/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240830.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, August 30, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 175
Headlines
5310 HOLDINGS: In Chapter 11 Bankruptcy in California
AIRBOSS OF AMERICA: Court Approves Securities Suit Settlement
ALPHABET INC: Dream Big Media Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir.
AMARIN PHARMA: Loses Bid to Strike Class Claims in Vascepa Suit
AMC ENTERTAINMENT: DE State Court Affirms Approval of Settlement
AMERICAN CUSTOM: Marquardt Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
AMYLYX PHARMACEUTICALS: Shih Suit Transferred to D. Mass.
ANTHONY WILLIS: McCould Seeks to Certify Class Action
ANTHROPIC PBC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Copyright Infringement
ANTHROPIC PBC: Faces New Class Action Lawsuit From Authors
ANTOJITOS & NATURAL JUICE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Wages
ANZ BANK: Appeals Court Includes 100,000 Customers in Class Suit
APPLE INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Lopez Extended to Nov. 22
ARCH RESOURCES: M&A Probes Proposed Merger With Consol Energy
ARDELYX INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set October 15
ASR GROUP: Conspires to Fix Granulated Sugar Prices, Reilly Says
ATI INC: Faces Souza Suit Over Plan's Removal From ERISA Protection
ATKORE INC: Artificially Inflates PVC Pipes' Prices, Bavolak Says
BAKER'S BREAKFAST: Products' Protein Claims "Deceptive," Brown Says
BINANCE: Faces Class Action Over Money Laundering Allegations
BINANCE: NBA Star and YouTuber Settle Crypto Class Action Lawsuit
BINDOR KILLIAN: Pardo Sues Over Disabled's Equal Access to Property
BLUE TRITON: Court Dismisses Suit Over FDCA Express Preemption
BOPPY COMPANY: Hudson Appeals Suit Dismissal to 10th Circuit
BUCKNELL UNIVERSITY: To Settle Remote Instruction Suit for $1.15MM
CAMELOT SI: Lester Files TCPA Suit in D. Massachusetts
CAPSTONE LOGISTICS: Hood's Motion for Equitable Tolling Granted
CASSAVA SCIENCES: Continues to Defend Fed. Securities Class Suit
CDK GLOBAL: Settles Anti-Trust Class Action Suit For $100MM
CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Metro Tulsa Hits Unsecured Data Systems
CHICKEN SOUP: Golden Files Suit in Bankr. D. Delaware
CHUY'S HOLDINGS: M&A Probes Proposed Merger With Darden Restaurants
CLEVELAND, OH: Appeal Planned in Tax Refund Class Action Lawsuit
CLEVELAND, OH: Buckeye Institute Files Notice of Appeal in Tax Suit
COLUMBUS, OH: First Responders Sue Over Data Breach
COMERICA BANK: Hernandez Class Suit Removed to S.D. Calif.
CREDIT ONE BANK: Buren Sues Over Unlawful Debt Communication
CROWDSTRIKE HOLDINGS: Travelers Sue Over Cancelled Flights
DAA DRAEXLMAIER: Rojas Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
DEXCOM INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Misleading Statements
DEXCOM INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Securities Fraud
DIST. OF COLUMBIA: Dismissal of Given's Fair Hearing Claims Upheld
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: BR Has Leave to File 3rd Amended Complaint
EDUCATIONAL COMPUTER: $1.2M in Attys.' Fees Awarded in Nguyen Suit
FLEUR DU MAL: Bunting Sues Over Online Store's Access Barriers
FREEDOM FOREVER: Shelton Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
FREERATEUPDATE.COM CORP: Robertson Hits Illegal Telemarketing Calls
GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Savings Plan Participants Get Class Status
GOOGLE INC: Appeals Court Revives Chrome Privacy Class Action
GRAMERCY SURGERY: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Horvath Says
HAGGAR CLOTHING: Battle Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website
HAH GROUP: Faces Loffler Suit Over Patients' Compromised Info
HEALTH CENTER: Court Denies Bids to Dismiss Jackson Class Suit
IDAHO: District Court Dismisses Ullrich's Claims Without Prejudice
INTERNATIONAL BANK: Faces Parrott ERISA Class Suit in Tex.
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD: Leavitt Sues Over Failure to Secure Info
ISUZU MOTORS: Piper Alderman With Woodsford in Emission Suit
JACK IN THE BOX: Court Refuses to Reconsider Order in Gessele Suit
JERSEY CITY, NJ: Settlement in O'Garro Suit Gets Initial Nod
JETSTAR AIRWAYS: Suit Seeks Refunds Over COVID Cancelled Flights
JPMORGAN CHASE: Sweeps Customers' Cash Balances, Bodea Suit Claims
L3HARRIS TECHNOLOGIES: Fawcett Loses Motion for Reconsideration
LAS VEGAS BASKETBALL: Chapman May File Amended Complaint
LEXISNEXIS RISK: Filing of Class Supplemental Authority Sought
LHNH LAVISTA: Oct. 15 Deadline to File Class Cert Bid Sought
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Filing of Class Cert. Bid Due July 29, 2025
LOWE'S HOME: Bid to Compel Arbitration in Lovinfosse Suit Denied
LUCID GROUP: Court Grants in Part Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit
M & C LATIN: Faces Perez Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
MARTEN TRANSPORT: Parties Seek to Continue CMC by 45 Days
MATCH GROUP INC: Continues to Defend Bardaji Securities Class Suit
MDL 2873: Crump Alleges Injury Due to Toxic Chemical Exposure
MDL 2873: Grandon Suit Alleges Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
MDL 2873: Howell Suit Alleges Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
MDL 2873: Kasky Alleges Injury Due to Toxic Chemicals' Exposure
MEDICAL COLLEGE: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Smith Claims
META PLATFORMS: Parties Seek to Seal Class Cert Docs
META PLATFORMS: Parties Seek to Seal Portions of Class Cert Bid
MICHAEL BETLEY: Court Denies McCarrell's Bid to Substitute Schultz
MINERAL FUSION: Simpson Alleges Mislabeled Personal Care Products
MMS GROUP: Seeks to Oppose Torres Class Cert Bid by Oct. 7
MNGI DIGESTIVE: Miller Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII and PHI
MONASH IVF: Settles Embryo Class Action Suit for $56-Mil.
MONOPOLY TEXTILE: Reyes Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
MONTE NIDO: Rosenberg Sues Over Patients' Compromised Info
MUD PIE: Visually Impaired Can't Access Website, Competello Claims
MULTIPLAN INC: Alter Management Sues Over Unlawful Cartel
NASSAU COUNTY, NY: Suit Seeks to Rescind the Mask Transparency Act
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Bid to Certify Class in Salom Suit Stayed
NAVARRO'S TOWING: Alvarez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
NETWORK CAPITAL: Robertson Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
NEW YORK, NY: Agrees to Settle Religious Head Covering for $17.5MM
NEW YORK, NY: Filing of Renewed Class Cert Bids Due Oct. 11
NEWELL BRANDS: Discriminates Against Blind Users, Fernandez Claims
NORDSTROM INC: Faces McWashington ERISA Class Action
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Judge Denies Extension of Settlement Deadline
NORTH SHORE: Fails to Properly Pay Auto Mechanics, Quizhpi Claims
NORWOOD FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend MoveIt Customer Class Suit
NRG ENERGY: Zoom Energy Continues to Defend Mirkin Class Suit
NVIDIA CORP: Scraps YouTube Videos for AI, Millette Suit Says
NVIDIA CORP: Wiley Files Amicus Brief in Securities Class Action
OE FEDERAL CREDIT: Class Cert. Bid in Jimenez Due July 16, 2025
OKLAHOMA PETROLEUM: Dinsmore Suit Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
OPM OF FINDLAY: Miles Sues Over Disabled's Equal Access to Store
ORIGIN BJJ: Visually Impaired Can't Access Website, Fernandez Says
ORTHOFIX MEDICAL: Bernal Sues Over Misleading Financial Statements
OUTDOOR PRODUCT: Karim Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website
OXFORD GOLD: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Retirement Funds
PALOMAR HEALTH: Holland & Knight Wins Dismissal of Meta Pixel Suit
PAPA JOHN'S: Amended Class Cert Bid Mooted w/o Prejudice
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Agrees to Settle Conspiracy Class Suit for $100MM
PLANTRONICS INC: Class Cert Bid Terminated as Moot
PNC BANK: Hutchinson Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
PRIME HEALTHCARE: Court Tosses ECPA Class Action
PROGRESSIVE ADVANCED: Class Settlement in Buffington Gets Final Nod
PROGRESSIVE ADVANCED: Class Settlement in Buffington Gets Final Nod
PUKALL LUMBER: More Time to File Class Cert Bid in Auestad Sought
QG PRINTING: Class Cert Filing in Pulido-Peredo Due June 27, 2025
RAJBHOG FOODS: Faces Liz Suit Over Online Store's Access Barriers
REDWIRE CORP: Thompson Bid for Leave to Submit Sur-Reply OK'd
ROADGET BUSINESS: Scheduling Order Entered in Menzel Class Suit
ROBLOX CORP: Court Denies Bid to Compel Arbitration in Noel Suit
ROBLOX CORP: Parties Seek to Adjourn Private Mediation Deadline
ROBLOX CORP: Seeks Dismissal of Consolidated Securities Suit
RXO LAST: Court Denies Bids for Summary Judgment in Gonzalez Suit
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Bid to Toss 3rd Amended McCoy Suit Partly OK'd
SANMINA CORP: Faces Lobatos Class Suits in California Court
SCOUT ENERGY: Copper-Clark Seeks to Continue Class Status Hearing
SDS RESTAURANT: Parking Spaces Inaccessible, Jenkins Suit Says
SEA LIMITED: Arizona Court Narrows Claims in Laborers Pension Suit
SHOUT! FACTORY: Archer Sues Over Unlawful Selling of Information
SIEMENS CORP: Faces Cain Suit Over Savings Plan's Losses
SOUTHERN INDUSTRIAL: Arreola Seeks to Certify Employees Class
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Dismissal of Bevacqua Class Action Affirmed
SPI LIGHTING: Extension of Conditional Status Deadline Sought
SPIRE GLOBAL: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit
SPRINKLR INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set October 15
SPROUT SOCIAL: Faces Fraud Charges in Illinois Court
SPROUT SOCIAL: Faces Munch Suit in Illinois Court
STRATEGIC DELIVERY: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Four Classes
SYMBOTIC INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set October 15
SYSTEMS EAST: Settlement in Boudreaux Suit Gets Initial Nod
TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR: Howington Sues Over Employment Discrimination
TAYLOR CORP: $485K Settlement in Fritton Suit Has Final Approval
TESLA INC: Nachman Loses Bid to Amend Class Action Complaint
TOSHIBA AMERICA: Fails to Protect Personal Info, McDaniel Says
TRAVEL INSURED: Edleson Appeals Summary Judgment to 9th Circuit
TRICIDA INC: Pardi Seeks to Seal Non-Party's Material
TTEC SERVICES: Seeks to Stay Conditional Certification Briefing
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Aquino's Conditional Certification Bid Denied
UNION PACIFIC: Directed to Produce Various Documents
UNITED SERVICES: Tomczak Must File Class Cert Bid by Nov. 7
UNITED STATES: 9th Cir. Rejects Suit Over Radioactive Navy Site
UNITED STATES: Court Tosses 1st Amended Complaint in Perez v. AG
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Bid to Seal Certain Exhibits in Lokken Granted
UNIVERSITY OF THE ARTS: Morehouse Balks at Closure Without Notice
UPMC WESTERN: Frenzel Labor Suit Seeks Conditional Certification
VAN BUREN COUNTY, MI: Final Approval of Beightol Suit Deal Appealed
VENEZUELA: Mazzaccone Alleges Breach of Contractual Obligations
VIAQUEST RESIDENTIAL: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due March 17, 2025
VISA INC: DFS Bid to Compel Arbitration in B & R Suit Tossed
VOLKSWAGEN AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT: Settlement in Opheim Gets Final Nod
WARNER MUSIC: Bid to Maintain Exhibits Under Seal Held in Abeyance
WEATHER GROUP: Discloses Personal Info to 3rd Parties, Brady Says
WEBTPA EMPLOYER: Harrell Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid
WELL-PATH MANAGEMENT: Gonzalez Appeals Summary Judgment to 9th Cir.
WELLS FARGO: Prado Sues Over Mortgage Loan Modifications
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l. Defends 3,623 Claims as of June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allstate Corp. Reports $782MM Total Net Reserves
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AMETEK Defends Asbestos-Related Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Inc. Has $427MM Litigation Reserves
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BNS Sub Has 51 Toxic-Tort Claims as of June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CECO Environmental Incurs $225K Litigation Expense
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CenterPoint Energy Still Faces Exposure Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chemours Has 800 Pending Exposure Suits at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus McKinnon Estimates $4.9MM Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Constellation Energy Estimates $129MM Liabilities
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Curtiss-Wright Still Faces Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Domtar Corp. Faces Personal Injury Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Carolinas Has $410MM Asbestos Reserves
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enviri Corp. Has 17,000 Pending PI Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Group Has $196MM Loss Reserves at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: FirstEnergy Defends Asbestos Exposure Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Tire Faces 450 New Personal Injury Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graham Corp. Defends Personal Injury Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Int'l. Has $1.44BB Asbestos Liabilities
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Huntington Ingalls Still Faces Exposure Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Johnson Controls Has $83MM Liabilities at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Electric Co-Defends 1,349 Asbestos Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitex Int'l. Faces Product Liability Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Merck & Co. Faces 290 Product Liability Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Met-Pro Has 333 Cases Pending as of June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MetLife Defends 1,556 New Exposure Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Metropolitan Life Receives 1,556 New PI Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MRC Global Faces 1,052 PI Claims as of June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Otis Worldwide Faces Personal Injury Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Paramount Global Has 19,100 Pending PI Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Defends 119 Personal Injury Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Perrigo Co. Faces 110 Product Liability Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer Inc. Defends Product Liability Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Industries Faces Product Liability Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell Automation Faces Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sempra Defends Personal Injury Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Reports 1,500 Outstanding Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Defends 337 Product Liability Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trimas Corp. Has 474 Pending Exposure Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Steel Defends 945 Active Cases as of June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: WAG Faces Product Liability Lawsuits
*********
5310 HOLDINGS: In Chapter 11 Bankruptcy in California
-----------------------------------------------------
5310 Holdings LLC filed Chapter 11 protection in the Central
District of California. According to court documents, the Debtor
reports between $10 million and $50 million in debt owed to 1 and
49 creditors. The petition states funds will be available to
unsecured creditors.
A meeting of creditors under 11 U.S.C. Section 341(a) is slated for
September 17, 2024 at 10:00 a.m. in Room Telephonically on
telephone conference line: 1-866-902-1354. participant access code:
7380000.
About 5310 Holdings LLC
5310 Holdings LLC sought relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S.
Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. C.D. Cal. Case No. 24-11325) on August 9,
2024. In the petition filed by Klee Irwin, as president, the
Debtor reports estimated assets and liabilities between $10 million
and $50 million each.
The Honorable Bankruptcy Judge Victoria S. Kaufman handles the
case.
The Debtor is represented by:
Joseph Axelrod, Esq.
GENERAL COUNSEL, IRWIN NATURALS
(not attorney of record)
300 Corporate Pointe Suite 550
Culver City CA 90230
Tel: (310) 306-3636 ext. 3822
Email: joseph@irwinnaturals.com
AIRBOSS OF AMERICA: Court Approves Securities Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo!Finance reports that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
has approved a settlement between AirBoss of America Corp. and the
plaintiff in a class action.
The class action was commenced on behalf of all persons who
acquired AirBoss of America Corp. securities between November 10,
2021 and September 6, 2022. The proposed settlement is for CAD
$9.25 million.
YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPTIONS FOR THIS SETTLEMENT
Make a Claim for Compensation: Fill out a Claim Form, apply for
compensation. The Claim Form is available here:
www.airbosssettlement.com. You must submit your Claim Form before
December 20, 2024.
Do Nothing: Give up your right to apply for compensation.
These rights and options, and the deadlines to exercise them, and
more information about the settlement are explained in a notice
available at www.airbosssettlement.com.
More details are in the Settlement Agreement. You can get a copy of
the Settlement Agreement at www.airbosssettlement.com. You can send
your questions to airbosssettlement@ricepoint.com.
The lawyers for the plaintiff in the class action are SMK Law P.C.
[GN]
ALPHABET INC: Dream Big Media Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
DREAM BIG MEDIA INC., et al. are taking an appeal from a court
order dismissing the lawsuit entitled Dream Big Media Inc., et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Alphabet Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No.
3:22-cv-02314-RS, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.
The Plaintiffs bring this class action suit against the Defendant
for alleged unlawful tying, bundling, exclusive dealing, and
monopoly leveraging in violation of the Sherman Act, the Clayton
Act, and California's Unfair Competition Law.
On Nov. 30, 2023, the Court granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the Plaintiffs' amended complaint through an Order entered
by Judge Richard Seeborg, with leave to amend.
On Jan. 2, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint,
which the Defendants moved to dismiss on Feb. 9, 2024.
On July 15, 2024, the Court granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss. The second amended complaint was dismissed without leave
to amend. The Court found that the Plaintiffs have failed to
provide sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory
under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The appellate case is captioned Dream Big Media Inc., et al. v.
Alphabet Inc., et al., Case No. 24-4968, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on August 14, 2024.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellants' Mediation Questionnaire was due on August 19,
2024;
-- Appellants' Appeal Transcript Order was due on August 26,
2024;
-- Appellants' Appeal Transcript is due on September 25, 2024;
-- Appellants' Appeal Opening Brief is due on November 4, 2024;
and
-- Appellee's Appeal Answering Brief Due is due December 4,
2024. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants DREAM BIG MEDIA INC., et al., individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented
by:
Matthew William Schmidt, Esq.
SCHMIDT LAW CORPORATION
116A Main Street
Tiburon, CA 94920
AMARIN PHARMA: Loses Bid to Strike Class Claims in Vascepa Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Robert Kirsch of the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey denies the Defendants' motion to strike class
allegations in the lawsuit captioned IN RE: VASCEPA ANTITRUST
LITIGATION DIRECT PURCHASER PLAINTIFFS, Case No.
3:21-cv-12747-RK-TJB (D.N.J.).
Defendants Amarin Pharma, Inc., Amarin Pharmaceuticals Ireland
Limited, and Amarin Corporation plc's Motion to Strike Class
Allegations in the Amended Class Action Complaint (the "FAC").
Plaintiff KPH Healthcare Services, Inc. (also known as Kinney
Drugs, Inc.) ("KPH")--on behalf of itself and a putative class of
Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs--opposes this Motion.
The FAC--filed by Plaintiff KPH on Sept. 7, 2021--arises from the
Defendants' alleged illegal scheme to delay competition in the
United States and its territories for Vascepa, a prescription
medication approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The
Defendants allegedly did so by hoarding the world's supply of the
active pharmaceutical ingredient needed to make the drug.
The FAC asserts two counts against the Defendants: (1) a claim for
violation of Section One of the Sherman Act for a contract,
combination, and conspiracy in restraint of trade, and (2) a claim
for violation of Section Two of the Sherman Act for monopolization.
The present motion surrounds disputes respecting the class
definition within the FAC. As defined in the FAC, the class is:
All persons or entities in the United States and its
territories who purchased Vascepa directly from any of the
Defendants at any time during the period from Aug. 7, 2020,
through and until the anticompetitive effects of the
Defendants' challenged conduct cease (the "Class Period").
The Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss in December 2021. The
Motion to Dismiss was denied on Feb. 28, 2023. The Defendants
Answered the FAC on March 31, 2023. The Defendants filed the Motion
before the Court on Nov. 8, 2023. The Plaintiff filed its
Opposition on Nov. 20, 2023. The Defendants filed their Reply on
Nov. 27, 2023.
Since then, the Plaintiff and the Defendants conferenced with
Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni and set a Discovery
Schedule. Judge Bongiovanni entered a Scheduling Order setting
forth various deadlines on April 12, 2024 (the "April 2024
Scheduling Order"). The April 2024 Scheduling Order set forth that
all fact discovery will be completed no later than Nov. 1, 2024.
Additionally, the April 2024 Scheduling Order noted that the Court
would not set the remainder of the schedule given that the present
Motion to Strike was pending before the Court. Judge Bongiovanni
noted that the remaining schedule, therefore, would be determined
on a later date.
In their Motion, the Defendants argue that the class defined in the
FAC is insufficiently numerous as required under Rule 23(a)(1); the
Defendants argue that this purported numerosity deficiency will not
be altered by additional discovery. Additionally, the Defendants
argue that the supposed numerosity deficiency cannot be altered by
amendments to the FAC given that the prospective plaintiffs that
the Plaintiff wishes to add to its class definition do not have
antitrust standing.
For its part, the Plaintiff argues that it satisfies Rule 23(a)'s
numerosity requirement. The Plaintiff also argues that the
Defendants' Motion is untimely since it was filed after the
Defendants Answered the FAC; alternately, the Plaintiff argues that
the Defendants' Motion is premature. The Plaintiff also argues that
the purchasers of generic Vascepa have antitrust standing.
The Court denies this Motion on the grounds that it is premature.
First, Judge Kirsch opines, the Defendants' arguments as to the
merits of the class yet to be certified are best addressed at the
class certification stage. Second, and relatedly, this motion is
premature since class discovery briefing in this case has not yet
started. Given that this Motion is premature, the Court need not
address the parties' remaining arguments.
For these reasons, the Court denies the Defendants' Motion to
Strike.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated Aug. 8, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/crzcvt3u from PacerMonitor.com.
AMC ENTERTAINMENT: DE State Court Affirms Approval of Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 2, 2024, that on May 22, 2024, the
Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the court's decision approving the
settlement of a shareholder litigation pending in said court.
The Allegheny action asserts a claim for breach of fiduciary duty
against certain of the company's directors and a claim for breach
of 8 Del. C. Section 242 against those directors and the company,
arising out of the company's creation of the AMC Preferred Equity
Units, the transactions between the Company and Antara Capital LP,
and the Charter Amendment proposals.
On April 27, 2023, the parties in a putative stockholder class
action filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery on February 20,
2023, captioned "Allegheny County Employees' Retirement System v.
AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc., et al.," C.A No. 2023-0215-MTZ
(Del. Ch.) and which have been subsequently consolidated into "In
re AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc. Stockholder Litigation" C.A.
No. 2023-0215-MTZ (Del. Ch.), jointly filed a Stipulation and
Agreement of Compromise, Settlement, and Release with the court,
which fully memorialized a settlement that the parties agreed to in
the term sheet.
On July 21, 2023, the court issued an opinion which, citing issues
with the scope of the release sought under the proposed settlement,
declined to approve the settlement as presented. On July 22, 2023,
the parties filed an addendum to the Settlement Stipulation in an
effort to address the issues with the scope of the release raised
by the court and requested that the court approve the settlement
with the revised release set forth in the addendum. On August 11,
2023, the court approved the settlement of the Shareholder
Litigation and lifted the Status Quo Order.
On August 14, 2023, the company filed the amendment to its Third
Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation, effective as of
August 24, 2023, which was previously approved by the company's
stockholders at the special meeting held on March 14, 2023 to
implement the Charter Amendments. The Reverse Stock Split occurred
on August 24, 2023, the conversion of AMC Preferred Equity Units
into Common Stock occurred on August 25, 2023, and the Settlement
Payment was made on August 28, 2023. On September 15, 2023, the
court entered an order dismissing the Shareholder Litigation in its
entirety and with prejudice. On October 13, 2023, a purported
company stockholder who objected to the settlement of the
Shareholder Litigation filed a notice of appeal of the court's
decision approving the settlement.
AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc., through its direct and indirect
subsidiaries, including American Multi-Cinema, Inc. and its
subsidiaries, is principally involved in the theatrical exhibition
business and owns, operates or has interests in theatres located in
the United States and Europe.
AMERICAN CUSTOM: Marquardt Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
TERESE MARQUARDT, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN CUSTOM METAL FABRICATING, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 24-cv-1031 (E.D. Wis., August 14, 2024) is a
collective and class action brought pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws
and Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 against the Defendant for Plaintiff's unpaid
overtime compensation, unpaid agreed upon wages, liquidated
damages, costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory and/or injunctive
relief, and/or any such other relief the Court may deem
appropriate.
According to the complaint, the Defendant operated an unlawful
compensation system that deprived and failed to compensate
Plaintiff and all other current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt
employees for all hours worked and work performed each workweek,
including at an overtime rate of pay for each hour worked in excess
of 40 hours in a workweek, by shaving time (via electronic
timeclock rounding) from Plaintiff's and all other hourly-paid,
non-exempt employees' weekly timesheets for pre-shift and
post-shift hours worked and/or work performed, to the detriment of
said employees and to the benefit of Defendant.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid,
non-exempt employee in the position of Custodian/Maintenance
working at its Green Bay, Wisconsin location from September 2020
until the end of her employment on August 7, 2024.
American Custom Metal Fabricating, Inc. is a custom metal
fabricating company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James A. Walcheske, Esq.
Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
David M. Potteiger, Esq.
WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240
Brookfield, WI 53005
Telephone: (262) 780-1953
Facsimile: (262) 565-6469
E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com
AMYLYX PHARMACEUTICALS: Shih Suit Transferred to D. Mass.
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled OLIVER SHIH, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMYLYX PHARMACEUTICALS,
INC., JOSHUA B. COHEN, JUSTIN B. KLEE, JAMES M. FRATES, and
MARGARET OLINGER, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00988, was
transferred from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York to the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts on August 12, 2024.
The Clerk of Court for the District of Massachusetts assigned Case
No. 1:24-cv-12068-NMG to the proceeding.
The suit is a federal securities class action on behalf of the
Plaintiff and a class consisting of all persons and entities other
than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Amylyx
securities between November 11, 2022 and November 8, 2023, both
dates inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top
officials.
Amylyx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a commercial-stage biotechnology
company that engages in the discovery and development of treatments
for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, also known as Lou Gehrig's
disease, and other neurodegenerative diseases.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Caroline H. Bullerjahn, Esq.
Morgan R. Mordecai, Esq.
GOODWIN PROCTER, LLP
100 Northern Avenue
Boston, MA 02210
Telephone: (617) 570-1359
E-mail: cbullerjahn@goodwinlaw.com
mmordecai@goodwinprocter.com
ANTHONY WILLIS: McCould Seeks to Certify Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Peter McCloud, et al., v.
Anthony Willis, et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-01802-NJR (S.D. Ill.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying case as class
action.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 16, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ip10lF at no extra
charge.
The Plaintiff appears pro se.[CC]
ANTHROPIC PBC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Copyright Infringement
------------------------------------------------------------------
Hayden Field of CNBC reports that Anthropic, the Amazon-backed
artificial intelligence startup, on Monday, August 19, was hit with
a class-action lawsuit in California federal court over alleged
copyright infringement. Three authors said in the filing that
Anthropic "built a multibillion-dollar business by stealing
hundreds of thousands of copyrighted books," including their own.
Anthropic, which was founded by ex-OpenAI research executives, has
backers including Google
and Salesforce.
Authors Andrea Bartz, Charles Graeber and Kirk Wallace Johnson
alleged in the lawsuit that "an essential component of Anthropic's
business model -- and its flagship 'Claude' family of large
language models (or 'LLMs') -- is the largescale theft of
copyrighted works," later alleging that "Anthropic downloaded known
pirated versions of Plaintiffs' works, made copies of them, and fed
these pirated copies into its models."
The lawsuit follows Anthropic's June debut of its most powerful AI
model yet, Claude 3.5 Sonnet. Claude is one of the chatbots that,
like OpenAI's ChatGPT and Google's Gemini, has exploded in
popularity in the past year.
"Copyright law prohibits what Anthropic has done here: downloading
and copying hundreds of thousands of copyrighted books taken from
pirated and illegal websites," the lawsuit states.
Anthropic did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
This week's case also follows another lawsuit brought against
Anthropic last October, in which Universal Music sued the startup
over "systematic and widespread infringement of their copyrighted
song lyrics," per a filing in a Tennessee federal court. Other
music publishers, such as Concord and ABKCO, were also named as
plaintiffs.
One example from Universal Music's lawsuit: When a user asked
Anthropic's AI chatbot Claude about the lyrics to the song "Roar"
by Katy Perry, it generated an "almost identical copy of those
lyrics," violating the rights of Concord, the copyright owner, per
the filing. The lawsuit also named Gloria Gaynor's "I Will Survive"
as an example of Anthropic's alleged copyright infringement, as
Universal owns the rights to its lyrics.
"In the process of building and operating AI models, Anthropic
unlawfully copies and disseminates vast amounts of copyrighted
works," the lawsuit stated, later adding, "Just like the developers
of other technologies that have come before, from the printing
press to the copy machine to the web-crawler, AI companies must
follow the law."
With the news industry broadly struggling to maintain sufficient
advertising and subscription revenue to pay for its costly
newsgathering operations, many news publications and media outlets
are aggressively trying to protect their businesses as AI-generated
content becomes more prevalent.
The Center for Investigative Reporting, the country's oldest
nonprofit newsroom, sued OpenAI and lead backer Microsoft in
federal court in June for alleged copyright infringement, following
similar suits from publications including The New York Times, The
Chicago Tribune and The New York Daily News.
In December, The New York Times filed a suit against Microsoft and
OpenAI, alleging intellectual property violations related to its
journalistic content appearing in ChatGPT training data. The Times
said it seeks to hold Microsoft and OpenAI accountable for
"billions of dollars in statutory and actual damages" related to
the "unlawful copying and use of the Times's uniquely valuable
works," according to a filing in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York. OpenAI disagreed with the Times'
characterization of events.
The Chicago Tribune, along with seven other newspapers, followed
with a suit in April.
Outside of news, a group of prominent U.S. authors, including
Jonathan Franzen, John Grisham, George R.R. Martin and Jodi
Picoult, sued OpenAI last year, alleging copyright infringement in
using their work to train ChatGPT.
But not all news organizations are gearing up for a fight, and some
are instead joining forces with AI startups.
On August 20, OpenAI announced a partnership with Condé Nast, in
which ChatGPT and SearchGPT will display content from Vogue, The
New Yorker, Conde Nast Traveler, GQ, Architectural Digest, Vanity
Fair, Wired, Bon Appétit and other outlets.
In July, Perplexity AI debuted a revenue-sharing model for
publishers following more than a month of plagiarism accusations.
Media outlets and content platforms including Fortune, Time,
Entrepreneur, The Texas Tribune, Der Spiegel and WordPress.com were
the first to join the company's "Publishers Program."
OpenAI and Time magazine announced a "multi-year content deal" in
June that will allow OpenAI to access current and archived articles
from more than 100 years of Time's history. OpenAI will be able to
display Time's content within its ChatGPT chatbot in response to
user questions, according to a press release, and to use Time's
content "to enhance its products," or, likely, to train its AI
models.
OpenAI announced a similar partnership in May with News Corp.,
allowing OpenAI to access current and archived articles from The
Wall Street Journal, MarketWatch, Barron's, the New York Post and
other publications. Reddit also announced in May that it will
partner with OpenAI, allowing the company to train its AI models on
Reddit content. [GN]
ANTHROPIC PBC: Faces New Class Action Lawsuit From Authors
----------------------------------------------------------
Stuart Dredge, writing for MusicAlly, reports that AI company
Anthropic is still battling a lyrics-focused lawsuit from music
publishers, but now it has a separate legal fight on its hands.
Authors Andrea Bartz, Charles Graeber and Kirk Wallace Johnson are
suing the company in a class-action lawsuit in California. As with
the music publishers, their focus is on the training of Anthropic's
Claude chatbot.
"Anthropic has built a multibillion-dollar business by stealing
hundreds of thousands of copyrighted books. Rather than obtaining
permission and paying a fair price for the creations it exploits,
Anthropic pirated them," claims the lawsuit.
"Anthropic downloaded known pirated versions of Plaintiffs' works,
made copies of them, and fed these pirated copies into its models .
. . Anthropic has not even attempted to compensate Plaintiffs for
the use of their material. In fact, Anthropic has taken multiple
steps to hide the full extent of its copyright theft."
The lawsuit goes into more details. Anthropic has yet to comment,
although it is making a 'fair use' defence in the music publishing
lawsuit, so seems likely to use similar arguments if the authors'
case gets to court. [GN]
ANTOJITOS & NATURAL JUICE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Bella Yris Soto Guerrero, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. ANTOJITOS & NATURAL JUICE BAR II LLC,
ANTOJITOS JUICE BAR CORP., and VIVIANA SURIEL, individually, Case
No. 1:24-cv-05774 (S.D.N.Y., July 30, 2024), is brought pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the New York Labor Law
("NYLL") due to failure to pay proper wages.
As part of their regular business practice, the Defendants
intentionally, willfully, and repeatedly engaged in a pattern,
practice, and/or policy of violating the FLSA with respect to the
Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective. This policy and pattern or
practice includes, but is not limited to: willfully failing to pay
its employees, including Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective, the
appropriate premium overtime wages for all hours worked in excess
of 40 hours in a workweek; and, willfully failing to record all the
time that its employees, including Plaintiff and the FLSA
Collective, have worked for the benefit of the Defendants, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff was ostensibly employed as a counter worker, food
preparer, and cashier.
The Defendants own and operate Antojito's Juice Bar.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Oscar Alvarado, Esq.
SACCO & FILLAS LLP
3119 Newtown Ave, Seventh Floor
Astoria, NY 11102
Phone: 718-269-2207
Fax: 718-559-6517
Email: OAlvarado@SaccoFillas.com
ANZ BANK: Appeals Court Includes 100,000 Customers in Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The New Zealand Herald reports that the Court of Appeal has ruled
up to 100,000 customers of two of the country's largest banks can
be part of a class action.
The customers of ANZ and ASB banks will make up one of the largest
class action lawsuits in New Zealand history.
The multimillion-dollar claim was filed in the Auckland High Court
in 2021 against ANZ and ASB for failures to refund interest and
fees to 150,000 customers.
The Court of Appeal's judgment found the approach where affected
customers had to opt to join the class action placed unnecessary
hurdles in the way of customers and what they were entitled to.
The lawyer leading the class action, Scott Russell, said it was a
major win which could see thousands of homeowners paid back excess
charges over nine years.
The ruling means every affected customer will be part of the class
action unless they opt out.
"It not only removes a significant barrier for consumers who might
have been unaware they had a right to participate, it means if we
are successful, ANZ and ASB will be held liable for every eligible
customer that was allegedly impacted when the banks breached New
Zealand consumer protection laws, not just those who elected to
participate in the class action," Russell said.
"It's notable that ANZ and ASB didn't tell their customers their
consumer protection rights had been breached, or that they were
entitled to have the interest and fees they'd paid refunded.
Instead, the banks quietly did a deal with the Commerce Commission
and hoped over 100,000 customers wouldn't figure it out."
He urged customers to contact their bank and ask for copies of
their loan documents and communications.
The relevant periods are:
-- ASB Bank customers: June 6, 2015-June 18, 2019
-- ANZ Bank customers: June 6, 2015-May 28, 2016 (for loans
entered into post June 6, 2015)
While ASB declined to comment, ANZ said it had already put
customers back into a position where they would have been had the
issue not occurred and was defending the case.
In a statement, ANZ said the High Court ruled in 2022 that class
action would be opt-out, meaning customers would automatically be
included, which ANZ had not challenged.
"The recent Court of Appeal hearing rejected the plaintiffs' claim
for a wider ANZ class and confirmed the High Court decision that
the banking class action currently before the courts only includes
ANZ customers who entered into a loan from 6 June 2015 and also
received a loan variation letter that was affected by the
calculator issue (ie. received a letter containing incorrect
information between 6 June 2015 and 28 May 2016).
"We have relevant records for customers who might be part of the
class, which we will retain. There is no need to contact the bank
at this stage. The court will consider as part of the proceedings
how and when to notify customers who are part of the class and who
may have a claim."
ANZ said whether the plaintiffs had a claim was still to be
determined.
The bank said once it realised the issue, contacted the Commerce
Commission to alert it and acted quickly to correct it. [GN]
APPLE INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Lopez Extended to Nov. 22
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FUMIKO LOPEZ, FUMIKO
LOPEZ, as guardian of A.L., a minor, LISHOMWA HENRY, JOSEPH HARMS,
JOHN TROY PAPPAS, and DAVID YACUBIAN individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, v. APPLE INC., Case No.
4:19-cv-04577-JSW (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jeffrey White entered
a case management order:
Event Current Proposed
Deadline
Deadline
Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition Aug. 23, 2024 Oct. 23,
2024
to Apple's Motion for Relief from
Non-Dispositive Pretrial Order
Apple's Reply in Support of Aug. 30, 2024 Oct. 30,
2024
Motion for Relief from
Non-Dispositive Pretrial Order
Plaintiffs' Deadline to Serve Oct. 18, 2024 Nov. 22,
2024
Expert Reports in Support of
Class Certification
Motion for Class Certification Oct. 18, 2024 Nov. 22,
2024
Last Day to Complete Mediation Jan. 28, 2025 Jan. 28,
2025
Opposition to Motion for Class Jan. 17, 2025 Feb. 21,
2025
Certification
Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of March 14, 2025 Apr. 18,
2025
Class Certification and Deadline
to Serve Rebuttal Expert Reports,
if any
Hearing regarding Class To be scheduled To be
Certification for a date no scheduled
earlier than 2 for a date
no
weeks after the earlier
than
deadline to 3 weeks
after
complete the reply
mediation. brief is
due
on July 22, 2024, this Court entered the sixth amended scheduling
order, permitting limited discovery on specific and discrete
matters to continue and setting various class certification-related
and mediation case management deadlines
on August 12, 2024, Hon. Judge White set a briefing schedule for
Apple’s Motion for Relief from Non-Dispositive Pretrial Order
on August 9, 2024, Apple filed a Motion for Relief. On August 12,
2024, Hon. Judge White set a briefing schedule for Plaintiffs’
response and Apple’s reply.
Apple is an American multinational corporation and technology
company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 15, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dazOMj at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Erin Green Comite, Esq.
Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
John T. Jasnoch, Esq.
Hal D. Cunningham, Esq.
Sean C. Russell, Esq.
Victoria L. Burke, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
The Helmsley Building
230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10169-1820
Telephone: (212) 223-6444
Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
E-mail: ecomite@scott-scott.com
jguglielmo@scott-scott.com
jjasnoch@scott-scott.com
hcunningham@scott-scott.com
srussell@scott-scott.com
vburke@scott-scott.com
- and -
Vincent Briganti, Esq.
Christian Levis, Esq.
Margaret MacLean, Esq.
Andrea Farah, Esq.
LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: (914) 997-0500
Facsimile: (914) 997-0035
E-mail: vbriganti@lowey.com
clevis@lowey.com
afarah@lowey.com
mmaclean@lowey.com
- and -
Mark N. Todzo, Esq.
Patrick Carey, Esq.
LEXINGTON LAW GROUP
503 Divisadero Street
San Francisco, CA 94117
Telephone: (415) 913-7800
Facsimile: (415) 759-4112
E-mail: mtodzo@lexlawgroup.com
pcarey@lexlawgroup.com
- and -
E. Kirk Wood, Esq.
WOOD LAW FIRM
Birmingham, AL 35238
Telephone: (205) 612-0243
E-mail: kirk@woodlawfirmllc.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Arturo J. Gonzalez, Esq.
Alexis A. Amezcua, Esq.
Purvi G. Patel, Esq.
Katie Viggiani, Esq.
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
425 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
Telephone: (415) 268-7000
Facsimile: (415) 268-7522
E-mail: agonzalez@mofo.com
AAmezcua@mofo.com
ppatel@mofo.com
kviggiani@mofo.com
ARCH RESOURCES: M&A Probes Proposed Merger With Consol Energy
-------------------------------------------------------------
Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"),
headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is
investigating Arch Resources, Inc. (NYSE: ARCH), relating to its
proposed merger with Consol Energy, Inc. Under the terms of the
agreement, all Arch Resources common stock will be automatically
converted into the right to receive 1.326 shares of Consol Energy
stock.
Click here for more information
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/arch-resources-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]
ARDELYX INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set October 15
------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces
the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of all purchasers of
securities of Ardelyx, Inc. (NASDAQ: ARDX) between October 31, 2023
and July 1, 2024, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). 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.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Ardelyx securities during the Class
Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any
out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Ardelyx class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=2125 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com
for information on the class action. 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.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any
meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, during the Class
Period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding Ardelyx's future revenue and funding requirements, and
the commercial success of a phosphorus inhibitor, XPHOZAH. Among
other things, Ardelyx would apply to include XPHOZAH in the
Transitional Drug Add-on Payment Adjustment program ("TDAPA") when
in fact, Ardelyx had not yet reached a firm decision concerning
whether or not to apply to include XPHOZAH in TDAPA. When the true
details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.
To join the Ardelyx class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=2125 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com
for information on the class action.
No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact Information:
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]
ASR GROUP: Conspires to Fix Granulated Sugar Prices, Reilly Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARY REILLY, RENEE NEWTON, MIRANDA COFINO, and NANCY GOODMAN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. ASR GROUP INTERNATIONAL, INC.; AMERICAN SUGAR
REFINING, INC.; DOMINO FOODS, INC.; MICHIGAN SUGAR COMPANY; UNITED
SUGAR PRODUCERS & REFINERS COOPERATIVE f/k/a UNITED SUGARS
CORPORATION; COMMODITY INFORMATION, INC.; and RICHARD WISTISEN,
Defendants, Case No. 0:24-cv-03250 (D. Minn., August 13, 2024)
brings claims against the Defendants under the Sherman Antitrust
Act and the Clayton Antitrust Act, as well as the antitrust and
trade regulation laws, and common law of various States for redress
of the injury and damages caused by Defendants' conspiracy to fix
prices of granulated sugar in the United States from at least as
early as January 1, 2019, through the date by which the
anticompetitive effects of its violations of law shall have ceased,
but in any case no earlier than the present.
According to the complaint, beginning at least as early as January
1, 2019, the Defendants conspired to fix and artificially inflate
the prices of Granulated Sugar sold in the United States. To
implement their price-fixing conspiracy, the Defendants exchanged
detailed, competitively sensitive, non-public information about
Granulated Sugar prices, capacity, sales volume, supply, and
demand, says the suit.
Among the victims of the conspiracy are U.S. consumers of
Granulated Sugar, such as Plaintiffs. But for their conspiracy and
unlawful acts in furtherance, the Plaintiffs and members of the
Class would have paid less for Granulated Sugar than they did
during the Class Period. The Plaintiffs bring this action for
redress of the injury and damages they and members of the Class
have suffered and continue to suffer by reason of Defendants'
continuing violations of law.
ASR Group International, Inc. is a privately held cane sugar
refining company.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Robin F. Zwerling, Esq.
Jessica Hermes, Esq.
ZWERLING, SCHACHTER & ZWERLING, LLP
41 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10010
Telephone: (212) 223-3900
E-mail: rzwerling@zsz.com
jhermes@zsz.com
ATI INC: Faces Souza Suit Over Plan's Removal From ERISA Protection
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN SOUZA and KAREN SOUZA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ATI INC. and STATE STREET
GLOBAL ADVISORS TRUST CO., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-01214 (W.D.
Pa., August 23, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for
breach of fiduciary and co-fiduciary duties, knowing participation
in a fiduciary breach related to an insurance annuity, and
prohibited transaction.
The case arises from the Defendants' action to shift its Allegheny
Technologies Incorporated Pension Plan liabilities, the retirement
money they had promised to pay 8,200 Plan participants and
beneficiaries, to Athene Annuity and Life Company and Athene
Annuity & Life Assurance Company of New York. In doing so, the
Defendants removed those Plan participants and former employees
from the Plan and placed them beyond Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 (ERISA's) protections. The ejected Plan
participants and beneficiaries are now solely reliant on the
solvency of Athene for their retirement benefits. The Plaintiffs
also seek monetary relief from the Defendants including the gain
those entities earned from the unlawful transaction and the losses
resulting from their illegal conduct.
ATI Inc. is a publicly traded international company headquartered
in Dallas, Texas.
State Street Global Advisors Trust Co. is an investment management
firm based in Boston, Massachusetts. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
John A. Schwab, Esq.
JOHN A. SCHWAB, ATTORNEY AT LAW, LLC
436 Seventh Ave., #300
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Telephone: (412) 235-9150
Email: jas@johnschwablaw.com
- and -
Cyril V. Smith, Esq.
ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP
100 E. Pratt Street, Suite 2440
Baltimore, MD 21202
Telephone: (410) 949-1145
Facsimile: (410) 659-0436
Email: csmith@zuckerman.com
- and -
Bryan M. Reines, Esq.
ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP
1800 M. Street N.W., Suite 10000
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 778-1846
Facsimile: (202) 822-8106
Email: breines@zuckerman.com
- and -
Douglas S. Brooks, Esq.
LIBBY HOOPES BROOKS & MULVEY, P.C.
260 Franklin Street
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 338-9300
Facsimile: (617) 338-9911
Email: dbrooks@lhbmlegal.com
- and -
Edward Stone, Esq.
EDWARD STONE LAW P.C.
175 W. Putnam Ave., 2nd Floor
Greenwich, CT 06830
Telephone: (203) 504-8425
Facsimile: (203) 348-8477
Email: eddie@edwardstonelaw.com
- and -
Elizabeth Hopkins, Esq.
Susan L. Meter, Esq.
KANTOR & KANTOR LLP
19839 Nordhoff St.
Northridge, CA 91324
Telephone: (818) 886-2525
Facsimile: (818) 350-6272
Email: ehopkins@kantorlaw.net
smeter@kantorlaw.net
ATKORE INC: Artificially Inflates PVC Pipes' Prices, Bavolak Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GEORGE BAVOLAK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ATKORE, INC., CANTEX INC., DIAMOND PLASTICS
CORPORATION, IPEX USA LLC, JM EAGLE, INC., NATIONAL PIPE &
PLASTICS, INC., OPIS, OTTER TAIL CORPORATION, PRIME CONDUIT, INC.,
SOUTHERN PIPE, INC., and WESTLAKE CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No.
1:24-cv-07639 (N.D. Ill., August 23, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of Section 1 of the Sherman
Act and for damages under the antitrust laws, unfair competition
laws, consumer protection laws, and unjust enrichment common laws
of several states in the U.S.
According to the complaint, the Defendants conspired and exploited
the COVID-19 supply chain disruptions to fix prices and overcharge
their customers for polyvinyl chloride (PVC) municipal water and
PVC electrical conduit pipes. The Defendants' anticompetitive
actions widened the spread between the price that they pay to
manufacture PVC pipes and the price at which they sold PVC pipes.
As a result of the Defendants' unlawful conduct, the Plaintiff and
the other members of the Classes paid artificially inflated prices
for PVC pipes during the Class Period. The Plaintiff and the
members of the Classes would have purchased PVC pipes for lower
prices resulting from a competitive market but for the Defendants'
conspiracy. As such, the Plaintiff and the members of the Classes
were directly injured by the Defendants' unlawful conduct, alleges
the suit.
Atkore, Inc. is a PVC pipe distributor headquartered in Harvey,
Illinois.
Cantex Inc. is a PVC pipe distributor headquartered in Fort Worth,
Texas.
Diamond Plastics Corporation is a PVC pipe distributor
headquartered in Grand Island, Nebraska.
IPEX USA LLC is a PVC pipe distributor headquartered in Pineville,
North Carolina.
JM Eagle, Inc. is a PVC pipe distributor headquartered in Los
Angeles, California.
National Pipe & Plastics, Inc. is a PVC pipe distributor
headquartered in Endicott, New York.
OPIS is a price reporting agency headquartered in Rockville,
Maryland.
Otter Tail Corporation is a PVC pipe distributor headquartered in
Fergus Falls, Minnesota.
Prime Conduit, Inc. is a PVC pipe distributor headquartered in
Cleveland, Ohio.
Southern Pipe, Inc. is a PVC pipe distributor headquartered in New
London, North Carolina.
Westlake Corporation is a PVC pipe distributor headquartered in
Houston, Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lawrence C. Hersh, Esq.
17 Sylvan Street, Suite 102B
Rutherford, NJ 07070
Telephone: (201) 507-6300
Email: lh@hershlegal.com
BAKER'S BREAKFAST: Products' Protein Claims "Deceptive," Brown Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MOLLY BROWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BAKER'S BREAKFAST COOKIES, INC. d/b/a ERIN
BAKER'S WHOLESALE BAKED GOODS, Defendant, Case No.
3:24-cv-05809-PHK (N.D. Cal., August 23, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for violation of the California Consumers
Legal Remedies Act; false advertising; fraud, deceit, and/or
misrepresentation; unfair business practices; and unjust
enrichment.
The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and
misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of consumer food
products, including granola, granola clusters, and breakfast
cookies, under the brand names Erin Baker's and Blue Bike.
According to the complaint, the Defendant made protein claims on
the front of the product packages but failed to include the percent
of daily value for protein in the Nutrition Facts Panel (NFP). The
failure to include a statement of the corrected amount of protein
inside the NFP rendered the NFP itself unlawful. The Defendant's
unlawful and misleading protein claims caused the Plaintiff and
members of the Class to pay a price premium for its products, the
suit says.
Baker's Breakfast Cookies, Inc., doing business as Erin Baker's
Wholesale Baked Goods, is a manufacturer of consumer food products,
with its principal place of business in Bellingham, Washington.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Seth A. Safier, Esq.
Marie A. McCrary, Esq.
Hayley A. Reynolds, Esq.
GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 639-9090
Facsimile: (415) 449-6469
Email: seth@gutridesafier.com
marie@gutridesafier.com
hayley@gutridesafier.com
BINANCE: Faces Class Action Over Money Laundering Allegations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sebastian Sinclair, writing for Decrypt, reports that a new class
action lawsuit has been filed against Binance in the U.S. Western
District Court of Washington, accusing the company and its founder,
Changpeng Zhao, of enabling widespread money laundering and
violating U.S. financial regulations.
The lawsuit, brought by former exchange users Philip Martin,
Natalie Tang, and Yatin Khanna and filed August 16, alleges that
Binance's negligent compliance practices allowed bad actors to use
the platform to launder stolen crypto, causing significant
financial harm to U.S. users.
A representative for Binance did not immediately respond to
Decrypt's request for comment.
The complaint details how Binance, under Zhao's leadership,
allegedly operated as an unlicensed money-transmitting business,
willfully ignoring anti-money laundering requirements and
facilitating transactions that helped criminals obscure the origins
of illicit funds.
According to the plaintiffs, Binance's rapid ascent to becoming the
world's largest crypto exchange was fueled by its deliberate
evasion of U.S. regulations, which would have otherwise curbed its
access to the lucrative American market.
The lawsuit also alleges that Zhao, who founded Binance in 2017,
prioritized profits over legal compliance, creating an environment
where U.S. users were encouraged to bypass the platform's minimal
compliance checks.
The plaintiffs claim that Binance's failure to implement robust AML
and Know Your Customer protocols turned the exchange into a hub for
laundering crypto, often stolen through hacks and other illicit
activities.
The fresh class action comes on the heels of a series of legal
actions against Zhao and Binance. In November 2023, Zhao and
Binance reached a plea agreement with the U.S. Department of
Justice, where Zhao admitted to failing to maintain an effective
AML program.
As part of the settlement, Binance agreed to pay over $4 billion in
penalties, and Zhao stepped down as CEO.
Additionally, Zhao was fined $50 million personally for his role in
the company's violations, which included facilitating transactions
with users in sanctioned jurisdictions such as Iran and North
Korea. [GN].
BINANCE: NBA Star and YouTuber Settle Crypto Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NBA star Jimmy Butler and crypto YouTuber Ben Armstrong, known as
"BitBoy," have agreed to settle a class action lawsuit brought
against them for promoting alleged unregistered securities sold by
Binance, paying a combined total of $340,000.
Butler has agreed to settle for $300,000, while Armstrong will pay
$40,000, according to CoinTelegraph. Despite the settlement, both
continue to deny any wrongdoing.
Settled but Denied Wrongdoing
Butler's settlement agreement emphasises that he "adamantly denies
any and all wrongdoing," asserting that he believes he would "be
absolved of all liability" if the case were to reach a conclusion.
Similarly, Armstrong denies "any wrongdoing or liability,"
maintaining that he has "valid defences" against the allegations.
However, both individuals have opted to settle to avoid the
escalating costs and time commitment of a prolonged legal battle.
According to a court filing by the legal representatives of the
class action lawsuit in Miami on 19 August, the lawyers are now
seeking the court’s preliminary approval for the settlement
deal.
Another Class Action Lawsuit against Binance
The class action lawsuit was initially filed in March 2023 and also
names Binance, its US-based unit, and former CEO Changpeng Zhao. In
June 2023, the lawsuit was amended to include stablecoin issuer
Paxos Trust Company as a defendant.
The lawsuit represents potentially millions of Binance.US and
Binance.com customers who used or invested in BNB Vault, Simple
Earn, or any staking products on the platforms. It further claims
that BNB, the now-defunct stablecoin Binance USD (BUSD), Solana,
Cardano, Polygon, Filecoin, Cosmos, The Sandbox, Decentraland,
Algorand, Axie Infinity, and Coti are unregistered securities,
meaning anyone who invested in those tokens may be eligible to
receive settlement proceeds.
Butler and Armstrong were accused of promoting these alleged
unregistered securities sold by Binance.
Interestingly, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has
also been pursuing many cryptocurrency exchanges, alleging that
they offer unregistered securities. The regulatory agency even took
Binance to court over several allegations. Even for the SEC,
proving whether a cryptocurrency is an unregistered security is
complex and time-consuming.
Meanwhile, football legend Cristiano Ronaldo is also facing a $1
billion class action lawsuit for endorsing Binance, specifically
regarding the non-fungible tokens (NFTs) collection launched in
November 2022. In May, a Florida judge rejected a motion to dismiss
the case.
Furthermore, Finance Magnates recently reported that a new class
action lawsuit has been filed against Binance and Zhao, alleging
that the exchange facilitated money laundering for criminals. [GN]
BINDOR KILLIAN: Pardo Sues Over Disabled's Equal Access to Property
-------------------------------------------------------------------
NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BINDOR KILLIAN LLC and SUSHI SAKE
KILLIAN LLC d/b/a SUSHI SAKE, Defendants, Case No.
1:24-cv-23225-CMA (S.D. Fla., August 23, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate their facilities to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other
persons with disabilities. The Defendants have continued to
discriminate against people who are disabled in ways that block
them from access and use of their property and businesses. The
Plaintiff and similarly situated disabled individuals encountered
architectural barriers in common areas such as parking, entrance
access and path of travel, and public restrooms.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek injunctive relief to remove
the existing architectural barriers to the physically disabled when
such removal is readily achievable for the place of public
accommodation.
Bindor Killian LLC is a commercial property owner and operator
doing business in Florida.
Sushi Sake Killian LLC, doing business as Sushi Sake, is a
commercial restaurant owner and operator doing business in Florida.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony J. Perez, Esq.
ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC
7950 W. Flagler Street, Suite 104
Miami, FL 33144
Telephone: (786) 361-9909
Facsimile: (786) 687-0445
Email: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com
BLUE TRITON: Court Dismisses Suit Over FDCA Express Preemption
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen J. McConnell, writing for mondaq, reports that one of the
break-through moments in the first year of law school is when your
Contracts professor distinguishes actionable promises from mere
"puffery." Not every statement invites reliance. You cannot take
every statement by a seller literally. The concept of non
actionable puffery is the law's way of telling us to grow up, to
get real.
Right now there is a rash of consumer fraud actions where the
literal is exalted over the logical. Plaintiff attorneys pretend to
be aggrieved over hyper-technical departures from "natural,"
"organic," or, Heaven help us all, "vanilla."
Slowinski v. Blue Triton Brands, Inc., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142909
(N.D. Illinois Aug. 9, 2024), is about something even plainer than
vanilla -- water. Normally we introduce a case by describing it in
colorful and, if we are lucky, clever terms. But the Slowinski
decision does the work for us. It comes at us in delightful,
humorous prose. Judge Seeger begins by describing how the
plaintiffs walked into a grocery store and bought water bottles
that showed "a snow-capped mountain towering over an idyllic
landscape, surrounded by blue skies and evergreen trees. Down
below, the reflection of the mountain appears on a body of cool,
refreshing, thirst-quenching water. If the ice-covered mountain
doesn't make you thirsty, then the serene glacial lake probably
will."
It seems like Judge Seeger would be mighty good at writing ad copy.
He is certainly good at writing readable judicial opinions.
Anyway, what could possibly be wrong with the picture of a
snow-capped mountain?
The plaintiffs alleged that the water packaging lied when it
referred to "100% Natural Spring Water." The plaintiffs complained
that the water is contaminated with chemical compounds that come
from microplastics. The plaintiffs contended that the plastics
migrated from the bottle into the water itself. They filed a class
action in Illinois state court asserting actions for violations of
the Illinois Consumer Fraud statute, common law fraud, and unjust
enrichment. The defendant removed the case to federal court and
then moved to dismiss the case.
The Slowinski decision grapples with what is "spring water" for
purposes of FDCA express preemption. The FDA has minutely defined
"spring water" and microscopic bits of microplastics are not
mentioned. As long as the water comes from a natural spring, it's
"spring water." Accordingly, the Slowinski court dismissed the
complaint on preemption grounds. But the underlying basis for
dismissal is the old grow-up, get-real message we learned back in
law school. "No reasonable consumer would think that a bottle of
water wasn't a bottle of water because it contained infinitesimally
small amounts of microplastics. No reasonable consumer would think
that '100% Natural Spring Water' is a guarantee at the molecular
level, except that it contains hydrogen and oxygen playing nicely
together." More to the point, the "likelihood of a reasonable
consumer getting stumped is smaller than the size of a piece of
microplastic. . . . No reasonable consumer would get duped by a
failure to make a disclosure on the molecular level."
Slowinski is a clear case of express preemption under the FDCA. The
FDCA forbids states from imposing "any requirement for a food which
is the subject of a standard of identity established under section
341 of this title that is not identical to such standard of
identity or that is not identical to the requirement of section
343(g)." The Slowinski court correctly identifies "identical" as
the key word. Since the FDA does not concern itself with
microplastics in its definition, the plaintiffs' suit necessarily
is not "identical" to the FDA's standard.
The plaintiffs could not get around the FDA definition by claiming
that they challenged only the "100% natural" language in the label.
The FDA imposed no molecular level requirements, so the plaintiffs
cannot either. "The existence of microplastics doesn't mean that
the spring water isn't spring water." The plaintiffs are not
allowed to rewrite the FDA's definition of spring water.
Even aside from preemption, the plaintiffs simply have not set
forth a material misrepresentation. Again, there is no
misrepresentation that would confuse a reasonable consumer.
"Reasonable consumers don't buy bottled water and then look for the
nearest microscope." And in terms of the need to get real, the
court points out that "[i]f the existence of microplastics means
that a food item isn't natural, then the word 'natural' can't apply
to any food anywhere. Food companies couldn't use the word
'natural' for anything." Now that might be exactly the plaintiff
lawyer's' point, but it's a bad point.
In addition, the Slowinski court held that the plaintiffs had
inadequately set forth any fraudulent intent on the part of the
defendant, or that the plaintiffs had suffered "any observable
economic consequences." Finally, the unjust enrichment claim is "a
non-starter" because it is not a separate cause of action under
Illinois law.
So none of the plaintiffs' claims hold water. Nevertheless, the
Slowinski court gave the plaintiffs a chance to amend their
complaint. They get the opportunity to go back to the well. We
predict they will come back empty. [GN]
BOPPY COMPANY: Hudson Appeals Suit Dismissal to 10th Circuit
------------------------------------------------------------
JOWANNA HUDSON is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing
her lawsuit entitled Jowanna Hudson, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. The Boppy Company,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-CV-01538-DDD-SBP, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Colorado.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
brings this action on behalf of herself and the proposed class of
purchasers and users of Defendant's newborn loungers to recover
damages based on, inter alia, Boppy's breach of express warranty,
breach of implied warranties, negligence, unjust enrichment, and
breach of Colorado consumer protection statutes. Boppy's newborn
loungers have been allegedly linked to the deaths of at least eight
infants between December 2015 and June 2020.
On Aug. 25, 2023, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint.
On Sept. 26, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a motion to amend or correct
the amended complaint.
On Oct. 6, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint,
which the Defendant moved to dismiss on Oct. 27, 2023.
On July 25, 2024, the Court granted the Defendant's motion to
dismiss through an Order entered by Judge Daniel D. Domenico. The
case was dismissed with prejudice.
The appellate case is captioned Hudson v. The Boppy Company, LLC,
Case No. 24-1322, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Tenth Circuit, filed on August 14, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant JOWANNA HUDSON, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Blake Garrett Abbott, Esq.
COPELAND STAIR VALZ & LOVELL
40 Calhoun Street, Suite 400
Charleston, SC 29401
Telephone: (843) 727-0307
- and –
Paul Doolittle, Esq.
POULIN, WILLEY, ANASTOPOULO
32 Ann Street
Charleston, SC 29403
Telephone: (843) 834-4712
Defendant-Appellee THE BOPPY COMPANY, LLC is represented by:
Sean David Gonzalez Camacho, Esq.
DENTONS
1400 Wewatta Street, Suite 700
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: (303) 634-4000
- and –
Brian E. Cohen, Esq.
DENTONS
233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 5900
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 876-8000
- and –
Shari L. Klevens, Esq.
DENTONS
1900 K. Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 496-7118
BUCKNELL UNIVERSITY: To Settle Remote Instruction Suit for $1.15MM
------------------------------------------------------------------
John Beauge, writing for PennLive, reports that Bucknell University
is prepared to settle for $1.15 million without admitting liability
in a class action suit over remote instruction during the COVID-19
pandemic.
U.S. Middle District Judge Matthew W. Brann was asked Thursday to
give preliminary approval of the proposed settlement and certify
the suit brought last November by Samantha Camden of New York as a
class action.
The document states while Bucknell denies liability, it does not
oppose this motion and supports preliminary approval of the
agreement, certification of the class for settlement purposes only
and dissemination of a notice to students. [GN]
CAMELOT SI: Lester Files TCPA Suit in D. Massachusetts
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Camelot SI, LLC. The
case is styled as Kimberly Lester, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Camelot SI, LLC, Case No.
1:24-cv-12138-IT (D. Mass., Aug. 20, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Camelot SI, LLC doing business as Sharper Image --
http://www.sharperimage.com/-- offers consumers an engaging way to
find the latest home electronics, air purifiers and other lifestyle
products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason Robert James Campbell, Esq.
CHARLESTOWN LAW GROUP
The Schrafft Center Power House
529 Main Street, Ste P200
Charlestown, MA 02129
Phone: (617) 872-8652
Email: jcampbell@charlestownlawgroup.com
CAPSTONE LOGISTICS: Hood's Motion for Equitable Tolling Granted
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Hood v. Capstone Logistics, LLC, Case
3:22-cv-00292-RJC-SCR (W.D.N.C.), Magistrate Judge Susan C.
Rodriguez of the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina granted Tyler Hood's motion for
equitable tolling of the statute of limitations for opt-in
plaintiffs in the wage-and-hour-lawsuit it filed against Capstone
Logistics.
Plaintiff, a former employee of Defendant, brought this collective
and class action under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the North
Carolina Wage and Hour Act, respectively. In his action under the
FLSA, Plaintiff seeks to represent a collective of "all hourly,
non-exempt employees who are or have been employed by Defendant in
the United States within the Collective Time Period." Plaintiff's
Complaint requested equitable tolling of the statute of limitations
so that employees who have not yet received notice or an
opportunity to join might still join the Collective.
Plaintiff filed his Motion for Equitable Tolling of the Statute of
Limitations for Opt-In Plaintiffs on September 26, 2023. Plaintiff
asserts that equitable tolling will protect the interests of
potential Collective members that may be "unjustly diminished or
extinguished" due to delays outside of their control. On September
6, 2022, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss on jurisdictional
grounds which was ultimately denied. Defendant also filed a motion
to certify the Court's order for interlocutory appeal, which was
denied on July 2, 2024.
Plaintiff argues that equitable tolling is appropriate in this case
because "extraordinary circumstances" apply. Specifically,
Plaintiff maintains that Defendant's attempts to dismiss the case
have resulted in "over one year of delay" and "effectively stayed
Plaintiff's case." As a result, Plaintiff argues, "putative
Collective members have accrued almost a year of time against their
statute of limitations, through no fault of their own."
In its Response, Defendant first notes that no individual opt-in
plaintiffs have joined Plaintiff's action. Therefore, Defendant
contends, "Plaintiff has not and cannot show that equitable tolling
is warranted with respect to [any putative Collective member]'s
claim(s)," and Plaintiff's Motion should be denied. Defendant
asserts both that Plaintiff did not act diligently to preserve the
rights of the putative Collective members and that the present
circumstances do not qualify as "extraordinary."
Defendant maintains that Plaintiff "cannot plausibly claim that he
acted diligently nor provide a valid excuse for his delay in
seeking conditional certification." Defendant further argues that
disputes about personal jurisdiction were entirely foreseeable and
therefore not outside of Plaintiff's control.
According to Judge Rodriguez, "Plaintiff does appear to have acted
diligently." She explains, "Plaintiff's Complaint, filed June 30,
2022, includes a request that the Court equitably toll the statute
of limitations for putative Collective members. Plaintiff has
continually sought discovery, as demonstrated by the Motion for
Early Discovery and the email chain attached to Defendant's
Memorandum. Additionally, when Plaintiff filed this Motion, both
parties awaited the Court's decision on Defendant's Motion to
Certify for Interlocutory Appeal. As a result, the Court's ability
to exercise personal jurisdiction over the as of yet nonexistent
Collective members was unclear, and Plaintiff's delay in seeking
collective certification is explainable."
Defendant further argues that the present circumstances do not
qualify as "extraordinary." The Court disagrees. Among other
things, it finds that there were multiple delays due to
back-and-forth motions, including Defendant's Motion to Certify for
Interlocutory Appeal, and the Court's consideration of same.
Therefore, the Court will equitably toll the statute of limitations
for putative Collective members from September 6, 2022, the date on
which Defendant filed its Motion to Dismiss, to July 2, 2024, the
date on which the Court denied Defendant's Motion to Certify
Interlocutory Appeal.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated
August 6, 2024, is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DmiYqK
CASSAVA SCIENCES: Continues to Defend Fed. Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cassava Sciences 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 8, 2024, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the consolidated federal securities class
suits in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas.
Between August 27, 2021 and October 26, 2021, four putative class
action lawsuits were filed alleging violations of the federal
securities laws by the Company and certain named officers.
The complaints rely on allegations contained in Citizen Petitions
submitted to FDA and allege that various statements made by the
defendants regarding simufilam were rendered materially false and
misleading.
The Citizen Petitions were all subsequently denied by FDA. These
actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Texas.
The complaints seek unspecified compensatory damages and other
relief on behalf of a purported class of purchasers.
On June 30, 2022, a federal judge consolidated the four class
action lawsuits into one case and appointed a lead plaintiff and a
lead counsel. Lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint
on August 18, 2022 on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of
the Company's securities between September 14, 2020 and July 26,
2022.
On May 11, 2023, the court dismissed with prejudice plaintiffs'
claims against defendant Nadav Friedmann, PhD, MD, our former Chief
Medical Officer and a Company director, who is now deceased, but
otherwise denied defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Defendants filed an answer to the consolidated amended complaint on
July 3, 2023.
On February 22, 2024, plaintiffs filed a motion to supplement their
complaint to extend the putative class period through October 12,
2023.
The court granted that Motion on June 12, 2024, and plaintiffs
filed a supplemental complaint on June 13, 2023.
On March 13, 2024, plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class
Certification.
The Company has opposed that Motion.
The Company believes the foregoing claims are without merit and
intends to defend against these lawsuits vigorously.
Cassava Sciences -- http://www.cassavasciences.com/-- is an
American pharmaceutical company based in Austin, Texas.[BN]
CDK GLOBAL: Settles Anti-Trust Class Action Suit For $100MM
-----------------------------------------------------------
Teresa Moss, writing for Repair Driven News, reports that CDK has
agreed to pay $100 million and up to $250,000 for notice and claims
administrative costs in an anti-trust case brought by dealerships
nearly seven years ago, according to a motion for settlement filed
August 16.
The case brought against CDK and Reynolds and Reynolds Co. alleged
both companies committed anti-trust violations, according to court
records. Reynolds previously settled with dealerships for $29.5
million.
Dealerships claimed they overpaid for services due to the
anti-trust violations, according to court records.
Both CDK and Reynolds offer a dealer management system (DMS)
software to collect, manage, and deploy data they generate,
documents say. The software is also used by car dealers to provide
services like inventory management, customer relationship
management, warranty services, repair orders, and electronic
vehicle registration and titling, according to an overview of the
case recently written by Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer in a memorandum
opinion and order.
"Historically, both CDK and Reynolds provided dealers with "open"
DMSs, meaning that -- explicitly or implicitly -- CDK and Reynolds
permitted dealers to give third parties direct access to DMS data,"
Pallmeyer wrote in the memorandum.
Plaintiffs alleged that in 2013 CDK and Reynolds orally agreed to
restrict access to dealer data to "destroy" independent data
integrators, Pallmeyer's memorandum says. It says in 2015 the two
companies entered into a written agreement to not assist
independent data integrators in any effort to access or integrate
with the defendant's DMS.
"By eliminating competition for data integration services,
Plaintiffs claim that CDK and Reynolds have usurped control over
dealer data and thwarted dealers' ability to control who can access
and use their data. As a result, vendors have no choice but to
access certified data integration from CDK and Reynolds, at a price
much higher than they would pay to an independent Integrator," the
memo says.
The case was set to go to trial in September. Neither CDK nor
Reynolds admitted fault in their settlements.
The settlement says the interim lead class counsel and the
plaintiffs' Steering Committee have spent thousands of hours
advancing the claim.
"Discovery has been considerable and far-reaching," the settlement
documents say. "Defendants produced over a million documents. Class
counsel took or defended over one hundred depositions, including
those of defendants' employees and expert witnesses, and subpoenaed
at least 30 non-parties for data and information (taking several of
their depositions). Class representatives produced over 81,000
documents and almost all were deposed. There were multiple rounds
of interrogatories and requests for production on both sides as
well as extensive motion practice."
The settlement states possible class members will be notified using
a detailed customer list obtained from CDK and Reynolds.
Notification will include dealership customers who purchased DMS
from Sept. 1, 2013 to July 20, 2024.
Reuters reports that Pallmeyer ruled last month software vendors
could certify as an anti-trust class in a suit against CDK. The
software vendors' suit remains ongoing separate from the dealership
suit. [GN]
CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Metro Tulsa Hits Unsecured Data Systems
----------------------------------------------------------
METRO TULSA FOOT AND ANKLE SPECIALISTS, P.L.L.C., individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHANGE
HEALTHCARE, INC., OPTUM, INC., and UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 5:24-cv-00834-J (W.D. Okla., August 13, 2024)
alleges that Plaintiff and putative class members' business
operations have been harmed by Defendants' negligence in securing
and safeguarding their information systems from a foreseeable
cyberattack.
According to publicly reported information, the data breach
involved a ransomware attack, wherein the cybercriminals accessed
Change Healthcare's systems and encrypted Change's data to hold it
hostage in seeking a ransom payment. It was reported that Change
paid Blackcat a ransom of 350 bitcoins, or approximately $22
million.
The complaint asserts that Change neglected to implement adequate
security measures. The system weakness exploited by Blackcat
hackers was easily identifiable and curable. Change's failure to
take the required steps to prevent the attack resulted in
significant financial losses and operational disruptions for
healthcare providers Healthcare providers, including Plaintiff, are
still grappling with the aftermath of the data breach, facing
financial strain and potential closure. They have been unable to
file claims and receive normal cash flow to support operations. As
a result, they have been forced to incur additional expenses by
transitioning to alternative claim processing platforms, says the
complaint.
Change is a healthcare services and support company that provides
revenue and payment cycle management to healthcare providers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew J. Sill, Esq.
Tara Tabatabaie, Esq.
SILL LAW GROUP, PLLC
1101 N. Broadway Ave., Suite 102
Oklahoma City, OK 73103
Telephone: (405) 509-6300
Facsimile: (800) 978-1345
CHICKEN SOUP: Golden Files Suit in Bankr. D. Delaware
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chicken Soup for the
Soul Entertainment, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Alex Golden,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Chicken
Soup for the Soul Entertainment, Inc., Case No. 24-50112-MFW
(Bankr. D. Del., Aug. 20, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as 14 Recovery of Money/Property -
Other.
Chicken Soup for the Soul Entertainment, Inc. --
https://cssentertainment.com/ -- was an American self-help,
consumer goods and media company based in Cos Cob,
Connecticut.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig J. Ackermann, Esq.
Avi Kreitenberg, Esq.
ACKERMANN & TILAJEF, P.C.
315 South Beverly Drive, Suite 504
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Phone: (310) 277-0614
Email: cja@ackermanntilajef.com
ak@ackermanntilajef.com
- and -
Ryan E. Carreon, Esq.
Eric J. Monzo. Esq.
MORRIS JAMES LLP
500 Delaware Ave., Suite 1500
Wilmington, DE 19801
Phone: (302) 888-6800
Email: rcarreon@morrisjames.com
emonzo@morrisjames.com
CHUY'S HOLDINGS: M&A Probes Proposed Merger With Darden Restaurants
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), has
recovered money for shareholders and is recognized as a Top 50 Firm
in the 2018-2022 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report. We
are headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City and
are investigating Chuy's Holdings, Inc. (Nasdaq: CHUY), relating to
its proposed merger with Darden Restaurants, Inc. Under the terms
of the agreement, Chuy's Holdings shareholders will receive $37.50
in cash per share they own.
Click here for more information
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/chuys-holdings-inc/. It is free and
there is no cost or obligation to you.
Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask:
1. Do you file class actions and go to Court?
2. When was the last time you recovered money for
shareholders?
3. What cases did you recover money in and how much?
About Monteverde & Associates PC
Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . .
and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are
a national class action securities firm with a successful track
record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme
Court.
No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common
stock in any of the above listed companies and have concerns or
wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit
our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341.
Contact:
Juan Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740
New York, NY 10118
United States of America
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN]
CLEVELAND, OH: Appeal Planned in Tax Refund Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
J.D. Davidson of The Center Square reports that a policy group
continues to push forward with a class action lawsuit claiming the
city of Cleveland failed to pay tax refunds within a 90-day
requirement.
The Buckeye Institute recently filed a notice to appeal with Ohio's
8th District Court of Appeals after a Cuyahoga County judge
dismissed the case in July.
The institute initially filed the lawsuit in March on behalf of
Kate Wos of Strongsville and David Steffes of North Royalton, as
well as all nonresidents of Cleveland who filed a city income tax
return and received their refund more than 90 days after filing.
"The Buckeye Institute has called on the court to order the city of
Cleveland to follow its own city ordinances and pay Ms. Wos, Mr.
Steffes, and anyone else affected the interest Cleveland owes them
because the city failed to issue their tax refund within 90 days,"
said Jay R. Carson, senior litigator at The Buckeye Institute.
Cleveland's law says that when the city owes a tax refund, it is
subject to interest at the rate of the federal funds rate of nearly
5% plus another 5% if it's not paid within 90 days after a return
is filed.
Ohio House Bill 110 allowed Ohioans to seek municipal income tax
refunds for 2020 and 2021, and Wos filed her 2021 city return March
12, 2023, according to the lawsuit.
She received her refund six months later, in September. It did not
include any interest.
Steffes filed his return for 2021 for a refund when his employer,
Stantec, closed its Cleveland office during the COVID-19 pandemic
and was told to work from home.
The lawsuit says Steffes received his refund in late 2023, also
without interest. The suit also says the city did not refund
Steffes his paid vacation days. [GN]
CLEVELAND, OH: Buckeye Institute Files Notice of Appeal in Tax Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
On Wednesday, August 21, The Buckeye Institute filed its notice of
appeal in Wos v. Cleveland -- a class action lawsuit on behalf of
all nonresidents of Cleveland who filed a municipal income tax
return with the city and received their refund more than 90 days
after filing their return. Ohio's Eighth District Court of Appeals
will hear the appeal.
"The Buckeye Institute has called on the court to order the city of
Cleveland to follow its own city ordinances and pay Ms. Wos, Mr.
Steffes, and anyone else affected the interest Cleveland owes them
because the city failed to issue their tax refund within 90 days,"
said Jay R. Carson, senior litigator at The Buckeye Institute and
an attorney representing Ms. Wos and Mr. Steffes.
The Buckeye Institute will file a full brief with Ohio's Eighth
District Court of Appeals at a later date to be set by the court.
To stay up-to-date on the case, visit
BuckeyeInstitute.org/WosvCleveland.
Background on the Case and The Buckeye Institute's Clients
Cleveland's city ordinances state that when the city owes a tax
refund, the refund is subject to interest at a rate of the federal
funds rate of nearly five percent plus an additional five percent
if the refund is not paid within 90 days after the taxpayer files
their return.
On March 12, 2023 -- after the passage of Ohio House Bill 110,
which allowed Ohioans to seek municipal income tax refunds for 2021
and 2022 -- Kate Wos of Strongsville filed her 2021 municipal tax
return with Cleveland. As with countless other taxpayers, Ms. Wos
then waited and waited and waited. After a more than six-month
delay, Ms. Wos finally received her refund on September 21, 2023.
However, the refund did not include the interest for the delay and
failed to refund her for her paid vacation days.
Similarly, Mr. Steffes, of North Royalton, filed his municipal tax
return with Cleveland for 2021, seeking a refund for the time
during the pandemic that his employer, Stantec, closed its
Cleveland office and ordered all employees to work from home.
Initially, the city declined to issue Mr. Steffes' refund, and
their obstruction became so ridiculous as to demand that Mr.
Steffes provide some form of verified statement from someone who
was actually working in his employer's Cleveland office in 2021 to
confirm that Mr. Steffes was not working out of the Cleveland
office. Such verification was, of course, impossible since no one
was working out of Stantec's Cleveland office. Finally, in late
2023, Mr. Steffes received his refund, but as with Ms. Wos, the
refund did not include the interest for the delay and failed to
refund Mr. Steffes for his paid vacation days. [GN]
COLUMBUS, OH: First Responders Sue Over Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------
Lacey Crisp, writing for 10tv.com, reports that frustration is
growing after hundreds of thousands of citizens' personal data was
leaked to the dark web after a cyberattack against the city of
Columbus.
A second class-action lawsuit was filed against the city.
A foreign cyber threat actor attempted to disrupt the city's IT
infrastructure to deploy ransomware and solicit a nearly $2 million
ransom payment from the city. The hacker group Rhysida claimed
responsibility for the cyberattack.
Cybersecurity experts say hackers leaked city data on the dark
web.
"It's chilling, the potential ramifications of this breach on our
criminal justice system, our judicial system, our firemen and
police officers," said attorney Scott Schiff. "We will get to the
truth about what happened in this cyber security attack for the
city of Columbus and why they weren't better protected."
Representing both city police and firefighters, the new lawsuit
explains the financial impacts to just a few first responders:
"As early as July 29th, John Doe's bank account had unauthorized
purchases from big box retailers, and he received a text message
stating that his information was leaked in a security break and if
he did not pay $500 by midnight then the officer's information
would be released to the dark web.
Another said their "checking account was accessed and over a
thousand dollars was fraudulently withdrawn from his account."
Another "learned unknown individuals were attempting to take out
loans in his name."
"Help get a remedy to really get our people and the public we serve
some peace of mind that we are going to have resources to protect
our personal information now and in the future," said Columbus Fire
Union President Steve Stein.
In the lawsuit, they are asking the city, to fully and accurately
disclose the nature of the information that has been compromised
and to adopt sufficient security practices and safeguards to
prevent incidents like the data breach described herein in the
future.
"The main relief we want now is direction for our firefighters and
police officers as to how safe they are. Does the city know more
information than we are getting?" Schiff said.
"Whether this attack was preventable or not, time will tell. What
we know is preventable is their lack of transparency. I think that
is what bothers me the most," said Fraternal Order of Police Lodge
9 President Lt. Brian Steel.
10TV reached out to the city and were told they will not comment on
pending litigation. [GN]
COMERICA BANK: Hernandez Class Suit Removed to S.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled DANIEL HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. COMERICA BANK, BUSINESS INFORMATION
GROUP, INC., and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
37-2024-00030657-CU-OE-CTL, was removed from the San Diego County
Superior Court of the State of California to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California on August 23, 2024.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:24-cv-01506-RBM-DDL to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged failure to provide
proper adverse action notice in violation of the California
Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act, failure to comply
with the ICRAA's seven-year reporting period, violation of the Fair
Chance Act, discrimination based on ethnicity in violation of the
Fair Employment and Housing Act, and violation of California's
Unfair Competition Law.
Comerica Bank is an American financial services company,
headquartered in Dallas, Texas.
Business Information Group, Inc. is a provider of networking and
managed information technology (IT) solutions in Pennsylvania.
[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Mara D. Curtis, Esq.
Kasey J. Curtis, Esq.
REED SMITH LLP
355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2900
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 457-8000
Facsimile: (213) 457-8080
Email: mcurtis@reedsmith.com
kcurtis@reedsmith.com
- and -
Amanda E. Brown, Esq.
REED SMITH LLP
2850 N. Harwood Street, Suite 1500
Dallas, TX, 75201
Telephone: (469) 680-4200
Facsimile: (469) 680-4299
Email: aebrown@reedsmith.com
CREDIT ONE BANK: Buren Sues Over Unlawful Debt Communication
------------------------------------------------------------
Mikaielh Van Buren, individually and on behalfofall those similarly
situated v. Credit One Bank, National Association, Case No.
CACE-24-010764 (Fla. 17th Judicial Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., July 30,
2024), is brought against the Defendant for violating the Florida
Consumer Collection Practices Act ("FCCPA") due to unlawful debt
communication.
The Defendant began attempting to collect a debt (the "Consumer
Debt") from Plaintiff. The Consumer Debt is an obligation allegedly
had by Plaintiff to pay money arising from a transaction between
the creditor of the Consumer Debt, Defendant, and Plaintiff (the
"Subject Service").
Pursuant to the FCCPA, no person shall: "willfully communicate with
the debtor or any member of her or his family with such frequency
as can reasonably be expected to harass the debtor or her or his
family, or willfully engage in other conduct Which can reasonably
he expected to abuse or harass the debtor or any member of her or
his family."
On July 11, 2024, Defendant called Plaintiff 14 times (the "First
Subject Communications") in an attempt to collect the Consumer
Debt. On July 12, 2024, Defendant called Plaintiff another 16 times
(the "Second Subject Communications") in an attempt to collect the
Consumer Debt.
In doing so, the Defendant willfully communicated with Plaintiff in
such a way that can be reasonably expected to harass or abuse
Plaintiff As such, by and through the Subject Communications,
Defendant violated the FCCPA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is the alleged debtor of the Consumer Debt.
The Defendant is a Nevada corporation, with its principal place of
business located in Las Vegas, Nevada.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
Zane C. Hedaya, Esq.
Gerald D. Labe, Jr., Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC
110 SE 6th St, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (754) 444-7539
Email: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
zane@jibraellaw.com
gerald@jibraellaw.com
CROWDSTRIKE HOLDINGS: Travelers Sue Over Cancelled Flights
----------------------------------------------------------
John Fitzgerald, writing for Westlaw Today, reports that two Delta
Air Lines customers who incurred unexpected expenses during the
CrowdStrike computer outage in July have filed a class-action
lawsuit attempting to recoup their losses from the cybersecurity
company.
Harlan et al. v CrowdStrike Holdings Inc. et al., No. 24-cv-954,
complaint filed, (W.D. Tex. Aug. 19, 2024).
The lawsuit, filed Aug. 19 in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Texas, alleges that in an attempt to update its
software, CrowdStrike Holdings Inc. "pushed out an ill-designed and
poorly tested update" of its software that caused "the largest
computer outage in history."
CrowdStrike sells software to protect computers from hackers. A
software update that it sent out on July 19 caused computer systems
used by a variety of large companies and public entities to crash.
One of these companies was Delta Air Lines Inc. Passengers were
unable to access their reservations and the airline was unable to
track the whereabouts of their flight crews, causing the delay or
cancellation of more than 5,000 flights over the next week, the
complaint says.
Cancellations led to unexpected costs
Two of the affected passengers were Christopher and Sara Harlan of
Iowa. According to their lawsuit, they were attempting to travel
from Atlanta to Des Moines, Iowa, on July 22 via Delta, but their
flight was canceled.
They spent time booking replacement flights but many of those were
also canceled. One of the replacement flights -- from Atlanta to
Omaha, Nebraska -- seemed promising enough that Christopher booked
a rental car to drive from Omaha to Des Moines, but that flight too
was canceled, the suit says.
The pair say they spent nearly $140 on a hotel room in Atlanta for
the night. Additional expenses included Uber rides to and from the
airport and meals at the airport, according to the complaint.
The plaintiffs finally boarded a flight for Des Moines on July 23.
Once home, they had to pay for extra parking at the airport and an
extra day of house sitting, the complaint says.
Massive computer outage felt globally
The computer outage was caused by a defective data file in
CrowdStrike's Falcon cybersecurity program, the suit notes. The
file caused an out-of-bounds exception in the Windows software used
by CrowdStrike's customers, leading computer terminals to shut
down.
In addition to Delta, other airlines were affected by the
CrowdStrike crash, as were airports in cities including Amsterdam,
Toronto and Zurich. Other affected systems included public
transport in major U.S. cities; health care and emergency systems;
online banking systems; and media outlets.
The Harlans seek to represent a nationwide class or, in the
alternative, a class of Iowa residents who:
-- Had flight reservations with Delta as of 11:59 p.m. on July
18.
-- Had flights delayed between July 19 and July 26.
-- Were unable to reach their destination or starting point.
-- Incurred losses due to cancellation fees, hotel or food
expenses, substitute flights, or events they were unable to
attend.
The suit alleges negligence in design, testing and warning on
behalf of CrowdStrike as well as interference with the plaintiffs'
contracts with Delta.
It says CrowdStrike's actions in causing the crash were willful
because the company knew that an error in a security update could
crash millions of computer endpoints and trap them in reboot doom
loops.
The suit seeks damages, attorney fees and costs.
Attorneys from Burns Charest LLP, Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP,
Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca LLP, and Shindler Anderson Goplerud & Weese
PC represent the plaintiffs. [GN]
DAA DRAEXLMAIER: Rojas Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against DAA DRAEXLMAIER
AUTOMOTIVE OF AMERICA LLC. The case is styled as Sabrina Recinos
Rojas, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly
situated.v. DAA DRAEXLMAIER AUTOMOTIVE OF AMERICA LLC, a South
Carolina limited liability company, Case No. 24CV088004 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., Aug. 20, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case."
DAA Draexlmaier Automotive of America, LLC --
https://us.draexlmaier.com/ -- manufactures and markets automobile
interiors and central electrical and electronic components.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William C. Sung, Esq.
JUSTICE FOR WORKERS, P.C.
3600 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1815
Los Angeles, CA 90010-2622
Phone: 323-922-2000
Email: william@justiceforworkers.com
DEXCOM INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Misleading Statements
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins LLP informs investors that a shareholder filed a class
action on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired DexCom Inc. (NASDAQ: DXCM) securities between
January 8, 2024 and July 25, 2024. DexCom is an international
company that develops, manufactures, and distributes continuous
glucose monitoring systems for diabetes management.
For more information, submit a form, email attorney Aaron Dumas,
Jr., or give us a call at (800) 350-6003.
The Allegations: Robbins LLP is Investigating Allegations that
DexCom Inc. (DXCM) Misled Investors Regarding its Business
Propsect
According to the complaint, during the class period, defendants
provided investors with material information concerning DexCom's
expected revenue for the fiscal year 2024. Defendants' statements
included, among other things, confidence in DexCom's ability to
capitalize on its growth potential to reach the projected record
number of new patients and simultaneously outpace the prior fiscal
year's gross margins, while scaling customer conversion to its new
G7 platform. Defendants provided these overwhelmingly positive
statements to investors while, at the same time, concealing that it
was not truly equipped to execute on the Company's perceived growth
potential.
Plaintiff alleges that on July 25, 2024, DexCom announced its
financial results for the second quarter of fiscal 2024 and reduced
its revenue guidance for the full fiscal year 2024. The Company
attributed its results and lowered guidance on their execution of
"several key strategic initiatives" which "did not meet [their]
high standards." On this news, the price of DexCom's common stock
declined from a closing price of $107.85 per share on July 25,
2024, to $64.00 per share on July 26, 2024, a decline of about
40.66% in just a single day.
What Now: You may be eligible to participate in the class action
against DexCom Inc. Shareholders who want to serve as lead
plaintiff for the class must submit their application to the court
by October 21, 2024. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who
acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.
You do not have to participate in the case to be eligible for a
recovery. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent
class member. For more information, click here.
All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay
no fees or expenses.
About Robbins LLP: Some law firms issuing releases about this
matter do not actually litigate securities class actions; Robbins
LLP does. A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, the
attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been dedicated to helping
shareholders recover losses, improve corporate governance
structures, and hold company executives accountable for their
wrongdoing since 2002. Since our inception, we have obtained over
$1 billion for shareholders.
To be notified if a class action against DexCom Inc. settles or to
receive free alerts when corporate executives engage in wrongdoing,
sign up for Stock Watch today.
Attorney Advertising. Past results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact:
Aaron Dumas, Jr.
Robbins LLP
5060 Shoreham Pl., Ste. 300
San Diego, CA 92122
adumas@robbinsllp.com
(800) 350-6003
www.robbinsllp.com [GN]
DEXCOM INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Securities Fraud
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action securities lawsuit was filed against DexCom, Inc.
that seeks to recover losses of shareholders who were adversely
affected by alleged securities fraud between January 8, 2024 and
July 25, 2024.
CASE DETAILS: According to the complaint, on July 25, 2024, Dexcom
announced its financial results for the second quarter of fiscal
2024 and reduced its revenue guidance for the full fiscal year
2024. The Company attributed its results and lowered guidance on
their execution of "several key strategic initiatives" which "did
not meet [their] high standards." Investors and analysts reacted
immediately to DexCom's revelation. The price of DexCom's common
stock declined dramatically. From a closing market price of $107.85
per share on July 25, 2024, DexCom's stock price fell to $64.00 per
share on July 26, 2024, a decline of about 40.66% in the span of
just a single day.
WHAT'S NEXT? If you suffered a loss in DexCom stock during the
relevant time frame - even if you still hold your shares - go to
https://zlk.com/pslra-1/dexcom-inc-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=97532&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]
DIST. OF COLUMBIA: Dismissal of Given's Fair Hearing Claims Upheld
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as ANTHONY D. GIVENS, ET AL., APPELLANTS v.
MURIEL BOWSER, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MAYOR, WASHINGTON, D.C.,
ET AL., APPELLEES, No. 23-7042 (D.C. Cir.), Judge Justin R. Walker
of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit affirmed the decision of the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia dismissing Eva Mae Givens'
fair-hearing claims as moot.
Eva Mae Givens asked the District of Columbia for Medicaid funding
to help cover her nursing-home costs. But D.C. miscalculated her
copay. As a result of that miscalculation, Givens was erroneously
required to contribute about $2,000 a month to the cost of her own
care.
Four months later, Givens requested an administrative hearing to
contest the miscalculation. But D.C. did not provide a hearing
within ninety days, as required by federal law.
Givens later sued in federal district court under 42 U.S.C. Sec.
1983 for a violation of her federal rights. She raised two types of
individual claims:
(1) requests for injunctive and declaratory relief to obtain a
fair hearing on her Medicaid claim, and
(2) a request for monetary damages for the amount she was
required to overpay her nursing homes after the miscalculation of
her copay.
Givens also (3) sought certification of a class of D.C. Medicaid
recipients denied timely hearings and requested injunctive and
declaratory relief on their behalf.
While the district court case was pending, D.C. finally provided
Givens with an administrative hearing. During the hearing, D.C.
conceded that it had miscalculated her copay. It recalculated her
copay and sent back-payments to Givens' nursing homes -- the
payments that it should have made all along. But D.C. did not send
payments to Givens to compensate her for the $2,000 per month that
she had wrongly been required to pay the nursing homes prior to
D.C.'s recalculation.
Givens passed away nine days after the administrative hearing. The
district court case was still pending, and her attorneys notified
the court of her death. They said they would move to substitute her
adult children as plaintiffs. But months passed and the motion
never arrived. So a magistrate judge recommended that the district
court dismiss the case. Givens' children then moved to be
substituted as plaintiffs in place of their mother. They also asked
for permission to amend the complaint. And they filed objections to
the magistrate judge's recommendation of dismissal.
The magistrate judge allowed the children to be listed as parties
only "for the limited purpose of objecting to the" recommendation.
The district court overruled the objections, adopted the magistrate
judge's recommendation, and dismissed the case with prejudice. It
held that all of Givens' claims were moot. In the alternative, it
held that Givens had failed to state any valid claim.
The Givens children sought reconsideration. They argued that the
dismissal should have been without prejudice. But the district
court denied reconsideration.
The Givens children concede that the claim for injunctive and
declaratory relief to obtain a fair hearing is moot because D.C.
eventually provided Givens a fair hearing. They have not argued
that an exception to mootness applies to that claim. Nevertheless,
they argue that the fair-hearing claims of the proposed class are
not moot and that they can still serve as representatives for this
class.
The Appellate Court disagrees.
According to Judge Walker "A proposed class representative 'must
keep her individual dispute live until certification, or else the
class action based on that claim generally becomes moot.' So here,
unless an exception applies, the proposed class's fair-hearing
claims became moot when Givens' individual fair-hearing claim
became moot."
"No exception to that rule fits this case. The Givens children note
that when 'a named plaintiff's claim is inherently transitory, and
becomes moot prior to certification, a motion for certification may
relate back to the filing of the complaint.' But the 'inherently
transitory' exception applies only when 'the record . . . assure[s]
us that some class members will retain a live claim throughout the
proceedings.'"
Judge Walker adds, "Here, nothing in the record assures us that the
alleged violations are pervasive and ongoing. The complaint says
D.C. miscalculated the copays of forty D.C. residents and then
denied them timely hearings. Even assuming there is a factual basis
for that number, that is a small fraction of the residents in D.C.
covered by Medicaid -- too small to demonstrate that the alleged
violations will recur often enough for members of the proposed
class to retain live claims throughout the litigation."
Givens sought damages to compensate her for D.C.'s miscalculation
of her copay. The Givens children argue that this calculation claim
is not moot. The Appellate Court agrees.
The Appellate Court, however, notes, even though Givens'
calculation claim is not moot, it does not plausibly state a claim
upon which relief can be granted.
According to the Appellate Court, her calculation claim is not moot
because, after D.C. corrected its miscalculation, it sent
back-payments only to the nursing homes, not to Givens. But the
calculation claim fails to plausibly allege a federal-rights
violation, the Appellate Court says. So it was still proper to
dismiss that claim, the Appellate Court notes. On remand, the
district court should dismiss the calculation claim without
prejudice if the defects in the complaint could plausibly be cured
by additional pleading.
The Appellate Court vacates the order dismissing this case with
prejudice. It remands for the district court to dismiss the moot
fair-hearing claims without prejudice and either to dismiss the
calculation claim without prejudice or to explain its dismissal
with prejudice.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated August 6, 2024, is
available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KLQZI3
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: BR Has Leave to File 3rd Amended Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled BR, et al., Plaintiffs v. DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA, Defendant, Case No. 1:10-cv-01511-RJL (D.D.C.), Judge
Richard J. Leon of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia grants the Plaintiffs leave to file a Third Amended
Complaint.
In this long-running dispute, the Plaintiffs, a putative class of
Medicaid recipients, who unsuccessfully sought coverage for
prescription drugs, have sued the District of Columbia ("the
District"), alleging that the District failed to provide them due
process when their claims for those prescription benefits were
denied.
In February 2024, while the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification was pending and shortly before the close of
discovery, one of the two named Plaintiffs decided to withdraw from
the case. Although there is one named Plaintiff remaining, her
claim is moot because she moved out of the District and is no
longer enrolled in D.C. Medicaid.
The Plaintiffs have, therefore, sought leave to file a Third
Amended Complaint ("TAC"), which adds additional class
representatives, whereas the District has sought to dismiss the
case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and pause discovery
while the dispute is sorted out.
Pursuant to the scheduling order entered by the Court on May 8,
2023, the deadline to join additional parties and amend the
pleadings was June 7, 2023. The Plaintiffs requested leave to file
a Third Amended Complaint on Feb. 23, 2024--more than eight months
after the Court-ordered deadline.
In their proposed Third Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs seek to:
(1) remove named Plaintiffs, who have been dismissed from the
action; (2) add five new named Plaintiffs; and (3) add factual
allegations regarding each of the five new named Plaintiffs. The
five new named Plaintiffs are "persons who have been denied
coverage by the District of Columbia's Medicaid Program for their
prescriptions as written without receiving individualized written
notice of the denial."
The Plaintiffs, therefore, assert that the claims of the new named
Plaintiffs are identical to, and arise out of the same District
policy and/or practice, as the claims of the previous named
Plaintiffs in the Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"). The Proposed
Third Amended Complaint asserts the same legal claim for violation
of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and requests the
same declaratory and injunctive relief as the SAC. All five of the
new named Plaintiffs (and/or their parents) were identified by the
Plaintiffs in their discovery responses to the District in October
2023 as persons, who had knowledge about the facts of this lawsuit,
and the District had noticed their depositions in January 2024
before the amendment issue arose.
The Court finds that the Plaintiffs are diligent in seeking leave
to file their TAC. Further, because this is a putative class action
lawsuit and the five additional class representatives are bringing
an identical claim to the one in the SAC, Judge Leon opines that
the amendment will not change the nature of the litigation.
Finally, the Court can issue a new scheduling order resetting the
deadlines for class certification briefing and the close of fact
discovery.
Judge Leon holds that the Plaintiffs have satisfied Rule 16(b)'s
good cause standard--and, necessarily, the more liberal standard of
Rule 15(a)--such that leave to amend is appropriate. As a result,
the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint is
necessarily moot.
The next dispute between the parties concerns the depositions of
Charlene Fairfax and Melisa Byrd, both of whom were scheduled to be
deposed in their personal capacities and as Rule 30(b)(6) corporate
representatives for the District. The Byrd deposition was noticed
for Feb. 15, and the Fairfax deposition was noticed for Feb. 29.
However, through discussions occurring between Feb. 5 and 13, the
Plaintiffs indicated that they would likely be seeking to amend
their complaint but would not be in a position to make a final
decision on whether to amend and the nature of those amendments
until Feb. 23.
The District, therefore, sought to postpone both depositions,
explaining that without knowing which the Plaintiffs may be seeking
to prosecute this case or what additional amendments may be
included in a proposed amended complaint, the District cannot
effectively engage in discovery. The District made clear that it
did not oppose the Plaintiffs taking the depositions eventually but
insisted that the depositions should be postponed until after the
uncertainty related to the operative complaint was resolved.
When the Plaintiffs refused to withdraw the deposition notices, the
District sought protective orders to postpone both depositions. The
District argues that it would be prejudiced in its preparation of
its witnesses and in turn its defense of the case if the
depositions were allowed to proceed in light of the significant
uncertainty around the specific allegations upon which the
Plaintiffs' claims are predicated and the parties seeking to
prosecute this case.
This is especially true with respect to the deposition of Melissa
Byrd, which the Plaintiffs sought to take before the District had
an opportunity to see the proposed amendments, Judge Leon notes. In
response, the Plaintiffs maintain that because this is a putative
class action, the identity of any individual named Plaintiff will
not affect the merits of the Plaintiffs' claim and, therefore,
would be irrelevant to the District's preparation for the
depositions of its witnesses.
The District has the better argument here, Judge Leon holds. It
would be unduly burdensome to require the District to prepare for
and defend the depositions of two of its high-ranking officials at
a time of significant uncertainty in this case, Judge Leon points
out. More importantly, Judge Leon says, the District did not know
if the Court would ultimately grant the Plaintiffs' request for
leave to amend, so there was still uncertainty regarding the
operative complaint and the parties to the case after the
Plaintiffs' Feb. 23 filing.
If leave to amend was not granted, Judge Leon opines that the
District had a strong argument for dismissal, thereby, defeating
any need for further discovery. And if leave to amend was
ultimately granted, the discovery period would almost certainly
need to be extended, undermining any claim that the Plaintiffs
needed discovery to occur before the prior March 1 deadline.
The District asserts it is simply asking that the threshold
questions of the Court's jurisdiction and the identity of the
parties to the case be resolved before depositions proceed. That is
not too much to ask, and it satisfies the standard of good cause
necessary to issue a protective order pursuant to Rule 26(c), Judge
Leon says.
For these reasons, the Court orders that the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint is granted, the Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint is denied as moot,
the Defendant's Motion for a Protective Order Concerning the
Deposition of Melisa Byrd is granted, the Defendant's Motion for a
Protective Order Concerning the Deposition of Charlene Fairfax is
granted, and the Plaintiffs' Cross-Motion to Compel and for
Sanctions is denied.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion dated Aug. 8,
2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/56a3zukh from
PacerMonitor.com.
EDUCATIONAL COMPUTER: $1.2M in Attys.' Fees Awarded in Nguyen Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Patricia L. Dodge of the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Pennsylvania grants the Plaintiffs' Motion
for Attorney Fees, Costs, and Service Awards for the named
Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned REBECCA NGUYEN, TAMICA
BREWSTER, KYLE STRICKENBERGER, MICHELLE CAYNOR, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
EDUCATIONAL COMPUTER SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:22-cv-01743-PLD (W.D. Pa.).
The Plaintiffs seek attorneys' fees in the amount of $1,216,666.67
based upon the percentage-of-recovery method.
The class action lawsuit arises from ECSI's assessment of certain
fees to process student borrowers' Perkins loan payments. The
Plaintiffs and ECSI have agreed on a settlement that provides for a
$3.65 million common fund ("Settlement Fund") that will be
distributed on a pro rata basis to Perkins borrowers who have
submitted a claim. There is no reversion; the full net amount of
the fund after expenses and attorneys' fees will be distributed to
members of the proposed settlement class. The settlement also
provides for services awards for the named Plaintiffs and an award
of attorneys' fees not to exceed one third of the Settlement Fund.
Having reviewed Class Counsel's submissions and the
Gunter/Prudential factors, the Court concludes that the request for
fees is reasonable and should be awarded, citing Gunter v.
Ridgewood Energy Corp., 223 F.3d 190 (3d Cir. 1990), and In re
Prudential Ins. Co. Am. Sales Practice Litig. Agent Actions, 148
F.3d 283, 333 (3d Cir. 1998).
In support of its motion, Class counsel have submitted declarations
that it incurred a total of $10,403.04 in unreimbursed case-related
expenses. In addition, Kroll LLC has billed $18,925.53 in services
and fees incurred in the administration of this matter and
anticipates billing an additional $176,225.50 to complete the
administration.
The Court concludes that these expenses are reasonable, and counsel
is entitled to reimbursement of these expenses. For these reasons,
Class Counsel will receive costs in the amount of $10,403.04 and
$176,255.50 for settlement administration costs.
The Settlement Agreement provides that Rebecca Nguyen, Tamica
Brewster, Kyle Strickenberger and Michelle Caynor (the "Class
Representatives") may apply for service awards of $10,000 each.
According to Class Counsel, the Plaintiffs worked with counsel to
provide information about their experiences and claims and incurred
significant risk in bringing a substantial lawsuit against the
company servicing their loans. Class Counsel represents that the
Class Representatives "played an active role every step of the way,
supporting Class Counsel, advocating for the relief sought by the
Class Members, and they contributed significantly to the end
result."
The Court finds that the amounts requested for the Class
Representatives here are within the range of awards typically
granted in similar matters and are appropriate given the risks they
undertook, the time invested in the case and their contributions to
the results for the class. Thus, the $10,000 service awards
requested are reasonable and merit approval.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion dated Aug. 7,
2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/yc59y9zs from
PacerMonitor.com.
FLEUR DU MAL: Bunting Sues Over Online Store's Access Barriers
--------------------------------------------------------------
RASHETA BUNTING, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FLEUR DU MAL LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-05904 (E.D.N.Y., August 23, 2024) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York
State Civil Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law and
declaratory relief.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
http://www.Fleurdumal.com,contains access barriers which hinder
the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the public through the
website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not
limited to: lack of alt-text on graphics, inaccessible dropdown
menus, the lack of navigation links, the lack of adequate prompting
and labeling, the denial of keyboard access, empty links that
contain no text, redundant links where adjacent links go to the
same URL address, and the requirement that transactions be
performed solely with a mouse.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals.
Fleur Du Mal LLC is a company that sells online goods and services,
doing business in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Telephone: (917) 373-9128
Email: ShakedLawGroup@Gmail.com
FREEDOM FOREVER: Shelton Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Freedom Forever LLC.
The case is styled as James E. Shelton, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Freedom Forever LLC, Case No.
2:24-cv-04333 (E.D. Pa., Aug. 20, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Freedom Forever -- https://freedomforever.com/ -- is a residential
solar installation company that partners with solar sales companies
in the industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew Roman Perrong, Esq.
PERRONG LAW LLC
2657 Mt. Carmel Ave
Glenside, PA 19038
Phone: (215) 225-5529
Fax: (888) 329-0305
Email: a@perronglaw.com
FREERATEUPDATE.COM CORP: Robertson Hits Illegal Telemarketing Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ERIN ROBERTSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FREERATEUPDATE.COM CORP., Defendant, Case
No. 8:24-cv-01760 (C.D. Cal., August 12, 2024) is an action against
the Defendant for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act by making telemarketing calls to numbers on the National Do Not
Call Registry, including Plaintiff's.
The Plaintiff received a telemarketing call on June 4, 2024, which
was directed to her to similarly try to sell her a home equity
loan. She never consented to receive calls from Freerateupdate.
Because telemarketing campaigns generally place calls to thousands
or even millions of potential customers en masse, the Plaintiff
brings this action on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of
other persons who received illegal telemarketing calls from or on
behalf of Defendant.
Freerateupdate.com Corp. is a private marketing company licensed in
over 40 states in the U.S. as a mortgage broker/lender.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN P.A.
237 South Dixie Highway, 4th Floor
Coral Gables, FL 33133
Telephone: (305) 469-5881
E-mail: rachel@kaufmanpa.com
GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Savings Plan Participants Get Class Status
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PETER TRAUERNICHT, et al.,
V. GENWORTH FINANCIAL, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-00532-REP (EW.D.
Va.), the Hon. Judge Robert Payne entered an order granting the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, and:
(1) The Class shall be defined as:
"All participants and beneficiaries in the Genworth
Financial
Inc. Retirement and Savings Plan whose Plan accounts
included
investments in the BlackRock LifePath Index Funds at any
time
on or after Aug. 1, 2016 and continuing to the date of
judgment, including any beneficiary of a deceased person who
was a participant in the Plan at any time during the Class
Period."
(2) The Court certifies the Class under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(b)(1)(A), and alternatively, 23(b)(1)(B); and
(3) The Court appoints Plaintiffs, Peter Trauernicht and Zachary
Wright, as class representatives; and
(4) The Court appoints Miller Shah LLP and Tycko & Zavareei LLP
as
class counsel
Genworth Financial provides life insurance, long-term care
insurance, mortgage insurance, and annuities.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 15, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lASDu1 at no extra
charge.[CC]
GOOGLE INC: Appeals Court Revives Chrome Privacy Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that a U.S. appeals
court said Google (GOOGL.O), opens new tab must face a revived
lawsuit by Google Chrome users who said the company collected their
personal information without permission, after they chose not to
synchronize their browsers with their Google accounts.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said the
lower court judge who dismissed the proposed class action should
have assessed whether reasonable Chrome users consented to letting
Google collect their data when they browsed online.
The 3-0 decision followed Google's agreement last year to destroy
billions of records to settle a lawsuit claiming the Alphabet unit
tracked people who thought they were browsing privately, including
in Chrome's "Incognito" mode.
Google said in a statement: "We disagree with this ruling and are
confident the facts of the case are on our side. Chrome Sync helps
people use Chrome seamlessly across their different devices and has
clear privacy controls."
Matthew Wessler, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said he was pleased
with the decision and looked forward to a trial.
The proposed class covers Chrome users since July 27, 2016 who did
not sync their browsers with their Google accounts.
They said Google should have honored Chrome's privacy notice, which
said users "don't need to provide any personal information to use
Chrome" and Google would not receive such information unless they
turned on the "sync" function.
The lower court judge concluded that Google's general privacy
policy allowing data collection applied to the case, because the
Mountain View, California-based company would have collected the
plaintiffs' information regardless of which browsers they used.
In August 20 decision, Circuit Judge Milan Smith called that focus
misplaced.
"Here, Google had a general privacy disclosure yet promoted Chrome
by suggesting that certain information would not be sent to Google
unless a user turned on sync," Smith wrote. "A reasonable user
would not necessarily understand that they were consenting to the
data collection at issue."
The appeals court returned the case to U.S. District Judge Yvonne
Gonzalez Rogers in Oakland, California, who had dismissed it in
December 2022.
Google's settlement related to Incognito let users sue the company
individually for damages. Tens of thousands of users in California
alone have since done so in that state's courts.
The case is Calhoun et al v Google LLC, 9th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals, No. 22-16993. [GN]
GRAMERCY SURGERY: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Horvath Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
BARBARA HORVATH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GRAMERCY SURGERY CENTER, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:24-cv-06360-GHW-GWG (S.D.N.Y., August 22, 2024) is a
class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of
implied contract, and unjust enrichment.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected
health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated
individuals stored within its computer systems following a data
breach that occurred between June 14, 2024, and June 17, 2024. The
Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly
situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the
private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was
compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown
and unauthorized third parties.
Gramercy Surgery Center, Inc. is a healthcare provider with its
principal place of business located in New York, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Vicki J. Maniatis, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (865) 412-2700
Email: vmaniatis@milberg.com
- and -
David K. Lietz, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
5335 Wisconsin Ave., NW, Suite 440
Washington, DC 20015
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
Email: dlietz@milberg.com
HAGGAR CLOTHING: Battle Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANDRE BATTLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HAGGAR CLOTHING CO., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-07619 (N.D. Ill., August 23, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans
with Disabilities Act and declaratory relief.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
https://www.haggar.com/, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the public through the
website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not
limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, inaccurate heading
hierarchy, inadequate focus order, ambiguous link texts, changing
of content without advance warning, inaccurate alt-text on
graphics, inaccessible drop-down menus, the lack of adequate
labeling of form fields, redundant links where adjacent links go to
the same URL address, and the requirement that transactions be
performed solely with a mouse.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals.
Haggar Clothing Co. is a company that sells online goods and
services, doing business in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Uri Horowitz, Esq.
14441 70th Road
Flushing, NY 11367
Telephone: (718) 705-8706
Facsimile: (718) 705-8705
Email: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com
HAH GROUP: Faces Loffler Suit Over Patients' Compromised Info
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOANN LOFFLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HAH GROUP HOLDING, LLC D/B/A HELP AT HOME,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-07595 (N.D. Ill., August 22, 2024) is a
class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per
se, breach of contract, breach of implied contract, breach of
fiduciary duty, breach of confidence, unjust enrichment, and
declaratory judgment.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected
health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated patients
stored within its vendor's computer systems following a data breach
that occurred on or around March 21, 2024. The Defendant also
failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated
individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private
information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and
damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and
unauthorized third parties, says the suit.
HAH Group Holding, LLC, doing business as Help at Home, is a home
care services company based in Chicago, Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mason A. Barney, Esq.
Tyler J. Bean, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Telephone: (646) 357-1732
Email: mbarney@sirillp.com
tbean@sirillp.com
HEALTH CENTER: Court Denies Bids to Dismiss Jackson Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Roger T. Benitez of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California denies the Defendants' motions to dismiss
the lawsuit titled JAMES JACKSON, Plaintiff v. HEALTH CENTER
PARTNERS OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, et al., Defendants, Case No.
3:24-cv-00106-BEN-DDL (S.D. Cal.).
Before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction
brought by Defendant Netgain Technology, LLC ("Netgain"), and the
Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim brought by Defendant
Council of Community Clinics ("CCC") doing business as Health
Centers Partners of Southern California.
The Plaintiff brings this putative class action alleging state law
violations of California's Confidentiality of Medical Information
Act and California's Customer Records Act relating to a data breach
involving Plaintiff's and potential class members' medical and
personal information. The operative complaint is the Second Amended
Complaint ("SAC") which was filed on Aug 22, 2023, in the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego, Case
No. 37-2021-00038892-CU-BTCTL, prior to the case being removed to
this Court.
In the Second Amended Complaint filed before the Superior Court,
the Plaintiff alleges that he is a San Diego County, California
resident and a patient of a San Diego County, California-based
healthcare clinic. As a patient, the Plaintiff provided his
personal information, including his name, address, date of birth,
social security number, phone number and email address to a health
care entity named Council of Community Clinics and doing business
as Health Centers Partners of Southern California.
The Plaintiff alleges that CCC maintains an online computer program
to allow patients to securely access and review their health
information, as well as to update their personal information. He
alleges that CCC contracted with Netgain to store and protect the
private medical information of his own and other CCC patients.
The Plaintiff alleges that between Oct. 22, 2020, and Dec. 3, 2020,
CCC and Netgain were negligent and failed to properly maintain,
preserve, and store his confidential, medical, and personal
identifying information by allowing an unauthorized unknown person
to gain access and actually view his information. He maintains that
he has the right to expect that the confidentiality of his medical
information in possession of CCC and Netgain be reasonably
preserved and protected from unauthorized viewing, exfiltration,
theft, and/or disclosures. He alleges that CCC's and Netgain's
negligence in caring for the medical information constitutes a
violation of three state statutes.
As set out in the SAC, Netgain was an IT provider for CCC. Netgain
notified CCC that there had been a data breach and that the
Plaintiff's information may have been exposed to unauthorized
access by a criminal hacker. Netgain's notice to CCC, and CCC's
notice to the Plaintiff, said that an attacker had launched a
ransomware attack around October to December 2020, and that Netgain
had paid the ransom.
The Defendants maintain that the Plaintiff's medical information
was never disclosed to, or actually viewed by, the criminal hackers
because the ransom amount was paid in exchange for non-exposure of
the medical data. The Plaintiff alleges, nevertheless, that during
the time period of the attack, his medical information was
accessible by the data attackers.
The Plaintiff's SAC alleges three California state law causes of
action ("COA") against CCC for violations of: (1) the
Confidentiality of Medical Information Act ("CMIA"); (2) the
Customer Records Act ("CRA"); and (3) the California Unfair
Competition Laws ("UCL").
Netgain moves to dismiss arguing the Court lacks general and
specific personal jurisdiction over Netgain. Netgain argues that it
is not at home in California. Rather, it is a Delaware limited
liability company, headquartered in Minnesota, a claim the
Plaintiff does not contest. Additionally, Netgain argues that it
has not engaged in the type of continuous and systematic activity
in California necessary to establish general jurisdiction, which
the Plaintiff does contest. Alternatively, Netgain argues that it
did not purposefully direct any intentional activity at California
and the Plaintiff's claims do not arise out of any contacts between
Netgain and the Plaintiff in California, which the Plaintiff also
contests.
As part of its opposition, the Plaintiff requests judicial notice
be taken of several internet website page screenshots. These
screenshots come from Netgain's own website and to the extent they
acknowledge that Netgain maintains an office in San Diego County
and describes its clients to include healthcare provider Health
Center Partners of Southern California (CCC's d/b/a name)
(generally Exhibits 1-22, 23-24), Judge Benitez holds the
Plaintiff's request for judicial notice is granted.
Netgain has been sued before in this Court for claims arising out
of the data breach. Each time the Court has decided to not exercise
jurisdiction over Netgain, Judge Benitez notes, citing Lee v.
Netgain Technology, LLC, Case No 21cv1144-LL (MSB) (S.D. Cal. April
1, 2022); Clark v. Netgain Technology, LLC, Case No. 21cv1432-LL
(MSB). However, in those cases, the plaintiffs were citizens and
residents of South Carolina and patients of healthcare clinics
operating in South Carolina. The plaintiffs articulated various
state common law claims and South Carolina statutory claims for
relief. Why the plaintiffs in Lee and Clark selected the Southern
District of California for their lawsuits, is not evident.
In the present case, Judge Benitez says the Plaintiff actually
provides the Netgain data breach notice he did receive in
California. Moreover, California residents were uniquely harmed
because their breached health care records were created as a result
of receiving healthcare in California, and finally Netgain
obviously knew that it provided its data security work to at least
one California healthcare provider, i.e., CCC. On every significant
metric, the alleged facts that were lacking for the exercise of
specific jurisdiction over Netgain in Lee and Clark, are present in
this case.
Here, the Court finds it has specific jurisdiction over Netgain.
Judge Benitez opines that Netgain has purposely availed and
directed efforts at CCC and its California resident patients in
this district. Judge Benitez adds that Netgain's contacts with this
district cannot be characterized as random, isolated, or
fortuitous.
Considering all the Dole factors under Dole Food Co. v. Watts, 303
F.3d 1104, 1114 (9th Cir. 2002), Judge Benitez holds that Netgain
has not made a compelling case to overcome the strong presumption
of reasonableness of the assertion of personal jurisdiction.
Therefore, Netgain's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is
denied.
In the alternative, Netgain asks that this case be transferred to
the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, where
another case was brought concerning Netgain's data breach and
ransomware demand. The Minnesota action did include, among others,
a California plaintiff asserting California state law claims.
However, the case settled and is now closed (In re: Netgain
Technology, LLC, Consumer Data Breach Litigation, Case No. 21cv1210
(SRN/LIB) (Dist. Minn. May 14, 2024)).
Moreover, Judge Benitez says the Minnesota court did not have the
opportunity to address the substance of the California law claims
before the case ended. Therefore, Judge Benitez holds, little
conservation of judicial resources would result from transferring
this case at this point to the District of Minnesota.
CCC moves to dismiss for failure to state a claim. CCC argues that
the Plaintiff has not adequately alleged a cause of action under
the CMIA.
At trial, the Plaintiff may have a difficult time proving in these
circumstances that his protected medical information was actually
viewed by the ransomware hackers, evidence that is required to
prevail on a CMIA cause of action, Judge Benitez notes. But the
Plaintiff does allege that his medical information was "actually
viewed by at least one 'unauthorized third party'" in violation of
CIMA.
In the context of a criminal ransomware attack on a medical records
database, Judge Benitez finds this allegation along with the other
allegations satisfies Rule 8 and states a plausible claim for
relief.
The Defendant argues that the Plaintiff's CRA claim fails because
he does not allege any damages caused by the purported delay. But
the Plaintiff does allege damages were incurred, Judge Benitez
points out, among other things. Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges
the delay prevented him from taking steps to protect his personal
information. Judge Benitez finds there is no basis to dismiss the
Plaintiff's cause of action on this ground.
CCC argues that the Plaintiff's allegations of a violation of the
UCL are deficient. However, it does not take much to make out a
plausible claim that a defendant violated the California UCL when
it is also plausibly alleged that another California law was
violated by the same defendant, Judge Benitez opines. Thus, the
requirements for alleging a UCL claim are easily met.
Here, the Plaintiff's SAC and its UCL claim relies on violations of
the CMIA and CRA. This is sufficient to plausibly allege a UCL
cause of action under California law and Rule 8, Judge Benitez
holds.
For these reasons, the Court denies Netgain's motion to dismiss for
lack of jurisdiction and CCC's motion to dismiss for failure to
state a claim.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Aug. 7, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yzs6mca5 from PacerMonitor.com.
IDAHO: District Court Dismisses Ullrich's Claims Without Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled STEPHEN FLOYD ULLRICH, Plaintiff v. IDAHO
BOARD OF CORRECTION, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-00583-BLW (D.
Idaho), Judge B. Lynn Winmill of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Idaho dismisses the Plaintiff's claims without
prejudice.
Plaintiff Stephen Floyd Ullrich prepared and signed a prisoner pro
se civil rights Complaint seeking class action status in this
access-to-courts case. He submitted Affidavits of three inmates,
who believe they have suffered similar damages: Wayne D. Merkley,
George Crider, and Roger Ehler. Mr. Merkley submitted Mr. Ullrich's
Complaint for filing.
Mr. Ullrich is subject to a Case Management Order that requires him
to seek authorization before filing a new case in federal court
(see Case 1:20-cv-00035-DCN, Ullrich v. Idaho State Courts ("Case
35")). He did not follow his Case 35 Management Order for this
filing. Because no other inmate signed the Complaint drafted and
signed by Mr. Ullrich, the Court considers it as only Mr. Ullrich's
Complaint.
As the Court will explain, because Mr. Ullrich did not comply with
the Case Management Order and await a ruling on his Request for
Authorization to File, his claims will be dismissed without
prejudice. Because Mr. Merkley is already pursuing similar claims
in a different pending lawsuit, he will be required to bring all of
his claims in that case.
If Mr. Crider and Mr. Ehler desire to proceed, Judge Winmill says
they must (1) file a new complaint, and (2) pay the filing fee or
submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis.
In Case 35, the federal court entered a "Litigation Management
Order" to curb Mr. Ullrich's frivolous and repetitive filings
related to his state court conviction. He also has been issued
three or more strikes under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(g) for having
filed previous actions that were deemed frivolous or malicious or
that failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted (see,
e.g., Ullrich v. Idaho, Case No. 1:08-cv-00076-BLW; Ullrich v.
Canyon County, Case No. 1:06-cv-00320-EJL; Ullrich v. Prior, Case
No. 1:06-cv-00500-EJL).
Mr. Ullrich must also work under a separate pre-filing review order
issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
in appellate Case No. 17-80090, In re Stephen Ullrich. In regard to
Mr. Ullrich's many appellate filings, the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals quoted a United States Supreme Court precedent governing
this issue.
According to the Case Management Order in Case 35, Mr. Ullrich is
required to file a "Request for Authorization for Filing" of no
more than three pages that must state all of the following: the
federal legal basis for the cause of action the Plaintiff desires
to bring, the defendants the Plaintiff desires to sue, the facts
supporting the cause of action, and the reason why it meets the
"imminent danger of serious physical injury" requirement of 28
U.S.C. Section 1915(g).
When the federal court receives a request from Mr. Ullrich, the
Clerk of Court will conditionally file it, and Mr. Ullrich is not
authorized to make any further filings unless the Court authorizes
him to do so.
Judge Winmill holds that Mr. Ullrich's claims will be dismissed.
Judge Winmill opines that his attempt to use other prisoners to
bypass his Litigation Case Management Order is improper. In
addition, none of the prison affidavits submitted states a
cognizable access to courts claim; each is too vague to be
actionable, and therefore, together they cannot form the basis of a
class action lawsuit.
Plaintiff George Crider states in his Affidavit: "I have needed
access to courts for years, but there is no way I can get into
Court because I am mentally ill and there is no one to help me, and
this is wrong to happen."
Judge Winmill notes that there is no inkling of what type of claims
Mr. Crider has or when or how he attempted to bring them. Mr.
Crider has not stated whether he previously filed grievances to
notify prison officials that he was unable to file a court action
so that they could remedy any deficiency in the prison legal
resource system.
Judge Winmill says Mr. Crider may obtain a form complaint and an in
forma pauperis application from the prison legal resource center.
Mr. Crider must state specific facts showing the claims he desired
to but could not bring, including the "who, what, when, where, why,
and how" of each claim. If Mr. Crider needs the help of a scribe,
he may ask the prison legal resource center to provide him with
that service.
Mr. Crider will be permitted to take advantage of the earlier
filing date of this action if the claims he brings in any new
complaint relate back to those in this Complaint.
Plaintiff Wayne Douglas Merkley states by Affidavit that he has
"always wanted to challenge [his] conviction, sentence, and
conditions of confinement," but his mental illness has prevented
him from doing so. However, Judge Winmill notes, Mr. Merkley has
filed many actions in the federal court, demonstrating that he has
had access to the courts. In addition, Mr. Merkley currently has an
ongoing action in Case No. 23-cv-00207-AKB, Merkley v. Idaho Board
of Correction ("Case 207"). He will be required to pursue his
claims in Case 207, not in Mr. Ullrich's action here. Mr. Merkley's
"Motion for Removal" filed in this action will be stricken as
legally and factually inappropriate.
Plaintiff Roger Ehler states by Affidavit that "once I was
incarcerated I wanted to challenge my conviction but I was not
per-se competent so I could not pursue said upon my own and had no
one to help me."
Mr. Ehler was incarcerated in 2013, over a decade ago. He alleges
that he has diminished capacity issues but desires to return to
court to challenge his conviction. He recently found an inmate to
help him with his claims, and he is going to try to prepare and
file an action in court. These allegations show that it is unclear
whether Mr. Ehler has any remedies left; if he does, he cannot
state an access-to-courts violation here, Judge Winmill says.
Judge Winmill notes that Mr. Ehler has not stated whether he
previously filed grievances to notify prison officials that he was
unable to file a court action so that they could remedy any
deficiency in the prison legal resource system. Mr. Ehler should
have filed grievances about his inability to access the courts
shortly after his conviction in 2013, and filed suit directly after
exhaustion of administrative remedies if the problems were not
cured, rather than bringing a lawsuit a decade later. The prison
grievance system exists for the purpose of solving prisoner
problems at the time the problems are occurring.
Mr. Ehler can obtain a complaint form and an in forma pauperis
application from the prison legal resource center. If Mr. Ehler
desires to provide further facts to support an access to courts
claim, he may do so by filing his own new action, Judge Winmill
holds. If he needs the help of a scribe, he may ask the prison
legal resource center to provide him with that service.
Judge Winmill holds that Mr. Ehler will be permitted to take
advantage of the earlier filing date of this action if the claims
he brings in any new complaint relate back to those in this
Complaint.
The Court rules as follows:
1. Plaintiff Stephen Ullrich's claims are dismissed without
prejudice;
2. Mr. Merkley's Motion for Removal is stricken. He must bring
all his claims in his pending action, Case 207;
3. Should Mr. Crider or Mr. Ehler desire to pursue a civil
rights action, they will file a new complaint form and an
in forma pauperis application, available to them in the
prison legal resource center. Any new complaint will be
opened under a new case number; and
4. The Clerk of Court will enter a Judgment and close this case.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Aug. 7, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/mryy34dn from PacerMonitor.com.
INTERNATIONAL BANK: Faces Parrott ERISA Class Suit in Tex.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Paul Parrott, as the representative of a class of similarly
situated persons, and on behalf of the International Bancshares
Corporation Employees' Profit Sharing Plan and Trust, Plaintiff v.
International Bank of Commerce, International Bancshares
Corporation, and the International Bancshares Corporation Profit
Sharing Plan Committee, Defendants, Case No. 5:24-cv-00118 (S.D.
Tex., August 14, 2024) is an action pursuant to the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act arising from the Defendants' failure
to invest International Bancshares Corporation Employees' Profit
Sharing Plan and Trust assets prudently and for the exclusive
benefit of Plan participants.
The complaint asserts that Defendants treat Plan assets like
company assets -- including by depositing Plan assets with the
company in low-yield, no-growth accounts -- to the detriment of
participants' retirement savings.
Specifically, the Defendants violated ERISA fiduciary standards by,
inter alia, (1) failing to employ a prudent process for investing
Plan assets in a manner consistent with the investment objectives
of the Plan and its participants; (2) failing to monitor Plan
investment performance and make necessary changes to promote
long-term capital appreciation; and (3) allowing company biases and
interests to influence their investment decisions, the suit
alleges.
The Plaintiff is a former participant in the Plan. He worked for an
IBC Bank between 2018 and 2021.
IBC is a state-chartered bank based in Laredo, Texas. IBC is the
largest bank subsidiary of IBC Holdco.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Octavio Salinas II, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF OCTAVIO SALINAS II P.C.
1116 Calle Del Norte
Laredo, TX 78041
Telephone: (956) 727-4942
Facsimile: (956) 727-0792
E-mail: osalinasii@att.net
- and -
Jennifer K. Lee, Esq.
Carl F. Engstrom, Esq.
ENGSTROM LEE LLC
323 N. Washington Ave., Suite 200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 305-8349
Facsimile: (612) 677-3050
E-mail: jlee@engstromlee.com
cengstrom@engstromlee.com
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD: Leavitt Sues Over Failure to Secure Info
-------------------------------------------------------------------
RALPH LEAVITT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL
WORKERS LOCAL NO. 1, Defendant, Case No. 4:24-cv-01148-HEA (E.D.
Mo., August 22, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for
negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, invasion
of privacy, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, violation
of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices
Act, and declaratory judgment.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff
and similarly situated individuals stored within its computer
systems following a data breach between March 31, 2024, and April
5, 2024. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff
and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a
result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members
was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to
unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit.
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local No. 1 is a
labor union based in St. Louis, Missouri. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC
980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610
Chicago, IL 60611
Telephone: (872) 263-1100
Facsimile: (872) 263-1109
Email: sam@straussborrelli.com
raina@straussborrelli.com
ISUZU MOTORS: Piper Alderman With Woodsford in Emission Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Jacqueline So, writing for Australasian Lawyer, reports that Piper
Alderman has partnered with litigation funder Woodsford on a class
action filed against Japanese car maker Isuzu Motors Limited -- the
firm's second diesel emissions class action this year.
In the suit, the firm alleged that Isuzu deployed defeat devices in
vehicles being sold in Australia.
"Diesel emissions like NOx are harmful to both human health and the
natural environment. This class action alleges that Isuzu has
sought to circumvent Australia's rigorous emission standards by
deploying 'defeat devices' in certain of its D-Max and MU-X
vehicles, causing them to emit NOx pollutants in normal driving
conditions at higher than permitted levels", partner Martin del
Gallego said.
Australia's vehicle approval regime is reliant on manufacturers
providing accurate and complete evidence of compliance with
applicable vehicle standards. Last Thursday, August 15, applicants
filed a statement of claim in Federal Court accusing Isuzu of
misrepresenting its compliance with applicable emissions standards.
This, applicants said, constituted a violation of statutory
guarantees under the Australian Consumer Law and fell under
unconscionable conduct.
The applicants are seeking compensation and aggravated and
exemplary damages for those who acquired a legal or equitable
interest in a 2017 or later Isuzu D-Max, and/or a 2016
(specifically, MY16.5) or later Isuzu MU-X, between 1 January 2016
and 14 August 2024.
"This action against Isuzu is the latest in an increasingly long
line of legal actions across the globe relating to what appears to
have been a common practice among diesel vehicle manufacturers of
deceiving regulators and customers regarding emissions. This action
seeks to hold Isuzu to account for this misconduct and to deliver
due compensation to Australian Isuzu owners", Woodsford Chief
Investment Officer Charlie Morris explained.
Piper Alderman had also filed a class action earlier this year in
relation to defeat devices being installed in Mercedes-Benz
vehicles. [GN]
JACK IN THE BOX: Court Refuses to Reconsider Order in Gessele Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Marco A. Hernandez of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Oregon denies the Plaintiffs' Motion to Reconsider in
the lawsuit entitled JESSICA GESSELE, ASHLEY ORTIZ, NICOLE GESSELE,
TRICIA TETRAULT, and CHRISTINA MAULDIN, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JACK IN THE BOX, INC.,
a corporation of Delaware, Defendant, Case No. 3:14-cv-01092-HZ (D.
Or.).
After 12 years of litigation, this class-action case went to trial
on Oct. 17, 2022. On Oct. 24, 2022, the jury entered a Verdict.
After several post-trial motions the Court entered a Judgment on
May 23, 2023. After additional motions practice, the Court entered
an Amended Judgment on Sept. 2, 2023.
The parties filed cross-motions for attorney fees. On April 14,
2024, the Court issued an Opinion and Order in which it granted in
part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorney Fees.
On May 9, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Reconsider the
Court's April 14, 2024 Opinion and Order. The Court took the
Plaintiffs' Motion under advisement on June 18, 2024.
The Plaintiffs request the Court reconsider the amount of attorney
fees awarded to the Plaintiffs under Oregon's fee-shifting
statutes. The Plaintiffs assert that because the Court declined to
award the Plaintiffs attorney fees at the current rate for all
hours billed during entire course of litigation, the Court should
have applied a prime rate enhancement to account for the time value
of money.
The Defendant asserts the Court should deny the Plaintiffs' Motion
because did not request a prime rate enhancement in their Motion
for Attorney Fees or Reply, the Plaintiffs present no evidence to
support this request that was not available at the time of the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorney Fees, the Plaintiffs do not point
to any intervening change in the law, and the Plaintiffs have not
established that the Court committed clear error or that its
decision was manifestly unjust.
Judge Hernandez notes that the Plaintiffs did not request or raise
the issue of a prime rate enhancement in their Motion for Attorney
Fees or their Reply and the Plaintiffs do not point to any new
evidence supporting their request. The Plaintiffs also do not rely
on an intervening change in the law. In fact the cases the
Plaintiffs rely on significantly predate their Motion for Attorney
Fees.
As to whether the Court committed clear error or its decision was
manifestly unjust, the Plaintiffs concede that the Court's decision
not to award all fees incurred at current rates was within the
Court's discretion. The Plaintiffs, however, cite In re Washington
Pub. Power Supply Sys. Sec. Litig., 19 F.3d 1291 (9th Cir. 1994)
for the assertion that precedent requires a court to apply a prime
rate enhancement when it declines to apply attorneys' current rates
to all hours billed during the course of litigation.
That case, however, was a common fund case and, therefore, attorney
fees were paid out of the common fund rather than shifted to the
defendant via a fee-shifting statute or provision, Judge Hernandez
opines. The other cases relied on by the Plaintiffs in which courts
applied a prime rate enhancement are also common fund cases.
In addition, Judge Hernandez explains, the Plaintiff does not cite,
nor could this Court find, a case awarding fees under Oregon's
attorney fee analytical framework that applied the prime rate
enhancement. Finally, although the Court declines to recite the
lengthy procedural history of this 14-year litigation again here,
the Court notes that at least some of the delay was attributable to
the Plaintiffs.
The Court, therefore, concludes the Plaintiffs have not established
that the Court committed clear error or that its decision was
manifestly unjust with respect to the award of the Plaintiffs'
attorney fees under the fee-shifting provisions.
Accordingly, the Court denies the Plaintiffs' Motion to
Reconsider.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion & Order dated Aug. 8, 2024,
is available at https://tinyurl.com/3anc5ueu from
PacerMonitor.com.
Jon M. Egan -- jegan@eganlegalteam.com -- in Lake Oswego, OR
97034-2931; Jim W. Vogele -- jim@MedEmployeeLawyer.com -- in
Portland, OR 97209, Attorneys for the Plaintiff.
Douglas S. Parker -- parkerd@lanepowell.com -- Heather St. Clair --
stclairh@lanepowell.com -- Ian Maher -- maheri@lanepowell.com --
Lane Powell PC, in Portland, OR 97204; David Symes --
dsymes@symeslawoffice.com -- Symes Law Office LLC, in Sandy, OR
97055, Attorneys for the Defendant.
JERSEY CITY, NJ: Settlement in O'Garro Suit Gets Initial Nod
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ATHENA O'GARRO,
Individually and On Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated
Individuals, v. CITY OF JERSEY CITY and STEVEN FULOP, Case No.
2:20-cv-05282-CCC-JBC (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Claire Cecchi
entered an order:
-- granting the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of
class
action settlement and certification of the settlement class;
-- approving and directing issuance of settlement notice; and
scheduling hearing on final approval.
Class Certification for Settlement Purposes:
Pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, the Court certifies, solely for purposes of effectuating
the proposed Settlement, a Settlement Class consisting of all:
"Individuals with a Qualified Mobility Disability under the
Americans for Disability Act ("ADA") and have at any time used
or
will seek to use in the future any ramps where a pedestrian
walkway
crosses a curb in Jersey City, (including, without limitation,
residents of and visitors to the City).
Jersey City is in northeastern New Jersey. Its eastern waterfront
faces the Hudson River where it meets Upper New York Bay. Liberty
State Park has panoramic views of the Manhattan skyline, the Statue
of Liberty and Ellis Island, the former immigrant gateway.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 15, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MNAzFr at no extra
charge.[CC]
JETSTAR AIRWAYS: Suit Seeks Refunds Over COVID Cancelled Flights
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jetstar Airways is facing a class action lawsuit over allegations
it did not refund payments to customers whose flights were
cancelled during the Covid pandemic, with lawyers claiming the
airline was legally obliged to do so.
The legal action is headed by Echo Law, which served the claim on
the Qantas-owned airline on Wednesday morning, August 21, the law
firm said in a statement.
Echo partner Andrew Paull claimed the airline had put "profits
ahead of its customers' interests".
"Jetstar customers were pushed into holding hundreds of millions of
dollars in restricted travel credits, even though this wasn't what
those customers had agreed to as part of the airline's terms and
conditions," Paull said.
-
"The right thing for Jetstar to do when it cancelled all those
flights was to return its customers' money without delay."
Echo is pursuing Jetstar owner Qantas in separate proceedings
started last year over its refund policy for cancelled flights,
which involved the airline's use of travel credits.
The Jetstar action is financed by litigation funder Court House
Capital.
A Jetstar spokesperson said the airline would review the class
action claims.
"Last year we removed expiry dates for Covid vouchers so they can
be used indefinitely," the spokesperson said.
The vouchers can be used across multiple bookings and for multiple
people.
The legal argument centres on claims that the use of travel
credits, as opposed to refunds, was neither transparent or in
keeping with the contractual terms of the ticket purchases.
Jetstar also engaged in a "system or pattern of unconscionable
conduct" that breached consumer law, Echo Law claims.
Paull said the airline financially benefited because it could use
the money deposited for cancelled flights.
"It now needs to be held accountable and refund that money with
interest," Paull said.
"While customers sat at home not able to enjoy the benefits of
flying, Jetstar enjoyed the significant financial benefits of
holding hundreds of millions of dollars in customer payments
including interest and reduced borrowing costs.
"It is unfair, and we allege unlawful, that Jetstar profited from
holding on to its customers' money for flights it had cancelled."
[GN]
JPMORGAN CHASE: Sweeps Customers' Cash Balances, Bodea Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
DAN BODEA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO. and J.P. MORGAN
SECURITIES LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-06404 (S.D.N.Y.,
August 23, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for
breach of fiduciary duty, gross negligence, unjust enrichment,
breach of contract, and violation of New York General Business
Law.
The case arises cash sweep programs implemented by the Defendants
whereby, acting as their customers' agent and fiduciary, the
Defendants automatically sweeps uninvested cash balances in their
customers' accounts and deposits that cash into a deposit account
at their affiliated bank, JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. (JPMCB). The
Defendants shortchanged their customers for their and their
affiliates' benefit by negotiating with JPMCB one-sided
transactions related to the Bank Deposit Sweep Program, designed to
shift compensation and returns on their customers' cash in the
Program from those customers to JPMCB. As a result of the
Defendants' misrepresentations and omissions of material facts
concerning the Program, the Plaintiff and the Class have suffered
an ascertainable loss of money, property, and/or value and were
harmed and suffered actual damages, says the suit.
JPMorgan Chase & Co. is a financial services firm headquartered in
New York, New York.
JP Morgan Securities LLC is a broker-dealer and investment advisor
headquartered in New York, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Radha Nagamani Raghavan, Esq.
Michael Dell'Angelo, Esq.
Andrew D. Abramowitz, Esq.
Alex B. Heller, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 875-3000
Email: rraghavan@bm.net
mdellangelo@bm.net
aabramowitz@bm.net
aheller@bm.net
- and -
Alan L. Rosca, Esq.
Jonathan A. Korte, Esq.
ROSCA SCARLATO LLC
2000 Auburn Dr. Suite 200
Beachwood, OH 44122
Telephone: (216) 946-7070
Email: arosca@rscounsel.law
jkorte@rscounsel.law
- and -
Paul J. Scarlato, Esq.
161 Washington Street, Suite 1025
Conshohocken, PA 19428
Telephone: (216) 946-7070
Email: pscarlato@rscounsel.law
L3HARRIS TECHNOLOGIES: Fawcett Loses Motion for Reconsideration
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as ROBERT J. STENGL, DANIEL WILL, GARY K.
COLLEY, LESLIE D. DIAZ, AMAYA JOHNSON, WILLIAM A. MCKINLEY and JOHN
KARIPAS, Plaintiffs, v. L3HARRIS TECHNOLOGIES, INC., THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF L3HARRIS TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and THE INVESTMENT
COMMITTEE OF L3HARRIS TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendants, Case No:
6:22-cv-572-PGB-LHP (M.D. Fla.), Judge Paul G. Byron of the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Florida denied the
motion for reconsideration and motion to exclude from class action
filed by Susan J. Fawcett.
Plaintiffs Stengl et al. filed a response in opposition.
On March 1, 2024, following a Notice of Settlement Plaintiffs filed
an Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action
Settlement. The Court granted the Preliminary Motion on March 11,
2024. Then, on May 17, 2024, Plaintiffs filed an Unopposed Motion
for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement. On July 1, 2024,
class member Fawcett filed an untimely objection to the class
action settlement. Then, on July 9, 2024, the Court held its Final
Approval Hearing, where the Court considered and overruled the
Objection.
Accordingly, on July 12, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiffs'
Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement. In
so doing, the Court found the settlement was negotiated in good
faith and at arm's-length, and that the terms of the settlement
were fair, reasonable, and adequate. Additionally, the Court noted
that it considered and overruled Fawcett's Objection. Fawcett now
seeks reconsideration of this portion of the Court's Order.
Judge Byron says Fawcett does not raise any new arguments,
extraordinary circumstances, or manifest errors of law or fact that
warrant reconsideration of the Court's Order. He explains, she does
not identify where she filed the lawsuit or how the theories and
facts supporting her suit are different from those raised in the
instant class action. Similarly, Fawcett avers, without support,
that 'the class action's broad claims and settlement strategies do
not align with the specific and individual relief sought by her.
Finally, as Plaintiffs correctly observe, the settlement is final,
and Fawcett's Motion is more properly viewed as a collateral attack
on the settlement. Fawcett fails to support her collateral attack
on the settlement with new evidence supporting her arguments.
Therefore, under either standard of Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b), the
Motion is denied.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated August 6, 2024, is
available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=n6wEBY
LAS VEGAS BASKETBALL: Chapman May File Amended Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DELORES CHAPMAN, v. LAS
VEGAS BASKETBALL L.P., et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-00278-APG-MDC (D.
Nev.), the Hon. Judge Andrew Gordon entered an order granting
Mandalay Bay and the Aramark Defendants' amended motion to
dismiss.
The Court further entered an order that plaintiff Delores Chapman
may file an amended complaint by Sept. 10, 2024. Failure to file an
amended complaint by that date will result in dismissal of
defendants Mandalay Bay, LLC; Aramark Sports and Entertainment
Group, LLC; Aramark Sports and Entertainment Services, LLC; Aramark
Sports, LLC; and Aramark Services, Inc. without prejudice.
Judge Gordon grants Mandalay Bay and the Aramark defendants' motion
to dismiss because Chapman has not plausibly alleged that Mandalay
Bay and the Aramark defendants were her employers, she fails to
state a plausible unjust enrichment or conversion claim, and she
lacks standing to seek prospective relief. However, I grant Chapman
leave to amend.
Chapman does not allege that she ever worked over eight hours in a
given day or over forty hours in a given week. Thus, the Court
dismisses this claim but grant Chapman leave to amend to the extent
that she can plausibly allege that she worked overtime at least
once while she was working for Mandalay Bay and the Aramark
defendant.
Because the defendants have not shown that Chapman's claim is
preempted by the MWA, and it may or may not be preempted by the
FLSA, the Court does not dismiss Chapman's unjust enrichment claim
on preemption grounds, and amendment is not necessarily futile.
Additionally, Chapman can allege this claim in the alternative, as
she contends she is doing. The Court therefore grant her leave to
amend this claim as it is not clear that amendment would be
futile.
Las Vegas Basketball is an American professional basketball team
based in the Las Vegas metropolitan area.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 14, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DEeDxg at no extra
charge.[CC]
LEXISNEXIS RISK: Filing of Class Supplemental Authority Sought
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KERRY JENNIFER SCROGGINS,
et al., v. LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS FL, INC., Case No.
3:22-cv-00545-MHL-SLS (E.D. Va.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order granting their motion for leave to file newly
available supplemental authority related to the Plaintiff's Motion
for Class Certification.
The Plaintiff's proposal for class member identification here, with
claims under the same section of the FCRA and against similar
defense arguments, is in line with the one approved by the court in
Brooks.
Because Brooks had not been rendered at the time that the Plaintiff
filed either her Motion for Class Certification or Reply in support
of that motion, so she was unable to cite it in those briefs. Given
that Brooks bears directly on key issues at the core of this case
and the pending Motion for Class Certification, Plaintiff requests
leave to file this decision as supplemental authority in support of
her Motion for Class Certification.
LexisNexis provides data and technology services, analytics,
predictive insights, and fraud prevention for a wide range of
industries.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 15, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AnMEwY at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Leonard A. Bennett, Esq.
Craig C. Marchiando, Esq.
Adam Short, Esq.
John J. Maravalli, Esq.
Drew D. Sarrett, Esq.
CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C.
763 J. Clyde Morris Blvd., Ste. 1-A
Newport News, VA 23601
Telephone: (757) 930-3660
Facsimile: (757) 930-3662
E-mail: lenbennett@clalegal.com
craig@clalegal.com
adam@clalegal.com
john@clalegal.com
drew@clalegal.com
LHNH LAVISTA: Oct. 15 Deadline to File Class Cert Bid Sought
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEXANDER LANZ, et al., v.
LHNH LAVISTA LLC, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-05344-LMM (N.D. Ga.),
the Parties ask the Court to enter the amended class certification
briefing schedule as follows:
-- Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is due on Oct. 15,
2024;
-- Defendants' response to said motion is due within 30 days of
the
filing of the class certification motion; and
-- Plaintiffs' reply to Defendants' response is due within 30 days
of
the filing of said response.
The parties agree that, in the interests of conserving resources,
the class certification schedule should be amended to provide
adequate time to conduct said discovery prior to class
certification briefing.
The parties and their counsel regret having to revisit this issue
with the Court, but assert that was not intentional or in bad
faith, that there is good cause for the above amendments to the
briefing schedule, that said schedule will not result in
unnecessary delay, and that they are committed to complying with
the remaining deadlines set by the Court's Scheduling Order.
The parties filed a Joint Motion for Class Briefing Schedule on
Aug. 2, 2024. The Court granted that Motion, setting an Aug. 28,
2024 deadline for the Plaintiffs to file their motion for class
certification, and subsequent 30 day deadlines for the response and
reply briefs.
However, after the Order was entered, the Plaintiffs agreed to the
Defendants' request to extend their discovery response deadline by
two weeks, and the parties further considered and discussed (1) the
discovery that needs to be conducted prior to and is relevant to
class certification being briefed and (2) the schedules and other
commitments of counsel and the parties.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Aug. 14, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JTS5ul at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Douglas H. Dean, Esq.
DEAN THAXTON, LLC
601 E. 14th Avenue (31015)
Cordele, GA 31010
Telephone: (229) 271-9323
Facsimile: (229) 271-9324
E-mail: doug@deanthaxton.law
The Defendant is represented by:
R. Matt Shoemaker, Esq.
JONES CORK, LLP
435 Second Street, Fifth Floor
Macon, GA 31208
Telephone: (478) 745-2821
Facsimile: (478) 743-9609
E-mail: matt.shoemaker@jonescork.com
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Filing of Class Cert. Bid Due July 29, 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ADAM WARD, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL
INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:24-cv-10526-MJJ (D. Mass.), the Hon.
Judge Myong Joun entered a scheduling order as follows:
-- Except for good cause shown, no motions seeking leave to add
new
parties or to amend the pleadings to assert new claims or
defenses
may be filed after Oct. 21, 2024.
-- All requests for production of documents and interrogatories
must
be served by June 23, 2025.
-- All requests for admission must be served by June 23, 2025.
-- All depositions, other than expert depositions, must be
completed
by July 22, 2025.
-- All discovery, other than expert discovery, must be completed
by
July 22, 2025.
-- Trial Experts for the party with the burden of proof may be
designated, and the information contemplated by Fed. R. Civ. P
26(a)(2) must be disclosed, by March 19, 2025.
-- Rebuttal trial experts must be designated, and the information
contemplated by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) must be disclosed, by
April 18, 2025.
-- All trial experts must be deposed by July 22, 2025.
-- Plaintiff requests the deadline for Motions for Summary
Judgment
be filed by Sept. 5, 2025.
-- Defendant requests the deadline for Motions for Summary
Judgment
regarding Plaintiff's individual claim be Nov. 14, 2024
-- Motion for Class Certification Deadline July 29, 2025.
Liberty Mutual is an American diversified global insurer.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 14, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YkF5aR at no extra
charge.[CC]
LOWE'S HOME: Bid to Compel Arbitration in Lovinfosse Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Rossie D. Alston, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division, issued a
Memorandum Opinion and Order denying the Defendant's Motion to
Compel Arbitration in the lawsuit captioned ELEANOR LOVINFOSSE,
Plaintiff v. LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, LLP, Defendant, Case No.
1:23-cv-00574-RDA-LRV (E.D. Va.).
The matter comes before the Court on Defendant Lowe's Home Centers,
LLC's Motion to Compel Arbitration and Dismiss the Case or, in the
Alternative, Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim.
Judge Alston notes that while the Defendant's Motion is styled as a
"Motion to Dismiss and Compel Arbitration," considering the
substance of the Motion, it is more properly characterized as a
Motion to Compel Arbitration and Dismiss the Case or, in the
Alternative, Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim.
The Court has dispensed with oral argument as it would not aid in
the decisional process. Having considered the Motions together with
Plaintiff Eleanor Lovinfosse's Amended Class Action Complaint, the
Defendant's Memorandum in Support, the Plaintiff's Opposition, and
the Defendant's Reply, the Court denies the Motion to Compel
Arbitration and denies without prejudice to renewal the Motion to
Dismiss.
The Defendant is a national retail store that specializes in home
improvement. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant's deceptive
use of "Online Choice Architecture" ("OCA") resulted in her
purchasing an unnecessary water hose under the impression that it
was "Required for Use."
Merchants utilize OCA to increase "average order value" ("AOV"), a
metric that measures the average gross revenue of all orders over a
defined period. A higher AOV, in turn, offsets customer acquisition
costs due to the business receiving more money from each customer,
thus, leading to greater profit.
Two common OCA tactics are upselling and cross-selling. Upselling
is when a merchant suggests to a customer a similar but more
expensive product than the product he or she intended to buy.
Meanwhile, cross-selling is when a merchant recommends to a
customer a complementary item that, in theory, would make the
original product easier to use or provide some added benefit to the
customer (e.g., offering extra batteries with a remote or a
protection plan for a TV).
"Sneak into basket" is a form of cross-selling, whereby an extra
item is automatically added to the customer's cart, leaving it to
the customer to remove the item from his or her cart. This tactic
relies on "the default effect," meaning that the merchant expects
the customer to keep the added product in his or her cart, by
either choosing not to remove the added item or not noticing it
before the transaction is complete.
The Defendant takes this tactic one step further by labeling
additional items as "necessary" accessories when, in fact, any
necessary parts are already included with the purchase of the
original item. The Defendant's use of this "sneak into basket"
tactic is at the center of the Plaintiff's putative class action
here.
In 2022, the Plaintiff bought a washing machine from the
Defendant's website. The Plaintiff either did not notice the added
water hose on the confirmation page when she "checked out" the
washing machine and/or she noticed it and saw that it was
designated as "Required for Use," and therefore, chose not to
remove it. At the top of the check-out page, she saw an information
symbol (the letter "i" within a circle). Next to this symbol, the
webpage stated, "These items are necessary for your appliance to
function properly[,]" referring to the water hose. The water hose
was also specifically labeled "Required for Use" in bold letters.
Not until completing the purchase and reading the 72-page "Owner's
Manual & Installation Instructions" that came with the washing
machine did the Plaintiff learn that all the necessary parts were
supplied with the washing machine and that the water hose she
purchased was in fact not necessary.
As part of the check-out process, the Plaintiff had to click the
"Place Order" button before completing her online transaction.
Directly below the "Place Order" button, the webpage stated, "By
placing an order, I agree to [Defendant's] Terms and Privacy
Statement." Both the "Terms" and the "Privacy Statement" were
hyperlinked. Upon clicking the hyperlinked "Terms," the Plaintiff
would have been redirected to a webpage containing the Defendant's
"Terms and Conditions of Use."
When making her online purchase, the Plaintiff did not click on the
hyperlinked "Terms" and, thus, was not aware of any of their
contents. The Terms and Conditions were 31 pages long and
contained, inter alia, an arbitration provision, a class action
waiver provision, a choice of law provision, and a warranty
disclaimer provision. Towards the top of page 10, in large, bolded
font, were the words "Dispute Resolution."
Under the "Dispute Resolution" header, in bolded but slightly
smaller font, the webpage read: "Arbitration: Please read this
section carefully because it affects rights that you might
otherwise have. It provides resolution of most disputes through
arbitration instead of court proceeding."
On April 28, 2023, the Plaintiff filed her initial Complaint
against the Defendant in this Court. The Plaintiff then filed an
Amended Complaint against the Defendant on July 12, 2023, alleging
a host of fraud and breach of warranty claims against the
Defendant, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated.
Subsequently, on Sept. 12, 2023, the Defendant filed its Motion to
Compel Arbitration and Dismiss the Case or, in the Alternative,
Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, along with a
Memorandum in Support thereof. The Plaintiff filed her Opposition
on Sept. 26, 2023, and the Defendant filed its Reply on Oct. 2,
2023.
In its Motion to Compel Arbitration, the Defendant asks the Court
to dismiss the instant lawsuit at the threshold because there is a
valid and enforceable arbitration agreement between the parties. In
the alternative, the Defendant moves the Court to dismiss the
Amended Complaint for failure to state any fraud or breach of
warranty claim upon which relief can be granted.
In assessing the validity of a governing arbitration provision
subject to the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") in a commercial
dispute, the Fourth Circuit utilizes the test set forth in Adkins
v. Labor Ready, Inc., 303 F.3d 496, 501 (4th Cir. 2002) (quoting
Whiteside v. Teltech Corp., 940 F.2d 99, 102 (4th Cir. 1991)): in
the Fourth Circuit, a litigant can compel arbitration under the FAA
if he can demonstrate (1) the existence of a dispute between the
parties, (2) a written agreement that includes an arbitration
provision which purports to cover the dispute, (3) the relationship
of the transaction, which is evidenced by the agreement, to
interstate or foreign commerce, and (4) the failure, neglect or
refusal of the nonmovant to arbitrate the dispute.
Judge Alston notes that the Plaintiff does not appear to contest
that the first, third, and fourth Adkins factors have been met.
Accordingly, the Court will focus its analysis on the second
factor.
Judge Alston opines that the mutual assent element is easily met
because the layout and language of the Defendant's website provided
the Plaintiff with--at the very least--constructive knowledge of
the terms to which she was agreeing. In making this determination,
the Court finds a sister court's decision in Payne v. Amazon, Inc.,
No. 2:17-CV-2313-PMD, 2018 WL 4489275 (D. S.C. July 25, 2018)
instructive.
Here, just as in Payne, during the Plaintiff's check-out process,
she was notified that proceeding with her purchase meant agreeing
to the Terms and Conditions, Judge Alston explains. That warning
appeared directly below the "Place Order" button.
Accordingly, the Court finds that the Plaintiff had--at a
minimum--constructive knowledge of the Terms and Conditions and her
clicking the "Place Your Order" button, therefore, constituted
mutual assent to be bound by the Terms and Conditions.
The Defendant correctly notes that unilateral modification
provisions in an arbitration agreement do not automatically render
the agreement unconscionable, Judge Alston says. But the Defendant
fails to account for the fact that the arbitration clause in the
instant case goes beyond merely allowing the Defendant to retain
control to make unilateral modifications; the Defendant here has
the power to make those changes not only unilaterally, but also
without notice. Judge Alston points out that it is that distinction
that renders the cases upon which the Defendant relies inapposite.
Judge Alston opines that the unfair and illusory nature of an
agreement whereby the Defendant retains the unilateral power to
modify terms of the agreement without notice is demonstrated by the
nature of the Defendant's business. If a customer makes a single
transaction on the Defendant's website, the customer would
understandably be bound by the Terms and Conditions that he or she
agreed to when clicking the "Place Order" button. But if the
customer never engages in another transaction on the website, the
customer would have no idea that any of the terms and conditions to
which he or she originally agreed had changed.
The Defendant's position would force customers to constantly have
to check its website--in perpetuity--to see if it had exercised its
unilateral power to modify the terms to which the customer had
originally agreed, Judge Alston points out.
In sum, the Court finds that, although the mutual assent element
has been met, enforcing the arbitration provision is not
appropriate because the unfettered discretion the Defendant
retained to modify or revoke the provision without notice rendered
its promise to arbitrate illusory. Accordingly, the Court will not
compel arbitration and will deny the Defendant's Motion.
In its Motion to Dismiss, the Defendant asserts, inter alia, that
the Plaintiff waived her right to pursue this matter as a class
action and, thus, can only pursue claims in her individual
capacity, that she cannot bring her Virginia state law claims
because she agreed to choice of venue and choice of law provisions
mandating the application of North Carolina law, and that her
breach of warranties claims fail because she agreed to a warranty
waiver at the time of her purchase.
Notably, Judge Alston says, many of the Defendant's arguments
appear to rely on the Plaintiff having agreed to be bound by
certain provisions found in the Terms and Conditions--a contract
that the Court has held to be illusory due to the lack of notice
required for the unilateral modification provision contained
therein. Accordingly, the Court will deny the Motion to Dismiss
without prejudice and permit the Defendant to file a renewed motion
to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) so that the parties can
address any issues that have not been mooted by the instant
Memorandum Opinion and Order.
For these reasons, the Court orders that the Defendant's Motion to
Compel Arbitration and Dismiss the Case is denied; and the
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim is
denied without prejudice to renewal. The Defendant may file any
renewed motion to dismiss within thirty (30) days of this
Memorandum Opinion and Order and the Plaintiff file a brief in
response within fourteen (14) days of any renewed motion. The Clerk
is directed to forward copies of this Memorandum Opinion and Order
to counsel of record.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated
Aug. 8, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/bp8ttvt2 from
PacerMonitor.com.
LUCID GROUP: Court Grants in Part Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California grants in part and denies in part
motion to dismiss the lawsuit titled In re Lucid Group, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:22-cv-02094-AMO (N.D. Cal.).
The lawsuit is a securities fraud case about electric car
production. Defendants Lucid Group, Inc., Chief Executive Officer
Peter Rawlinson, and Chief Financial Officer Sherry House move to
dismiss Lead Plaintiff Sjunde AP-Fonden's consolidated class action
complaint. The Court held a hearing on the motion on Sept. 8, 2023.
Having considered the parties' papers, the relevant legal
authority, the arguments advanced by counsel during the hearing on
the motion, and good cause appearing, the Court denies the motion
in part and grants the motion in part with leave to amend, and
grants the Defendants' accompanying request for judicial notice.
In 2016, Lucid unveiled a prototype of its electric vehicle, the
Lucid Air. Production was to start in 2018. Needing funding, in
2018, Lucid secured $1 billion from Saudi Arabia's sovereign wealth
fund -- the Public Investment Fund -- in exchange for a majority
interest in the company. In September 2020, Lucid revealed the
production version of the Air. By early 2021, commercial production
of the vehicle had still not commenced, and Lucid again needed
funding.
On Feb. 22, 2021, Lucid announced its plan to merge with Churchill
Capital Corp IV. The merger would allow Lucid to go public through
a special purpose acquisition company and provide Lucid with $4.4
billion in cash. Lucid's CEO -- Peter Rawlinson -- would earn a $2
million bonus and $556 million in potential stock option
compensation. Half of the stock options would vest only if Lucid
met certain capitalization targets within five years of going
public.
The merger was set to close on July 22, 2021, but the Defendants
had not secured the necessary votes from Churchill shareholders.
The merger closed a day later, after "Rawlinson implored investors
to 'please, please vote,' and again reiterated that Lucid was
'energized about going into full production mode' later this year."
Public trading of Lucid stock began on July 26, 2021.
On Sept. 28, 2021, Lucid announced that it began production of the
Air. Deliveries to customers started on Oct. 30, 2021. Lucid
announced its first quarterly results as a public company on Nov.
15, 2021, telling investors that it was confident in its ability to
achieve 20,000 units in 2022.
With this news causing a "surge in the shares," on Dec. 8, 2021,
Lucid announced a public offering of convertible senior notes,
raising over $2 billion. By Jan. 25, 2022, Rawlinson had met the
capitalization benchmarks triggering the vesting of nearly 14
million stock options from his promised compensation package.
During a Feb. 28, 2022 earnings call, Lucid announced it would miss
the 20,000 unit target and reduced its vehicle production forecast
to a range of 12,000 to 14,000 vehicles. Lucid's stock price fell
from a close of $28.98 per share on Feb. 28, 2022, to a close at
$24.99 per share on March 1, 2022. On May 5, 2022, Lucid reiterated
its vehicle production target of 12,000 to 14,000 vehicles.
On Aug. 3, 2022, Lucid reduced its vehicle production target to
between 6,000 and 7,000 vehicles. Lucid also disclosed that it had
only produced 1,405 vehicles in the first six months of 2022, and
only delivered 679 to customers. Rawlinson stated: "Our revised
outlook guidance for the year reflects the logistic challenges I
described as we begin scaling, which exposed the immaturity of our
logistics processes." He explained that once "'supply chain and
logistics challenges' began to abate and 'we attempted to push
forward the rate, we found that our logistics constraints prevented
us from scaling meaningfully.'"
On this news, Lucid's stock price fell from a close of $20.56 per
share on Aug. 3, 2022, to a close at $18.56 per share on Aug. 4,
2022.
On April 1, 2022, an individual investor filed a putative
securities class action against Lucid, Rawlinson, and House. A
second proposed class action -- Goel v. Lucid Group, Inc., No.
22-cv-03176 (N.D. Cal.) -- followed on May 31, 2022. On Sept. 30,
2022, the Court related and consolidated the two cases, appointed
Sjunde AP-Fonden Lead Plaintiff, and approved its selection of
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, as Lead Counsel.
On Dec. 13, 2022, the Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated class
action complaint on behalf of all persons and entities, who bought
or acquired Lucid common stock between Nov. 15, 2021, and Aug. 3,
2022. The Lead Plaintiff alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and brings a claim against Rawlinson and
House for control person liability under Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act.
The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint
on Feb. 23, 2023, with a request for judicial notice. The Lead
Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion on April 24, 2023,
without a response to the request for judicial notice. The
Defendants' reply followed on June 8, 2023. The Court held a
hearing on Sept. 8, 2023.
The Defendants ask that the Court take judicial notice of 13
documents, including Exhibit 1: Lucid's Form 10-Q, filed with the
SEC on Nov. 15, 2021, and Exhibit 2: Excerpts of Lucid's Form 10-K,
filed with the SEC on Feb. 28, 2022.
The Lead Plaintiff did not file a response to the Defendants'
request for judicial notice. During oral argument, the Lead
Plaintiff indicated that it does not oppose the Defendants' request
for judicial notice to the extent the Defendants seek to rely on
documents for the limited purpose of establishing that certain
representations were made to the market.
With that statement from the Lead Plaintiff in mind, the Court
grants the request for judicial notice as follows. The Court takes
judicial notice of Exhibit 12, which is an unpublished district
court decision. The Court also takes judicial notice of Exhibits 1,
2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 13, which consist of SEC
filings, earnings calls transcripts, and press releases, for the
limited purpose of noting the representations Defendants made to
the market and only to the extent the Defendants have specifically
identified any such representations within those documents. The
Court does not take judicial notice of the contents of those
documents for their truth.
As to Exhibits 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 13, the Defendants also
assert that the documents are properly before the Court because
they are incorporated into the consolidated complaint by
reference.
Judge Martinez-Olguin notes that Exhibits 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 13
are the source of several statements the Lead Plaintiff alleges
were false and misleading (Statements 1, 2, 10, 13, 18, 19, 23). As
such, the documents form the basis of the Lead Plaintiff's claims.
For this reason, the Court finds that Exhibits 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10,
and 13 are incorporated by reference.
The Defendants move to dismiss the Lead Plaintiff's Section 10(b)
claim and the derivative Section 20(a) claim. The Defendants argue
that the Lead Plaintiff's Section 10(b) claim fails for two
reasons. First, they argue that Lead Plaintiff fails to plead any
actionable misstatement or omission, because the allegations of
falsity are insufficient and because the statements at issue fall
within the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act's ("PSLRA")
safe harbor, are non-actionable opinion, and/or constitute
corporate puffery. Second, the Defendants argue that the Lead
Plaintiff does not plead particularized facts sufficient to support
a strong inference of scienter.
The Court finds that certain portion of Statement 1 is adequately
pleaded, but the portions of Statements 2, 6, 8, 9, 10, 13, 19, 22,
23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 discussing projection targets are not
adequately pleaded because the complaint lacks allegations
indicating that the speaker possessed contemporaneous knowledge
that the statements were false when made.
The Defendants argue that Statements 4 and 7, which concern Lucid's
manufacturing capacity, are also insufficiently pleaded. The Lead
Plaintiff contends, among other things, that these statements were
misleading because, even if it was literally true that Lucid's
factory was built for a production capacity of 34,000 vehicles, the
company was "nowhere near ready" to fill its actual orders because
of "severe internal issues" that Lucid was concealing from
investors and the market.
In light of these allegations, the Court finds that Statement 4
affirmatively created an impression of a state of affairs that
differs in a material way from the one that actually existed. While
Rawlinson may have been truthfully describing that Lucid had built
manufacturing facilities capable of building 34,000 vehicles, he
gave the impression that Lucid was in a position to realize that
capacity as soon as Lucid could get quality parts to the line. The
allegations set forth above describe circumstances that plausibly
show much more than that needed to happen, Judge Martinez-Olguin
points out.
The Lead Plaintiff has, therefore, adequately alleged that
Statement 4 was false and misleading, Judge Martinez-Olguin holds.
The Lead Plaintiff has not, however, adequately pleaded that
Statement 7 was false or misleading, Judge Martinez-Olguin says.
Because the Lead Plaintiff has failed to allege facts plausibly
showing that Witt knew Statement 7 was false and misleading at the
time he made it, Judge Martinez-Olguin finds that the Lead
Plaintiff's current allegations as to Witt's statement are
insufficient at this stage.
Accordingly, Judge Martinez-Olguin holds that the Lead Plaintiff
has adequately pleaded that Statement 4 is false or misleading but
its allegations as to Statement 7 are insufficient.
As to the remaining statements comprising this category, the Court
concludes that they are insufficiently pleaded for the same reasons
the statements discussing production targets fail. Having analyzed
each category of statements the Defendants challenge, the Court
finds that the Lead Plaintiff has adequately pleaded falsity as to
Statements 1, 3, 4, and 5.
The Defendants assert that Statements 1-10, 13, 15, 17, 19, 22-23,
25-30 are subject to the PSLRA's safe harbor provision.
Judge Martinez-Olguin opines that the proffered cautionary
statements are too generalized for the safe harbor to apply. The
Court also finds that Statements 1, 3, 4, and 5 are not opinion
statements, and that they are not statements of corporate puffery.
In addition to its arguments about why the Lead Plaintiff has
failed to allege an actionable false or misleading statement, the
Defendants also seek dismissal on the ground that the Lead
Plaintiff does not plead particularized facts supporting a strong
inference of scienter.
Judge Martinez-Olguin finds the allegations concerning House,
Daniel Witt, Lucid's Head of State and Local Public Policy, or Nat
Lingo, a Lucid spokesperson, do not give rise to a strong inference
of scienter.
Because the Lead Plaintiff's Section 20(a) claim rises and falls
with its claim under Section 10(b), Judge Martinez-Olguin holds
that the claim is dismissed with leave to amend to the same extent
as the Section 10(b) claim. The Section 20(a) claim otherwise
survives consistent with the Court's analysis of the viable portion
of the Section 10(b) claim.
For these reasons, the Court rules that the Defendants' motion to
dismiss is granted in part and denied in part with leave to amend.
The Defendants' request for judicial notice is granted. Within 30
days, the Lead Plaintiff may file an amended complaint curing the
deficiencies described in this Order. With its amended complaint,
the Lead Plaintiff will include a redline. A chart with the
information required by 15 U.S.C. 78u-4(b)(1) and (2) is due within
14 days of the filing of the amended complaint. The Lead Plaintiff
will provide a courtesy copy of the amended complaint, accompanying
redline, and chart within 3 days of each filing.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Aug. 8, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/bdzdpvfa from PacerMonitor.com.
M & C LATIN: Faces Perez Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------
LUZ DENIA MIESE PEREZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. M & C LATIN FOOD CORP. d/b/a
JOHN'S FRIED CHICKEN and ORLANDO MEDINA and GREGORIO MEDINA, as
individuals, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-06369 (S.D.N.Y., August
23, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to
pay minimum, overtime, and spread-of-hours compensation, failure to
provide wage notice, and failure to provide accurate wage
statements pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
York Labor Law and violation of the requirements of the New York
State Executive Law and the New York City Administrative Code.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as cook, food preparer,
server, and cleaner from in or around June 2022 until in or around
April 2024.
M & C Latin Food Corp., doing business as John's Fried Chicken, is
a restaurant owner and operator, located at 512 W. 207th Street,
New York, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Telephone: (718) 263-9591
Facsimile: (718) 263-9598
MARTEN TRANSPORT: Parties Seek to Continue CMC by 45 Days
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DIANNA MORRISON AND
MICHAEL LOPER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. MARTEN TRANSPORT, LTD., and DOES 1- 20, inclusive,
Case No. 3:23-cv-02079-JSC (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court
to enter an order continuing case management conference in light of
pending class certification proceedings in Allen v. Marten
Transport, Ltd.
The Parties stipulate that the case management conference currently
scheduled for August 22, 2024, be continued by approximately 45
days, or as soon thereafter as the Court is available.
The Parties submit that they will be better equipped to apprise the
Court of the impact of the proceedings in Allen/Martinez and to
propose a case management schedule and discovery plan after the
Sept. 24, 2024 status conference in Allen/Martinez. Any change in
status in Allen/Martinez will not be decided by the Aug. 22, 2024
case management conference in this matter.
On June 2, 2023, the Defendant filed its motion to stay this
action. The motion was fully briefed.
On June 20, 2024, the Superior Court in Allen/Martinez issued an
order denying the plaintiffs' motion for class certification
without prejudice. The Superior Court reasoned that the denial of
the plaintiffs' motion stemmed from incongruity between the class
definition and how Defendant structures its business, and observed
that issues may be common to a subset of drivers within the
originally proposed class.
Marten operates as a temperature-sensitive truckload carriers in
the United States, Canada, and Mexico.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Aug. 14, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=j3SZx7 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joshua G. Konecky, Esq.
Nathan B. Piller, Esq.
SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
Emeryville, CA 94608
Telephone: (415) 421-7100
Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
E-mail: jkonecky@schneiderwallace.com
npiller@schneiderwallace.com
The Defendant are represented by:
Michael E. Brewer, Esq.
BAKER & MCKENZIE LLP
Two Embarcadero Center, 11th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-3802
Telephone: (415) 576-3000
E-mail: michael.brewer@bakermckenzie.com
MATCH GROUP INC: Continues to Defend Bardaji Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Match Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 1, 2024, that the Company continues
to defend itself from Bardaji securities class suit in the federal
district court of Delaware.
On March 6, 2023, a Match Group shareholder filed a complaint in
federal district court in Delaware against Match Group, Inc., its
Chief Executive Officer, its former Chief Executive Officer, and
its President and Chief Financial Officer seeking to recover
unspecified monetary damages on behalf of a class of acquirers of
Match Group securities between November 3, 2021 and January 31,
2023. See Leopold Riola Bardaji v. Match Group, Inc. et al, No.
1:23-cv-00245-UNA (District of Delaware).
The complaint alleges that Match Group, Inc. misrepresented and/or
failed to disclose that its Tinder business was not effectively
executing on its new product initiatives; as a result, Tinder was
not on track to deliver its planned product initiatives in 2022;
and therefore, Match Group, Inc.'s statements about its Tinder's
business, product initiatives, operations, and prospects lacked a
reasonable basis.
On July 24, 2023, lead plaintiff Northern California Pipe Trades
Trust Funds filed an amended complaint.
The amended complaint added allegations regarding
misrepresentations relating to Match Group's acquisition of
Hyperconnect and the business' subsequent integration and
performance.
On September 20, 2023, defendants filed a motion to dismiss.
On July 12, 2024, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss
without prejudice.
The Company believes that it has strong defenses to the allegations
in this lawsuit and defends vigorously against them.
Match Group, LLC is an American internet and technology company
headquartered in Dallas, Texas. [BN]
MDL 2873: Crump Alleges Injury Due to Toxic Chemical Exposure
-------------------------------------------------------------
KIERON CRUMP, on behalf of himself and those 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.; BUCK EYE 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; KIDDIE 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.); and ABC CORPORATIONS (1-50), Defendants, Case
No. 2:24-cv-04495-RMG (D.S.C., August 15, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendants seeking damages for personal injury
resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) and
firefighter turnout gear (TOG) containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.
According to the complaint, PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of
humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long
periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS
accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on
the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the
products. Due to Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal
absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, he was diagnosed
with ulcerative colitis and/or other medical related conditions,
says the suit.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his career in the
U.S. Navy.
The Crump case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul,
Minnesota.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr.
John E. Keefe, Jr.
KEEFE LAW FIRM, LLC
2 Bridge Ave, Bldg 6, 2nd Fl, Suite 623
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Telephone: (732) 224-9400
Facsimile: (732) 224-9494
MDL 2873: Grandon Suit Alleges Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
----------------------------------------------------------
NICHOLAS GRANDON, on behalf of himself and those 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.; BUCK EYE 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; KIDDIE 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.); and ABC
CORPORATIONS (1-50), Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-04484-RMG
(D.S.C., August 15, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants
seeking damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to
aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear
(TOG) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances.
According to the complaint, PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of
humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long
periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS
accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on
the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the
products. Due to Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal
absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, he was diagnosed
with colon cancer, thyroid disease and/or other medical related
conditions, says the suit.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his career in the
Air Force.
The Grandon case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul,
Minnesota.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr.
John E. Keefe, Jr.
KEEFE LAW FIRM, LLC
2 Bridge Ave, Bldg 6, 2nd Fl, Suite 623
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Telephone: (732) 224-9400
Facsimile: (732) 224-9494
MDL 2873: Howell Suit Alleges Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
---------------------------------------------------------
HENRY HOWELL, on behalf of himself and those 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.; BUCK EYE 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; KIDDIE 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.); and ABC CORPORATIONS (1-50), Defendants, Case
No. 2:24-cv-04485-RMG (D.S.C., August 15, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendants seeking damages for personal injury
resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) and
firefighter turnout gear (TOG) containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.
According to the complaint, PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of
humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long
periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS
accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on
the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the
products. Due to Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal
absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, he was diagnosed
with ulcerative colitis, says the suit.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his career.
The Howell case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul,
Minnesota.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr.
John E. Keefe, Jr.
KEEFE LAW FIRM, LLC
2 Bridge Ave, Bldg 6, 2nd Fl, Suite 623
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Telephone: (732) 224-9400
Facsimile: (732) 224-9494
MDL 2873: Kasky Alleges Injury Due to Toxic Chemicals' Exposure
---------------------------------------------------------------
PHILIP KASKY and MARY KASKY, his wife, on behalf of themselves and
those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota
Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.;
AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCK EYE
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; KIDDIE 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.); and ABC
CORPORATIONS (1-50), Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-04486-RMG
(D.S.C., August 15, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants
seeking damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to
aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear
(TOG) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances.
According to the complaint, PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of
humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long
periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS
accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on
the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the
products. Due to Plaintiff Philip Kasky's consumption, inhalation
and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, he
was diagnosed with thyroid disease and/or other medical related
conditions, says the suit.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his career in the
Navy.
The Kasky 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 Plaintiffs are represented by:
Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr.
John E. Keefe, Jr.
KEEFE LAW FIRM, LLC
2 Bridge Ave, Bldg 6, 2nd Fl, Suite 623
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Telephone: (732) 224-9400
Facsimile: (732) 224-9494
MEDICAL COLLEGE: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Smith Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
REGINALD SMITH, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE MEDICAL COLLEGE OF WISCONSIN, INC. and
PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-1019
(E.D. Wis., August 12, 2024) arises from Defendants' collective
failures to safeguard the confidential personal information,
personally identifying information and protected health information
of patients, including that of the Plaintiff and the proposed Class
Members, resulting in the unauthorized disclosure of that PHI in
May 2023 in a cyberattack to the MOVEit Transfer tool of PSC.
According to the complaint, the PHI compromised in the data breach
includes Plaintiff's and the Class's names, Social Security
numbers, dates of birth, health insurance applications and/or claim
information, medical history, conditions, treatments and/or
diagnosis information, medical procedure information, patient dates
of service, and patient medical record numbers. PSC continues to
delay notification of the data breach to its victims even though
Plaintiff and approximately 60 million Class Members had their most
sensitive personal information accessed.
In failing to adequately protect Plaintiff's and the Class' PHI,
failing to adequately notify them about the breach, and by
obfuscating the nature of the breach, Defendants breached their
duties to Plaintiff and the Class and violated state and federal
law. Accordingly, Plaintiff, on his own behalf and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated individuals, brings this action seeking
injunctive relief, damages, and restitution, together with costs
and reasonable attorneys' fees, the calculation of which will be
based on information in Defendants’ possession.
The Medical College of Wisconsin, Inc. is a private medical college
which provides primary and specialty medical treatment services at
hospitals and clinics in the Milwaukee area and eastern
Wisconsin.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
STRAUSS BORRELLI, PLLC
One Magnificent Mile
980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610
Chicago, IL 60611
Telephone: (872) 263-1100
E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com
raina@straussborrelli.com
- and -
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
Andrew E. Mize, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
The Freedom Center
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 254-8801
Facsimile: (615) 255-5419
E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com
amize@stranchlaw.com
META PLATFORMS: Parties Seek to Seal Class Cert Docs
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAXIMILIAN KLEIN, et al.,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. META
PLATFORMS, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 3:20-cv-08570-JD
(N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting
their omnibus motion to seal certain narrowly tailored portions of
the class certification and Daubert briefing in the Advertiser
case.
This motion also contains sealing requests from non-parties for the
class certification-related briefing, and Meta's response to the
sealing motion Advertisers submitted with their Aug. 9, 2024 expert
proffer.
Meta requests that the Court seal seven narrow categories of
non-public information: (1) employee information, including
personally identifying information and personnel files; (2) details
of negotiation strategies and specific contractual terms with third
parties; (3) descriptions of the technical functionality of
Meta’s advertising systems; (4) confidential pricing information;
(5) internal research and analysis on user behavior and app
performance, including proprietary methods for conducting that
research and analysis; (6) confidential financial information or
data; and (7) confidential business strategies, including those
concerning unreleased products.
Meta's proposed redactions are narrowly tailored to cover only
documents or portions thereof falling within these seven
categories; all of which courts regularly recognize as sealable
material. The specific items to be sealed and associated reasons
are given in the attached Declaration of Meta’s Director of
Finance Amrish Acharya, who has personal knowledge of Meta’s
confidentiality practices. If the Court denies this sealing motion,
in whole or in part, Meta respectfully requests that the Court
delay the effect of such order for fourteen (14) days to allow
affected parties to make appropriate plans and raise potential
issues, if necessary.
Non-Party Sealing Requests. Meta takes no position on the non-party
sealing requests. Advertisers did not respond to Meta’s inquiry
asking for their position on these requests.
The Court should seal contact information and personnel files of
current or former Meta employees. See Acharya Decl. rows 23, 24,
25, 27, 29. These employees are not parties to this case and have a
legitimate, legally recognized privacy interest in protecting their
contact information from public disclosure. Disclosure may subject
these employees to “annoyance,” “oppression, or undue
burden,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c), such as unsolicited contact from
the press or public, which could rise to the level of threats or
harassment. Recognizing employees’ right to privacy, courts
routinely seal such information, including this Court in this
case.
The Court should seal sensitive details about Meta’s negotiation
strategies and specific contractual terms with third parties,
disclosure of which will harm Meta’s business relationships, hurt
its negotiating position with other parties, and cause competitive
harm to Meta.
Meta provided Advertiser Plaintiffs with an initial list of its
class certification-related sealing requests on August 5, 2024.
Meta operates as a social technology company.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Aug. 14, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=74Pghx at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Sonal N. Mehta, Esq.
David Z. Gringer, Esq.
Ross E. Firsenbaum, Esq.
Ryan Chabot, Esq.
Paul Vanderslice, Esq.
Ari Holtzblatt, Esq.
Molly M. Jennings, Esq.
Michaela P. Sewall, Esq.
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE
AND DORR LLP
2600 El Camino Real, Suite 400
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Telephone: (650) 858-6000
E-mail: Sonal.Mehta@wilmerhale.com
David.Gringer@wilmerhale.com
Ross.Firsenbaum@wilmerhale.com
Ryan.Chabot@wilmerhale.com
Paul.Vanderslice@wilmerhale.com
Ari.Holtzblatt@wilmerhale.com
Molly.Jennings@wilmerhale.com
Michaela.Sewall@wilmerhale.com
META PLATFORMS: Parties Seek to Seal Portions of Class Cert Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAXIMILIAN KLEIN, et al.,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. META
PLATFORMS, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 3:20-cv-08570-JD
(N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting
their omnibus motion to seal certain portions of the Parties' class
certification, Daubert briefing, and supporting documents.
This omnibus motion is submitted on behalf of the Parties for the
purpose of judicial administrative convenience and clarity. The
Parties take no position on each other's requests.
User Plaintiffs filed renewed motions to certify their class on May
24, 2024. Meta opposed this motion on June 21, 2024. User
Plaintiffs filed their reply in support on July 8, 2024.
Meta operates as a social technology company.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Aug. 14, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=L1gjhn at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Shana E. Scarlett, Esq.
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
Berkeley, CA 94710
Telephone: (510) 725-3000
E-mail: shanas@hbsslaw.com
steve@hbsslaw.com
- and -
W. Joseph Bruckner, Esq.
Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
Brian D. Clark, Esq.
Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq.
Arielle S. Wagner, Esq.
Kyle J. Pozan, Esq.
Laura M. Matson, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339-6900
E-mail: wjbruckner@locklaw.com
rkshelquist@locklaw.com
bdclark@locklaw.com
rapeterson@locklaw.com
aswagner@locklaw.com
kjpozan@locklaw.com
lmmatson@locklaw.com
- and -
Kevin Y. Teruya, Esq.
Adam B. Wolfson, Esq.
Scott L. Watson, Esq.
Claire D. Hausman, Esq.
Brantley I. Pepperman, Esq.
Michelle Schmit, Esq.
Manisha M. Sheth, Esq.
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017-2543
Telephone: (213) 443-3000
51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
New York, NY 10010
Telephone: (212) 849-7000
E-mail: kevinteruya@quinnemanuel.com
adamwolfson@quinnemanuel.com
scottwatson@quinnemanuel.com
clairehausman@quinnemanuel.com
brantleypepperman@quinnemanuel.com
michelleschmit@quinnemanuel.com
manishasheth@quinnemanuel.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Sonal N. Mehta, Esq.
David Z. Gringer, Esq.
Ross E. Firsenbaum, Esq.
Ryan Chabot, Esq.
Paul Vanderslice, Esq.
Ari Holtzblatt, Esq.
Molly M. Jennings, Esq.
Michaela P. Sewall, Esq.
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE
AND DORR LLP
2600 El Camino Real, Suite 400
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Telephone: (650) 858-6000
E-mail: Sonal.Mehta@wilmerhale.com
David.Gringer@wilmerhale.com
Ross.Firsenbaum@wilmerhale.com
Ryan.Chabot@wilmerhale.com
Paul.Vanderslice@wilmerhale.com
Ari.Holtzblatt@wilmerhale.com
Molly.Jennings@wilmerhale.com
Michaela.Sewall@wilmerhale.com
MICHAEL BETLEY: Court Denies McCarrell's Bid to Substitute Schultz
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MICHAEL MCCARRELL, et al., Plaintiffs v.
MICHAEL P. BETLEY, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-02781-JRR (D. Md.),
Judge Julie R. Rubin of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland denies McCarrell's motion to substitute Daniel Schultz for
Mary Matthew as plaintiff.
The Court has before it Plaintiff McCarrell's Motion to Substitute
and for Voluntary Dismissal of Plaintiff Mary Matthew, the
Defendant's opposition and the Plaintiff's reply.
The Motion seeks the following relief: 1) pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 21 to substitute Daniel Schultz for Mary Matthew
as a party plaintiff and proposed representative of the alleged
class; 2) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a), an
order dismissing Mary Matthew's claims without prejudice; and 3)
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, leave for the
Plaintiffs to file a Second Amended Complaint reflecting Mr.
Schultz's substitution.
Judge Rubin opines that the Rules do not contemplate or accommodate
the substitution of one party for another as the Motion requests
given the status of this case. Although this action was initiated
as a putative class action, no class has been certified (and Mr.
Schultz is not proposed to stand in for Ms. Matthew as a
successor-in-interest or similar legal status.
While Rule 21 motions are subject to the same liberal standard as
that applicable to Rule 15 motions for leave to amend, in view of
the fact that no class has been certified, simply swapping out one
plaintiff for another is procedurally improper, Judge Rubin opines.
And, the Plaintiff has not engaged in the correct amendment
procedure.
According to the Motion, on Nov. 2, 2023, Plaintiff Matthew advised
counsel that she does not wish to pursue this action. Despite
advising the Court at the hearing on Dec. 11, 2023, that counsel
intended to file a notice of voluntarily dismissal of Ms. Matthew's
claims, none was filed. The Court reminded counsel of that at the
hearing on June 20, 2024; still, no notice of dismissal was filed.
Per Rule 41(a)(1)(A), counsel was entitled to dismiss the action as
to Ms. Matthew's claims without an order of Court.
Regardless, the Court will grant the Motion in this respect to
ensure that Ms. Matthew is not a party to litigation she prefers
not to pursue.
After requesting to swap out Ms. Matthew for Mr. Schultz, the
Plaintiff explains that he also seeks leave under Rule 15 to file
an amended pleading "reflecting" the change. The Plaintiff neglects
to attach to the Motion the comparison and clean copies of the
proposed amended pleading, and statement as to whether opposing
counsel consents, as required by Local Rule 103.6, Judge Rubin
notes.
Judge Rubin opines that these requirements are not mere niceties;
rather they are critical steps of the amendment process to ensure
all parties and the court have clear notice of the proposed scope,
content, and nature of the proposed changes. The basic pleading
requirements as to any claim Mr. Schultz seeks to assert against
the Defendant must be satisfied; and the Defendant is entitled to
examine the proposed amended pleading as compared to the presently
operative pleading, and to respond in accordance with court rules.
Further, inasmuch as class certification has been neither sought
nor granted, Judge Rubin points out that Mr. Schultz is not a
member of a certified class at issue, who will merely stand in the
shoes of Ms. Matthew. Rather, Mr. Schultz is obliged to set forth
alleged facts satisfying the rules of Court and the substantive law
at issue in order to state a claim.
The Court will not address the parties' arguments as to whether Mr.
Schultz's potential claims would be time-barred; the issue is
premature, as proper Rule 15/Local Rule 103.6 papers are not before
the Court.
For these reasons, the Court rules that the Motion is granted in
part and denied in part as follows: the Motion is granted to the
extent that all claims brought on behalf of Plaintiff Matthew will
be docketed as voluntarily dismissed without prejudice; the Motion
is denied in all other respects. Madam Clerk will ensure that the
docket reflects that all claims of Ms. Matthew are dismissed
voluntarily without prejudice.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated
Aug. 7, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2z88et5m from
PacerMonitor.com.
MINERAL FUSION: Simpson Alleges Mislabeled Personal Care Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Simpson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Mineral Fusion Natural Brands, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-02332-RDB (D. Md., August 12, 2024)
arises from the Defendant's deceptive and misleading practices with
respect to its marketing and sale of its personal care products in
violation of the California's Unfair Competition Law and False
Advertising Law, as well as the Maryland Consumer Protection Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant's marketing efforts
stress the purported "natural" composition of their products.
Despite the representations made on the products' labels which lead
reasonable consumers to believe that the products are "natural,"
the products are not natural because they include multiple
synthetic ingredients. Specifically, the products contain the
following synthetic ingredients: Phenoxyethanol,
Ethylhexylglycerin, and Cetyl Alcohol, alleges the suit.
The Plaintiff seeks damages, interest thereon, reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs, restitution, other equitable relief, and
disgorgement of all benefits Defendant has enjoyed from its
unlawful and/or deceptive business practices, as alleged herein. In
addition, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to stop Defendant's
unlawful conduct in the labeling and marketing of the products.
Mineral Fusion Natural Brands, LLC manufactures cosmetics and
personal care products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steffan T. Keeton, Esq.
THE KEETON FIRM LLC
100 S Commons Ste 102
Pittsburgh, PA 15212
Telephone: (888) 412-5291
E-mail: stkeeton@keetonfirm.com
MMS GROUP: Seeks to Oppose Torres Class Cert Bid by Oct. 7
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Elewood Torres v. MMS
Group LLC et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-06142-DEH-VF (S.D.N.Y.), the
Defendants ask the Court to enter an order revising the briefing
schedule for the Plaintiff's motion for class certification as
follows:
Event Old Deadline New
Deadline
Housing Defendants and TUC to each Aug. 21, 2024 Oct. 7,
2024
serve their opposition to Plaintiff's
Motion for Class Certification
Plaintiff to serve his reply in Aug. 28, 2024 Nov. 7,
2024
further support of his Motion
For Class Certification
MMS Group provides property management and related services.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Aug. 14, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kv0sL1 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Kevin G. Donoghue, Esq.
ARFUNKEL WILD, P.C.
111 Great Neck Road
Great Neck, NY 11021
Telephone: (516) 393-2535
Facsimile: (516) 466-5964
E-mail: kdonoghue@garfunkelwild.com
MNGI DIGESTIVE: Miller Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII and PHI
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dean Miller, Steven Nelsen, and Brandi Romashko, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. MNGI DIGESTIVE HEALTH, P.A., Case
No. 27-CV-24-11378 (Minn. 4th Judicial Dist., Hennepin Cty., July
30, 2024), is brought against MNGI for its failure to secure and
safeguard their and approximately 765,934 other individuals'
personally identifying information ("PII") and personal health
information ("PHI"), including names, Social Security numbers,
drivers' license or state identification numbers, passport numbers,
dates of birth, medical information and health insurance
information, payment card information and account numbers.
On August 25, 2023, MNGI disc overed that an unauthorized
third-party gained access to its network systems on August 20,
2023, and accessed files containing information about MNGI's
current and former patients (the "Data Breach'). Despite MNGI
learning of the Data Breach on August 25, 2023, MNGI did not
disclose the Data Breach to consumers until July 15, 2024, almost
eleven months after the Data Breach occurred.
MNGI owed a duty to Plaintiffs and C lass Members to implement and
maintain reasonable and adequate security measures to secure,
protect and safeguard their PII/PHI against unauthorized access and
disclosure. MNGI breached that duty by, among other things, failing
to implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and
practices to protect its patients' and former patients' PII/PHI
from unauthorized access and disclosure.
As a result of MNGI's inadequate security and breach of its dunes
and obligations, the Data Breach occurred, and Plaintiffs' and
Class Members' PII/PHI was accessed and disclosed This action seeks
to remedy these failings and their consequences. Plaintiffs bring
this action on behalf of themselves and all persons whose PII/PHI
was exposed as a result of the Data Breach, which MNGI says it
learned of on August 25, 2023, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff obtained healthcare or related services from MNGI.
MNGI operates approximately 11 healthcare centers in, and around,
the Twin Cities.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Melissa S. Weiner, Esq.
Ryan T. Gott, Esq.
PEARSON WARSHAW LLP
328 Barry Ave. S, Suite 200
Wayzata, 55391
Phone: 612-389-0600
Fax: 612-389-0610
Email: mweiner@pwfirm.com
rgott@pwfirm.com
- and -
Ben Barnow, Esq.
Anthony L. Parkhill, Esq.
BARNOW ASSOCIATES, P.C.
205 West Randolph Street, Suite 1630
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: 312-621-2000
Fax: 312-641-5504
Email: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com
aparkhi11@barnowlaw.com
MONASH IVF: Settles Embryo Class Action Suit for $56-Mil.
---------------------------------------------------------
ABC.net reports that Monash IVF has agreed to a $56 million
settlement following allegations it used inaccurate genetic testing
and destroyed potentially viable embryos.
More than 700 patients across Australia were involved in the class
action, which alleges their discarded embryos were misused by the
company.
Monash IVF has made no admission of liability as part of the
settlement, which is subject to Supreme Court approval.
A major fertility company has agreed to pay out $56 million in a
class action settlement after it was accused of destroying embryos
due to an inaccurate genetic screening program.
Patients at Monash IVF allege they were told by the company their
embryos had abnormalities, after undergoing a recently introduced
test known as non-invasive pre-implantation testing (NiPGT).
Monash IVF later admitted that the now-suspended NiPGT was only
giving the same result as the standard test 75 to 85 per cent of
the time.
Lawyers for the patients allege the mistakes led women to make
life-altering decisions and many were forced to have additional
treatments that may not have been needed.
Monash IVF patients launched a class action last year, alleging the
fertility giant had secretly used embryos that patients had
instructed be discarded.
It meant patients may have discarded viable embryos, which they
allege were instead used for scientific purposes.
The class action also revealed allegations that Repromed -- a brand
operated by Monash IVF -- deliberately doctored the results of a
clinical trial, forged patient signatures on consent forms, and
burnt documents to cover up incriminating evidence of illegal
experiments on patient embryos.
Margalit Injury Lawyers Managing Principal Michel Margalit said the
settlement sent a clear message to the healthcare industry.
"No amount of money can ever fully compensate for the grief and
mental anguish, but this settlement does send a clear message to
all corporate giants putting profits before their patients that
they will be found out and there will be significant consequences
for such conduct,'' Ms Margalit said.
"An embryo is not a mere inanimate object. An embryo is a chance at
having a family. The impact of destroying that chance is beyond
devastating, and causes real and tangible harm."
In a statement, Monash IVF Group maintained its innocence and the
settlement is subject to court approval.
"In reaching an agreement through mediation, Monash IVF Group has
made no admission of liability," it said.
"While we have defended the claim, we believe it is in the best
interests of our patients and people to resolve the matter rather
than go to trial."
Monash IVF Group's share price tumbled following the news, dropping
11 per cent in the opening hours on the ASX.
Closure for hundreds of patients
For many of patients involved in the class action, the settlement
on Thursday, August 22, represented the conclusion of a years-long
battle against the fertility company.
It is estimated 1,300 patients were given NiPGT, and more than half
of them were told their embryos were non-viable.
Danielle Bopping, one of the two lead plaintiffs, said she hoped
the decision would shed more light on the commercial fertility
sector.
"We also hope that this case helps to draw attention to the fact
that IVF in Australia has become a multimillion dollar industry,
which does not always put the best interests of its patients
first," Ms Bopping said.
Michelle Pedersen, the second lead plaintiff, said the decision
went only a small way to minimising the immense harm caused by
Monash IVF.
"Whilst the settlement won't change the outcomes or remove the
heartbreak for those impacted, the settlement provides some
acknowledgement of Monash IVF's failures and brings some closure
for those involved," Ms Pedersen said.
"The impacts of Monash IVF's actions have not been resolved through
this settlement. Class members have had hopes, dreams and ambitions
that have been shattered. Our goal was to hold Monash IVF to
account and give the 700+ class members a sense of justice, we hope
we have achieved this." [GN]
MONOPOLY TEXTILE: Reyes Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Bautista Reyes, and other similarly situated aggrieved
employees v. MONOPOLY TEXTILE, INC., a California corporation; OMID
SOFERI, an individual; and DOES 1 THROUGH 100, inclusive, Case No.
24STCV18969 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., July 30, 2024), is
brought against the Defendants for violations of the California
Labor Code, and/or the applicable Wage Order pursuant to California
Labor Code due to failure to pay minimum and overtime wages.
The Defendant did not compensate Plaintiff and other similarly
situated aggrieved employees with the minimum wages to which they
were entitled for work performed and, as such, did not compensate
Plaintiff and other similarly situated aggrieved employees for all
hours worked at the minimum wage rate pursuant to California Labor
Code.
Additionally, Plaintiff and other similarly situated aggrieved
employees either did not receive their daily, legally mandated
thirty-minute meal periods, did not receive them timely, and/or
were not completely relieved and/or were routinely interrupted
during their daily, legally mandated meal periods, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant Monopoly Textile in its
Shipping & Delivery department.
MONOPOLY TEXTILE, INC., is a valid business of form unknown duly
organized and existing under the laws of the State Of
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Arthur Sezgin, Esq.
Alisa Khousadian, Esq.
SEZGIN KHOUSADIAN LLP
500 North Central Avenue, Suite 830
Glendale, CA 91203
Phone: (818) 696-1330
Fax: (818) 696-1331
Email: arthur@sklaw.legal
alisa@sklaw.legal
MONTE NIDO: Rosenberg Sues Over Patients' Compromised Info
----------------------------------------------------------
HADASSAH ROSENBERG, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONTE NIDO HOLDINGS, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-23222-JB (S.D. Fla., August 23, 2024)
is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence
per se, breach of contract, breach of implied contract, breach of
fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected
health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated patients
stored within its computer systems following a data breach that
occurred from September 16, 2023, to September 22, 2023. The
Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly
situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the
private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was
compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown
and unauthorized third parties.
Monte Nido Holdings, LLC is a healthcare provider with its
principal place of business located in Miami, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mariya Weekes, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
201 Sevilla Avenue, 2nd Floor
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (786) 879-8200
Facsimile: (786) 879-7520
Email: mweekes@milberg.com
MUD PIE: Visually Impaired Can't Access Website, Competello Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
SUSAN COMPETELLO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MUD PIE, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-06377 (S.D.N.Y., August 23, 2024) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the New York City Human Rights Law, the New York
State Human Rights Law, the New York State Civil Rights, and
declaratory relief.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
https://www.mudpie.com, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the public through the
website. These access barriers that Plaintiff encountered have
caused a denial of the Plaintiff's full and equal access multiple
times in the past, and now deter the Plaintiff on a regular basis
from accessing the Defendant's website in the future.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals.
Mud Pie, LLC is a company that sells online goods and services,
doing business in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq.
Bennitta L. Joseph, Esq.
JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC
110 East 59th Street, Suite 2300
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 227-5700
Facsimile: (212) 656-1889
Email: jon@norinsberglaw.com
bennitta@employeejustice.com
MULTIPLAN INC: Alter Management Sues Over Unlawful Cartel
---------------------------------------------------------
Alter Management LLC d.b.a Alter Behavioral Health, Awakening
Behavioral Health d.b.a. Renaissance Ranch Treatment Centers,
Guardian Health Care Services, Inc. d.b.a. D'Amore Healthcare and
PCI Westlake Centers v. MultiPlan, Inc., Aetna, Inc., The Cigna
Group, UnitedHealth Group Incorporated and Elevance Health, Inc.,
Case No. 1:24-cv-06293 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 20, 2024), is brought
seeking to hold MultiPlan accountable for its role in a
far-reaching and unlawful cartel ("MultiPlan Cartel") involving the
nation's largest health insurers in violation of Section 1 of the
Sherman Act.
This conspiracy--a horizontal, multilateral price-fixing scheme
orchestrated by MultiPlan--depresses payments for out-of-network
care. Through a concerted agreement, the MultiPlan Cartel has
effectively eliminated competition in the market for out-of-network
treatment services, harming both providers and patients.
The conspiracy among MultiPlan Cartel members constitutes a naked,
horizontal price-fixing conspiracy constituting a per se violation
of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. First, the MultiPlan Cartel's
horizontal restraint of trade is a conspiracy among
competitors—MultiPlan participates in the same market as the
insurer members of the MultiPlan Cartel and operates as their agent
in orchestrating the conspiracy. Second, the MultiPlan Cartel's
conspiracy is a "hub- and-spoke" conspiracy, with MultiPlan acting
as the central hub and the various insurer Co-Conspirators serving
as the spokes. The MultiPlan Cartel's actions, both collectively
and through individual agreements between MultiPlan and the
Insurers, have effectively stifled competition in the market for
out-of-network treatment services, causing substantial
anticompetitive harm to the market and to Plaintiffs and the
proposed Class.
The Plaintiffs are treatment providers that render evidence-based
treatment services to individuals seeking to address and overcome
substance use disorder. Plaintiffs are committed to delivering high
quality, individualized care and often treat patients on an
out-of-network basis, recognizing that not all patients have access
to in network SUD treatment. The MultiPlan Cartel's suppression of
out-of network reimbursement rates directly impacts Plaintiffs'
ability to continue offering these critical services and
effectively treat SUD in their communities.
The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and the
proposed Class to recover damages for injuries suffered as a result
of the MultiPlan Cartel's unlawful price-fixing scheme, as well as
to seek injunctive and other appropriate relief, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff Alter Management LLC d.b.a Alter Behavioral Health is
a limited liability company organized under the laws of
California.
MultiPlan, Inc. is a New York corporation.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Matthew M. Lavin, Esq.
ARNALL GOLDEN GREGORY LLP
2100 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Suite 350S
Washington, D.C. 20037
Phone: (202) 677-4030
Fax: (202) 677-4031
Email: Matt.Lavin@agg.com
- and -
Hunter Shkolnik, Esq.
NS PR LAW SERVICES, LLC
1302 Avenida Ponce de León
Santurce, Puerto Rico 00907
Phone: (787) 493-5088
Fax: (646) 843-7603
Email: Hunter@NSPRLaw.com
- and -
Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
Jennifer R. Scullion, Esq.
SEEGER WEISS LLP
55 Challenger Road 6th Fl.
Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660
Phone: (973) 639-9100
Fax: (973) 679-8656
Email: cseeger@seegerweiss.com
jscullion@seegerweiss.com
NASSAU COUNTY, NY: Suit Seeks to Rescind the Mask Transparency Act
------------------------------------------------------------------
G.B., S.S., individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. NASSAU COUNTY, NASSAU COUNTY EXECUTIVE
BRUCE BLAKEMAN, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-05884-JMA-SIL
(E.D.N.Y., August 22, 2024) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S.
Constitution Article, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities
Act, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
The case arises from the Defendants' enforcement of Mask
Transparency Act in Nassau County, a new law which bans wearing
face masks in public. According to the complaint, the Mask Ban
discriminates against people with disabilities by depriving them of
equal access to public life in Nassau County. The Plaintiffs and
the proposed Class seek prospective injunctive relief ordering the
Defendants to rescind the Mask Ban.
Nassau County is a suburban county located at 1550 Franklin Ave.,
Mineola, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jessica Richwalder, Esq.
Christina Asbee, Esq.
William Tronsor, Esq.
DISABILITY RIGHTS NEW YORK
279 Troy Rd., Ste. 9 PMB 236
Rensselaer, NY
Telephone: (518) 512-4841
Facsimile: (518) 427-6561
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Bid to Certify Class in Salom Suit Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Salom, et al., v.
Nationstar Mortgage LLC, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00444 (W.D.
Wash., Filed April 2, 2024), the Hon. Judge Barbara J. Rothstein
entered an order staying the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class
pending resolution of the motion to stay discovery and entry of a
scheduling order.
-- Nationstar's motion for extension of time to respond to the
motion
to certify is denied as moot since the response has now been
filed.
-- Plaintiffs' motion for relief from a deadline to excuse late
filed
opposition57 is denied as moot
The nature of suit states Statutes -- Consumer Credit.
Nationstar offers mortgage services.[CC]
NAVARRO'S TOWING: Alvarez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
Atilano Zambrano Alvarez, an individual; on behalf of herself and
all other current and former aggrieved employees v. NAVARRO'S
TOWING, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company; HERIBERTO
EDDIE NAVARRO, an individual; and DOES I through 20, inclusive;
Case No. 24STCV18278 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., July 24,
2024), is brought for violation of the Private Attorneys General
Act, California Labor Code ("PAGA") and Unfair Competition as a
result of the Defendants failure to pay minimum and overtime
wages.
The Defendants failed to pay minimum wage; failed to compensate for
all hours worked; failed to pay overtime compensation; failed to
pay rest period compensation; failed to pay meal period
compensation; accurate wage and hour statements; failed to pay
wages upon discharge; statutory penalties; failed to indemnify and
illegal deductions from wages, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was an employee of Defendants.
NAVARRO'S TOWING, LLC is a transportation/towing business operating
out of Los Angeles County, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sarkis Sirmabekian, Esq.
SIRMABEKIAN LAW FIRM, PC
2600 W. Olive Ave., Suite 549
Burbank, CA 91505
Phone: (818) 473-5003
Facsimile: (818)476-5619
Email: contact@slawla.com
NETWORK CAPITAL: Robertson Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Network Capital
Funding Corporation. The case is styled as Erin Robertson,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Network Capital Funding Corporation, Case No. 1:24-cv-23156-XXXX
(S.D. Fla., Aug. 20, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Network Capital -- https://www.networkcapital.com/ -- does funding
for mortgages, refinancing, and home loans.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN PA
400 NW 26th Street
Miami, FL 33127
Phone: (305) 469-5881
Email: rachel@kaufmanpa.com
- and -
Avi Robert Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN P.A.
31 Samana Drive
Miami, FL 33133
Phone: (305) 469-5881
Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com
NEW YORK, NY: Agrees to Settle Religious Head Covering for $17.5MM
------------------------------------------------------------------
Calista Embry, writing for BaltimoreOutloud, reports that a
landmark win for civil rights was recently achieved when New York
City reached an agreement to settle a class action lawsuit for
$17.5 million over its contentious practice of requiring persons to
remove their head coverings to be photographed for mugshots. After
years of litigation and campaigning on the part of impacted people
and civil rights groups, the settlement has finally been reached,
which is a significant step forward in the struggle for religious
freedom. This piece dives into the history of the case, explores
the specifics of the settlement, discusses the significance of the
settlement for religious freedom, and speculates on what the future
may hold for cases that are similar to the one being discussed
here.
New York City Religious Head Covering $17.5 Million Class Action
Settlement 2024
The case is a result of the New York City Police Department's
(NYPD) long-standing practice of ordering people to remove their
religious head coverings, such as hijabs, turbans, and yarmulkes,
while they are being photographed for mugshots.
The implementation of this policy was not only a small annoyance
for a great number of people; rather, it was a significant
challenge to their religious beliefs and identity. Head coverings
are an essential component of religious observance among Muslim,
Sikh, and Orthodox Jewish communities, who were disproportionately
influenced by the practice to a greater extent than other groups.
A $17.5 million class action settlement was reached between New
York City and religious head coverings to satisfy allegations that
the city wrongfully removed head coverings for pre-arrest
pictures.
Individuals who were held in custody by the New York City Police
Department between March 16, 2014, and August 23, 2021, who had to
remove a religious head covering to be photographed after their
arrest, are eligible to receive compensation as a result of the
settlement.
As stated in the class action complaint, the New York Police
Department (NYPD) improperly removed religious head coverings from
persons who were detained to snap pictures after they were
arrested. According to the allegations, these actions violated the
First Amendment, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized
Persons Act, as well as state guidelines.
Within the metropolitan region of New York City, the New York
Police Agency is a multidistrict police agency that is responsible
for law enforcement.
However, to settle the class action case, New York City has agreed
to pay a $17.5 million class action settlement regardless of
whether or not it has committed any violation.
Class members have the potential to recover $7,824 or more for each
case of wrongful removal, as stipulated by the provisions of the
settlement deal involving the religious head covering in New York
City. Payouts per instance could be larger if there are a greater
number of legitimate claims that have been submitted.
Depending on the circumstances, settlement payments may be subject
to deductions for certain liens payable to the New York City
Department of Finance, as well as liens for child support
obligations.
In the settlement, the deadline for submitting objections and
exclusions is September 26 2024.
It has been decided that the final approval hearing for the
settlement will take place on October 29, 2024.
For class members to be eligible for the New York City religious
head covering settlement award, they need to file a valid claim
form by the date of September 26, 2024.
Settlement Details
It is one of the biggest settlements of its sort in matters
concerning religious freedom and civil rights, and it is worth a
$17.5 million class action settlement. By the terms of the
settlement, New York City has agreed to reimburse thousands of
passengers who were compelled to remove their religious head
coverings while they were being booked.
Moreover, the settlement requires modifications to the procedures
of the New York Police Department, which will ensure that persons
will no longer be asked to remove their religious head coverings
for mugshots in the majority of situations.
The compensation will be dispersed among the members of the class,
with individual payments subject to variation depending on the
degree of emotional distress experienced by each person and the
particulars of each instance. Furthermore, the settlement includes
provisions for required training for New York Police Department
officers on religious sensitivity and the rights of persons to wear
religious head coverings.
This is in addition to the cash compensation that is being offered.
It is the purpose of this training to ensure that police are aware
of and respectful of the religious beliefs of persons they come
into contact with while on the job. Additionally, it is intended to
avoid future occurrences.
Possible Consequences for the Freedom of Religion
In addition to having huge repercussions for New York City, this
settlement also has significant repercussions for the whole nation.
A major precedent is established, which has the potential to affect
how other cities and governments handle instances that are
comparable to those involving religious head coverings. The
settlement makes it quite apparent that the right to freedom of
religion is an essential foundational principle that must be
protected at all times, even in circumstances involving police
enforcement and public safety.
Furthermore, the settlement illustrates the rising acknowledgement
of the necessity of maintaining religious plurality in a society
that is becoming increasingly multicultural. It recognizes the
emotional and psychological damage that may be caused to people as
a consequence of being forced to violate their religious beliefs
and indicates the readiness of the legal system to hold authority
responsible for such acts.
Upcoming Changes and Possible Legal Developments in the Situation
However, even though the settlement of $17.5 million represents a
major milestone, the narrative is not yet over. The legal
environment that pertains to religious freedom and the activities
of law enforcement is always evolving, and this case may spark more
legal challenges and legislative reforms throughout the nation.
Several possible advancements might take place in the future:
Other municipalities and states may turn to the New York City
settlement as a model for modifying their rules on religious head
coverings to expand the protections afforded to religious freedom.
This may result in a more widespread national effort to safeguard
religious liberty in the public sector, including law enforcement
and other areas.
The settlement may motivate persons in other countries who have
been subjected to similar abuses of their religious liberties to
come forward and seek legal redress. This might result in both new
legal challenges and new opportunities. This may result in a slew
of new cases filed to ensure that religious freedom is honoured
throughout the country.
Final Thoughts
New York City's $17.5 million class action settlement is a
significant turning point in the continuing fight for civil rights
and religious freedom in the United States. Not only does it give
justice and recompense for individuals who were harmed, but it also
establishes a precedent for how situations that are similar to this
one should be handled in future instances. The settlement
highlights how important it is to respect the diversity of
religious beliefs and to make certain that the actions of law
enforcement do not violate the basic rights of people.
There will be an ever-increasing need for laws and practices that
safeguard the freedom of religion as the population of a country
continues to become more varied. This agreement serves as a
reminder that the struggle for civil rights is a continuing process
and that vigilance is essential to guarantee that all individuals,
regardless of their religious beliefs, can live their lives without
the fear of being discriminated against or subjected to compulsion.
For the foreseeable future, it is of the utmost importance that law
enforcement authorities and the general public continue to advocate
for and support the ideals of religious freedom and tolerance for
diversity. [GN]
NEW YORK, NY: Filing of Renewed Class Cert Bids Due Oct. 11
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Local 3621, EMS Officers
Union, DC-37, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, et al., v. City of New York, et al.,
Case No. 1:18-cv-04476 (S.D.N.Y., Filed May 21, 2018), the Hon.
Judge Lewis J. Liman entered an order granting in part and denying
in part letter motion for extension of time.
-- Summary judgment motions and renewed motions for class
certification shall be filed no later than Oct. 11, 2024.
The nature of suit states Civil Rights (Employment
Discrimination).
New York City comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River
meets the Atlantic Ocean.[CC]
NEWELL BRANDS: Discriminates Against Blind Users, Fernandez Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
FELIPE FERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NEWELL BRANDS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-06339 (S.D.N.Y., August 22, 2024) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the New York City Human Rights Law, and
declaratory relief.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
www.calphalon.com, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the public through the
website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not
limited to: 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.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals.
Newell Brands, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and
services, doing business in New York. [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
Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
NORDSTROM INC: Faces McWashington ERISA Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
CURTIS MCWASHINGTON, EDWARD M. MESHURIS, EMILY SANCHEZ, JAMES
ALBRIGHT, and CORY R. CROUCHLEY, individually as participants in
the Nordstrom 401(k) Plan and as representatives of all persons
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NORDSTROM, INC., BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF NORDSTROM, INC., NORDSTROM 401K PLAN RETIREMENT
COMMITTEE, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-01230 (W.D. Wash., August
12, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of
fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act.
The Plaintiff brought this suit as representatives of a class of
participants and beneficiaries of the Nordstrom 401(k) Plan. They
allege the failure of the Defendants to fulfill their fiduciary
duties to prudently and loyally ensure the Plan's total
recordkeeping and other administrative expenses were reasonable and
not excessive, as well as engagement of Defendants in self-dealing
with regard to Plan forfeitures in violation of ERISA fiduciary
prohibited transaction rules.
In addition, the Defendants imprudently and disloyally failed to
use the Plan's forfeitures to reduce the Plan's expenses, and
instead used that money to benefit Nordstrom by reducing
Nordstrom's obligation to make future benefit contribution to Plan.
This conduct also violated the fiduciary prohibited transaction
rules against self-dealing by companies, says the suit.
Nordstrom, Inc. is a fashion retailer incorporated in the State of
Washington.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Erin M. Riley, Esq.
KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3400
Seattle, WA 98101-3268
Telephone: (206) 623-1900
Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
E-mail: eriley@kellerrohrback.com
- and -
Paul M. Secunda, Esq.
WALCHESKE & LUZI LLC
235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240
Brookfield, WI 53005
Telephone: (414) 828-2372
Facsimile: (262) 565-6469
E-mail: psecunda@walcheskeluzi.com
- and -
Todd M. Schneider, Esq.
James A. Bloom, Esq.
SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
Emeryville, CA 94608
Telephone: (415) 421-7100
Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
E-mail: tschneider@schneiderwallace.com
jbloom@schneiderwallace.com
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Judge Denies Extension of Settlement Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Abigail Bottar, writing for WYSO, reports that a request from some
East Palestine residents to extend the amount of time they have to
opt in to the $600 million class action settlement has been denied,
according to court filings. A federal judge ruled that residents
deserve timely compensation for the 2023 train derailment.
Norfolk Southern announced the settlement in April, which resolves
a consolidated class action lawsuit related to the Feb. 3, 2023,
train derailment. Some residents were disappointed that the
settlement does not place liability on the rail company for any
wrongdoing.
In denying the request, Judge Benita Pearson wrote that sufficient
information about the $600 million settlement related to last
year's Norfolk Southern derailment was easily accessible and was
provided to residents.
Attorney David Graham filed a motion on behalf of some East
Palestine residents earlier this month asking the court to extend
the timeframe, arguing that residents didn't have enough
information about contamination after the spill and vent and burn
of toxic chemicals to make a decision.
One of the key complaints of the motion was that attorneys who
represented residents in the lawsuit hadn't disclosed any of the
results of testing done around town by their own expert, Stephen
Petty, who has testified in hundreds of lawsuits about
contamination concerns, to determine the extent of the
contamination caused when toxic chemicals spilled and burned after
the derailment.
Some of the attorneys involved in the case promised residents in
news interviews early on that Petty's data would be disclosed in
court filings to lay out the impact on East Palestine, so Graham
asked the judge to order that information to be released to try to
address residents' concerns.
"Fast forward to their present, post-settlement posture and class
counsel and their PR [public relations] machine have now forgotten
all about their star testing expert, Petty," Graham wrote.
Instead of Petty, the lawyers brought out a different expert at an
online town hall meeting a couple weeks ago who told residents he
didn't think anyone in town would develop cancer as a result of the
derailment, but Dr. Arch Carson didn't make clear what data he
relied on for that opinion other than a brief mention of tests from
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Researchers studying the health of residents in the area and
tracking respiratory problems, rashes and other ailments they are
reporting have said it may not be clear for years what the
long-term implications of the derailment will be.
"I completely disagree with Dr. Arch Carson – there is no
research data that suggest that his statement is correct," said Dr.
Erin Haynes, who is leading one of the main studies in town and is
chair of the Department of Epidemiology and Environmental Health at
the University of Kentucky College of Public Health.
Graham suggested that the plaintiffs' attorneys might be more
interested in collecting their up to $180 million in legal fees
than representing residents' interests.
Judge Pearson wrote in her ruling that residents had enough time to
investigate the settlement and make an informed, timely decision on
whether to opt in.
The amount residents can receive varies by how close they lived to
the derailment, with people who lived within 2 miles receiving
$70,000 for property damage. People who lived at the outer edge of
the area might only receive a few hundred dollars.
The plaintiffs' lawyers have previously defended the settlement
that was announced in the spring. They have said the settlement is
bigger than any past derailment settlement that has been made
public, and that the amount of time residents received to evaluate
the deal is similar to other settlements.
Some residents have complained that the initial opt-out deadline in
the lawsuit came less than a week after the National Transportation
Safety Board held a hearing on its findings in the investigation.
[GN]
NORTH SHORE: Fails to Properly Pay Auto Mechanics, Quizhpi Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RODRIGO QUIZHPI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NORTH SHORE AUTO AND TOWING, INC. and SCOTT
BALTERMAN, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-05921 (E.D.N.Y., August 23,
2024) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including
failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide a wage notice,
and failure to provide accurate wage statements.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an auto mechanic,
automobile painter/technician, and laborer from in or about 2015
until 2018, and then again from in or about July 2019 to on or
about February 15, 2024.
North Shore Auto and Towing, Inc. is a company that owns and
operates an automobile repair shop located at 265 East Shore Road,
Manhasset, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew J. Farnworth, Esq.
ROMERO LAW GROUP PLLC
490 Wheeler Road, Suite 277
Hauppauge, NY 11788
Telephone: (631) 257-5588
NORWOOD FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend MoveIt Customer Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Norwood Financial 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 8, 2024, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Moveit Customer Data Security Breach
class suit in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Pennsylvania.
On February 20, 2024, the Company was notified of a Complaint (the
"Complaint") entitled Ian Werkmeister vs. Wayne Bank, filed on
February 12, 2024 in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Pennsylvania seeking class action status.
The Plaintiff is seeking monetary recovery and other relief on
behalf of themselves and one or more putative classes of other
individuals similarly situated.
The Complaint arises out of a widely reported data security
incident involving MOVEit, a file sharing software used globally by
government agencies, enterprise corporations, and financial
institutions.
In October of 2023, Wayne Bank was notified by its third-party
information service provider of a cyber-incident that involved
unauthorized access to Wayne Bank customer information in one of
the vendor's file transfer applications.
The incident involved vulnerabilities discovered in MOVEit
Transfer, a file transfer software used by the Bank's vendor to
support services provided by the vendor to Wayne Bank and its
related institutions.
MOVEit is a commonly used secure Managed File Transfer software,
which supports file transfer activities used by thousands of
organizations around the world, including government agencies and
major financial firms.
The vulnerability discovered in MOVEit did not involve any of Wayne
Bank's internal systems and did not impact the Bank's ability to
service its customers.
The Moveit cases have since been transferred and consolidated in
the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
(the "Court") and are now entitled Moveit Customer Data Security
Breach Litigation.
On July 23, 2024, on behalf of all of the Defendants (including the
Company) in this case, an omnibus Motion to Dismiss the cases for
lack of Article III standing pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure was filed with the Court.
A hearing on this motion has been scheduled for October 9, 2024.
The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims
asserted in the Complaint and intends to vigorously defend itself
against such Complaint.
Norwood Financial Corp is the holding company for Wayne Bank that
offers wide variety of personal, business credit services, and
trust and investment products to consumer, commercial, and
nonprofit organizations and municipalities. [BN]
NRG ENERGY: Zoom Energy Continues to Defend Mirkin Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
NRG Energy 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 8, 2024, that Zoom Energy, the Company it
acquired in 2018, continues to defend itself from the Mirkin class
suit in New York.
Mirkin v. XOOM Energy (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 2019) — XOOM Energy is a
defendant in a putative class action lawsuit pending in New York,
alleging that XOOM Energy promised that consumers would pay the
same or less than they would have paid if they stayed with their
default utility or previous energy supplier.
The Court denied XOOM's motion for summary judgment and granted
class certification.
The Second Circuit denied XOOM's request to appeal the class
certification grants.
XOOM plans to challenge Mirkin's expert testimony to further hamper
Mirkin's ability to support its case.
The parties held a court-ordered remediation on March 21, 2024
where the parties did not settle.
The parties continue to prepare pre-trial materials for submission
to the Court.
A trial date has not been scheduled.
The Company continues to deny the allegations and is vigorously
defending this matter.
This matter was known and accrued for at the time of the XOOM
acquisition.
NRG Energy, Inc. is an integrated wholesale power generation and
retail electricity company. It is a retail electricity company
engaged in the supply of electricity, energy services, and cleaner
energy products to retail electricity customers in deregulated
markets through its Retail businesses, which include Reliant
Energy, Green Mountain Energy Company and Energy Plus Holdings
LLC. The Company is headquartered in Princeton, New Jersey.
NVIDIA CORP: Scraps YouTube Videos for AI, Millette Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID MILLETTE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NVIDIA CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No.
5:24-cv-05157 (N.D. Cal., August 14, 2024) addresses the
surreptitious, non-consensual use and collection of YouTube users'
videos by Defendant in order to train its "Cosmos" AI software, in
violation of YouTube's terms of service and that the expense of
video creators who are unknowingly creating training models for
Defendant's "Cosmos" AI.
According to the complaint, Cosmos AI is a deep learning AI service
created by Defendant that is intended to support additional of
Defendant's products, like image generation and automated driving.
To develop its Cosmos AI product, the Defendant has scrapped
millions of YouTube videos without the consent of any YouTube user
who has created the video.
The Defendant profits from the collection and use of these videos
by creating an AI software critical to supporting Nvidia's
products, such as its Omniverse platform which allows developers to
create various apps and software, which, as of 2021, has been used
by over 2.5 million developers around the world. By collecting and
using this data without consent, the Defendants have profited
significantly from the use of Plaintiff's and Class members'
videos, violated California's Unfair Competition Law, and have been
unjustly enriched at Plaintiff and Class members' expense, says the
suit.
Nvidia Corporation is an American multinational corporation and
technology company headquartered in Santa Clara, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
Joshua B. Glatt, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
jglatt@bursor.com
- and -
Joseph I. Marchese, Esq.
Julian C. Diamond, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Fl.
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: jmarchese@bursor.com
jdiamond@bursor.com
NVIDIA CORP: Wiley Files Amicus Brief in Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wiley Rein LLP, a DC law firm, filed an amicus brief in the U.S.
Supreme Court on behalf of The Digital Chamber in support of the
petitioners in NVIDIA Corp. v. E. Ohman J:or Fonder AB, a case
focused on securities pleading standards under the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.
The Digital Chamber is an advocacy group that promotes the digital
assets and blockchain industry.
Frank Scaduto, special counsel in Wiley's Litigation Practice, is
the counsel of record on this brief. The brief was also authored by
partners Joshua B. Simmons and Kevin B. Muhlendorf, of counsel
Krystal B. Swendsboe, and associates Joel S. Nolette and Christina
Lucas. [GN]
OE FEDERAL CREDIT: Class Cert. Bid in Jimenez Due July 16, 2025
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL JIMENEZ JR., et
al., v. OE FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Case No. 4:24-cv-02746-JST (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jon Tigar entered a scheduling order as
follows:
Event Deadline
Deadline to add parties or amend the Aug. 23, 2024
Pleadings
Stipulated protective order or competing Sept. 20, 2024
proposed protective orders due:
Plaintiff's class action expert Apr. 18, 2025
disclosures due:
Defendants class action expert June 2, 2025
disclosures due:
Class certification motion due: July 16, 2025
Class certification opposition due: Aug. 20, 2025
Class certification reply due: Sept. 17, 2025
OE Federal offers affordable financial products.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 14, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KeUHw4 at no extra
charge.[CC]
OKLAHOMA PETROLEUM: Dinsmore Suit Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Marvin B. Dinsmore, et
al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
Oklahoma Petroleum Allies, LLC, Case No. 6:23-cv-00350-GLJ (E.D.
Okla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order to:
1. Certify the Settlement Class for Settlement purposes
consisting
of:
"All non-excluded persons or entities who, during the Claim
Period: (1) received Late Payments from Defendant for
oil-and-
gas proceeds from Oklahoma wells; or whose proceeds were sent
as
unclaimed property to a government entity by Defendant; and
(2)
who have not already been paid statutory interest on the Late
Payments.
A "Late Payment" for purposes of this class definition means
payment of proceeds from the sale of oil or gas production
from
an oil-and-gas well after the statutory periods identified in
Okla. Stat. tit. 52, section 570.10(B)(1) (i.e., commencing
not
later than six (6) months after the date of first sale, and
thereafter not later than the last day of the second
succeeding
month after the end of the month within which such production
is
sold).
Late Payments do not include: (a) payments of proceeds to an
owner under Okla. Stat. tit. 52, 570.10(B)(3) (minimum pay);
or
(b) prior period adjustments.
Excluded from the Class are: (1) Defendant, its parents,
affiliates, predecessors, and employees, officers, and
directors; (2) agencies, departments, or instrumentalities of
the United States of America or the State of Oklahoma; (3)
any
Indian tribe as defined at 30 U.S.C. section 1702(4) or
Indian
allottee as defined at 30 U.S.C. section 1702(2).;
2. Preliminarily approve the Settlement;
3. Appoint Plaintiffs as Class Representatives for the
Settlement
Class;
4. Appoint Reagan E. Bradford and Ryan K. Wilson of Bradford &
Wilson PLLC as Co-Lead Class Counsel and James U. White, Jr.
of
James U. White, Jr. Inc. as Additional Counsel for the
Settlement Class;
5. Approve the form and manner of the proposed Notice;
6. Appoint JND Legal Administration as Settlement Administrator;
and
7. Set a hearing date for final approval of the Settlement and
application for an award of Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Fees,
Litigation Expenses and Administration, Notice, and
Distribution
Costs, and a Case Contribution Award to Plaintiffs.
After nearly a year of litigation, Plaintiffs have obtained a great
recovery for the Settlement Class, reaching a settlement with
Defendant worth $950,000 in cash for Plaintiffs' class claims for
statutory interest owed on late payments of oil and gas proceeds
under Oklahoma law
Plaintiffs Marvin B. Dinsmore and Sheridan Downey, III, as
administrators of the Estate of Margaret D. Dinsmore, initiated
this case with the filing of the Complaint on Oct. 13, 2023, in
which they alleged that the Defendant had failed to pay statutory
interest owed on late payments under Oklahoma's Production Revenue
Standards Act ("PRSA").
Oklahoma Petroleum is an oil & energy midstream company.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 14, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FGBHX9 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Reagan E. Bradford, Esq.
Ryan K. Wilson, Esq.
BRADFORD & WILSON PLLC
431 W. Main Street, Suite D
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
Telephone: (405) 698-2770
E-mail: reagan@bradwil.com
ryan@bradwil.com
– and –
James U. White, Jr., Esq.
WHITE, COFFEY AND FITE, P.C.
Oklahoma City, OK 73154
Telephone: (405) 842-7545
E-mail: jwhite@wcgflaw.com
OPM OF FINDLAY: Miles Sues Over Disabled's Equal Access to Store
----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL MILES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. OPM OF FINDLAY, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
3:24-cv-01432 (N.D. Ohio, August 22, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act and Ohio Disability Discrimination Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate their facilities to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other
persons with disabilities. The Defendant has continued to
discriminate against people who are disabled in ways that block
them from access and use of their property and businesses. The
Plaintiff and similarly situated disabled individuals encountered
architectural barriers in common areas such as accessible routes
and parking.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek injunctive relief to remove
the existing architectural barriers to the physically disabled when
such removal is readily achievable for its place of public
accommodation.
OPM of Findlay, LLC is a company that owns and/or operates a store
known as Beverage Barn, located at 1901 Tiffin Ave., Findlay, Ohio.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Owen B. Dunn, Jr., Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF OWEN DUNN, JR.
The Offices of Unit C
6800 W. Central Ave., Suite C-1
Toledo, OH 43617
Telephone: (419) 241-9661
Facsimile: (419) 241-9737
Email: obdjr@owendunnlaw.com
ORIGIN BJJ: Visually Impaired Can't Access Website, Fernandez Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
FELIPE FERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ORIGIN BJJ, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-06343 (S.D.N.Y., August 22, 2024) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the New York City Human Rights Law, and
declaratory relief.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.origin.com,
contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class
members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and
services offered to the public through the website. The
accessibility issues on the website include, but not limited to:
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.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals.
Origin BJJ, LLC is a company that sells online goods and services,
doing business in New York. [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
Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
ORTHOFIX MEDICAL: Bernal Sues Over Misleading Financial Statements
------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP ("Scott+Scott"), an international
shareholder and consumer rights litigation firm, has filed a
securities class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas against Orthofix Medical, Inc.
("Orthofix" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: OFIX), and certain of its
former and current officers and/or directors (collectively,
"Defendants"). The Class Action asserts claims under Secs. 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. Secs.
78j(b) and 78t(a)) and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder (17 C.F.R. Sec.240.10b‑5) on behalf
of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise
acquired Orthofix common stock between October 11, 2022, and
September 12, 2023, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and were
damaged thereby (the "Class"). The Class Action filed by
Scott+Scott is captioned: Bernal v. Orthofix Medical, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 2:24-cv-00690.
Orthofix is a global spine and orthopedics company that offers
biologics, spinal hardware, bone growth therapies, and specialized
orthopedic solutions, among other things, to healthcare
professionals throughout the world.
The Class Action alleges that, during the Class Period, Defendants
made misleading statements and omissions regarding the Company's
business, financial condition, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose that certain of the Company's
management team had engaged in repeated inappropriate and offensive
conduct.
As the truth about adverse facts concerning the Company's
management team reached the market, the price of Orthofix's common
stock suffered significant declines, harming investors. For
example, on September 12, 2023, Orthofix announced the unanimous
decision by its Board's independent directors to terminate and
replace the offending members of the Company's management team. On
this news, the Company's stock declined $5.62 per share, or over
30%, to close at $13.01 per share on September 13, 2023, on
unusually heavy volume.
Lead Plaintiff Deadline
If you purchased Orthofix common stock during the Class Period and
were damaged thereby, you are a member of the "Class" and may be
able to seek appointment as lead plaintiff.
If you wish to apply to be lead plaintiff, a motion on your behalf
must be filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Texas no later than October 21, 2024. The lead plaintiff is a
court-appointed representative for absent class members of the
Class. You do not need to seek appointment as lead plaintiff to
share in any Class recovery in the Class Action. If you are a Class
member and there is a recovery for the Class, you can share in that
recovery as an absent Class member.
What You Can Do
You may contact an attorney to discuss your rights regarding the
appointment of lead plaintiff or your interest in the Class Action.
You may retain counsel of your choice to represent you in the Class
Action.
About Scott+Scott
Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major
securities, antitrust, and consumer rights actions throughout the
United States. The firm represents pension funds, foundations,
individuals, and other entities worldwide with offices in New York,
London, Amsterdam, Connecticut, California, Virginia, and Ohio.
This may be considered Attorney Advertising.
Contacts
Nicholas S. Bruno
Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP
230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor, New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (888) 398-9312
nbruno@scott-scott.com [GN]
OUTDOOR PRODUCT: Karim Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website
----------------------------------------------------------------
JESSICA KARIM, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. OUTDOOR PRODUCT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-06346 (S.D.N.Y., August 22, 2024) is a
class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of
the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human
Rights Law, the New York State Civil Rights Law, and the New York
City Human Rights Law and declaratory relief.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
https://www.kahunacreations.com/, contains access barriers which
hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its
online goods, content, and services offered to the public through
the website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but
not limited to: ambiguous link texts, changing of content without
advance warning, unclear labels for interactive elements, lack of
alt-text on graphics, inaccessible drop-down menus, the lack of
adequate labeling of form fields, and the requirement that
transactions be performed solely with a mouse.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals.
Outdoor Product Technologies, Inc. is a company that sells online
goods and services, doing business in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gabriel A. Levy, Esq.
GABRIEL A. LEVY, PC
1129 Northern Blvd., Suite 404
Manhasset, NY 11030
Telephone: (347) 941-4715
Email: Glevyfirm@gmail.com
OXFORD GOLD: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Retirement Funds
-------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Granda, writing for ABC7.com, reports that countless
people's retirement dreams were destroyed by a Beverly Hills
company promising to invest their savings in gold for attractive
returns. Now, there is a class lawsuit and a federal investigation
into Oxford Gold Group.
Eyewitness News first started investigating complaints about Oxford
Gold Group in July. People transferred five-or-six-figure amounts
to a company that has simply vanished.
Closed but still doing business
"Of all of the gold companies that we could've invested in, we
invested in the one that was a scam," Gigi Van Diepen said about
Oxford Gold Group.
Diepen said she and her husband are victims of Oxford Gold Group,
adding the company was still accepting clients, even after they
closed.
"(My husband) wired money to them May 1 of this year," Diepen said.
"They went out of business in April of this year. So, they took our
money even though they had closed their doors in Beverly Hills."
The company website was up as late as July. Diepen hired an
attorney.
"After they were suspended, meaning they weren't even supposed to
be doing business, they went to Gigi's family and in May," attorney
Michael Aguirre said. "And got them to invest in May of this
year."
Oxford Gold claimed it would invest people's money -- often their
retirement funds -- to precious metals. They promised gold and
silver would be placed in a depository for its clients. But there's
no indication that ever happened. All these victims we've spoken to
are convinced their money is gone.
Photos of the company office on Wilshire Boulevard show the
business closed at the time and appeared to be empty. On Oxford
Gold's website before it was shut down, you could see several bad
reviews, most of them within the last few months. Many of the posts
contain phrases like "stole my money," "Stolen Funds," and "Oxford
gold is a scam."
After our story more people started coming forward.
Victims speak out
Aguirre now represents clients from all over the country who say
they lost millions of dollars.
"Well, that was my retirement," Florida resident Chris Page said.
"It's 25 years dedicated to one company, a little over $182,000."
"I moved $32,000," Texas resident Kenneth Furlow said. "And I know
that's not a lot. But it's a lot to me."
"Yeah, altogether, it's over $100,000," New Jersey resident Sharon
Casella said.
"I took $225,000 out of my 401K," Rhode Island resident Christopher
Waitkun said.
All these people share similar stories. They say when they noticed
something wasn't right the people at Oxford Gold started making up
excuses.
"She just kept saying, they're going down a list," Casella said.
"They're going to straighten it out, you know, it's all good.
Everything's going to be okay. And then eventually, after all this
time, like just up until last week or 2 weeks ago."
Taking advantage of vulnerable people
"I was recently diagnosed with stage four cancer," Wisconsin
resident Jackie Nelson said.
She sent money to invest in gold because her dream was it would
grow to leave an inheritance for her children.
"I don't know how long I'm going to live right," Nelson said. "I
feel so betrayed because he knew my story and still stole from me.
I just cannot understand how someone is that low."
Deborah Matthews said her father sent $100,000. Even after his
health declined and couldn't make decisions, someone from Oxford
Gold kept calling him.
"He continued to call my dad to try to sell him more gold,"
Matthews said. "I don't. I don't understand why people prey on
elder people. It makes my heart hurt."
Another company linked to Oxford Gold Group
On the Secretary of State website, it shows the California
Franchise Tax Board suspended the company on April 2.
"What we're most concerned about today is that the government has
not stepped in to take control of the computers, the financial
records, the emails, all the rest of it that are essential to
identifying where the money went and in so doing, identifying who
else may have liability that can pay these folks back," Aguirre
said.
Customers said they were directed to set up accounts with a company
called Equity Trust.
In February, they started receiving letters like this one saying
Equity Trust was no longer working with Oxford Gold.
"They're a custodian, okay," Aguirre said. "So, everybody's money
was transferred to them. And then they gave it to Oxford . . . the
monies were not being deposited or the gold was not being
purchased, and we believe that they knew a lot earlier than
February of this year."
Equity Trust wouldn't comment specifically about Oxford Gold,
sending a statement which says in part, "As a custodian, our
function is to take direction from clients who wish to invest using
their account at Equity Trust and custody those assets purchased by
the clients. Clients choose third parties with which to invest and
work directly with that third party to fulfill those purchases and
sales."
The statement also said, "Equity Trust is committed to the highest
standard of client service and safekeeping of our clients'
assets."
Class action lawsuit filed
Aguirre filed a class action lawsuit last week. It names several
people from Oxford Gold Group, including Chief Executive Pedram
Granfar and Chief Financial Officer Jonathan Adler.
ABC7 tried to find the people named in the lawsuit against Oxford
Gold. one of them is supposedly living in Studio City home. When we
went to the home to try to talke to someone, no one answered the
door.
A home listed for Granfar appears to be undergoing remodeling and
no one was there.
We spoke with an attorney who represents Granfar. While we asked
several questions, the attorney would only say that Granfar hasn't
been involved in the company's operations for some time and cannot
comment on current operational issues.
So far, no one else named in the lawsuit has responded to our phone
calls and emails.
Federal investigation underway
The FBI is now involved.
A number of clients received notices that said, "The purpose of
this initial letter is to notify you that this case is currently
under investigation."
That's promising news to these folks who feel like they lost their
life savings and now hope they can get their money back.
"I thought I was being prudent with what I was doing, and I was
doing it to diversify my portfolio and for retirement purposes and
stuff," Nevada resident Carrie Arnold said. "And yeah, got
played."
"My husband was semi-retired," Arnold explained. "He went back to
work because that was half of his retirement, and now he's gone
back to hard labor as a 54-year-old gentleman." [GN]
PALOMAR HEALTH: Holland & Knight Wins Dismissal of Meta Pixel Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
A team of Holland & Knight healthcare litigators based in San
Francisco earned a significant victory for long-time client Palomar
Health by securing a dismissal of a class action lawsuit involving
its alleged misuse of online Meta Pixel tracking tools on its
public-facing website and patient portal.
Palomar Health is a California Healthcare District that operates
public hospitals in San Diego County. Healthcare districts like
Palomar are a form of local government called "special districts,"
which are independent from city and county governments and are
governed by a board of directors elected by the public. As a public
entity, Palomar Health is subject to California's Government Claims
Act, which requires plaintiffs to file a government claim with the
public entity before filing a lawsuit seeking damages of any kind.
In late 2023, a class action lawsuit was filed against Palomar
Health, alleging causes of action for invasion of privacy under
California's Constitution, intrusion upon seclusion, and violations
of the California Invasion of Privacy Act and California
Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, and seeking money
damages, as well as injunctive relief, based on Palomar's alleged
misuse of Meta Pixel tracking software on its public-facing website
and patient portal. Meta Pixel is a popular technology that
institutions use to analyze and understand how users interact with
their websites.
Relying on the Government Claims Act, the Holland & Knight team
argued the plaintiff had failed to satisfy crucial pre-filing
requirements before bringing a lawsuit against Palomar Health. The
Holland & Knight team also successfully blocked the plaintiff's
requests for money damages on sovereign immunity grounds, based on
Palomar Health's status as a public entity.
The Superior Court in San Diego Court granted Palomar's motion to
dismiss, as well as Palomar's motion to strike money damages,
effectively ending the threat of the lawsuit.
The Holland & Knight team defending Palomar was led by Partner
David Holtzman, who was assisted by Associates Ana Dragojevic and
Isabella Granucci. Partners John Kern and Dan Kappes provided
additional support.
"This is a major victory -- and an early and decisive one for a
case of this nature. David and the rest of the San Francisco team
devised a successful argument based on their in-depth understanding
of the Government Claims Act and Palomar's unique standing as a
provider," said Mr. Kern.
"Given the heightened scrutiny of healthcare providers' use of
tracking technologies and recent uptick in lawsuits on these
grounds, we knew we needed the right counsel, and Holland & Knight
delivered," said Palomar Health CEO Diane Hansen. "As a public
entity, it was particularly important to us that we defeat the
claims for money damages, as taxpayer dollars were at stake. We are
thrilled with the ruling." [GN]
PAPA JOHN'S: Amended Class Cert Bid Mooted w/o Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Derrick Thomas, v. Papa
John's International, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-00411-MRB
(S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Michael Barrett entered an order
denying the following motions as moot without prejudice, subject to
refiling:
-- Defendants' Motion to Compel Franchisee
-- Defendants' Motion to Compel Opt-In and Putative Class Member
Discovery,
-- Plaintiffs' Amended Motion to Certify Class, and
-- Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Declarations.
This matter is before the Court following a Status Conference held
on August 6, 2024.
Papa John's is an American pizza restaurant chain.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 15, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fJSc3S at no extra
charge.[CC]
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Agrees to Settle Conspiracy Class Suit for $100MM
------------------------------------------------------------------
Pilgrim's Pride Corp. agreed to pay $100 million to settle a class
action suit alleging the company was part of a conspiracy to
underpay chicken growers. Pilgrim's Pride denied any wrongdoing in
the settlement agreement.
With the preliminary settlement filed on Aug. 16 with the US
District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma, the total
recovery for the case would be $169 million.
Both the recovery from Pilgrim's and the aggregate recoveries in
the case represent the largest sum recovered for a class of growers
in any litigation, according to the court documents. Furthermore,
the settlement filing noted that $100 million would be the largest
amount paid in any antitrust case in the protein industry.
Other poultry processors to have reached agreements in the case
include Tyson Foods ($21 million), Perdue Farms ($14.75 million),
Sanderson Farms ($17.75 million), and Koch Foods ($15.5 million).
If approved, the Pilgrim's settlement would finalize the class
action lawsuit.
In the case, broiler growers alleged they were "deprived of
vigorous competition for their broiler-grow out services" because
of a conspiracy between Pilgrim's, Tyson, Perdue, Sanderson, Koch
and 17 co-conspirators.
The settlement class covers broiler growers compensated for their
services by one of the named poultry processors or a co-conspirator
during the period Jan. 27, 2013, through Dec. 31, 2019. [GN]
PLANTRONICS INC: Class Cert Bid Terminated as Moot
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re Plantronics, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 4:19-cv-07481 (N.D. Cal., Filed Nov. 13,
2019), the Hon. Judge Jon S. Tigar entered an order terminating as
moot motion to certify class, in light of the Lead Plaintiffs'
unopposed motion for preliminary approval of settlement.
The suit alleges violation of the Securities Exchange Act.
Plantronics is an American electronics company -- branded Poly to
reflect its dual Plantronics and Polycom heritage -- producing
audio communications equipment for business and consumers.[CC]
PNC BANK: Hutchinson Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------
The case styled as George Hutchinson, Janet Hutchinson,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. PNC
BANK, EXPERIAN, EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC, TRANS UNION
CONSUMER SOLUTIONS, Case No. CAM-L-002208-24 was removed from the
Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, to the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey on Aug. 20, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-08587 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit.
The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. --
https://www.pnc.com/en/personal-banking.html -- is an American bank
holding company and financial services corporation based in
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.[BN]
The Plaintiffs appear pro se.
The Defendants are represented by:
Diane A. Bettino, Esq.
REED SMITH LLP
506 Carnegie Center, Suite 300
Princeton, NJ 08540
Phone: (609) 514-5962
Email: dbettino@reedsmith.com
PRIME HEALTHCARE: Court Tosses ECPA Class Action
------------------------------------------------
In the case, R. S. v. Prime Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No.
5:24-cv-00330 (C.D. Cal.) Judge Otis D. Wright, II of the United
States District Court for the Central District of California
granted Prime Healthcare Services, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the
putative class action filed by R.S. without leave to amend.
Defendant Prime Healthcare is a healthcare company is a healthcare
company that operates forty-four hospitals in fourteen states,
including California. It also operates more than 300 outpatient
locations and has nearly 45,000 employees and affiliated
physicians. As part of the medical services it provides, Prime
Healthcare owns, controls, maintains websites for its hospitals,
which include web-based patient portals.
Plaintiff R.S. brings the putative class action against Defendant
Prime
Healthcare for an alleged violation of the Electronic
Communications
Privacy Act ("ECPA"), 18 U.S.C. Section 2511(1) et seq. R.S.
alleges that, through its website, Prime Healthcare utilized
tracking "pixels" to collect client information and intentionally
disclosed it to a third party for pecuniary gain. The information
disclosed to third parties -- including Meta Platforms, Inc. or
Facebook -- allows the third parties to personally identify the
users for advertisement purposes.
On February 8, 2024, R.S. filed this putative class action against
Prime Healthcare, asserting a single cause of action for violation
of the ECPA on the basis that Prime Healthcare "intentionally
intercepted, endeavored to intercept, and/or procured another
person to intercept, the electronic communications of Plaintiff, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2511(1)(a)."
Defendant now moves to dismiss R.S.'s Complaint. It argues that
R.S.'s ECPA claim fails because (1) Prime Healthcare was a party to
the communication that it allegedly unlawfully intercepted and (2)
the ECPA's crime-tort exception does not apply. In its Opposition,
although R.S. argues extensively why the ECPA's crime-tort
exception should in fact apply, R.S. does not respond to Prime
Healthcare's argument that it cannot unlawfully intercept a
communication to which it is a party. Accordingly, Plaintiff
concedes this argument.
Judge Wright points out courts across the country agree that a
hospital is a party to the communication where it uses a pixel to
track activity on its website.
As the party that installed tracking technologies on its Web
Properties, Prime Healthcare necessarily consented to the use of
those pixels and the 'interception' of the communications between
R.S. and Prime Healthcare. Accordingly, the Court dismisses R.S.'s
ECPA claim and, because it finds that the allegation of other facts
consistent with the challenged pleading could not possibly cure the
deficiency, the dismissal is without leave to amend.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated August 6, 2024, is
available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=So4jPz
PROGRESSIVE ADVANCED: Class Settlement in Buffington Gets Final Nod
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as STEVEN BUFFINGTON, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PROGRESSIVE
ADVANCED INSURANCE CO., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No.:
7:20-CV-07408 (VB) (S.D.N.Y.), the Honorable Vincent L. Briccetti
of the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York signed and entered an order granting final approval of
class action settlement and awarding attorneys' fees, expenses, and
plaintiff service award in the matter as to the following class of
persons:
All individuals with personal automobile insurance policies issued
in New York and underwritten by Progressive Advanced Insurance
Company, Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, Progressive
Specialty Insurance Company, or Progressive MAX Insurance Company
who made a claim for comprehensive and collision coverage under
their policy that was adjusted as a total loss, settled by
Progressive on an actual cash value basis, and who Progressive paid
$0.00 in New York sales tax, or who received some amount of sales
tax, but less than 8% of the ACV assigned by Progressive to the
covered vehicle, at any time between September 10, 2014, and March
27, 2024.
The Court direct the Clerk to enter judgment as to the specified
class of persons, Plaintiff, and Defendants Progressive Advanced
Insurance Company, Progressive Casualty Insurance Company,
Progressive Specialty Insurance Company, and Progressive MAX
Insurance Company on the terms and conditions of the Settlement
Agreement approved by the Court's Final Approval Order.
The Action, including all claims asserted, is dismissed with
prejudice.
A full-text copy of the Court's Final Judgment dated
August 6, 2024, is available at http://urlcurt.com/u?l=JfMMiB
PROGRESSIVE ADVANCED: Class Settlement in Buffington Gets Final Nod
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as STEVEN BUFFINGTON, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PROGRESSIVE
ADVANCED INSURANCE CO., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No.:
7:20-CV-07408 (VB) (S.D.N.Y.), the Honorable Vincent L. Briccetti
of the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted final approval of class action settlement
agreement and motion for attorney's fees, expenses and plaintiff
service award.
On March 27, 2024, the Court granted preliminary approval of the
Settlement Agreement, preliminarily certified the Settlement Class,
ordered the dissemination of Class Notice to potential Class
Members, provided Class Members an opportunity to exclude
themselves from the Class or to object to the Settlement Agreement,
and issued related Orders.
The Court held a Fairness Hearing on August 6, 2024 at 10:00 a.m.
It certifies the following Settlement Class for purposes of
settlement only:
All individuals with personal automobile insurance policies issued
in New York and underwritten by Progressive Advanced Insurance
Company, Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, Progressive
Specialty Insurance Company, or Progressive MAX Insurance Company
who made a claim for comprehensive and collision coverage under
their policy that was adjusted as a total loss, settled by
Progressive on an actual cash value basis, and who Progressive paid
$0.00 in New York sales tax, or who received some amount of sales
tax, but less than 8% of the ACV assigned by Progressive to the
covered vehicle, at any time between September 10, 2014, and March
27, 2024.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e), the Court grants final
approval of the Settlement Agreement and finds it is fair,
reasonable, and adequate and in the best interests of the
Settlement Class Members based on the following factors, among
other things:
a. The Court finds that the Class Representative and Class
Counsel adequately represented the Settlement Class for the
purposes of litigating this matter and entering into and
implementing the Settlement Agreement.
b. There is no fraud or collusion underlying this settlement,
and it was reached as a result of extensive arm's-length
negotiations, occurring over the course of several months and
several mediation sessions with a respected mediator, supporting
final approval.
c. The complexity, expense, and likely duration of the
litigation favor settlement -- which provides meaningful benefits
on a shorter time frame than otherwise possible -- on behalf of the
Settlement Class Members.
d. The support of Progressive, Progressive's Counsel, Class
Counsel, and Plaintiff, who have participated in this litigation,
including engaging in significant discovery and motion practice,
and have evaluated the proposed settlement, also favors final
approval.
e. The settlement provides meaningful monetary relief to the
Settlement Class, while avoiding the risks of trial, including the
risk of no recovery at all, and falls within the range of possible
recoveries by the Settlement Class Members.
The Court has also considered Plaintiff's Motion for Attorneys'
Fees, Costs, and Expenses, and Service Award, as well as the
supporting memorandum of law and declarations. For the reasons set
forth on the record on August 6, 2024; the Court awards Class
Counsel attorneys' fees in the amount of $3.5 million and costs and
expenses in the amount of $111,053.15, which the Court finds is
fair, reasonable, and justified under the circumstances presented.
Such payment shall be made by Defendants pursuant to and in the
manner provided by the terms of the Settlement Agreement.
The Court has also considered Plaintiffs' Motion, memorandum of
law, and supporting declarations for service award to the Class
Representative. The Court adjudges that the payment of a service
award in the amount of $10,000 to the Class Representative to
compensate him for his efforts and commitment on behalf of the
Settlement Class, is fair, reasonable, and justified under the
circumstances of this case. Such payment shall be made pursuant to
and in the manner provided by the terms of the Settlement
Agreement.
A full-text copy of the Order dated August 6, 2024, is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wui9a7
PUKALL LUMBER: More Time to File Class Cert Bid in Auestad Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ASHLEY AUESTAD, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. PUKALL LUMBER
COMPANY, INC. Case No. 1:23-cv-01213-WCG (E.D. Wis.), the Parties
ask the Court to enter an order extending the deadline for the
Plaintiff to file her motion for conditional certification until on
or before Oct. 30, 2024, and the deadline for the parties to file
their final certification, class certification, decertification
motions until on or before March 19, 2025.
Because the parties desire to focus their immediate efforts on
continued settlement discussions, and in order to preserve judicial
resources, the parties respectfully request that the Court extend
the stated deadlines.
The parties are still discussing settlement of this matter, and
they are close to having either a preliminary settlement on a
class/collective basis or reaching an impasse.
Currently, the deadline for Plaintiff to file her Motion for
Conditional Certification is Aug. 14, 2024, and the deadline for
the parties to file their Final Certification, Class Certification,
Decertification motions is Oct. 18, 2024.
Pukall is a family-owned and -operated wood products manufacturer.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Aug. 14, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0qHfEC at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James A. Walcheske, Esq.
Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
David M. Potteiger, Esq.
WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
235 North Executive Drive, Suite 240
Brookfield, WI 53005
Telephone: (262) 780-1953
Email: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Chad R. Levanetz, Esq.
Nicole L. Stangl, Esq.
RUDER WARE L.L.S.C.
130 North Adams Street
Green Bay, WI 54301
Telephone: (920) 435-9393
E-mail: clevanetz@ruderware.com
nstangl@ruderware.com
QG PRINTING: Class Cert Filing in Pulido-Peredo Due June 27, 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE PULIDO-PEREDO,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. QG
PRINTING II, LLC, a Connecticut limited liability company, QUAD
GRAPHICS, INC., a Wisconsin corporation, 74 QG PRINTING LLC, an
unknown entity, and DOES 1-100, Case No. 2:24-cv-01505-AC (E.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Allison Claire entered status (pretrial
scheduling) order:
1. The parties shall either serve or dismiss 74 QG Printing LLC
no
later than Sept. 11, 2024.
2. Any motion to amend pleadings is due no later than Oct. 31,
2024.
3. Initial disclosures shall be exchanged no later than Nov. 30,
2024.
4. Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be filed no
later than June 27, 2025. The court adopts the parties'
proposed
briefing schedule: defendants' opposition will be due by
Aug.
29, 2025; plaintiff's reply will be due by Sept. 30, 2025;
and
the hearing on this motion shall be on Wednesday, Oct. 19,
2025.
5. Discovery shall be completed by Nov. 19, 2025. This deadline
may
be extended by the court upon a showing of good cause,
following
resolution of the anticipated motion for class
certification.
6. All remaining dates and deadlines will be set following a
determination of class certification.
7. Failure to comply with the terms of this order may result in
the
imposition of monetary and all other sanctions within the
power
of the court, including dismissal or an order of judgment.
QG Printing offers inventory management, binding, monitoring,
tracking, publishing, and logistics services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 15, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=x1DI0k at no extra
charge.[CC]
RAJBHOG FOODS: Faces Liz Suit Over Online Store's Access Barriers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PEDRO LIZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. RAJBHOG FOODS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-06341
(S.D.N.Y., August 22, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant
for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act,
the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York State Civil
Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law and declaratory
relief.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
https://www.rajbhog.com/, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the public through the
website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not
limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, inaccurate heading
hierarchy, ambiguous link texts, changing of content without
advance warning, unclear labels for interactive elements, the lack
of navigation links, the lack of adequate labeling of form fields,
the denial of keyboard access for some interactive elements,
redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address,
and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a
mouse.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals.
Rajbhog Foods, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and
services, doing business in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gabriel A. Levy, Esq.
GABRIEL A. LEVY, PC
1129 Northern Blvd., Suite 404
Manhasset, NY 11030
Telephone: (347) 941-4715
Email: Glevyfirm@gmail.com
REDWIRE CORP: Thompson Bid for Leave to Submit Sur-Reply OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEMEN v. REDWIRE
CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-01254 (M.D. Fla., Filed Dec.
17, 2021), the Hon. Judge Timothy J. Corrigan entered an endorsed
order granting Lead Plaintiff Jared Thompson's motion for leave to
submit sur-sur-reply brief in support of motion for class
certification.
The sur-sur-reply is limited to five pages and shall be filed no
later than Sept. 4, 2024.
The suit alleges violation of the Securities Exchange Act.
Redwire is an American aerospace manufacturer and space
infrastructure technology company headquartered in Jacksonville,
Florida.[CC]
ROADGET BUSINESS: Scheduling Order Entered in Menzel Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTINA MENZEL, v
ROADGET BUSINESS PTE. LTD., et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-00860-JGK-SLC
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Sarah Cave entered a scheduling order:
-- All pretrial motions and applications, including those relating
to
scheduling and discovery (but excluding motions to dismiss or
for
judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive relief, for summary
judgment, or for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23)
must be made to Magistrate Judge Cave and must comply with her
Individual Practices, available on the Court’s website at
https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-sarah-l-cave.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 15, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=41hb3O at no extra
charge.[CC]
ROBLOX CORP: Court Denies Bid to Compel Arbitration in Noel Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California issued an Order denying the
Defendant's motion to compel arbitration in the lawsuit entitled
RAYMOND NOEL, et al., Plaintiffs v. ROBLOX CORPORATION, Defendant,
Case No. 3:24-cv-00963-JSC (N.D. Cal.).
Plaintiffs Raymond and Laura Noel's minor children are regular
users of the Roblox gaming platform. The Noels (the parents) bring
a putative class action against Roblox Corporation ("Roblox"),
alleging Roblox's conduct is deceptive and unfair.
Now pending before the Court is Roblox's motion to compel the
Plaintiffs to arbitration, or, in the alternative, to dismiss the
complaint, along with a motion to seal certain documents. In
addition, a week before the oral hearing, the Plaintiffs filed a
motion for leave to file an amended complaint, which also remains
pending.
Having considered the briefing, and with the benefit or oral
argument on Aug. 8, 2024, the Court denies the Plaintiffs' motion
for leave to amend, grants Roblox's motion to seal and denies
Roblox's motion to compel arbitration and motion to dismiss without
prejudice pending resolution of whether Roblox has an enforceable
arbitration agreement with the Plaintiffs.
On this record, Judge Corley finds Roblox has not shown as a matter
of undisputed fact the existence of an arbitration agreement
between the Plaintiffs and Roblox.
Roblox is an online game creation system and platform, where users
can program their own games or play games created by other users.
The Roblox platform consists of two primary layers: Roblox Client
and Roblox Studio. Roblox Client functions more as a game and
allows users to explore 3D digital worlds as an avatar, which each
user customizes with clothing, gear, animations, simulated
gestures, emotes, and other objects. Roblox Studio is a proprietary
engine that functions as a toolkit for developers and creators to
build, publish, and operate the 3D games (called "experiences" by
Roblox Corp.), and content for Roblox Client. Developers can also
design objects such as clothing, gear, and gestures, which they can
then sell in a user-to-user marketplace.
According to the Order, Roblox provides price floors for items.
Moreover, Roblox takes a commission from every sale and charges
users an "upload" or "selling" fee before they can upload any
creation to the marketplace.
Developers' creations can earn them "Robux," which are the Roblox
digital currency and are spendable only in the Roblox platform.
Robux can either be "purchased" for real money--for example,
through an in-game purchase with a credit card or through the
purchase of a physical gift-card--or they can be "earned" within
the Roblox platform.
Robux can be used to make purchases of virtual items to be used in
games or apps within the Roblox ecosystem. Robux can also be
converted back to U.S. dollars, though at a significantly devalued
rate--one Robux is worth about $0.0035 dollars when cashing out.
However, in order to even convert Robux to USD, a user must first
meet several requirements, including having a minimum of at least
30,000 earned Robux in their account and paying a monthly
subscription fee. Moreover, users must be at least 13 years of age
or older to join the "Developer Exchange Program," which allows
users to convert their earned Robux to U.S. dollars.
As a result, many child developers are unable to ever cash out
their Robux for real-world funds because they are unable to meet
the requirements to do so. Roblox also allows users to be "hired"
by other users to work on their experiences and content. Roblox's
"Talent Hub" includes job postings for its users to earn Robux and
work on game development projects with other users. Several
full-time posts on the Talent Hub expressly state the poster will
hire minors.
Roblox attempts to distance itself from taking any responsibility
for exploitation on Talent Hub and instead tries to put the onus on
parents to monitor their child's labor activities on Talent Hub.
Most of Roblox's users and developers are children. The design of
the Roblox platform was specifically intended to addict
users--especially children--and encourage play for longer periods
of time. Roblox conceals these dangerous addictive properties,
while at the same time holding the platform out as a safe and
educational for its users.
Most of the currently popular games on Roblox are made by whole
teams of users, who create games and continuously roll out updates
to keep users playing. These Roblox-associated teams are
unregulated virtual communities that allow for the exploitation of
child members by making it easy to lie to children, making children
work for free, making children work for managers or bosses with
zero experience in managing a team, and exposing children to
multiple types of abuse and harassment.
Plaintiffs Raymond and Laura Noel are parents of three children,
who have been playing on Roblox for at least the prior two years
and continue to play on Roblox. They have spent thousands of
dollars on Robux currency for their children's gameplay.
The Plaintiffs assert they would not have spent funds on Robux had
they known that the Roblox platform was founded on the exploitation
of their children and other children, who make up the platform's
user base. Instead, the Plaintiffs believed, as Roblox advertised,
that the platform was safe and educational for their children. Now,
the Plaintiffs' children continue playing Roblox and requesting
funds for Robux because they are addicted to the platform--just as
Roblox intended.
The Plaintiffs bring six claims against Roblox (1) violations of
California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California Civil Code
Section 1750, et seq.; (2) violations of the California's Unfair
Competition Law, California Business and Professions Code Section
17200; (3) violations of California's False Advertising Law,
California Business and Professions Code Section 17500, et seq.;
(4) Fraudulent Concealment; (5) Fraudulent Misrepresentation; and
(6) Unjust Enrichment.
Roblox moves to redact certain portions of Ronita Camarena's
declaration and certain portions of Exhibit 3, which is attached to
the declaration. The proposed redactions are the usernames and
account numbers of the Plaintiffs' minor children's Roblox
accounts.
The Court holds there is good cause and compelling reasons to seal
such personally identifiable information, especially since the
information relates to minors. So, the Court grants Roblox's motion
and seals the requested portions of the documents.
The Noels obtained Robux for their children in two ways: (1) by
purchasing physical gift cards, and (2) through Xbox Live. Over the
years their children have utilized the Roblox platform and because
of the misrepresentations of Roblox, the Plaintiffs have spent
approximately $75 to $150 dollars per month on Robux for their
children to spend in the gaming platform. The Plaintiffs' children
have also received several Robux gift cards as gifts from other
family members and friends.
Since March 30, 2023, the back of each Roblox gift card provided:
"By purchasing, accepting or redeeming this card, you agree to
these terms and conditions and the Roblox Terms of Use" with a link
to the terms of use. Both Raymond and Laura Noel are "unaware"
whether any language about the Roblox Terms of Use or Arbitration
Agreement was on the back of the cards they purchased. Both also
testify they have never seen, agreed, or consented to the Roblox
Terms of Use.
The Plaintiffs' children's accounts indicate they redeemed Robux
gift cards on Dec. 22, 2023, Jan. 14, 2024, and Feb. 14, 2024. The
Plaintiffs both indicate they "do not recall" if they purchased the
specific gift cards Roblox identifies as the cards redeemed on Dec.
22, 2023, Jan. 14, 2024, or Feb. 14, 2024.
Drawing all reasonable inferences in the Plaintiffs' favor, Judge
Corley finds Roblox has not established there is no genuine dispute
of material fact as to whether an arbitration agreement between the
Plaintiffs and Roblox exists. Judge Corley adds that Roblox has not
shown, as a matter of law, the Plaintiffs assented to Roblox's
Terms of Use or the arbitration agreement within those terms, and
that Roblox has not established either Raymond or Laura Noel
purchased any cards with language specifying the purchase of the
card was an agreement to the Terms of Use.
As Roblox did not show it had an agreement to arbitrate with the
Plaintiffs as a matter of law, Judge Corley says the case moves to
the next phase: discovery. After discovery, the parties will
brief--under the summary judgment standard--whether the record
establishes as a matter of law Roblox entered into an arbitration
agreement with the Plaintiffs. If there remains a genuine dispute,
the case will proceed to trial on the issue of the making of an
arbitration agreement.
Accordingly, the Court grants Roblox's motion to seal. The Court
denies Roblox's motion to compel arbitration and motion to dismiss
without prejudice. The Court also denies the Plaintiffs' motion for
leave to amend, also without prejudice, for the reasons stated at
oral argument.
The Court will hold an initial case management conference on Aug.
29, 2024, at 1:30 p.m. via Zoom video. A joint case management
conference statement was due Aug. 27, 20204. The Statement should
address what discovery will be conducted, the schedule for the
discovery, and the anticipated timing of a renewed motion to compel
arbitration. This Order Resolves Dkt. Nos. 25, 26, 28, and 39.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Aug. 8, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/5ex39m48 from PacerMonitor.com.
ROBLOX CORP: Parties Seek to Adjourn Private Mediation Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RACHELLE COLVIN,
individually and as next friend of minor Plaintiff, G.D., DANIELLE
SASS, individually and as next friend of minor plaintiff, L.C.,
DAVID L. GENTRY, individually and as next friend of minor
plaintiff, L.G., OSMANY RODRIGUEZ, individually, and as next friend
of minor plaintiff, O.R., JOSHUA R. MUNSON, individually and as
next friend of minor plaintiffs D.C., J.M., T.T., and R.T, and
LAVINA GANN, individually and as next friend of minor plaintiff,
S.J., and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ROBLOX
CORPORATION, SATOZUKI LIMITED B.V., STUDS ENTERTAINMENT LTD., and
RBLXWILD ENTERTAINMENT LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-04146-VC (N.D. Cal.,),
the Parties ask the Court to enter an order adjourning private
mediation deadline pursuant to civil local Rule 6-2.
1. The parties' deadline to complete private mediation is
extended
to Feb. 7, 2025.
On April 18, 2024, the Court ordered the parties to complete
private mediation by Aug. 16, 2024.
The parties have not previously requested extension of the Aug. 16,
2024 deadline to complete mediation. The parties believe that
mediation would be more productive with the benefit of the Court's
ruling on Roblox Corporation's motion to dismiss, as well as
further discovery and expert disclosures pursuant to the Court's
case management order.
Extension of the private mediation deadline would not impact any
other deadline in this case.
Roblox Corporation is an American video game developer.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Aug. 15, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tq9SBw at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
James J. Bilsborrow, Esq.
WEITZ & LUXENBERG, PC
700 Broadway
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 558-5500
E-mail: jbilsborrow@weitzlux.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Tiana Demas, Esq.
Kevin T. Carlson, Esq.
Kristine A. Forderer, Esq.
Kyle C. Wong, Esq.
Robby L.R. Saldaña, Esq.
COOLEY LLP
110 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 4200
Chicago, IL 60606-1511
Telephone: (312) 881-6500
Facsimile: (312) 881-6598
E-mail: tdemas@cooley.com
ktcarlson@cooley.com
kforderer@cooley.com
kwong@cooley.com
rsaldana@cooley.com
ROBLOX CORP: Seeks Dismissal of Consolidated Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Roblox Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 2, 2024, that it filed a motion to dismiss a
consolidated complaint filed on May 14, 2024 and the court's
decision on the motion to dismiss is pending.
On March 14, 2024, a putative class action captioned "Gentry v.
Roblox" was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California asserting various claims arising
from allegations that minors used third-party virtual casinos to
gamble Robux.
On April 18, 2024, this was consolidated with another action in the
Northern District of California. Plaintiffs filed a consolidated
complaint on April 23, 2024. The consolidated complaint seeks
monetary damages, including actual, punitive, and statutory
damages, restitution, attorneys' fees and costs, and declaratory
and injunctive relief.
Roblox Corporation operates a human co-experience platform where
users interact with each other to explore and create immersive,
user-generated, 3D experiences.
RXO LAST: Court Denies Bids for Summary Judgment in Gonzalez Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled RAMON GONZALEZ, VICTOR RODRIGUEZ ORTIZ, and
ADDELYN MARTE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. RXO LAST MILE, INC., d/b/a RXO LOGISTICS,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10290-FDS (D. Mass.), Chief District
Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV, of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts issued a Memorandum and Order denying the
Defendant's motion for summary judgment and the Plaintiffs' motion
for partial summary judgment.
The lawsuit is an action for unpaid wages arising out of the
alleged misclassification of employees as independent contractors.
Jurisdiction is based on diversity of citizenship.
Defendant RXO Last Mile, Inc., is a freight forwarder and logistics
services provider that organizes and arranges deliveries of large
goods for retail stores. Plaintiffs Ramon Gonzalez, Victor
Rodriguez Ortiz, and Addelyn Marte are drivers, who delivered
appliances and other consumer goods on behalf of RXO to customers
of Lowe's Home Improvement stores.
The Plaintiffs allege that RXO misclassified them as independent
contractors in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, Section 148B
(Count 1); failed to provide them wages and benefits in violation
of the Massachusetts Wage Act, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, Section 148
(Count 2); failed to pay them a minimum wage in violation of the
Massachusetts Minimum Wage Law, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151, Section 1A
(Count 3); and was unjustly enriched at their expense (Count 4).
The Plaintiffs brought suit on behalf of themselves and a class of
similarly situated individuals against RXO.
The Defendant has moved for summary judgment on all counts. It
contends that under Jinks v. Credico (USA) LLC, 488 Mass. 691
(2021), RXO can be found liable to the drivers only if they prove
it was their joint employer, and that they cannot do so.
The Plaintiffs have cross-moved for partial summary judgment as to
their status as "employees" of RXO. They contend that Jinks does
not apply, and that the Court should instead utilize the "ABC test"
to determine whether they (or companies employing them) were
independent contractors.
RXO Last Mile, Inc. (formerly known as XPO Last Mile, Inc.) is a
freight forwarder that performs logistics services for retail
stores. Those logistics services include organizing and arranging
deliveries of appliances and other large goods on behalf of its
customers to retail purchasers. In order to perform delivery
services, RXO contracts with "independent motor carriers" and pays
those carriers for the deliveries that they complete. One of RXO's
customers is Lowe's Home Improvement, a chain of retail stores.
Between July 20, 2015, and July 13, 2022, RXO contracted with
approximately 293 carriers to perform services for Lowe's. The
carriers, in turn, engaged individual drivers and helpers to
transport goods by truck from Lowe's to customers. Although some
drivers were also the owners of carriers that contracted with RXO,
the class members in this action include only those drivers, who
did not have written contracts with RXO.
More specifically, the class includes "all drivers who performed
deliveries in Massachusetts on behalf of RXO to Lowe's customers
within the period of July 20, 2015, to present, excluding helpers
and any drivers who signed contracts with RXO."
RXO's contractual relationship with Lowe's is memorialized in a
2010 Master Professional Services Agreement ("MPSA"). Under the
MPSA, Lowe's has "the right to reject any Contractor's Personnel
whose qualifications, in Lowe's reasonable judgment[,] do not meet
the standards considered by Lowe's as necessary for the performance
of the Services." In addition, the MPSA states that "if Lowe's
becomes dissatisfied with any of Contractor's Personnel providing
the Services for any reason that is not unlawful, Lowe's may notify
Contractor of the detail of its dissatisfaction, and, if Lowe's
requests, Contractor shall immediately remove that individual from
Lowe's and replace that individual with other Contractor's
Personnel in accordance with the requirements of this Agreement."
RXO disputes, however, that in practice it "required or otherwise
enforced the [c]arriers' compliance with Lowe's standards." Various
Statement of Work Agreements ("SOWs") also outline RXO's
"obligations with respect to particular services and deliverables"
for Lowe's. According to one SOW, RXO is "required to use qualified
personnel" and must abide by certain "Service Level Expectations."
RXO's contractual relationship with its carriers is memorialized in
standard form Delivery Service Agreements ("DSAs"). The standard
DSA requires carriers to "provide services in a manner consistent
with white glove industry standards" and to "agree[] that all of
the employees, subcontractors and agents of its company will comply
with identification, security, and appearance standards applicable
to in-home delivery."
RXO pays carriers for delivery services, and the carriers in turn
pay their drivers. Although the Plaintiffs contend that the
carriers were "constrained by the pay structure imposed by RXO,"
the carriers determine the manner and rate of payment for drivers.
Here, the class members are paid directly by the carriers and do
not receive compensation from RXO. Members of the class also
request raises from the carriers, not from RXO. While RXO does not
deduct payment from drivers for claims of damage to customer
property, it deducts those payments from carriers, and the carriers
determine whether and how to pass the deduction on to their
drivers.
RXO collects from the carriers and maintains a repository of the
records reflecting the results of drivers' background check, motor
vehicle check, and drug screens. RXO also maintains delivery
records that detailed information related to each delivery. RXO
does not track drivers' hours or maintain payroll records for
drivers.
In the Court's view, the applicable test is the one set forth in
Jinks. The Court is unpersuaded that Jinks is "factually
dissimilar" because "Lowe's is Company A and RXO is Company B." In
Jinks, defendant Credico was a broker that provided "regional
direct sales services" for its "nationally based telecommunications
and energy clients." Credico contracted with DFW to "provide
regional door-to-door and other face-to-face sales services for
Credico's clients." DFW, in turn "retained the services of three of
the plaintiffs--Kyana Jinks, Antwione Taylor, and Lee Tremblay--as
salespersons to work on various marketing campaigns in
Massachusetts for Credico's clients." The Jinks court explicitly
identified Credico as Company A and DFW as Company B.
The Court is also unpersuaded by the Plaintiffs' argument
concerning the partial summary judgment granted to the Muniz
plaintiffs, citing Muniz v. RXO Last Mile, Inc., 2023 WL 5353749
(D. Mass. Aug. 21, 2023). In Muniz, the plaintiffs brought suit on
behalf of a certified class against defendant RXO. The court
granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiffs on the question
of their status as employees under Section 148B.
The facts in Muniz, however, differ from the facts here, Judge
Saylor points out. The Muniz plaintiffs were delivery drivers who
contracted directly with RXO. Here, the class definition explicitly
excludes helpers and any drivers, who signed contracts with RXO.
The Defendant contends that it is entitled to judgment as a matter
of law because the undisputed facts show that RXO was not the
carriers' drivers' joint employer.
In summary, Judge Saylor explains, many of the relevant facts as to
each Jinks factor are genuinely disputed. Resolving all doubts in
favor of the Plaintiffs as the non-moving party, and construing the
evidence in the light most favorable to them, the question of
whether RXO was the joint employer of the drivers cannot be
resolved by summary judgment, Judge Saylor opines. The Defendant's
motion for summary judgment will, therefore, be denied.
The Plaintiffs seek partial summary judgment as to their status as
employees under Section 148B. As noted, the Court will apply the
Jinks framework at this stage of the proceedings. Nevertheless, the
Plaintiffs contend that they should still be entitled to judgment
as a matter of law under Jinks on the grounds that (1) RXO is the
Plaintiffs' joint employer, and (2) RXO engaged in a scheme to
avoid its wage-law obligations.
Judge Saylor notes that key questions of fact remain unresolved in
this action concerning RXO's status as the Plaintiffs' joint
employer. Accordingly, the Court will deny summary judgment for the
Plaintiffs on that basis. The Court will also not grant summary
judgment to the Plaintiffs on the basis that RXO undertook an end
run around its wage-law obligations. In short, partial summary
judgment will not be granted to the Plaintiffs on the grounds that
RXO is their joint employer or that RXO engaged in a scheme to
avoid its wage-law obligations.
For these reasons, the Court denies (1) the motion for summary
judgment of Defendant RXO Last Mile, Inc., and (2) the motion for
partial summary judgment of Plaintiffs Ramon Gonzalez, Victor
Rodriguez Ortiz, and Addelyn Marte, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated Aug. 7,
2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/mv9hrcvz from
PacerMonitor.com.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Bid to Toss 3rd Amended McCoy Suit Partly OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jamel K. Semper of the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey grants in part and denies in part the Defendant's
motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint in the
lawsuit styled TONY MCCOY, FRANCIS WOOD, CHRISTIAN DUTESCU,
MICHELLE PEDERSON, LAUREN PECK, and MEGAN TOMSIK, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SAMSUNG
ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:21-cv-19470-JKS-JSA (D.N.J.).
The matter is before the Court on Defendant Samsung Electronics
America's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Tony McCoy, Francis Wood,
Christian Dutescu, Michelle Pederson, Lauren Peck, and Megan
Tomsik's Third Amended Complaint ("TAC"). The Plaintiffs opposed
the motion. The Defendant filed a reply. The Court has decided this
motion upon the submissions of the parties, without oral argument,
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78 and Local Civil Rule
78.1.
The Plaintiffs allege that between November 2018 and November 2019,
they each bought a Chromebook from third-party retailer Best Buy.
They also allege that the fact that the Defendant advertised and
warranted it as a premium and durable 2-in-1 laptop/tablet with
high-end features was material to them and to other reasonable
consumers. They further allege that, after the hinges on their
Chromebooks broke, they spent a substantial amount of time
researching the issue on the internet. The Plaintiffs include
numerous publicly available negative reviews regarding the same
purported Defect in the TAC.
According to the Plaintiffs, the Chromebooks' hinges have a defect,
which prevents them from being used as advertised. The purported
Defect causes one or more of the hinge arms to separate from its
mount inside the display, which ultimately damages the display and
cracks the screen and/or prevents owners from opening, closing, or
adjusting the displays of the Class Device for fear of damaging the
screen glass. The Plaintiffs continue that the plastic mount in the
display to which the hinge assembly is affixed fails and detaches
from its attachment point within the display, thus, causing the
Defect.
When the consumer attempts to change the display angle by applying
force to it, the detached hinge arm exerts pressure on the
underside of the display glass. The Plaintiffs continue that when
the display is moved, the resistance of the hinge causes the screen
and surrounding plastic to shatter, damaging the screen and
rendering further use of the laptop very difficult (and
dangerous).
The Plaintiffs also allege that Samsung was aware, or should have
been aware, of the Defect based on pre-release product testing,
warranty repair inquiries, online posts and comments, and its
affiliate's patent applications. In their Third Amended Complaint,
the Plaintiffs assert claims for: 1) breach of the implied warranty
of merchantability; 2) violation of the Florida Unfair and
Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("FDUTPA"); 3) violation of the
Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act ("OCPA"); 4) violation of the
Missouri Practices Act ("MMPA"); 5) violation of the Ohio Consumer
Sales Practice Act ("OCSPA"); 6) violation of New York General
Business Law ("NYGBL") Section 349; 7) violation of NYGBL Section
350; 8) unjust enrichment; 9) fraudulent omission or concealment;
and 10) "declaratory and injunctive relief."
Plaintiff Tony McCoy initiated this action on Nov. 1, 2021. On
Sept. 20, 2023, Judge Kevin McNulty granted in part and denied in
part the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint
("September Opinion"). On Nov. 15, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed the
Third Amended Complaint. On Dec. 15, 2023, the Defendant moved to
dismiss the Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint. The Plaintiffs
filed a brief in opposition. The Defendant filed a reply.
The Defendant argues that the Court should dismiss the Plaintiffs'
implied warranty claims, consumer statutory and fraudulent
omissions claims, unjust enrichment claims, and declaratory and
injunctive relief claims. The Plaintiffs claim that each of these
causes of action has been sufficiently pled to survive a 12(b)(6)
motion to dismiss.
Judge Semper finds the Third Amended Complaint plausibly alleges
that Samsung had pre-sale knowledge of the purported Defect taking
together allegations of the pre-release production testing,
warranty repair inquiries, online comments and posts about the
Chromebooks, and Samsung affiliate's patent applications.
As before, Judge Semper also finds that the Plaintiffs have
adequately pled substantive unconscionability based on knowledge of
the Defect and manipulation of the warranty terms to avoid the cost
thereof.
Judge Semper also finds that the Plaintiffs adequately alleged
pre-sale knowledge, and that Samsung did not disclose the purported
Defect. Judge Semper further finds, among other things, that the
Plaintiffs have adequately pled that the one-year warranty
limitation is unconscionable.
As discussed in the September Opinion, Judge Semper says the
Plaintiffs failed to allege that the Defect appeared in the
Chromebook within the period "shortly after purchase," nor did the
Plaintiffs allege other facts sufficient to support an inference
that they were not saleable. Here, the Plaintiffs fail to make
allegations that would cure the deficiency explained in the
September Opinion: the shortest alleged period before the Defect
manifested itself approximately one year and three months after
purchase. As such, the Court holds that the implied warranty of
merchantability claims are again dismissed for failure to state a
claim.
The Plaintiffs allege violations of state consumer protection
statutes in Florida, Oklahoma, Missouri, Ohio, and New York and
also allege fraudulent omission or concealment. They argue that
except for the MMPA, the consumer statutory claims are not subject
to heightened Rule 9(b) pleading standards. They also argue that
they sufficiently allege their fraud and state consumer statutory
claims.
Here, as before, Judge Semper finds the Plaintiffs have not
sufficiently alleged a fraudulent omission claim based on a duty to
disclose or misleadingly incomplete representations. There are
again no allegations of a fiduciary or otherwise special
relationship with the Defendant that would give rise to a duty to
disclose. Rather, Judge Semper explains, the allegations regarding
a duty to disclose are legal conclusions disguised as factual
assertions.
Alternatively, the Plaintiffs argue that if the alleged defect
implicates safety, the Defendant has a duty to disclose. To support
this argument, the Plaintiffs largely cite out-of-district case law
applying the safety risk standard to New York and Ohio law.
However, Judge Semper opines that the TAC fails to allege
sufficient details as to how the Defect posed a safety risk
analogous to the safety risks in their cited cases. As such, the
Court dismisses the Plaintiffs' fraudulent omission/concealment
claim.
The Plaintiffs again allege violations of the FDUTPA, OCPA, MMPA,
OCSPA, and newly allege violations of NYGBL Section 349 and Section
350 in the TAC. Judge Semper finds that the Plaintiffs' allegations
do not specify which acts, if any, occurred in Florida. Rather, the
Plaintiffs rely on general allegations that the Defendant
misrepresented the Class Devices through its advertisements and
public statements that took place in and was directed at Florida.
Judge Semper opines that these allegations are insufficient to
state an FDUTPA claim. As such, the Court again dismisses the
FDUTPA claim.
The reliance issue also defeats the MMPA claim again, Judge Semper
says. As previously noted in the September Opinion, there remains
the failure to sufficiently allege reliance as to the MMPA claim.
Plaintiff Francis Wood is the Missouri-based Plaintiff, who brings
the MMPA claim against the Defendant on behalf of himself and the
Missouri subclass. However, the TAC fails to concretely and
specifically allege reliance. The Plaintiffs failed to ameliorate
the pleading deficiency explained in the September Opinion and
included virtually identical allegations as to Plaintiff Dutescu
and Plaintiff Wood. No allegations specify what exactly Plaintiff
Wood relied on. The Court, accordingly, dismisses the MMPA claim
again.
With respect to the previously dismissed OCPA claim, Judge Semper
finds the Plaintiffs make no argument or otherwise oppose the
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. They also did not modify or
otherwise change their previously dismissed OCPA claim. As such,
the Court will dismiss the OCPA claim again.
With respect to the OCSPA claim, the Plaintiffs previously failed
to satisfy OCSPA's notice requirements, Judge Semper notes. As
previously discussed, there is no specific allegation as to what
false advertisement Plaintiff Peck specifically relied on at the
time of her purchase. As such, Judge Semper holds that the NYGBL
claims are dismissed without prejudice.
The Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim
fails because it cannot survive as an independent claim after
underlying warranty and fraud claims are dismissed, because the
Plaintiffs fail to allege direct benefit conferred on the
Defendant, and because New York does not allow for unjust
enrichment claims that are duplicative of other claims being
brought.
The Court previously allowed the unjust enrichment claims under
Missouri and Oklahoma law to proceed as alleged. As such, the Court
allows the New York, Missouri, and Oklahoma unjust enrichment
claims to proceed at this time.
The Court previously dismissed the Plaintiffs' claim for
declaratory and injunctive relief for lack of standing. The
Defendant contends that the Plaintiffs have not addressed the
previously-identified standing issue and argue that the declaratory
and injunctive relief claim is redundant of the underlying claims,
is an unavailable equitable remedy, and is not an independent cause
of action.
The Plaintiffs contend that this claim is not redundant and argue
that they remain interested in purchasing the Defendant's laptops
in the future but have received no assurances that the Defendant
has remedied the defect.
As discussed in the September Opinion, Judge Semper says that the
Plaintiffs' vague, speculative, and conditional assertions are
insufficient to establish a reasonable likelihood of future harm.
Judge Semper points out that the Plaintiffs have not cured the
previously identified standing deficiency and have not otherwise
addressed standing in their subsequent briefing. Further, the Court
previously dismissed the declaratory judgment request as it
amounted to a request for a coercive injunction, not a declaration
of the rights or other legal relations of the parties.
Because the Plaintiffs have failed to establish standing to seek
injunctive relief, the Court again dismisses these claims.
For the reasons stated in this Opinion, the Court rules that the
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is granted in part and denied in
part. Counts I, II, III, IV, V, IX, and X of the Third Amended
Complaint are dismissed with prejudice. Counts VI, VII, and VIII
are dismissed without prejudice. The New York, Missouri, and
Oklahoma unjust enrichment claims survive. Within sixty (60) days,
the Plaintiff may file an amended complaint addressing the
deficiencies identified in this Opinion.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated Aug. 8, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4cx34rju from PacerMonitor.com.
SANMINA CORP: Faces Lobatos Class Suits in California Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sanmina Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2023, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 16, 2023, that on
May 16, 2024 and June 14, 2024, former employee Carlos Lobatos
filed class actions in the Santa Clara County Superior Court
alleging violations of various California Labor Code and Wage Order
requirements, including provisions governing overtime, meal and
rest periods, minimum wage requirements, payment of wages during
employment, wage statements, payroll records, and reimbursement of
business expenses, additional violations related to sick leave,
suitable rest facilities, seating, failure to retain and provide
employment and payroll records, reporting time pay, day of rest
rules, payroll deductions, paid time off, and various unlawful
employment practices.
The Lobatos class action complaint seeks certification of a class
of all current and former non-exempt employees who worked for the
Company (directly or via a staffing agency) within the State of
California at any time between May 16, 2020 and final judgment, as
well as unspecified damages, penalties, restitution, attorneys'
fees, pre-judgment interest, and costs of suit
Sanmina Corporation is a global provider of integrated
manufacturing solutions, components, products and repair, logistics
and after-market services for industrial, medical, defense and
aerospace, automotive, communications networks and cloud
infrastructure.
SCOUT ENERGY: Copper-Clark Seeks to Continue Class Status Hearing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THE COOPER-CLARK
FOUNDATION, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. SCOUT ENERGY MANAGEMENT, LLC, et al., Case No.
5:22-cv-04048-KHV-ADM (D. Kan.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order to continue the hearing on Plaintiff's motion for
class certification, currently set for Aug. 19, 2024.
The Plaintiff's counsel is experiencing an outbreak of COVID-19,
and the attorneys with responsibility for this matter and who were
scheduled to appear at the hearing have tested positive for
COVID-19 and continue to experience symptoms that have hindered
their ability to prepare for the hearing and will prevent their
attendance at the hearing in compliance with the CDC's guidelines.
The Defendants do not oppose the requested continuance. The parties
have conferred regarding potential alternative hearing dates, and
Plaintiff informs the Court that the parties are available for a
hearing on this matter the afternoon of August 26, the morning or
early afternoon of August 27, or September 10.
Scout is an investment adviser.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 15, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZS80nt at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott B. Goodger, Esq.
Rex A. Sharp, Esq.
Brandon C. Landt, Esq.
Hammons P. Hepner, Esq.
SHARP LAW, LLP
4820 W. 75th St.
Prairie Village, KS 66208
Telephone: (913) 901- 0505
Facsimile: (913) 901-0419
E-mail: sgoodger@midwest-law.com
rsharp@midwest-law.com
blandt@midwest-law.com
hhepner@midwest-law.com
SDS RESTAURANT: Parking Spaces Inaccessible, Jenkins Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID JENKINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SDS RESTAURANT GROUP LLC; and DOES 1 to 25,
Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-212 (W.D.N.C., August 15, 2024) is
brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of similarly situated
individuals with mobility disabilities, against the Defendants for
alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and its
implementing regulations.
The Defendants collectively own, lease, and/or operate at least 60
Pizza Hut restaurants in the states of North Carolina and South
Carolina. Plaintiff Jenkins' claims arise from his own experience
with excessive sloping conditions in purportedly accessible parking
spaces, access aisles, and curb ramps at places of public
accommodation owned, operated, controlled, and/or leased by
Defendants and from site investigations at four of Defendants'
facilities also finding excessive sloping conditions.
The Plaintiff asserts that these excessive sloping conditions
persist in part as a result of Defendants' existing but inadequate
internal maintenance policies, practices and/or procedures, which
fail to ensure compliance with the sloping requirements of the
ADA's implementing regulations.
SDS Restaurant Group LLC is doing business in the state of North
Carolina as the owner, lessee, and/or operator of dozens of Pizza
Hut restaurants in the state.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nancy S. Litwak, Esq.
ROSENWOOD, ROSE & LITWAK, PLLC
1712 Euclid Ave.
Charlotte, NC 28203
Telephone: (704) 228-8578
Facsimile: (704) 371-6400
E-mail: nlitwak@rosenwoodrose.com
- and -
Jordan T. Porter, Esq.
NYE, STIRLING, HALE, MILLER & SWEET, LLP
33 West Mission Street, Suite 201
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Telephone: (805) 963-2345
E-mail: jordan@nshmlaw.com
- and -
Benjamin J. Sweet, Esq.
NYE, STIRLING, HALE, MILLER & SWEET, LLP
101 Pennsylvania Boulevard, Suite 2
Pittsburgh, PA 15228
Telephone: (412) 857-5352
E-mail: ben@nshmlaw.com
SEA LIMITED: Arizona Court Narrows Claims in Laborers Pension Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Laborers District Council Construction
Industry Pension Fund, et al., Plaintiffs v. Sea Limited, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-01455-DLR (D. Ariz.), Senior District
Judge Douglas L. Rayes of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Arizona grants in part and denies in part Sea's motion to
dismiss.
The lawsuit is a federal securities class action lawsuit brought on
behalf of a putative class of those who purchased or otherwise
acquired Defendant Sea Limited's American Depository Shares
("ADSs") between Nov. 15, 2022, and Aug. 14, 2023. Lead Plaintiff
Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund
asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") against Sea and Sea's
executive officers: Forrest Xiaodong Li, Tony Tianyu Hou, Yanjun
Wang, Gang Ye, and David Jingye Chen (collectively "Individual
Defendants").
The Individual Defendants join Sea's motion to dismiss.
Judge Rayes notes that Sea's request for oral argument is denied
because the issues are adequately briefed, and oral argument will
not assist the Court in reaching its decision.
Sea is an international consumer internet company, organized under
the laws of the Cayman Islands and headquartered in Singapore. Sea
provides entertainment, e-commerce, and digital financial services
through its three respective business lines: Garena, Shopee, and
Sea Money. This case arises from the Defendants' allegedly false
and misleading statements and omissions regarding the Garena and
Shopee business lines only.
Garena is Sea's digital entertainment platform. It primarily
licenses, publishes, and develops mobile and PC online video games
for the markets in which it operates. Prior to December 2017,
Garena exclusively licensed video games developed by third parties
in order to publish and operate those games for consumption in
Garena's Southeast Asia market. The most prominent example of such
a game is the popular multiplayer online battle arena PC game,
League of Legends.
In December 2017, Garena launched a mobile battle royale game
titled Free Fire, which is the first and only successful video game
that it has developed. Garena relies on a limited number of these
popular online games for its revenue. Garena monetizes these games
by selling virtual currency that users can then use to purchase
in-game virtual items. Sea discloses various performance metrics
for Garena, including Bookings (an estimation of cash spent by
Garena users), Quarterly Active Users ("QUA"), and Quarterly Paying
Users ("QPU").
Shopee is Sea's e-commerce platform and the largest e-commerce
platform in Southeast Asia. The platform offers both
consumer-to-consumer and business-to-consumers transactions. Shopee
also purchases products from manufacturers and third parties and
sells them directly to buyers on the platform. The online shopping
business primarily earns revenue by offering sellers paid
advertising services, charging transaction-based fees, and charging
for value-added services. Sea discloses two key metrics for Shopee:
Gross Merchandise Value ("GMV") and Orders.
By fall 2022 (the start of the Class Period), Sea was in the midst
of a self-described "crisis"--Garena's revenue and users were in
consistent decline, Garena's only successful self-developed video
game (Free Fire) had been banned in India, and Garena would soon be
losing the publishing rights to one of the most monetized, popular
PC games in the world: League of Legends.
Meanwhile, Shopee was continuing to incur massive losses and had to
shut down operations in key new markets. Thus, at the Defendants'
direction, Sea began a cost-cutting drive as it pivoted away from
its expensive growth strategy.
The Plaintiff alleges that in this context, starting on Nov. 15,
2022, the Defendants attempted to stop the bleeding and shore up
the plummeting price of Sea securities by issuing a series of false
and misleading statements that artificially inflated the price of
Sea's ADSs.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants falsely claimed in
November 2022 that Garena's loss of its publishing rights to League
of Legends (and its spinoff Teamfight Tactics) would have "no
impact" on Garena's publishing business and that contributions from
these games were "immaterial." The Plaintiff asserts that contrary
to these statements, the Defendants knew that Garena's number of
paying users would sharply decline in January 2023 when Sea turned
over operations of these games to the games' developer, Riot Games
("Riot")--a wholly-owned subsidiary of Chinese technology giant
Tencent.
The Plaintiff also alleges, among other things, that the Defendants
began misleading investors in November 2022 as to the
sustainability of Sea's highly publicized "pivot to profitability"
and the effect Sea's massive cost-cutting efforts would have on
Shopee's growth and market share. For years, Shopee's tremendous
growth in GMV had been driven by the use of expensive sales and
marketing investments to undercut its competitors--such as free
shipping, zero-commission sales, and varied monthly promotions.
However, the Plaintiff asserts, as Sea embarked on an aggressive
cost-cutting effort in 2022 to turn profitable, Shopee discontinued
these offerings and slashed hundreds of millions of dollars from
its quarterly sales and marketing expense. The Plaintiff alleges
that while Shopee's GMV began to decelerate and decline as a
result, and certain competitors aggressively expanded their
offerings, the Defendants misleadingly maintained that Shopee could
operate profitably and continue to grow at the same time.
For instance, in November 2022, despite knowing that Shopee's GMV
would see significant decline in 4Q22 with Sea's ongoing sales and
marketing cuts, the Defendants spoke of this extant issue as a
hypothetical risk, cautioning that this cost-cutting strategy
"could" result in a decline in growth. Then, in March 2023, after
reporting the largest GMV decline in Sea's history, the Defendants
doubled down and falsely claimed that the cost-cutting efforts
would allow Shopee to "capture a larger share of the pie" and that
there would be no "tradeoff" between profitability and growth.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants misleadingly concealed
further declines in Shopee's GMV by discontinuing disclosure of the
metric for the first time in Sea's history; all the while, the
Defendants continued to falsely maintain that their cuts would
drive "profitable long-term growth," that any slowdown in GMV was
due to "seasonality trends," and that they could "execute growth
and manage bottom line at the same time." Ultimately, however, the
Defendants acknowledged in August and November 2023 that Shopee
could not meaningfully grow and compete with other e-commerce
platforms in Southeast Asia without substantial reinvestments in
sales and marketing expenses.
According to the Plaintiff, the Defendants' statements and
omissions had their intended effect: on Nov. 15, 2022, alone, Sea's
ADS price jumped $16.51 per share, or 36%, as more than 42 million
shares changed hands. Then, over the following months, as the
Defendants continued issuing allegedly false and misleading
statements regarding the negative trends in Garena's and Shopee's
businesses, Sea's ADSs continued to increase and trade at inflated
levels, up to and exceeding $88 per share. At the same time, from
April to June 2023, the Defendants sold at least $27.9 million of
Sea securities.
The Plaintiff claims that the truth concealed by the Defendants'
misrepresentations first began to reach the market in May 2023 and
continued to leak out in August and November 2023. By that point,
the price of Sea ADSs had fallen from a Class Period high of $88
per share to less than $36 per share--a decline of nearly 60%.
Based on these facts, the Plaintiff alleges that investors,
including itself, who purchased or acquired Sea ADSs during the
Class Period collectively suffered significant damage.
Generally, Judge Rayes notes, district courts may not consider
material outside the pleadings when assessing the sufficiency of a
complaint under Rule 12(b)(6). There are, however, two exceptions
to this rule: the incorporation-by-reference doctrine and judicial
notice under Federal Rule of Evidence 201. Relying on these two
exceptions, Sea has filed 23 exhibits spanning over 1,000 pages and
requests that the Court consider these exhibits in deciding whether
to grant the motion to dismiss.
The Plaintiff only disputes the Court's consideration of some of
the exhibits. The Plaintiff has no objection to the Court's
consideration of exhibits 1, 6, 8–16, and 18–20 and agrees that
exhibits 2 and 4 may be judicially noticed. The Plaintiff objects,
however, to the Court's consideration of exhibits 3, 5, 7, 17, and
21–23.
The Court finds that exhibits 3, 5, 7, 17, and 21–23 are not
subject to judicial notice.
Throughout its motion to dismiss, Sea uses statements contained in
these exhibits for their truth value in an attempt to present Sea's
own version of the facts. For instance, the Consolidated Amended
Complaint ("CAC") alleges that Sea sought to conceal its negative
GMV trend by manipulating the Company's disclosures and withholding
quarterly GMV and order information. Accordingly, the Court will
not take judicial notice of exhibits 3, 5, 7, 17, and 21–23.
With respect to Sea's motion to dismiss, Judge Rayes finds that the
Plaintiff has sufficiently specified the statements alleged to have
been misleading and the reasons why the statements are misleading.
Judge Rayes also finds, among other things, that the Plaintiff has
sufficiently pled falsity as to the Defendants' statements
regarding Garena, so the Court denies Sea's motion on this ground.
With respect to Shopee, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants
misled investors about the sustainability of Sea's "pivot to
profitability" and the effect that Sea's "drastic cost-cutting
measures would have on Shopee's growth and market share."
Judge Rayes holds that the Defendants' statements on the 3Q22
earnings call are both inactionable puffery and protected by the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA") safe
harbor, and thus, cannot support a securities fraud claim under
Section 10b.
The Court, again, agrees with Sea that the Defendants' statements
remarking on Shopee's potential for "sustainable" and "natural
growth" are generalized assertions of corporate optimism. These are
"feel good monikers" that lack an objective standard against which
a reasonable investor could expect them to be pegged. Judge Rayes
adds that the Defendants' statements also qualify for PSLRA safe
harbor protection.
As to the Defendants' statement regarding Sea's decision to move
from quarterly to annual GMV disclosures, Judge Rayes finds the
Plaintiff fails to plead with particularity how this statement is
false or misleading. And to the extent that the Plaintiff's
argument is that the Defendants omitted their true intent behind
the decision--i.e., to conceal a decelerating GMV--Judge Rayes says
the Plaintiff's assertion is speculative.
The Defendants' statement announcing Sea's shift to annual GMV
disclosures did not affirmatively create an impression regarding
the state of Shopee's GMV--the Defendants' statement merely
announced a business change, Judge Rayes says. As such, the Court
grants the motion to dismiss as to these statements.
According to Judge Rayes, accepting as true that (1) GMV and
Shopee's sales and marketing expense moved in lockstep, and (2)
Shopee's sales and marketing expense declined from 3Q22 to 1Q23, it
is plausible that Shopee's GMV was also downward trending during
this time. In turn, by failing to disclose this trend--one that was
reasonably likely to affect Sea's financial condition--the
Defendants misled investors. Accordingly, the Court will not grant
the Defendants' motion to dismiss as to these statements.
Because the Plaintiff has adequately plead a section 10(b)
violation, the Court denies Sea's motion to dismiss as to the
Plaintiff's claim for control person liability under Section
20(a).
To summarize, the Court denies Sea's motion to dismiss except as
follows:
-- the Plaintiff's allegations that the Defendants made false
and misleading statements regarding Shopee on the 3Q22
earnings call (Nov. 15, 2022) and the 4Q22 earnings call
(March 7, 2023) fail to adequately plead falsity and
therefore are dismissed;
-- the Plaintiff's allegations regarding the Defendants'
statements on the 1Q23 earnings call (May 16, 2023), in
which the Defendants remarked on Sea's "profitable
long-term growth" and its ability to "execute growth and
manag[e] bottom line at the same time," are also dismissed;
and
-- the Plaintiff's Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claim against
Chen is dismissed.
All other claims and allegations survive.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Aug. 7, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2d6xj799 from PacerMonitor.com.
SHOUT! FACTORY: Archer Sues Over Unlawful Selling of Information
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Archer and Dylan Macaluso, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. SHOUT! FACTORY, LLC, Case No.
2:24-cv-07056 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 20, 2024), is brought to redress and
put a stop to Defendant's practices of knowingly selling,
transmitting, and/or otherwise disclosing, to various third
parties, records containing the personal information of each of
their customers, along with detailed information revealing the
titles and subject matter of the videos and other audiovisual
materials purchased by each customer (collectively "Personal
Viewing Information") in violation of the Video Privacy Protection
Act ("VPPA").
Over the past two years, Defendant has systematically transmitted
(and continues to transmit today) its customers' Personal Viewing
Information to Meta using a snippet of programming code called the
"Meta Pixel," which Defendant chose to install on its
shoutfactory.com and other websites.
The information Defendant disclosed (and continues to disclose) to
Meta, via the Meta Pixel it installed on its websites, includes the
customer's Facebook ID ("FID") coupled with the title of each of
the specific videos that the customer purchased on Defendant's
websites. A customer's FID is a unique sequence of numbers linked
to the Meta profile belonging to that customer. The customer's Meta
profile, in turn, publicly identifies the customer by name (and
contains other personally identifying information about the
customer as well).
The Defendant disclosed and continues to disclose its customers'
Private Viewing Information to Meta without asking for let alone
obtaining its customers' consent to these practices. The Plaintiffs
bring this Class Action Complaint against Defendant for
intentionally and unlawfully disclosing their Personal Viewing
Information to Meta, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs purchased prerecorded video material from
Defendant.
The Defendant operates and maintains the websites
www.shoutfactory.com and www.ghiblicollection.com, among others,
where it is engaged in the business of selling, inter alia, a wide
variety of movies, television shows, and other prerecorded video
materials to consumers.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
Hedin LLP
535 Mission Street, 14th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: (305) 357-2107
Facsimile: (305) 200-8801
Email: fhedin@hedinllp.com
SIEMENS CORP: Faces Cain Suit Over Savings Plan's Losses
--------------------------------------------------------
JIM CAIN, individually and as a representative of a class of
participants and beneficiaries on behalf of the Siemens Savings
Plan, Plaintiff v. SIEMENS CORPORATION and DOES 1 to 10 inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-08730 (D.N.J., August 23, 2024) is a
class action against the Defendant for breach of fiduciary duty of
loyalty, breach of fiduciary duty of prudence, and self-dealing
pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.
The case arises from the Defendants' failure to choose the right
option with respect to reallocating forfeitures that would be in
the best interest of the Siemens Savings Plan participants. The
first option is using forfeitures to reduce Siemens Corporation's
contributions to the Plan, while the second option is using
forfeitures to pay Plan expenses. The latter option is in the best
interest of the Plan's participants because that option reduces or
eliminates the amounts charged to their individual accounts to
cover such expenses. However, the Defendants had a conflict of
interest because they stood to benefit financially from choosing
the first option and therefore had an incentive to choose the first
option over the second option. The Defendants also failed to
consult with an independent non-conflicted decisionmaker to advise
them in deciding upon the best course of action for allocating
forfeitures, as a prudent person would have done. As a result of
the Defendants' breach of fiduciary duties, the Plan suffered
losses, says the suit.
Siemens Corporation is a multinational technology and manufacturing
company headquartered in Washington, D.C. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lawrence C. Hersh, Esq.
17 Sylvan Street, Suite 102B
Rutherford, NJ 07070
Telephone: (201) 507-6300
Email: lh@hershlegal.com
SOUTHERN INDUSTRIAL: Arreola Seeks to Certify Employees Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ISMAEL ARREOLA,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
SOUTHERN INDUSTRIAL CONTRACTORS, LLC, and SAMUEL ESTIS, Case No.
9:23-cv-00050-MJT (E.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order:
(1) certifying the class defined as:
" All current and former hourly non-exempt employees of the
Defendants who traveled to a jobsite and (1) were required,
due
to their shifts and the distance from their home community
to a
jobsite, to stay overnight; (2) have not been paid for time
spent traveling to jobsites in which they had to stay
overnight; and, (3) including the time spent traveling,
worked
over 40 hours in any workweek in which they also traveled to
a
jobsite at any time during the three years preceding the
filing of the Complaint to the present";
(2) directing the Defendants to produce the contact information
of
those putative class members, no later than ten business
days
after the date of the entry of the Order;
(3) approving the Notice and Consent, as well as the Postcard
and
Email Text, attached to the accompanying Motion;
(4) granting counsel a period of 60days from the date the
Defendants fully and completely release the potential class
Members' contact information during which to distribute the
Notice and Consent forms;
(5) allowing counsel to send a reminder notice 30 days after the
date of distributing the initial notice; and
(6) directing the Defendants to post the Notice and Consent
forms
at all of Defendants' jobsites in an area readily and
routinely
available for review by such employees.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover overtime wages and other damages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").
Southern Industrial is a construction firm that performs various
construction related projects for its clients in several states.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 15, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Nz28wN at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Colby Qualls, Esq.
Katherine Serrano, Esq.
FORESTER HAYNIE, PLLC
400 North Saint Paul Street, Ste. 700
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (214) 210-2100
E-mail: cqualls@foresterhaynie.com
kserrano@foresterhaynie.com
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Dismissal of Bevacqua Class Action Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as Aidan Bevacqua; Amy Marcin; Kyle Walton,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated; Daniel
Marcin, Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus Southwest Airlines Company, a
Texas Corporation, Defendant-Appellee, No. 23-11036 (5th Cir.),
Judges Judge Edith H. Jones, Jerry E. Smith and James C. Ho of the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the
decision of the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas dismissing the plaintiffs' class action.
Plaintiffs filed a class action seeking damages from Southwest
Airlines for failing to refund security fees, rather than issue
travel credits, for cancelled reservations for nonrefundable
tickets. They argue that Southwest's Contract of Carriage
incorporated by reference a regulation requiring those security
fees to be refunded, therefore making Southwest contractually
liable for its failure to refund those fees.
Southwest moved to dismiss Plaintiffs' complaint under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The district court granted Southwest's
motion to dismiss, holding that Plaintiffs' claim is preempted by
the Airline Deregulation Act because the reference to "applicable
regulations" in Southwest's Contract of Carriage was insufficiently
specific to incorporate 49 C.F.R. Sec, 1510.9(b). Plaintiffs
appealed.
The Fifth Circuit points out the ADA preempts state enactment or
enforcement of any law, regulation, or other provision having the
force and effect of law related to a price, route, or service of an
air carrier.
According to the Circuit Judges, as they explained in Onoh v.
Northwest Airlines, Inc., 613 F.3d 596 (5th Cir. 2010), this means
that an otherwise preempted claim may remain viable under the ADA
if it falls within the two-prongs of the Wolens exception: 1) the
claim alleged only concerns a self-imposed obligation; and 2) no
enlargement or enhancement of the contract occurs based on state
laws or policies external to the agreement.
They agree with the district court that Plaintiffs' breach of
contract claim is preempted by the ADA. Similar to Onoh, this case
involves a mere reference to 'applicable regulations.' It does not
specifically identify any particular regulation or body of
regulations, nor does it include any other language that would
clearly indicate the contracting parties' intent to incorporate 49
C.F.R. Sec. 1510.9(b) or any other regulation. It therefore does
not constitute a 'self-imposed obligation' under Onoh.
Plaintiffs argue that this case is different from Onoh because
Southwest's Contract of Carriage mentions compliance with
"applicable regulations" in connection with a specific provision
concerning security fee refunds, rather than merely including a
boilerplate reference broadly stating that the contract is
generally subject to all applicable laws and regulations.
Plaintiffs additionally contend that there is only one regulation
-- 49 C.F.R. Sec. 1510.9(b) -- concerning refunds of security fees.
The Circuit Judges state that neither argument is persuasive. For
one, section 4c(3)(i) of the Contract of Carriage does not concern
only security fees. The sentence at issue additionally discusses
taxes and 'Passenger Facility Charges.' It also refers to
'regulations' in the plural, not to a single 'regulation.' Section
4c(3)(i) accordingly contemplates the possibility of more than one
relevant regulation.
Even if section 4c(3)(i) did in fact implicate only one regulation,
stating that certain charges are 'not eligible for refund except as
required by applicable regulations' constitutes at most an
acknowledgment that such regulations might conflict with
Southwest's preferred practice. It does not clearly demonstrate
that Southwest has voluntarily undertaken a contractual obligation
to provide such refunds. If anything, declining to provide refunds
unless legally required to do so demonstrates an intent not to
expand contractual liability for failing to issue refunds to
customers, they conclude.
A full-text copy of the Court's decision dated August 6, 2024, is
available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6DtTMf
SPI LIGHTING: Extension of Conditional Status Deadline Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH STUMPF, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly-situated, v. SPI LIGHTING
HOLDINGS, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-00258-BHL (E.D. Wis.), the Parties
ask the Court to enter an order extending the Conditional
Certification deadline until on or before Oct. 23, 2024, and the
Final Certification, Class Certification, Decertification deadline
until on or before March 6, 2025.
Because the parties desire to focus their immediate efforts on
possible settlement, and in order to preserve fiscal and judicial
resources, the parties request that the Court extend the
Conditional Certification deadline, the Final Certification, Class
Certification, and Decertification deadline, and advise the Court
that all other dates and deadlines as identified in the Scheduling
Order, remain in place.
The parties are, and have been, discussing resolution of this
matter.
Currently, the Conditional Certification deadline is Sept. 18,
2024, and the Final Certification, Class Certification,
Decertification deadline is Feb. 26, 2025.
SPI Lighting is a designer and manufacturer of American made
architectural and performance luminaires.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Aug. 19, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MQOcFZ at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
James A. Walcheske, Esq.
Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
David M. Potteiger, Esq.
WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240
Brookfield, WI 53005
Telephone: (262) 780-1953
E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Brian S. Schwartz, Esq.
KLEIN PAULL HOLLEB & JACOBS, LTD.
660 LaSalle Place, Suite 100
Highland Park, IL 60035
Telephone: (847) 681-1600
E-mail: brian.schwartz@labor-law.com
- and -
Oyvind Wistrom, Esq.
LINDNER & MARSACK, S.C.
411 East Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 1800
Milwaukee, WI 53202
Telephone: (414) 273-3910
E-mail: owistrom@lindner-marsack.com
SPIRE GLOBAL: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz announces that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia, captioned Bousso v. Spire Global,
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-01458, on behalf of persons and
entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Spire Global, Inc.
("Spire Global" or the "Company") (NYSE: SPIR) securities between
March 6, 2024 and August 14, 2024, inclusive (the "Class Period").
Plaintiff pursues claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").
Investors are hereby notified that they have until 60 days from
this notice to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this
action.
On August 14, 2024, after the market closed, the Company announced
it would be unable to timely file its second quarter 2024 financial
report as the Company was "reviewing its accounting practices and
procedures with respect to revenue recognition" regarding certain
Space Services contracts and "related internal control matters."
The Company disclosed the "type of Contracts that the Company has
identified for re-evaluation resulted in recognized revenue of $10
to $15 million on an annual basis" and "additional financial
measures such as gross profit could also be impacted."
On this news, the Company's share price fell $3.41 or 33.56%, to
close at $6.75 per share on August 15, 2024, on unusually heavy
trading volume.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that there were embedded leases of identifiable
assets and pre-space mission activities for certain Space Services
contracts; (2) that Spire Global lacked effective internal controls
regarding revenue recognition for these contracts; (3) that, as a
result, the Company overstated revenue for certain Space Services
contracts; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.
If you purchased Spire Global securities during the Class Period,
you may move the Court no later than 60 days from this notice to
ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of
the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain
counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent
member of the Class. If you purchased Spire Global securities, have
information or would like to learn more about these claims, or have
any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or
interests with respect to these matters, please contact Frank R.
Cruz, of The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 2121 Avenue of the
Stars, Suite 800, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by
email to info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contacts
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, Los Angeles
Frank R. Cruz, 310-914-5007
fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com
www.frankcruzlaw.com [GN]
SPRINKLR INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set October 15
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that purchasers or
acquirers of Sprinklr, Inc. (NYSE: CXM) securities between March
29, 2023 and June 5, 2024, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period"), have until October 15, 2024 to seek appointment as lead
plaintiff of the Sprinklr class action lawsuit. Captioned Boshart
v. Sprinklr, Inc., No. 24-cv-06132 (S.D.N.Y.), the Sprinklr class
action lawsuit charges Sprinklr as well as certain of Sprinklr'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 Sprinklr class action lawsuit, please provide your
information here:
https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-sprinklr-inc-class-action-lawsuit-cxm.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 Sprinklr class
action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than October
15, 2024.
CASE ALLEGATIONS: Sprinklr provides enterprise cloud software
products worldwide.
The Sprinklr class action lawsuit alleges that defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose facts concerning Sprinklr's difficulties
in the implementation of scaling in the Contact Center as a Service
market and the resulting growth slowdown on Sprinklr's existing
"go-to-market" initiatives associated with Sprinklr's core suite of
products.
The Sprinklr class action lawsuit further alleges that on December
6, 2023, Sprinklr announced a sequential decrease in the total
number of customers spending more than $1 million, attributing it
to macroeconomic conditions. Sprinklr additionally reduced the
outlook for fiscal 2025 from consensus expectations of 16% growth
down to 10%, according to the complaint. On this news, the price of
Sprinklr stock fell more than 33%, according to the Sprinklr class
action lawsuit.
Then, on June 5, 2024, the Sprinklr class action lawsuit further
alleges that Sprinklr again announced significantly reduced growth
expectations, cutting fiscal year 2025 projections another three
percent, down to 7% annual growth, again attributing the losses to
reduced customer retention in Sprinklr's core business and macro
headwinds. On this news, the price of Sprinklr stock fell more than
15%, according to the complaint.
THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased or acquired
Sprinklr securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as
lead plaintiff in the Sprinklr 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 Sprinklr
class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of
its choice to litigate the Sprinklr class action lawsuit. An
investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not
dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff of the Sprinklr 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.
Contacts
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]
SPROUT SOCIAL: Faces Fraud Charges in Illinois Court
----------------------------------------------------
Sprout Social, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 3, 2024, that beginning on May 13, 2024, the
company and certain of its executives was named in a putative
securities fraud class action cases filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois asserting
claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC
Rule 10b-5.
The case captioned "City of Hollywood Police Officers' Retirement
System v. Sprout Social, Inc., et al." was filed on July 2, 2024
and alleges that the defendants made false or misleading statements
and omissions of fact relating to the company's business,
operations and prospects, including (i) purported integration
challenges arising from the company's August 2023 acquisition of
Tagger Media, Inc., (ii) the company's ability to service (and the
viability of its strategic plan to focus on) the enterprise market,
and (iii) as a result, the company's financial guidance. Plaintiff
seeks damages and costs on behalf of a putative class of company
stockholders and alleges a class period beginning on November 3,
2021 and ending on May 2, 2024.
On July 12, 2024, three purported Company stockholders, including
the named plaintiffs in the Securities Actions, filed motions to
consolidate the Securities Actions and for appointment as lead
plaintiff under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of
1995. Those motions remain pending.
Sprout Social, Inc. designs, develops and operates a web-based
comprehensive social media management tool enabling companies to
manage and measure their online presence. The company is
headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.
SPROUT SOCIAL: Faces Munch Suit in Illinois Court
-------------------------------------------------
Sprout Social, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 3, 2024, that beginning on May 13, 2024, the
company and certain of its executives were named in a putative
securities fraud class action cases filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois asserting
claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC
Rule 10b-5.
The case captioned "Richard Munch v. Sprout Social, Inc., et al."
was filed on May 13, 2024 and alleges that the defendants made
false or misleading statements and omissions of fact relating to
the company's business, operations and prospects, including (i)
purported integration challenges arising from the company's August
2023 acquisition of Tagger Media, Inc., (ii) the company's ability
to service (and the viability of its strategic plan to focus on)
the enterprise market, and (iii) as a result, the company's
financial guidance. Plaintiff seeks damages and costs on behalf of
a putative class of company stockholders and alleges a class period
beginning on November 3, 2023 and ending on May 2, 2024.
On July 12, 2024, three purported Company stockholders, including
the named plaintiffs in the Securities Actions, filed motions to
consolidate the Securities Actions and for appointment as lead
plaintiff under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of
1995. Those motions remain pending.
Sprout Social, Inc. designs, develops and operates a web-based
comprehensive social media management tool enabling companies to
manage and measure their online presence. The company is
headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.
STRATEGIC DELIVERY: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Four Classes
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARIEL BERNARD, DEAN J.
SCHEMANSKI, THOM M. GRAY, JALONNE RICE, MANUEL ACEVEDO, AHMED ADAM,
MARK S. DELMEDICO, IBRAHIM ELSALAMONI, JOHN M. FINK, JODIE HOLMES,
DONALD NG, BARBARA SELIG, EKOVI AMENOUNVE, NADEEM WAQAR, and IPUOLE
OGAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. Strategic Delivery Solutions, LLC. Case No.
1:22-cv-07396-CPO-MJS (D.N.J.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order granting their motion for class certification in its
entirety.
Because the requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b) are met, the
Plaintiffs seek certification of the following separate classes
under Rule 23:
-- Plaintiffs Bernard, Schemanski, and Rice seek certification of
a
class of all other persons who have worked for SDS as courier
drivers in the State of New Jersey at any time from six years
preceding the filing of the Complaint and who signed an
independent vendor agreement with SDS ("the New Jersey
Class").
-- Plaintiffs Acevedo and Adam seek certification of a class of
all
other persons who have worked for SDS as courier drivers in the
State of Connecticut at any time from two years preceding to
the
filing of the Complaint and who signed an independent vendor
agreement with SDS ("the Connecticut Class").
-- Plaintiff Elsalamoni, Fink, Holmes, Ng, Selig, Amenounve, and
Waqar seek certification of a class of all other persons who
have
worked for SDS as courier drivers in the State of Pennsylvania
at any time from three years preceding the filing of the
Complaint
and who signed an independent vendor agreement with SDS ("the
Pennsylvania Class").
-- Plaintiff Ogar seeks certification of a class of all other
persons
who have worked for SDS as courier drivers in the State of
Maryland at any time from three years preceding the filing of
the
Complaint and who signed an independent vendor agreement with
SDS
("the Maryland Class").
The class is easily ascertained "because [delivery drivers] work
out of specified [pharmaceutical] warehouses and within fixed
geographic areas, which are documented clearly in [SDS's]
records."
The Plaintiffs have asserted wage-and-hour claims on behalf of
themselves and all other pharmaceutical delivery drivers who were
classified as independent contractors by the Defendant and who
worked in New Jersey, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and Maryland.
SDS is a pharmaceutical delivery company.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 16, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pO5tjG at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Krysten Connon, Esq.
Harold L. Lichten, Esq.
Matthew W. Thomson, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 994-5800
E-mail: kconnon@llrlaw.com
hlichten@llrlaw.com
mthomson@llrlaw.com
- and -
W. Jeffrey Vollmer, Esq.
GOODWIN & GOODWIN, LLP
300 Summers Street, Suite 1500
Charleston, WV 25301
Telephone: (304) 346-7000
E-mail: wjv@goodwingoodwin.com
SYMBOTIC INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set October 15
-------------------------------------------------------------
If you suffered a loss on your Symbotic Inc. (NASDAQ:SYM)
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/symbotic-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=96568&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
Symbotic Inc. that seeks to recover losses of shareholders who were
adversely affected by alleged securities fraud between May 6, 2024
and July 29, 2024.
CASE DETAILS: According to the complaint, on July 29, 2024,
Symbotic announced their 3Q24 financial results and then lowered
its revenue guidance for the fourth quarter and full fiscal year
2024. Symbotic attributed their change in guidance to "schedule
growth and higher labor costs during the quarter." Analysts
commenting on the stock questioned when management first knew and
responded to the issues.
Following this news, Symbotic's stock price opened at $26.36 per
share or approximately 25% below the previous day's close of $35.63
per share.
WHAT'S NEXT? If you suffered a loss in Symbotic stock during the
relevant time frame - even if you still hold your shares - go to
https://zlk.com/pslra-1/symbotic-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=96568&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]
SYSTEMS EAST: Settlement in Boudreaux Suit Gets Initial Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANGIE BOUDREAUX, an
individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
and BARBARA WILLIAMS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, v. SYSTEMS EAST, INC., Case No. 5:23-cv-01498-DNH-ML
(N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge David Hurd entered an order granting
preliminary approval of class action settlement and directing class
notice:
1. The unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the
consolidated class action settlement is granted;
2. The Court finds, on a preliminary basis, that the
consolidated
class settlement memorialized in the parties' Settlement
Agreement meets the requirements for preliminary approval as
required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) and other
applicable laws;
3. Preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement is granted;
4. For settlement purposes only, the following Settlement Class
is
certified pursuant to the Settlement Agreement and FED. R.
CIV.
P. 23:
"all individuals to whom Systems East sent notice of the data
security incident."
5. This Settlement Class consists of individuals to whom
defendant
sent notice of a data security incident on or around November
16, 2023, that was experienced on or about August 25, 2023;
6. The Court appoints Angeion Group as the Claims Administrator,
with responsibility for class notice and claims
administration.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to set deadlines accordingly and
terminate the pending motion.
On Nov. 29, 2023, named plaintiff Angie Boudreaux, a victim of an
online data breach, filed this putative class action alleging that
the defendant, which provides online payment processing services,
failed to implement certain security features that led to a data
breach. This action was later consolidated with a second data
breach case brought by named plaintiff Barbara Williams.
Thereafter, Boudreaux and Williams jointly filed a consolidated
class action complaint.
On June 27, 2024, the parties notified the Court that they had
reached a class-wide settlement through mediation.
Systems was founded in 1993. The company's line of business
includes manufacturing relays and industrial controls.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 15, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cOKe86 at no extra
charge.[CC]
TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR: Howington Sues Over Employment Discrimination
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DEBORAH HOWINGTON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING
CO., TSMC NORTH AMERICA CO. LTD., TSMC TECHNOLOGY, INC., TSMC
ARIZONA CORPORATION AND TSMC WASHINGTON, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
5:24-cv-05684 (N.D. Cal., August 22, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of Civil Rights Act of 1866.
The case arises from TSMC's alleged intentional pattern and
practice of employment discrimination against individuals who are
not Asian and not Taiwanese citizens. TSMC's bias in favor of
Asians and Taiwanese citizens are evident in their hiring,
staffing, and termination decisions. The Plaintiff seeks, on her
own behalf, and on behalf of two classes of similarly situated
individuals, declaratory, injunctive, and other equitable relief,
compensatory and punitive damages, including pre- and post-judgment
interest, attorneys' fees, and costs to redress TSMC's pervasive
pattern and practice of discrimination.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. is a semiconductor
manufacturer based in Taiwan.
TSMC North America Co. Ltd. is a semiconductor manufacturer based
in San Jose, California.
TSMC Technology, Inc. is a semiconductor manufacturer based in San
Jose, California.
TSMC Arizona Corporation is a semiconductor manufacturer based in
Phoenix, Arizona.
TSMC Washington, LLC is a semiconductor manufacturer based in
Camas, Washington. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel Low, Esq.
KOTCHEN & LOW LLP
1918 New Hampshire Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20009
Telephone: (202) 471-1995
Email: dlow@kotchen.com
TAYLOR CORP: $485K Settlement in Fritton Suit Has Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Minnesota issued a Final Approval Order and Final Judgment in
the lawsuit titled Jason C. Fritton, Marea Gibson, Brian W.
Motzenbeeker, Dawn Duff, and Christopher Shearman, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Taylor
Corporation, the Board of Directors of Taylor Corporation, the
Fiduciary Investment Committee, and John Does 1-30, Defendants,
Case No. 0:22-cv-00415-JMB-TNL (D. Minn.).
The matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs Jason C. Fritton,
Marea Gibson, Brian W. Motzenbeeker, Dawn Duff and Christopher
Shearman's unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Class Action
Settlement, Certification of Settlement Class, and Approval of Plan
of Allocation and Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees and
Reimbursement of Expenses and Plaintiffs' Case Contribution Award.
Judge Bryan notes that all terms here will have the same meaning as
used in the Stipulation of Settlement executed on April 4, 2024
(the "Stipulation").
The Court determines that the Plaintiffs have asserted claims on
behalf of the Taylor Corporation 401(k) Plan (the "Plan") to
recover losses alleged to have occurred because of violations of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, 29
U.S.C. Section 1001, et seq. ("ERISA").
The Court determines that the Settlement, which includes the
payment of $485,000 on behalf of the Defendants, has been
negotiated at arm's length by Class Counsel, and further finds
that, at all times, the Plaintiffs have acted independently and
that their interests are identical to the interests of the Plan and
the Settlement Class. The Court further finds that the Settlement
arises from a genuine controversy between the Parties and is not
the result of collusion, nor was the Settlement procured by fraud
or misrepresentation.
The Court finds that the Plan's participation in the Settlement is
on terms no less favorable than the Plaintiffs' and the Settlement
Class's and that the Plan does not have any additional claims above
and beyond those asserted by the Plaintiffs that are released as a
result of the Settlement.
The Court determines that the Settlement is not part of an
agreement, arrangement, or understanding designed to benefit a
party in interest, but rather is designed and intended to benefit
the Plan, and the Plan participants and beneficiaries.
Accordingly, the Court determines that the negotiation and
consummation of the Settlement by the Plaintiffs on behalf of the
Plan and the Settlement Class does not constitute a "prohibited
transaction" as defined by ERISA Sections 406(a) or (b), 29 U.S.C.
Sections 1106(a) or (b). Further, the Court finds that in light of
the analysis and opinion provided by the Independent Fiduciary, to
the extent any of the transactions required by the Settlement
constitute a transaction prohibited by ERISA Section 406(a), 29
U.S.C. Sections 1106(a), such transactions satisfy the provisions
of Prohibited Transaction Exemption 2003-39.
The Court determines that the Class Notice transmitted to the
Settlement Class, pursuant to the Preliminary Approval Order
concerning the Settlement and the other matters set forth therein,
was reasonably calculated, under the circumstances, to apprise all
Members of the Settlement Class who could be identified through
reasonable efforts of the pendency of the litigation, their right
to object to the Settlement, and their right to appear at the
Fairness Hearing.
The Court approves the maintenance of the Action as a non-opt-out
class action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and
23(b)(1) with the Settlement Class being defined as:
All persons, except Defendants and their immediate family
members, and the Court and Court staff handling this matter,
who were participants in or beneficiaries of the Plan at any
time between February 14, 2016, and the Date of Preliminary
Approval (i.e., April 24, 2024).
The "Class Period" is defined as Feb. 14, 2016, through April 24,
2024.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g), the Court
confirms its prior appointment of Edelson Lechtzin LLP and Capozzi
Adler, P.C., as co-lead counsel and Gustafson Gluek PLLC as
Plaintiffs' local counsel (collectively, "Class Counsel") and finds
that Class Counsel adequately represented the Settlement Class.
Based on the Settlement, the Court dismisses the Amended Complaint
and the Action against the Defendants with prejudice.
As of the date of Complete Settlement Approval and payment of the
Settlement Amount, the Plaintiffs, the Plan, and each Member of the
Settlement Class on their own behalf and on behalf of their present
or former agents, employees, attorneys, accountants,
representatives, advisers, investment bankers, trustees, parents,
heirs, estates, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns,
will be deemed to have released each and all of the Releasees from
the Released Claims.
All members of the Settlement Class and the Plan are barred and
enjoined from the institution and prosecution, either directly or
indirectly, of any other actions in any court asserting any and all
Released Claims against any and all Releasees.
The litigation expenses incurred by Class Counsel in the course of
prosecuting this action are reasonable. Accordingly, Class Counsel
is awarded expenses in the amount of $19,574.41, to be paid from
the Settlement Fund. The attorney's fees sought by Class Counsel in
the amount of thirty percent (30%) of the common fund established
in this Action are reasonable in light of the successful results
achieved by Class Counsel. Accordingly, Class Counsel is awarded
attorneys' fees in the amount of thirty percent (30%) of the common
fund established in this Action, specifically $145,500.00.
Plaintiffs Jason C. Fritton, Marea Gibson, Brian W. Motzenbeeker,
Dawn Duff, and Christopher Shearman are awarded case contribution
awards in the amount of $5,000 each because they have devoted time
and efforts that contributed to the Settlement, including regularly
conferring with their attorneys, reviewing discovery requests,
reviewing draft responses to document requests and interrogatories,
and gathering relevant documents.
The Plan of Allocation for the Settlement Fund is approved as fair,
reasonable, and adequate. Any modification or change in the Plan of
Allocation that may hereafter be approved will in no way disturb or
affect this Judgment and will be considered separate from this
Judgment.
Without affecting the finality of this Judgment, the Court retains
jurisdiction for purposes of implementing the Stipulation and
reserves the power to enter additional orders to effectuate the
fair and orderly administration and consummation of the Stipulation
and Settlement, as may from time to time be appropriate, and
resolution of any and all disputes arising thereunder.
A full-text copy of the Court's Final Approval Order and Final
Judgment dated Aug. 8, 2024, is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yxa2zd45 from PacerMonitor.com.
Anthony Stauber -- tstauber@gustafsongluek.com -- Daniel E.
Gustafson -- dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com -- Daniel C. Hedlund --
dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com -- David A. Goodwin --
dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com -- Gustafson Gluek PLLC, in
Minneapolis, MN; Donald Reavey -- donr@capozziadler.com -- Capozzi
Adler, PC, in Harrisburg, PA; Mark K. Gyandoh --
markg@capozziadler.com -- Capozzi Adler, PC, in Merion Station, PA;
Eric Lechtzin -- elechtzin@edelson-law.com -- Edelson Lechtzin LLP,
in Huntingdon Valley, PA; and Marc H. Edelson --
medelson@edelson-law.com -- Edelson Lechtzin LLP, in Newtown, PA,
for Plaintiffs Jason C. Fritton, Marea Gibson, Brian W.
Motzenbeeker, Dawn Duff, and Christopher Shearman.
Steven C. Kerbaugh -- steven.kerbaugh@saul.com -- Saul Ewing LLP,
in Minneapolis, MN, Emily S. Costin -- emily.costin@alston.com --
Alston & Bird LLP, in Washington, DC; Margaret Ellen Saathoff --
ellie.studdard@alston.com -- Alston & Bird LLP, in Dallas, TX; and
Richard Blakeman Crohan -- blake.crohan@alston.com -- Alston & Bird
LLP, in Atlanta, GA, for Defendants Taylor Corporation, The Board
of Directors of Taylor Corporation, and The Fiduciary Investment
Committee.
TESLA INC: Nachman Loses Bid to Amend Class Action Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as MICHAEL NACHMAN, Plaintiff, v. TESLA,
INC., TESLA LEASE TRUST, and TESLA FINANCE LLC, Defendants, Case
No.22-CV-5976 (RPK) (E.D.N.Y.), Judge Rachel Kovner of the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York denied
plaintiff's motion for leave to amend.
Nachman seeks leave to file an amended complaint against
defendants, alleging that their statements about the automated
driving capabilities of Tesla cars constituted deceptive or
misleading practices in violation of New York General Business Law
Sections 349 and 350.
Plaintiff filed a putative class action against defendants in
2022.
After Judge Kovner granted defendants' motion to dismiss the
complaint in 2023, plaintiff filed a timely motion seeking leave to
amend, with his proposed amended complaint attached as an exhibit.
Plaintiff's initial complaint asserted three causes of action
arising from defendants' alleged promise to deliver technology that
would make Tesla cars capable of full self-driving. First,
plaintiff brought a claim under Section 349 of New York's General
Business Law, which provides a right of action to challenge
"deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any business, trade
or commerce or in the furnishing of any service". Second, plaintiff
brought a claim under Section 350 of New York's General Business
Law, which provides a right of action to challenge "false
advertising in the conduct of any business, trade, or commerce or
in the furnishing of any service". Third, plaintiff brought a claim
for unjust enrichment, arguing that defendants' "deceptive,
fraudulent, and misleading labeling, advertising, marketing, and
sales" enriched them at the expense of plaintiff.
In support of those claims, the initial complaint alleged that, in
October 2016, defendants announced that customers would be able to
purchase a "Full Self-Driving Capability" package, providing them
with access to "Tesla's soon-to-arrive full self-driving
technology" when it became available.
In December 2016, plaintiff visited a Tesla dealership and met with
a sales representative who helped him customize a car for purchase,
using Tesla's website. The website advised that "all Tesla
vehicles have the hardware needed for FSDC," and included a video
appearing to show a Tesla driving without any human intervention.
The website also advertised the FSDC package as "enabling full
self-driving in almost all circumstances," while noting that "it is
not possible to know exactly when each element of the functionality
described above will be available." After viewing the website,
plaintiff purchased the FSDC package, paying an additional $8,000
above the standard cost for a Tesla. But "contrary to Tesla's
representations," plaintiff's Tesla was not capable of full
self-driving
Over the next few years, Elon Musk, the chief executive of Tesla,
Inc., made public statements representing that Tesla cars would be
capable of full self-driving within two years or less.
In October 2020, defendants increased the price of the FSDC package
and informed some existing FSDC customers that their cars would
require a $1,000 hardware upgrade to maintain compatibility with
self-driving technology moving forward.
Judge Kovner granted defendants' motion to dismiss, holding that
plaintiff's claims under the New York General Business Law were
time-barred and that plaintiff had failed to state a claim for
unjust enrichment. Claims under New York's General Business Law
have a three-year statute of limitations that begins to run "when
plaintiff has been injured by a deceptive act or practice."
Plaintiff had alleged that he was injured when he "paid a premium
for the FSDC features" in 2016 -- over three years before he filed
his complaint in October 2022. Though plaintiff also alleged that
defendants demanded additional money from some Tesla
customers for hardware upgrades in October 2020, he had not alleged
that he was among those customers. Plaintiff had therefore failed
to allege a timely injury. Finally, an unjust enrichment claim was
unavailable because it was duplicative of plaintiff's General
Business Law claims.
Plaintiff timely filed a motion for leave to amend his complaint,
attaching a proposed amended complaint as an exhibit. The proposed
amended complaint brings the same General Business Law claims as
the initial complaint but omits the unjust enrichment claim. It
also includes the new allegation that plaintiff purchased an
"Infotainment Upgrade" from defendants in May 2022. According to
the proposed amended complaint, defendants represented that the
Infotainment Upgrade "enhanced both the entertainment and
functionality of plaintiff's car," and included a "Driver
Assistance" feature that enhanced driving visualization for owners
with the FSDC computer."
Judge Kovner points out a proposed amendment is futile if it would
fail to cure prior deficiencies or to state a claim under Rule
12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. She says the
Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend is denied because the
proposed amended complaint fails to state a timely claim. Although
the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense, a complaint
fails to state a claim if the allegations in the complaint 'show
that relief is barred by the applicable statute of limitations.'
Claims under Sections 349 and 350 of New York's General Business
Law have a three-year statute of limitations that begins to run
'when plaintiff has been injured by a deceptive act or practice.'
Like his initial complaint, plaintiff's proposed amended complaint
alleges that plaintiff was injured because he paid a premium price
for the FSDC package that he would not have paid but for
defendants' deceptive marketing. Because, however, plaintiff
purchased the FSDC package in 2016 -- over three years before he
filed his initial complaint -- the three-year statute of
limitations for Sections 349 or 350 claims based on that injury has
expired."
Judge Kovner adds, while plaintiff proposes to amend his complaint
to include the further allegation that he purchased an
'Infotainment Upgrade' in May 2022, amendment to include this
additional fact would be futile because plaintiff does not
plausibly allege the elements of a General Business Law claim with
respect to the purchase of this upgrade.
"Here, plaintiff fails to allege that defendants' conduct related
to the Infotainment Upgrade was materially misleading. The
complaint alleges merely that defendants represented that the
Infotainment Upgrade included a feature that 'enhanced driving
visualization for owners with the FSDC computer.' Aside from the
conclusory statement that this representation "was misleading and
deceptive," the proposed amended complaint includes no facts
supporting the inference that the representation was likely to
mislead a reasonable consumer. The proposed amended complaint
therefore fails to state a General Business Law claim arising from
defendants' representations regarding the Infotainment Upgrade
purchase."
Moreover, while the proposed amended complaint continues to allege
that defendants and their representatives made misleading
statements regarding the future availability of self-driving
technology from 2014 to 2022, it fails to allege that these earlier
statements had any causal connection to plaintiff's purchase of the
Infotainment Upgrade. This deficiency is fatal because a plaintiff
asserting a General Business Law violation must allege that he
'suffered injury as a result of the allegedly deceptive act or
practice.' Accordingly, plaintiff has failed to allege that these
assertedly misleading statements were the cause of any injury
within the statute of limitations.
In sum, the proposed amended complaint fails to state any viable
General Business Law claims. Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend
is accordingly denied because amendment would be futile, Judge
Kovner concludes. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment
and close the case.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated
August 6, 2024, is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=a0yfsj
TOSHIBA AMERICA: Fails to Protect Personal Info, McDaniel Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
KYLE MCDANIEL, and all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v.
TOSHIBA AMERICA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
8:24-cv-01772 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 13, 2024) is a class action against
Toshiba for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied
contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment due to its
negligence and failure to protect and safeguard Plaintiff's and the
Class' highly sensitive personally identifiable information.
On an undisclosed date, Toshiba discovered suspicious activity
within its email environment, relates the complaint. After an
investigation, Toshiba determined an unauthorized actor had access
to its email environment from December 4, 2023, through March 18,
2024 -- over three months. The PII accessed and/or acquired in the
Data Breach included highly sensitive private information such as,
names and Social Security numbers.
The Defendant acquired, collected, and stored Plaintiff's and Class
Members' private information for employment purposes and through
customer relationships. As a result of Toshiba's insufficient data
security, cybercriminals easily infiltrated Defendant's
inadequately protected computer systems and accessed the PII of
Plaintiff and the Class. Now, Plaintiff's and the Class' PII is in
the hands of cybercriminals who will undoubtedly use their PII for
nefarious purposes for the rest of their lives, the suit asserts.
Toshiba America Business Solutions, Inc. manufactures and
distributes multifunction printing devices, fax machines, scanners
and digital signage.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Byron T. Ball, Esq.
THE BALL LAW FIRM APC
100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 700
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Telephone: (310) 980-8039
Facsimile: (415) 477-6710
E-mail: btb@balllawllp.com
- and -
William B. Federman, Esq.
Kennedy M. Brian, Esq.
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave.
Oklahoma City, OK 73120
Telephone: (405) 235-1560
Facsimile: (405) 239-2112
E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com
kpb@federmanlaw.com
TRAVEL INSURED: Edleson Appeals Summary Judgment to 9th Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
LOUIS B. EDLESON is taking an appeal from a court order granting
defendants' motion for summary judgment in the lawsuit entitled
Louis B. Edleson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Travel Insured International,
Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-00323-WQH-SBC, in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.
On February 23, 2020, the Plaintiff filed a class action complaint
against Defendants Travel Insured International, Inc. and United
States Fire Insurance Company, alleging that the Defendants
violated California state law by failing to refund travel insurance
premiums paid for post-departure coverage on trips that were never
taken.
On May 3, 2021, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint for lack of standing and for failure to state a claim
under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, which the Court granted through an Order entered by
Judge William Q. Hayes on Sept. 23, 2021.
On Oct. 25, 2021, the Plaintiff filed a motion to amend the
complaint, which the Court granted.
On Dec. 1, 2021, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which
the Defendants moved to dismiss on Dec. 14, 2021.
On Mar. 8, 2022, the Court granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the Plaintiff's claim for injunctive relief in the first
amended complaint.
On Mar. 24, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify class,
which the Court granted through an Order entered by Judge Hayes on
Nov. 20, 2023.
On Feb. 29, 2024, the Defendants filed a motion for summary
judgment, which the Court granted through an Order entered by Judge
Hayes on Aug. 13, 2024. The Defendants' motion for summary judgment
was granted as to all remaining claims in the first amended
complaint. Judgment was entered in favor of the Defendants, and the
case was closed.
The appellate case is captioned Edleson v. Travel Insured
International, Inc., et al., Case No. 24-5042, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on August 16, 2024.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on August 21,
2024;
-- Appellant's Appeal Transcript Order is due today, August 30,
2024;
-- Appellant's Appeal Transcript is due on September 30, 2024;
-- Appellant's Appeal Opening Brief is due on November 8, 2024;
and
-- Appellees' Appeal Answering Brief Due is due December 9,
2024. [BN]
TRICIDA INC: Pardi Seeks to Seal Non-Party's Material
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL PARDI,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
TRICIDA, INC. and GERRITT KLAERNER, Case No. 4:21-cv-00076-HSG
(N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order
granting the administrative motion to consider whether non-Party's
Material Should be Sealed, pursuant to Civil L.R. 7-11 and 79-5(f).
On Aug. 15, 2024, Lead Plaintiff will file his Reply in Support of
Motion to Certify Class, Appoint Class Representative, and Appoint
Class Counsel. The accompanying Declaration of Jeffrey C. Block
attaches the FDA's Complete Response Letter dated August 21, 2020
as Exhibit B and the Appeal Denied Letter dated February 17, 2021
as Exhibit C. Both documents were produced to Lead Plaintiff by the
FDA and bear confidentiality designations.
Tricida is a clinical-stage pharmaceutical and drug discovery
company.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 15, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=V0d9Zw at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey C. Block, Esq.
Jacob A. Walker, Esq.
Michael D. Gaines, Esq.
BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 398-5600
Facsimile: (617) 507-6020
E-mail: jake@blockleviton.com
jeff@blockleviton.com
michael@blockleviton.com
TTEC SERVICES: Seeks to Stay Conditional Certification Briefing
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEREK WILFONG, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. TTEC SERVICES
CORPORATION, Case No. 1:24-cv-01076-CNS-KAS (D. Colo.), the
Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting the motion to
stay all briefing on Plaintiff's motion for conditional
certification, opt-in discovery, and court-authorized notice to
potential Opt-In Plaintiffs until this Court has resolved the issue
of whether this action should be transferred to the Northern
District of Ohio.
The nature and/or substance of Defendant's opposition to the
Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification, Opt-In Discovery,
and Court-Authorized Notice to Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs will
depend, in part, on the resolution of Defendant's Motion to
Transfer Venue.
Thus, if transfer is granted by this Court, Plaintiff will
presumably file a new motion seeking conditional class
certification; and regardless, the nature and/or substance of
Defendant's opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional
Certification, Opt-In Discovery, and Court-Authorized Notice to
Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs will differ.
On July 23, 2024, Defendant filed a Motion to Transfer Venue with
this Court, seeking to have this action transferred to the Northern
District of Ohio where Plaintiff resides.
On Aug. 13, 2024, Plaintiff filed his Brief in Opposition to
Defendant’s Motion to Transfer Venue. Defendant is in the process
of preparing a Reply to address arguments raised by Plaintiff in
the Brief in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Transfer Venue.
That Reply is due on Aug. 27, 2024.
On August 13, 2024, the Plaintiff also filed his Motion for
Conditional Certification, Opt-In Discovery, and Court-Authorized
Notice to Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs.
TTEC is a global provider of customer experience strategy,
technology and business process outsourcing solutions.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Aug. 16, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RKGGQy at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Arthur J. Rooney, Esq.
Daniel Graham, Esq.
PERKINS COIE LLP
110 North Wacker, Suite 3400
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 263-5071
Facsimile: (312) 324-9516
E-mail: ARooney@perkinscoie.com
DGraham@perkinscoie.com
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Aquino's Conditional Certification Bid Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York denies the Plaintiff's motion for
conditional certification in the lawsuit titled ANTHONY AQUINO,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, et
al., Plaintiffs v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., RAISER, LLC, SCHLEUDER
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-04267-KHP (S.D.N.Y.).
Plaintiff Anthony Aquino is a driver for Uber Technologies, Inc.
("Uber"), who contends that he was misclassified as an independent
contractor and not paid minimum wage after accounting for mandated
but unreimbursed business expenses. He brings claims under the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"),
on behalf of himself and a putative class and collective of other
Uber drivers in New York, who successfully opted-out of an
arbitration provision in the agreement governing his/their
relationship with Uber.
Mr. Aquino seeks unpaid wages and unreimbursed expenses for himself
and the putative class and collective.
Defendants Raiser, LLC, and Schleuder LLC are subsidiaries of Uber.
In connection with driving in New York, the Plaintiff signed a
Platform Access Agreement with Raiser-NY, LLC ("Raiser-LLC"), like
other drivers who are not qualified to pick up passengers in New
York City. Uber drivers who pick up passengers in New York City are
required to sign a Platform Access Agreement with Uber USA, LLC
("Uber USA"). For purposes of this motion, the Court refers to all
Defendants as "Uber."
Mr. Aquino filed this case on May 24, 2022. Following motion
practice, he has twice amended the complaint. As originally
pleaded, this Court found that, taking all the allegations as true,
the Plaintiff plausibly pleaded that he was misclassified as an
independent contractor.
However, Judge Parker says the Plaintiff failed to plausibly plead
a wage violation because he admitted he was paid above federal and
state minimum wage and failed to plausibly allege that his waiting
time -- that is, time logged into the Uber app waiting for a ride
request -- should be counted as hours worked for purposed of
computing whether he received minimum wage.
The Court also found that the Plaintiff failed to adequately plead
basic facts about his own work for Uber, such as the time he spent
driving passengers, the miles he drove, and his expenses. He also
did not articulate a viable theory for computing his wages based on
his expenses.
The Plaintiff then amended his complaint to try to correct these
deficiencies. After motion practice, the Court found the
allegations in the Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"), taken as true,
were sufficient to render it plausible that the Plaintiff, if found
to be an employee rather than an independent contractor, might not
have been paid minimum wage, provided he also proved his waiting
time was compensable.
Notably, in the SAC, the Plaintiff contended he worked three days
in April 2022 for Uber, that over the course of those days, he was
logged into the Uber app for 3 hours and 48 minutes, that he had
only one passenger ride each day, drove 37.5 miles over 64 minutes,
and earned $46.88 for these rides.
Since filing the SAC, the parties engaged in discovery. They
exchanged documents, the Defendants took the Plaintiff's deposition
to learn about his individual claims, and the Plaintiff took a
30(b)(6) deposition to learn more about Uber's policies and
practices. The Plaintiff then filed a motion for conditional
certification of a collective action pursuant to Section 216(b) of
the FLSA.
Judge Parker notes that the motion brought to light certain facts
that call into question whether the Plaintiff has minimum wage
claim at all and whether there is subject matter jurisdiction. The
Court then questioned the parties about these concerns at a
conference on July 30, 2024.
In sum, Judge Parker says, it has now come to light that the
Plaintiff only drove passengers on one day -- April 19, 2022. On
that day, he was logged onto the Uber app for 48 minutes, had two
passenger rides covering approximately 15 miles with about 34
minutes of driving time and for which he was paid $17.32.
It also came to light that contrary to what was suggested in the
SAC, the Plaintiff made four deliveries through Uber Eats on the
other two days, received a total of 17 ride or delivery requests
over the three days but declined 11 of those requests (65%) even
though he alleged that he would be penalized for turning down more
than 20% of ride requests.
It also came to light that the expenses the Plaintiff allegedly
incurred were actually paid by his mother. He was on his family
cell phone plan paid for by his mother. The Plaintiff's car was
purchased by his mother and registered in his father's name. The
Plaintiff's mother allowed him to use her debit card to pay for his
gas and oil changes in April 2022. The Plaintiff's mother paid for
his car insurance. He could not recall whether his mother purchased
"special rideshare insurance" as alleged in the SAC. Finally, the
Plaintiff was not sure if he paid his mother back for any of these
expenses.
When questioned at the Court's recent conference, the Plaintiff's
counsel stated she had not actually obtained any documents from the
Plaintiff or his mother to support the specific expenses alleged in
the SAC or bank or payment records reflecting whether the Plaintiff
had in fact repaid his mother for the expenses.
While the Plaintiff initially pleaded that the putative class and
collective consisted of well over 100 members, the Defendants have,
after investigation, provided a sworn interrogatory response
stating that there are only 43 drivers in New York within the
relevant period, who successfully opted out of arbitration.
The Plaintiff also testified that he had no knowledge about the
experience of other drivers and how they utilized their time when
waiting for ride or delivery requests. Judge Parker notes that he
did not provide an affidavit in support of his motion for
conditional certification regarding his knowledge of whether other
drivers similarly could not utilize their waiting time for personal
or other business pursuits. Nor did he provide declarations from
any other Uber drivers.
Based on this new information, Judge Parker says it appears that
Aquino does not have a federal wage claim under either of his
theories as pleaded, even if the Court were to assume that the 48
minutes that he was logged in on April 19, 2022, was compensable
time, that he incurred the expenses he pleaded (although he appears
not to have incurred all those expenses,) and that he drove 1,000
miles a month.
The Court has serious concerns that the Plaintiff himself may not
have a viable claim under the FLSA given what has been presented.
Further, CAFA jurisdiction may be lacking. Given the facts that
have emerged, the Court finds it would not be efficient or an
appropriate case management tool to conditionally certify a
collective under the FLSA. The Plaintiff has not satisfied the
modest showing required for conditional certification.
For these reasons, the Court denies, without prejudice, the motion
for conditional certification. Additionally, as discussed at the
recent Court conference, the parties will complete discovery on the
Plaintiff's individual claims by Aug. 30, 2024. The Defendants'
motion for summary judgment on the Plaintiff's individual claims is
due Sept. 13, 2024. The Plaintiff's opposition to the motion is due
Sept. 27, 2024. The Defendants' reply is due Oct. 11, 2024.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion & Order dated Aug. 7, 2024,
is available at https://tinyurl.com/493mzwpd from
PacerMonitor.com.
UNION PACIFIC: Directed to Produce Various Documents
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHARLIE GRIGG, and CHARLES
WALDSCHMIDT, v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO., Case No. 4:21-CV-3124
(D. Neb.), the Hon. Judge Joseph Bataillon entered an order
granting Plaintiff's motion to compel.
The Court said that Grigg has met his burden of showing the
relevance and need for the discovery. He has demonstrated that
Union Pacific's screening methods to attempt to identify potential
class members are not perfect, resulting in the information of
potential class members being withheld.
Grigg has shown he should be entitled to review the documents he
seeks to "double check."
Lastly, Union Pacific's various other arguments are not related to
the propriety of the discovery requested but are more properly
reserved for opposing Grigg's request for Rule 23 class
certification, such as how the Court should interpret the class
definition, and whether the timing of certain employees’ adverse
actions means they cannot be included in the class
The Plaintiff, Charlie Grigg, alleges that the Defendant has
adopted hearing tests and hearing-protection requirements that
discriminate against hearing-impaired employees. He files this suit
on behalf of a putative class of similarly situated Union Pacific
employees. Grigg has not yet moved for class certification, and the
parties are in the process of completing discovery regarding
potential class members in anticipation of such a motion.
On July 14, 2022, Grigg served his second set of requests for
production of documents seeking various documents relating to
potential class members including HR reporting system files,
medical comments history, medical records, and data from Union
Pacific's "eHealthSafe" database.
Union Pacific operates North America's premier railroad franchise,
covering 23 states in the western two-thirds of the United States.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 14, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9PEgKW at no extra
charge.[CC]
UNITED SERVICES: Tomczak Must File Class Cert Bid by Nov. 7
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MALLOREY TOMCZAK, KALITHA
HEAD, JOSEPHINE WALKER, AND LESLIE WYATT, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, v. UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE
ASSOCIATION, USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, USAA GENERAL
INDEMNITY COMPANY, AND GARRISON PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY, Case No. 5:21-cv-01564-MGL (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Mary
Geiger Lewis entered the seventh amended scheduling order as
follows:
1. The Plaintiffs shall file their motion for class
certification
no later than Nov. 7, 2024. The Defendants shall file their
brief in opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Classby
Certification no later than March 6, 2025. The Plaintiffs
shall
file their reply brief in support of their Motion for Class
Certification no later than May 15, 2025. This shall include
the
exchange of any expert reports and related discovery, if
necessary, concurrently with either side's initial brief.
2. The Plaintiff(s) shall file and serve a document identifying
by
full name, address, and telephone number each person whom the
Plaintiff(s) expects to call as an expert at trial and
certifying that a written report prepared and signed by the
expert including all information required by Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(a)(2)(B) has been disclosed to other parties by Nov. 7,
2024.
3. The Defendant(s) shall file and serve a document identifying
by
full name, address, and telephone number each person whom the
Defendant(s) expects to call as an expert at trial and
certifying that a written report prepared and signed by the
expert including all information required by Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(a)(2)(B) has been disclosed to other parties by Mar. 6,
2025.
4. The parties shall file joint status reports with the Court by
Oct. 18, 2024 and Aug. 8, 2025.
5. All subsequent scheduling order deadlines are stayed pending
ruling on the motion for class certification.
United Services is an American financial services company providing
insurance and banking products exclusively to members of the
military, veterans and their families.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 15, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BUfR07 at no extra
charge.[CC]
UNITED STATES: 9th Cir. Rejects Suit Over Radioactive Navy Site
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Nordskog, writing for Westlaw Today, reports that San
Francisco Police Department employees cannot proceed with tort
claims against the federal government over radiation exposure at a
former shipyard where the Navy conducted nuclear weapons research
and decontamination activities.
In the suit, Abbey et al. v. United States et al., No. 23-15170,
(9th Cir. Aug. 20, 2024), the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on
Aug. 20 said federal courts lack jurisdiction to hear the case due
to an exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act's waiver of
sovereign immunity, affirming a decision from the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California.
Nuclear weapons operations
During World War II, the U.S. Navy used the Hunters Point Naval
Shipyard in San Francisco for nuclear weapons research and
decontaminating radioactive vessels used in tests.
After the Environmental Protection Agency in 1989 listed the former
shipyard as a Superfund site, the Navy contracted with Tetra Tech
Inc. to handle cleanup efforts.
The Navy leased a building on the site to the city in 1996 for use
by the Police Department.
In 2020 more than 400 Police Department employees filed a
class-action suit against the United States and the Navy, asserting
claims of negligent misrepresentation and negligent supervision of
Tetra Tech, among other tort claims.
The plaintiffs alleged that Tetra Tech, which has faced
whistleblower actions and other litigation over its handling of the
cleanup, fraudulently concealed ongoing contamination at the site
by misrepresenting the source of soil samples and manipulating
radiological testing data.
According to the complaint, police training operations at the site
brought the plaintiffs in contact with contaminated soil, causing
health problems and elevated risks of life-threatening disease.
The District Court granted the government's motion to dismiss,
saying the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the
case under the FTCA's misrepresentation exception.
Exceptions to immunity waiver
In enacting the FTCA, Congress largely waived the government's
sovereign immunity against tort claims.
But 28 U.S.C.A. Sec. 2680(h) provides several exceptions for claims
"arising out of" wrongdoing by a government employee, including
assault, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, slander and
misrepresentations.
The Police Department employees argued that the misrepresentation
exception did not apply in their case because the Navy made its
allegedly untrue statements about site contamination to the city,
not SFPD employees.
Writing for the 9th Circuit panel, U.S. Circuit Judge Kenneth K.
Lee agreed with the District Court that the exception precludes the
suit.
"The plaintiffs' claims 'arise' out of the Navy's alleged
misrepresentations, even if the Navy did not directly make them to
the plaintiffs," the panel said, rejecting the appellants'
interpretation of United States v. Neustadt, 366 U.S. 696 (1961).
The judges also rejected the appellants' argument that the
exception is implicitly limited or suspended by real property
notice requirements in the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C.A. Sec. 9620(h)(1), the
statutory framework behind Superfund actions.
Congress enacted CERCLA decades after the FTCA, yet nothing in the
later law references or even implies an intent to supersede the
tort liability scheme, the panel said in addressing the novel
issue.
Sara M. Peters of Walkup Melodia Kelly & Schoenberger argued for
the appellants. Albert Lai of the U.S. Justice Department argued
for appellees. [GN]
UNITED STATES: Court Tosses 1st Amended Complaint in Perez v. AG
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge David Herrera Urias of the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Mexico grants the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
First Amended Complaint in the lawsuit styled BERNARDO MATIAS
PEREZ, Plaintiff v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General of the
United States, or his successor in interest, Department of Justice
(FBI), Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-00698-DHU-KK (D.N.M.).
Defendant Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General of the United
States, moves to dismiss Plaintiff Bernardo Matias Perez's First
Amended Complaint for Relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.
The Plaintiff is a retired agent of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation ("FBI"). In the late 1980s, the Plaintiff was the
named plaintiff in a class action suit brought against the FBI by a
class of Hispanic FBI agents, who alleged discrimination on the
basis of national origin in violation of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e–2 (Perez v. F.B.I.,
707 F. Supp. 891 (W.D. Tex. 1988), supplemented, 714 F. Supp. 1414
(W.D. Tex. 1989), aff'd, 956 F.2d 265 (5th Cir. 1992)).
In that lawsuit, the Plaintiff also brought an individual claim of
unlawful retaliation, alleging that the FBI retaliated against him
for bringing the claims under the FBI's Equal Employment
Opportunity (EEO) administrative process. After a trial on the
merits, the district court determined that the plaintiff class
prevailed on its allegation that there was a pattern and practice
of discrimination relating to conditions of employment and
promotions within the FBI, and that named Plaintiff Perez had been
the victim of retaliation for protected activities related to the
litigation and his EEO complaint.
As part of the remedy afforded to the Plaintiff, the district court
ordered that: "Within 45 days of the date of this Order, Perez
shall be promoted to the rank of GS 17 with the related
compensation and privileges which attend that rank. The Director is
requested to report to this Court at 90 day intervals promotional
decisions related to Bernardo Perez until such time as Perez is
promoted to SAC or similar position of responsibility."
Five years later, on Dec. 31, 1994, the Plaintiff retired from the
FBI as an "SES 4" with an adjusted basic pay of $110,616.00. At the
time of his retirement, the Plaintiff was the Special Agent in
Charge ("SAC") of the Albuquerque Division of the FBI.
On Sept. 8, 2021, approximately 26 years after his retirement, the
Plaintiff again sought counseling from the FBI EEO office alleging
that throughout his employment with the agency, the FBI continued
to subject him to harassment and discrimination based on his
national origin and religion, and repeatedly retaliated against him
because of his participation as the named class representative in
the previous lawsuit litigated in federal court. He also alleged
that the FBI had failed to promote him to the SES 5 pay grade as
ordered by the federal district court in 1989 after prevailing in
his case against the agency. As a result, his subsequent retirement
payments were lower than he believed was proper.
On Sept. 22, the EEO issued the Plaintiff a Notice of Right to File
a Formal Complaint. On Sept. 30, 2021, the Plaintiff filed a formal
complaint alleging the same discriminatory acts as outlined.
While the Plaintiff checked a box on his formal complaint
indicating he was also filing a class claim, the narrative to his
complaint only related to his individual claims concerning his
retirement pension. Nevertheless, because the class claim box had
been checked, the FBI EEO forwarded the complaint to an EEOC
Administrative Judge to determine if the complaint should be
certified as a class complaint. The EEOC Administrative Judge then
issued a request for information to the parties.
In his response to the Administrative Judge's request, the
Plaintiff alleged that the FBI had reduced his salary from the
SES-4 to the SES-3 level during his employment due to the 1989
federal court order in the class action lawsuit in which he was the
named class representative. He explained that he believed the
salary reduction was retaliation at the time but felt he could not
file a complaint with the FBI's EEO office due to fears of further
retaliation.
The Plaintiff alleged that all the retirement payments he received
from 1995 to the present were improper as a result of the
retaliation during his employment. He also alleged that FBI
employment and promotion numbers regarding FBI Agents showed that
the FBI had continued to fail to hire or promote Latino FBI Agents.
He contends that as of Jan. 31, 2022, of the 13,455 FBI Agents,
only 6.8% were Hispanic, while the current Latino population in the
U.S.A. is 18.5%.
Beyond that, the Plaintiffs provided no other detail as to the
particular employment practices he was challenging on a class-wide
basis nor the number of individuals affected by the employment
practices that he alleged to be discriminatory. As to the
timeliness of his EEO complaint, the Plaintiff argued it was timely
because every improperly calculated retirement payment represented
a new act of discrimination or retaliation.
On Feb. 8, 2022, the EEOC Administrative Judge issued a decision
and order dismissing the Plaintiff's complaint, both individually
and as a potential class claim, because it was untimely. The
Administrative Judge based the decision on the fact that the
Plaintiff first contacted an EEO counselor more than 25 years after
retiring from the Agency. The Administrative Judge rejected the
Plaintiff's assertion that each retirement payment represented a
new act of discrimination or retaliation, finding the argument was
not supported by law. The EEOC subsequently issued a final order
adopting the Administrative Judge's decision and order.
On April 29, 2022, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the EEOC from
the Agency's final order concerning his administrative complaint.
The EEOC affirmed its final order, finding that its regulations
required that an employee "must initiate contact with an EEO
counselor within 45 days of the date of the matter alleged to be
discriminatory." The Commission determined that the Plaintiff did
not initiate contact with the FBI's EEO until almost 26 years after
his retirement, which was untimely under the Commission's
regulations and, thus, required that the Plaintiff's complaint be
dismissed.
The EEOC also determined that, under its prior decisions
interpreting the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, the receipt of a
retirement payment, unlike paychecks, did not restart the 45-day
clock for making initial EEO contact. The EEOC also agreed with the
Administrative Judge's determination that the Plaintiff's claim
regarding the reduction of his pay during his employment were also
untimely.
On Aug. 21, 2023, the Plaintiff filed the instant action. Then, on
Dec. 8, 2023, the Plaintiff filed his "First Amended Complaint for
Plaintiff Relief From Discrimination Based on Age, Race, National
Origin, Sex, Religion and Retaliation." In his amended complaint,
he alleges the FBI failed to promote him to the rank of GS 17 (SES
5) with the related compensation and privileges attendant to that
rank, as ordered by a federal judge in 1989. Thus, according to the
Plaintiff, he is due back pay from 1986 to 1994 and during his
entire retirement period to date along with attendant interest and
compounding.
According to the Plaintiff, he has an additional cause of action
under the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, which effectively
resets the clock by saying that wage discrimination cases can be
filed within 180 days of the last paycheck in which the
discrimination occurs. He also states that retaliation for filing
the prior federal lawsuit increased after the federal court's
decision in that case. And further adds that the reasons for the
discriminatory practice and pattern at issue in his first federal
lawsuit were never remedied and that today the FBI has less persons
of color and women than in the late 1980s. The Plaintiff provides
no additional facts supporting his allegation of discrimination and
retaliation.
Defendant Garland now moves to dismiss the Plaintiff's First
Amended Complaint in its entirety.
Judge Urias notes that the are two primary questions raised by the
Defendant's motion to dismiss. The first is whether the Plaintiff's
Amended Complaint must be dismissed because he failed to timely
exhaust his administrative remedies required to bring Title VII
claims against the Defendant. The second is whether, even if the
Plaintiff did exhaust his claims through the EEOC's administrative
process, his Amended Complaint must be dismissed because he failed
to timely file a complaint in this Court following the EEOC's final
action.
After reviewing the parties' pleadings and briefing, as well as the
relevant case law, the Court concludes that the answer to both
questions is yes, and thus, the Plaintiff has not properly stated a
claim for which relief can be granted. Therefore, the Defendant's
motion to dismiss will be granted.
Judge Urias opines that the Plaintiff's employment discrimination
claims must be dismissed because he did not initiate the complaint
process within 45 days of any alleged act of discrimination, and
the Plaintiff's Claims must also be dismissed because he did not
file his Title VII Action within 90 days of the EEOC's final
decision.
Accordingly, the Court grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss the
Plaintiff's claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)
for failure to state a claim because he has failed to exhaust his
administrative remedies and did not timely file his complaint.
Defendant Merrick B. Garland's Motion to Dismiss under 12(b)(6) is
granted.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated
Aug. 8, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/4j5swu5e from
PacerMonitor.com.
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Bid to Seal Certain Exhibits in Lokken Granted
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as The Estate of Gene B. Lokken, Glennette
Kell, Darlene Buckner, Carol Clemens, Frank Chester Perry, The
Estate of Jackie Martin, John J. Williams, as Trustee of the Miles
and Carolyn Williams 1993 Family Trust, and William Hull,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. UnitedHealth Group Incorporated, United Healthcare,
Inc., naviHealth, Inc., and Does 1-50, inclusive., Defendants, Case
No. 23-cv-3514 (JRT/DJF) (D. Minn.), Magistrate Judge Dulce J.
Foster of the United States District Court for the District of
Minnesota granted the parties' joint motion regarding continued
sealing of certain exhibits in the matter.
This is a putative class action in which the Plaintiffs allege
Defendants improperly denied their medical insurance claims for
medically necessary care based on artificial intelligence models.
This matter is before the Court on the parties' Joint Motion
Regarding Continued Sealing filed in connection with Defendants'
Memorandum of Law in Support of their Motion to Dismiss the Class
Action Complaint and supporting exhibits; and Defendants'
Memorandum of Law in Support of their Motion to Dismiss Amended
Complaint and supporting exhibits. Defendants also publicly filed
redacted versions of their memoranda, along with statements
indicating that it is impractical to redact their exhibits. The
parties agree the documents should remain under seal because the
redacted portions of the memoranda and sealed exhibits contain
confidential medical information.
The Court finds good cause to grant the parties' sealing motion
because all of the documents at issue contain sensitive personal
health information, and the parties have publicly filed
appropriately redacted versions of these documents. The Court
concludes that the parties' legitimate interests in maintaining
confidentiality as to this information outweighs any public
interest in unsealing it.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated August 6, 2024, is
available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vbeozJ
UNIVERSITY OF THE ARTS: Morehouse Balks at Closure Without Notice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ABBY MOREHOUSE and TREYSHAWN HOSKINS, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE UNIVERSITY OF THE
ARTS, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-04164-KNS (E.D. Pa., August 13,
2024) is a class action against The University of the Arts brought
by the Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly
situated students, to recover tuition, fees, and other damages
incurred as a result of the University's closure.
On May 31, 2024, University President, Kerry Walk, publicly
announced the school had exhausted all its funds and would be
permanently closing. On June 1, the University's Board of Directors
unanimously voted to approve the school's closure. On June 7, the
University was closed, and the Middle States Commission on Higher
Education withdrew the University's accreditation.
The Plaintiffs assert that the University did not provide them and
other students with a plan to continue their education prior to
announcing the closure. As a result of the abrupt notice and
closure, Plaintiffs have lost educational, housing, and other
opportunities. They have suffered damage as a direct and proximate
result of Defendant's breach and are now forced to expend
considerable time, effort, and money to find alternative
educational arrangements, say the Plaintiffs.
The University of the Arts is a private arts university in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania that is comprised of two colleges and
two divisions: the College of Art, Media & Design; the College of
Performing Arts; the Division of Liberal Arts; and the Division of
Continuing Studies.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 322-9243
E-mail: gary@lcllp.com
- and -
Paul J. Doolittle, Esq.
POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO, LLC
32 Ann Street
Charleston, SC 29403
Telephone: (803) 222-2222
E-mail: pauldoolittle@poulinwilley.com
cmad@poulinwilley.com
UPMC WESTERN: Frenzel Labor Suit Seeks Conditional Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHARRI FRENZEL, et al., v.
UPMC WESTERN MARYLAND CORP., et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-03246-RDB (D.
Md.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:
1. Granting conditional certification of the proposed collective
action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) for the following
group of workers:
"All current and former hourly, non-exempt employees of
UPMC-MD
with direct patient care duties who worked at UPMC-MD's
hospital
in Cumberland, Maryland and who either (i) received an
automatic
meal period deduction, and/or (ii)whose recorded work time
was
automatically rounded at any time from Nov. 29, 2020 through
the present;
2. Approving and adopting Frenzel’s proposed notice language
and
distribution plan, and authorizing Notice to all members of
the
putative collective action in accordance with Hoffman-La
Roche
v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165 (1989);
3. Compelling UPMC-MD to disclose and furnish, within ten (10)
days
of entering such an order, the names and last-known contact
information (including all mailing addresses, email
addresses,
phone numbers, dates of employment, and department(s) worked)
for all current and former non-exempt employees of UPMC-MD
who
either (i) had direct patient care responsibilities and
received
a meal period deduction and/or (ii) were subject to automatic
time-rounding at any time from Nov. 29, 2020 through the
present; and
4. For all other relief to which the Frenzel may be entitled
under
law or in equity.
UPMC-MD institutes two distinct policies at its hospital in
Cumberland, Maryland that deprive potential opt-in plaintiffs of
their earned wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA). These issues are readily susceptible to collective
treatment.
First, UPMC-MD institutes a meal period policy that violates the
FLSA on its face, by guaranteeing only 20 minutes of uninterrupted
time but nonetheless deducting 30 minutes of time each day worked.
Second, UPMC-MD implements an automatic time-rounding policy that
rounds non-exempt employees’ recorded work time to the nearest
6-minute increment (1/10th of an hour).
UPMC is a hospital and health system located in Cumberland,
Maryland, in Allegany County.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 14, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gEIeK7 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Taylor A. Jones, Esq.
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
William M. Hogg, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: tjones@mybackwages.com
mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
whogg@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
- and -
William C. (Clif) Alexander, Esq.
Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
ANDERSON ALEXANDER PLLC
101 N. Shoreline Blvd., Suite 610
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
Telephone: 361-452-1279
E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
austin@a2xlaw.com
VAN BUREN COUNTY, MI: Final Approval of Beightol Suit Deal Appealed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
TAYLOR BEIGHTOL is taking an appeal from a court judgment in the
lawsuit entitled Wayside Church, an Illinois not-for-profit
(Ecclesiastical) Corporation, et al., individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Van Buren County, MI,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:14-cv-01274, in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Michigan.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
brought this action in 2014 as a "plaintiff class" and "defendant
class" action to obtain damages for all former property owners in
the State whose real property was sold at tax auction with the
municipality keeping the surplus.
On Jul. 12, 2024, Judge Paul L. Maloney granted the parties' motion
for final approval of a class action settlement. On the same day,
judgment was entered.
The appellate case is captioned Wayside Church, et al. v. Van Buren
County, MI, et al., Case No. 24-1676, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed on August 15, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees WAYSIDE CHURCH, an Illinois Not-For-Profit
(Ecclesiastical) Corporation, et al., individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, are represented by:
David H. Fink, Esq.
FINK BRESSACK
38500 Woodward Avenue, Suite 350
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
Intervenor-Appellant TAYLOR BEIGHTOL is represented by:
David J. Shea, Esq.
SHEA LAW
26100 American Drive, Second Floor
Southfield, MI 48034
Telephone: (248) 354-0224
Defendants-Appellees VAN BUREN COUNTY, MI, et al. are represented
by:
Kyle Michael Asher, Esq.
DYKEMA
201 Townsend Street, Suite 900
Lansing, MI 48933
Telephone: (517) 374-9100
- and –
Douglas J. Curlew, Esq.
CUMMINGS, MCCLOREY, DAVIS & ACHO
17436 College Parkway
Third Floor
Livonia, MI 48152
Telephone: (734) 261-2400
- and –
Charles Allen Lawler, Esq.
CLARK HILL
215 S. Washington Square, Suite 200
Lansing, MI 48933
Telephone: (517) 371-1730
- and –
Matthew T. Nelson, Esq.
WARNER NORCROSS & JUDD
150 Ottawa Avenue, N.W., Suite 1500
Grand Rapids, MI 49503
Telephone: (616) 752-2000
VENEZUELA: Mazzaccone Alleges Breach of Contractual Obligations
---------------------------------------------------------------
MASSIMO MAZZACCONE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF
VENEZUELA, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-06168 (S.D.N.Y., August 14,
2024) is a proposed class action for breach of contract arising
from the Republic's failure to make certain contractually mandated
payments of principal and interest on certain issuances of the
Republic's debt securities.
On or about August 6, 1998, the Republic issued $500,000,000
principal amount of 13.625% bonds maturing on August 15, 2018,
under ISIN No. USP922646AT10.
On or about May 18, 2004, the Republic issued $252,811,000
principal amount of 13.625% bonds maturing on August 15, 2018, also
under ISIN No. USP922646AT10 (all such bonds issued under ISIN No.
USP922646AT10 are collectively the "AT10 Bonds"). These sovereign
bonds were issued pursuant to a 1998 Fiscal Agency Agreement.
On or about September 27, 2001, the Republic issued $300,000,000
principal amount of 13.625% bonds also maturing on August 15, 2018,
under ISIN No. USP9395PAA95 (the "AA95 Bonds"). These sovereign
bonds were issued pursuant to a 2001 Fiscal Agency Agreement.
By their terms, those issuances had the same maturity date, August
15, 2018, and the same semi-annual interest payment dates, August
15 and February 15. The Republic failed to repay principal and
failed to make the semi-annual interest payment on August 15, 2018
on both the AT10 Bonds and the AA95 Bonds, and has failed to make
accruing semi-annual interest payments thereafter. The Republic has
breached its contractual obligations to Plaintiff and the other
Class members to make timely payments under the FAA and the Bonds
as alleged herein. Each such contractual obligation will continue
as long as the Class member continues to hold the Bonds, says the
suit.
The Plaintiff will seek certification of a proposed class defined
to include all holders of AT10 Bonds on August 14, 2024, who
continue to hold thereafter; and certification of a proposed class
defined to include all holders of AA95 Bonds on August 14, 2024,
who continue to hold thereafter.
The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela is a foreign state as defined
in 28 U.S.C. Section 1603.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony J. Costantini, Esq.
DUANE MORRIS LLP
1540 Broadway
New York, NY 10036-4086
Telephone: (212) 692-1032
Facsimile: (212) 202-4715
E-mail: AJCostantini@duanemorris.com
VIAQUEST RESIDENTIAL: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due March 17, 2025
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KENNETH SIMMONS, v.
VIAQUEST RESIDENTIAL SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-00201-SDM-EPD
(S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Elizabeth Preston Deavers entered an
order granting the joint motion to extend case deadlines.
-- Filing for class certification motion: March 17,
2025
-- Filing dispositive motions: March 17,
2025
-- Conduct discovery: Feb. 12, 2025
ViaQuest offers hospice behavioral and mental health care and more.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 14, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9OqwP0 at no extra
charge.[CC]
VISA INC: DFS Bid to Compel Arbitration in B & R Suit Tossed
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as B & R SUPERMARKET, INC.,
d/b/a Milam's Market, GROVE LIQUORS LLC, STROUK GROUP LLC, d/b/a
Monsieur Marcel, and PALERO FOOD CORP. and CAGUEYES FOOD CORP.,
d/b/a Fine Fare Supermarket, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, v. VISA INC., VISA U.S.A., INC.,
MASTERCARD INTERNATIONAL INC., AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY, and
DISCOVER FINANCIAL SERVICES, Case No. 1:17-cv-02738-MKB-JAM
(E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Margo Brodie entered an order:
-- denying Discover's motion to compel arbitration; and
-- granting in part and denying in part Amex's motion.
The Court grants Amex's motion to the extent that Amex seeks to
compel arbitration against CAA-bound merchants, but declines to
decertify the class.
Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiffs' claims do not fall
within the scope of the arbitration provision and thus denies
Discover’s motion to compel arbitration.
The Plaintiffs allege violations of the Sherman Act, and state
antitrust and consumer protection laws of California, Florida, and
New York, and assert unjust enrichment claims on behalf of a class
of merchants who paid chargebacks as a result of Defendants'
alleged conspiracy (the "Class").
The Plaintiffs' claims arise out of Defendants' processes for
adopting the "Europay, Mastercard & Visa" (EMV) standard for card
transactions in the United States.
The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated antitrust laws by
entering into a conspiracy to:
(1) adopt the same policy via nearly identical rules for
shifting
billions of dollars in liability from banks to merchants for
fraudulent charges ("chargebacks"); and
(2) make the Fraud Liability Shift effective on the same day and
in
the same manner for all four networks, to prevent merchants
from steering customers to use cards with more lenient terms
or
concessions such as reduced interchange or merchant discount
fees.
Visa Inc. is an American multinational payment card services
corporation.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 14, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3WkWRj at no extra
charge.[CC]
VOLKSWAGEN AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT: Settlement in Opheim Gets Final Nod
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MATTHEW OPHEIM et al., v.
VOLKSWAGEN AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-02483-SDA
(D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Stacey Adams entered an order granting
final approval of class action settlement.
1. Final Approval of the Class Settlement.
The Court grants final approval of the Class Settlement and
all
of the terms and provisions of the Settlement Agreement. The
Court finds that the Class Settlement is fair, reasonable,
and
adequate, and in all respects satisfies the requirements of
Fed.
R. Civ. P. 23 and the applicable law.
2. Certification of the Settlement Class.
The Court here certifies, for Settlement purposes only, the
proposed Settlement Class set forth in the Settlement
Agreement
and in the Preliminary Approval Order (ECF No. 178). The
Court
finds that, for the purposes of Settlement, the applicable
prerequisites for certification of the proposed Settlement
Class
under Fed. R. Civ. P 23(a) and 23(b)(3) are fully satisfied.
3. Notice of the Settlement to the Settlement Class.
The Court finds that Notice of the Class Settlement was
timely
and properly disseminated and effectuated pursuant to the
approved Notice Plan, and that said Notice constitutes the
best
notice practicable under the circumstances and satisfies all
requirements of Rule 23(e) and due process.
4. The Settlement is Fair, Reasonable, and Adequate. The Court
finds that the Class Settlement is fair, reasonable, and
adequate, and in all respects satisfies Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.
5. Appointment of Settlement Class Representatives and
Settlement
Class Counsel.
6. The Court grants final approval and appointment of Plaintiffs
Matthew Opheim, Greta Opela, Kia Holyfield, Kenneth Eldridge,
Carl Popolo, Ken Barton, Matthew Kieran Byrne, William
Hendra,
Madelen Tejada, Melissa Gallo, Saara Massahood, Robert Mills,
Ivan Cugel, Kathy Madore, Kelley Morgan and Michelle Vargas
as
Representatives of the Settlement Class, and of the law firms
of
Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Olstein, Brody & Agnello, P.C. and
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, collectively, as Class
Counsel for the Settlement Class.
7. The Court certifies, for the purpose of settlement, the
following Settlement Class consisting of:
"All persons and entities who purchased or leased, in the
United
States or Puerto Rico, certain specific model year 2012
through
2015 Audi A4, A5 and Q5 vehicles that are designated
individually by Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) in
Exhibit 4
to the Settlement Agreement, which were imported and
distributed
by Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. for sale or lease in the
United States and Puerto Rico."
Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (a) all Judges who
have
presided over the Action and their spouses; (b) all current
employees, officers, directors, agents and representatives of
Defendants, and their family members; (c) any affiliate,
parent
or subsidiary of Defendants and any entity in which
Defendants
have a controlling interest; (d) anyone acting as a used car
dealer; (e) anyone who purchased a Settlement Class Vehicle
for
the purpose of commercial resale; (f) anyone who purchased a
Settlement Class Vehicle with salvaged title and/or any
insurance company who acquired a Settlement Class Vehicle as
a
result of a total loss; (g) any insurer of a Settlement Class
Vehicle; (i) issuers of extended vehicle warranties and
service
contracts; (i) any Settlement Class Member who, prior to the
date of the Settlement Agreement, settled with and released
Defendants or any Released Parties from any Released Claims;
and
(j) any Settlement Class Member who files a timely and proper
Request for Exclusion from the Settlement Class.
Volkswagen is a German public multinational conglomerate
manufacturer of passenger and commercial vehicles, motorcycles,
engines and turbomachinery.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 14, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tA0q99 at no extra
charge.[CC]
WARNER MUSIC: Bid to Maintain Exhibits Under Seal Held in Abeyance
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN HALL, ET AL., v.
WARNER MUSIC GROUP, CORP., ET AL., Case No. 3:22-cv-00457 (M.D.
Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Aleta Trauger entered an order holding in
abeyance the Defendants' motion to maintain under seal certain
exhibits filed with Plaintiffs' motion for class certification
until defense counsel complies with Local Rule 7.01(a)(1).
Warner Music is an American multinational entertainment and record
label conglomerate.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 14, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=h8txsA at no extra
charge.[CC]
WEATHER GROUP: Discloses Personal Info to 3rd Parties, Brady Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN BRADY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WEATHER GROUP TELEVISION, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:24-cv-00261 (D.N.H., August 23, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for violation of the Video Privacy Protection
Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has disclosed to
unrelated third parties, including Twilio and Meta Platforms, Inc.
the personally identifiable information and video viewing
information of its Local Now website and app users without consent.
Specifically, the Defendant disclosed the users': (i) e-mail
address, (ii) location information, (iii) user ID, and (iv) the
title and URL of the video they watched, including the fact that
they actually viewed the video. As a result, the Defendant violated
the Plaintiff's and the Class members' statutorily protected
privacy rights, says the suit.
Weather Group Television, LLC is a media company headquartered in
Atlanta, Georgia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Benjamin T. King, Esq.
DOUGLAS LEONARD & GARVEY PC
14 South St., Ste. 5
Concord, NH 03301
Telephone: (603) 224-1988
Email: benjamin@nhlawoffice.com
- and -
Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
Max S. Roberts, Esq.
Victoria X. Zhou, Esq.
Kyle D. Gordon, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
Email: ykopel@bursor.com
mroberts@bursor.com
vzhou@bursor.com
kgordon@bursor.com
WEBTPA EMPLOYER: Harrell Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID HARRELL,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
WEBTPA EMPLOYER SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-01158-L-BN (N.D.
Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order extending
deadline to move for class certification and the Defendants' motion
to stay discover.
WebTPA is a provider of administration services to health insurance
and benefit plans.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 15, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4CWEJz at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joe Kendall, Esq.
KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC
3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825
Dallas, TX 75219
Telephone: (214) 744-3000
E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com
- and -
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
One West Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 525-4100
E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com
- and -
Gary Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Blayne Thompson, Esq.
Allison Holt Ryan, Esq.
Abby Walter Gray, Esq.
Hans H. Hertell, Esq.
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
609 Main St., Suite 4200
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone: (713) 632-1400
E-mail: blayne.thompson@hoganlovells.com
allison.holt-ryan@hoganlovells.com
abby.waltergray@hoganlovells.com
hans.hertell@hoganlovells.com
- and -
Christopher J. Schwegmann, Esq.
LYNN PINKER HURST &
SCHWEGMANN, LLP
2100 Ross Avenue, Suite 2700
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (214) 981-3800
E-mail: cschwegmann@lynnllp.com
WELL-PATH MANAGEMENT: Gonzalez Appeals Summary Judgment to 9th Cir.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL GONZALEZ, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
granting the Defendants' motion for summary judgment in the lawsuit
entitled Daniel Gonzalez, et al., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. County of Alameda, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-07423-JSC, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California.
The Plaintiffs, current or former detainees at Santa Rita Jail,
bring individual Section 1983 claims against Well-Path, the private
entity contracted to provide medical care at the jail. The
Plaintiffs do not bring claims against any individual medical
provider regarding the medical care they received while at the
jail; instead, the Plaintiffs chose to bring their section 1983
claims against Well-Path only, alleging it has a policy and
practice of delaying and denying medical care to jail detainees.
On May 16, 2024, Defendant Well-Path filed a motion for summary
judgment, which the Court granted through an Order entered by Judge
Jacqueline Scott Corley on July 12, 2024. The Court ruled that the
Plaintiffs have not identified evidence sufficient to support a
finding that a Well-Path policy or practice caused their alleged
injuries. Since they have failed to offer evidence that supports a
finding that a Well-Path custom or policy or pattern and practice
was the moving force behind any Plaintiff's challenged individual
treatment decisions, Well-Path's motion for summary judgment must
be granted.
The appellate case is captioned Gonzalez, et al. v. Well-Path
Management, Inc., et al., Case No. 24-4982, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on August 14, 2024.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellants' Mediation Questionnaire was due on August 19,
2024;
-- Appellants' Appeal Transcript Order was due on August 29,
2024;
-- Appellants' Appeal Transcript is due on September 27, 2024;
-- Appellants' Appeal Opening Brief is due on October 30, 2024;
and
-- Appellee's Appeal Answering Brief Due is due December 2,
2024. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants DANIEL GONZALEZ, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Yolanda Huang, Esq.
P.O. Box 5475
Berkeley, CA 94705
WELLS FARGO: Prado Sues Over Mortgage Loan Modifications
--------------------------------------------------------
BARBARA PRADO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY; and WELLS FARGO BANK,
N.A., Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-05105 (N.D. Cal., August 13,
2024) is brought under the California Unfair Competition Law
arising from the Defendants' unlawful conduct relating to mortgage
loan modifications of its customers, including Plaintiff.
Starting around June of 2024, Plaintiff and similarly situated
consumers across the country began receiving one or more cryptic
letters from Wells Fargo indicating that it had identified that an
"error may have occurred related to your approved and finalized
loan modification."
Allegedly, Wells Fargo unilaterally overcharged tens of thousands
of consumers, including Plaintiff, on their mortgage loan accounts
in connection with certain modifications, and then attempted to
settle these damages by sending cashier's checks to the customers
without explaining the error. Not only does Wells Fargo fail to
describe the error, it fails to provide any accounting or
itemization to show how the error affected its customers' mortgage
loan accounts, says the suit.
On information and belief, it is believed that Defendants'
representatives were unable or unwilling to tell Wells Fargo
customers exactly how their accounts were overcharged and how the
amount of the cashier's checks was calculated. Wells Fargo's
flippant attempt to mitigate its liability is inadequate and has
left consumers, including Plaintiff, facing ongoing harm and
out-of-pocket loss that has yet to be reimbursed, the suit
contends.
Wells Fargo & Co. is an American multinational financial services
company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Telephone: (800) 400-6808
Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
- and -
Ryan L. McBride Esq.
Jonathan Gil, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
2221 Camino Del Rio S., #101
San Diego, CA 92108
Telephone: (800) 400-6808
Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
E-mail: ryan@kazlg.com
jonathan@kazlg.com
- and -
Theodore O. Bartholow, III, Esq.
Karen L. Kellett, Esq.
KELLETT & BARTHOLOW PLLC
11300 N. Central Expy., Suite 301
Dallas, TX 75243
Telephone: (214) 696-9000
Facsimile: (214) 696-9001
E-mail: thad@kblawtx.com
kkellett@kblawtx.com
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l. Defends 3,623 Claims as of June 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Albany International Corp. is a defendant in suits brought in
various courts in the United States by plaintiffs who allege that
they have suffered personal injury as a result of exposure to
asbestos-containing paper machine clothing synthetic dryer fabrics
marketed during the period from 1967 to 1976 and used in certain
paper mills, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "We were defending 3,623 claims as of June 30,
2024.
"We anticipate that additional claims will be filed against the
Company and related companies in the future but are unable to
predict the number and timing of such future claims. Due to the
fact that information sufficient to meaningfully estimate a range
of possible loss of a particular claim is typically not available
until late in the discovery process, we do not believe a meaningful
estimate can be made regarding the range of possible loss with
respect to pending or future claims and therefore are unable to
estimate a range of reasonably possible loss in excess of amounts
already accrued for pending or future claims.
"While we believe we have meritorious defenses to these claims, we
have settled certain claims for amounts we consider reasonable
given the facts and circumstances of each case. Our insurance
carrier has defended each case and funded settlements under a
standard reservation of rights. As of June 30, 2024, we had
resolved, by means of settlement or dismissal, 38,046 claims at a
total cost of $10.7 million. Of this amount, almost 100% was paid
by our insurance carrier, who has confirmed that we have
approximately $140 million of remaining coverage under primary and
excess policies that should be available with respect to current
and future asbestos claims."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=t1e0tX
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allstate Corp. Reports $782MM Total Net Reserves
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corporation has $782 million total asbestos net
reserves as of June 30, 2024 compared to $804 million total
asbestos net reserves as of December 31, 2023, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
The Company states, "Total net reserves as of June 30, 2024,
included $698 million or 50% of estimated IBNR reserves compared to
$762 million or 53% of estimated IBNR reserves as of December 31,
2023.
Total gross payments were $39 million and $62 million for the
second quarter and first six months of 2024, respectively, compared
to $24 million and $53 million for the second quarter and first six
months of 2023, respectively. Payments primarily related to
settlement agreements reached with several insureds on large
claims, mainly asbestos related losses, where the scope of
coverages has been agreed upon. The claims associated with these
settlement agreements are expected to be substantially paid out
over the next several years as qualified claims are submitted by
these insureds. Reinsurance collections were $15 million and $26
million for the second quarter and first six months of 2024,
respectively, compared to $9 million and $24 million for the second
quarter and first six months of 2023, respectively."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Hi6Wm2
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AMETEK Defends Asbestos-Related Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------
AMETEK, Inc. (including its subsidiaries) has been named as a
defendant in a number of asbestos-related lawsuits, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.
Certain of these lawsuits relate to a business which was acquired
by the Company and do not involve products which were manufactured
or sold by the Company. In connection with these lawsuits, the
seller of such business has agreed to indemnify the Company against
these claims. The Indemnified Claims have been tendered to, and are
being defended by, such seller. The seller has met its obligations,
in all respects, and the Company does not have any reason to
believe such party would fail to fulfill its obligations in the
future. To date, no judgments have been rendered against the
Company as a result of any asbestos-related lawsuit. The Company
believes that it has good and valid defenses to each of these
claims and intends to defend them vigorously.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=g2oMTE
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Inc. Has $427MM Litigation Reserves
------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Inc., in its news release dated August 6, 2024, has
recorded $427 million asbestos litigation reserve as of June 30,
2024, according to the Company's Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
A full-text copy of the Form 8-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=coxzXN
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BNS Sub Has 51 Toxic-Tort Claims as of June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Steel Partners Holdings L.P.'s majority owned subsidiary, BNS Sub,
has been named as a defendant in multiple alleged asbestos-related
toxic-tort claims filed over a period beginning in 1994 through
June 30, 2024, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "In many cases these claims involved more than
100 defendants. There remained approximately 51 pending asbestos
claims as of June 30, 2024. BNS Sub believes it has significant
defenses to any liability for toxic-tort claims on the merits. None
of these toxic-tort claims has gone to trial and, therefore, there
can be no assurance that these defenses will prevail. BNS Sub has
insurance policies covering asbestos-related claims for years
beginning 1974 through 1988. BNS Sub annually receives retroactive
billings or credits from its insurance carriers for any increase or
decrease in claims accruals as claims are filed, settled or
dismissed, or as estimates of the ultimate settlement costs for the
then-existing claims are revised. As of both June 30, 2024 and
December 31, 2023, BNS Sub has accrued $1,359 and $1,357
respectively, relating to the open and active claims against BNS
Sub. This accrual includes the amount of unpaid retroactive
billings submitted to the Company by the insurance carriers and
also the Company's best estimate of the likely costs for BNS Sub to
settle these claims outside the amounts funded by insurance. There
can be no assurance that the number of future claims and the
related costs of defense, settlements or judgments will be
consistent with the experience to-date of existing claims and that
BNS Sub will not need to significantly increase its estimated
liability for the costs to settle these claims to an amount that
could have a material effect on the consolidated financial
statements."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QbIiUV
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CECO Environmental Incurs $225K Litigation Expense
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CECO Environmental Corp., in its financial results for the second
quarter of 2024, has reported $225,000 in asbestos litigation
expenses for the three months ended June 30, 2024, according to the
Company's Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
The Company's subsidiary, Met-Pro Technologies LLC, beginning in
2002, has been named in asbestos-related lawsuits filed against a
large number of industrial companies including, in particular,
those in the pump and fluid handling industries. In management’s
opinion, the complaints typically have been vague, general and
speculative, alleging that Met-Pro, along with the numerous other
defendants, sold unidentified asbestos-containing products and
engaged in other related actions which caused injuries (including
death) and loss to the plaintiffs. Counsel has advised that more
recent cases typically allege more serious claims of mesothelioma.
The Company’s insurers have hired attorneys who, together with
the Company, are vigorously defending these cases. Many cases have
been dismissed after the plaintiff fails to produce evidence of
exposure to Met-Pro’s products. In those cases, where evidence
has been produced, the Company’s experience has been that the
exposure levels are low and the Company’s position has been that
its products were not a cause of death, injury or loss. The Company
has been dismissed from or settled a large number of these cases.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CenterPoint Energy Still Faces Exposure Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
CenterPoint Energy, Inc., is from time to time named, along with
numerous others, as defendants in lawsuits filed by a number of
individuals who claim injury due to exposure to asbestos, and
anticipates that additional claims may be asserted in the future,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Some facilities owned by the Registrants or their predecessors
contain or have contained asbestos insulation and other
asbestos-containing materials.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Y4NNht
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chemours Has 800 Pending Exposure Suits at June 30
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chemours Company, at June 30, 2024 and December 31, 2023, had
approximately 800 lawsuits pending against former parent company E.
I. du Pont de Nemours (EID) alleging personal injury from exposure
to asbestos, respectively, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "These cases are pending in state and federal
court in numerous jurisdictions in the U.S. and are individually
set for trial. A small number of cases are pending outside of the
U.S. Most of the actions were brought by contractors who worked at
sites between the 1950s and the 1990s. A small number of cases
involve similar allegations by EID employees or household members
of contractors or EID employees. Finally, certain lawsuits allege
personal injury as a result of exposure to EID products.
"At June 30, 2024 and December 31, 2023, Chemours had accruals of
$39 related to these matters, respectively."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xRc111
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus McKinnon Estimates $4.9MM Liability
-------------------------------------------------------------
Columbus McKinnon Corporation has estimated its net
asbestos-related aggregate liability including related legal costs
to range between $4,900,000 and $8,900,000, net of insurance
recoveries, using actuarial parameters of continued claims for a
period of 38 years from June 30, 2024, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company has estimated its asbestos-related aggregate liability
that is probable and estimable, net of insurance recoveries, in
accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles
approximates $6,013,000. The Company has reflected the liability
gross of insurance recoveries of $7,030,000 as a liability in the
Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as of June 30, 2024. The
recorded liability does not consider the impact of any potential
favorable federal legislation. This liability will fluctuate based
on the uncertainty in the number of future claims that will be
filed and the cost to resolve those claims, which may be influenced
by a number of factors, including the outcome of the ongoing
broad-based settlement negotiations, defensive strategies, and the
cost to resolve claims outside the broad-based settlement program.
Of this amount, management expects to incur asbestos liability
payments of approximately $2,700,000 over the next 12 months.
Because payment of the liability is likely to extend over many
years, management believes that the potential additional costs for
claims will not have a material effect on the financial condition
of the Company or its liquidity, although the effect of any future
liabilities recorded could be material to earnings in a future
period.
A share of the Company's previously incurred asbestos-related
expenses and future asbestos-related expenses are covered by
pre-existing insurance policies. The Company had been engaged in a
legal action against the insurance carriers for those policies to
recover past expenses and future costs incurred. The Company came
to an agreement with the insurance carriers to settle its case
against them for recovery of a portion of past costs and future
costs for asbestos-related legal defense costs. The agreement was
finalized during the quarter ended September 30, 2020. The terms of
the settlement require the carriers to pay gross defense costs
prior to retro-premiums of 65% for future asbestos-related defense
costs subject to an annual cap of $1,650,000 for claims covered by
the settlement.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=U4xB4Q
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Constellation Energy Estimates $129MM Liabilities
------------------------------------------------------------------
Constellation Energy Generation, LLC, at June 30, 2024 and December
31, 2023, has recorded estimated liabilities of approximately $129
million and $131 million, respectively, in total for
asbestos-related bodily injury claims, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "As of June 30, 2024, approximately $16 million
of this amount related to 207 open claims presented to us, while
the remaining $113 million is for estimated future asbestos-related
bodily injury claims anticipated to arise through 2055, based on
actuarial assumptions and analyses, which are updated on an annual
basis. On a quarterly basis, we monitor actual experience against
the number of forecasted claims to be received and expected claim
payments and evaluate whether adjustments to the estimated
liabilities are necessary."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nNx3Jx
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Curtiss-Wright Still Faces Exposure Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Curtiss-Wright Corporation has been named in a number of lawsuits
that allege injury from exposure to asbestos, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
To date, the Corporation has not been found liable for or paid any
material sum of money in settlement in any asbestos-related case.
The Corporation believes its minimal use of asbestos in its past
operations as well as its acquired businesses' operations and the
relatively non-friable condition of asbestos in its historical
products makes it unlikely that it will face material liability in
any asbestos litigation, whether individually or in the aggregate.
The Corporation maintains insurance coverage and indemnification
agreements for these potential liabilities and believes adequate
coverage exists to cover any unanticipated asbestos liability.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2cSosQ
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Domtar Corp. Faces Personal Injury Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------------
Domtar Corporation is involved in a number of asbestos-related
lawsuits filed primarily in U.S. state courts, including certain
cases involving multiple defendants, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "These lawsuits principally allege direct or
indirect personal injury or death resulting from exposure to
asbestos-containing premises. While the Company disputes the
plaintiffs' allegations and intends to vigorously defend these
claims, the ultimate resolution of these matters cannot be
determined at this time. These lawsuits frequently involve claims
for unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, and the Company
is unable to reasonably estimate a range of possible losses, which
may not be covered in whole or in part by its insurance coverage.
However, unfavorable rulings, judgments or settlement terms could
materially impact the Consolidated Financial Statements. Hearings
for certain of these matters are scheduled to occur in the next
twelve months."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PeOkxv
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Carolinas Has $410MM Asbestos Reserves
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC has recognized asbestos-related reserves
of $410 million at June 30, 2024, and $423 million at December 31,
2023, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "These reserves are classified in Other within
Other Noncurrent Liabilities and Other within Current Liabilities
on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. These reserves are
based on Duke Energy Carolinas' best estimate for current and
future asbestos claims through 2043 and are recorded on an
undiscounted basis. In light of the uncertainties inherent in a
longer-term forecast, management does not believe they can
reasonably estimate the indemnity and medical costs that might be
incurred after 2043 related to such potential claims. It is
possible Duke Energy Carolinas may incur asbestos liabilities in
excess of the recorded reserves.
"Duke Energy Carolinas has third-party insurance to cover certain
losses related to asbestos-related injuries and damages above an
aggregate self-insured retention. Receivables for insurance
recoveries were $572 million at June 30, 2024, and December 31,
2023. These amounts are classified in Other within Other Noncurrent
Assets and Receivables within Current Assets on the Condensed
Consolidated Balance Sheets. Any future payments up to the policy
limit will be reimbursed by the third-party insurance carrier. Duke
Energy Carolinas is not aware of any uncertainties regarding the
legal sufficiency of insurance claims. Duke Energy Carolinas
believes the insurance recovery asset is probable of recovery as
the insurance carrier continues to have a strong financial strength
rating.
"The reserve for credit losses for insurance receivables is $9
million as of June 30, 2024, and December 31, 2023, for both Duke
Energy and Duke Energy Carolinas. The insurance receivable is
evaluated based on the risk of default and the historical losses,
current conditions and expected conditions around collectability.
Management evaluates the risk of default annually based on payment
history, credit rating and changes in the risk of default from
credit agencies."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pqaP0O
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enviri Corp. Has 17,000 Pending PI Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------
Enviri Corporation is named as one of many defendants in legal
actions in the U.S. alleging personal injury from exposure to
airborne asbestos over the past several decades, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
In their suits, the plaintiffs have named as defendants, among
others, many manufacturers, distributors and installers of numerous
types of equipment or products that allegedly contained asbestos.
At June 30, 2024, there were approximately 17,000 pending asbestos
personal injury actions filed against the Company. The vast
majority of these actions were filed in the New York Supreme Court
(New York County), of which the majority of such actions were on
the Deferred/Inactive Docket created by the New York Supreme Court
in December 2002 for all pending and future asbestos actions filed
by persons who cannot demonstrate that they have a malignant
condition or discernible physical impairment. A relatively small
portion of cases are on the Active or In Extremis docket in New
York County or on active dockets in other jurisdictions. The
complaints in most of those actions generally follow a form that
contains a standard demand of significant damages, regardless of
the individual plaintiff's alleged medical condition, and without
identifying any Company product.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zLOvzA
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Group Has $196MM Loss Reserves at June 30
------------------------------------------------------------------
Everest Group, Ltd., with respect to asbestos only, at June 30,
2024, had net asbestos loss reserves of $196 million, or 90.8%, of
total net A&E reserves, all of which was for assumed business,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Ultimate loss projections for A&E liabilities
cannot be accomplished using standard actuarial techniques. We
believe that our A&E reserves represent management’s best
estimate of the ultimate liability; however, there can be no
assurance that ultimate loss payments will not exceed such
reserves, perhaps by a significant amount.
"Industry analysts use the "survival ratio" to compare the A&E
reserves among companies with such liabilities. The survival ratio
is typically calculated by dividing a company's current net
reserves by the three-year average of annual paid losses. Hence,
the survival ratio equals the number of years that it would take to
exhaust the current reserves if future loss payments were to
continue at historical levels. Using this measurement, our net
three-year asbestos survival ratio was 6.5 years at June 30, 2024.
These metrics can be skewed by individual large settlements
occurring in the prior three years and therefore may not be
indicative of the timing of future payments."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uuL12T
ASBESTOS UPDATE: FirstEnergy Defends Asbestos Exposure Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
There are various lawsuits, claims (including claims for asbestos
exposure) and proceedings related to FirstEnergy Corporation's
normal business operations pending against FE or its subsidiaries,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "FirstEnergy accrues legal liabilities only
when it concludes that it is probable that it has an obligation for
such costs and can reasonably estimate the amount of such costs. In
cases where FirstEnergy determines that it is not probable, but
reasonably possible that it has a material obligation, it discloses
such obligations and the possible loss or range of loss if such
estimate can be made. If it were ultimately determined that FE or
its subsidiaries have legal liability or are otherwise made subject
to liability based on any of the matters referenced above, it could
have a material adverse effect on FE's or its subsidiaries'
financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iLvu3N
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Tire Faces 450 New Personal Injury Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company has received 450 new claims for
the six months ended June 30, 2024, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "We are a defendant in numerous lawsuits
alleging various asbestos-related personal injuries purported to
result from alleged exposure to asbestos in certain products
manufactured by us or present in certain of our facilities.
Typically, these lawsuits have been brought against multiple
defendants in state and federal courts. To date, we have disposed
of approximately 160,500 claims by defending, obtaining the
dismissal thereof, or entering into a settlement. The sum of our
accrued asbestos-related liability and gross payments to date,
including legal costs, by us and our insurers totaled approximately
$587 million through June 30, 2024 and $580 million through
December 31, 2023."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7TpIwa
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graham Corp. Defends Personal Injury Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Corporation has been named as a defendant in lawsuits
alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos allegedly
contained in or accompanying its products, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
The Company states, "We are a co-defendant with numerous other
defendants in these lawsuits and intend to vigorously defend
ourselves against these claims. The claims in our current lawsuits
are similar to those made in previous asbestos lawsuits that named
us as a defendant. Such previous lawsuits either were dismissed
when it was shown that we had not supplied products to the
plaintiffs' places of work, or were settled by us for immaterial
amounts.
"During the third quarter of fiscal 2024, the Audit Committee of
the Board of Directors, with the assistance of external counsel and
forensic professionals, concluded an investigation into a
whistleblower complaint received regarding GIPL. The investigation
identified evidence supporting the complaint and other misconduct
by employees. The other misconduct totaled $150 over a period of
four years and was isolated to GIPL. All involved employees have
been terminated and we have implemented remedial actions, including
strengthening our compliance program and internal controls. As a
result of the investigation, during the third quarter of fiscal
2024, the statutory auditor and bookkeeper of GIPL tendered their
resignations and new firms were appointed. We have voluntarily
reported the findings of our investigation to the appropriate
authorities in India and the U.S. Department of Justice and the
SEC. Although the resolutions of these matters are inherently
uncertain, we do not believe any remaining impact will be material
to our overall consolidated results of operations, financial
position, or cash flows.
"As of June 30, 2024, we are subject to the claims noted above, as
well as other legal proceedings and potential claims that have
arisen in the ordinary course of business. Although the outcome of
the lawsuits, legal proceedings or potential claims to which we are
or may become a party cannot be determined and an estimate of the
reasonably possible loss or range of loss cannot be made for the
majority of the claims, we do not believe that the outcomes, either
individually or in the aggregate, will have a material adverse
effect on our results of operations, financial position or cash
flows."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=o2lmcP
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Int'l. Has $1.44BB Asbestos Liabilities
------------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc., in its earnings press release dated
July 25, 2024, has reported asbestos-related liabilities of
$1,444.0 million, as of June 30, 2024, according to the Company's
Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
A full-text copy of the Form 8-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JN99k8
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Huntington Ingalls Still Faces Exposure Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc. (HII) and its
predecessors-in-interest are defendants in a longstanding series of
cases that have been and continue to be filed in various
jurisdictions around the country, wherein former and current
employees and various third parties allege exposure to asbestos
containing materials while on or associated with HII premises or
while working on vessels constructed or repaired by HII, according
to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "In some instances, partial or full insurance
coverage is available for the Company's liabilities. The costs to
resolve these cases during the six months ended June 30, 2024 and
2023, were not material individually or in the aggregate. The
Company's estimate of asbestos-related liabilities is subject to
uncertainty because such liabilities are influenced by many
variables that are inherently difficult to predict. Although the
Company believes the ultimate resolution of current cases will not
have a material effect on its condensed consolidated financial
position, results of operations, or cash flows, it cannot predict
what new or revised claims or litigation might be asserted or what
information might come to light and can, therefore, give no
assurances regarding the ultimate outcome of asbestos related
litigation."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gRB6ac
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Johnson Controls Has $83MM Liabilities at June 30
------------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson Controls International plc has reported net
asbestos-related liabilities of $83 million at June 30, 2024,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The amounts recorded for asbestos-related liabilities and
insurance-related assets are based on the Company's strategies for
resolving its asbestos claims, currently available information, and
a number of estimates and assumptions. Key variables and
assumptions include the number and type of new claims that are
filed each year, the average cost of resolution of claims, the
identity of defendants, the resolution of coverage issues with
insurance carriers, amount of insurance, and the solvency risk with
respect to the Company's insurance carriers. Many of these factors
are closely linked, such that a change in one variable or
assumption may impact one or more of the others, and no single
variable or assumption predominately influences the determination
of the Company's asbestos-related liabilities and insurance-related
assets. Furthermore, predictions with respect to these variables
are subject to greater uncertainty in the later portion of the
projection period. Other factors that may affect the Company's
liability and cash payments for asbestos-related matters include
uncertainties surrounding the litigation process from jurisdiction
to jurisdiction and from case to case, reforms of state or federal
tort legislation and the applicability of insurance policies among
subsidiaries. As a result, actual liabilities or insurance
recoveries could be significantly higher or lower than those
recorded if assumptions used in the Company's calculations vary
significantly from actual results.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jyCApU
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Electric Co-Defends 1,349 Asbestos Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc., as of June 30, 2024, was a
co-defendant in cases alleging asbestos induced illness involving
claims by approximately 1,349 plaintiffs, which is a net decrease
of 18 claims from those previously reported, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
In each instance, the Company is one of a large number of
defendants. The asbestos claimants seek compensatory and punitive
damages, in most cases for unspecified sums. Since January 1, 1995,
the Company has been a co-defendant in asbestos cases that have
been resolved as follows: 57,026 of those claims were dismissed, 23
were tried to defense verdicts, 7 were tried to plaintiff verdicts
(which were reversed or resolved after appeal), 1 was resolved by
agreement for an immaterial amount and 1,017 were decided in favor
of the Company following summary judgment motions.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dGWgxu
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitex Int'l. Faces Product Liability Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Manitex International, Inc. has been named as a defendant in
several multi-defendant asbestos related product liability
lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "In certain cases the plaintiff has, to date,
not been able to establish any exposure by the plaintiff to the
Company's products. The Company is uninsured with respect to these
claims but believes that it will not incur any material liability
with respect to these claims."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QPiQat
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Merck & Co. Faces 290 Product Liability Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
As of June 30, 2024, approximately 290 cases were pending against
Merck & Co., Inc., in various state courts, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
As previously disclosed, Merck is a defendant in product liability
lawsuits in the U.S. arising from consumers' alleged exposure to
talc in Dr. Scholl's foot powder, which Merck acquired through its
merger with Schering-Plough Corporation and sold as part of the
divestiture of Merck's consumer care business to Bayer in 2014. In
these actions, plaintiffs allege that they were exposed to
asbestos-contaminated talc and developed mesothelioma as a result.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7Rf6mu
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Met-Pro Has 333 Cases Pending as of June 30
------------------------------------------------------------
CECO Environmental Corp.'s subsidiary, Met-Pro Technologies LLC
("Met-Pro"), beginning in 2002, has been named in asbestos-related
lawsuits filed against a large number of industrial companies
including, in particular, those in the pump and fluid handling
industries, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Based upon the most recent information available to the Company
regarding such claims, there were a total of 333 cases pending
against the Company as of June 30, 2024 with Illinois, New York,
Pennsylvania and West Virginia having the largest number of cases,
as compared with 313 cases that were pending as of December 31,
2023. During the six months ended June 30, 2024, 94 new cases were
filed against the Company, and the Company was dismissed from 50
cases and settled 24 cases. Most of the pending cases have not
advanced beyond the early stages of discovery, although a number of
cases are on schedules leading to or scheduled for trial. The
Company believes that its insurance coverage is adequate for the
cases currently pending against the Company and for the foreseeable
future, assuming a continuation of the current volume, nature of
cases and settlement amounts. However, the Company has no control
over the number and nature of cases that are filed against it, nor
as to the financial health of its insurers or their position as to
coverage.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=s7YifA
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MetLife Defends 1,556 New Exposure Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc., for the six months ended June 30, 2024 and 2023, has
received approximately 1,556 and 1,306 new asbestos-related claims,
respectively, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
MLIC is and has been a defendant in a large number of
asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state courts. These suits
principally allege that the plaintiff or plaintiffs suffered
personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos and seek both
actual and punitive damages. MLIC has never engaged in the business
of manufacturing or selling asbestos-containing products, nor has
MLIC issued liability or workers' compensation insurance to
companies in the business of manufacturing or selling
asbestos-containing products. The lawsuits principally have focused
on allegations with respect to certain research, publication and
other activities of one or more of MLIC's employees during the
period from the 1920s through approximately the 1950s and allege
that MLIC learned or should have learned of certain health risks
posed by asbestos and, among other things, improperly publicized or
failed to disclose those health risks. MLIC believes that it should
not have legal liability in these cases. The outcome of most
asbestos litigation matters, however, is uncertain and can be
impacted by numerous variables, including differences in legal
rulings in various jurisdictions, the nature of the alleged injury
and factors unrelated to the ultimate legal merit of the claims
asserted against MLIC.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=brpUQb
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Metropolitan Life Receives 1,556 New PI Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is and has been a defendant in
a large number of asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state
courts, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
These suits principally allege that the plaintiff or plaintiffs
suffered personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos and
seek both actual and punitive damages.
For the six months ended June 30, 2024 and 2023, Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company received approximately 1,556 and 1,306 new
asbestos-related claims, respectively. The number of asbestos cases
that may be brought, the aggregate amount of any liability that
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company may incur, and the total amount
paid in settlements in any given year are uncertain and may vary
significantly from year to year.
The ability of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company to estimate its
ultimate asbestos exposure is subject to considerable uncertainty,
and the conditions impacting its liability can be dynamic and
subject to change. The availability of reliable data is limited and
it is difficult to predict the numerous variables that can affect
liability estimates, including the number of future claims, the
cost to resolve claims, the disease mix and severity of disease in
pending and future claims, the willingness of courts to allow
plaintiffs to pursue claims against Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company when exposure to asbestos took place after the dangers of
asbestos exposure were well known, and the impact of any possible
future adverse verdicts and their amounts.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fhKZk2
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MRC Global Faces 1,052 PI Claims as of June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
MRC Global Inc., as of June 30, 2024, is named a defendant in
approximately 487 lawsuits involving approximately 1,052 claims,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "We are one of many defendants in lawsuits that
plaintiffs have brought seeking damages for personal injuries that
exposure to asbestos allegedly caused. Plaintiffs and their family
members have brought these lawsuits against a large volume of
defendant entities as a result of the defendants' manufacture,
distribution, supply or other involvement with asbestos, asbestos
containing-products or equipment or activities that allegedly
caused plaintiffs to be exposed to asbestos. These plaintiffs
typically assert exposure to asbestos as a consequence of
third-party manufactured products that our MRC Global (US) Inc.
subsidiary purportedly distributed. No asbestos lawsuit has
resulted in a judgment against us to date, with a majority being
settled, dismissed or otherwise resolved. Applicable third-party
insurance has substantially covered these claims, and insurance
should continue to cover a substantial majority of existing and
anticipated future claims. Accordingly, we have recorded a
liability for our estimate of the most likely settlement of
asserted claims and a related receivable from insurers for our
estimated recovery, to the extent we believe that the amounts of
recovery are probable. It is not possible to predict the outcome of
these claims and proceedings. However, in our opinion, the
likelihood that the ultimate disposition of any of these claims and
legal proceedings will have a material adverse effect on our
condensed consolidated financial statements is remote."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=G3R5CM
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Otis Worldwide Faces Personal Injury Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Otis Worldwide Corporation has been named as defendants in lawsuits
alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "While we have never manufactured any
asbestos-containing component parts, and no longer incorporate
asbestos in any current products, certain of our historical
products have contained components manufactured by third parties
incorporating asbestos. A substantial majority of these
asbestos-related claims have been dismissed without payment or were
covered in full or in part by insurance or other forms of
indemnity. Additional cases were litigated and settled without any
insurance reimbursement. The amounts involved in asbestos-related
claims were not material individually or in the aggregate as of and
for the periods ended June 30, 2024 and December 31, 2023.
"The estimated range of total liabilities to resolve all pending
and unasserted potential future asbestos claims through 2059 is
approximately $11 million to $22 million as of June 30, 2024, and
approximately $20 million to $43 million as of December 31, 2023.
Since no amount within the range of estimates is more likely to
occur than any other, we have recorded the minimum amounts of $11
million and $20 million as of June 30, 2024 and December 31, 2023,
respectively, which are principally recorded in Other long-term
liabilities on our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Amounts
are on a pre-tax basis, not discounted, and exclude the Company's
legal fees to defend the asbestos claims (which will continue to be
expensed as they are incurred). In addition, the Company has an
insurance recovery receivable for probable asbestos-related
recoveries of approximately $3 million and $5 million as of June
30, 2024 and December 31, 2023, respectively, which are principally
included in Other assets on our Condensed Consolidated Balance
Sheets.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aT7O1e
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Paramount Global Has 19,100 Pending PI Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Paramount Global is a defendant in lawsuits claiming various
personal injuries related to asbestos and other materials, which
allegedly occurred as a result of exposure caused by various
products manufactured by Westinghouse, a predecessor, generally
prior to the early 1970s, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "As of June 30, 2024, we had pending
approximately 19,100 asbestos claims, as compared with
approximately 19,970 as of December 31, 2023. During the second
quarter of 2024, we received approximately 740 new claims and
closed or moved to an inactive docket approximately 1,150 claims.
We report claims as closed when we become aware that a dismissal
order has been entered by a court or when we have reached agreement
with the claimants on the material terms of a settlement.
Settlement costs depend on the seriousness of the injuries that
form the basis of the claims, the quality of evidence supporting
the claims and other factors. Our total costs for the years 2023
and 2022 for settlement and defense of asbestos claims after
insurance recoveries and net of tax were approximately $54 million
and $57 million, respectively. Our costs for settlement and defense
of asbestos claims may vary year to year and insurance proceeds are
not always recovered in the same period as the insured portion of
the expenses.
"Filings include claims for individuals suffering from
mesothelioma, a rare cancer, the risk of which is allegedly
increased by exposure to asbestos; lung cancer, a cancer which may
be caused by various factors, one of which is alleged to be
asbestos exposure; other cancers, and conditions that are
substantially less serious, including claims brought on behalf of
individuals who are asymptomatic as to an allegedly
asbestos-related disease. A significant number of pending claims
against us are non-cancer claims. It is difficult to predict
long-term future asbestos liabilities, as events and circumstances
may impact the estimate. We record an accrual for a loss
contingency when it is both probable that a liability has been
incurred and when the amount of the loss can be reasonably
estimated. The reasonably estimable period for our long-term
asbestos liability is 10 years, which we determined in consultation
with a third-party firm with expertise in estimating asbestos
liability and is due to the inherent uncertainties in the tort
litigation system. Our estimated asbestos liability is based upon
many factors, including the number of outstanding claims, estimated
average cost per claim, the breakdown of claims by disease type,
historic claim filings, costs per claim of resolution and the
filing of new claims, and is assessed in consultation with the
third-party firm. Changes in circumstances in future periods could
cause our actual liabilities to be higher or lower than our current
accrual. We will continue to evaluate our estimates and update our
accrual as needed."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zmohIt
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Defends 119 Personal Injury Cases
------------------------------------------------------------
Park-Ohio Industries, Inc., is a co-defendant in 119 cases
asserting claims on behalf of 169 plaintiffs alleging personal
injury as a result of exposure to asbestos, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
The Company states, "These asbestos cases generally relate to
production and sale of asbestos-containing products and allege
various theories of liability, including negligence, gross
negligence and strict liability, and seek compensatory and, in some
cases, punitive damages.
"In every asbestos case in which we are named as a party, the
complaints are filed against multiple named defendants. In
substantially all of the asbestos cases, the plaintiffs either
claim damages in excess of a specified amount, typically a minimum
amount sufficient to establish jurisdiction of the court in which
the case was filed (jurisdictional minimums generally range from
$25,000 to $75,000), or do not specify the monetary damages sought.
To the extent that any specific amount of damages is sought, the
amount applies to claims against all named defendants.
"There are three asbestos cases, involving 19 plaintiffs, that
plead specified damages against named defendants. In each of the
three cases, the plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive
damages based on a variety of potentially alternative causes of
action. In two cases, the plaintiff has alleged three counts at
$3.0 million compensatory and punitive damages each; one count at
$3.0 million compensatory and $1.0 million punitive damages; one
count at $1.0 million. In the third case, the plaintiff has alleged
compensatory and punitive damages, each in the amount of $20.0
million, for three separate causes of action, and $5.0 million
compensatory damages for the fifth cause of action."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qv7ueA
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Perrigo Co. Faces 110 Product Liability Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Perrigo Company plc has been named, together with other
manufacturers, in product liability lawsuits in a variety of state
courts alleging that the use of body powder products containing
talcum powder causes mesothelioma and lung cancer due to the
presence of asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Perrigo Co. states, "All but one of these cases involve legacy
talcum powder products that have not been manufactured by the
Company since 1999. One of the pending actions involves a current
prescription product that contains talc as an excipient. As of June
29, 2024, the Company has been named in approximately 110
individual lawsuits seeking compensatory and punitive damages. The
Company has several defenses and intends to vigorously defend these
lawsuits. Trials for these lawsuits are currently scheduled
throughout 2024 and 2025."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dKTfLs
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer Inc. Defends Product Liability Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Numerous lawsuits against American Optical, Pfizer Inc. and certain
of its previously owned subsidiaries are pending in various federal
and state courts seeking damages for alleged personal injury from
exposure to products allegedly containing asbestos and other
allegedly hazardous materials sold by Pfizer and certain of its
previously owned subsidiaries, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Between 1967 and 1982, Warner-Lambert owned
American Optical Corporation (American Optical), which manufactured
and sold respiratory protective devices and asbestos safety
clothing. In connection with the sale of American Optical in 1982,
Warner-Lambert agreed to indemnify the purchaser for certain
liabilities, including certain asbestos-related and other claims.
Warner-Lambert was acquired by Pfizer in 2000 and is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Pfizer. Warner-Lambert is actively engaged in the
defense of, and will continue to explore various means of
resolving, these claims.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1lJKuH
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Industries Faces Product Liability Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Regal Rexnord Corporation's subsidiary, Rexnord Industries, is a
defendant in multiple lawsuits pending in state or federal court in
numerous jurisdictions relating to alleged personal injuries due to
the alleged presence of asbestos in certain clutches and drives
previously manufactured by The Falk Corporation, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
The Company states, "Multiple lawsuits (with over 350 claimants)
are pending in state or federal court in numerous jurisdictions
relating to alleged personal injuries due to the alleged presence
of asbestos in certain brakes and clutches previously manufactured
by the Rexnord PMC business' Stearns brand of brakes and clutches
and/or its predecessor owners. Invensys and FMC, prior owners of
the Stearns business, have paid 100% of the costs to date related
to the Stearns lawsuits. Similarly, the Rexnord PMC business'
Prager subsidiary is the subject of claims by multiple claimants
alleging personal injuries due to the alleged presence of asbestos
in a product allegedly manufactured by Prager. However, all these
claims are currently on the Texas Multi-district Litigation
inactive docket, and the Company does not believe that they will
become active in the future. To date, the Rexnord PMC business'
insurance providers have paid 100% of the costs related to the
Prager asbestos matters. We believe that the combination of the
Company's insurance coverage and the Invensys indemnity obligations
will cover any future costs of these matters."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=imrAaI
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell Automation Faces Exposure Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------------
Rockwell Automation, Inc., (including its subsidiaries) has been
named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a
result of exposure to asbestos that was used in certain components
of its products many years ago, including products from divested
businesses for which it has agreed to defend and indemnify claims,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Currently there are lawsuits that name us as
defendants, together with hundreds of other companies. But in all
cases, for those claimants who do show that they worked with our
products or products of divested businesses for which we are
responsible, we nevertheless believe we have meritorious defenses,
in substantial part due to the integrity of the products, the
encapsulated nature of any asbestos-containing components, and the
lack of any impairing medical condition caused by our products. We
defend those cases vigorously. Historically, we have been dismissed
from the vast majority of these claims with no payment to
claimants.
"Additionally, we have maintained insurance coverage that includes
indemnity and defense costs, over and above self-insured
retentions, for many of these claims. We believe these arrangements
will provide substantial coverage for future defense and indemnity
costs for these asbestos claims for many years into the future. The
uncertainties of asbestos claim litigation make it difficult to
predict accurately the ultimate outcome of asbestos claims. That
uncertainty is increased by the possibility of adverse rulings or
new legislation affecting asbestos claim litigation or the
settlement process. Subject to these uncertainties and based on our
experience defending asbestos claims, we do not believe these
lawsuits will have a material effect on our business, financial
condition, or results of operations."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OBucS9
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sempra Defends Personal Injury Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------
Sempra's indirect subsidiaries which were acquired as part of the
merger of Energy Future Holdings Corp. (EFH), were defendants in
personal injury lawsuits brought in state courts throughout the
U.S., according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "These cases alleged illness or death as a
result of exposure to asbestos in power plants designed and/or
built by companies whose assets were purchased by predecessor
entities to the EFH subsidiaries, and generally assert claims for
product defects, negligence, strict liability and wrongful death.
They sought compensatory and punitive damages. As of August 1,
2024, no lawsuits are pending. Additionally, approximately 28,000
proofs of claim were filed, but not discharged, in advance of a
December 2015 deadline to file a proof of claim in the EFH
bankruptcy proceeding on behalf of persons who allege exposure to
asbestos under similar circumstances and assert the right to file
such lawsuits in the future. The costs to defend or resolve such
claims and the amount of damages that may be incurred could have a
material adverse effect on Sempra's results of operations,
financial condition, cash flows and/or prospects."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oe8GU4
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Reports 1,500 Outstanding Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Motor Products, Inc., at June 30, 2024, had approximately
1,500 cases outstanding for which it may be responsible for any
related liabilities, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Since inception in September 2001 through June
30, 2024, the amounts paid for settled claims and awards of
asbestos-related damages, including interest, were approximately
$80.3 million.
"In evaluating our potential asbestos-related liability, we have
considered various factors including, among other things, an
actuarial study of the asbestos related liabilities performed by an
independent actuarial firm, our settlement amounts and whether
there are any co-defendants, the jurisdiction in which lawsuits are
filed, and the status and results of such claims. As is our
accounting policy, we consider the advice of actuarial consultants
with experience in assessing asbestos-related liabilities to
estimate our potential claim liability; and perform an actuarial
evaluation in the third quarter of each year and whenever events or
changes in circumstances indicate that additional provisions may be
necessary. The methodology used to project asbestos-related
liabilities and costs in our actuarial study considered: (1)
historical data available from publicly available studies; (2) an
analysis of our recent claims history to estimate likely filing
rates into the future; (3) an analysis of our pending claims; (4)
an analysis of our settlements and awards of asbestos-related
damages to date; and (5) an analysis of closed claims with pay
ratios and lag patterns in order to develop average future
settlement values. Based on the information contained in the
actuarial study and all other available information considered by
us, we have concluded that no amount within the range of settlement
payments and awards of asbestos-related damages was more likely
than any other and, therefore, in assessing our asbestos liability
we compare the low end of the range to our recorded liability to
determine if an adjustment is required.
"Based upon the results of the August 31, 2023 actuarial study, in
September 2023 we increased our asbestos liability to $84 million,
the low end of the range, and recorded an incremental pre-tax
provision of $23.8 million in earnings (loss) from discontinued
operations in the accompanying statement of operations. Future
legal costs, which are expensed as incurred and reported in
earnings (loss) from discontinued operations in the accompanying
statement of operations, are estimated, according to the August 31,
2023 study, to range from $53.1 million to $105.2 million for the
period through 2065. Total operating cash outflows related to
discontinued operations, which include settlements, awards of
asbestos-related damages and legal costs, net of taxes, were $5.2
million and $4.5 million for the six months ended June 30, 2024 and
2023, respectively."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TQ8OkO
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Defends 337 Product Liability Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------------------
One of Transocean Ltd.'s subsidiaries was named as a defendant,
along with numerous other companies, in lawsuits arising out of the
subsidiary's manufacture and sale of heat exchangers, and
involvement in the construction and refurbishment of major
industrial complexes alleging bodily injury or personal injury as a
result of exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "As of June 30, 2024, the subsidiary was a
defendant in approximately 337 lawsuits with a corresponding number
of plaintiffs. For many of these lawsuits, we have not been
provided sufficient information from the plaintiffs to determine
whether all or some of the plaintiffs have claims against the
subsidiary, the basis of any such claims, or the nature of their
alleged injuries. The operating assets of the subsidiary were sold
in 1989. In December 2021, the subsidiary and certain insurers
agreed to a settlement of outstanding disputes that provide the
subsidiary with cash. An earlier settlement, achieved in September
2018, provided the subsidiary with cash and an annuity that begins
making payments in 2024. Together with a coverage-in-place
agreement with certain insurers and additional coverage issued by
other insurers, we believe the subsidiary has sufficient resources
to respond to both the current lawsuits as well as future lawsuits
of a similar nature. While we cannot predict or provide assurance
as to the outcome of these matters, we do not expect the ultimate
liability, if any, resulting from these claims to have a material
adverse effect on our condensed consolidated statement of financial
position, results of operations or cash flows."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zbYYRP
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trimas Corp. Has 474 Pending Exposure Cases
------------------------------------------------------------
As of June 30, 2024, Trimas Corporation was a party to 474 pending
cases involving an aggregate of 4,892 claimants primarily alleging
personal injury from exposure to asbestos containing materials
formerly used in gaskets (both encapsulated and otherwise)
manufactured or distributed by its former Lamons division and
certain other related subsidiaries for use primarily in the
petrochemical, refining and exploration industries, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.
In addition, the Company acquired various companies to distribute
its products that had distributed gaskets of other manufacturers
prior to acquisition. The Company believes that many of its pending
cases relate to locations at which none of its gaskets were
distributed or used.
The Company may be subjected to significant additional
asbestos-related claims in the future, and will aggressively defend
or reasonably resolve, as appropriate. The cost of settling cases
in which product identification can be made may increase, and the
Company may be subjected to further claims in respect of the former
activities of its acquired gasket distributors. The cost of claims
varies as claims may be initially made in some jurisdictions
without specifying the amount sought or by simply stating the
requisite or maximum permissible monetary relief, and may be
amended to alter the amount sought. The large majority of claims do
not specify the amount sought. Of the 4,892 claims pending at June
30, 2024, 36 set forth specific amounts of damages (other than
those stating the statutory minimum or maximum). At June 30, 2024,
of the 36 claims that set forth specific amounts, there were no
claims seeking more than $5 million for punitive damages.
Relatively few claims have reached the discovery stage and even
fewer claims have gone past the discovery stage. Total settlement
costs (exclusive of defense costs) for all such cases, some of
which were filed over 30 years ago, have been $13.5 million. All
relief sought in the asbestos cases is monetary in nature. Based on
the settlements made to date and the number of claims dismissed or
withdrawn for lack of product identification, the Company believes
that the relief sought (when specified) does not bear a reasonable
relationship to its potential liability.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sH0Asq
ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Steel Defends 945 Active Cases as of June 30
------------------------------------------------------------------
As of June 30, 2024, United States Steel Corporation was a
defendant in approximately 945 active asbestos cases involving
approximately 2,535 plaintiffs, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The vast majority of these cases involve multiple defendants. About
1,545, or approximately 61 percent, of these plaintiff claims are
currently pending in a jurisdiction which permits filings with
massive numbers of plaintiffs. At December 31, 2023, U. S. Steel
was a defendant in approximately 915 active asbestos cases
involving approximately 2,505 plaintiffs. Based upon U. S. Steel's
experience in such cases, it believes that the actual number of
plaintiffs who ultimately assert claims against U. S. Steel will
likely be a small fraction of the total number of plaintiffs.
"The amount U. S. Steel accrues for pending asbestos claims is not
material to U. S. Steel's financial condition. However, U. S. Steel
is unable to estimate the ultimate outcome of asbestos-related
claims due to a number of uncertainties, including: (1) the rates
at which new claims are filed, (2) the number of and effect of
bankruptcies of other companies traditionally defending asbestos
claims, (3) uncertainties associated with the variations in the
litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, (4)
uncertainties regarding the facts, circumstances and disease
process with each claim and (5) any new legislation enacted to
address asbestos-related claims.
"Further, U. S. Steel does not believe that an accrual for
unasserted claims is required. At any given reporting date, it is
probable that there are unasserted claims that will be filed
against the Company in the future. The Company engages an outside
valuation consultant to assist in assessing its ability to estimate
an accrual for unasserted claims. This assessment is based on the
Company's settlement experience, including recent claims trends.
The analysis focuses on settlements made over the last several
years as these claims are likely to best represent future claim
characteristics. After review by the valuation consultant and U. S.
Steel management, it was determined that the Company could not
estimate an accrual for unasserted claims."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eVsBgU
ASBESTOS UPDATE: WAG Faces Product Liability Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------
CarParts.com, Inc.'s wholly-owned subsidiary, Automotive Specialty
Accessories and Parts, Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiary Whitney
Automotive Group, Inc. ("WAG"), are named defendants in several
lawsuits involving claims for damages caused by installation of
brakes during the late 1960's and early 1970's that contained
asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "WAG marketed certain brakes, but did not
manufacture any brakes. WAG maintains liability insurance coverage
to protect its and the Company's assets from losses arising from
the litigation and coverage is provided on an occurrence rather
than a claims made basis, and the Company is not expected to incur
significant out-of-pocket costs in connection with this matter that
would be material to its consolidated financial statements."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UfqBGF
*********
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 ***