16, 2022, a purported shareholder class action captioned Daniel Goldenberg v. NeoGenomics, Inc., Douglas VanOort, Mark Mallon, Kathryn McKenzie, and William Bonello was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, naming the Company and certain of the Company's current and former officers as defendants. This lawsuit was filed by a stockholder who claims to be suing on behalf of anyone who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities between February 27, 2020 and April 26, 2022. The lawsuit alleges that material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact were made in the Company's public disclosures in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The alleged improper disclosures relate to statements regarding the Company’s menu of tests, business operations and compliance with health care laws and regulations. The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the putative class and an award of costs and expenses, including attorney's fees and expert fees. The Company believes that it has valid defenses to the claims alleged in the lawsuits, but there is no guarantee that the Company will prevail. At the time of filing the outcome of these matters are not estimable or probable. NeoGenomics Inc. is a cancer reference laboratory that provides cancer testing and partnership programs to pathologists and oncologists.[BN] NESTLE PURINA: Denies Denver Plant's Foul Odor Claims ----------------------------------------------------- Jeremy Jojola, writing for 9News, reports that for decades, the smell emanating from the Nestle Purina pet food plant north of downtown Denver has long been a reality. Now, a lawsuit seeking damages from the company continues to make its way through a federal court in Colorado. 9NEWS covered the lawsuit in May, which alleges the plant has caused property values to drop in areas around in the plant because of the horrid smell. A law firm is attempting to establish class-action status in the lawsuit that could impact potentially more than 2,000 households nearby. The plant, which has been in the neighborhood since the 1930s, is located near I-70 and Brighton. Over the last several years, some neighbors have filed official complaints about the odor with city and state officials. This month, attorneys for Nestle Purina filed their official answer to the class-action attempt and denied all claims in a 35 page filing. In one of the responses, the plant's attorneys wrote, "Many putative class members acquired their properties with full knowledge that the properties were located near industrial and manufacturing facilities, including, but not limited to, NPPC's Facility." Nestle Purina attorneys cite 14 affirmative defenses in their response and refer to the smell as "subjective", but also raise the question whether the plant itself is solely responsible for the "highly odiferous" environment. 9NEWS Legal Expert Whitney Traylor reviewed the lawsuit and the response by Nestle Purina. He said it appears the legal team for the pet food plant is doing everything it can to raise doubts about the claims. Traylor anticipated a long legal battle that would likely end with a settlement. "There's all these variables and this is why litigation is so expensive and takes so long because you're gonna have to get experts," Traylor said. "There's going to be a lot of discovery. This is actually going to be somewhat of a complicated case because the defendants are going to try and say, 'Well, it really wasn't all us. Your nose may be overly sensitive.'" [GN] NEW HAMPSHIRE: Seeks Extension to Answer Second Amend Complaint --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as G.K., by their next friend, Katherine Cooper et al., v. Christopher Sununu, in his official capacity as the Governor of New Hampshire, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00004-PB (D.N.H.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order: A. Granting this Motion for Clarification or Extension of Defendants' Deadline to Answer Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint; and B. Directing that Defendants' Answer to Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint will not be due until a date that is at least 14 days following the Court's decisions on Defendants' Aug. 2024 Motion to Dismiss and Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, to be set when the Court reconsiders deadlines in this case; and C. Granting such other relief as the Court deems just and proper. Expedited consideration is warranted to avoid uncertainty as to when the Defendants must file their Answer which, in the ordinary course and absent the filing of a Motion to Dismiss, would be due on Monday, July 29. Extending Defendants' deadline to answer thus would avoid the possibility of duplicative or unnecessary filings. On Dec. 1, 2023, the Court stayed this case to enable the parties to mediate. On Jan. 18, 2024, before formal mediation efforts began, the Plaintiffs Moved for a Partial Lift of Stay limited to consideration of their simultaneously filed Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint. On June 14, 2024, the Court entered a schedule for limited discovery and briefing, including a deadline for Defendants' Motion to Reconsider the Court's Feb. 2, 2024 Order. On July 29, 2024, the Court denied Defendants' Motion to Reconsider, granted Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint, and directed Plaintiffs to file the 2d Am. Complaint on the docket, which Plaintiffs did on the same date. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Aug. 6, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IAD3N5 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Nathan W. Kenison-Marvin, Esq. Michael P. DeGrandis, Esq. NEW HAMPSHIRE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 33 Capitol Street Concord, NH 03301-6397 Telephone: (603) 271-3650 E-mail: nathan.w.kenison-marvin@doj.nh.gov michael.p.degrandis@doj.nh.gov - and - Paige M. Jennings, Esq. Philip J. Peisch, Esq. Julia M. Siegenberg, Esq. Lara Rosenberg, Esq. BROWN & PEISCH PLLC 1225 19th Street Washington, DC 20036 E-mail: pjennings@brownandpeisch.com jsiegenberg@brownandpeisch.com NEXTGEN LEADS: Robertson Alleges Illegal Telemarketing Practices ---------------------------------------------------------------- ERIN ROBERTSON, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEXTGEN LEADS, LLC, a California company, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-01361-BAS-MSB (S.D. Cal., July 31, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff alleges that NextGen Leads made unsolicited telemarketing calls to her residential telephone number that is listed on the National Do Not Call Registry. NextGen Leads was attempting to reach her to promote its insurance lead services. Because telemarketing calls typically use technology capable of generating thousands of similar calls per day, the Plaintiff sues on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of other persons who received similar calls. NextGen leads generates potential customers for its insurance company clients.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana J. Oliver, Esq. OLIVER LAW CENTER, INC. 8780 19th Street #559 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701 Telephone: (855) 384-3262 E-mail: dana@danaoliverlaw.com OKTA INC: Proposes $60-Mil. Securities Class Action Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION IN RE OKTA, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION CASE NO. 3:22-cv-02990-SI SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES To: All persons and entities who or which, during the period from March 3, 2022 through August 31, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period"), purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded Class A common stock of Okta, Inc. and were damaged thereby (the "Class"). YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, that Court-appointed Class Representatives Nebraska Investment Council and North Carolina Retirement Systems, on behalf of themselves and the other members of the certified Class; and (b) defendants Okta, Inc., Todd McKinnon, Brett Tighe, and Frederic Kerrest (collectively, "Defendants") have reached a proposed settlement of the claims in the above-captioned class action (the "Action") in the amount of $60,000,000 (the "Settlement"). A hearing will be held before the Honorable Susan Illston on November 8, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. (Pacific), Phillip Burton Federal Building & United States Courthouse, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California 94102, in Courtroom 1-17th Floor, by Zoom webinar (the "Settlement Hearing") to, among other things, determine whether the Court should: (i) approve the proposed Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) dismiss the Action as provided in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated June 11, 2024; (iii) approve the proposed Plan of Allocation for distribution of the settlement funds available for distribution to eligible Class Members (the "Net Settlement Fund"); and (iv) approve Class Counsel's Fee and Expense Application. The Court may change the Settlement Hearing details without providing another notice. You do NOT need to attend the Settlement Hearing to receive a distribution from the Net Settlement Fund. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A MONETARY PAYMENT. If you have not yet received a Notice and Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these documents by visiting the website for the Settlement, www.OktaSecuritiesLitigation.com, or by contacting the Claims Administrator at: Okta, Inc. Securities Litigation P.O. Box 2738 Portland, OR 97208 www.OktaSecuritiesLitigation.com (888) 622-9621 Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form or for information about the status of a claim, may also be made to Class Counsel: Michael P. Canty Esq. LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 www.labaton.com settlementquestions@labaton.com (888) 219-6877 If you are a Class Member, to be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Claim Form postmarked or submitted online no later than October 29, 2024. If you are a Class Member and do not timely submit a valid Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, but you will nevertheless be bound by all judgments and orders entered by the Court relating to the Settlement, whether favorable or unfavorable. If you are a Class Member and wish to exclude yourself from the Class, you must submit a written request for exclusion in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice such that it is received no later than October 18, 2024. If you properly exclude yourself from the Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court relating to the Settlement, whether favorable or unfavorable, and you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, Class Counsel's Fee and Expense Application, and/or the proposed Plan of Allocation must be filed with the Court in accordance with the instructions in the Notice, such that they are received no later than October 18, 2024. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE. DATED: AUGUST 13, 2024 BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [GN] PALMER ADMINISTRATIVE: Class Cert Filing Due May 23, 2025 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WAYNE BADOLATO, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, et al., v. PALMER ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, INC., Case No. 5:24-cv-00277-MMH-PRL (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Marcia Morales Howard entered this case management and scheduling order: Disclosure statements on the form Aug. 15, 2024 required by this Court: Deadline for providing mandatory initial Aug. 15, 2024 Disclosures: Deadline for moving to join a party or Oct. 16, 2024 amend the pleadings: Deadline for disclosing expert reports. Plaintiff: Mar. 21, 2025 Defendant: Mar. 21, 2025 Rebuttal: Apr. 23, 2025 Deadline for completing discovery and Apr. 23, 2025 filing motions to compel: Deadline for moving for class certification: May 23, 2025 Deadline for filing all other motions Oct. 27, 2025 including motions in limine: Deadline for filing the joint final pretrial Nov. 10, 2025 statement. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 6, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=o53lvn at no extra charge.[CC] PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend PPH Securities Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Paypal 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 July 30, 2024, that the Company continues to defend itself from the PPH securities class suit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. On October 4, 2022, a putative securities class action captioned Defined Benefit Plan of the Mid-Jersey Trucking Industry and Teamsters Local 701 Pension and Annuity Fund v. PayPal Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 22-cv-5864, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. On January 11, 2023, the Court appointed Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec as lead plaintiff and renamed the action In re PayPal Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation ("PPH Securities Action"). On March 13, 2023, the lead plaintiff filed an amended and consolidated complaint. The PPH Securities Action asserts claims relating to our public statements with respect to net new active accounts ("NNA") results and guidance, and the detection of illegitimately created accounts. The PPH Securities Action purports to be brought on behalf of purchasers of the Company's stock between February 3, 2021 and February 1, 2022 (the "Class Period"), and asserts claims for alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act against the Company, as well as its former Chief Executive Officer, former Chief Strategy, Growth and Data Officer, and former Chief Financial Officer (collectively, the "Individual Defendants," and together with the Company, "Defendants"), and for alleged violations of Sections 20(a) and 20A of the Exchange Act against the Individual Defendants. The complaint alleges that certain public statements made by Defendants during the Class Period were rendered materially false and misleading (which, allegedly, caused the Company's stock to trade at artificially inflated prices) by the Defendants' failure to disclose that, among other things, the Company's incentive campaigns were susceptible to fraud and led to the creation of illegitimate accounts, which allegedly affected the Company's NNA results and guidance. The PPH Securities Action seeks unspecified compensatory damages on behalf of the putative class members. Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the PPH Securities Action, which is fully briefed and pending before the court. PayPal Holdings, Inc. is a technology platform that enables digital payments based in California. PDD HOLDINGS: Faces Securities Class Action Over False Statements ----------------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of PDD Holdings Inc. f/k/a Pinduoduo Inc. (NASDAQ: PDD) between April 30, 2021 and June 25, 2024, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for PDD investors under the federal securities laws. To join the PDD Holdings class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=15586 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose, among other things, that: (1) PDD Holdings' applications contained malware, which was designed to obtain user data without the user's consent, including reading private text messages; (2) PDD Holdings has no meaningful system to prevent goods made by forced labor from being sold on its platform, and has openly sold banned products on its Temu platform; (3) the foregoing subjected PDD Holdings to a heightened risk of legal and political scrutiny; and (4) as a result, defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October 15, 2024. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=15586 or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at case@rosenlegal.com. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contacts Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] PG&E CORP: Securities Suit Remanded to N.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------ PG&E Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2023, that on September 30, 2022, the District Court issued an order staying "In re PG&E Corporation Securities Litigation" pending resolution of an ongoing bankruptcy proceeding. Accordingly, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California administratively closed the case, subject to a motion by the parties thereto to reopen the case. The case has since been remanded to the Northern District of California. On October 31, 2022, the Public Employees Retirement Association of New Mexico (PERA) filed a notice of appeal of the District Court's order staying the action. PERA filed its opening brief on March 6, 2023, the answering brief was filed on May 8, 2023, and PERA filed its reply on May 30, 2023. Oral argument was held on September 13, 2023. On May 3, 2024, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion vacating the stay in the "In re PG&E Corporation Securities Litigation" action, and remanding the case to the District Court with instructions for the District Court to weigh all the relevant interests in determining whether a stay is appropriate. The District Court has set a status conference for August 27, 2024, regarding mediation and a potential schedule for further briefing on the pending motions to dismiss. In June 2018, a purported securities class action was filed in the District Court, naming PG&E Corporation and certain of its then-current and former officers as defendants, entitled "Jon Paul Moretti v. PG&E Corporation, et al." The complaint alleged material misrepresentations and omissions in various PG&E Corporation public disclosures related to, among other things, vegetation management and other issues connected to the 2017 Northern California wildfires. The complaints asserted claims under Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and sought unspecified monetary relief, interest, attorneys’ fees and other costs. Said complaint identified a proposed class period of April 29, 2015, to June 8, 2018. On September 10, 2018, the court consolidated both cases, and the litigation is now denominated In re PG&E Corporation Securities Litigation, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. 18-03509. The court also appointed PERA as the lead plaintiff. PERA filed a consolidated amended complaint on November 9, 2018. Due to the commencement of the Chapter 11 Cases, the proceedings were automatically stayed as to PG&E Corporation and its parent Pacific Gas and Electric Company. On May 28, 2019, the plaintiffs in the consolidated securities actions filed a third amended consolidated class action complaint, which includes the claims asserted in the previously filed actions and names as defendants PG&E Corporation, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, certain current and former officers and former directors, and the underwriters. On August 28, 2019, the Bankruptcy Court denied their request to extend the stay to the claims against the officer, director, and underwriter defendants. On October 4, 2019, the officer, director, and underwriter defendants filed motions to dismiss the third amended complaint, which motions are under submission with the District Court. PG&E Corporation is an energy and gas company based in California. POND5 INC: Nixon Sues Over Illegal Disclosure of Personal Info -------------------------------------------------------------- MATTHEW NIXON and PETER FLEMING, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. POND5, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-05823 (S.D.N.Y., July 31, 2024) is a privacy class action seeking liquidated damages, injunctive relief, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the Video Privacy Protection Act. According to the complaint, Pond5 is a stock video seller. Pond5's customers have the option to either purchase individual pre-recorded stock videos or subscribe to a monthly or yearly subscription service. The stock video subscription costs $199 per month and allows up to ten stock video downloads. Pond5's video library contains "over 42 million stock videos." Despite its clear legal obligations under the VPPA, the Defendant knowingly discloses its customers' and subscribers' personally identifiable information or Facebook ID and a record of every video they view and download to a third party, Meta Platforms, Inc. (formerly known as Facebook). The Defendant tracks, collects and discloses its customers' and subscribers' information through the use of a Meta Pixel and/or other tracking tools, says the suit. The Plaintiffs bring this class action on behalf of themselves, and all others similarly situated customers and subscribers seeking liquidated damages, injunctive relief, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs against Pond5 for its alleged unlawful conduct. Pond5, Inc. is a New York–based online marketplace for royalty-free media.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Julian Hammond, Esq. HAMMONDLAW, P.C. 1201 Pacific Ave, Suite 600 Tacoma, WA 98402 Telephone: (310) 601-6766 Facsimile: (310) 295-2385 E-mail: jhammond@hammondlawpc.com PORSCHE AG: Settles Defective Vehicle Systems' Class Action Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Carlos Benavides, writing for MIRA, reports that Porsche has agreed to resolve a multimillion-dollar class action lawsuit against its brand, which, if an agreement is not reached, could affect its image very significantly. The Porsche class action lawsuit accuses the German company of having installed defective communications management systems in some of its vehicles. These systems, known as Porsche Communication Management (PCM) 3.1, would restart unexpectedly, affecting several key functions of the car. Although the company has not admitted any wrongdoing, it agreed to pay an undisclosed amount as part of the settlement. Class Action Settlement for Porsche Owners: Receive Up to $7,500 if You Were Affected The German luxury car brand's agreement covers both owners and lessees of Porsche vehicles equipped with an XM radio antenna and the PCM 3.1 system until May 20, 2020. Eligible vehicles, whose owners can claim compensation, are: -- Porsche Panamera 2010-2016 -- Porsche Cayenne 2011-2016 -- Porsche 911 Carrera 2012-2016 -- Porsche Boxster 2012-2016 -- Porsche Cayman 2012-2016 -- Porsche Macan 2015-2016 What Was the Problem With the Porsche PCM System? The PCM system is an essential component in Porsche vehicles, as it controls audio, communication, navigation functions, among others. However, according to the lawsuit, this system had a defect that caused it to restart unexpectedly. Some owners, many of them extremely upset because they were paying high sums for luxury cars (that should not fail) were forced to cover the repair costs out of their own pocket, while others had to face additional expenses due to the system failures. This situation generated great discontent among consumers, who came together to carry out the class action lawsuit. One of the plaintiffs noted that "the experience of owning a Porsche was marred by these constant problems with the communication system. "It is not what you expect when you buy a vehicle of this category." Other owners shared similar experiences, claiming that the problem not only affected comfort, but also safety, as system failures interfered with critical functions of the car. "One would not expect a Porsche car to fail in something as fundamental as the navigation system, communication, or audio," commented another customer who joined the class action lawsuit. Compensation and Options for Those Affected As part of the agreement, Porsche has established a fund to compensate those affected. Class members may receive up to $7,500 to cover expenses resulting from PCM system issues, including replacements, repairs, battery changes, towing and alternative transportation costs. Those who did not incur costs, but took the time to resolve the issue, can opt for a $25 payment or a $50 credit at Porsche dealers. The deadline to opt out of the settlement or file objections is May 19, 2023. The final settlement approval hearing will be held on June 21, 2023. For those who wish to receive a settlement payment, it is necessary to submit a claim form valid before August 20, 2024. How to Know if You Are Eligible to Receive $7,500 From Porsche Those people who have been owners or lessees of the mentioned models, until May 20, 2020, and whose vehicles were equipped with the XM antenna and the PCM 3.1 system, may be eligible to claim payments. Those affected can look up their vehicle's VIN number on the settlement website to confirm their eligibility. Porsche has not admitted any wrongdoing or wrongdoing, but still agreed to pay up to $7,500 to those affected to put this scandalous class action lawsuit behind it. Porsche is sending a $25 payment to owners of cars in the class that did not have to have their PCM 3.1 communications hardware repaired. Lessees and car owners can check their VIN to determine eligibility through this link. Payment eligibility ends August 20, 2024 and, after that, you're not enabled to claim more money from the same class action lawsuit. What Is a Class Action Lawsuit? In the United States, a class action lawsuit is a legal figure that enables two or more people to sue a company or person for a particular affectation, and claim financial compensation as compensation for the damages caused. Usually, the plaintiffs do not know each other, and the class action lawsuit is managed by a law firm that looks after the plaintiffs' rights but usually keeps a percentage of the profits from the lawsuit, and then distributes the rest among the qualifying plaintiffs. [GN] PRISMA LABS: Judge Dismisses "Magic Avatar" AI Class Action Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Public Now reports that on August 6, 2024, Judge Jorge L. Alonso of the Northern District of Illinois issued an order dismissing Brantley v. Prisma Labs, Inc., a proposed class action suit against the creator of the "Magic Avatar" AI app for lack of standing and lack of personal jurisdiction over the representative plaintiff Tyrone Brantley. The "Magic Avatar" app, or Lensa, transforms selfie images into AI drawings by pulling from a database of images called LAION-5B. Brantley brought suit against creator Prisma Labs under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act for allegedly scraping his biometric data from that repository without his consent in order to develop and train Prisma Labs' AI system. While Brantley acknowledged that he had never uploaded his own images to LAION-5B, he argued that based on his usage of social media and other websites that it was "virtually certain" the database contained images of himself and the other Illinois residents comprising the proposed class. The court rejected this argument, determining that Brantley failed to allege a concrete and particularized injury that could give rise to standing because he could not plausibly allege that Prisma Labs had actually scraped his biometric data from the LAION-5B database. While Brantley did allege that LAION-5B contained images from almost every website, he did not allege that most photos (or even his own) from those websites were actually uploaded to the database during that period. The court explained that "[a]t most, [plaintiff's] allegations are 'consistent with' the possibility that [his photos were scraped and contained in the LAION-5B dataset], but, again, where a complaint pleads facts that are 'merely consistent with' a defendant's liability, it 'stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief." Additionally, Judge Alonso determined that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over Prisma Labs because the company's activities were not sufficiently targeted at the state of Illinois so as to establish the necessary level of minimum contacts. [GN] PUBLIX SUPER MARKETS: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER ROBERTS, CAITLIN THROCKMORTON, BRANDY MOORE, CARTER HUBBS, and JESSICA SCHAFER individually on behalf of themselves, and all others similarly situated, v. PUBLIX SUPER MARKETS, INC., Case No. 8:23-cv-02447-WFJ-CPT (M.D. Fla.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting a two-week extension of time, through and including Aug. 30, 2024, to respond to Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion to Conditionally Certify FLSA Collective and Authorize Notice to Collective Members. Publix submits that good cause has been shown because the extension is requested in order to thoroughly assess and respond to the complex issues and matters presented in the Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion. No party will be prejudiced by this extension. This is Publix's first request for an extension of the deadline to respond to Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion. Publix conferred with Plaintiffs' counsel via phone and email, and on July 31, 2024, the Plaintiffs indicated that they do not oppose the relief. The Plaintiffs filed their Renewed Motion on July 26, 2024. The Defendant's Response to the Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion is due Aug. 16, 2024. Publix is an employee-owned American supermarket chain. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Aug. 5, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xYB24Z at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Brett C. Bartlett, Esq. Lennon B. Haas, Esq. Jason K. Priebe, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 1075 Peachtree Street, N.E. Suite 2500 Atlanta, GA 30309-3958 Telephone: (404) 704-9690 Facsimile: (404) 724-1739 E-mail: bbartlett@seyfarth.com lhaas@seyfarth.com jpriebe@seyfarth.com - and - Samuel J. Salario, Jr., Esq. Jason Gonzalez, Esq. LAWSON HUCK GONZALEZ, PLLC 1700 S. MacDill Avenue, Suite 300 Tampa, FL. 33629 Telephone: (813) 765-5113 E-mail: samuel@lawsonhuckgonzalez.com jason@lawsonhuckgonzalez.com michelle@lawsonhuckgonzalez.com marsha@lawsonhuckgonzalez.com RBS CITIZENS: Reinig Class Certification Bid Granted in Part ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEX REINIG, KEN GRITZ, BOB SODA, MARY LOU GRAMESKY, PETER WILDER SMITH, WILLIAM KINSELLA, DANIEL KOLENDA, VALERIE DAL PINO, AHMAD NAJI, ROBERT PEDERSON, TERESA FRAGALE, DAVID HOWARD, DANIEL JENKINS, MARK ROSS, v. RBS CITIZENS, N.A., Case No. 2:15-cv-01541-CCW (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand entered an order granting and denying in part the Motion for Class Certification. The Motion is granted as follows: 1. The PMWA Standard Overtime Subclass, which is defined as "All Mortgage Loan Officers employed by the Defendant in Pennsylvania between Nov. 24, 2012 and the present, who were paid Standard Overtime by the Defendant in at least one workweek" is certified under Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3). 2. The PMWA Commission Overtime Subclass, which is defined as "All Mortgage Loan Officers employed by the Defendant in Pennsylvania between Nov. 24, 2012, and the present, who were paid Commission Overtime by Defendant in at least one workweek" is certified under Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3). The PMWA Standard Overtime Subclass and PMWA Commission Overtime Subclass shall be referred to as the "PMWA Subclasses." 3. Messrs. Reinig, Gritz, and Soda shall serve as the PMWA Subclass representatives and Swartz Swidler, LLC and Robert Soloff, Esq. shall serve as class counsel for the PMWA Subclasses. The Motion is denied as follows: 1. The PMWA Subclasses are not certified under Rule 23(b)(2). RBS Citizens is an affiliate of Citizens Financial Group, Inc. Citizens Bank provides commercial banking services. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 6, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=27W2S0 at no extra charge.[CC] RCP COMPANIES: Tenants Sue Over Negligence at Eclipse Apartments ---------------------------------------------------------------- Noah Logan, writing for Huntsville Business Journal, reports that in March, news broke of a class action lawsuit filed against Huntsville's Eclipse apartment complex by several tenants. The lawsuit targets the developers and owners of the building, RCP Companies and Willow Bridge Inc., and alleges issues with false fire alarms and flooding at the apartment complex located at 401 Williams Avenue SW. The companies are accused of negligence, recklessness, and breach of contract. Over the past month, HBJ has spoken with three different tenants, none of whom are participating in the lawsuit, to obtain correspondence and gather more details about the situation at the controversial residence. According to the tenants, they all share similar experiences. Elizabeth Keller moved into her apartment in June 2023, while Frances Morris's tenure began in August 2023. The first instance of the fire alarm going off occurred in October and became a regular occurrence starting in January 2024. "It always seemed to be in the middle of the night, around one o'clock, three o'clock, or four o'clock in the morning," Keller explained. "You would be woken up by the fire alarms. Some days it would go off multiple times, up to three or four times a day. Then maybe the next day it would go off once and then not for a week or two. Then it would start again, going off like three or four days in a week. It was very random and sporadic but almost always past midnight." Both Keller and Morris expressed respect for the local maintenance workers at the property. Their complaints are with ownership and management, who do not have a representative on-site. The timing was particularly bad, with no way to know for sure whether the alarms were legitimate. This resulted in tenants evacuating into the winter cold with their families and pets, and being unable to fall back asleep when they returned inside. The problems were not just isolated to inconvenient alarms. The lawsuit also mentions how many tenants had their apartments flooded in January due to frozen pipes bursting. The lawsuit details one such experience for the plaintiff Paul Shaia. "In January, Shaia, his wife, and their three children aged five, three, and a newborn, were awakened at approximately 4:00 a.m. to find their apartment flooded with ankle-deep water. No alarms were going off. Mr. Shaia got up in the middle of the night, stepped into ankle-deep water, and immediately called the Eclipse maintenance line. According to the Eclipse maintenance crew, the flooding was caused by the bursting of pipes in the adjacent vacant unit, which was due to the faucets not being left dripping as a precaution against the freezing temperatures. "This oversight by Defendants resulted in significant damage, destroying the Shaia family's possessions and furniture. Despite their immediate need for a safe living environment, it took four weeks for a restoration company to remove all the water from their unit. In the interim, Eclipse management relocated the Shaia family to a 'model unit,' which was typically used for touring prospective residents before they were able to move into a new house. As a result of this incident, the Shaia family incurred thousands of dollars in property damage and were subjected to considerable distress and inconvenience," the lawsuit states. In an email sent to all tenants on February 1st, Eclipse Management acknowledged the issues. "We will be issuing everyone a $150 credit to your accounts," the email read. "We know the situation is not ideal, but we are doing the best we can to resolve this." The apartment complex even offered two free months of rent for tenants to renew their leases. For Frances Morris, this wasn't enough. She wanted out of her apartment and felt it was within her right to do so amidst the chaos. In late February, she contacted management via email and requested to break her lease and move without penalty. Despite offering free months of rent and crediting accounts, management insisted that any broken lease must be paid in full. This point of contention is also part of the lawsuit. According to federal laws regarding tenants and their right to "quiet enjoyment," the tenants might have been within their rights to move without penalty. The covenant of quiet enjoyment ensures that tenants can reside in a property peacefully, without unnecessary disturbance from others. This right to quiet enjoyment exists in transactions of real estate. It is important to note that courts recognize this covenant as a part of any tenancy in a landlord-tenant relationship. Additionally, this covenant cannot be waived for residential rental agreements. A tenant has a right to quiet enjoyment regardless of whether the lease specifies this or not. Azibo, a website dedicated to providing resources and information regarding renting property, describes "Peace and quiet" as a key aspect. "Tenants have the right to live in a peaceful and quiet environment without unreasonable disturbances from their landlord or other tenants. This includes limiting excessive noise and addressing any behavior that disrupts a tenant's ability to use and enjoy their home," states the webstie. In an interview with HBJ, Eric Artrip of Mastando & Artrip, the firm representing the Eclipse plaintiffs, explained his reasoning for taking the case. "The problems were pervasive, persistent, and uniform. Also, because it keeps happening over and over again. It doesn't seem like the developer, absent a court order or some kind of consent decree, is going to make any changes to stop it. And finally, because the fire alarms are all over the apartments, that means pretty much every single person in the building is going to be affected. So because of the persistent, pervasive, and uniform nature of the harm, we felt like class treatment made the most sense," said Artrip. [GN] RETRO FITNESS: New Jersey Court Dismisses Membership Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mandelbaum Barrett PC secured a significant victory defending a class action lawsuit filed against Retro Fitness gym franchises throughout New Jersey. After ten years of litigation, a favorable decision from the Appellate Division, and hard-fought trial court motion practice, a judge in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County, dismissed hundreds of putative defendants and the vast majority of plaintiffs' claims. The Plaintiffs alleged the Retro Fitness gym membership agreements contained unlawful terms in violation of numerous state statutes seeking to create a class of all gym members in all Retro Fitness gyms statewide. They further sought to sue the individual owners of each gym and the individual owners of the corporate franchisor. In doing so, Plaintiffs sought to create a class of millions of gym members and hundreds of defendants in the hope of securing tens of millions of dollars in damages – bankrupting the majority of small business owners operating the franchises. Firm partner Joshua S. Bauchner coordinated with counsel for the franchisor and a third-party billing provider to defeat the action freeing our clients from Plaintiffs' dragnet and fabricated claims. [GN] REVANCE THERAPEUTICS: M&A Probes Proposed Merger With Crown Labs ---------------------------------------------------------------- Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating Revance Therapeutics, Inc. (Nasdaq: RVNC), relating to its proposed merger with Crown Laboratories, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, Revance shareholders will receive $6.66 in cash per share they own. Click here for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/revance-therapeutics-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . . and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 United States of America jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN] ROBERT HALF: Bids to Limit Expert Testimony in Magallon Suit OK'd ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled BONNIE MAGALLON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROBERT HALF INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 6:13-cv-01478-SI (D. Or.), Judge Michael H. Simon of the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon issued an Opinion and Order granting in part and denying in part the parties' motions to exclude or limit proffered expert testimony. The Opinion and Order addresses the parties' motions to exclude or limit the testimony of four expert witnesses. The Plaintiff is the proponent of two of these witnesses, and RHI is the proponent of the other two. The Court has reviewed the parties' briefing and held evidentiary hearings with all four witnesses. In this certified consumer class action, class representative Bonnie Magallon alleges that Robert Half International, Inc. (RHI) violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. Section 1681, et seq. The Court certified a class with the following definition: All natural persons residing in the United States (including territories and other political subdivisions) who: (i) applied for temporary employment placement through RHI; (ii) about whom RHI obtained a consumer report for employment purposes from the General Information Services, Inc., from Aug. 22, 2008, until the present; (iii) the consumer report contained either a "red flag" or a "yellow flag"; and (iv) RHI determined the applicant was "not placeable." Through subsequent litigation and agreement of the parties, the class period has been narrowed to Oct. 1, 2010, through Nov. 30, 2017. The parties have stipulated that "[t]he class as defined by the court in this case is comprised of 2,363 class members." The class definition also excludes any individuals, who signed RHI's arbitration acknowledgment form and did not opt out of the arbitration agreement within 30 days. The parties have excluded all such individuals from the class list. On behalf of the certified class, Plaintiff alleges that RHI, an employment agency, willfully violated FCRA by failing to provide the statutorily mandated pre-adverse action notice before rejecting her application for temporary employment with an RHI client. RHI places professional-level and quasi-professional applicants for employment in temporary and permanent jobs throughout the United States by matching applicants with RHI clients that are employers seeking to fill a short-term or long-term position. RHI requires, at least under certain conditions, applicants for temporary employment to consent to a background investigation before RHI will consider them for placement. During the relevant period, RHI, after receiving consent from an applicant, obtained a background report for that applicant from General Information Services, Inc. (GIS), a third-party credit reporting agency. Using hiring criteria provided by RHI, GIS graded applicants' background reports with green, yellow, or red "flags" before returning the reports to RHI. A report that was graded with a green flag meant that the applicant was generally eligible for immediate placement by RHI. A report graded with a yellow or red flag contained derogatory remarks that might preclude the applicant's placement. RHI's practice was to consider applicants with yellow- or red-flagged reports as not yet eligible for immediate placement. In addition, RHI's internal policy, as described in a document dated April 9, 2013, provided that a pre-adverse action notice "must be sent immediately" to an applicant if that applicant's background report is marked with a yellow or red flag. RHI, however, did not comply with its own internal policy. Instead, as alleged by the Plaintiff, RHI would first send all reports containing either yellow flags or red flags to its legal department for further review to determine whether to issue pre-adverse action notices. According to the Plaintiff, this process would take up to two weeks to complete. If, after this review, RHI's legal department determined that the derogatory remarks on an applicant's background report (which caused the yellow or red flags) disqualified that applicant from being placed for employment by RHI, RHI would then designate that applicant as "not placeable." After RHI designated an applicant as "not placeable," RHI would then send, or direct GIS to send, a pre-adverse action notice to that applicant. The Plaintiff contends that this designation as "not placeable" constitutes an "adverse action." The pre-adverse action notice consists of three documents: (1) a pre-adverse action letter that outlines the actions that an applicant must follow if the applicant wants to dispute the report's findings; (2) a copy of the applicant's background report; and (3) a summary of the applicant's rights under FCRA. RHI's stated policy requires RHI to refrain from making an adverse employment decision regarding the applicant for 10 days after transmittal of the pre-adverse action notice to allow the applicant time to dispute the completeness or accuracy of the background report, if the applicant wanted to do that. If the applicant timely disputed the background report, then either RHI or GIS could begin a dispute resolution process. Depending on the result of that process, an applicant may or may not be placed in other temporary jobs in the future. According to RHI, if the applicant did not timely raise a dispute, RHI's "not placeable" determination became the final decision of RHI. The Plaintiff contends, among other things, that RHI took an adverse action against applicants for placement in temporary employment when RHI designated those applicants as "not placeable" following individualized review by RHI's legal department. Under this theory, RHI's "not placeable" designation is an adverse action under FCRA because it is a decision for employment purposes that adversely affects the applicants who are deemed ineligible for placement by RHI and, therefore, not placed by RHI in any jobs. RHI disputes the Plaintiff's theory, arguing that the initial "not placeable" designation is not an adverse action under FCRA. According to RHI, the initial "not placeable" determination constitutes only a tentative (or purely internal) decision that does not adversely affect an applicant and, thus, merely triggers RHI's obligation to send the applicant a pre-adverse action notice before making a decision that would adversely affect the applicant. Thus, RHI contends the only adverse action is the final step described above, when the "not placeable" determination, made at the conclusion of the legal review process, becomes a final decision after the expiration of the 10-day waiting period. Based on the circumstances of this case, Judge Simon says a jury must decide whether RHI's designation of applicants as "not placeable" following legal review constitutes an adverse action within the meaning of Section 1681b(b)(3). The jury's determination about whether this action constitutes an adverse action serves as the threshold inquiry for later questions about whether RHI acted willfully and, if so, what amount of statutory damages, if any, should be awarded to each class member. Both parties offer at trial expert witnesses to opine on FCRA-related matters, and each party moves to exclude or limit the other's FCRA expert testimony on various grounds. RHI has retained Rebecca E. Kuehn to offer her expert opinion on RHI's processes for providing applicants with pre-adverse action notices. The Plaintiff has retained Evan Hendricks, who also opines on the nature and requirements of FCRA and RHI's employment screening procedures. The Court held an evidentiary hearing in which these two experts testified concurrently on the matters raised in the parties' respective motions. Judge Simon finds both Ms. Kuehn and Mr. Hendricks are sufficiently qualified to offer expert testimony in this matter. The Court says it will not permit either party's expert witness to opine about whether RHI did or did not violate FCRA or whether RHI's practices were "FCRA compliant." The parties also disagree about whether Ms. Kuehn may testify, based on her experience and knowledge, about whether RHI's practices in providing pre-adverse action notices conformed to "industry standards." Judge Simon notes that Ms. Kuehn did not articulate any specific "industry standard" at the evidentiary hearing. Under questioning from the Plaintiff's counsel, however, Ms. Kuehn generally agreed that the standard for employers is to comply with FCRA. Thus, Judge Simon opines, if "compliance" is the industry standard, Ms. Kuehn's proffered testimony that RHI surpasses industry standards is essentially a different way impermissibly to state the legal conclusion that RHI's practices do not violate FCRA. Because Ms. Kuehn has not articulated relevant industry standards, has explained that essentially there are no industry standards relevant to this dispute, and has generally conceded that "industry standards" are no more than compliance with FCRA, the Court will not allow Ms. Kuehn (or Mr. Hendricks) to testify about "industry standards." Instead, Judge Simon says at trial Ms. Kuehn and Mr. Hendricks will each be permitted to testify only as follows. Ms. Kuehn and Mr. Hendricks may offer their opinions about the timing of the adverse action or actions that apply to the class. Ms. Kuehn, however, may testify about the various considerations facing employers throughout the hiring process and how RHI's practices for complying with its FCRA obligations compare to those of similar employers, provided that she does not state or imply that RHI (or other any other employer) is complying with the law and provided that she does not frame her testimony in terms of "industry standards." Also, Judge Simon adds, both Ms. Kuehn and Mr. Hendricks may rebut the other's testimony, and each may respond to the other's opinions with testimony within their expertise. The Court is satisfied that this testimony, as strictly limited, is relevant to the material issues and may be helpful to the jury. The Court also is satisfied that such testimony will be grounded in the experts' respective experience and expertise, and therefore will be sufficiently reliable to satisfy Rule 702's requirements for admissibility. The Plaintiff seeks to offer the expert testimony of Dr. Linsey Willis to "aid the jury in understanding how the other evidence in this case translates into a willful violation of FCRA and diminished employment opportunities" for the Plaintiff and the other class members. Dr. Willis is a management and organizational consultant and Certified Senior Professional in Human Resources. The Court finds that Dr. Willis is generally qualified by her education and experience to opine on the matters contained within her report. Even so, the Court is not satisfied that Dr. Willis's opinions are relevant to the specific issues in this case or would be helpful to the jury. Accordingly, the Court excludes from trial Dr. Willis's testimony. RHI seeks to offer at trial the expert opinions of Jonathan Guryan, Ph.D., to provide "insight into the class composition" and to rebut the opinions and methodology contained within the reports of Plaintiff's experts Mr. Hendricks and Dr. Willis. Dr. Guryan is a Professor of Education and Social Policy at Northwestern University. Judge Simon finds that Dr. Guryan is sufficiently qualified by his education and experience to opine on the matters contained within his report. Like the Court's conclusion regarding Dr. Willis's testimony, the Court concludes that Dr. Guryan's opinions will not be helpful to the jury. Because Dr. Guryan's opinions are not relevant to the issues for trial and are unhelpful to the jury, Dr. Guryan will not be allowed to offer his expert opinion at trial. The Court grants in part and denies in part the Plaintiff's motion to exclude or limit the testimony of RHI's expert witness Rebecca Kuehn and grants the Plaintiff's motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. Jonathan Guryan. The Court grants in part and denies in part RHI's motion to exclude or limit the testimony of Evan Hendricks and grants RHI's motion to exclude the testimony of the Plaintiff's expert witness Linsey C. Willis. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated July 31, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/yr6hetsj from PacerMonitor.com. Robert S. Sola, ROBERT S. SOLA, PC, in Portland, OR 97201; and James A. Francis -- jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com -- John Soumilas -- jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com -- Lauren K.W. Brennan -- lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com -- FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS PC, in Philadelphia, PA 19103, Of Attorneys for the Plaintiff. Sarah J. Crooks -- SCrooks@perkinscoie.com -- PERKINS COIE LLP, in Portland, OR 97209; Alexander J. Bau -- ABau@perkinscoie.com -- PERKINS COIE LLP, in Seattle, WA 98101; Robert T. Quackenboss -- rquackenboss@HuntonAK.com -- Kevin J. White -- kwhite@HuntonAK.com -- Evangeline C. Paschal -- epaschal@HuntonAK.com -- HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP, in Washington, DC 20037; and Roland M. Juarez -- rjuarez@HuntonAK.com -- HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP, in Los Angeles, CA 90071, Of Attorneys for the Defendant. ROGERS BAKERY: Court Directs Discovery Plan Filing in Barnes Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Barnes v. Rogers Bakery, Case No. 4:24-cv-04098-SLD-JEH (C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge entered an order Hon. Judge Jonathan E. Hawley entered a standing order as follows: -- Rule 16 scheduling conference The Court will set a Rule 16 scheduling conference approximately 30 days after the answer or other responsive pleading is filed. The conference will generally be conducted by telephone. -- Discovery plan The discovery plan shall be filed with the Court at least three calendar days before the Rule 16 scheduling conference. -- Waiver of the Rule 16 scheduling conference If the parties agree on all matters contained in the discovery plan, then the parties may waive the Rule 16 scheduling conference. To do so, the parties shall indicate in the discovery that the parties agree upon all maters contained within the discovery plan, and they request that the Rule 16 scheduling conference be cancelled. -- Failure of counsel to attend a scheduled telephone hearing For the convenience of counsel, the Court conducts most hearings by telephone when possible. Counsel's failure to appear for a telephone hearing will be treated as a failure of counsel to appear for an in-person hearing. -- Discovery disputes brought to the Court's attention after the discovery deadline has already passed The parties may not raise a discovery dispute with the Court after the relevant discovery deadline has passed; all discovery disputes must be brought to the Court's attention before the relevant discovery deadline passes. Any discovery disputes raised with the Court after the expiration of the relevant discovery deadline shall be deemed waived by the Court, even if the parties agreed to conduct discovery after the relevant discovery deadline has passed. If the parties agree to conduct discovery after the expiration of a deadline set by the Court, they must still file a motion requesting that the Court move that deadline as agreed by the parties in order to avoid any subsequent discovery disputes being deemed waived. -- Settlement conferences and mediation The parties are encouraged to seek a settlement conference or mediation with a magistrate judge. Where parties request a settlement conference or mediation in a case referred to Judge Hawley, Judge Hawley will conduct said conference or mediation. Rogers Bakery offers donuts, cookies, pies, bread, bagels, croissants, soup, salad, sandwiches, and coffee. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 6, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Vs7KvA at no extra charge.[CC] RUSSELL INVESTMENTS: Wanek ERISA Suit Seeks to Certify Class ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Danny Wanek, Juan Duarte, Rick Ruberton, and Linda Ruberton as representatives of a class of similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the Caesars Entertainment Corporation Savings & Retirement Plan, v. Russell Investments Trust Company, Caesars Holdings Inc., the Plan Investment Committee, and the 401(k) Plan Committee, Case No. 2:21-cv-00961-CDS-BNW (D. Nev.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: -- certifying the following proposed class in this action (or in the alternative, such other class(es) as the Court may determine to be appropriate): "All participants and beneficiaries of the Plan at any time from Aug. 1, 2017 through Dec. 17, 2021, excluding any employees of Caesars with responsibility for the Plan's investment or administrative functions"; and -- appointing Plaintiffs as the class representatives for the class and Plaintiffs' counsel as class counsel. The Plaintiffs bring this motion for class certification to provide participants in the Caesars Entertainment Corporation Savings & Retirement Plan ("Plan") the same opportunity for classwide relief that is repeatedly granted to plan participants in other cases involving similar Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) claims. These ERISA breach of fiduciary duty cases involving large retirement plans are uniquely suited to class treatment because “ERISA expressly authorizes a plan participant to sue in a representative capacity on behalf of a plan.” The Plaintiff Thomson filed this action on May 19, 2021, alleging that Russell Investment Management LLC and Caesars Holdings, Inc. breached their fiduciary duties by failing to act in the best interests of participants and failing to employ a prudent process for selecting, monitoring, and reviewing the Plan's investments and, in the case of Caesars, failing to employ a prudent process for selecting and monitoring Russell. On June 18, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed the Fourth Amended Complaint adding Plaintiffs Rick and Linda Ruberton. Russell operates as an investment advisor. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 9, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fWgqhR at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Paul S. Padda, Esq. PAUL PADDA LAW, PLLC 4560 South Decatur Blvd., Suite 300 Las Vegas, NV 89103 Telephone: (702) 366- 1888 E-mail: psp@paulpaddalaw.com - and - Paul J. Lukas, Esq. Brock J. Specht, Esq. Benjamin J. Bauer, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 4700 IDS Center 80 S 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 256-3200 Facsimile: (612) 338-4878 E-mail: lukas@nka.com bspecht@nka.com bbauer@nka.com SAN MARCO COFFEE: Wahab Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------ ANGELA WAHAB, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SAN MARCO COFFEE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-05805 (S.D.N.Y., July 31, 2024) is a civil rights action against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.sanmarcocoffee.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. The Plaintiff was injured when she attempted multiple times on April 30, 2024 to access Defendant's website from her home in an effort to shop for Defendant's products, but encountered barriers that denied the full and equal access to Defendant's online goods, content, and services. Due to Defendant's failure to build the website in a manner that is compatible with screen access programs, she was unable to understand and properly interact with the website, and was thus denied the benefit of purchasing the Almond Cookie coffee that she wished to acquire from the website, says the Plaintiff. San Marco Coffee, Inc. is a gourmet coffee roasting company that operates the website.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com SAVE MART: Must File Class Cert Opposition by Sept. 19 ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KATHERINE BAKER, et al., v. SAVE MART SUPERMARKETS and SAVE MART SELECT RETIREE HEALTH BENEFIT PLAN, Case No. 3:22-cv-04645-AMO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin entered an order granting class certification schedule. -- The Defendants shall file their opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification by Sept. 19, 2024; -- The Plaintiffs shall file their reply in support of their motion for class certification by Oct. 17, 2024; and -- The hearing is set for Nov. 14, 2024. On July 3, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class Certification, including 56 supporting declarations. The Defendants sought to depose the Plaintiffs' 56 declarant witnesses, which the Plaintiffs denied was appropriate or proportional. The Court issued an Order on the parties' joint statement on July 26, 2024, which included an instruction for the parties to meet and confer on necessary adjustments to the class certification briefing schedule and submit either a stipulation and proposed order or notice of their respective positions by Aug. 2, 2024. Save Mart is an American grocery store operator. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 6, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=v9NOhv at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Anne B. Shaver, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery St Suite 2900 San Francisco, CA 94111 The Defendants are represented by: Christopher W. Keegan, Esq. Shayne H. Henry, Esq. Michael B. Slade, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 555 California Street San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 439-1400 Facsimile: (415) 439-1500 E-mail: chris.keegan@kirkland.com shayne.henry@kirkland.com mslade@kirkland.com SELECT PORTFOLIO: Wins Bid for Judgment on Pleadings in Bowen Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Indira Talwani of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts grants the Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in the lawsuit titled JAMES BOWEN and LISA BOWEN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs v. SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-11231-IT (D. Mass.). Plaintiffs James Bowen and Lisa Bowen bring this purported class action against Defendant Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. ("SPS") for alleged violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"). On July 27 2022, the Plaintiffs mailed the Defendant a Qualified Written Request ("QWR") asking for several documents including a copy of any and all recordings and a copy of any and all transcripts of conversations with the Plaintiffs or any other person concerning the Plaintiffs' account, pursuant to RESPA and Regulation X. The Defendant responded with some documents but did not provide the requested telephone recordings or transcripts in its response. On Nov. 29, 2022, the Plaintiffs mailed the Defendant a second QWR reiterating their request for a copy of all call recordings and transcripts. That letter was delivered to the Defendant on Dec. 28, 2022. On Feb. 24, 2023, the Plaintiffs mailed the Defendant their third QWR. On March 10, 2023, the Plaintiffs' counsel received a partial response from the Defendant, in which the Defendant did not provide the requested recordings or transcripts of calls. The Plaintiffs assert that they believed there was an error in the amounts the Defendant claimed the Plaintiffs owed, and SPS breached its statutory duties under RESPA by failing to adequately respond to their inquiries. They allege that the Defendant has refused to produce recordings for possibly hundreds if not thousands of consumers that have requested them. The Plaintiffs also allege that the Defendant's refusals are a pattern and practice of violating RESPA, because their blanket refusal appears to be a uniform template response sent to many consumers, and at least two requests were made for the recordings in question and the Defendant failed to produce the recordings in response to each request. In its Motion, SPS argues that the Plaintiffs have not shown any actual damages resulting from its alleged failure to comply with the provisions of RESPA. Judge Talwani finds that the cases that the Plaintiffs rely on to support the argument that they may plead either actual or statutory damages do not support their case. The Plaintiffs must mandatorily plead actual damages in a RESPA claim for their action to survive. The Plaintiffs' only allegation of incurring actual damages is the postage costs they incurred for their later QWRs to SPS. Those postage costs were not incurred "as a result of" the SPS's failure to comply with RESPA's provisions, Judge Talwani points out. In the alternative, if the statute is construed to not require actual damages for a RESPA claim, the Plaintiffs here would lack Article III standing to pursue this action based solely on their statutory damages claims. SPS did not question the Plaintiffs' standing to bring these claims. However, Judge Talwani opines, a federal court has an obligation to inquire sua sponte into its own subject matter jurisdiction. Here, the Plaintiffs allege that they were injured by not receiving the recordings and transcripts of phone calls they requested from the Defendant. Such an injury is a purely informational injury that caused the Plaintiffs no adverse effects, Judge Talwani opines. Because the Plaintiffs fail to allege anything beyond an informational injury even if they were allowed to plead merely statutory damages, they lack Article III standing and the Court dismisses their action for that independent reason. For these reasons, the Court finds that a plaintiff alleging a RESPA cause of violation must allege actual damages, and that the Plaintiffs' postage costs for their second and third QWRs are not sufficient actual damages. Moreover, even if the Plaintiffs had adequately pled a "pattern or practice of noncompliance" as part of their statutory damages allegations, such an informational injury would not grant the Plaintiffs Article III standing. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum & Order dated July 26, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/yrce7wfu from PacerMonitor.com. SEMA4 HOLDINGS: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Helo Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Vernon D. Oliver of the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut issued a Memorandum & Order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss the lawsuit styled NABIL HELO, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. SEMA4 HOLDINGS CORP., ERIC SCHADT, KATHERINE STUELAND, ISAAC RO, and RICHARD MIAO, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01131-VDO (D. Conn.). The matter is before the Court on a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint filed by Defendants Sema4 Holdings Corp., Eric Schadt, Katherine Stueland, Isaac Ro, and Richard Miao (the "Individual Defendants," and, collectively with Sema4, the "Defendants"). The Lead Plaintiff, Nabil Helo, brings this putative class action alleging that the Defendants committed securities fraud and seeks remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Defendants move to dismiss the First Amended Complaint with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) and 12(b)(6) and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"). The Plaintiff and the Class are individuals, who acquired Sema4 securities between March 14, 2022, and Aug. 15, 2022. Sema4 is a health company that uses artificial intelligence ("AI") to enable personalized medicine for patients. Since its inception, Sema4 has racked up net losses. The Company was initially part of Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai's Department of Genetics and Genomic Sciences and the Icahn Institute for Genomics and Multiscale Biology. In June 2017, Sema4 commenced operations as a commercial entity and, after completing a business combination with CM Life Sciences in July 2021, debuted on the Nasdaq Stock Market as a publicly traded company. Sema4 leverages longitudinal patient data, AI-driven predictive modeling, and genomics in combination with other data to affect disease diagnosis, treatment, and prevention. Sema4 maintains a database that includes de-identified clinical records, including more than 500,000 records with genomic profiles, integrated in a way that it claims to enable physicians to proactively diagnose and manage disease. In January 2022, the Company announced that it would be acquiring GeneDx, Inc. ("GeneDx"), which provides rare disease diagnostic and exome sequencing services, in a $623 million acquisition. On May 2, 2022, the Company announced the closing of its acquisition of GeneDx. The Individual Defendants were, during the Class Period, senior executive officers and/or directors of the Company, who were privy to confidential and proprietary information concerning the Company, its operations, finances, financial condition, and present and future business prospects. Plaintiff Helo filed a putative class action complaint against the Defendants on Sept. 7, 2022. On Nov. 16, 2022, the Court appointed Helo as the Lead Plaintiff, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP as lead counsel, and Hurwitz, Sagarin, Slossberg & Knuff, LLC, as liaison counsel. On Jan. 30, 2023, the Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint ("FAC"). The Plaintiff alleges two claims. First, he alleges that the Defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 because they disseminated or approved materially false and misleading statements, which they knew, or were deliberately reckless in not knowing, were misleading." Second, he claims the Individual Defendants acted as controlling persons of the Company within the meaning of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and are, thus, liable for securities fraud. The Defendants moved to dismiss the FAC on Aug. 21, 2023, which the Plaintiff opposed. On Oct. 20, 2023, the Defendants filed a reply. Judge Oliver finds that the Plaintiff misconstrues the nature of several statements, which were clearly general statements of corporate optimism or puffery. Judge Oliver also finds that the Plaintiff fails to establish scienter on a defendant-by-defendant basis consistent with the particularity requirement of the PSLRA. The FAC improperly treats the Defendants as an undifferentiated group in alleging scienter, the Judge adds. Even if the Plaintiff pled the circumstances regarding fraud with particularity on a defendant-by-defendant basis, Judge Oliver says the allegations fail to raise a strong inference of scienter. Judge Oliver opines, among other things, that the Plaintiff's reliance on circumstantial evidence do not adequately show scienter. Therefore, viewing the allegations as a whole, the Court finds that the Plaintiff fails to adequately allege scienter sufficient to survive dismissal. Because the Court has found that the Plaintiff fails to state a claim under Section 10(b), Judge Oliver points out that his Section 20(a) claim necessarily also fails. The Plaintiff's Section 20(a) claims against the Individual Defendants are, therefore, dismissed for failure to state a claim. For these reasons, the Court grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss. The Plaintiff's request to amend the complaint is granted. Within thirty (30) days of this Order, the Plaintiff may file a Second Amended Complaint. He must also file a redline comparison of the First and Second Amended Complaints. Failure to timely file a Second Amended Complaint will result in dismissal of all claims with prejudice. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum & Order dated July 31, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/ykta24fw from PacerMonitor.com. SHEVAUN HARRIS: Court Tosses Pineda Class Certification Bid ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as NELSON ALI PINEDA, v. SHEVAUN HARRIS, BEN SLOCUM, ANDERSON GARAD, and COURTNEY JONES, Case No. 2:24-cv-00651-JLB-KCD (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge John Badalamenti entered an order denying the Plaintiff's motion for consolidation, class certification and appointment of counsel. The Plaintiff alleges that the FCCC is: (1) understaffing the facility, resulting in undescribed abuses; (2) not providing sufficient therapy to the residents; and (3) becoming more prison-like due to the remaining restrictions that were put in place as a result of COVID-19. However, Mr. Pineda does not identify a single unconstitutional event affecting him. In other words, Mr. Pineda has not shown that the problems at the FCCC as they apply to him are sufficiently complex to warrant appointment of counsel. And while the nebulous allegations of understaffing and insufficient therapy are disturbing, they are neither novel nor complex. And the Eleventh Circuit has never determined that a plaintiff's wish to proceed with a class action suit, standing alone, constitutes an "exceptional circumstance" sufficient for appointment of counsel in a class action. Therefore, the Court will not appoint counsel for this case. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 8, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wynSU3 at no extra charge.[CC] SLEEP NUMBER: Continues to Defend California Labor Code Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Sleep Number 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 the California Labor Code class suit in the Superior Court of California. On December 15, 2023, a former Field Services team member filed a purported class action Complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, alleging violations of California's meal and rest break law and additional wage and hour derivative claims under the California Labor Code. While the representative plaintiff was in the Field Services workforce, the Complaint does not limit the purported plaintiff class to that group, but rather extends to all non-exempt Sleep Number employees in the state. The plaintiff alleges that Sleep Number failed to provide compliant meal or rest breaks, failed to pay wages owed due to alleged off the clock work, failed to pay overtime, minimum wage and wages due at termination, thus resulting in inaccurate wage statements, all in violation of California law. The Complaint seeks damages in the form of unpaid regular and premium wages, statutory penalties, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs. Sleep Number Corporation (NASDAQ: SNBR), together with its subsidiaries, provides sleep solutions and services in the United States. It designs, manufactures, markets, retails, and services beds, bases, and bedding accessories under the Sleep Number name. The company was formerly known as Select Comfort Corporation and changed its name to Sleep Number Corporation in November 2017. Sleep Number Corporation was founded in 1987 and is headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota. SNOWFLAKE INC: Rason Files Suit in D. Montana --------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Snowflake, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Vanessa Rason, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Snowflake, Inc., Ticketmaster, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-00076-BMM (D. Mont., Aug. 6, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Breach of Contract. Snowflake Inc. -- https://www.snowflake.com/en/ -- is an American cloud computing–based data cloud company based in Bozeman, Montana.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John C. Heenan, Esq. HEENAN & COOK 1631 Zimmerman Trail Billings, MT 59102 Phone: (406) 839-9091 Fax: (406) 839-9092 Email: john@lawmontana.com SPRINKLR INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Securities Fraud ----------------------------------------------------------- If you suffered a loss on your Sprinklr, Inc. (NYSE:CXM) investment and want to learn about a potential recovery under the federal securities laws, follow the link below for more information: https://zlk.com/pslra-1/sprinklr-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=95690&wire=1 or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. via email at jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or call (212) 363-7500 to speak to our team of experienced shareholder advocates. THE LAWSUIT: A class action securities lawsuit was filed against Sprinklr, Inc. that seeks to recover losses of shareholders who were adversely affected by alleged securities fraud between March 29, 2023 and June 5, 2024. CASE DETAILS: According to the complaint, on December 6, 2023, Sprinklr announced strong 3Q 2024 results and then reduced its estimated growth for the 4Q and full year 2025. The Company blamed it on "subscription renewal pressures" caused by macro headwinds and the "over-rotation" of sales to its Contact Center as a Service ("CCaaS") market. On an earnings call in September 2023, CEO Ragy Thomas stated that the Company's investments in AI and the CCaaS opportunity were main contributors to its customer growth. Subsequently, in March several changes were made to the Company's C-level positions. Analysts commenting on the reduced estimates mention surprise at the timing and shift in the Company's sales strategy. Following this news, Sprinklr's stock price fell by $5.59 per share, or approximately 34% to close at $11.11 per share. On June 5, 2024, Sprinklr again announced significantly reduced growth expectations, this time cutting fiscal year 2025 projections another three percent, down to a mere 7% annual growth, again attributing the losses to reduced customer retention in Sprinklr's core business and macro headwinds. The price of Sprinklr's common stock declined dramatically. From a closing market price of $10.84 per share on June 5, 2024 Sprinklr's stock price fell to $9.20 per share on June 6, 2024, a decline of more than 15% in the span of one day. WHAT'S NEXT? If you suffered a loss in Sprinklr stock during the relevant time frame -- even if you still hold your shares -- go to https://zlk.com/pslra-1/sprinklr-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=95690&wire=1 to learn about your rights to seek a recovery. There is no cost or obligation to participate. WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Over the past 20 years, Levi & Korsinsky LLP has established itself as a nationally-recognized securities litigation firm that has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders and built a track record of winning high-stakes cases. The firm has extensive expertise representing investors in complex securities litigation and a team of over 70 employees to serve our clients. For seven years in a row, Levi & Korsinsky has ranked in ISS Securities Class Action Services' Top 50 Report as one of the top securities litigation firms in the United States. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Levi & Korsinsky, LLP Joseph E. Levi, Esq. Ed Korsinsky, Esq. 33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 jlevi@levikorsinsky.com Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 https://zlk.com/ [GN] STANLEY BLACK: Continues to Defend Rammohan Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------ Stanley Black & Decker 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 the Rammohan class suit in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. on March 24, 2023, a putative class action lawsuit titled Naresh Vissa Rammohan v. Stanley Black & Decker, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00369-KAD (the "Rammohan Class Action"), was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut against the Company and certain of the Company's current and former officers and directors. The complaint was filed on behalf of a purported class consisting of all purchasers of Stanley Black & Decker common stock between October 28, 2021 and July 28, 2022, inclusive. The complaint asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 based on allegedly false and misleading statements related to consumer demand for the Company's products amid changing COVID-19 trends and macroeconomic conditions. The complaint seeks unspecified damages and an award of costs and expenses. On October 13, 2023, Lead Plaintiff General Retirement System of the City of Detroit filed an Amended Complaint that asserts the same claims and seeks the same forms of relief as the original complaint. The Company intends to vigorously defend this action in all respects and on December 14, 2023 filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint in its entirety. Briefing on that motion concluded on April 5, 2024, and the Company awaits a decision on that motion. Given the early stage of this litigation, at this time, the Company is not in a position to assess the likelihood of any potential loss or adverse effect on its financial condition or to estimate the amount or range of potential losses, if any, from this action. Stanley Black is a global manufacturer of, inter alia, hand tools, power tools, and outdoor products for consumer and commercial customers, as well as engineered fastening systems for industrial customers.[BN] SUMO LOGIC: Court Narrows Claims in Wasicek, et al. Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as ARMIN WASICEK, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SUMO LOGIC, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 23-cv-03665-BLF (N.D. Calif.), Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted in part defendants' motion to dismiss with leave to amend and denied in part. This is a putative class action alleging violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Sumo Logic, Inc., Ramin Sayar, and Stewart Grierson. Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs oppose. Sumo Logic, a California-based SaaS company, helps customers ensure application reliability, secure against security threats, and gain cloud infrastructure insights. At all relevant times, Sayar and Grierson were Company executives. Before resigning on May 15, 2023, Sayar was Sumo Logic's President and CEO. Grierson, formerly the CFO before the Merger, is now the COO. On September 17, 2020, Sumo Logic completed its initial public offering, closing at $22.00 per share. Its common stock was listed on the Nasdaq Global Select Market under the symbol "SUMO." While the stock price reached approximately $40.00 per shared in February 2021, it declined to under $8.00 per share in June 2022. This decline led Sumo Logic's investors to express concerns with its stock price, growth, path to profitability, and business strategy. On January 23, 2023, The Information published an article revealing preliminary details of a potential merger. The market reacted by driving Sumo Logic's stock price up from $7.67 per share on January 20, 2023, to around $12.00 per share within a few days. Following the leak, two potential acquirers submitted bids, while seven others dropped out within ten days. Several other potential bidders either didn’t sign confidentiality agreements with Sumo Logic or expressed doubts about completing an acquisition. On January 24, 2023, Francisco Partners offered $11.95 per share for the Company. On January 25, a financial sponsor offered $10.50 per share but withdrew its bid nine days later. Meanwhile, Sumo Logic urged Francisco Partners to further increase its bid. On February 3, 2023, Francisco Partners revised its offer to $12.00 per share, and on February 8, further increased its offer to $12.05 per share. No other potential acquirer submitted an actionable proposal. On March 7, 2023, Sumo Logic announced its financial results for the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2023. Sumo Logic reported that total revenue grew 19% from the prior quarter and annualized recurring revenue grew 17% from the prior quarter. On April 5, 2023, Sumo Logic filed the Proxy statement with the SEC, informing stockholders about the Merger. The Proxy included details on the Merger's risks, Morgan Stanley's fairness opinion, financial analyses, Projections, and potential conflicts of interest for the Board and management. It highlighted the assumed revenue growth decline to 14% for 2024 and 21% for 2025. The Proxy also incorporated additional disclosures from the 2023 fiscal year Form 10-K and other SEC filings. After the Merger announcement and Proxy filing, six lawsuits were filed in spring 2023, alleging the disclosures were misleading under Section 14(a). Sumo Logic also received 12 demand letters that included similar allegations. The Company denied these challenges but issued supplemental disclosures "in order to minimize expense and distraction and avoid the uncertainty of any litigation." Sumo Logic's stockholders overwhelmingly approved the Merger on May 10, 2023, with 99.4% of voted shares cast in favor. The Merger closed on May 12, 2023. Plaintiffs allege six false or misleading statements in the Proxy. First, the Proxy states that Sumo Logic management used the following assumptions in preparing the Projections, which they believed were reasonable: a decline in revenue growth to 14% in fiscal year 2024, followed by an increase to 21% in 2025 and 26% in 2026. Plaintiffs allege that the statement is false because "Defendants Sayar and Grierson did not actually believe in good faith that assuming a decline in revenue growth to 14% for fiscal year 2024 was reasonable." Second, the Proxy states that the Projections were solely prepared and approved by Sumo Logic management. Morgan Stanley relied on their accuracy for its financial analyses and advice to the Sumo Logic Board. Sumo Logic management assured that they were unaware of any facts that would make the Projections inaccurate and that they were prepared based on the best available estimates and judgments of Sumo Logic's future financial performance. Plaintiffs allege that "once again, Defendants Sayar and Grierson knew that the Projections were not reasonably prepared and did not reflect their best estimates and judgments of the Company's future financial performance." Third, Plaintiffs allege that the Projections in the Proxy are materially false and misleading, claiming they include unreasonably low revenue forecasts that do not accurately reflect Sumo Logic's financial prospects. They also argue that the Projections are misleading for not considering Sumo Logic's strategy of expanding its customer base and technology through acquisitions. Fourth, the Proxy states that on December 5, 2022, Sumo Logic announced earnings for the third quarter of its 2023 fiscal year. Plaintiffs allege this was a material omission because it downplayed the fact that the Company was exceeding expectations at the time -- a key consideration for investors evaluating whether to sell. Fifth, the Proxy states, Sumo Logic's financial results for the fourth quarter of its 2023 fiscal year, which were below the company's internal forecast and analyst's estimates of Sumo Logic's financial performance on new annual recurring revenue for that period. The Plaintiffs allege that this statement omits that the Q4 earnings beat public projections. Sixth, the Proxy includes the implied value per share ranges of Sumo Logic Common Stock under a Public Trading Comparables Analysis and Discounted Equity Value Analysis. Plaintiff Joseph Michel, on behalf of himself and a putative class of Sumo Logic stockholders, brought this action on July 25, 2023. Michel did not move to be lead plaintiff. Instead, Armin Wasicek, Devendra Modium, and Ranjit Kapil, represented by Michel's same counsel, sought appointment as co-lead plaintiffs. On October 18, 2023, the Court granted their motion. Plaintiffs filed their amended Complaint on November 20, 2023, alleging misrepresentations and omissions in the Proxy that made it false or misleading. Plaintiffs allege a claim under Sec. 14(a) and Rule 14a-9 against all Defendants. The Court notes that to state a claim under Sec. 14(a) and Rule 14a-9, a plaintiff must establish that '(1) a proxy statement contained a material misrepresentation or omission which (2) caused the plaintiff injury and (3) that the proxy solicitation itself, rather than the particular defect in the solicitation materials, was an essential link in the accomplishment of the transaction. Defendants argue that Plaintiffs fail to allege Section 14(a) violations for each of the six alleged false statements. According to the Court, for a statement to be false or misleading, it must directly contradict what the defendant knew at that time' or 'omit material information. First, Plaintiffs allege that Statements 1–3 and 6 are false or misleading because Defendants did not genuinely believe that assuming a 14% revenue growth decline for fiscal year 2024 was reasonable. Second, they claim Statements 4 and 5 are misleading because Defendants downplayed performance by omitting that the Company was exceeding expectations in Q3 and Q4 of FY2023. This section addresses the arguments specific to Statements 1–3 and 6, while the next section covers Statements 4 and 5. Defendants argue that Statements 1–3 and 6 are not actionable misstatements because: (1) Plaintiffs fail to plead that the Projections Statements were objectively or subjectively false, and (2) the Projections Statements were forward-looking statements protected by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 safe harbor. The Court finds that Plaintiffs have not identified any statements made on an investor call or in public disclosures that contradict the projected 14% growth rate. Defendants pointed to statements by Sayar and Grierson on the Q3 investor call that justified the lower growth rate due to a decreasing ARR growth rate and reduced sales teams. As a result, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have not plausibly pled under the heightened Rule 9(b) and PSLRA standards that Statements 1–3 and 6 are objectively false. Therefore, it grants Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' Section 14(a) claim for Statements 1–3 and 6, with leave to amend. Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs' allegations supporting subjective falsity are especially thin. Plaintiffs' support for their claims of subjective falsity are: 1) Sayar's and Grierson's statements on past earnings and investor calls; 2) "Sumo Logic's financial performance immediately preceding and during the time that Defendants prepared the Projections"; and 3) Defendants' alleged conflicts of interest due to alleged benefits they received from the Merger. The Court finds that Plaintiffs' allegations, whether individually or collectively, do not reasonably suggest subjective falsity. Plaintiffs have not provided sufficient facts to show the statements are objectively false, and therefore cannot claim Defendants knew they were subjectively false. As a result, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have not plausibly pled under the heightened Rule 9(b) and PSLRA standards that Statements 1–3 and 6 are subjectively false. The Court grants Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' Section 14(a) claim for Statements 1–3 and 6, with leave to amend. Plaintiffs allege a Section 20(a) claim against Sayar and Grierson, which requires an underlying securities law violation. Since Plaintiffs have not adequately pled such a violation, the Court finds they have also failed to plead a Section 20(a) violation. Therefore, the Court grants Defendants' motion to dismiss the Section 20(a) claim for all statements, with leave to amend. For these reasons, the Court ordered that: 1. Defendants' request for judicial notice is granted. 2. Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims related to Statements 1–3 and 6 for failure to plead objective falsity is granted with leave to amend. 3. Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims related to Statements 1–3 and 6 for failure to plead subjective falsity is granted with leave to amend. 4. Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims related to Statements 1–3 and 6 on the grounds that they are subject to the PSLRA safe harbor is granted with leave to amend. 5. Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims related to Statements 4 and 5 for failure to plead actionable omissions is denied. 6. Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims related to all statements for failure to plead negligence is granted with leave to amend. 7. Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims related to Statements 1–3 and 6 for failure to plead loss causation is granted with leave to amend. Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims related to Statements 4 and 5 for failure to plead loss causation is denied. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated August 5, 2024, is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZwOTRG SYMPLE LENDING: Turizo Files TCPA Suit in S.D Fla. -------------------------------------------------- A class action has been filed against Symple Lending LLC. The case is captioned as Ryan Turizo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Symple Lending LLC, Case No. 0:24-cv-61274-DSL (S.D. Fla., July 18, 2024). The suit is brought over Defendant's alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The case is assigned to Judge David S. Leibowitz. Symple Lending LLC is a financial services company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Chagas Gold, Esq. GOLD LAW, PA 350 Lincoln Rd., 2nd Floor Miami Beach, FL 33139 Telephone: (561) 789-4413 E-mail: chris@chrisgoldlaw.com SYNGENTA CANADA: B.C. Court Certified Herbicide Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- The Chronicle Journal reports that the B.C. Supreme Court has certified a class-action lawsuit against global agriculture firm Syngenta over claims that its herbicide products cause Parkinson's disease. A decision released online this week says the case was filed in B.C. in August 2022, alleging the Switzerland-based firm's family of herbicide products, marketed as Gramoxone, causes Parkinson's disease. The ruling says the proposed class members include anyone diagnosed with the condition after handling Gramoxone products any time after July 1, 1963. The original representative plaintiff Wayne Gionet died last August, and the ruling says he claimed to have developed Parkinson's after decades of handling the products while working for Agriculture Canada in Saanich, B.C. The decision says the plaintiffs submitted evidence including transcripts of depositions from similar cases in the United States involving the products' active ingredient, paraquat, including internal documents from the company "dating back decades." Judge Sandra Wilkinson's ruling says proceeding to trial as a class is "less burdensome" to the court over numerous individual cases and favourable because the company allegedly concealed the risk and, if proven, the case will "create incentives for all industry participants to avoid similar conduct." [GN] TEGRIA HOLDINGS: $1.5MM Settlement in Chery Suit Has Prelim. Nod ---------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Michelle L. Peterson of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, grants the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement in the lawsuit captioned RICARDO CHERY, et al., Plaintiffs v. TEGRIA HOLDINGS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-00612-MLP (W.D. Wash.). Plaintiffs Ricardo Chery, Marcus McFarland, and Jasmine Siggers seek to settle claims, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, against Defendant Tegria Holdings LLC for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the Washington Minimum Wage Act, and willful withholding of wages under Washington law. The Plaintiffs request the Court enter an order: (1) provisionally certifying a settlement class and collective action; (2) provisionally appointing them as class representatives and their counsel as class counsel; (3) preliminarily approving the proposed settlement agreement; (4) approving the proposed form of settlement notice; (5) setting a deadline for a motion for final settlement approval and attorneys' fees; and (6) setting a date for a final approval hearing. On May 24, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed their Motion along with a proposed Class and Collective Action Settlement Agreement and Release. On June 12, 2024, the Court raised concerns about the proposed agreement's: failure to allocate settlement proceeds between claims pursuant to the FLSA and state labor laws; deficient FLSA opt-in procedure; and award of proceeds based on a damages model proxy of weeks worked rather than according to each class or collective action member's actual losses. On July 26, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a supplemental brief in support of their Motion, along with an Amended Class and Collective Action Settlement Agreement and Release executed by the parties (the "Agreement"). The Plaintiffs contend the Court should preliminarily approve the settlement because the amended Agreement: allocates 25% of proceeds to FLSA claims and 75% to state law claims; provides a proper opt-in process for FLSA claims, with opt-in forms to be filed prior to a final approval hearing; and distributes proceeds according to estimated actual damages rather than a proxy. The Agreement defines both an FLSA collective and a Rule 23 class as "individuals who were employed and paid by Defendant to provide software training to hospital workers in the United States at any time during the Relevant Time Period" of April 3, 2020, through March 31, 2023. The Plaintiffs contend there are 225 class and collective members. The Agreement provides for Tegria to pay $1,500,000, of which $386,305 is allocated to attorneys' fees and costs (subject to Court approval), $15,000 to service payments of $5,000 each to the three named Plaintiffs, and up to $30,000 to settlement administration costs (currently estimated not to exceed $12,000), leaving $1,068,695 in proceeds for class or collective members. The average payout would, thus, be approximately $4,750 per class or collective member. The Plaintiffs contend these proceeds equate to 80% of class and collective members' estimated total damages. The Court finds the parties have made a sufficient showing under both Rule 23(e) and the FLSA that the proposed Agreement is a fair, reasonable, and adequate resolution of a bona fide dispute and that the proposed class is certifiable. Accordingly, finding it is likely that the Court will be able to approve the Agreement pursuant to Rule 23(e) and the FLSA, the Court preliminarily approves the Agreement. The Court provisionally certifies the following class for settlement purposes only: All individuals who were employed and paid by Defendant to provide software training to hospital workers in the United States at any time during the relevant time period of April 3, 2020, through March 31, 2023. The Court preliminarily appoints the Plaintiffs as class representatives. The Court preliminarily appoints Harold L. Lichten of Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C., and Michael C. Subit of Frank Freed Subit & Thomas LLP as class counsel. The Court concludes that the form of notice at Exhibit A to the Agreement, as well as the procedure set forth in the Agreement for providing notice to the class and collective action members, satisfies due process concerns and will provide the best notice practicable under the facts and circumstances of this case. However, Judge Peterson says the first page of the notice should be updated to reflect the settlement apportionment provided by the Agreement, as amended, and the section on attorneys should include all class counsel. In accordance with the Agreement, the Court appoints Simpluris as settlement administrator. For these reasons, the Court grants the Plaintiffs' Motion. The Plaintiffs' motion for final approval is due Nov. 1, 2024. The final settlement approval fairness hearing is scheduled for Dec. 4, 2024. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated July 31, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/vstsmjv from PacerMonitor.com. TERADATA CORP: Continues to Defend Ostrander Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Teradata 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 the Ostrander securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. On June 14, 2024, a putative securities class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain of its officers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, captioned Ostrander v. Teradata Corporation, No. 24-cv-01034 (S.D. Cal.). The complaint asserts claims for alleged violations of federal securities laws related to statements concerning the Company's business and 2023 financial outlook for Total ARR and Public Cloud ARR. The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of certain persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's stock during the period from February 13, 2023 to February 12, 2024 and seeks unspecified damages and other relief. The Company disputes the allegations in the complaint and intends to defend the case vigorously. The case is at an early stage, and the Company cannot reasonably estimate the amount of any potential financial loss or cost that could result from this lawsuit. Teradata Corporation is an American software company that provides cloud database and analytics-related software, products, and services.[BN] TERRAN ORBITAL: S.D. New York Dismisses Mullen Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Jesse M. Furman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss the lawsuit titled JEFFREY MULLEN, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TERRAN ORBITAL OPERATING CORP., et al., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-01394-JMF (S.D.N.Y.). The case arises from a merger between Terran Orbital Operating Corp. (formerly known as Terran Orbital Corp.) and Tailwind Two Acquisition Corp. ("Tailwind"), a special purpose acquisition company or "SPAC." Lead Plaintiffs Jeffrey Mullen, Justin Carnahan, Thomas Bennett, and Robert Irwin -- all former employees of Terran Orbital Operating Corp. ("Terran Orbital") who held shares of the old company's common stock that were eventually converted into the merged company's common stock -- allege that they consented to the merger based on false and misleading information and that delays in the delivery of their converted shares caused them to lose money. Terran Orbital is a satellite manufacturer founded in 2013 by Defendant Marc Bell. The company does most of its business with the federal government. The Plaintiffs joined Terran Orbital, in technical roles as engineers and other esoteric highly skilled positions, when the company was a struggling startup in a cutthroat industry. The Plaintiffs filed this purported class action on behalf of all those similarly situated, bringing claims for federal securities fraud under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. Section 77k, against Tailwind and several of its directors and officers; wrongful refusal of certificated stocks under Section 158 of Delaware General Corporation Law ("DGCL") Section 158, against Tailwind; breach of fiduciary duty against Terran Orbital and several of its directors and officers; and aiding-and-abetting that breach of fiduciary duty against Tailwind, its officers, and its sponsor, Tailwind Two Sponsor LLC ("Tailwind Two"). In the operative Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs bring claims against Terran Orbital, several Terran Orbital Directors (namely, Marc Bell, Daniel Staton, James LaChance, and Stratton Sclavos, collectively referred to as the "Terran Orbital Director Defendants"), Tailwind, Tailwind Two, and several Tailwind Directors (namely, Michael Eby, Philip Krim, Tommy Stadlen, Wisdom Lu, Boris Revsin, Chris Hollod, and Michael Kim, collectively referred to as the "Tailwind Director Defendants"), on behalf of all record and beneficial holders of Terran Orbital common stock who (a) signed the consent solicitations to approve the Merger and (b) who received their post-merger common stock issued from the materially false and misleading Form S-4 and subsequent Form 425s. The Plaintiffs allege jurisdiction pursuant to both 28 U.S.C. Section 1331 and the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d). The Defendants now move, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to dismiss the case. For the reasons set forth in this Opinion and Order, the Court grants the Defendants' motion and the Amended Complaint is dismissed. The Court concludes that none of the Form S-4's alleged deficiencies are sufficient to state a claim for violation of Section 11, so the claim must be and is dismissed. It follows that the Plaintiff's claim for controlling person liability under Section 15 must be and is also dismissed. Judge Furman notes that the Plaintiffs do not cite, and the Court has not found, any authority to support the proposition that having certificated shares prior to conversion entitled them to certificated shares after the conversion. Accordingly, their claim under DGCL Section 158 fails as a matter of law and must be dismissed. The Plaintiffs' final claims are for breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting the same. Judge Furman finds that the Plaintiffs do not plausibly allege either an unexculpated breach of the duty of loyalty or that any of the Defendants' alleged actions or omissions reflected an abuse of discretion sufficient to overcome the deference owed to their business judgments. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' claim for breach of fiduciary duty must be and is dismissed. It follows that the aiding-and-abetting claim also fails as a matter of law. For these reasons, the Court grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss. Further, the Court declines to sua sponte grant the Plaintiffs leave to amend. Judge Furman notes that there are several reasons to exercise the discretion to deny leave here. First, the problems with the Plaintiffs' dismissed claims are substantive, so amendment would be futile. Second, the Plaintiffs do not request leave to amend or suggest that it is in possession of facts that would cure the problems with the dismissed claims. Finally, the Court granted the Plaintiffs leave to amend its original complaint in response to the Defendants' motion to dismiss, which raised the defects in the dismissed claims, and explicitly warned that the Plaintiffs would not be given any further opportunity to amend the complaint to address issues raised by the motion to dismiss. The Plaintiffs' failure to fix deficiencies in their previous pleadings is alone sufficient ground to deny leave to amend sua sponte, Judge Furman opines. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 52, to enter judgment for the Defendants consistent with this Opinion and Order, and to close this case. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated July 26, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/5yuvmsuv from PacerMonitor.com. TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Class Suit Over Hydrogen Car Refueling Systems ------------------------------------------------------------------ Russ Mitchell, writing for Los Angeles Times, reports that when he first bought his Toyota Mirai in 2022, Ryan Kiskis was a happy man. He loved the idea of applying cutting edge hydrogen fuel cell technology to environmental consciousness. "It's a great car," he said. "My background is an engineer, I'm a huge automotive fan, and I felt the the world was finally catching up with what we have to do" to cut greenhouse gases. Then reality crashed in. He soon learned that hydrogen refueling stations are scarce and reliably unreliable. He learned that apps to identify broken stations hand out bad information. He learned that the state of California, which is funding the station buildout, is far behind schedule -- 200 stations were supposed to be up and running by 2025, but only 54 exist. And since Kiskis bought his car, the price of hydrogen has more than doubled, currently the equivalent of $15 a gallon of gasoline. With fueling so expensive and stations so undependable, Kiskis -- who lives in Pacific Palisades and works at Google in Playa Vista -- drives a gasoline Jeep for everything but short trips around the neighborhood. "I've got a great car that sits in the driveway," he said. Bryan Caluwe can relate. The retired Santa Monican bought a Mirai in 2022. He likes his car too. "But it's been a total inconvenience." Hydrogen stations "are either down for mechanical reasons, or they're out of fuel, or, in the case of Shell, they've rolled up the carpet and gone home." And don't get Irving Alden started. He runs a commercial print shop in North Hollywood. He leases a Mirai. He too loves the car. But the refueling system? "It's a frickin' joke." The three are part of a class action lawsuit filed in July against Toyota. They claim that Toyota salespeople misled them about the sorry state of California's hydrogen refueling system. "They were told the stations were convenient and readily available," said lawyer Nilofar Nouri of Beverly Hills Trial Attorneys. "That turned out to be far from reality." The class action now amounts to two dozen plaintiffs and growing, Nouri said. "We have thousands of these individuals in California who are stuck with this vehicle." Kiskis believes Toyota sales staff duped him -- but says, "I'm just as irritated with the state of California" for poor oversight of the program it's funding. Toyota told The Times it is "committed to customer satisfaction and will continue to evaluate how we can best support our customers. We will respond to the allegations in this lawsuit in the appropriate forum." Hyundai also sells a fuel cell car in California called the Nexo, and although the the suit is aimed only at Toyota, the hydrogen station situation affects Hyundai too. Hyundai said it "shares the concern regarding the current state of the hydrogen fueling infrastructure in California" and that "we are also closely collaborating with government agencies such as the California Energy Commission, which provided a majority of the funding for public refueling stations." It's more bad news for California political leaders' attempts to turn the state carbon neutral by 2045. Zero-emission vehicles are key to that goal, but the state is already struggling with a bungled rollout of public charging stations. The top reason car buyers give for not considering EVs is lack of availability for public chargers, according to a recent J.D. Power market survey, which concluded that "concerns about public charging infrastructure are only getting worse." Fuel cell cars are a key pillar in the state's decarbonization plan. The California Air Resources Board has projected that more than 10% of new cars sold in 2035 will be fuel cell vehicles, growing to more than 20% annually by 2045. That's a lot of cars -- 1.78 million new vehicles were sold in California last year. Since hydrogen station growth has stalled and hydrogen prices exploded, fuel cell sales have stalled too. In the first half of 2023, 1,765 such cars were sold or leased. This year's first half: 298. The owners rarely complain about their cars. It's the hydrogen refueling system that gives them grief. As early as 2006, 20 hydrogen stations had been installed in California. Today, more than $260 million of state money later, there are 54. They're clustered in greater L.A. and in the Bay Area, with a single station in between, along Interstate 5 at Harris Ranch. (Once, after finding the Harris Ranch station closed on his way back to L.A., Caluwe said, he nearly ran out of fuel and had to be towed over the Grapevine.) Who built the hydrogen stations in California? Not the carmakers. Just as they didn't construct the nation's gasoline station system, they're not building out the hydrogen system. That falls to hydrogen station operators Iwatani, Air Products and True Zero, which is owned by FirstElement Fuel. The state money awarded to those companies is pulled from transportation fees paid by California vehicle owners and from revenue produced by the state's carbon-credit market. Fueling station companies did contribute some money of their own, but the vast bulk of the cash was paid by the state. Fuel cell cars are a pillar of the state's ambitious climate goals. Like battery electric cars, they emit no greenhouse gases. Basically, they work like this: The fuel cell combines hydrogen fuel with airborne oxygen to create electricity, in turn driving an electric motor that turns the wheels of the car. Although hydrogen fuel is made through methods that range from clean to dirty, the only emission from the cars themselves is water vapor. Although battery electric cars are far more popular, fuel cell vehicles boast some advantages. The full tank range is 350 to 400 miles. A fill-up usually takes no more than five or 10 minutes, compared with much longer waits at public EV charging stations. But unlike electric vehicles, you can't fill up at home. You have to travel to a dedicated fueling station. The state planned to have nearly 200 stations installed by now, but only a quarter are up and (sometimes) working. Nearly 18,000 fuel cell cars have been bought or leased to date in California. Since 2020, more than 10,000 fuel cell cars were registered and hit California highways. Over those years, the net number of available hydrogen stations increased by a paltry two. (One California station operator dropped out of the market earlier this year: International oil giant Shell had installed seven hydrogen stations in California with more on the way, but earlier this year it shut them down and refunded the $40-million-plus in grant money from the state.) So far, the state's 54 hydrogen stations have cost Californians nearly $5 million apiece. It wasn't supposed to be this way. Former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger pumped up the idea of hydrogen cars in his first term. The state began to subsidize purchase of fuel cell cars. Under Gov. Jerry Brown, the 200 state-subsidized stations were planned, after which, it was stated, the free market would take over and hydrogen stations would proliferate. "More cars would mean more demand for retail [stations], retail would attract more cars, in a virtuous circle," said State Sen. Josh Newman (D-Fullerton), who owns a Mirai. The California Energy Commission is in charge of hydrogen station funding. The commission, Newman said, "did not follow through on levels of funding that would maintain that balance." While he's not disputing the accounts of the class action litigants, Newman said, "I think Toyota has been mistreated as badly as anybody." Toyota and Hyundai (and, for a few years, Honda) were depending on a robust station build-out to encourage sales. The carmakers give new fuel cell owners a debit card worth $15,000 of fuel, Newman noted, another rich incentive to go hydrogen. But the steep hike in hydrogen prices has degraded the benefit's value -- by more than half, Caluwe noted. The energy commission declined requests for an interview with chair David Hochschild or commissioner Patty Monahan. In a prepared statement, the commission said improving the reliability and performance of hydrogen stations is "a current priority." Furthermore, the commission "will continue to track the market and make informed decisions for both electric and hydrogen infrastructure. In making those decisions the [commission] will continue to conduct analysis, publish reports [and] monitor vehicle model availability and customer uptake and interest by the private market to build and invest in hydrogen stations." This year, the energy commission granted an extra $9.4 million to FirstElement and Iwatani for operations and maintenance at the company's stations. (Those companies did not responded to requests for comment.) Unlike previous such grants, these insist on 95% uptime performance. The commission has yet to define how the 95% figure will be determined, and has not spelled out any consequences should the requirement not be met. [GN] TRANSDEV NORTH: Bid for Class Cert. in Dudley Due March 14, 2025 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CRYSTAL DUDLEY, v. TRANSDEV NORTH AMERICA INC et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00810-KKE (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Kymberly Evanson entered an order setting case schedule: Pursuant to the Joint Status Report (JSR), submitted on August 6, 2024, the Court enters the following case schedule: Joinder of Additional Parties Sept. 3, 2024 Class Certification Discovery Completed Dec. 15, 2024 Motion for Class Certification Noted for Hearing on March 14, 2025 Plaintiff's Motion Due Jan. 17, 2025 Transdev's Response Due Feb. 14, 2025 Plaintiff's Reply Due Feb. 28, 2025 Transdev provides bus, rail, paratransit, and shuttle services. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 6, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=e8jz8l at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED HEALTHCARE: Koulouras Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duty -------------------------------------------------------------- SPERO KOULOURAS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; Plaintiff v. UNITED HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC.; UNITEDHEALTH GROUP, INC.; UNITEDHEALTHCARE INSURANCE COMPANY; Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-06460 (C.D. Cal., July 31, 2024) seeks to address UnitedHealth's practice of improperly denying claims for non-invasive ventilators for the care of patients with Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis under UnitedHealth plans under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. According to the complaint, Plaintiff's UnitedHealth plan provides surgical, hospital, and in-home medical services on both an inpatient and outpatient basis to treat illness and injury, including coverage for prosthetic devices, durable medical equipment, professional services, and other medical services. The Plaintiff requested that UnitedHealth authorize coverage for a non-invasive ventilation device, as recommended by his treatment team, to assist with breathing as his ALS causes progressive deterioration to his muscles. The Plaintiff asserts that UnitedHealth has followed a policy and practice of denying claims for non-invasive ventilators to ALS patients on the basis the device is not medically necessary under UnitedHealth's policy and, therefore, the request did not meet the UnitedHealth plan's criteria. Pursuant to its practice, UnitedHealth denied Plaintiff's request for a noninvasive ventilator on the basis that its use is not medically necessary under the policy. However, the use of noninvasive ventilators for ALS patients is medically necessary under the pertinent plan provisions, says the Plaintiff. UnitedHealth Group, Inc., United HealthCare Services, Inc., and UnitedHealthcare Insurance Company administer and make benefit determinations related to ERISA group health care plans around the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott C. Glovsky, Esq. Julia Zalba Seltz, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SCOTT C. GLOVSKY, APC 343 Harvard Avenue Claremont, CA 91711 Telephone: (626) 243-5598 Facsimile: (866) 243-2243 E-mail: sglovsky@scottglovskylaw.com jseltz@scottglovskylaw.com - and - Christian Garris, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF CHRISTIAN GARRIS 633 West Fifth Street, 28th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 624-2900 Facsimile: (213) 624-2901 E-mail: cjg@christiangarris.com UNITED PARCEL: Court Grants in Part Bid to Dismiss Wynn Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, grants in part and denies in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss the lawsuit entitled BRITTANY WYNN, Plaintiff v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:23-cv-06044-BLF (N.D. Cal.). Plaintiff Brittany Wynn brings three claims against Defendant United Parcel Service, Inc. ("UPS") related to her brief employment at UPS. The Defendant moves to both dismiss and strike class allegations for each of the Plaintiff's claims. The Plaintiff opposes the motion. The Court held a hearing on July 18, 2024. The Plaintiff's claims stem from her brief employment with UPS. She alleges she worked for the Defendants as an hourly, non-exempt employee at all times during the applicable statutory period from approximately Nov. 4, 2020, through approximately March 28, 2021. According to additional documentation she submitted, she worked five days in 2019 (Dec. 9, 10, 12 13 and 16) and five days in 2020 (Nov. 10, 11, 12, 13 and 30). Judge Freeman notes that the Plaintiff's claims and proposed class bear a resemblance to another suit, Augustine, et al. v. United Parcel Service, Inc., Los Angeles Superior Court Lead Case No. BC636468, consolidated with Case No. BC705672 ("Augustine" or "the Augustine Action"). In Augustine, the plaintiffs alleged failure to reimburse business expenses for a class of UPS nonexempt package car drivers. The Augustine parties agreed to settlement on Oct. 30, 2023. On Jan. 25, 2024, the Augustine court granted preliminary approval of a class action and PAGA representative action settlement. The preliminary approval order defined the settlement class as "all California-based hourly, non-exempt package car delivery drivers, excluding drivers using personal vehicles to deliver packages for UPS," from at least May 22, 2014, to Jan. 25, 2024. The settlement includes a class-wide release, which releases all claims [during the class periods] that were alleged, or reasonably could have been alleged, based on the facts stated in the operative Complaint. This includes all claims for the alleged failure to indemnify and/or reimburse employees for any business expenses. The parties do not appear to dispute that the Plaintiff is not a member of the Augustine class. The Defendant moves both to dismiss and strike the class allegations for each of the Plaintiff's three claims. The Defendant also seeks judicial notice of several exhibits in support of its motion. The Defendant requests the Court take judicial notice of 15 exhibits. The Plaintiff objects to the Defendant's request as to Exhibits 7–11, which correspond to certain collective bargaining agreements ("CBAs"), arguing that she has not seen the CBAs at issue before, and the CBAs themselves were not in effect during her employment. The Plaintiff does not object to judicial notice of the other exhibits. The Defendant does not dispute, and the Court agrees, that the CBAs are not at issue because they were not in effect during the Plaintiff's employment. Thus, the Court denies the Defendant's request for judicial notice as to Exhibits 7–11, and grants the Defendant's request for judicial notice as to Exhibits 1–6 and 12–15. The Court does not take notice of the truth of any of the facts asserted in these documents. The Plaintiff's first claim is for Failure to Pay Sick Time under California Labor Code Sections 246, et seq. The Defendant moves to dismiss the claim, arguing that the Plaintiff does not have standing because she never asked to take a sick day, and that a CBA exemption precludes suit. The Court grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss Claim One with leave to amend. Specifically, the Plaintiff must allege she worked "30 or more days within a year from the commencement of employment" to be eligible for sick pay under Section 246. Because the Court dismisses the claim on this ground, it need not address the Defendant's other arguments and denies the Defendant's motion to strike class allegations for Claim One as moot. The Plaintiff's second claim is for Failure to Indemnify under California Labor Code Section 2802. She alleges her expenses included steel toed boots, uniforms, masks, personal cell phones, and vehicles for work related purposes. The Defendant argues that the Plaintiff does not have standing to bring the claim because she "fails to allege that she ever requested a reimbursement that was denied." As discussed on the record, Judge Freeman says, for most expenses, the Plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged that she incurred any of these expenses as a condition of her employment. The only reimbursement she has plausibly alleged she was entitled to was for cell phone to communicate with management. Thus, for these reasons and those described on the record, the Court denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss Claim Two for reimbursement for a phone to communicate with management, and grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss Claim Two for all other alleged expenses with leave to amend. Judge Freeman says the Plaintiff's class allegations are more complicated and problematic, particularly in light of the Augustine settlement. The parties do not dispute that the Augustine settlement covers class periods, beginning at least on May 22, 2014, and ending Jan. 25, 2024. The Plaintiff seeks leave to amend her complaint to exclude those class members of the Augustine class, and narrow her proposed class period to begin on Jan. 26, 2024, for the expense reimbursement claim. But at the hearing, the Plaintiff's counsel had few answers as to the extent with which Augustine limits the class allegations. Furthermore, as discussed on the record, the Plaintiff's proposed reimbursement class of "All persons employed by Defendants in California who incurred business expenses during the Relevant Time Period" is far too broad, Judge Freeman opines. As such, for these reasons and those described on the record, the Court grants the Defendant's motion to strike class allegations for Claim Two with leave to amend. Finally, as discussed on the record, the Court directs counsel to conduct a thorough investigation before amending pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, both with respect to Ms. Wynn's individual claims and the class allegations. The Plaintiff's third claim is for violation of California's Unfair Competition Law predicated on Claim One and Claim Two. The Defendant argues that the Plaintiff does not have standing to seek injunctive relief under the UCL. The Court finds that it does not have equitable jurisdiction to hear the Plaintiff's UCL claim. Accordingly, the Court grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss Claim Three without leave to amend. Because the Court dismisses Claim Three, it denies the Defendant's motion to strike class allegations for Claim Three as moot. For these reasons, the Court rules as follows. The Defendant's motion for judicial notice is denied as to Exhibits 7–11, which correspond to collective bargaining agreements. The Defendant's motion is granted as to the other exhibits (1–6 and 12–15). The Defendant's motion to dismiss Claim One is granted with leave to amend. The Defendant's motion to strike the Plaintiff's class allegations for Claim One is denied as moot. The Defendant's motion to dismiss Claim Two is granted in part and denied in part with leave to amend. The Defendant's motion to strike the Plaintiff's class allegations for Claim Two is granted with leave to amend. The Defendant's motion to dismiss Claim Three is granted without leave to amend. The Defendant's motion to strike the Plaintiff's class allegations for Claim Three is denied as moot. Any amended complaint will be filed no later than 30 days from the entry of this Order. The Plaintiff may only amend consistent with this Order. No additional claims or parties may be added without leave of the Court. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated July 26, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/5n6eyzyy from PacerMonitor.com. US 1 LOGISTICS: Albizures Files Class Suit in Cal. Super. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action has been filed against US 1 Logistics LLC, et al. The case is captioned as Gilda Albizures, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. US 1 Logistics LLC, et al., Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2024-0008481 (Cal. Super., San Joaquin Cty., July 18, 2024). The suit is brought under the "Unlimited Civil Other Employment" case type. A case management conference is scheduled on January 14, 2025, before Hon. Judge Barbara A. Kronlund. US 1 Logistics LLC is a transportation solutions provider.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jessica L. Campbell, Esq. AEGIS LAW FIRM 9811 Irvine Center Dr Ste 100 Irvine, CA 92618-4375 Telephone: (949) 379-6250 VENTURA COUNTY CREDIT: Alba Files Suit in Cal. Super. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action has been filed against Ventura County Credit Union. The case is captioned as Michael Alba, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. Ventura County Credit Union, Case No. 2024CUBT027319 (Cal. Super., Ventura Cty., July 8, 2024). A case management conference has been scheduled for October 29, 2024, in the Hall of Justice at Department 41. Ventura County Credit Union is a full service financial institution.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert S. Green, Esq. Green & Noblin, P.C. 1 Blackfield Drive, #360 Tiburon, CA 94920 Telephone: (415) 477-6700 Facsimile: (415) 477-6710 Email: rsg@classcounsel.com VICOR CORP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set Sept. 23 --------------------------------------------------------- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, a nationally recognized law firm, notifies investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Vicor Corporation ("Vicor" or "the Company") (NASDAQ:VICR) 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 Vicor securities between April 23, 2023, and February 22, 2024, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site: bgandg.com/VICR. Case Details The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants created the false and/or materially misleading impression that Vicor had secured a significant deal for its H100 product that, according to analysts, was Nvidia Corporation. The lawsuit claims that these statements proved incorrect when first, on October 24, 2023, Vicor conspicuously failed to discuss the deal and then later, on February 22, 2024, when the Company issued a press release announcing its end of year earnings and flagged a sharp reversal in new contracts and sales. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. 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/VICR or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Client Relations Manager, Nathan Miller, of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC. If you suffered a loss in Vicor you have until September 23, 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. CONTACT: Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC Peretz Bronstein or Nathan Miller, (332) 239-2660 E-mail: info@bgandg.com [GN] VISA INC: Court Extends Claim-Filing Deadline to August 30 ---------------------------------------------------------- Peter Lucas, writing for Digital Transactions, reports that Merchants were granted a second extension late Tuesday, August 13, for filing claims against Visa Inc. and Mastercard Inc. in their ongoing class-action lawsuit against the two networks over interchange costs. U.S. District Court Judge for the Eastern District of New York Margo K. Brodie, who is presiding over the case, moved the deadline for filing a claim to Feb. 4, 2025, a 180-day extension. Earlier this year, the court extended the claim-filing deadline from May 31 to Aug. 30. In June, Judge Brodie nullified a proposed settlement between the card networks and merchants, a move that is expected to send the years-old case to trial. The latest deadline extension comes at the behest of class administrator Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions Inc. In a declaration filed with the court and dated Aug. 6, Loree Kovach, senior vice president for Epiq, argued that since notice of filing a claim was provided to class members in 2019, "the Class Administrator has received additional data from Visa and others" that reveals a significant number of additional class members did not receive claim forms sent in 2023. As a result, Kovach argued that such activities as mailing additional claim forms to known likely members of the settlement class, along with an extended deadline to submit claims in light of those anticipated mailings and a minimum payment alternative approach to more efficiently process low-dollar claims, are in the best interest of the class. She recommended a 180-day extension of the filing deadline. Kovach went on to say that the Class Administrator expects to be able to finalize all data-preparation work and start mailing forms "within approximately 50 days of entry of an order from this court." Co-counsels for the merchants supported the extension request in a separate letter to Judge Brodie. "Class Counsel and Epiq want to ensure that as many class members as possible are able to obtain settlement benefits, and mailing claim forms to additional potential claimants which can be recovered from these additional data sets will advance that goal. If granted, this additional time for the claims process will benefit all class members," co-counsels said in the letter. Merchants are being represented by Robins Kaplan LLP, Berger Montague PC, and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP. The Merchants Payments Coalition, which lobbies on behalf of sellers on interchange and related matters, welcomed news of the extension. "There are so many claimants, it's understandable that [the claims administrator] is still finding potential claimants," says Doug Kantor, an MPC executive committee member and general counsel for the National Association of Convenience Stores. Still, the extension is likely to raise the cost of settlement for Visa and Mastercard, Eric Grover, proprietor of payments consultancy Intrepid Ventures, argues by email. "This will cost Visa and Mastercard more because more merchants, presumably, will file claims," Grover says. "The unsettled consolidated antitrust suit challenging Mastercard's and Visa's business practices is far more worrisome for the payment networks, for their shareholders, for cardholders, and indeed for the entire payments ecosystem." The extended filing deadline is not a surprise, he adds, because "neither plaintiffs' attorneys nor the court want a settlement where only an embarrassingly small percentage of the putatively aggrieved can bother to file a claim." In a related matter, merchants' co-counsels pointed out in their letter to Brodie that they have "reached an impasse" with Square Inc. over using data provided in 2019 to check if a claim form had already been sent directly to a member of the class. If a form had not been mailed, co-counsels requested that claim forms be sent to certain submerchants that may be unique in Square's data. "Without this data, some set of merchants who only used Square as a payment facilitator during the relevant time, may not be mailed claim forms, despite the data being extant," co-counsels said in their letter. [GN] VOLKSWAGEN AG: Hardy et al. Sue Over Defective Suction Jet Pumps ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jessy Edwards, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that five Volkswagen and Audi drivers have sued the automakers. Why: The plaintiffs say the company sold vehicles with a dangerous defect. Where: The Volkswagen class action lawsuit was filed in a California federal court. Five Volkswagen and Audi drivers have filed a class action lawsuit against the manufacturers, alleging that the companies sold vehicles with dangerous defects without informing consumers. Plaintiffs Jagger Hardy, Andrew Montemayor, Nancy Pickett, Geri Darrow, and Luis Viteri filed the class action complaint against Audi of America Inc., Volkswagen AG and Audi AG on Aug. 2 in a New Jersey federal court, alleging violations of state and federal consumer laws. The plaintiffs argue that the automakers knew about defects in several models but failed to disclose it, putting drivers and passengers at risk. Class action: Automakers had longstanding knowledge of defects The lawsuit is seeking to represent owners and lessees of 2015-2020 Volkswagen Golf, 2015-2020 Audi A3, and 2022-2024 Volkswagen Taos vehicles. According to the plaintiffs, these vehicles contain defects in the suction jet pump and fuel tank components, leading to fuel leaks, premature nozzle shutoffs, fuel spillbacks and gas odors inside the vehicle. These issues, dubbed the "Suction Pump Defect," pose a significant fire hazard and compromise the engine’s ability to receive fuel, the lawsuit states. The plaintiffs claim that Volkswagen and Audi have been aware of these defects since at least 2015 but chose to conceal the information. They allege that the automakers not only failed to disclose the defect but also took active steps to hide it from consumers. Warranty and repair issues Volkswagen sold the vehicles with warranties covering fuel tank and suction jet pump components, the plaintiffs say. However, numerous complaints to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reveal that authorized dealerships often refused adequate repairs even within the warranty period. This left many owners and lessees dealing with recurring issues and costly repairs, they say. Safety concerns Hardy says he purchased a 2015 Volkswagen GTI SE for personal use, attracted by its advertised safety and reliability. However, in 2017, he began to notice gas odors inside the vehicle, which escalated to fuel spilling out of the tank in 2022. Despite multiple attempts to repair the vehicle under warranty, the problem persisted. A dealership eventually advised Hardyto stop driving the car due to the unresolved defect, he says. As a result, the plaintiffs seek to represent all U.S. residents who purchased or leased the vehicles with the alleged defect. They are suing for violations of consumer protection laws, fraud, and unjust enrichment, and are demanding class certification, damages, and a jury trial. Meanwhile, in May, Volkswagen Group of America issued a recall for nearly 80,000 of its model year 2021-2023 Volkswagen ID.4 vehicles over concerns their rearview camera displays could fail to display an image or be delayed. The plaintiffs are represented by Berger Montague PC and Capstone Law APC. The Volkswagen class action lawsuit is Jagger Hardy et al., v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc. et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-08251-KMW-SAK in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. [GN] VOYA FINANCIAL: Ravarino Must File Class Cert. Bid in 30 Days ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ravarino, et al., v. Voya Financial, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-01658 (D. Conn., Filed Dec. motion to extend deadlines: -- All interim discovery deadlines hereby are approved and adopted. -- Plaintiffs' motion for class certification shall be filed within 30 days of the close of discovery. -- Defendants' response thereto shall be filed within 60 days of the close of discovery; and Plaintiffs' reply in support thereof shall be filed within 75 days of the close of discovery. -- Any motions for summary judgment shall be filed within 60 days of the courts disposition of the motion for class certification. The nature of suit states Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Voya is an American financial, retirement, investment and insurance company.[CC] WELLS FARGO: Nadolny Suit Asserts Breach of Fiduciary Duty ---------------------------------------------------------- EDWARD NADOLNY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY; and WELLS FARGO CLEARING SERVICES, LLC d/b/a WELLS FARGO ADVISORS, Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-04633 (N.D. Cal., July 31, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and breach of contract caused by their alleged illegal scheme. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants implement a scheme whereby they use their clients' cash balances to generate massive profits for themselves while shortchanging their clients instead of fulfilling its fiduciary duties, contractual obligations, and a regulatory mandate to act only in the best interests of its clients. In 2023 alone, the Defendants generated nearly $4 billion in net interest. The Defendants' misconduct was extremely lucrative, but extremely detrimental to their clients -- in flagrant violation of their duties to their clients, says the Plaintiff. Plaintiff Nadolny is a citizen of Hawaii who maintained a retirement account that was managed on an advisory basis with the Defendants. Headquartered in San Francisco, CA, Wells Fargo & Company is a financial services company that provides banking, insurance, investments, mortgage, and consumer and commercial finance through more than 5,200 branches, 13,000 ATMs, and the Internet.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Deborah Rosenthal, Esq. SIMMONS HANLY CONROY LLP 455 Market St., Ste. 1270 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 536-3986 E-mail: drosenthal@simmonsfirm.com - and - Thomas I. Sheridan, III, Esq. Sona R. Shah, Esq. SIMMONS HANLY CONROY LLP 112 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 784-6404 Facsimile: (212) 213-5949 E-mail: tsheridan@simmonsfirm.com sshah@simmonsfirm.com - and - Matthew L. Dameron, Esq. Clinton J. Mann, Esq. WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON LLC 1100 Main Street, Suite 2600 Kansas City, MO 64105 Telephone: (816) 945-7110 Facsimile: (816) 945-7118 E-mail: matt@williamsdirks.com cmann@williamsdirks.com - and - Bruce D. Oakes, Esq. Richard B. Fosher, Esq. OAKES & FOSHER, LLC 1401 Brentwood Boulevard, Suite 250 Saint Louis, MO 63144 Telephone: (314) 804-1412 Facsimile: (314) 428-7604 E-mail: boakes@oakesfosher.com rfosher@oakesfosher.com WESTERN GLOBAL: Court Stays ESOP Class Suit to Finalize Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------------ Hilka Birns, writing for CH Aviation, reports that the US District Court of Delaware has agreed to stay a class action suit against Western Global Airlines (KD, Fort Myers Southwest Florida) indefinitely to allow pilots, the airline's shareholders, and an investment company to finalise a proposed settlement. The plaintiffs must file another motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement before September 13 or state why they have not done so by the deadline, according to the court filings seen by ch-aviation. Judge Richard G Andrews granted an unopposed motion to this effect on August 8 to the plaintiffs, David Burnett and David Nelson, as representatives of the class action on behalf of the Western Global employee stock ownership plan (ESOP) versus Prudent Fiduciary Services LLC, representatives of the Neff family including James K Neff and Carmit P Neff, Kelly S Neff Trust, Danielle J Neff Trust, Miguel Paredes, and the WGA Trust (Case No. 1 :22-cv-00270-RGA). The suit claimed that the carrier's fiduciaries and owners violated the US Employee Retirement Income Security Act by selling 37.5% of the airline's stock, or 370,000 shares, from the Neff family to the ESOP at an inflated price of USD510 million on October 22, 2020. This transaction allegedly harmed staff whose retirement funds are held in the plan. The class action resulted from the consolidation of two separate lawsuits filed in 2021 by pilots Burnett and Nelson. In March 2023, a judge rejected an arbitration bid from the defendants. WGA, which is still active, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in August 2023, with debts exceeding USD471 million. In October 2023, the Neff family asked the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Delaware to dismiss or reduce to zero claims from the class action suit. Western Global Airlines emerged from Chapter 11 on December 5, 2023, with support from creditors and less than USD100 million in debt. The restructuring, approved by the Delaware court, cut the airline's debt by about USD460 million and injected new capital, including USD11 million from DKB Partners, controlled by founder and CEO James Neff. [GN] WESTJET AIRLINES: Fox Seeks Compensation Over Cancelled Flight -------------------------------------------------------------- Derrick Penner, writing for Vancouver Sun, reports that a Burnaby woman who lost a day's work when WestJet cancelled her flight on June 19 in anticipation of strike that hadn't yet happened is the lead plaintiff in an attempted class-action lawsuit. The lawsuit seeks compensation for an estimated 10,000 passenger affected by WestJet's cancelling of 65 flights during the June labour dispute with the union representing mechanics. The case was filed in B.C. Supreme Court on Monday, August 12. WestJet rejected Alexandra Fox's claim for compensation after it cancelled her June 19 flight home from Calgary at the end of a six-day trip, declaring that it was "due to a strike or work stoppage and outside of WestJet's control," according to the lawsuit. Fox's lawyer, Simon Lin, argues WestJet made a business decision, which was within its control, to park planes and cancel 40 flights affecting 6,500 passengers well before the expiry of a 72-hour strike notice June 20 that was eventually rescinded by the mechanics' union. WestJet cancelled another 25 flights on June 27 and 28, again before a strike began, affecting another 3,300 passengers, which Lin also characterized as "a business decision (within) WestJet's control." The mechanics did strike late on June 28, but Lin is arguing that WestJet should be obligated to compensate all passengers affected before that date, under Canada's air passenger protection regulations. "In our view, there is a very clear common question here," Lin said. And that is, is it beyond the air carrier's control when there is not an actual work stoppage? For Fox, who was rebooked on a flight early the next day -- a delay of more than nine hours -- compensation should be $1,000, plus compensable expenses including a lost day's wages from work, Lin said Regulations under the air passenger protection act specify minimum compensation for flight delays within an airline's control at $400 for delays more than three hours, $700 when delays are longer than six hours and $1,000 over nine hours. Lin said the claim is also seeking compensation for other out-of-pocket expenses, such as hotel costs and cellphone roaming fees. The lawsuit does not apply to passengers stranded after strike started, which cancelled 235 flights over the busy Canada Day long weekend. A WestJet spokesperson said in by emailed that the airline had not yet been served with the lawsuit. It will have 21 days to respond. Madison Kruger said WestJet cancelled flights before strike notices expired to ensure a safe "takedown of our network." "This decision was essential to prevent guests and crew from being stranded and ensure a measured, phased and safe approach to parking of our fleet to avoid abandoning aircraft in remote locations," Kruger said. Lin, with the Burnaby firm Evolink Law Group, said that if the case is approved as a class action and heard in court, it will provide clarity to a compensation framework that is "complicated and difficult to understand." "One of the clarities would be, of course, is there compensation owed during a 72-hour notice period when there's no work stoppage," Lin said. WestJet, he added, "seems to suggest it is not compensable, but in our view that would deprive the passengers of minimum protection." [GN] YUSEN LOGISTICS: Bermudez Files Labor Suit in Cal. Super. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Yusen Logistics (Americas) Inc., et al. The case is captioned as Ivan Bermudez, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Yusen Logistics (Americas) Inc., et al., Case No. 24STCV18078 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 18, 2024). The suit is brought over Defendants' alleged employment law violation. The case is assigned to Hon. William F. Highberger. Yusen Logistics (Americas) Inc. is a global supply chain logistics company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W Olympic Blvd Ste 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3638 Telephone: (310) 432-0000 Facsimile: (310) 432-0001 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com ZOOMINFO TECHNOLOGIES: Settlement in Illinois Suit for Final OK --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 the publicity act violations class suit settlement is for the final approval of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Eastern Division). On April 15, 2021, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against ZoomInfo Technologies LLC in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Eastern Division) alleging ZoomInfo's use of Illinois residents' names in public-facing web pages violates the Illinois Right of Publicity Act, and seeking statutory, compensatory and punitive damages, costs, and attorneys' fees. Additionally, on September 30, 2021, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against ZoomInfo Technologies Inc. in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington alleging ZoomInfo's use of California residents' names in public-facing web pages violates California statutory and common law regarding the right of publicity as well as misappropriation, and seeking compensatory and punitive damages, restitution, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, costs, and attorneys' fees. In June 2024, the Illinois District Court preliminarily approved a settlement agreement between ZoomInfo and the plaintiffs in the Illinois class action that, if granted final approval, will resolve the Illinois class action, the California class action and similar, unfiled claims in the states of Indiana and Nevada (the "Class Actions"). Under the terms of settlement, ZoomInfo has agreed to pay approximately $29.5 million, equal to 3% of the statutory damages for each eligible class member in the affected states. The Company has 30 days after the preliminary approval to move the settlement amount into an escrow account. Upon final approval, the settlement would release all claims by any class member against ZoomInfo based on the alleged use of such class member's identity, persona, name, image, likeness, or personal information for any commercial purpose without consent, including any claims alleging a violation of any right of publicity law. The settlement is not an admission of fault or wrongdoing by ZoomInfo. However, it believes that a resolution of these claims at this time is in the best interest of the Company given the costs and risks inherent in litigation. During the six months ended June 30, 2024, the Company incurred charges $30.2 million, which includes both the estimated settlement amount and other legal costs, of which $0.7 million of legal costs has been paid. The remaining accrual of $29.5 million as of June 30, 2024 is included in Accrued expenses and other current liabilities on our Consolidated Balance Sheets. ZoomInfo owns and operates a website that sells paid access to "the world's leading business database."[BN] ZUFFA LLC: Court Directs Reza Parties to File Joint Status Report ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled Moises Reza, et al., Plaintiffs v. Zuffa, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-00802-CDS-EJY (D. Nev.), Judge Cristina D. Silva of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada instructs the Parties to file a joint status report. In their second joint status report addressing settlement, the Parties seek an additional 60 days to file a third joint status report. The Parties cite needing more time to file a formal settlement agreement, postcard notice, opt-out and related papers in this putative class action. Where no class has been certified and dismissal would not affect putative class members' claims, Rule 23(e) does not mandate either court approval of the Parties' settlement or notice to putative class members, Judge Silva notes, citing Gaefcke v. Flatiron West, Inc., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5390, *3 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2024) (citing Titus v. BlueChip Financial, 786 F. App'x. 694, 695 (9th Cir. 2019)). In such a case, Judge Silva opines, the settlement of this putative class would be governed by Rule 41 and a voluntary dismissal or joint stipulation of dismissal would be sufficient. Because the Court is unsure whether the Parties intend to dismiss the putative class members' claims with or without prejudice, the Parties are instructed to file a joint status report. The Court will decide at that point whether to grant the request for an additional 60 days. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated July 31, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/49wjxpvv from PacerMonitor.com. ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2024. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***