/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240902.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, September 2, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 176
Headlines
35 MARC DRIVE: Fails to Pay Nursing Assistants' OT, Carter Says
3M COMPANY: Hammer Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: Sullivan Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
ACELYRIN INC: Continues to Defend Boukadoum Securities Suit
ADVANCE AUTO: Neblock Files Suit in D. Delaware
ALTIMMUNE INC: Continues to Defend Mogan Class Suit
AMAZON WEB: Bid for Class Cert Deadline Modified to May 15, 2025
AMAZON.COM INC: Floyd Must Testify at Deposition, Court Says
AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Faces Bender Suit Over Cash Sweep Programs
AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Faces Frey Class Suit Over Cash Sweep Program
APPLE INC: Faces Edwards Suit Over AppleCare+ Subscription Fees
ARDELYX INC: Yarborough Suit Hits Share Price Decline
ASHFORD HOSPITALITY: Continues to Defend California Employment Suit
ASHFORD INC: Continues to Defend Cyber Incident Class Suit in Texas
BANK OF AMERICA: Roldan Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit
BELL PARTNERS: Roman Sues for Negligence; Seeks Damages
BGC GROUP: Continues to Defend Breach of Contract Class Suit
BGC GROUP: Continues to Defend Siegel Class Suit in Delaware
BIMBO BAKERIES: Court Extends Discovery, Class Cert Deadlines
BOEING COMPANY: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Perry Due May 1, 2025
BOLT BIOTHERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Nesterenko Suit
BRAEMAR HOTELS: Continues to Defend Employment Laws Violations Suit
CA IP HOLDINGS: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Young Says
CACI INTERNATIONAL: Solak Suit Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duty
CARESPRING HEALTH: Fails to Secure Info, Creutz Suit Alleges
CARNIVORE & THE QUEEN: Rogina Alleges Tip Theft, Retaliation
CENTRAL GARDEN: Flodin Directed to Produce Certain Documents
CHECKPOINT THERAPEUTICS: Response to Moore Suit Due Oct. 23
CITY OF BERKELEY: Court Narrows Claims in ADA Lawsuit
COCA-COLA CO: Bid to Extend Discovery, Class Cert Deadlines OK'd
CORECIVIC INC: Continues to Defend ICE Detainee-Related Class Suit
COUNTY OF NASSAU: Court Narrows Claims in Myers' Hiring Bias Suit
CREDIT UNION: Lucero Seeks Initial OK of Settlement
DISH NETWORK: 401(k) Plan Participant Class Wins Certification
DISH NETWORK: Continues to Defend Jones 401(k) Class Suit
DISH NETWORK: Continues to Defend Lingam Securities Class Suit
DISH NETWORK: Continues to Defend Owen-Brooks Data Breach Suit
DRAFTKINGS INC: Settlement in Stockholder Suit Gets Final Nod
DYCK O'NEAL INC: Class Cert Bid Referred to Magistrate Judge
DZS INC: Continues to Defend Shim Securities Class Suit
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Fralish Files FCRA Suit in Indiana
ESSA BANCORP: Continues to Defend RESPA-Related Class Suit
ESSA BANCORP: Discovery in RESPA-Related Suit Ongoing
EUSD BOARD: Mirabelli Seeks to Certify Class Action
EXICURE INC: Agreement in Principle Reached in Colwell Suit
FATHOM HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Martin Class Suit in Texas
FATHOM HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend QJ Team Class Suit in Texas
FCA US: Court Narrows Claims in Petro Suit
FIRST COMMONWEALTH: Fails to Secure Info, Ambrose-Manness Claims
FIRST STUDENT: Galvan Bid for Initial OK of Settlement Tossed
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Court OK's Stay of All Expert Deadlines in Owens
FLIGHT CLUB: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Trippett Says
FOX FACTORY: Faces Shareholder Suit Over SEC Disclosure
GDM ENTERPRISES: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Troche Says
GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Savings Plan Participant Class Certified
GLOBAL SERVICES: Does not Properly Pay Workers, Zuluaga Says
GOLDMAN SACHS: Continues to Defend Securities Suit
GRAIL INC: Illumina Continues to Defend Kangas Securities Suit
GRITSTONE BIO: Continues to Defend Beal Class Suit
GROCERY DELIVERY: Armijos Suit Asserts Discrimination, Harassment
HANESBRANDS INC: Continues to Defend Ransomware Class Suit
HEALTHEQUITY INC: Girard Files Fraud Class Suit in Utah
HERO LABS: Faces Lewis Suit Over Telephonic Sales Calls
HERTZ CORP: Parties Seek to Modify Class Cert Briefing Schedule
HOWARD L. NATIONS: Fifth Circuit Flips Enforcement of Deal in Henry
HUT 8 CORP: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Class Suit
HYATT CORPORATION: Insixiengmay Seeks to Certify Class Action
HYZON MOTORS: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit
HYZON MOTORS: Continues to Defend Malork Class Suit in Delaware
I.K.M.J. JOINT: Wins Summary Judgment Bid vs Strauss
ICF TECHNOLOGY: Reply in Support of Class Cert Extended to Sept. 9
IMA FINANCIAL: Zerbe Data Breach Class Suit Dismissed w/o Prejudice
IMMUNITYBIO INC: Continues to Defend Salzman Securities Class Suit
INDEGENE INC: Must File Class Cert Opposition by Sept. 3
JAMES KOUTOULAS: Bid to Dismiss De Ford Class Action Tossed
KELLER WILLIAMS: Scheduling Order Entered in Fordyce Class Suit
KENVUE INC: Jones Suit Transferred to D. New Jersey
KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION: Bid to Sever Certain Plaintiffs Tossed
KOOTENAI HEALTH: Fails to Protect Patients' Info, Goodwin Says
KOOTENAI HEALTH: Wade Balks at Patients' Unprotected Personal Info
LA SALLE UNIVERSITY: Class Settlement in Leonard Gets Initial Nod
LAWTON, OK: Wilson Files ADA Suit in W.D. Oklahoma
LENSAR INC: Continues to Defend Schaper Class Suit in Delaware
LHNH LAVISTA: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Lanz Due Oct. 15
LINCARE INC: Court OK's Oral Argument on Morris Class Cert Bid
LINKEDIN CORPORATION: L.B. Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
LOS ANGELES, CA: Homeless Encampments Caused Harm, Suit Says
LOTTE HOTEL: Diaz Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA & NYLL
LOWELL FARMS: Continues to Defend California Consumers Class Suit
LPL FINANCIAL: Faces Vu Suit Over Illegal Cash Sweep Program
LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA: Website Inaccessible to Bind, Dalton Alleges
M.S. WALKER INC: Albernaz Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts
MAIDEN HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Raschbaum Class Suit
MAISON SOLUTIONS: Continues to Defend Kim Class Suit in New York
MARINUS PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend Bishins Suit
MASSAGE ENVY: Grosso Sues Over Membership Fee Improper Collection
MDL 2873: West Alleges Injury Due to Toxic Chemical Exposure
MERCURY SYSTEMS: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in MA
MERCY SYSTEMS: Continues to Defend PAGA Labor Class Suit
MNGI DIGESTIVE: Demsky Alleges Inadequate Data Security
MODIVCARE INC: Continues to Defend Caregivers' Labor Class Suit
MONDELEZ GLOBAL: Ransom Files Saltine Cracker Mislabeling Suit
MORAVIAN FLORIST: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Raheel Says
MORGAN STANLEY: Loses Bid to Dismiss Doe Discrimination Suit
MULLEN AUTOMOTIVE: Continues to Defend Schaub Securities Class Suit
NATIONAL ENTERTAINMENT: Appeals Denied Bid to Dismiss Hines Suit
ND OTM: Bid for Class Certification in Demmons Suit Due Sept. 20
NEUEHEALTH INC: Continues to Defend Marquez Securities Class Suit
NEWS CORP: Continues to Defend Antitrust Class Suit in New York
NEXSTAR MEDIA: Continues to Defend Advertising Antitrust Class Suit
NORTHWOOD HEALTHCARE: Deadline for Class Cert Bid Vacated
NOWHERE HOLDCO: De La Rosa Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
NU RIDE INC: Continues to Defend Diamond Peak Class Suit
OCUGEN INC: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Pennsylvania
ON24 INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in California
OXFORD HOTELS: Discloses Personal Info to Third Parties, Dion Says
PATELCO CREDIT: Van Antwerp Alleges Inadequate Data Security
PETE'S ARBOR: Quintanilla Awarded $32.6K in Attorney's Fees
PIER SIXTY: Faces Shahani Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
POLYGLASS USA: Bid for Class Certification Due Jan. 10, 2025
POTBELLY CORP: Continues to Defend Washington Equal Pay Class Suit
POWER SOLUTIONS: Initial OK of Settlement in Treadwell Suit Pending
PREMIER NUTRITION: Loses Bid for Class Decertification
PROGRESSIVE WASTE: Bernard First Bid to Certify Class Nixed as Moot
PROGRESSIVE WASTE: Ictech-Bendeck Bid to Certify Class Tossed
PROGRESSIVE WASTE: Landry-Boudreaux Bid to Certify Class Tossed
PROSPECT MEDICAL: Court Narrows Claims in Roma Data Breach Lawsuit
PROVIDENT FINANCIAL: Bid for Initial OK of Settlement Due Sept. 6
QUOTEWIZARD.COM LLC: Mantha Wins Class Certification Bid
RACEWAY PLAZA: Property and Business Violates ADA, Foster Alleges
RBS CITIZENS: Bid to Certify Class in Reinig Suit Granted in Part
REVANCE THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Daxxify-Related Suit
ROOSEVELT CONNECTION: Lewis Hits Illegal Text Message Solicitations
ROYAL LEAF: Saunders Suit Alleges Website Inaccessible to the Blind
SAGINAW COUNTY, MI: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due Oct. 15
SALVATION ARMY: Seventh Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Taylor Claims
SCHMIDT BAKING: Silva Appeals Order Compelling Arbitration
SCYNEXIS INC: Continues to Defend Feldman Securities Class Suit
SEASTAR MEDICAL: Continues to Defend Wells Class Suit in Colorado
SERVICE MANAGEMENT: Flores Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
SHIELDS HEALTH: Class Cert. Bid in Biscan Reset to Jan. 14, 2025
SIMPLE FAST LOANS: Ward Suit Removed to C.D. California
SPECIALTY NETWORKS: Blevins Sues Over Failure to Secure PHI & PII
SPX FLOW US: Groce Files Suit in Ill. Cir. Ct.
STONEPEAK CERAMICS: Moore Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action
STRATEGIC DELIVERY: Abdisalam Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts
STRATEGIC DELIVERY: Plaintiffs Seek FLSA Conditional Certification
SUPER MICRO: Chen Files Labor Class Suit in Cal. Super.
SUPERIOR CONSOLIDATED: Fails to Pay OT Wages, Fondren Says
SYSTEM1 INC: Tentative Settlement in Securities Suit for Court Nod
TOYOTA MOTOR SALES: Nunez Sues Over Monopolization of Hydrogen
UNITED OF OMAHA: Thompson Alleges Unauthorized Personal Info Access
UNITED PARKS: Continues to Defend Burns Class Suit
UNITED STATES OIL: Continues to Defend Lucas Securities Class Suit
UNITED STATES: Dismissal Order in Nakka Immigration Suit Vacated
US HEALTHWORKS: Raines Class Cert Bid Granted in Part
VERRA MOBILITY: Trial in Brantley Class Suit to Begin in 2025
VIA RENEWABLES: Taylor Suit Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duty
VIATRIS INC: EpiPen Class Suit Trial to Begin July 2026
VIGO IMPORTING: Knowles Suit Hits Blind-Inaccessible Website
VITAL FARMS: Continues to Defend Usler Class Suit in Texas
VROOM INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Class Suit
VSL PHARMA: Seeks to Seal Portions of Class Cert Opposition
WALGREENS BOOTS: Bodunde Sues Over Unsafe Acne Treatment Products
WALMART INC: Sanderlin Suit Transferred to E.D. California
WASTE CONNECTIONS: Plaintiffs' First Bid to Certify Class Tossed
WASTE MANAGEMENT: Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Opposition
WELLS FARGO: Settlement Deal in Blessinger Class Action Approved
WESTIN BOSTON: Carter Sues Over Late Payment of Wages
YANKA INDUSTRIES: Discloses Info to Third Parties, Silva Says
ZANZIBAR SOUL: Fails to Pay Cooks' Minimum & OT Wages, Hayward Says
*********
35 MARC DRIVE: Fails to Pay Nursing Assistants' OT, Carter Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Carter, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. 35 Marc Drive Operations, LLC d/b/a Skyview Center,
Case No. 3:24-cv-01339 (D. Conn., Aug. 21, 2024) seeks to recover
overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"),
and the Connecticut Minimum Wage Acts.
The Defendant has allegedly an unlawful policy of excluding
additional compensation from the workers' "regular rates of pay"
for purposes of calculating their overtime rates of pay. The
Plaintiff and the putative FLSA collective members are current and
former hourly-paid, non-exempt workers and were subject to the
Defendant's unlawful common policy of paying overtime for hours
over 40 in a workweek at rates the Defendant calculated without
including the additional compensation the workers received (e.g.
payments referenced on the workers' paystubs as "Shift3 Regular"
and "Weekend Shift3"), and which were thus lower than the overtime
rates the workers were entitled to receive.
For example, in the pay period of April 27, 2024 to May 3, 2024,
the Plaintiff was paid: a. 40.00 hours of Regular pay at a rate of
$20.4000 per hour, equating to $816.00; b. 8.25 hours of Overtime
pay at a rate of $30.6000 per hour, equating to $252.45; and c.
$129.64 in compensation labelled Over Shiff Dif, Shift3 Regular,
Weekend, Weekend Shift2, and Weekend Shift3.
Had the Defendant properly included the $129.64 compensation in the
Plaintiff's regular rate of pay in the pay period ending May 3,
2024, it would have paid her $11.08 in overtime premium
compensation in addition to the $252.45 it paid her as Overtime,
the suit asserts.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid,
non-exempt Certified Nursing Assistant from September 2021 through
May 2024.
35 Marc Drive is a rehab and nursing facility that provides
short-term rehabilitation and long-term skilled-nursing-care
programs to patients and residents.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey S. Morneau, Esq.
CONNOR & MORNEAU, LLP
273 State Street # 2
Springfield, MA 01103
Telephone: (413) 455-1730
E-mail: jmorneau@cmolawyers.com
- and -
Eric Sands, Esq.
Nicholas Conlon, Esq.
BROWN, LLC
111 Town Square Pl Suite 400
Jersey City, NJ 07310
Telephone: (877) 561-0000
Facsimile: (855) 582-5297
E-mail: eric.sands@jtblawgroup.com
nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com
3M COMPANY: Hammer Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Hammer; Terry Boehm; Ronnie Bratt; Isham Conner; John Hinkle;
Walter Huston; Mark Lambert; Charles Landry; and other similarly
situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing
Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA
U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER
GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.;
CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD;
CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT
DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU
PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION
FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY;
TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); Case No.
2:24-cv-01147-ACA (N.D. Ala., Aug. 20, 2024), is brought for
damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS").
PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid
("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related
chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during their employment as
a
military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed diseases as
a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
James E. Murrill, Jr., Esq.
Keith Jackson, Esq.
RILEY & JACKSON, P.C.
3530 Independence Dr.
Birmingham, AL 35209
Phone: 205-879-5000
Facsimile: 205-879-5901
3M COMPANY: Sullivan Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kristin Waters Sullivan, individually and as Personal
Representative/Administrator/ Executor of the Estate of Scott
Andrew Toupin, deceased, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA
U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT
COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN
AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC.
(f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS
AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE
MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.;
INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC; L.N. CURTIS &
SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MILIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES
CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL
COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.;
PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING CO., INC; SAFETY
COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST
USA, 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.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES
INC.; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, Case No. 2:24-cv-04551-RMG
(D.S.C., Aug. 20, 2024), is brought for personal injuries resulting
from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio-persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to it where
it remains and persists over extended periods of time. Due to their
unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body
of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remains
in the human body while contemporaneously presenting significant
health risks to humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Decedent in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Decedent was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Decedent's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS
from Defendant's AFFF products caused Decedent to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein
including death.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff Kristin Waters Sullivan, is the personal
representative/administrator/executor of the Estate of Scott Andrew
Toupin who regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a firefighter and was diagnosed with Kidney Cancer as a result
of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Phone: 205-328-9200
Facsimile: 205-328-9456
ACELYRIN INC: Continues to Defend Boukadoum Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
ACELYRIN 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 13, 2024, that the Company continues to defend
itself from the Boukadoum federal securities class suit in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California.
On November 15, 2023, a purported federal securities class action
lawsuit was commenced in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California.
An amended complaint was filed on March 26, 2024 (Boukadoum v.
Acelyrin, Inc. et al., No. 2:23-cv-09672-FMO-MAA), naming the
Company and current and former executive officers and directors as
defendants.
The complaint alleges that the defendants violated the Exchange Act
and Securities Act by misleading investors about the Phase 2b trial
of izokibep in HS. The original complaint was filed following its
announcement of the week 16 results from the Part B portion of such
Phase 2b trial.
The complaint seeks damages and an award of reasonable costs and
expenses, including attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs,
as well as such other and further relief as the court may deem just
and proper.
It is possible that additional suits will be filed, or allegations
made by stockholders, with respect to these same or other matters
and also naming the Company and/or its officers and directors as
defendants.
This lawsuit and any other potential lawsuits are subject to
inherent uncertainties, and the actual defense and disposition
costs will depend upon many unknown factors.
The outcome of this lawsuit is necessarily uncertain.
The Company could be forced to expend significant resources in the
defense against this and any other related lawsuits and the Company
may not prevail.
The Company currently is not able to estimate the possible loss to
the Company from this lawsuit, as this lawsuit is currently at an
early stage, and such amounts could be material to the Company's
financial statements even if the Company prevails in the defense
against this lawsuit.
ACELYRIN, INC. operates as a biopharma company. The Company
provides life-changing new treatment options by identifying,
acquiring, and accelerating development and commercialization of
promising drug candidates. [BN]
ADVANCE AUTO: Neblock Files Suit in D. Delaware
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Advance Auto Parts,
Inc. The case is styled as Terry Neblock, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Advance Auto Parts,
Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-00960-UNA (D. Del., Aug. 20, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Advance Auto Parts -- https://corp.advanceautoparts.com/ -- is a
source for quality auto parts, advice and accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott M. Tucker, Esq.
Robert J. Kriner , Jr., Esq.
CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP
2711 Centerville Road, Suite 201
Wilmington, DE 19808
Phone: (302) 656-2500
Email: scotttucker@chimicles.com
rjk@chimicles.com
ALTIMMUNE INC: Continues to Defend Mogan Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Altimmune 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 Mogan class suit in the District of Maryland,
Southern Division.
On May 6, 2024, a class action complaint was filed in federal
district court in the District of Maryland, Southern Division,
naming as defendants the Company and three of the Company's
executive officers, captioned Mogan v. Altimmune, Inc., et al., No.
24-cv-01315 (D. Md.) (the "Class Action").
The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
Rule 10b-5 thereunder, by making false and misleading statements
and omissions of material fact to the investing public including
the plaintiff and class members, who purchased or otherwise
acquired the Company's common stock between December 1, 2023 and
April 26, 2024.
The plaintiff and class members seek to have the action maintained
as a class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and for the defendants to pay damages, interest, and an
award of costs, including attorneys' fees.
On June 14, 2024, the Court entered an order stating that
defendants were not required to answer, move to dismiss, or
otherwise respond to the initial complaint filed on May 6, 2024,
and that within 14 days of the Court's entry of an order appointing
a lead plaintiff the parties are to confer and submit a proposed
schedule to the court for the filing of an amended complaint (if
any) and the filing of a motion to dismiss or other response to the
amended complaint.
A substantially similar complaint, captioned Campanile v.
Altimmune, Inc., et al., No. 8:24-cv-01918 (D. Md.), was also filed
in the same court by another plaintiff on July 1, 2024 against the
Company and three of its executive officers, based upon the same
general set of allegations and class period.
On July 5, 2024, two movants moved to consolidate the two actions
and to be appointed lead plaintiff.
On July 12, 2024, these movants filed a stipulation and proposed
order to consolidate the related actions, and to be appointed
co-lead plaintiffs.
The Company intends to vigorously defend against this class action
litigation.
Altimmune, Inc. is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company. The
Company focuses on the development of novel peptide-based
therapeutics for the treatment of obesity, NASH, chronic hepatitis
B, and liver diseases. Altimmune serves patients and healthcare
professionals worldwide. [BN]
AMAZON WEB: Bid for Class Cert Deadline Modified to May 15, 2025
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AVELARDO RIVERA and
YASMINE ROMERO, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation,
Case No. 2:22-cv-00269-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge John Chun
entered an order modifying the current case deadlines in accordance
with the Joint Stipulated Motion as follows:
Current Date Proposed
Date
Deadline for AWS to conduct party N/A Oct. 14,
2024
and third-party fact discovery
related to AWS's class
certification defenses and the
Aug. 8 Class Definition
Deadline for Plaintiffs to conduct N/A Oct. 14,
2024
third-party fact discovery
related to AWS's class
certification defenses and the
Aug. 8 Class Definition
AWS's expert disclosures regarding Stayed Dec. 13,
2024
Class certification issues
Plaintiff's rebuttal expert Stayed Feb. 11,
2025
Disclosures regarding class
Certification issues
Plaintiffs' deadline to file Stayed May 15,
2025
Motion for class certification
On July 25, 2024, the Parties filed a joint stipulated motion to
modify the schedule in this case, which the Court granted.
On Aug. 8, 2024, consistent with the Court's Order, the Plaintiffs
served on AWS supplemental responses and objections to AWS's
written discovery requests.
Amazon Web is a subsidiary of Amazon that provides on-demand cloud
computing platforms and APIs to individuals, companies, and
governments, on a metered, pay-as-you-go basis.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 16, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=R3CZ3V at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
J. Eli Wade-Scott, Esq.
Schuyler Ufkes, Esq.
EDELSON PC
350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: (312) 589-6370
Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
E-mail: ewadescott@edelson.com
sufkes@edelson.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Ryan Spear, Esq.
Nicola Menaldo, Esq.
PERKINS COIE LLP
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
Telephone: (206) 359-8000
Facsimile: (206) 359-9000
E-mail: RSpear@perkinscoie.com
NMenaldo@perkinscoie.com
AMAZON.COM INC: Floyd Must Testify at Deposition, Court Says
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN FLOYD, et al., v.
AMAZON.COM INC., et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-01599-KKE (W.D. Wash.),
the Hon. Judge Kymberly K. Evanson entered an order:
-- granting Apple's motion to compel, and
-- deferring ruling on Plaintiffs' cross-motion to withdraw.
Floyd is ordered to respond to the outstanding interrogatories and
requests for production addressed in Apple's motion no later than
Aug. 30, 2024.
No later than Sept. 30, 2024, Floyd shall testify at a deposition
to be scheduled at a mutually agreeable time. If Floyd complies
with these conditions, the parties may file a stipulated motion
permitting Floyd to withdraw as a named plaintiff.
The clerk is directed to terminate Plaintiffs' cross-motion to
withdraw, subject to renewal if necessary.
The Court finds that based on the circumstances of this case,
granting Apple's motion to compel before turning to consider
Floyd's motion to withdraw is appropriate. Defendants' discovery
requests were served long before Floyd sought to withdraw, and most
of them were propounded when Floyd was the sole named Plaintiff.
Because Apple has shown that the information it seeks from Floyd is
sufficiently relevant, because Floyd has a unique status as the
original sole named plaintiff and he possesses information that may
not be identical to information available from the other named
plaintiffs, and because Apple propounded much of this discovery
long before Floyd sought to withdraw, the Court finds that it is
appropriate to compel him to respond and testify at a deposition
before allowing Floyd to withdraw.
This case was filed in Nov. 2022 as a putative class action with
Floyd as the sole named plaintiff, alleging that he was overcharged
when he purchased a new Apple product on Amazon's website as a
result of the Global Tenets Agreement between Defendants.
On March 11, 2024, Floyd's counsel provided "objections and
response" to Apple's interrogatories, lodging what Apple
characterizes as "boilerplate and conclusory objections" with no
actual information from Floyd, and no indication that the document
was prepared with Floyd's input or participation.
Amazon.com is engaged in e-commerce, cloud computing, online
advertising, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 16, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EEUGsb at no extra
charge.[CC]
AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Faces Bender Suit Over Cash Sweep Programs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mindy Bender, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL, INC., AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL
SERVICES, LLC and AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INVESTMENT SERVICES, INC.,
Case No. 0:24-cv-03359 (D. Minn., Aug. 21, 2024) is a case arising
out of cash sweep programs implemented by Ameriprise whereby,
acting as its customers' agent and fiduciary, wherein defendant
AEIS automatically "sweeps" uninvested cash balances in its
customers' accounts and deposits that cash into FDIC-insured
interest-bearing bank deposit accounts.
The Ameriprise cash sweep programs consist primarily of the
Ameriprise Insured Money Market Account and the Ameriprise Bank
Insured Sweep Account. This action concerns only the AIMMA and
ABISA Bank Deposit Sweep Programs, and not any other cash sweep
options offered by Ameriprise.
Ameriprise implemented the Bank Deposit Sweep Programs ostensibly
to offer its customers an interest paying vehicle to hold cash that
offers FDIC insurance on those cash deposits. Under the AIMMA
program, customer cash is automatically "swept" from the customers'
accounts, then allocated to a series of banks by Ameriprise.
Customer funds are then deposited into interest-bearing FDIC
insured deposit accounts at the Participant Banks, the suit says.
However, while acting as its customers' agent, Ameriprise used the
Bank Deposit Sweep Programs to confer outsized benefits on itself
and its affiliates vis-a-vis its customers' cash by: (1) taking for
itself and its affiliates the vast majority of the compensation the
unaffiliated Participant Banks agreed to pay for Ameriprise's
customers' deposits; (2) directing the vast majority of deposits
made under the Bank Deposit Sweep Programs to its affiliate,
Ameriprise Bank; and (3) concealing the benefits Ameriprise and its
affiliates received from the Defendants' principals' money through
the use of inaccurate, misleading or oblique disclosures.
Ameriprise also failed to adequately, if at all, disclose to its
customers that, as to the cash sweep Programs, it was an agent
serving two masters -- its customers and its affiliated companies
-- and was shortchanging its customers for the benefit of its
affiliates, contends the suit.
The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of a
Class of similarly situated individuals for breach of fiduciary
duty, gross negligence, breach of contract, violation of
Minnesota's Consumer Fraud Act, violation of Minnesota's Uniform
Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and unjust enrichment to recover
damages arising out of Defendants' violations of the law, and for
such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
Plaintiff Bender was a customer of Ameriprise and is a resident and
citizen of New York. The Plaintiff maintained accounts with
Ameriprise in which cash was held over the course of the life of
the accounts.
Ameriprise is a diversified financial services firm.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
John G. Albanese, Esq.
Michael Dell'Angelo, Esq.
Andrew D. Abramowitz, Esq.
Alex B. Heller, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1229 Tyler Street NE, Suite 205
Minneapolis, MN 55413
Telephone: (612) 594-5999
Facsimile: (612) 584-4470
E-mail: emdrake@bm.net
jalbanese@bm.net
mdellangelo@bm.net
aabramowitz@bm.net
aheller@bm.net
- and -
Alan L. Rosca, Esq.
Jonathan A. Korte, Esq.
Paul J. Scarlato, Esq.
ROSCA SCARLATO LLC
2000 Auburn Dr. Suite 200
Beachwood, OH 44122
Telephone: (216) 946-7070
E-mail: arosca@rscounsel.law
jkorte@rscounsel.law
pscarlato@rscounsel.law
AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Faces Frey Class Suit Over Cash Sweep Program
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MARK FREY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL, INC.; AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL
SERVICES, LLC; AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.; and AMERICAN
ENTERPRISE INVESTMENT SERVICES, INC., Case No. 0:24-cv-03360 (D.
Minn., Aug. 21, 2024) is a class action suit against Ameriprise
based on Ameriprise's actions and conduct with respect to the cash
sweep program it operates.
The lawsuit says that Ameriprise recommends to retail and
investment customers who have uninvested cash that they hold such
money in what is known as a "cash sweep account" where they can
earn interest. The cash sweep accounts at issue in this case are
the Ameriprise Insured Money Market Account and the Ameriprise Bank
Insured Sweep Account.
Unfortunately for Plaintiff and Class members, Ameriprise breached
its legal and contractual duties to them. Ameriprise automatically
deposited the Plaintiff and Class member' uninvested cash with
banks (both affiliated and unaffiliated) that pay low and
unreasonable rates of return to Ameriprise's investment customers,
but paid Ameriprise significant and higher fees at the expense of
customers. As a result, Ameriprise was able to generate massive
revenues while paying customers a pittance, the lawsuit asserts.
The Plaintiff alleges that Ameriprise's conduct was unlawful, and
alleges on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
claims for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, gross
negligence, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, and unjust enrichment.
The Plaintiff seeks all available monetary and equitable relief,
including damages, disgorgement, restitution, and all other
appropriate relief.
The Plaintiff and Class members are clients with Ameriprise whose
uninvested cash was automatically transferred into cash sweep
accounts pursuant to the Ameriprise Sweep Program.
Ameriprise is a diversified financial services firm.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
John G. Albanese, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1229 Tyler Street NE, Suite 205
Minneapolis, MN 55413
Telephone: (612) 594-5999
Facsimile: (612) 584-4470
E-mail: emdrake@bm.net
jalbanese@bm.net
- and -
Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq.
Rosanne L. Mah, Esq.
Brian E. Johnson, Esq.
GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
1111 Broadway, Suite 2100
Oakland, CA 94607
Telephone: (510) 350-9700
Facsimile: (510) 350-9701
E-mail: rmr@classlawgroup.com
rlm@classlawgroup.com
bej@classlawgroup.com
APPLE INC: Faces Edwards Suit Over AppleCare+ Subscription Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
CASSANDRA EDWARDS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. APPLE INC. AND APPLECARE SERVICE COMPANY, INC., Case
No. 5:24-cv-05795 (N.D. Cal., Aug. 23, 2024) alleges that Apple
continue charging AppleCare+ subscription fees for Apple device
that has been traded in or returned in which Apple is supposed to
stop charging the fees for that device.
According to the complaint that is what the AppleCare+ agreements
require and what consumers expect. Having traded in an Apple
device, consumers have no need to pay for protection or support on
that device. Instead of honoring the agreement and consumers'
expectations, Apple kept charging Plaintiff and members of the
Class she seeks to represent for AppleCare+ subscriptions tied to
devices Apple knew they no longer owned.
In Plaintiff's case, Apple kept collecting monthly fees for years
after the trade-in, amounting to hundreds of dollars. At the same
time, Apple also charged Plaintiff and members of the Class new
monthly AppleCare+ subscription fees for their new devices, says
the suit.
The Plaintiff is a resident of Florida. On October 16, 2020, Ms.
Edwards ordered an iPhone 12 Pro with the serial number
F17DH22G0D88 from Apple. When she purchased the device, she also
ordered AppleCare+, and Apple notified her that a subscription to
"AppleCare+ with Theft and Loss for iPhone 12 Pro" was
"automatically registered with your Apple hardware" at a cost of
$13.49/mo, which would begin when Apple shipped the device.
Apple designs, manufactures, and markets mobile communication and
media devices, personal computers, and portable digital music
players, and it sells a variety of related software, services,
accessories, networking solutions, and third-party digital content
and applications.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Aaron K. Block, Esq.
Max Marks, Esq.
THE BLOCK FIRM, LLC
309 E. Paces Ferry Road, Suite 400
Atlanta, GA 30305
Telephone: (404) 997-8419
E-mail: aaron@blockfirmllc.com
max.marks@blockfirmllc.com
- and -
Candice L. Fields, Esq.
CANDICE FIELDS LAW, PC
400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1620
Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone: (916) 414-8050
E-mail: cfields@candicefieldslaw.com
ARDELYX INC: Yarborough Suit Hits Share Price Decline
-----------------------------------------------------
MARY HELEN YARBOROUGH, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ARDELYX, INC., MICHAEL RAAB, and
JUSTIN RENZ, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-12119 (D. Mass., August
16, 2024) 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 Ardelyx
securities between October 31, 2023 and July 1, 2024, 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
officers.
During the Class Period, the Defendants allegedly engaged in a
plan, scheme, conspiracy and course of conduct, pursuant to which
they knowingly or recklessly engaged in acts, transactions,
practices and courses of business which operated as a fraud and
deceit upon Plaintiff and the other members of the Class; made
various untrue statements of material facts and omitted to state
material facts necessary in order to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which they were made, not
misleading; and employed devices, schemes and artifices to defraud
in connection with the purchase and sale of securities. Such scheme
was intended to, and, throughout the Class Period, did: (i) deceive
the investing public, including Plaintiff and other Class members;
(ii) artificially inflate and maintain the market price of Ardelyx
securities; and (iii) cause Plaintiff and other members of the
Class to purchase or otherwise acquire Ardelyx securities and
options at artificially inflated prices, says the suit.
As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, the suit contends.
Ardelyx, Inc. is a biotechnology company focused on developing and
commercializing therapies for, among other things, patients with
chronic kidney disease.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Emily C. Finestone, Esq.
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
E-mail: efinestone@pomlaw.com
jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
- and -
Joshua E. Fruchter, Esq.
WOHL & FRUCHTER LLP
25 Robert Pitt Drive, Suite 209G
Monsey, NY 10952
Telephone: (845) 290-6818
Facsimile: (718) 504-3773
E-mail: jfruchter@wohlfruchter.com
ASHFORD HOSPITALITY: Continues to Defend California Employment Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Ashford Hospitality Trust Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report
for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2024, that the
Company continues to defend itself from the California employment
laws class suit in the Superior Court of the State of California.
On December 20, 2016, a class action lawsuit was filed against one
of the Company's hotel management companies in the Superior Court
of the State of California in and for the County of Contra Costa
alleging violations of certain California employment laws, which
class action affects nine hotels owned by subsidiaries of the
Company.
The court has entered an order granting class certification with
respect to: (i) a statewide class of non-exempt employees of our
manager who were allegedly deprived of rest breaks as a result of
our manager's previous written policy requiring its employees to
stay on premises during rest breaks; and (ii) a derivative class of
non-exempt former employees of our manager who were not paid for
allegedly missed breaks upon separation from employment.
Notices to potential class members were sent out on February 2,
2021.
Potential class members had until April 4, 2021 to opt out of the
class; however, the total number of employees in the class has not
been definitively determined and is the subject of continuing
discovery.
The opt-out period has been extended until such time that discovery
has concluded.
In May 2023, the trial court requested additional briefing from the
parties to determine whether the case should be maintained,
dismissed, or the class de-certified.
After submission of the briefs, the court requested that the
parties submit stipulations for the court to rule upon.
On February 13, 2024, the judge ordered the parties to submit
additional briefing related to on-site breaks.
While the Company believes it is reasonably possible that it may
incur a loss associated with this litigation, because there remains
uncertainty under California law with respect to a significant
legal issue, discovery relating to class members continues, and the
trial judge retains discretion to award lower penalties than set
forth in the applicable California employment laws, it does not
believe that any potential loss to the Company is reasonably
estimable at this time.
As of June 30, 2024, no amounts have been accrued.
About Ashford Hospitality
Headquartered in Dallas, Texas, Ashford Hospitality Trust, Inc.
operates as a self-advised real estate investment trust focusing on
the lodging industry.
Ashford Hospitality Trust reported a net loss of $180.73 million
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2023, compared to a net loss of $141.06
million for the year ended Dec. 31, 2022. As of Dec. 31, 2023, the
Company had $3.46 billion in total assets, $3.69 billion in total
liabilities, $22.01 million in redeemable noncontrolling interests
in operating partnership, $79.98 million in Series J Redeemable
Preferred Stock, $0.01 par value (3,475,318 shares issued and
outstanding at December 31, 2023), $4.78 million in Series K
Redeemable Preferred Stock, $0.01 par value (194,193 shares issued
and outstanding at December 31, 2023), and $331.04 million in total
deficit.
* * *
Egan-Jones Ratings Company, on May 5, 2023, maintained its 'CCC+'
foreign currency and local currency senior unsecured ratings on
debt issued by Ashford Hospitality Trust, Inc.
On March 1, 2024, the Company received notice that the hotel
properties securing the KEYS Pool A and KEYS Pool B loans had been
transferred to a court-appointed receiver.
On March 6, 2024, the Company sold the Residence Inn Salt Lake City
in Salt Lake City, Utah, for $19.2 million in cash. As reported by
the TCR on April 22, the Company closed on the sale of the 390-room
Hilton Boston Back Bay in Boston, Massachusetts, for $171 million.
On April 29, it closed on the sale of the 85-room Hampton Inn in
Lawrenceville, Georgia, for $8.1 million. On May 27, Ashford closed
a $267 million refinancing of the mortgage loan for the 673-room
Renaissance Hotel in Nashville, Tennessee, which had a final
maturity date of March 2026. On June 14, the Company closed on the
sale of the 90-room Courtyard located in Manchester, Connecticut,
for $8 million.
ASHFORD INC: Continues to Defend Cyber Incident Class Suit in Texas
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Ashford 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 13, 2024, that the Company continues to defend
itself from the cyber incident class suit in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
In February of 2024, two class action lawsuits were filed; one in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas and a
second in the 68th District Court for Dallas County related to the
cyber incident.
The lawsuit filed in the 68th District Court was subsequently
dismissed and refiled in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas.
On March 12, 2024, the Court ordered the two cases to be
consolidated.
On May 17, 2024, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the
Consolidated Class Action Complaint which is currently pending
before the Court.
It intends to vigorously defend this matter and does not believe
that any potential loss is reasonably estimable at this time.
Ashford Inc., a Nevada corporation, is an alternative asset
management company with a portfolio of strategic operating
businesses that provides products and services primarily to clients
in the real estate and hospitality industries, including Ashford
Hospitality Trust, Inc. and Braemar Hotels and Resorts, Inc.
BANK OF AMERICA: Roldan Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
FRANCISCO ROLDAN, III, et al. are taking an appeal from a court
order dismissing their lawsuit entitled Francisco Roldan, III, et
al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Bank of America, National Association, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-00136-SPG-PD, in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit,
which was removed from the Los Angeles County Superior Court of
California to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, is brought against the Defendants for unlawful and
unfair actions in violation of California Civil Code and California
Business and Professions Code.
On Apr. 9, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.
On Apr. 23, 2024, the Defendants moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
amended complaint.
On July 23, 2024, the Court granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss through an Order entered by Judge Sherilyn Peace Garnett.
The Court ruled that the Plaintiffs were unable to remedy their
allegations in accordance with the Court's previous Order, and the
Court believes further amendment would be futile. Accordingly, the
Court does not grant the Plaintiffs leave to amend.
The appellate case is captioned Roldan, et al. v. Bank of America,
National Association, et al., Case No. 24-5137, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on August 21,
2024.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellants' Mediation Questionnaire was due on August 26,
2024;
-- Appellants' Appeal Opening Brief is due on September 30,
2024; and
-- Appellee's Appeal Answering Brief Due is due October 30,
2024. [BN]
Defendants-Appellees BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, et al.
are represented by:
Matthew Benedetto, Esq.
WILMERHALE LLP
350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2400
Los Angeles, CA 90071
BELL PARTNERS: Roman Sues for Negligence; Seeks Damages
-------------------------------------------------------
YIREHI DEL VALLE ROMAN and NYDIA ROMAN ALBERTORIO, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BELL
PARTNERS, INC., and BCF I COLLIER VILLAGE, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
24-C-07128-S6 (Ga. Super., Gwinnett Cty., August 4, 2024) is a
class action for negligence, gross negligence, negligence per se,
nuisance, and breach of contract arising from Defendants actions
and omissions that contributed to the fire that started on July 27,
2024, and which resulted in the destruction and condemnation of the
building and the personal belongings of Plaintiffs and other
hundreds of residents.
According to the complaint, the Defendants' inadequate fire
controls significantly contributed to the fire's intensity,
resulting in its rapid spread and difficulty extinguishing the
fire. The Defendants violated applicable building and fire codes,
regulations, and ordinances and breached their legal duty by
failing to ensure the fire suppression system was operational and
sufficient, says the suit.
The Plaintiffs brought this suit, on behalf of a class defined as
all residents of Bell Collier Village from the beginning of the
applicable statute of limitations through the date of a class
certification order.
Bell Partners, Inc. operates as a real estate management company.
The Company manages, finances, and disposes apartment communities,
as well as commercial and senior housing properties. Bell Partners
conducts business operations throughout the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Bradley W. Pratt, Esq.
Frank T. Bayuk, Esq.
Christopher D. M. Lambden, Esq.
4401 Northside Parkway Suite 390
Atlanta, GA 30327
Telephone: (404) 500-2669
E-mail: bradley@bayukpratt.com
frank@bayukpratt.com
christopher@bayukpratt.com
BGC GROUP: Continues to Defend Breach of Contract Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
BGC 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 8, 2024, that the Company continues to defend
itself from the breach of contract class suit in the United States
District Court for the District of Delaware.
On March 9, 2023, a purported class action complaint was filed
against Cantor, BGC Holdings, and Newmark Holdings in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Delaware (Civil Action No.
1:23-cv-00265).
The collective action, which was filed by seven former limited
partners of the defendants on their own behalf and on behalf of
other similarly situated limited partners, alleges a claim for
breach of contract against all defendants on the basis that the
defendants failed to make payments due under the relevant
partnership agreements.
Specifically, the plaintiffs allege that the non-compete and
economic forfeiture provisions upon which the defendants relied to
deny payment are unenforceable under Delaware law.
The plaintiffs allege a second claim against Cantor and BGC
Holdings for antitrust violations under the Sherman Act on the
basis that the Cantor and BGC Holdings partnership agreements
constitute unreasonable restraints of trade.
In that regard, the plaintiffs allege that the non-compete and
economic forfeiture provisions of the Cantor and BGC Holdings
partnership agreements, as well as restrictive covenants included
in partner separation agreements, cause anticompetitive effects in
the labor market, insulate Cantor and BGC Holdings from
competition, and limit innovation.
The plaintiffs seek a determination that the case may be maintained
as a class action, an injunction prohibiting the allegedly
anticompetitive conduct, and monetary damages of at least $5.0
million.
On April 28, 2023, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint.
In response, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.
On July 14, 2023, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint.
The plaintiffs then filed a second amended complaint in March 2024.
Defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint is fully
briefed as of May 2024 and a decision is forthcoming.
The Company believes the lawsuit has no merit.
However, as with any litigation, the outcome cannot be determined
with certainty.
BGC Group, Inc., holding company for and successor to BGC Partners,
Inc., its wholly owned subsidiary, and operates a global brokerage
and financial technology company servicing the global financial
markets through brands including BGC(R), Fenics(R), GFI(R), Sunrise
Brokers(TM), Poten & Partners(R) and RP Martin(R), among others.
The company's businesses specialize in the brokerage of a broad
range of products, including fixed income such as government
bonds,
corporate bonds, and other debt instruments, as well as related
interest rate derivatives and credit derivatives. Additionally, the
company provides brokerage products across FX, equities, energy and
commodities, shipping, and futures and options.
BGC GROUP: Continues to Defend Siegel Class Suit in Delaware
------------------------------------------------------------
BGC 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 8, 2024, that the Company continues to defend
itself from the Siegel class suit in the Delaware Court of
Chancery.
On February 16, 2024, an alleged Company shareholder, Martin J.
Siegel, filed a putative class action lawsuit against Cantor
Fitzgerald, LP and Howard W. Lutnick in the Delaware Court of
Chancery, asserting that the Corporate Conversion was unfair to
Class A shareholders of BGC Partners, Inc. because it increased
Cantor's percentage voting control over the Company.
The suit is captioned Martin J. Siegel v. Cantor Fitzgerald, LP,
C.A. 2024-0146-LWW.
Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on April 22, 2024 and
briefing of that motion is ongoing.
While the lawsuit is in its early stages and does not name the
Company as a party, the Company believes the action lacks merit.
BGC Group, Inc., holding company for and successor to BGC Partners,
Inc., its wholly owned subsidiary, and operates a global brokerage
and financial technology company servicing the global financial
markets through brands including BGC(R), Fenics(R), GFI(R), Sunrise
Brokers(TM), Poten & Partners(R) and RP Martin(R), among others.
The company's businesses specialize in the brokerage of a broad
range of products, including fixed income such as government bonds,
corporate bonds, and other debt instruments, as well as related
interest rate derivatives and credit derivatives. Additionally, the
company provides brokerage products across FX, equities, energy and
commodities, shipping, and futures and options.
BIMBO BAKERIES: Court Extends Discovery, Class Cert Deadlines
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ellison-Robbins v. Bimbo
Bakeries USA, Inc., Case No. 4:23-cv-00232 (E.D. Mo., Feb. 27,
2023), the Hon. Judge Sarah E. Pitlyk entered an order granting the
parties joint motion to extend discovery and class certification
deadlines.
-- An amended case management order will issue after the Court's
ruling on the pending motion to dismiss.
The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other
Fraud.
Bimbo is the American corporate arm of the Mexican multinational
bakery product manufacturing company Grupo Bimbo.[CC]
BOEING COMPANY: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Perry Due May 1, 2025
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN PERRY, v. THE
BOEING COMPANY et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-01000-RSL (W.D. Wash.), the
Hon. Judge Robert Lasnik entered an order setting trial date and
related dates as follows:
Trial Date: Feb. 2, 2026
Deadline for joining additional parties: Sept. 16, 2024
Motion for class certification due and May 1, 2025
noted on the motion calendar for no earlier
than twenty−eight days after filing:
Deadline for amended pleadings: June 9, 2025
Discovery completed by: Oct. 6, 2025
Settlement conference held no later than: Sept. 19, 2025
Agreed pretrial order due: Jan. 2, 2026
Pretrial conference to be scheduled by the Court
Trial briefs, proposed voir dire questions, Jan. 28, 2026
proposed jury instructions, and trial
exhibits due:
Boeing Company manufactures, and sells airplanes, rotorcraft,
rockets, satellites, and missiles worldwide.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 15, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Sz8UdL at no extra
charge.[CC]
BOLT BIOTHERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Nesterenko Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Bolt Biotherapeutics 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 13, 2024, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Nesterenko securities class suit in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.
On July 2, 2024, a securities class action complaint was filed
against the Company and certain of its directors and executive
officers (collectively, the "Defendants") in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned
Nesterenko v. Bolt Biotherapeutics, Inc. et al., Case No.
3:24-cv-03985 , purportedly on behalf of a class of individuals who
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between
February 5, 2021 and May 14, 2024.
The complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief.
The Company intends to defend the case vigorously.
Bolt Biotherapeutics, Inc. is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical
company, engages in the development of immunotherapies for the
treatment of cancer.[BN]
BRAEMAR HOTELS: Continues to Defend Employment Laws Violations Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Braemar Hotels & Resorts 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 employment laws violations
class suit in the Superior Court of the State of California.
On December 20, 2016, a class action lawsuit was filed against one
of the Company's hotel management companies in the Superior Court
of the State of California in and for the County of Contra Costa
alleging violations of certain California employment laws, which
class action affects two hotels owned by subsidiaries of the
Company.
The court has entered an order granting class certification with
respect to: (i) a statewide class of non-exempt employees of its
manager who were allegedly deprived of rest breaks as a result of
its manager's previous written policy requiring its employees to
stay on premises during rest breaks; and (ii) a derivative class of
non-exempt former employees of its manager who were not paid for
allegedly missed breaks upon separation from employment.
Notices to potential class members were sent out on February 2,
2021.
Potential class members had until April 4, 2021 to opt-out of the
class; however, the total number of employees in the class has not
been definitively determined and is the subject of continuing
discovery.
The opt-out period has been extended until such time that discovery
has concluded.
In May 2023, the trial court requested additional briefing from the
parties to determine whether the case should be maintained,
dismissed, or the class de-certified.
After submission of the briefs, the court requested that the
parties submit stipulations for the court to rule upon.
On February 13, 2024, the judge ordered the parties to submit
additional briefing related to on-site breaks.
While the Company believes it is reasonably possible that it may
incur a loss associated with this litigation, because there remains
uncertainty under California law with respect to a significant
legal issue, discovery relating to class members continues, and the
trial judge retains discretion to award lower penalties than set
forth in the applicable California employment laws, it does not
believe that any potential loss to the Company is reasonably
estimable at this time.
As of June 30, 2024, no amounts have been accrued.
Braemar Hotels & Resorts is a real estate investment trust focused
on investing in luxury hotels and resorts.
CA IP HOLDINGS: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Young Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
LESHAWN YOUNG, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly
situated v. CA IP HOLDINGS, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-06332 (S.D.N.Y.,
Aug. 21, 2024) sues the Defendant for its failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website,
https://ronniecoleman.net, to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons, under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on
Aug. 6, 2024, in an attempt to purchase supplements, the Plaintiff
encountered multiple access barriers that denied the Plaintiff a
shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full
and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public
and made available to the public, the suit says.
The Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer frustration and
humiliation as a result of the discriminatory conditions present on
Defendant's Website. These discriminatory conditions continue to
contribute to Plaintiff's sense of isolation and segregation, the
suit asserts.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
Ms. Young is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using her
computer.
CA IP Holdings operates the Ronnie Coleman online retail store.
This Website provides consumers with access to an array of goods
and services including information about Defendant's: sports
supplements, nutrition & merchandise.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
CACI INTERNATIONAL: Solak Suit Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duty
---------------------------------------------------------------
OHN SOLAK, derivatively on behalf of CACI INTERNATIONAL INC., and
individually on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
stockholders of CACI INTERNATIONAL INC., Plaintiff v. MICHAEL A.
DANIELS, LISA S. DISBROW, SUSAN M. GORDON, WILLIAM L. JEWS, GREGORY
G. JOHNSON, RYAN D. MCCARTHY, JOHN S. MENGUCCI, PHILIP O. NOLAN,
DEBORA A. PLUNKETT, STANTON D. SLOANE, and WILLIAM S. WALLACE,
Defendants; and CACI INTERNATIONAL INC., Nominal Defendant, Case
No. 2024-0857 (Del. Ch., August 16, 2024) asserts claims for breach
of fiduciary duty and breach of contract against certain members of
the CACI International's Board of Directors, and asserts a claim
for unjust enrichment against all members of the Board.
This action arises from the Board's abuse of the authority
entrusted to it under the Company's stockholder-approved 2016
Amended and Restated Incentive Compensation Plan.
In 2016, the Board adopted, and the Company's stockholders
approved, the Plan, as later amended in 2020. Subject to certain
specified conditions and limitations, the Plan authorizes the
Board's Human Resources and Compensation Committee to grant
full-value awards, including restricted stock units (RSUs),
covering no more than 1,200,000 shares of CACI common stock (after
deducting awards that have been forfeited), referred here as the
Limit.
As of June 30 2024 (the most recently disclosed date on which data
is publicly available), after deducting forfeited awards, an
aggregate of 1,382,881 RSUs have been granted under the Plan --
182,881 RSUs in excess of the Limit. Each Board member has been
granted RSU awards in excess of the Limit. Using the $462.38
closing price of the Company's common stock on August 9, 2024, the
excess RSU awards have a value of almost $85 million, says the
suit.
By granting RSU awards in violation of the Plan's express terms,
the Committee exceeded the scope of authority entrusted to it by
CACI's stockholders while unjustly enriching each recipient of the
excess awards. As a result of the alleged misconduct, the Company
and its stockholders have been harmed, the suit asserts.
Plaintiff John Solak has continuously owned shares of CACI common
stock since August 2023.
CACI International Inc. is a Delaware simulation technology company
with its principal place of business in Reston, Virginia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David A. Jenkins, Esq.
Neal C. Belgam, Esq.
Daniel A. Taylor, Esq.
SMITH, KATZENSTEIN & JENKINS LLP
1000 North West Street, Suite 1501
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 652-8400
E-mail: daj@skjlaw.com
ncb@skjlaw.com
dat@skjlaw.com
- and -
Steven J. Purcell, Esq.
Robert H. Lefkowitz, Esq.
PURCELL & LEFKOWITZ LLP
600 Mamaroneck Avenue, Suite 400
Harrison, NY 10528
CARESPRING HEALTH: Fails to Secure Info, Creutz Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
MARTIN CREUTZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CARESPRING HEALTH CARE MANAGEMENT, LLC, Case No.
1:24-cv-00447-JPH (S.D. Ohio, Aug. 23, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and
safeguard personal identifiable information and private health
information including Medicaid IDs, dates of birth, Social Security
numbers, accounts numbers, medical diagnosis and treatment
information, and health insurance information.
As a result of the Defendant's data security failure, on Oct. 12,
2023, through Oct. 30, 2023, an unauthorized third party was able
to access a subset of the Defendant's systems and/or acquire copies
of Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information (the "Data
Breach"). During the course of its business operations, Defendant
acquired, collected, utilized, and derived a benefit from
Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information, the Plaintiff
contends.
The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former patients,
and customers of Defendant.
The Defendant, headquartered in Clermont County, Ohio, is a medical
provider that provides services such as skilled nursing,
rehabilitation, nursing homes, independent living, assisted living,
hemodialysis nursing care, and memory care facilities.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph M. Lyon, Esq.
Kevin M. Cox, Esq.
THE LYON FIRM
2754 Erie Avenue
Cincinnati, OH 45208
Telephone: (513) 381-2333
Facsimile: (513) 766-9011
E-mail: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com
kcox@thelyonfirm.com
CARNIVORE & THE QUEEN: Rogina Alleges Tip Theft, Retaliation
------------------------------------------------------------
Monica Rogina, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated as members of the Collective, Plaintiff v. Carnivore & The
Queen LLC, d/b/a Carnivore and The Queen; Kelli Lodico-Matus and
Chris Matus, as individuals, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-07348
(N.D. Ill., August 16, 2024) is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage
and Payment Collection Act due to Defendants' alleged unlawful
labor practices.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for Defendants for
approximate eight months as a server being paid on a tip credit
rate of $7.80 per hour and earning tips. However, often the
Defendants did not distribute to the Plaintiff anywhere close to
the tips she actually earned; rather, Defendants retained the
earned tips of Plaintiff and/or Defendants used them for their own
purposes in violation of state and federal law.
Furthermore, when Plaintiff sought to correct the theft of her
wages by complaining about the missing tips, she was retaliated
against by Defendants. Owner/manager Chris Matus removed her from
the schedule entirely, effectively terminated her employment in
retaliation for asking for her earned and owed wages, says the
Plaintiff.
Carnivore & The Queen LLC is a restaurant company situated in the
western suburbs of Chicago, Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John C. Ireland, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF JOHN C. IRELAND
636 Spruce Street
South Elgin, IL 60177
Telephone: (630) 464-9675
Facsimile: (630) 206-0889
CENTRAL GARDEN: Flodin Directed to Produce Certain Documents
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN FLODIN, et al., v.
CENTRAL GARDEN & PET COMPANY, et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-01631-JST
(N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Donna Ryu entered an order granting in
part and denying in part Defendants' motion to compel production of
documents from putative class representatives John Flodin and Aaron
Brand.
The Defendants' motion to compel a further response to RFP No. 32
is granted. Plaintiffs promptly shall conduct a reasonable inquiry
of documents within their possession, custody and control,
including documents within their counsel's control, and shall
produce all responsive documents by Sept. 6, 2024.
By the same deadline, if no documents are found, Plaintiffs'
counsel shall send a letter to defense counsel confirming that they
made a reasonable and diligent search and found no responsive
documents.
Having reviewed the deposition transcripts, the court concludes
that at most, they demonstrate the unremarkable fact that
Plaintiffs are not completely conversant with the ins and outs of
their retainer agreements and were not able to recite details about
them from memory. The transcripts do not support the existence of
an incentive agreement or other conflict justifying production of
the requested documents.
The Defendants' motion to compel responses to RFP Nos. 23, 28, 29,
and 30 is denied.
The court is not fully satisfied that the Plaintiffs' counsel have
made a reasonable search for responsive documents at least with
respect to Flodin. Flodin's testimony suggests that he may have
seen materials generated by Plaintiffs’ counsel that caused him
to join the lawsuit. Under these circumstances, it is insufficient
for Plaintiffs to state that no documents exist in Flodin's own
possession. The Plaintiffs must specify whether their counsel
searched their own records for responsive announcements or
communications that Flodin may have seen prior to joining the
case.
Central Garden is an innovator, marketer and producer of quality
branded products for the lawn & garden and pet supplies markets.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 16, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Y6c3Cj at no extra
charge.[CC]
CHECKPOINT THERAPEUTICS: Response to Moore Suit Due Oct. 23
-----------------------------------------------------------
Checkpoint Therapeutics Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 12, 2024, that the the response
in the Moore securities class suit is due October 23, 2024.
The Company and certain of its executive officers have been named
as defendants in a consolidated putative stockholder class action
lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York (the "Court").
The action is styled Moore v. Checkpoint Therapeutics, Inc., et
al., No. 1:24-cv-02613-PAE (the "Securities Class Action").
The Complaint in the Securities Class Action (the "Complaint"),
which was filed on April 5, 2024, alleges that defendants violated
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange
Act"), and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making false
and misleading statements and omissions, and the Complaint alleges
that the executive officers named as defendants are control persons
under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
The Complaint was filed on behalf of stockholders who purchased
shares of the Company's common stock between March 10, 2021 and
December 15, 2023, and the Complaint seeks, among other things,
monetary damages on behalf of the purported class.
On June 21, 2024, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff for the
putative class and approved his choice of lead counsel.
The deadline for lead plaintiff to file his consolidated amended
complaint is August 23, 2024, and the deadline for defendants to
move to dismiss, answer, or otherwise respond to the consolidated
amended complaint is October 23, 2024.
Checkpoint acquires, develops, and commercializes novel skin-cancer
treatments.
CITY OF BERKELEY: Court Narrows Claims in ADA Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as YESICA PRADO, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF BERKELEY, Defendants, Case No.
23-cv-04537-EMC (N.D. Calif.), Judge Edward M. Chen of the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California
granted in part and denied in part defendant's motion to dismiss
the case.
Named Plaintiffs and the organization, Where Do We Go Berkeley have
brought a class action on behalf of unhoused disabled individuals
living in the City of Berkeley.
The proposed class is defined as: "All unhoused persons who have a
'disability' as defined under the Americans with Disabilities Act,
who reside in a vehicle or other shelter in public spaces in
Berkeley, California, or who reside in temporary or transitional
shelters in Berkeley, California." Of the 1,057 unhoused residents
in Berkeley, 62.3% have disabilities, which means the class likely
includes at least 658 members.
The named Plaintiffs are seven unhoused, disabled individuals who
live in the City of Berkeley. Most of them live or have lived at a
homeless encampment which spans several blocks around the
intersection of 8th Street and Harrison Street in Berkeley,
California. The encampment has been established for ten years and
has been the site of several abatements and evictions
Plaintiffs allege that, throughout the City's abatements,
evictions, and treatment of disabled unhoused persons, the City has
violated the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable
search and seizure, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Fair
Housing Act, the Eighth Amendment pursuant to Martin v. City of
Boise, 920 F.3d 584 (9th Cir. 2019), and the Plaintiffs' due
process rights by placing them in a state-created danger (and the
corresponding state law claims where applicable). In response, the
City challenges WDWG's standing and moves to dismiss each of
Plaintiff's causes of action.
On September 29, 2023, the City filed a motion to dismiss.
In Plaintiffs' FAC, they added allegations that occurred after
September 4. The City argues that allegations as to events
occurring after September 4 should be stricken from the FAC. This
is because amendment does not permit Plaintiffs to add subsequent
allegations (pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 15(a)(1)(B)). Rather,
Plaintiffs would have to move to supplement its pleadings pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. Proc 15(d) to add subsequent allegations past the
date the original complaint was filed.
In the interest in efficiency and in the absence of prejudice to
Defendants liberally construes Rule 15(d), the Court will not
strike the events in the FAC that occurred after September 4, 2023.
The City contends that Plaintiffs fail to allege injury in fact on
behalf of WDWG for organizational standing. According to the Court,
WDWG has established that it "'would have suffered some other
injury' had [it] 'not diverted resources to counteracting the
problem,'" because its unhoused disabled members would be without
survival gear and service providers after the City's sweeps, which
WDWG counteracted by diverting its resource allocation. WDWG has
shown that it has altered its resource allocation by buying more
supplies in response to the City's actions. Additionally, WDWG has
shown that during the City's evictions and abatements, it has had
to send advocates to the encampment sites to advocate for
Plaintiffs; it may be inferred this is something it normally would
not have to do. Therefore, WDWG has organizational standing in this
case, the Court says.
The Plaintiffs have stated a plausible claim that the City's
evictions and abatements violate Plaintiffs' Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendment rights, because the destruction of Plaintiffs' property
is unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment and the inadequate
notice raises a due process issue.
The Court finds Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that the City
routinely destroys their property without adequate notice and
opportunity to prevent its destruction. They have stated claims
under the Fourth Amendment.
Plaintiffs vehicles have been seized and then crushed on several
occasions. In the City's motion, they fail to allege a reason they
seized, impounded, and then, in some instances, destroyed
Plaintiffs' vehicles. The City only states that by Plaintiffs own
admission, the vehicles were not street legal.
According to the Court, the City has failed to proffer a community
caretaking rationale for seizing and/or destroying Plaintiffs' RVs
and vehicles as alleged herein. Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged
that their cars were seized and destroyed in violation of the
Fourth Amendment, the Court states.
The Court finds the City does not provide Plaintiffs with adequate
notice of the seizure of their property, in violation of the due
process clause.
Plaintiffs allege many incidents in which the City provided vague
eviction and abatement notices and then seized and destroyed their
personal property and vehicles. The City has stated that it takes
Plaintiffs cars because they are not "street legal." Though a state
may be justified in not providing notice to the owner of an
abandoned, unregistered car where the lack of registration means
there is no way to notify the car owner. Plaintiffs live in their
cars, so this justification for not providing notice does not
obtain. There is no reason why individualized notice cannot be
delivered in such a context. Additionally, the City did not provide
Plaintiffs with notice that it is going to crush and destroy their
cars, the Court says. Plaintiffs should receive notice before a
permanent seizure.
Plaintiffs allege that the City fails to accommodate their
disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42
U.S.C. Sec. 12131 et seq. FAC, ¶ 244-61.
Plaintiffs assert that the City should help disabled unhoused
people move their belongings when the City evicts them. The City
contends that the FAC fails to allege that Plaintiffs asked the
City for help moving their belongings as an accommodation for their
disabilities, so the claim fails.
The City is correct in its assertion that an ADA claim on this
basis generally should be predicated on a request for assistance
which is denied. Plaintiffs have not alleged that the City knew
that they had physical disabilities and that they needed help
moving their belongings. Additionally, the Plaintiffs have not
provided any authority that suggests that there is an exception to
this general rule in the public accommodation context that applies
in this case. Thus, this claim is dismissed with leave to amend on
the ground that Plaintiffs have not alleged they requested and were
then denied reasonable accommodations in not providing assistance
in moving belongings.
In the City's Motion to Dismiss, it states "the City's parking
enforcement does not discriminate of the basis of disability." The
City argues that "Plaintiffs admit that their vehicles are subject
to impoundment not due to any alleged disability but because of
Plaintiff's financial difficulties" and cites Plaintiffs' FAC where
Plaintiffs admit that their vehicles are being towed because they
are not "street legal." Finally, the City states that it is "under
no obligation to offer accommodations where the barrier to
plaintiff's participation is not disability, but rather financial
constraints," citing Weinreich v. Los Angeles Cnty. Metro. Transp.
Auth., 114 F.3d 976, 978 (9th Cir. 1997).
Reasonable accommodation requests are denied with respect to
certain plaintiffs who have not demonstrated they cannot move their
RVs every 72-hours due to a disability. The Court gives them leave
to amend their claims regarding parking enforcement.
Plaintiffs allege that the City's "outreach and housing navigation
services" violate Title II because they fail to "provide additional
support in the form of mental health professionals to assist
unhoused residents to access those outreach services." Plaintiffs
allege that the city has an existing outreach program—its city
personnel and members of its Homeless Response Team and that
providing mental health workers would be a reasonable accommodation
to this program. The City's only response to this allegation is
that "the ADA does not require the City to offer mental health
outreach" because "public entities are not required to create new
programs" and "the City does not provide mental health services."
Plaintiffs have alleged that the City has a homeless outreach
program that goes to encampments to discuss abatements and
evictions.
The Court finds Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged they are being
excluded from participation in an existing program -- a "program"
within the meaning of the ADA -- that is directed at serving
unhoused individuals such as themselves; they allege it would be a
reasonable accommodation for the City's homeless outreach program
to include mental health workers.
The Plaintiffs allege that the City "has discriminated against
Plaintiffs . . . by refusing to make accommodations to the rules,
policies, practices and services of its shelters that are necessary
to afford Plaintiffs . . . an equal opportunity to fully use and
enjoy the shelters." Plaintiffs have stated some reasonable
accommodation claims, the Court notes.
The parties stipulated to the dismissal of the Eighth Amendment
claim.
Plaintiffs allege that the City has exposed them to a state-created
danger in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment pursuant to 42
U.S.C. Sec. 1983.
The City contends that there are three ways that the City
purportedly places Plaintiffs in danger -- it fails to offer
adequate shelter, to store Plaintiffs' survival gear, and to
designate a sanctioned area for Plaintiffs to camp. However,
Plaintiffs have also alleged that the City places them in danger
when it destroys their personal belongings except those that fit in
a 3x3 foot space, which deprives them of survival gear such as
tents, blankets, waterproof materials, medications, eyeglasses,
wheelchairs, walkers, and canes.
Several of the Plaintiffs have plausibly pled a state-created
danger claim, the Court finds.
When Plaintiffs' shelter and personal belongings are destroyed, and
they have no safe shelter alternative nor means to protect
themselves from the elements, the state has made plaintiffs
conditions worse.
The City argues that Plaintiffs cannot establish that the City is
acting with "deliberate indifference" because "Plaintiffs admit
that the City has offered them shelter," and this mitigated any
potential exposure to the elements. The City claims that
Plaintiffs have not adequately alleged that the City is
deliberately indifferent because the City provides notice before
abatements and evictions.
According to the Court, there is a factual question about the
adequacy of the notices. There are allegations in the FAC that the
City is aware that its sweeps are conducted with vague notice and
in such a way that brutally destroys Plaintiffs' shelter, the Court
notes.
The City contends that the Court should dismiss the state law
claims because the Court should dismiss the federal claims, and
therefore the Court no longer has supplemental jurisdiction over
the state law claims. However, Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged
multiple federal causes of action, so it retains supplemental
jurisdiction over the state law claims, the Court finds. The state
law causes of action are, therefore, not dismissed at this time.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated August 6, 2024, is
available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=W00Qls
COCA-COLA CO: Bid to Extend Discovery, Class Cert Deadlines OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jordan v. The Coca-Cola
Company, Case No. 4:23-cv-00028 (E.D. Mo., Filed Jan. 09, 2023),
the Hon. Judge Sarah E. Pitlyk entered an order granting the
parties joint motion to extend discovery and class certification
deadlines.
-- An amended case management order will issue after the Court's
ruling on the pending Motion to dismiss.
The nature of suit states torts - personal property -- other
fraud.[CC]
CORECIVIC INC: Continues to Defend ICE Detainee-Related Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Corecivic 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 ICE Detainee Labor class suit in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California.
On May 31, 2017, two former ICE detainees, who were detained at the
Company's Otay Mesa Detention Center ("OMDC") in San Diego,
California, filed a class action lawsuit against the Company in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
California.
The complaint alleged that the Company forces detainees to perform
labor under threat of punishment in violation of state and federal
anti-trafficking laws and that OMDC's Voluntary Work Program
("VWP") violates state labor laws including state minimum wage
laws.
ICE requires that CoreCivic offer and operate the VWP in
conformance with ICE standards and ICE prescribes the minimum rate
of pay for VWP participants.
The Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, exemplary damages,
restitution, penalties, and interest as well as declaratory and
injunctive relief on behalf of former and current detainees.
On April 1, 2020, the district court certified a nationwide
anti-trafficking claims class of former and current detainees who
participated in an ICE VWP at a CoreCivic facility.
It also certified a state law class of former and current detainees
who participated in a VWP wherever the Company held ICE detainees
in California.
The Company has exhausted appeals of the class certification order.
On May 6, 2024, the district court stayed the filing of dispositive
motions on state law claims under California law pending the
outcome of a related case being prosecuted by another private
prison company.
That case is currently on appeal in the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals.
The claims resulting in certified classes are proceeding in all
other respects in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California, where the discovery process has commenced.
A second California lawsuit concerning OMDC has been stayed pending
the outcome of class proceedings in the first California case
described above.
Due to the stage of the ongoing proceedings, the Company cannot
reasonably predict the outcomes, nor can it estimate the amount of
loss or range of loss, if any, that may result.
As a result, the Company has not recorded an accrual relating to
these matters at this time, as losses are not considered probable
or reasonably estimable at this stage of these lawsuits.
CoreCivic is a company that owns and manages private prisons and
detention centers and operates others on a concession basis.[CC]
COUNTY OF NASSAU: Court Narrows Claims in Myers' Hiring Bias Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as JHISAIAH MYERS, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, -against- COUNTY OF
NASSAU, NASSAU COUNTY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, and NASSAU COUNTY
POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendants, Case No. 22-CV-07023 (OEM) (LGD)
(E.D.N.Y.), Judge Orelia E. Merchant of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York granted in part and
denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss the case.
On November 17, 2022, Plaintiff Jhisaiah Myers commenced this
action against the County of Nassau, the Nassau County Civil
Service Commission, and the Nassau County Police Department.
Plaintiff challenges the hiring practices of the Nassau Police
Department during the phase of its hiring that takes place after an
initial written examination, seeking to represent a "Class of all
non-white applicants seeking to become Nassau County police
officers who were disqualified for consideration by Defendants
during the post-exam process in violation of Sec. 1983 and the
NYSHRL." Plaintiff brings causes of action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
Sec. 1983 for violation of the Equal Protection Clause and the New
York State Human Rights Law.
Before the Court is Defendants' motion to dismiss filed on November
27, 2023.
Defendants move to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Defendants allege that because Plaintiff was only eliminated from
hiring consideration at the post-exam background check phase of the
hiring process, Plaintiff lacks standing to "challenge the
constitutionality of the entire post-exam hiring process
irrespective of exam cycle" on behalf of a broad putative class.
Defendants argue that Plaintiff improperly brings a challenge
against the entire hiring process when he was personally only
harmed by one step of it: the background investigation stage.
Defendants contend that when a plaintiff challenges a multi-step
hiring process, that plaintiff can only bring suit against the
specific element of that process that eliminated them.
Plaintiff argues that Defendants frame the Complaint in a
misleading manner. Plaintiff, he argues, was rejected as part of an
overarching practice utilized at each stage of the post-exam
process wherein "Defendants use their discretion to impose more
stringent requirements for nonwhite applicants."
Plaintiff suggests that the same mechanism causes harm to all class
members, including Plaintiff: decisionmaker bias enabled by
unconstrained discretion.
According to the Court, in this case, the different steps of the
hiring process do not raise a nearly identical set of concerns.
Unique statistical analyses are required for each step of the exam
-- entirely different bodies of statistical evidence would be
required to prove discrimination at the background check phase and
the agility test phase. Plaintiff only personally suffered actual
injury as a result of the background check phase of the NCPDs's
hiring process, and the Court finds that the other steps of that
process -- which Plaintiff either passed or did not experience at
all -- do not sufficiently implicate the "same set of concerns" to
give Plaintiff class standing for those steps. Accordingly,
Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted as to Plaintiff's
purported challenge of the steps of the hiring process other than
the background check phase.
Defendants contend that Plaintiff's equal protection challenge must
be dismissed for failure to adequately allege that Defendants acted
with discriminatory intent.
According to the Court, Plaintiff has put forward compelling
statistical evidence, not just raw numbers, that compares the
qualified applicant pool at the background exam stage -- those who
have passed the initial exam and the agility exam -- to the pool of
individuals that make it past that stage. Furthermore, Plaintiff's
complaint is not solely supported by the use of statistics.
Plaintiff combines his statistical analysis with specific factual
allegations concerning statements made by Commissioner Patric Ryder
regarding the hiring of Black applicants at the Nassau Police
Department, the Court notes. Though "the stray remarks of a
decision-maker, without more, cannot prove a claim of employment
discrimination," "when other indicia of discrimination are properly
presented, the remarks can no longer be deemed 'stray,' and the
jury has a right to conclude that they bear a more ominous
significance."
Plaintiff alleges that NCPD Commissioner Ryder publicly attributed
the racial disparities in hiring to "broken homes" and invoked
other racial stereotypes when defending his hiring practices,
saying "[w]hat's the percentage of Asians that are in the doctor
world? What is the percentage of lawyers that are Jewish?".
Plaintiff also alleges that sworn deposition testimony in another
matter alleges that Ryder referred to a Black NCPD officer as a
"(expletive) N-word." The combination of these remarks and the
statistical indicia of discrimination alleged by Plaintiff suffices
to plead discriminatory intent, the Court states.
The Court finds that Plaintiff has adequately alleged statistical
evidence "of a level that makes other plausible non-discriminatory
explanations very unlikely."
Though Plaintiff has not identified other class members by name or
by individualized description, Plaintiff alleges stark statistical
disparities created by an allegedly widespread use of discretion to
eliminate Black candidates, which was thoroughly reported on in the
media and not changed by Defendants, the Court says. According to
the Court, Plaintiff's allegations suffice to plead "a practice so
consistent and widespread that, although not expressly authorized,
constitutes a custom or usage of which a supervising policy-maker
must have been aware."
Defendants further argue that Plaintiff cannot demonstrate that he
has commonality or typicality with his proposed class, which is
"all non-white applicants seeking to become Nassau County police
officers who were disqualified for consideration by Defendants
during the post-exam process" in 2012 and 2018 hiring cycles.
Defendants also contend that Plaintiff's class allegation must be
stricken because Plaintiff "fail[ed] to identify a single member of
the purported class other than [him]self" or allege that an
investigation was conducted "to determine if there are other class
members before filing this action."
The Court declines to strike Plaintiff's class allegations as
narrowed by the Court's holding regarding standing supra.
Given the early phase of discovery in this action, which weighs
against striking class action allegations, and the Court's
significant narrowing of the purported class, the Court finds that
striking Plaintiff's class allegations at this stage would be
premature.
Lastly, Defendants are correct that the NCPD and the Commission are
agencies of municipalities and therefore are not suitable entities.
"[A]gencies of a municipality are not suable entities because
'[u]nder New York law, departments that are merely administrative
arms of a municipality have no separate legal identity apart from
the municipality and therefore cannot be sued." Accordingly, the
NCPD and the Commission are hereby dismissed from this action.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated August
6, 2024, is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HhnBtV
CREDIT UNION: Lucero Seeks Initial OK of Settlement
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRENDA L. LUCERO, HEATHER
BARTON, ILONA KOMPANIIETS and CYNTHIA HURTADO, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CREDIT UNION RETIREMENT
PLAN ASSOCIATION, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CREDIT UNION
RETIREMENT PLAN ASSOCIATION, THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF RETIREMENT
PLANS, THE PLAN ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, and JOHN DOES 1-30, Case
No. 3:22-cv-00208-jdp (W.D. Wis.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order:
-- granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary
approval
of class action settlement entered into with Defendants,
-- granting class certification for settlement purposes,
-- approving form and manner of settlement notice,
-- preliminarily approving plan of allocation, and
-- scheduling a date for a fairness hearing.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 16, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AHWS6m at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
James A. Maro, Esq.
James A. Wells, Esq.
CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
312 Old Lancaster Road
Merion Station, PA 19066
Telephone: (610) 890-0200
Facsimile (717) 233-4103
E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com
jamesm@capozziadler.com
jayw@capozziadler.com
DISH NETWORK: 401(k) Plan Participant Class Wins Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAQUITA JONES, LATEESHA
PROCTOR, PATRICK SMITH, and BEN MCCOLLUM, individually and as
representative of a class of similarly situated person, on behalf
of the DISH Network Corporation 401(k) Plan, v. DISH NETWORK
CORPORATION, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF DISH NETWORK CORPORATION,
and RETIREMENT PLAN COMMITTEE OF DISH NETWORK CORPORATION, Case No.
1:22-cv-00167-CMA-STV (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge Christine Arguello
entered an order
that:
1. The parties' Stipulation Regarding Class Certification is
granted.
2. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g), the law
firms
of Miller Shah LLP and Capozzi Adler, P.C. are appointed
class
counsel.
Based on the foregoing analysis, the Court agrees to certify the
following class:
"All participants and beneficiaries in the DISH Network
Corporation 401(k) Plan whose Plan account balances were
invested in the Fidelity Freedom Funds at any time on or
after
Jan. 21, 2016 and continuing to the date of judgment, or such
earlier date that the Court determines is appropriate and
just
(the "Class Period"), excluding members of the Board of
Directors of DISH Network Corporation (“Board”), the DISH
401(k)
Plan Committee ("Committee"), and their beneficiaries."
Given the great weight of authority certifying Rule 23(b)(1)
classes in ERISA litigation, and the parties' agreement in this
case that Rule 23(b)(1) applies, the Court adopts the parties'
reasoning as stated in their stipulation. Thus, the Court finds
that the parties have satisfied Rule 23(b)(1)(A).
For purposes of the parties' stipulation, what matters is that
Plaintiffs—former employees of Defendant DISH Network—brought
this ERISA lawsuit over DISH's alleged mismanagement of Plaintiffs'
participant-directed 401(k) plan.
The Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit in January 2022. After
Plaintiffs' claims survived two rounds of pre-answer motions
practice, the parties filed the instant stipulation to class
certification for purposes of "streamlining the litigation."
DISH provides multichannel television and satellite television.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 15, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6vuRlr at no extra
charge.[CC]
DISH NETWORK: Continues to Defend Jones 401(k) Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
DISH Network 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 13, 2024, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Jones 401(k) class suit in the United
States District Court for the District of Colorado.
On December 20, 2021, four former employees filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado against the Company, its Board of Directors, and its
Retirement Plan Committee alleging fiduciary breaches arising from
the management of our 401(k) Plan.
The putative class, comprised of all participants in the Plan on or
after January 20, 2016, alleges that the Plan had excessive
recordkeeping and administrative expenses and that it maintained
underperforming funds.
On February 1, 2023, a Magistrate Judge issued a recommendation
that the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint be granted,
and on March 27, 2023, the district court judge granted the motion.
As permitted by the Court's order, the plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint on April 10, 2023, which is limited to allegations
regarding the alleged underperformance of the Fidelity Freedom
Funds.
On November 7, 2023, a Magistrate Judge issued a recommendation
that the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint be
denied as to the duty to prudently monitor fund performance, but be
granted as to the duty of loyalty and, on November 27, 2023, the
district court judge entered an order adopting the recommendation.
On April 30, 2024, the parties filed a stipulation to certification
of the proposed plaintiff class.
The Company intends to vigorously defend this case.
DISH Network Corporation is a holding company that operate two
primary business segments namely Pay-TV and wireless the latter of
which consists of retail wireless and 5G network deployment.
DISH NETWORK: Continues to Defend Lingam Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
DISH Network 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 13, 2024, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Lingam securities class suit in the
United States District Court for the District of Colorado.
On March 23, 2023, a securities fraud class action complaint was
filed against the Company and Messrs. Ergen, Carlson and Orban in
the United States District Court for the District of Colorado.
The complaint is brought on behalf of a putative class of
purchasers of its securities during the February 22, 2021 to
February 27, 2023 class period.
In general, the complaint alleges that DISH Network’s public
statements during that period were false and misleading and
contained material omissions, because they did not disclose that it
allegedly maintained a deficient cyber-security and information
technology infrastructure, were unable to properly secure customer
data and its operations were susceptible to widespread service
outages.
In August 2023, the Court appointed a new lead plaintiff and lead
plaintiff's counsel, and, on October 20, 2023, they filed an
amended complaint that abandoned the original allegations.
In their amended complaint, plaintiffs allege that, during the
class period, the defendants concealed problems concerning the 5G
network buildout that prevented scaling and commercializing the
network to obtain enterprise customers.
The amended complaint added as individual defendants James S.
Allen, our Senior Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer; John
Swieringa, its President, Technology and Chief Operating Officer;
Dave Mayo, its former Executive Vice President of Network
Development; Marc Rouanne, its former Executive Vice President and
Chief Network Officer; and Stephen Bye, its former Executive Vice
President and Chief Commercial Officer.
After the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs
filed a further amended complaint, asserting the same theory, on
February 23, 2024.
The new complaint drops Erik Carlson, John Swieringa, Paul Orban
and James Allen as individual defendants.
The Company intends to vigorously defend this case.
DISH Network Corporation is a holding company that operate two
primary business segments namely Pay-TV and wireless the latter of
which consists of retail wireless and 5G network deployment.
DISH NETWORK: Continues to Defend Owen-Brooks Data Breach Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
DISH Network 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 13, 2024, that the Company continues
to defend itself from Owen-Brooks data breach class suit in the
United States District Court for the District of Colorado.
On May 9, 2023, Susan Owen-Brooks, an alleged customer, filed a
putative class action complaint against the Company in the United
States District Court for the District of Colorado.
She purports to represent a nationwide class of all individuals in
the United States who allegedly had private information stolen as a
result of the February 23, 2023 Cyber-security Incident (and a
North Carolina statewide subclass of the same individuals).
On behalf of the nationwide class, she alleges claims for
contractual breaches, negligence and unjust enrichment (and, on
behalf of the North Carolina subclass only, violation of the North
Carolina Deceptive Trade Practices Act), and seeks monetary
damages, injunctive relief and a declaratory judgment.
Since that filing, ten additional putative class action complaints
have been filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado, purporting to represent the same nationwide
class of people, and Owen-Brooks has filed an amended complaint.
On August 2, 2023, the Court issued an order consolidating the
first ten cases (the eleventh was dismissed) and, on November 16,
2023 and January 16, 2024, the plaintiffs filed consolidated
amended class action complaints.
The Company intends to vigorously defend this case.
DISH Network Corporation is a holding company that operate two
primary business segments namely Pay-TV and wireless the latter of
which consists of retail wireless and 5G network deployment.
DRAFTKINGS INC: Settlement in Stockholder Suit Gets Final Nod
-------------------------------------------------------------
Draftkings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 3, 2023, that on January 18, 2024,
the court entered a stipulated order extending the stay of
consolidated case captioned "In re Golden Nugget Online Gaming,
Inc. Stockholders Litigation," consolidated on October 12, 2022 in
the Delaware Court of Chancery, until resolution of a parallel
proceeding in Delaware Chancery Court. At a mediation held on
January 24, 2024, the parties reached an agreement in principle to
settle the Delaware action, which was reflected in a written
settlement agreement, dated March 1, 2024. On July 9, 2024, the
Delaware Court entered its Order and Final Judgment approving the
settlement and dismissing the action.
On August 12, 2022, a putative class action was filed in Nevada
state District Court in Clark County against Golden Nugget Online
Gaming, Inc. (GNOG), the company and one of its officers and two
affiliates, as well as former officers or directors and the former
controlling stockholder of GNOG Inc. and Jefferies LLC.
The lawsuit asserts claims on behalf of a putative class of former
minority stockholders of GNOG alleging that certain former officers
and directors of GNOG and its former controlling stockholder
(Tilman Fertitta and/or Fertitta Entertainment, Inc.) breached
their fiduciary duties to minority stockholders of GNOG. in
connection with the GNOG merger with Draftkings Inc. and the other
defendants aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary
duty.
On October 12, 2022, the Delaware Court of Chancery consolidated
this with another action under the caption "In re Golden Nugget
Online Gaming, Inc. Stockholders Litigation."
On November 1, 2022, defendants filed motions to dismiss the action
on the procedural grounds of improper forum and lack of personal
jurisdiction over certain defendants or, in the alternative, to
stay the action pending resolution of parallel proceedings in the
Delaware Court of Chancery.
On May 24, 2023, the court granted the motions to dismiss for
improper forum with respect to GNOG Inc. and its former officers
and directors other than Mr. Fertitta, as well as Jefferies LLC,
denied the motions to dismiss for improper forum with respect to
the Company and its officer and two affiliates, as well as Mr.
Fertitta and Fertitta Entertainment, Inc., and granted the
non-dismissed defendants' alternative request to stay the action
for at least nine months pending resolution of parallel proceedings
in the Delaware Court of Chancery.
On June 29, 2023, the plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration
of the court's order insofar as it found certain claims subject to
a Delaware forum requirement. On July 27, 2023, defendants filed
oppositions to the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration, and
certain defendants filed countermotions for certification of final
judgment as to the claims that the court previously dismissed
pursuant to its May 24, 2023 order.
On October 1, 2023, the court entered an order denying the motion
for reconsideration and granting the motion for certification of
final judgment as to the defendants whose claims against them
previously were dismissed.
Draftkings Inc. is a digital sports entertainment and gaming
company that provides users with online sports betting, online
casino and daily fantasy sports product offerings, as well as
retail sportsbook, media and other consumer product offerings. On
May 5, 2022, DraftKings Inc. (formerly New Duke Holdco, Inc.)
consummated the acquisition of Golden Nugget Online Gaming, Inc.,
pursuant to a definitive agreement and plan of merger, dated August
9, 2021, in an all-stock transaction.
DYCK O'NEAL INC: Class Cert Bid Referred to Magistrate Judge
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Saunders v. Dyck O'Neal,
Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-00335 (W.D. Mich., Filed April 12, 2017),
the Hon. Judge Janet T. Neff entered an order referring motion to
certify class and for summary judgment to Magistrate Judge Ray
Kent.
The nature of suit states restrictions on the use of telephone
equipment.
Founded in 1988, the firm specializes in mortgage-related debt,
mortgage deficiencies, and deficiency judgements.[CC]
DZS INC: Continues to Defend Shim Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
DZS 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 13, 2024, that the Company continues to defend
itself from the Shim securities class suit in the Eastern District
of Texas.
In June and August of 2023, DZS shareholders filed three putative
securities class actions related to DZS's June 1, 2023 Form 8-K
announcing the Company's intention to restate its financial
statements for the first quarter of 2023. Each suit was filed in
the Eastern District of Texas.
All three cases allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act against DZS, its Chief Executive Officer and its
Chief Financial Officer. The cases are: (1) Shim v. DZS et al.,
filed June 14, 2023; (2) Link v. DZS et al., filed June 27, 2023;
and (3) Cody v. DZS et al., filed August 9, 2023.
Three potential lead plaintiffs filed applications for appointment
on August 14, 2023.
On September 12, 2023, the cases were consolidated under the lead
case Shim v. DZS et al. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified
damages, interest, fees, costs and interest. As of July 31, 2024,
the court has not yet ruled on the appointment of a lead plaintiff
and the Defendants have not yet responded to any complaint. DZS
intends to vigorously defend these lawsuits.
In light of the events giving rise to the restatement, DZS began
cooperating, and intends to continue to cooperate, with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC"), which has informed
DZS that it is investigating potential violations of the federal
securities laws related to DZS.
On June 3, 2024, counsel for a shareholder of the Company sent the
Company a demand for certain books and records related to events
related to the Company's June 1, 2023 Form 8-K. The demand was made
pursuant to Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law.
While the Company does not concede the demand is proper, it has
produced certain records to the shareholder.
In addition to the matters discussed above, from time to time, the
Company is subject to various legal proceedings, claims and
litigation arising in the ordinary course of business. While the
outcome of these matters is currently not determinable, the Company
records an accrual for legal contingencies that it has determined
to be probable to the extent that the amount of the loss can be
reasonably estimated. The Company does not expect that the ultimate
costs to resolve these matters will have a material adverse effect
on its consolidated financial position, results of operations or
cash flows. However, litigation is subject to inherent
uncertainties, and unfavorable rulings could occur.
Plano, Texas-based DZS is a provider of fiber access and optical
telecommunications networking and cloud software technology. The
company generally sells its products and services directly to
carriers and service providers that offer voice, data and video
services to businesses, government, utilities, and residential
subscribers. [BN]
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Fralish Files FCRA Suit in Indiana
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action has been filed against Equifax Information Services,
LLC. The case is captioned as John Fralish, on behalf of himself
and others similarly situated v. Equifax Information Services, LLC,
Case No. 3:24-cv-00642-CCB-MGG (N.D. Ind., August 2, 2024).
The suit is brought over Defendant's alleged violation of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act.
The case is assigned to Judge Cristal C. Brisco.
Equifax Information Services, LLC provides data solutions. The
Company offers financial, consumer and commercial data, and
analytical solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Ristvedt, Esq.
Consumer Attorneys PLC
8095 N 85th Way
Scottsdale, AZ 85258
Telephone: (480) 626-1956
Facsimie: (718) 715-1750
E-mail: jristvedt@consumerattorneys.com
ESSA BANCORP: Continues to Defend RESPA-Related Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
ESSA Bancorp 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 13, 2024, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act
(RESPA) class suit
The Company and its subsidiary, ESSA Bank and Trust ("ESSA B&T")
were named as defendants, among others, in an action commenced on
December 8, 2016 by one plaintiff who sought to pursue the suit as
a class action on behalf of the entire class of people similarly
situated.
The plaintiff alleged that a subsidiary of a bank previously
acquired by the Company received unearned fees and kickbacks in the
process of making loans, in violation of the RESPA.
In an order dated January 29, 2018, the district court granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss the case.
The plaintiff appealed the court's ruling.
In an opinion and order dated April 26, 2019, the appellate court
reversed the district court's order dismissing the plaintiff's case
against the Company and remanded the case to the district court in
order to continue the litigation.
The litigation is now proceeding before the district court.
On December 9, 2019, the court permitted an amendment to the
complaint to add two new plaintiffs to the case asserting similar
claims.
On May 21, 2020, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.
Fact and expert discovery is now complete, and the Company and ESSA
B&T filed motions seeking to have the case dismissed (in whole or
in part) and/or the class de-certified, as well as for other
relief.
Plaintiffs opposed the motions.
On August 18, 2023 the Court granted the motions to dismiss as to
the Company and ESSA B&T, with the result that the only remaining
defendant is a now-dissolved former wholly-owned subsidiary of a
previously-acquired company.
The Court also amended its class certification order.
Plaintiffs sought permission to appeal from these and other related
rulings but the court denied their request.
The Company and ESSA B&T will continue to vigorously defend against
plaintiffs' allegations.
To the extent that this matter could result in exposure to the
Company and/or ESSA B&T, the amount or range of such exposure is
not currently estimable but could be substantial.
ESSA Bancorp, Inc. is a holding company of ESSA Bank & Trust based
in Pennsylvania.
ESSA BANCORP: Discovery in RESPA-Related Suit Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------
ESSA Bancorp 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 13, 2024, that discovery is ongoing
for the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), Sherman Act
class suit.
On May 29, 2020, the Company and ESSA B&T were named as defendants
in a second action commenced by three plaintiffs who also sought to
pursue the action as a class action on behalf of the entire class
of people similarly situated. The plaintiffs allege that a
subsidiary of a bank previously acquired by the Company received
unearned fees and kickbacks from a different title company than the
one involved in the previously discussed litigation in the process
of making loans.
The original complaint alleged violations of the RESPA, the Sherman
Act, and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
("RICO").
The plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint on September 30, 2020
that dropped the RICO claim, but they are continuing to pursue the
Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act and Sherman Act claims.
The defendants moved to dismiss the Sherman Act claim on October
14, 2020, and that motion was denied on April 2, 2021.
On March 13, 2023 the court granted plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.
The case is currently in the discovery phase.
The Company and ESSA B&T intend to vigorously defend against
plaintiffs' allegations.
ESSA Bancorp, Inc. is a holding company of ESSA Bank & Trust based
in Pennsylvania.
EUSD BOARD: Mirabelli Seeks to Certify Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELIZABETH MIRABELLI, an
individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated;
LORI ANN WEST, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated; et al., v. MARK OLSON, in his official capacity
as President of the EUSD Board of Education, et al., Case No.
3:23-cv-00768-BEN-VET (S.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on Sept. 23,
2024, will move this Court to:
(1) certify that this action is maintainable as a class action
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) and (b)(1)(A), with four
subclasses;
(2) certify the class of persons described in plaintiffs' second
amended complaint as the plaintiff class; and
(3) certify the individual plaintiffs as the class
representatives,
and their counsel of record as counsel for the plaintiff
class.
The Second Amended Complaint proposes the following class and
subclasses:
"All individuals who desire to participate in California's
public education system, whether as employees or
parents/guardians of students, without having to subject
themselves to Parental Exclusion Policies, and (1) Are
employees who object on ideological or conscience grounds,
whether religious or secular, to complying with Parental
Exclusion Policies (Claim for Relief #1); (2) Are employees
who
object on religious grounds to complying with Parental
Exclusion Policies (Claims for Relief #2-3); (3) Are legal
guardians who object on ideological or conscience grounds,
whether religious or secular, to having Parental Exclusion
Policies applied against them and have children who are
attending California public schools and are experiencing, or
have experienced, gender incongruence (Claim for Relief #7);
or
(4) Are legal guardians who object on religious grounds to
having Parental Exclusion Policies applied against them and
have children who are attending California public schools
and
are experiencing, or have experienced, gender incongruence
(Claims for Relief #6, 8)."
The motion for class certification is made on the grounds that
certification is appropriate under Rule 23(b)(2) because it solely
seeks prospective declaratory and injunctive relief, and is
appropriate for certification under Rule 23(b)(1)(A) to avoid
inconsistent judgments.
This motion is supported by the accompanying Memorandum of Points
and
Authorities, by the declaration of Paul M. Jonna, and by such
further argument and evidence that may be adduced at any hearing on
this matter or of which the Court may take judicial notice.
School board are locally elected public officials entrusted with
governing a community’s public schools. The role of the school
board is to ensure that school districts are responsive to the
values, beliefs and priorities of their communities. Boards fulfill
this role by performing five major responsibilities:
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 16, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=v55K4c at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Charles S. LiMandri, Esq.
Paul M. Jonna, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Trissell
LiMANDRI & JONNA LLP
Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067
Telephone: (858) 759-9930
Facsimile: (858) 759-9938
E-mail: cslimandri@limandri.com
pjonna@limandri.com
jtrissell@limandri.com
- and -
Thomas Brejcha, Esq.
Peter Breen, Esq.
THOMAS MORE SOCIETY
309 W. Washington St., Ste. 1250
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 782-1680
E-mail: tbrejcha@thomasmoresociety.org
pbreen@thomasmorsociety.org
EXICURE INC: Agreement in Principle Reached in Colwell Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Exicure 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 13, 2024, that the Company and the plaintiffs
in the Colwell class suit have reached an agreement in principle to
settle the litigation.
On December 13, 2021, Mark Colwell filed a putative securities
class action lawsuit against the Company, David A. Giljohann and
Brian C. Bock in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, captioned Colwell v. Exicure, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 1:21-cv-0663.
On February 4, 2021, plaintiff filed an amended putative securities
class action complaint.
On March 20, 2023, the court entered an order appointing James
Mathew as lead plaintiff and Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP as lead
counsel in the action pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995.
On May 26, 2023, lead plaintiff filed a second amended complaint
against the Company, Dr. Giljohann, Mr. Bock, and Grant Corbett.
The second amended complaint alleges that Dr. Giljohann, Mr. Bock,
and Dr. Corbett made materially false and/or misleading statements
related to the Company's clinical programs purportedly causing
losses to investors who acquired Company securities between January
7, 2021 and December 10, 2021.
The second amended complaint does not quantify any alleged damages
but, in addition to attorneys' fees and costs, lead plaintiff seeks
to recover damages on behalf of himself and others who acquired the
Company's stock during the putative class period at allegedly
inflated prices and purportedly suffered financial harm as a
result.
On or around August 6, 2024, the parties reached an agreement in
principle to settle the litigation, subject to executing a
definitive settlement agreement and approval of the court.
A status hearing with the court is set for August 30, 2024.
The Company believes that any liability as a result of the
settlement will be covered by insurance.
Exicure, Inc. is an early-stage biotechnology company based in
Illinois.
FATHOM HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Martin Class Suit in Texas
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fathom Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 13, 2024, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Martin class suit in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Sherman Division.
A purported class action complaint was filed on December 14, 2023,
by plaintiffs Julie Martin, Mark Adams and Adelaida Matta in the
same court, naming the Company as a defendant along with others in
the QJ Team class suit.
The lawsuit is purportedly brought on behalf of a class consisting
of all persons who listed properties on a Multiple Listing Service
in Texas (the "MLS") using a listing agent or broker affiliated
with one of the defendants named in the lawsuits and paid a buyer
broker commission beginning on November 13, 2019.
The lawsuit alleges unlawful conspiracy in violation of federal
antitrust law and, against certain defendants (but not the Company)
deceptive trade practices under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices
Act.
Given the breadth of the residential real estate industry and the
volume of participants in the residential real estate industry
throughout the United States, the Company expects additional
lawsuits to be filed, although no additional cases filed to date
have named the Company as a defendant.
The Company intends to vigorously defend itself as it believes the
lawsuits are particularly without merit with respect to the Company
because of its flat fee business model.
Fathom Holdings Inc. operates as a holding company. The Company,
through its subsidiaries, provides a technology-driven, real estate
services platform integrating residential brokerage, mortgage,
title, insurance services, and supporting software called
intelliAgent. [BN]
FATHOM HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend QJ Team Class Suit in Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fathom Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 13, 2024, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the QJ Team class suit in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Sherman Division.
On November 28, 2023, the Company has been named as a defendant in
a purported class action complaint in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Texas Sherman Division, filed on
November 13, 2023, by plaintiffs QJ Team, LLC and Five Points
Holdings, LLC, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated.
The lawsuit is purportedly brought on behalf of a class consisting
of all persons who listed properties on a Multiple Listing Service
in Texas (the "MLS") using a listing agent or broker affiliated
with one of the defendants named in the lawsuits and paid a buyer
broker commission beginning on November 13, 2019.
The lawsuit alleges unlawful conspiracy in violation of federal
antitrust law and, against certain defendants (but not the Company)
deceptive trade practices under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices
Act.
Given the breadth of the residential real estate industry and the
volume of participants in the residential real estate industry
throughout the United States, the Company expects additional
lawsuits to be filed, although no additional cases filed to date
have named the Company as a defendant.
The Company intends to vigorously defend itself as it believes the
lawsuits are particularly without merit with respect to the Company
because of its flat fee business model.
Fathom Holdings Inc. operates as a holding company. The Company,
through its subsidiaries, provides a technology-driven, real estate
services platform integrating residential brokerage, mortgage,
title, insurance services, and supporting software called
intelliAgent. [BN]
FCA US: Court Narrows Claims in Petro Suit
------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Shawn Petro, et al., on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. FCA US
LLC,Case No. 1:22-cv-00621-GBW (D. Del.), the Hon. Judge Gregory
Williams entered an order granting in part and denying in part
FCA's motion to dismiss Petro, et, al's first amended action
complaint.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Class Vehicles incorporate FCA's
multi-displacement system valve-train-system technology. The
Plaintiffs allege that the design, manufacturing, material, and
workmanship of the System is flawed, and those flaws cause the
"lifters, camshafts, rocker arms, valve springs and other related
components" of the class vehicles "Gen III 5.7-liter HEMI and
6.4-liter HEMI 392" engines to malfunction and fail prematurely.
FCA is a vehicle manufacturer.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 16, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sOVqMY at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kelly A. Green, Esq.
Jason Z. Miller, Esq.
SMITH, KATZENSTEIN &
JENKINS, LLP
1000 N. West Street, Suite 1501
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 504-1656
Facsimile: (302) 652-8405
E-mail: kag@skjlaw.com
jzm@skjlaw.com
- and -
Russell D. Paul, Esq.
Abigail Gertner, Esq.
Amey J. Park, Esq.
Natalie Lesser, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 875-3000
Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
E-mail: rpaul@bm.net
agertner@bm.net
apark@bm.net
nlesser@bm.net
- and -
Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq.
Cody R. Padgett, Esq.
Laura Goolsby, Esq.
CAPSTONE LAW APC
1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 556-4811
Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
E-mail: Tarek.Zohdy@capstonelawyers.com
Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com
Laura.Goolsby@capstonelawyers.com
- and -
Steven Calamusa, Esq.
Geoff Stahl, Esq.
Rachel Bentley, Esq.
GORDON & PARTNERS, P.A.
4114 Northlake Blvd.,
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
Telephone: (561) 799-5070
Facsimile: (561) 799-4050
E-mail: scalamusa@fortheinjured.com
gstahl@fortheinjured.com
rbentley@fortheinjured.com
- and -
Jason H. Alperstein, Esq.
Kristen L. Cardoso, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON EISELBERG GILBERT
Fort Lauderdale, FL
The Defendant is represented by:
Patrick M. Brannigan, Esq.
Scott H. Morgan, Esq.
Stephen A. D'Aunoy, Esq.
ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN &
MELLOTT, LLC
Wilmington, DE
FIRST COMMONWEALTH: Fails to Secure Info, Ambrose-Manness Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSHUA AMBROSE-MANNESS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. FIRST COMMONWEALTH FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Case
No. 5:24-cv-04358 (E.D. Pa., Aug. 21, 2024) sues the Defendant for
its failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally
identifiable information of its customers, including full names,
Social Security numbers, addresses, dates of birth, and account
numbers.
On June 27, 2024, the Defendant detected unusual activity in its
information technology systems and determined that the Plaintiff's
personal information—which was entrusted to the Defendant on the
mutual understanding that the Defendant would protect it against
unauthorized disclosure—was accessed and exfiltrated in a data
breach.
On Aug. 2, 2024, the Defendant sent out data breach notice letters
to the Plaintiff and other individuals who were affected by the
data breach.
As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff suffered injuries
including invasion of privacy; theft of PII; lost or diminished
value of PII; lost time and opportunity costs associated with
attempting to mitigate the actual consequences of the Data Breach;
loss of benefit of the bargain; an increase in spam calls, texts,
and/or emails; and the continued and increased risk their PII will
be further misused, the lawsuit asserts.
The Plaintiff has a continuing interest in ensuring that personal
information is kept confidential and protected from disclosure, and
the Plaintiff should be entitled to injunctive and other equitable
relief.
First Commonwealth is a member-owned, not-for-profit cooperative
financial institution serving over 94,000 members.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stuart Guber, Esq.
Paul J. Doolittle, Esq.
POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO
32 Ann Street
Charleston, SC 29403
Telephone: (803) 222-2222
Facsimile: (843) 494-5536
E-mail: stuart.guber@poulinwilley.com
paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com
cmad@poulinwilley.com
FIRST STUDENT: Galvan Bid for Initial OK of Settlement Tossed
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BARBARA GALVAN, et al., v.
FIRST STUDENT MANAGEMENT, LLC, et al., Case No. 4:18-cv-07378-JST
(N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jon Tigar entered an order denying
Plaintiffs' motion for provisional certification of the settlement
class and preliminary approval of the proposed settlement.
The Plaintiffs ask the Court to provisionally certify two
subclasses for settlement purposes. The first subclass, termed the
"Driver Class," consists of
"all individuals employed by First Student, Inc. and/or First
Management Services, LLC as non-exempt Drivers in California
during the Driver Class Period."
The "Driver Class Period" refers to the period between Nov. 6,
2014 and Nov. 8, 2023.
The second subclass, the "Non-Driver Class," includes
"all individuals employed by First Student, Inc. and/or First
Management Services, LLC in non-exempt positions other than as
Driver in California during the Non-Driver Class Period."
The "Non-Driver Class Period" refers to the period between Aug.
1,
2019 to Nov. 8, 2023.
Under the settlement, Defendants agree to pay $3,500,000 ("Maximum
Settlement Amount"). The Maximum Settlement Amount shall be used to
pay individual settlement payments to participating class members,
enhancement payments to class representatives and PAGA
representatives, settlement administration costs, the PAGA
settlement
amount, attorney’s fees and costs to class counsel.
This amount "specifically excludes the employer's share of payroll
taxes for the portion of the Net Settlement Amount allocated to
wages" and is "non-reversionary."
After the deduction of the attorney's fees and costs, the PAGA
settlement amount, enhancement payments, and settlement
administration costs, the Net Settlement Amount to be distributed
to participating class members is estimated to be $1,940,761.05.
The Plaintiffs Barbara Galvan, Spynsir Tucker, and Germaine Scott
worked for Defendants as bus drivers at various points between 2001
and 2021.
First Student provides transportation services to school districts
and related clients.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 16, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bPiY11 at no extra
charge.[CC]
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Court OK's Stay of All Expert Deadlines in Owens
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Owens v. FirstEnergy Corp.
et al. (FIRSTENERGY CORP. SECURITIES LITIGATION), Case No.
2:20-cv-03785-ALM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Algenon Marbley
entered an order:
(1) The Court vacates the existing stay;
(2) The Court denies a stay of all discovery and allows all
non-
expert aspects of this litigation to resume despite the
23(f)
appeal;
(3) The Court grants a stay of all expert deadlines and required
expert work during the pendency of the 23(f) appeal, or
until
further order from the Court (with the parties free to have
their own expert(s) perform work as the party wishes); and
(4) The Court extends the partial stay set forth above to the
opt-
out or Direct Action cases, Case Nos. 2:21-cv-05839 and
2:22-
cv-00865, where the discovery and work involved would appear
to
be largely duplicative of Case No. 2:20-cv-03785.
On June 6, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification.
The Court granted the motion and certified a class under Rule
23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
FirstEnergy operates as a public utility holding company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 20, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XybX2u at no extra
charge.[CC]
FLIGHT CLUB: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Trippett Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
ALFRED TRIPPETT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Flight Club New York, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:24-cv-05792 (E.D.N.Y., August 20, 2024) is a civil rights
action against Flight Club New York for their failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate their website
https://www.flightclub.com to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New
York City Human Rights Law.
The Plaintiff has made an attempt to visit and use Flightclub.com
and tried to learn more information about the goods and services
offered by the company on June 12, 2024, but was unable to do so
independently because of the many access barriers on Defendant's
website. These access barriers have caused Flightclub.com to be
inaccessible to, and not independently usable by blind and
visually-impaired persons. Amongst other access barriers
experienced, the Plaintiff was unable to learn more information
about store locations and hours of operation, compare prices and
benefits and learn more information about the goods and services in
its physical location.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Flight Club New York's policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory
damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to
unlawful discrimination.
Flight Club New York, LLC retails footwear and apparel
products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gabriel A. Levy, Esq.
GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C.
1129 Northern Blvd., Suite 404
Manhasset, NY 11030
Telephone: (347) 941-4715
E-mail: glevyfirm@gmail.com
FOX FACTORY: Faces Shareholder Suit Over SEC Disclosure
-------------------------------------------------------
Fox Factory Holding Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended June 28, 2024, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 2, 2024, that on February 20, 2024, a
complaint alleging violations of federal securities laws and
seeking certification as a class action was filed against the
Company and certain of its current and former officers in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
in Atlanta.
The complaint purports to seek damages on behalf of a putative
class of persons who purchased the company's common stock between
May 6, 2021 and November 2, 2023. The complaint asserts claims
under Sections 10(b) and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act and
alleges that the company made material misstatements and omissions
to investors regarding demand for the company's products and
inventory levels. The complaint generally seeks money damages,
interest, attorneys' fees, and other costs. The court has entered
an order requiring plaintiff to file an amended complaint last
August 16, 2024, and setting a briefing schedule for anticipated
motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
Fox Factory Holding Corp. designs, engineers, manufactures, and
markets off-road racing suspension components used primarily on
bicycles, side-by-side vehicles, on-road vehicles with and without
off-road capabilities, off-road vehicles and trucks, all-terrain
vehicles, snowmobiles, and specialty vehicles and applications.
GDM ENTERPRISES: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Troche Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
VERONICA TROCHE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GDM ENTERPRISES, LLC; d/b/a THE LANO
COMPANY; and d/b/a MIRABELLA BEAUTY, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-06220 (S.D.N.Y., August 16, 2024) is a civil action against
the Defendant for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and
operate the Defendant's website https://mirabellabeauty.com to be
fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired individuals in violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights
Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State
Civil Rights Law.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was injured when
attempting to access Defendant's website on August 10, 2024, from
her home in Bronx County, in an effort to search for and purchase
Defendant's products and services, which would assist Plaintiff in
her daily quest to overcome her physical limitations. However, she
encountered various access barriers that denied her full and equal
access to Defendant's online goods, content, and services.
The Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so
that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
GDM Enterprises, LLC operates the website which engages in skin
care and cosmetics business.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq.
Bennitta L. Joseph, Esq.
JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC
New York, NY 10022
110 East 59th Street, Suite 2300
Telephone: (212) 227-5700
Facsimile: (212) 656-1889
E-mail: jon@norinsberglaw.com
bennitta@employeejustice.com
GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Savings Plan Participant Class Certified
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PETER TRAUERNICHT, et al.,
V. GENWORTH FINANCIAL, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-00532-REP (E.D. Va.),
the Hon. Judge Robert E. Payne entered an order granting
certification and certify the following class:
"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."
The Court will also appoint Peter Trauernicht and Zachary Wright as
class representatives and Miller Shah LLP and Tycko & Zavareei LLP
as class counsel.
The Court finds that Plaintiffs have Article III standing; the Rule
23(a) requirements are satisfied; and the class can be certified
under Rule 23(b)(1).
On April 17, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed their second amended class
action complaint.
The Plaintiffs allege that Genworth breached its fiduciary duties
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"). The
The Plaintiffs are former employees of Genworth and participated
which is a defined in Genworth's Retirement and Savings Plan.
Genworth Financial provides life insurance, long-term care
insurance, mortgage insurance, and annuities.
A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated Aug. 15, 2024 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XWTX32
at no extra charge.[CC]
GLOBAL SERVICES: Does not Properly Pay Workers, Zuluaga Says
------------------------------------------------------------
MELISSA ZULUAGA, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GLOBAL SERVICES 2021, LLC d/b/a VAPIANO,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-23136 (S.D. Fla., August 16, 2024) is a
class action against the Defendant seeking unpaid minimum wages and
other relief under the Florida Constitution and the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Plaintiff worked as a bartender for Defendant from November
2023 to February 2024. She was paid pursuant to a "tip credit"
method and was paid the minimum wage minus the tip credit.
She contends that Defendant systematically and willfully did not
pay her the minimum wage to which she is entitled to under Florida
law because Defendant failed to properly compensate Plaintiff as an
eligible employee in Defendant's tip pool, therefore failing to
provide compensation that was equal to the applicable Florida
minimum wage.
Global Services 2021, LLC engages in restaurant business based in
Miami, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
T'Keara N. Watson, Esq.
Anthony J. Hall, Esq.
THE LEACH FIRM, P.A.
1560 N. Orange Ave., Suite 600
Winter Park, FL 32789
Telephone: (689) 800-7665
Facsimile: (833) 813-7513
E-mail: twatson@theleachfirm.com
ahall@theleachfirm.com
GOLDMAN SACHS: Continues to Defend Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, 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 that its subsidiary
Goldman Sachs and Co. (GS&Co.) is among the underwriters named as
defendants in a putative securities class action filed on August
13, 2021 in New York Supreme Court, County of New York, relating to
ViacomCBS Inc.'s March 2021 public offerings of $1.7 billion of
common stock and $1.0 billion of preferred stock. In addition to
the underwriters, the defendants include ViacomCBS and certain of
its officers and directors. GS&Co. underwrote 646,154 shares of
common stock representing an aggregate offering price of
approximately $55 million and 323,077 shares of preferred stock
representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $32
million. On April 4, 2024, the Appellate Division for the First
Department affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the claims
against ViacomCBS and the individual defendants, reversed the trial
court's failure to dismiss the claims against the non-trading
underwriter defendants, and affirmed the trial court's denial of
the motion to dismiss claims against the trading underwriter
defendants, including GS&Co.
The complaint asserts claims under the federal securities laws and
alleges that the offering documents contained material
misstatements and omissions, including, among other things, that
the offering documents failed to disclose that Archegos Capital
Management, LP (Archegos) had substantial exposure to ViacomCBS,
including through total return swaps to which certain of the
underwriters, including GS&Co., were allegedly counterparties, and
that such underwriters failed to disclose their exposure to
Archegos. On December 21, 2021, the plaintiffs filed a corrected
amended complaint. The complaint seeks rescission and compensatory
damages in unspecified amounts.
On January 4, 2022, the plaintiffs moved for class certification.
On February 6, 2023, the court dismissed the claims against
ViacomCBS and the individual defendants, but denied the defendants'
motions to dismiss with respect to GS&Co. and the other underwriter
defendants. On February 15, 2023, the underwriter defendants
appealed the court's denial of the motion to dismiss. On March 10,
2023, the plaintiffs appealed the court's dismissal of the claims
against ViacomCBS and the individual defendants. On April 18, 2023,
the plaintiffs moved for class certification.
On June 12, 2023, the court denied the underwriter defendants'
motion to stay the proceedings pending their appeal of the court's
denial of the motion to dismiss, and on June 27, 2023 the
underwriter defendants appealed. On November 2, 2023, the Appellate
Division for the First Department affirmed the court's denial of
the underwriter defendants' motion.
On January 4, 2024, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification and on February 14, 2024, the underwriter
defendants appealed.
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation, together
with its consolidated subsidiaries, is a global financial
institution that delivers a broad range of financial services to a
large and diversified client base that includes corporations,
financial institutions, governments and individuals.
GRAIL INC: Illumina Continues to Defend Kangas Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Grail 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 13, 2024, that Illumina Inc., the Company that
acquired Grail in 2021, continues to defend itself from the Kangas
federal securities class suit in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California.
On November 11, 2023, the first of three securities class action
complaints was filed against Illumina and certain of its current
and former executive officers in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California.
The first-filed case is captioned Kangas v. Illumina, Inc. et al.,
the second-filed case is captioned Roy v. Illumina, Inc. et al.,
and the third-filed case is captioned Louisiana Sheriffs' Pension &
Relief Fund v. Illumina, Inc. et al. (collectively, the "Actions").
The complaints generally allege, among other things, that
defendants made materially false and misleading statements and
omitted material facts relating to Illumina's acquisition of Grail.
The complaints seek unspecified damages, interest, fees, and costs.
On January 9, 2024, four movants filed motions to consolidate the
Actions and to appoint a lead plaintiff ("Lead Plaintiff Motions").
On April 11, 2024, the Court issued an order consolidating the
Actions into a single action (captioned in re Illumina, Inc.
Securities Litigation No. 23-cv-2082-LL-MMP), and appointed
Universal-Investment-Gesellschaft mbH, UI BVK
Kapitalverwaltungsgesellschaft mbH, and ACATIS Investment
Kapitalverwaltungsgesellschaft mbH as lead plaintiffs. (the "Lead
Plaintiffs").
On June 21, 2024, the Lead Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint.
The amended complaint alleges that GRAIL, in addition to Illumina,
and certain of their respective current and former directors and
others violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 in connection with Illumina's acquisition of
GRAIL and disclosures concerning the same.
The Company denies the allegations in the complaints and intend to
vigorously defend the litigation.
GRAIL, Inc. operates as a biotechnology company. The Company
focuses on combining science, technology, and clinical studies to
reveal cancer at its beginings. GRAIL offers its services in the
United States. Previously, a subsidiary of Illumina and spun-out on
June 24, 2024
GRITSTONE BIO: Continues to Defend Beal Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------
Gritstone bio 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 13, 2024, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Beal class suit in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California.
On June 17, 2024, Plaintiff Tammy Beal, a purported Gritstone
shareholder, filed a putative class action complaint in the United
States District Court, Northern District Court of California, or
the Court. Plaintiff names the Company and certain of its officers
as defendants (collectively, "Defendants"), and asserts claims
under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and alleges, among other things, that the
Defendants made false and misleading statements concerning the
status of the Company's BARDA contract and its Phase 2b CORAL
study.
On July 3, 2024, the Court entered an order providing that
Defendants' obligation to answer, move, or otherwise respond to any
complaint is deferred until after the Court appoints a lead
plaintiff and lead counsel.
That appointment process remains ongoing.
The Company believes these claims are without merit and intends to
vigorously defend against these claims.
Gritstone, a clinical-stage biotechnology company, engages in
developing vaccine-based immunotherapy candidates against cancer
and infectious diseases.[BN]
GROCERY DELIVERY: Armijos Suit Asserts Discrimination, Harassment
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SHONY ARMIJOS, SONIA PANGUL, LUIS PENAFIEL, ISIS PINEDA, LESLY
YESSENIA PORTILLO, and SANDRA BASTIDAS on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GROCERY DELIVERY
E-SERVICES USA, INC. d/b/a HELLOFRESH, ACTION STAFFING GROUP, ON
TARGET STAFFING LLC, and PROSTAFF SOLUTIONS INC., Defendants, Case
No. ESX-L-005290-24 (N.J. Sup., Essex Cty., August 2, 2024) arises
from the Defendants' unlawful businesss practices in violation of
the New Jersey Warn Act, the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination,
and the New Jersey Human Trafficking Prevention, Protection, and
Treatment Act.
The Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages, as well as
injunctive relief, to remedy Defendants' harassment of Hispanic
workers based on their race and national origin, and for their
sexual harassment. They also seek severance pay on behalf of
themselves and all workers whom Defendants terminated without cause
as part of, or as the foreseeable result of, the mass layoff that
began on August 4, 2023 and who were not provided 90 days' advance
written notice of their terminations by Defendants, as required by
the state law.
The Plaintiffs assert that the vast majority of HelloFresh workers
at the Newark facility who were hired through Staffing Agencies
were of Hispanic origin, whereas the vast majority of employees
that HelloFresh hired directly were non-Hispanic. HelloFresh
assigned them and other Hispanic workers the hardest work at
HelloFresh's operations, requiring them to pack thousands of meal
kits for HelloFresh customers, at higher production quotas and for
lower pay than non-Hispanic employees. HelloFresh regularly
assigned them and other Hispanic workers jobs that were more
physically demanding, more painful, and located in colder parts of
the Newark facility, the Plaintiffs further contend.
Grocery Delivery E-Services USA, Inc., d/b/a HelloFresh, provides
online grocery delivery services to customers.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David Tykulsker, Esq.
DAVID TYKULSKER & ASSOCIATES
161 Walnut Street
Montclair, NJ 07042
Telephone: (973) 509-9292
Facsimile: (973) 509-1181
E-mail: david@dtesq.com
- and -
Michael J. Scimone, Esq.
Jarron D. McAllister, Esq.
OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 245-1000
Facsimile: (646) 509-2057
E-mail: mscimone@outtengolden.com
jmcallister@outtengolden.com
- and -
Lauren W. Herman, Esq.
Joseph S. Niver, Esq.
MAKE THE ROAD NEW JERSEY
42 Broad Street
Elizabeth, NJ 07201
Telephone: (908) 368-1196
Email: lauren.herman@maketheroadnj.org
joseph.niver@maketheroadnj.org
HANESBRANDS INC: Continues to Defend Ransomware Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Hanesbrands 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 Cmpany continues to
defend itself from the ransomware class suit in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina.
The Company is named in a putative class action in connection with
the previously disclosed ransomware incident, entitled Toussaint et
al. v. HanesBrands,[sic] Inc.
This lawsuit was filed on April 27, 2023 and is pending in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of North
Carolina, and follows the consolidation of two previously pending
lawsuits, entitled Roman v. Hanes Brands,[sic] Inc., filed October
7, 2022, and Toussaint v. HanesBrands,[sic] Inc., filed October 14,
2022.
The lawsuit alleges, among other things, negligence, negligence per
se, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy, unjust
enrichment, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing and unfair business practices under the California Business
and Professions Code.
The pending lawsuit seeks, among other things, monetary and
injunctive relief.
On April 2, 2024, the plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary
approval of a class action settlement.
If approved by the Court, the settlement generally provides for
class members to claim reimbursement for documented out-of-pocket
losses related to the ransomware incident (limited to an aggregate
cap of $100,000), as well as a choice of one of the following three
forms of additional relief (with no aggregate cap): (1) two years
of credit and identity monitoring services; (2) a one-time use
credit for purchase of products on the www.hanes.com website; or
(3) a cash payment.
The Company have also agreed to undertake certain injunctive
relief, and to pay an agreed upon amount of attorneys' fees, costs,
and service awards to the plaintiffs, if approved by the Court.
The Court has not yet set a hearing date for the motion.
The Company does not expect this settlement, if approved, to have a
material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position or
results of operations.
It currently anticipates the cost of the proposed settlement to be
between $1 million and $2 million.
Hanesbrands Inc. and its subsidiaries is a global leader in branded
everyday apparel in the Americas, Australia, Europe and Asia under
some of the world's strongest apparel brands, including Hanes,
Champion, Bonds, Bali, Maidenform, Bras N Things, Playtex,
Wonderbra, Gear for Sports, Berlei, Comfortwash, Alternative and
JMS/Just My Size. The company designs, manufactures, sources and
sells a broad range of innerwear apparel, such as T-shirts, bras,
panties, shapewear, underwear and socks, as well as activewear
products that are manufactured or sourced in our low-cost global
supply chain.
HEALTHEQUITY INC: Girard Files Fraud Class Suit in Utah
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action has been filed against HealthEquity Inc. The case is
captioned as Taylor Girard, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. HealthEquity Inc., Case No.
2:24-cv-00556-HCN-DAO (D. Utah, August 2, 2024).
The suit is brought over Defendant's alleged fraud conduct.
The case is assigned to Judge Howard C. Nielson, Jr.
HealthEquity Inc. is an American financial technology and business
services company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Cameron S. Christensen, Esq.
Steven A. Christensen, Esq.
CHRISTENSEN YOUNG & ASSOCIATES
9980 S 300 W STE 200
Sandy, UT 84070
Telephone: (801) 676-6447
E-mail: cameron@christensenyounglaw.com
steven@christensenyounglaw.com
HERO LABS: Faces Lewis Suit Over Telephonic Sales Calls
-------------------------------------------------------
ADAMLEWIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HERO LABS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
CACE-24-010994 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial, Broward Cty., August 2,
2024) is an action for injunctive and declaratory relief, and
damages for violations of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant made Text Message Sales
Calls that promoted Hero Bread and violated the Caller ID Rules
when it transmitted to the recipients' caller identification
services a telephone number that was not capable of receiving
telephone calls.
Hero Labs, Inc. is registered as a foreign corporation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua A. Glickman, Esq.
Shawn A. Heller, Esq.
SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL
974 Howard Ave.
Dunedin, FL 34698
Telephone: (202) 709-5744
Facsimile: (866) 893-0416
E-mail: josh@sjlawcollective.com
shawn@sjlawcollective.com
HERTZ CORP: Parties Seek to Modify Class Cert Briefing Schedule
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ZABEENA MAHARAJ, an
individual; RODOLFO SCHULZ, an individual, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated and other aggrieved employees, v.
THE HERTZ CORPORATION, Case No. 3:23-cv-04726-JSC (N.D. Cal.), the
Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their stipulation
to modify the Motion for Class certification briefing schedule as
follows:
Current Date Proposed Date
Motion for Class certification Oct. 10, 2024 Jan. 8, 2025
Opposition Nov. 7, 2024 Feb. 5, 2025
Reply Nov. 21, 2024 Feb. 19, 2025
Hearing on Motion for Class Dec. 5, 2024 March 6, 2025
certification
The stipulated briefing schedule will not otherwise affect any
deadlines currently set by the Court or other applicable rules.
The Plaintiff commenced this action on Sept. 14, 2023 in the
United States District Court, Northern District Of California.
The Defendant filed its answer to Plaintiff's initiating complaint
on
Oct. 25, 2023.
On Nov. 30, 2023 the Court granted the Parties' stipulation for
leave to file the First Amended Complaint.
On June 21, 2024 the Court granted the Parties' stipulation for
leave to file the Second Amended Complaint.
The Plaintiff Zabeena Maharaj and Rodolfo Schulz filed the Second
Amended Complaint on June 21, 2024.
Hertz is a vehicle rental company.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Aug. 16, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=U8zFn1 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joshua H. Haffner, Esq.
Alfredo Torrijos, Esq.
Vahan Mikayelyan, Esq.
HAFFNER LAW PC
15260 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1520
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
Telephone: (213) 514-5681
Facsimile: (213) 514- 5682
E-mail: jhh@haffnerlawyers.com
at@haffnerlawyers.com
vh@haffnerlawyers.com
Michael Palitz, Esq.
SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
477 Madison Avenue, 6th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (800) 616-4000
E-mail: mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com
- and -
Mitchell Feldman, Esq.
FELDMAN LEGAL GROUP
6916 W. Linebaugh Avenue, Suite 101
Tampa, FL 33625
Telephone: (813) 639-9366
E-mail: mfeldman@flandgatrialattorneys.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Andrew J. Weissler, Esq.
Zain Zubair, Esq.
HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP
355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2850
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 337-6550
Facsimile: (213) 337-6551
E-mail: aj.weissler@huschblackwell.com
zain.zubair@huschblackwell.com
HOWARD L. NATIONS: Fifth Circuit Flips Enforcement of Deal in Henry
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Henry v. Howard L. Nations, Case No. 0:23-pcd-30467
(5th Cir.), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit reversed the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana's judgment granting the motion filed by the
plaintiffs to enforce a settlement agreement in the consolidated
lawsuit arising from the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill.
This consolidated lawsuit concerns the BP Deepwater Horizon oil
spill that occurred in April 2010. The Plaintiffs are all
represented by the Block Law Firm. The Defendants in this
consolidated lawsuit are Howard L. Nations, A.P.C.; Howard L.
Nations; Cindy L. Nations; Joseph Motta, Attorney at Law APLC;
Joseph A. Motta; Gregory D. Reub; Reub Law Firm, APLC; Maxum
Indemnity Company; and QBE Insurance Corporation. Maxum is
providing a defense to the Nations Defendants pursuant to an
insurance policy issued to Howard Nations.
In April 2015, the Nations Defendants began representing the
Deepwater Horizon Economic Claim Program to file subsistence claims
on behalf of their clients. Later, in 2019, various groups of
Plaintiffs filed claims against the Nations Defendants for legal
malpractice. The first of those cases was filed on May 2019:
Deborah A. Gaudet and Ray Gaudet, individually and on behalf of a
class of all other similarly situated persons v. Howard L. Nations,
APC, et al, No. 19-cv-10356. The second case involves three cases
filed in Louisiana state court which were removed to federal court
and consolidated: (1) Brandon Henry, et al v. Maxum Indemnity
Company, et al., (2) Gary Pierce v. Maxum Indemnity Company, et
al.; and (3) Charles Billiot, Jr., et al. v. Maxum Indemnity
Company, et al. The final case, not consolidated in this matter but
nonetheless relevant to this appeal, was filed in Mississippi
against Howard L. Nations
A.P.C. and others. The Plaintiffs in all three litigations argued
that the Nations Defendants engaged in legal malpractice when they
mass accumulated clients to file the subsistence claims, and failed
to meet the deadline for filing because of the large number of
clients accumulated, and then lied to their clients about the
status of those claims once the deadline had passed.
As the trial date for the Gaudet litigation approached, and in an
attempt to settle the case between all parties, in mid-December
2022, the Magistrate Judge held a settlement conference acting as
mediator. No agreement was reached, but on December 23, 2022, the
Magistrate Judge issued a Mediator's Proposal to the parties via
email. After a series of back and forth between the parties, on
January 4, 2023, the Magistrate announced that a settlement had
been reached, and that Plaintiffs' counsel would circulate a term
sheet. The Defendants maintained that no agreement had been reached
and they did not agree to the terms of the term sheet. On or about
April 19, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a motion to enforce the
settlement, which the district court granted. All Defendants
appealed.
Plaintiffs argue that a settlement agreement was reached by virtue
of their email conversations (writings). Defendants argue no
agreement was ever reached because material terms they required
were never agreed to by the Plaintiffs.
According to the Fifth Circuit, there was no enforceable settlement
because the Defendants never accepted the Plaintiffs' counteroffer
as evidenced by a signed writing.
The Fifth Circuit notes while the signatures need not be contained
in one document, there must be a "written offer signed by the
offer[or] and a written acceptance signed by the acceptor, even if
the offer and the acceptance are contained in separate writings."
In this case, there is no evidence of a signed offer or acceptance
by either party -- because there was none, the Fifth Circuit finds.
Until the parties signed a written document or documents evincing
their consent to the terms of their earlier oral agreement, either
party was free to change his or her mind. Accordingly, there was no
enforceable settlement agreement, the Fifth Circuit concludes.
The judgment of the district court is reversed and remanded.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated August 6, 2024, is
available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=d6qnBJ
HUT 8 CORP: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Hut 8 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 13, 2024, that the Company continues to defend
itself from the consolidated securities class suit in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
In February and March 2024, two purported securities class actions
were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York against the Company and certain of its current and former
officers.
The two class actions were consolidated and lead plaintiff was
appointed on April 19, 2024.
The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint on June
14, 2024.
The consolidated amended complaint alleges violations of Sections
11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act")
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act.
The Company disputes the claims in the consolidated shareholder
class action and intends to vigorously defend against them.
Hut 8 is a crypto currency and data mining company.[BN]
HYATT CORPORATION: Insixiengmay Seeks to Certify Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANICE INSIXIENGMAY,
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated
employees, v. HYATT CORPORATION DBA HYATT REGENCY SACRAMENTO, a
Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No.
2:18-cv-02993-TLN-SCR (E.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on Sept. 19,
2024, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated
individuals, will move for entry of an Order for the following:
1. Certifying the proposed class for purposes of settlement;
2. Appointing the Plaintiff Janice Insixiengmay as class
representative for purposes of settlement;
3. Appointing Shimoda & Rodriguez Law, PC, as Class Counsel for
purposes of settlement;
4. Approving the proposed class action and Private Attorneys
General Act settlement, in the amount of $295,000;
5. Approving the settlement of claims under the Private
Attorneys
General Act for the total amount of $10,000, 75% of which
will
be paid to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency and 25%
of
which will be paid to Aggrieved Employees;
6. Directing that any amount from settlement checks that are not
cashed by the check cashing deadline be donated equally,
i.e.,
50/50, to Capital Pro Bono, Inc., and the Center for Workers
Rights under the doctrine of cy pres; and
7. Approving and adopting the Proposed Order and its
implementation
schedule.
Hyatt is an American multinational hospitality company.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 15, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3MxQ4q at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Galen T. Shimoda, Esq.
Justin P. Rodriguez, Esq.
Renald Konini, Esq.
SHIMODA & RODRIGUEZ LAW, PC
9401 East Stockton Boulevard, Suite 120
Elk Grove, CA 95624
Telephone: (916) 525-0716
Facsimile: (916) 760-3733
E-mail: attorney@shimodalaw.com
jrodriguez@shimodalaw.com
rkonini@shimodalaw.com
HYZON MOTORS: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hyzon Motors 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 13, 2024, that the motion to dismiss
the consolidated securities class suit awaits ruling of the United
States District Court for the Western District of New York.
Three related putative securities class action lawsuits were filed
between September 30, 2021 and November 15, 2021, in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of New York against the
Company, certain of the Company's current and former officers and
directors and certain former officers and directors of
Decarbonization Plus Acquisition Corporation ("DCRB") (Kauffmann v.
Hyzon Motors Inc., et al. (No. 21- cv-06612-CJS), Brennan v. Hyzon
Motors Inc., et al. (No. 21-cv-06636-CJS), and Miller v. Hyzon
Motors Inc. et al. (No. 21-cv-06695-CJS)), asserting violations of
federal securities laws.
The complaints generally allege that the Company and individual
defendants made materially false and misleading statements relating
to the nature of the Company's customer contracts, vehicle orders,
and sales and earnings projections, based on allegations in a
report released on September 28, 2021, by Blue Orca Capital, an
investment firm that indicated that it held a short position in the
Company's stock and which has made numerous allegations about the
Company.
These lawsuits have been consolidated under the caption In re Hyzon
Motors Inc. Securities Litigation (Case No. 6:21-cv-06612-CJS-MWP),
and on March 21, 2022, the court-appointed lead plaintiff filed a
consolidated amended complaint seeking monetary damages.
The Company and individual defendants moved to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint on May 20, 2022, and the
court-appointed lead plaintiff filed its opposition to the motion
on July 19, 2022.
The court-appointed lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on
March 21, 2022, and a second amended complaint on September 16,
2022.
Briefing regarding the Company and individual defendants’
anticipated motion to dismiss the second amended complaint was
stayed pending a non-binding mediation among the parties, which
took place on May 9, 2023.
The parties did not reach a settlement during the May 9, 2023
mediation.
On June 20, 2023, the court granted the lead plaintiff leave to
file a third amended complaint, which was filed on June 23, 2023.
The third amended complaint added additional claims.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss on September 13, 2023, and
DCRB and former DCRB officers, directors, and its sponsor filed a
motion to dismiss on the same day.
The lead plaintiff filed oppositions to the motions to dismiss on
October 25, 2023, and defendants filed a reply on November 22,
2023.
The parties are awaiting a ruling from the court.
Hyzon Motors Inc. is headquartered in Honeoye Falls, New York, and
is into commercializing proprietary heavy-duty fuel cell technology
through assembling and upfitting HD hydrogen fuel cell electric
vehicles in the United States, Europe, and Australia.
HYZON MOTORS: Continues to Defend Malork Class Suit in Delaware
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hyzon Motors 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 13, 2024, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Malork class suit in the Delaware Court
of Chancery.
On March 18, 2022, a putative class action complaint, Malork v.
Anderson et al. (C.A. No. 2022-0260- KSJM) ("Malork"), was filed in
the Delaware Court of Chancery against certain officers and
directors of DCRB, DCRB's sponsor, and certain investors in DCRB's
sponsor, alleging that the director defendants and controlling
stockholders of DCRB's sponsor breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with the merger between DCRB and Legacy Hyzon.
The complaint seeks equitable relief and monetary damages.
On May 26, 2022, the defendants in this case moved to dismiss the
complaint.
On August 2, 2022, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
August 15, 2022.
Briefing on the motion to dismiss is now complete, and oral
argument occurred on April 21, 2023.
On July 17, 2023, the Delaware Court of Chancery denied the
defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint.
In August 2023, the plaintiff in Malork subpoenaed Hyzon for
various documentation in connection with the litigation against the
named defendants.
In December 2023, the Company paid $1.5 million dollars in legal
fees on behalf of the named individual defendants pursuant to an
indemnity agreement between DCRB and the named individual
defendants.
The Company does not expect to incur further legal fees in
connection with the indemnity agreement.
On August 5, 2024, Hyzon was served by the plaintiff in Malork with
a Second Amended Complaint naming the Company and its former CEO,
Craig Knight, as additional defendants (individually and
collectively, the "Legacy Hyzon Defendants").
The Second Amended Complaint alleges new claims that the Legacy
Hyzon Defendants aided and abetted the breaches of fiduciary duty
alleged against the originally named Malork defendants.
The Company will defend itself in this litigation.
Hyzon Motors Inc. is headquartered in Honeoye Falls, New York, and
is into commercializing proprietary heavy-duty fuel cell technology
through assembling and upfitting HD hydrogen fuel cell electric
vehicles in the United States, Europe, and Australia.
I.K.M.J. JOINT: Wins Summary Judgment Bid vs Strauss
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRITTANY STRAUSS, et al.,
v. I.K.M.J. JOINT LLC d/b/a GIRL COLLECTION, et al., Case No.
2:23-cv-00439-MMD-EJY (D. Nev.), the Hon. Judge Miranda Du entered
an order:
-- granting Defendants' motion for summary judgment based on forum
non conveniens as to Plaintiff's wage and retaliation claims;
the
Court declines to adjudicate the motion as it relates to the
assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional
distress,
and unjust enrichment claims because the Court declines to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims;
-- dismissing without prejudice Plaintiffs' claims';
-- denying as moot Plaintiffs' motion for conditional class
certification.
The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and
close this case.
The Plaintiffs Brittany Strauss and Jasmine Woodward have filed
suit against the Defendants to recover unpaid wages for their work
as exotic dancers.
Girl Collection is a Las Vegas, Nevada, "establishment where live
topless, semi-nude or partially clothed dance entertainment" is
presented to adult patrons.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 15, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=G7GoOg at no extra
charge.[CC]
ICF TECHNOLOGY: Reply in Support of Class Cert Extended to Sept. 9
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MIA TOMASELLO, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. ICF TECHNOLOGY,
INC., ACCRETIVE TECHNOLOGY GROUP, INC. Case No.
2:23-cv-03759-MCA-JRA (D.N.J.), the Parties ask the Court to enter
an order:
-- granting Defendants extension bid from Aug. 20, 2024, to Aug.
27,
2024 to respond to the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification,
and
-- granting the Plaintiff an extension from Aug. 27, 2024, to
Sept.
9, 2024, for the Reply in Support of the Plaintiff's Motion for
Class Certification.
The new motion Day will be Sept. 16, 2024.
ICF is a streaming and processing service provider.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Aug. 14, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zonox1 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Charles J. Kocher, Esq.
Matthew A. Luber, Esq.
William L. Carr, Esq.
Tyler J. Burrell, Esq.
McOMBER McOMBER & LUBER P.C.
50 Lace Center Drive, Suite 400
Marlton, NJ 08053
Telephone: (856) 985-9800
E-mail: cjk@njlegal.com mal@njlegal.com
wlc@njlegal.com tjb@njlegal.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Lawrence J. Del Rossi, Esq.
Brian M. Hayes, Esq.
FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
600 Campus Drive
Florham Park, NJ 07932-1047
Telephone: (973) 549-7000
Facsimile: (973) 360-9831
E-mail: lawrence.delrossi@faegredrinker.com
brian.hayes@faegredrinker.com
- and -
Michael T. Kitson, Esq.
Shirley S. Lou-Magnuson, Esq.
Ethan Picone, Esq.
LANE POWELL PC
1420 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4200
Seattle, WA 98111-9402
Telephone: (206) 223-7000
E-mail: kitsonm@lanepowell.com
loumagnusons@lanepowell.com
piconee@lanepowell.com
IMA FINANCIAL: Zerbe Data Breach Class Suit Dismissed w/o Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Zerbe et al v. IMA Financial Group, Inc., Case No.
2:24-cv-02026 (D. Kan.), Judge Holly L. Teeter of the United States
District Court for the District of Kansas granted IMA Financial
Group, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the data breach class action
complaint filed by Jason Zerbe, Mark Masterson, and Jessica Abel.
The case is again dismissed without prejudice under Rule 12(b)(1)
for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
In 2023, Masterson and Zerbe separately filed actions against IMA.
The cases were consolidated, and Abel was added as a plaintiff. The
consolidated action focused on a data breach that affected personal
information stored by IMA. IMA moved to dismiss that case. The
Court granted IMA's motion and dismissed the case on December 14,
2023, for lack of standing. Plaintiffs did not appeal in Masterson.
Plaintiffs filed this case on January 18, 2024. The complaint in
this case is substantively very similar to the complaint in
Masterson.
IMA moves to dismiss on three grounds. First, it argues Plaintiffs
may not relitigate standing under the doctrine of issue preclusion.
Second, Plaintiffs still fail to plausibly allege an injury-in-fact
traceable to IMA. Third, Plaintiffs have failed to allege any
plausible claims.
In this case, plaintiffs cite some additional allegations that they
say remedy the standing problems identified in Masterson. For
purposes of issue preclusion, the Court finds Plaintiffs have not
identified any change in circumstances that should be considered
under the curable-defect exception. In other words, Plaintiffs
identify nothing that they learned after Masterson was dismissed
that would permit them to get around the "identical issue" element.
Arguably, the only "new" information in the complaint that was not
included in the Masterson complaint is the handful of allegations
about the group allegedly responsible for the
data breach, Black Basta.
Accordingly, the Court finds the standing issue in this case is
identical to the standing issue in Masterson and Plaintiffs have
not sufficiently invoked the "curable-defect exception."
The Court finds issue preclusion bars Plaintiffs' attempt to
relitigate the issue of whether they have standing to pursue their
claims. As the Court has already addressed this issue in Masterson,
this case is dismissed for the same reason.
Although issue preclusion bars relitigation of standing, the Court
has considered whether any of the additional allegations would
change the standing analysis outlined in Masterson. The Court finds
that none of the additional allegations or arguments persuade the
Court that a different outcome on standing is warranted.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated August
6, 2024, is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WPFDwd
IMMUNITYBIO INC: Continues to Defend Salzman Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
ImmunityBio 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 12, 2024, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Salzman securities class suit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
California.
On June 30, 2023, a putative securities class action complaint,
captioned Salzman v. ImmunityBio, Inc. et al., No.
3:23-cv-01216-BEN-WVG, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California against the company and three of
its officers and/or directors, asserting violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Stemming from the company's
disclosure on May 11, 2023 that it had received an FDA CRL stating,
among other things, that it could not approve the company's BLA for
its then product candidate, ANKTIVA, in its present form due to
deficiencies related to its pre-license inspection of the company's
third-party CMOs, the complaint alleges that the defendants had
previously made materially false and misleading statements and/or
omitted material adverse facts regarding its third-party CMOs and
the prospects for regulatory approval of the BLA. The complaint did
not specify the amount of damages being sought.
On September 27, 2023, the court appointed a lead plaintiff,
approved their selection of lead counsel, and re-captioned the case
In re. ImmunityBio, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 3:23-cv-01216.
On November 17, 2023, the lead plaintiff filed an amended
complaint, which named the same defendants and asserted the same
claims as the previous complaint.
On January 8, 2024, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.
On June 20, 2024, the court issued an order granting in part and
denying in part the motion to dismiss.
On July 16, 2024, the lead plaintiff notified the court that he
would proceed with his current pleading.
The company disputes the claims and intends to defend the case
vigorously.
ImmunityBio, Inc. is a clinical-stage biotechnology company
developing next-generation therapies and vaccines that complement,
harness, and amplify the immune system to defeat cancers and
infectious diseases. It strives to be a vertically-integrated
immunotherapy company designing and manufacturing products so these
are more effective, accessible, more conveniently stored, and more
easily administered to patients.
INDEGENE INC: Must File Class Cert Opposition by Sept. 3
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PROGRESSIVE HEALTH AND
REHAB CORP. v. INDEGENE, INC. et al., Case No.
1:20-cv-10106-ESK-AMD (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Edward S. Kiel
entered an order setting class certification briefing schedule:
-- Defendants Opposition Due: Sept. 3, 2024
-- Plaintiff's Reply Due: Oct. 4, 2024
-- Motion Return Date: Oct. 21, 2024
Indegene offers research & development, commercial, and marketing
services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 20, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AxGIf0 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Han Sheng Beh, Esq.
HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
800 Third Avenue, 13th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 471-6200
Facsimile: (212) 935-1166
E-mail: hbeh@hinshawlaw.com
JAMES KOUTOULAS: Bid to Dismiss De Ford Class Action Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIC DE FORD, SANDRA BADER
and SHAWN R. KEY, v. JAMES KOUTOULAS and LGBCOIN, LTD, Case No.
6:22-cv-00652-PGB-DCI (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Paul Byron
entered an order denying the Defendants' motion to dismiss and / or
transfer venue for forum Non Conveniens.
After considering Defendants' Motion, Plaintiffs' Response, and the
Manuel factors, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs' choice of
forum should not be disturbed. The Defendants have not met their
burden to show that the convenience of the parties and the
interests of justice strongly favor the transfer of this case to
the Southern District of Florida.
On April 1, 2022, Plaintiffs initiated this putative class action,
which stems from the creation, marketing, and sale of the LGBCoin,
a cryptocurrency.
On June 6, 2022, the Plaintiffs amended the initial complaint once
as a matter of course.
On May 22, 2023, while these motions to dismiss the TAC remained
pending, the Court issued an Order confirming a stay of discovery
in the case under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act
("PSLRA").
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 16, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=R77JxP at no extra
charge.[CC]
KELLER WILLIAMS: Scheduling Order Entered in Fordyce Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDWARD FORDYCE, v. KELLER
WILLIAMS REALTY, INC. Case No. 2:24-cv-01342-PD (E.D. Pa.), the
Hon. Judge Paul Diamond entered a scheduling order as follows:
1. A trial for the above-captioned case shall be held on June
10,
2025, at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 14A, United States District
Court, 601 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106.
2. A final pretrial conference is scheduled for June 4, 2025, at
11:00 a.m. in Room 14614, United States District Court, 601
Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Lead Trial Counsel
must
attend.
3. The Parties shall propound all interrogatories and requests
for
document production related to class certification no later
than
Sept. 6, 2024. The Parties shall respond to all written
discovery requests related to class discovery no later than
Sept. 20, 2024. All discovery shall proceed and continue in
such
manner as will assure that all requests for, and responses
to,
discovery will be noticed, served, and completed no later
than
Nov. 12, 2024.
4. The Plaintiff shall move for class certification on or before
Nov. 22, 2024. The Defendant shall respond on or before Dec.
13,
2024. The Court will hold a hearing on Plaintiff's motion for
class certification on Jan. 7, 2025, at 1:30 p.m. in
Courtroom
14A, United States District Court, 601 Market Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19106.
Keller Williams is an American technology and international real
estate franchise.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 16, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oa1EoN at no extra
charge.[CC]
KENVUE INC: Jones Suit Transferred to D. New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Ashly Jones and Basim Johnson, for themselves
and on behalf of others similarly situated v. KENVUE, INC. and
JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC., Case No. 4:24-cv-00499 was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey on Aug. 20, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-08571-GC-JBD to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Personal Injury: Health
Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product Liability.
Kenvue Inc. -- https://www.kenvue.com/ -- is an American consumer
health company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard M. Paul III, #44233
Ashlea Schwarz, #60102
PAUL LLP
601 Walnut Street, Suite 300
Kansas City, MO 64106
Phone: 816-984-8100
Fax: 816-984-8101
Email: rick@paulllp.com
ashlea@paulllp.com
KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION: Bid to Sever Certain Plaintiffs Tossed
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Roger Yanez, et al., v.
Knight Transportation Incorporated, et al., Case No.
2:15-cv-00990-JJT (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge John Tuchi entered an
order denying the Motion to Sever and Remand Plaintiffs Lira,
Lofton, Patino-Garcia, Carter and Rosete's Claims Only.
Five class members who are not class representatives in this
matter—Robert Lira, Matthew Lofton, Alejandro Patino Garcia,
Ernest Carter, and Guillermo Rosete have filed a Motion to "Sever
and Remand" their claims in this class action, to which class
counsel on behalf of the class representatives and remaining
members of the certified class filed a Response in opposition,
Defendants also filed a Response in opposition, and Movants filed a
Reply.
The Court will resolve the Motion without oral argument.
Aside from claiming they "do not trust Class Counsel" and do not
agree with the terms of the proposed settlement agreement, Movants
provide no substantive basis in the context of class certification
distinguishing their claims from those of the other class members.
The Court will therefore deny Movants’ request for severance of
their claims.
After Defendants as well as the class representatives and remaining
members of the certified class filed their Responses, Movants
recharacterized their request as one to opt out of the pending
settlement agreement.
But, as Respondents point out, Rule 23(c)(2) "provides for a single
opportunity to request exclusion from a certified class following
notice, and the Ninth Circuit has held it is inappropriate to
permit exclusions from a class after determinations on the merits
are made."
The proposed settlement agreement contains no second opportunity
for class members to opt out, and thus the Court has no basis to
grant Movants’ request to do so. Respondents point out that there
is no requirement that a proposed settlement agreement provide
class members with a second opportunity to opt out of the class.
Knight Transportation is a truckload carrier offering dry van,
refrigerated, intermodal and brokerage services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 16, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PmDFQD at no extra
charge.[CC]
KOOTENAI HEALTH: Fails to Protect Patients' Info, Goodwin Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
JACK GOODWIN and JULIE GOODWIN, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. KOOTENAI HEALTH, INC., an Idaho
Non-Profit Corporation, Case No. 2:24-cv-00389-BLW (D. Idaho, Aug.
21, 2024) sues the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and
safeguard Plaintiffs' and other similarly situated Kootenai Health
patients' personally identifiable information and protected health
information, including name, date of birth, Social Security number,
driver’s license or government-issued identification number,
medical record number, medical treatment and condition information,
medical diagnoses, medication information, and health insurance
information, from criminal hackers.
On Aug. 12, 2024, Kootenai Health filed official notice of a
hacking incident with the Office of the Maine Attorney General. On
or around the same date, Kootenai Health also sent out data breach
letters to individuals whose information was compromised as a
result of the hacking incident.
Based on the Notice sent to Plaintiffs and "Class Members", on
March 2, 2024, Defendant detected unusual activity on some of its
computer systems, launched an investigation, and discovered that an
unauthorized party had gained access to certain files that
contained sensitive patient information on Feb. 22, 2024.
As a result of this delayed response, the Plaintiffs and Class
Members had no idea for five months that their Private Information
had been compromised, and that they were, and continue to be, at
significant risk of identity theft and various other forms of
personal, social, and financial harm. The risk will remain for
their respective lifetimes, the suit says.
The Plaintiffs seek to remedy these harms on behalf of themselves
and all similarly situated individuals whose Private Information
was accessed and/or compromised during the Data Breach.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the Class,
assert claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of
contract, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, breach of
fiduciary duty, and declaratory judgment.
Plaintiff Goodwin is and was, an individual citizen of the State of
Idaho.
Kootenai Health is a hospital and medical treatment facility.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jaren Wieland, Esq.
MOONEY WIELAND WARREN
512 W. Idaho St., Suite 103
Boise, ID 83702
Telephone: (208) 401-9219
Facsimile: (208) 401-9218
E-mail: jaren.wieland.service@mooneywieland.com
- and -
Tyler J. Bean, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Telephone: (212) 532-1091
E-mail: tbean@sirillp.com
KOOTENAI HEALTH: Wade Balks at Patients' Unprotected Personal Info
------------------------------------------------------------------
CYNTHIA WADE, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KOOTENAI HEALTH, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:24-cv-00385-BLW (D. Idaho, August 20, 2024) arises from a recent
cyberattack and data breach resulting from Kootenai's failure to
implement reasonable and industry-standard data security practices
to protect Plaintiff and other patients' personal identifying
information, including private information.
According to the complaint, the Defendant disclosed on or about
August 12, 2024 that private information of over 464,000 current or
former patients, employees, and employees' dependents has been
compromised as a result of cyberattacks that occurred on or around
February 22, 2024. The data breach compromised and exposed
patient's information including individuals' names along with dates
of birth, Social Security numbers, driver's license or
government-issued identification numbers, medical record numbers,
medical treatment and condition information, medical diagnoses,
medication information, and health insurance information.
The Defendant failed to protect Plaintiff's and Class Members'
private information therefore, Plaintiff's and Class Members have
been exposed to actual harm consistent with the litany of injuries
that data breaches cause, including (a) loss of value of PII, (b)
loss of time spent dealing with the data breach, (c) current and
ongoing threat of and actual theft of PII by cybercriminals (d)
financial loss, such as purchasing protective measures including
credit monitoring, credit freezes, credit reports, and other means
of detecting and mitigating identity theft and (e) any other types
of quantifiable harm that stem from the breach, including
out-of-pocket losses, says the suit.
Kootenai Health, Inc. provides medical services to patients in
northern Idaho and throughout the Inland Northwest.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas Cruz, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
950 Bannock Street, Suite 1163
Boise, ID 83702
Telephone: (208) 202-3030
E-mail: tcruz@forthepeople.com
- and -
John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
201 North Franklin Street, 7th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 223-5505
E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com
- and -
Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP
510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Telephone: (215) 592-1500
E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com
- and -
Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq.
GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA
4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490
Cincinnati, OH 45242
Telephone: (513) 345-8291
E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com
- and -
Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
One Old Country Road, Suite 347
Carle Place, NY 11514
Telephone: (516) 873-9550
E-mail: bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com
LA SALLE UNIVERSITY: Class Settlement in Leonard Gets Initial Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ASIAH LEONARD,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LA
SALLE UNIVERSITY, Case No. 2:24-cv-00062-JS (E.D. Pa.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23:
(1) Preliminarily approving the proposed Settlement on behalf of
the Settlement Class Members according to the terms of the
Settlement Agreement;
(2) Provisionally certifying, for purposes of the Settlement
only,
the following Settlement Class:
"All La Salle undergraduate students who satisfied their
payment
obligations for the Spring Semester 2020 (tuition and/or
mandatory fees) who were enrolled in at least one in-person
on-
campus class but had their class(es) moved to online
learning.
(3) Preliminarily appointing Named Plaintiff Asiah Leonard as
Settlement Class Representative;
(4) Preliminarily appointing Nicholas A. Colella of Lynch
Carpenter, LLP, and Anthony M. Alesandro of Leeds Brown Law,
P.C. as Class Counsel to act on behalf of the Settlement
Class
and the Settlement Class Representative with respect to the
Settlement;
(5) Approving the Parties' proposed settlement procedure,
including
approving the Parties' selection of A.B. Data, Ltd. as
Settlement Administrator and approving the Parties' proposed
schedule;
(6) Entering the proposed Order Preliminarily Approving the
Proposed Settlement and Provisionally Certifying the
Proposed
Settlement Class, attached as Exhibit A to the Settlement
Agreement, which is attached as Exhibit 1 to the Declaration
of
Nicholas A. Colella; and
(7) Granting such other and further relief as may be just and
appropriate. Oral argument is requested to the extent
desired
by the Court.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 16, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BhMAG9 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicholas A. Colella, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 322-9243
E-mail: NickC@lcllp.com
- and -
Anthony M. Alesandro, Esq.
LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
One Old Country Road, Suite 347
Carle Place, NY 11514
Telephone: (516) 873-9550
E-mail: aalesandro@leedsbrownlaw.com
LAWTON, OK: Wilson Files ADA Suit in W.D. Oklahoma
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lawton City of
Oklahoma. The case is styled as Andre Wilson, on behalf of all
others who are similarly situated v. Lawton City of Oklahoma, John
Ratliff, Stan Booker, Stan Booker, Alan Rosenbaum, Heather
Moulton-Skiles, Sandra Carl, Jillian Allison, Manuel Martinez,
Michael Albert, in their official and personal capacity, Case No.
5:24-cv-00853-G (W.D. Okla., Aug. 19, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Lawton -- https://www.lawtonok.gov/ -- is a city in southwest
Oklahoma [BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
LENSAR INC: Continues to Defend Schaper Class Suit in Delaware
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lensar 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 Schaper class suit in the District of Delaware.
On August 14, 2023, stockholders Ryan Schaper and Christopher P.
Bolster filed a Verified Amended Class Action Complaint against the
Company and certain of its officers and members of the board of
directors ("Defendants") in the matter captioned Schaper v. LENSAR,
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00692-JLH (D. Del.).
Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act, as well as Rule 14d-9 promulgated thereunder,
and assert claims challenging the adequacy of disclosures in the
definitive proxy statement filed with the SEC on June 20, 2023, or
the Proxy, in connection with the Private Placement.
On August 18, 2023, the parties filed a joint stipulation extending
Defendants' time to respond to the complaint until a lead plaintiff
is appointed and plaintiffs file a second amended complaint or
designate the Verified Amended Class Action Complaint as operative.
On December 12, 2023, the Court appointed Ryan Schaper and
Christopher P. Bolster as Lead Plaintiffs.
On December 22, 2023, the parties filed a joint stipulation
providing that Lead Plaintiffs' will file a second amended
complaint or designate the Verified Amended Class Action Complaint
as operative on or before January 12, 2024.
On January 12, 2024, Lead Plaintiffs filed a Verified Second
Amended Class Action Complaint. Defendants filed a motion to
dismiss on February 26, 2024.
The parties completed briefing on the motion to dismiss in May
2024.
The Company vigorously denies that the definitive proxy statement
filed with the SEC on June 20, 2023 was deficient in any respect,
or that that supplemental disclosures were required or necessary
under applicable laws.
At this time, the Company cannot predict the outcome, or provide a
reasonable estimate or range of estimates of the possible outcome
or loss, if any, in this matter.
Lensar, Inc. -- http://www.lensar.com/-- is involved in next
generation femtosecond laser technology for refractive cataract
surgery. The LENSAR Laser System with Streamline II offers cataract
surgeons automation and customization of essential steps of the
refractive cataract surgery procedure with the highest levels of
precision, accuracy, and efficiency, while optimizing overall
visual outcomes.
LHNH LAVISTA: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Lanz Due Oct. 15
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEXANDER LANZ, et al., v.
LHNH LAVISTA LLC, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-05344-LMM (N.D. Ga.),
the Hon. Judge Leigh Martin May entered 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.
-- Plaintiffs' reply to the Defendants' response is due within 30
days of the filing of said response.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 14, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LaJ4Ql at no extra
charge.[CC]
LINCARE INC: Court OK's Oral Argument on Morris Class Cert Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Morris v. Lincare, Inc.,
Case No. 8:22-cv-02048 (M.D. Fla., Filed Sept. 6, 2022), the Hon.
Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywel entered an endorsed order granting
the Plaintiff's unopposed motion requesting oral argument on the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification.
The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA).
Lincare is a supplier of respiratory-therapy products and services
for patients in the home.[CC]
LINKEDIN CORPORATION: L.B. Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against LinkedIn Corporation.
The case is styled as L.B., and all others similarly situated v.
LinkedIn Corporation, Case No. 24CV445533 (Cal. Super. Ct., Santa
Clara Cty., Aug. 20, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Business Tort/Unfair Bus Prac Unlimited
(07)."
LinkedIn -- http://linkedin.com/-- is a business and
employment-focused social media platform that works through
websites and mobile apps.[BN]
LOS ANGELES, CA: Homeless Encampments Caused Harm, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
ADOM RATNER-STAUBER, individually and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES and
LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-07043
(C.D. Cal., August 20, 2024) alleges that Defendants have created a
dangerous situation for Plaintiff and those similarly situated
through an illegal and abject failure to enforce laws involving
homeless encampments.
In 2023, Los Angeles County has an estimated 75,518 homeless people
on any given night, with 46,260 in the City of Los Angeles. These
homeless people form encampments, ignored by Defendants, creating
third-world conditions surrounding and on Plaintiff's and similarly
situated person's property. These homeless individuals are allowed
free access to enter private property, including Plaintiff's and
the property of those similarly situated, and bring with them
trash, filth, and other junk. The Plaintiff and those similarly
situated face physical and verbal assaults, fires, urination,
defecation, nudity, public sex acts, solicitation, prostitution,
open drug use, discarded intravenous needles (i.e., biohazards
often contaminated with communicable diseases including HIV),
tents, trash heaps, and more along the public access to their
property and intruding onto their property, says the suit.
The Plaintiff seeks a declaration that the homeless encampments,
both those which are on City land and are owned and operated by the
City, and those that encroach upon Plaintiff's property and the
property of those similarly situated, constitute a public and
private nuisance; that Defendants have violated the Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution; a
permanent injunction ordering Defendants to enforce all applicable
laws in a way to abate the nuisance; compensation for the taking of
Plaintiff's property; and attorneys' fees as allowed by law.
The Plaintiff owns residential, commercial, and industrial
properties throughout the city.
City of Los Angeles is a municipal entity existing under the laws
of the State of California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Yerushalmi, Esq.
AMERICAN FREEDOM LAW CENTER
2020 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Suite 189
Washington, D.C. 20006
Telephone: (646) 262-0500
E-mail: dyerushalmi@americanfreedomlawcenter.org
- and -
Robert J. Muise, Esq.
Kate Oliveri, Esq.
AMERICAN FREEDOM LAW CENTER
PO Box 131098
Ann Arbor, MI 48113
Telephone: (734) 635-3756
Facsimile: (801) 760-3901
E-mail: rmuise@americanfreedomlawcenter.org
koliveri@americanfreedomlawcenter.org
LOTTE HOTEL: Diaz Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA & NYLL
-----------------------------------------------------------
RUBEN DIAZ, PRADIP SAHA, RAMENDRA SAHA, MAXINE SMITH, JOHNNY
RAMIREZ, MADGY SAAD, MOZIBUR RAHMAN, CHRISTOPHER STAVROPOULOS,
ASHIF MIRU, BISWA SAHA, SAYOT ALPHONSE, ALBERTO PRADO, MAURICE
SCHWARTE, ABELLA BOUALE, DENZIL HANNAH, MILAD BARSOUM, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. LOTTE HOTEL NEW
YORK PALACE, LLC, d/b/a Lotte Hotel Palace, Case No. 1:24-cv-05930
(E.D.N.Y., Aug. 23, 2024) is an action by employees against their
employer for unpaid, deducted and/or misappropriated wages, arising
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief, permanent injunctive
relief, damages and attorneys' fees with costs for Defendant's
violations of the FLSA and NYLL.
The Defendant has operated the New York Palace Hotel. The Defendant
was and is Plaintiffs' employer and part of an FLSA enterprise
affecting interstate commerce, doing business in the hospitality
industry in the City and State of New York.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David C. Wims, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF DAVID WIMS
1430 Pitkin Ave., 2nd Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11233
Telephone: (646) 393-9550
LOWELL FARMS: Continues to Defend California Consumers Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lowell Farms 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 13, 2024, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the California consumers class suit.
A putative class action was filed on behalf of all California
consumers who purchased products made by Lowell Farms, Inc. in
California.
The case alleges that Lowell failed to accurately label its
products with the THC% identified by its testing laboratories, and
that California consumers were thereby deceived into paying higher
prices for Lowell's products than they otherwise would have.
No trial has been scheduled in this matter.
The parties are presently engaged in the process by which Plaintiff
will bring a motion seeking certification of a class.
If class certification is denied, then Plaintiff will be relegated
to his own damages, which is likely just a few hundred dollars, and
the case will likely end. If class certification is granted, then
the parties will engage in fact discovery and the Court will set a
trial date.
The class certification motion is scheduled to be heard on August
26, 2024.
Plaintiff has served discovery requests limited to class
certification issues, but the parties have not engaged in any
merits discovery.
It is difficult to evaluate any potential outcome at such an early
stage of the case where there has been no merits discovery.
The Company is prepared to vigorously defend itself at the trial if
a class is certified and a settlement is not reached. It is
difficult to evaluate the likely outcome of a trial because
Plaintiff has not articulated a theory of damages. In addition, due
to the early nature of the case, an estimate of a loss is not
reasonably estimable.
Lowell Farms Inc. (OTCQX: LOWLF) engages in the cultivation,
extraction, manufacturing, sale, marketing, and distribution of
cannabis products to retail dispensaries in California.
LPL FINANCIAL: Faces Vu Suit Over Illegal Cash Sweep Program
------------------------------------------------------------
HIEU VU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LPL FINANCIAL LLC, Defendant, Case No.
3:24-cv-01484-AGS-VET (S.D. Cal., August 20, 2024) is a proposed
class action suit against the Defendant for breach of fiduciary
duty, breach of contract, gross negligence, breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment due
to alleged unlawful conduct involving its cash sweep program.
According to the complaint, LPL automatically transfers Plaintiff
and other customers' uninvested cash in what is known as a "cash
sweep account" where their cash can earn interest. The cash sweep
accounts at issue in this case are the LPL Deposit Cash Account and
the LPL Insured Cash Account (collectively, "LPL Sweep Program").
The Plaintiff and Class members are clients with LPL whose
uninvested cash was automatically transferred into cash sweep
accounts pursuant to the LPL Sweep Program.
LPL had a legal and contractual duty to act in the best interests
of Plaintiff and the proposed Class members. Unfortunately for
Plaintiff and Class members, LPL breached its legal and contractual
duties to them. LPL automatically deposited Plaintiff and Class
members' uninvested cash with banks (both affiliated and
unaffiliated) that pay low and unreasonable rates of return to
LPL's investment customers, but paid LPL significant and higher
fees at the expense of customers. As a result, LPL was able to
generate massive revenues while paying customers a pittance, the
suit alleges.
LPL Financial LLC is an independent broker-dealer in the United
States providing financial planning products and services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq.
Rosanne L. Mah, Esq.
GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
1111 Broadway, Suite 2100
Oakland, CA 94607
Telephone: (510) 350-9700
Facsimile: (510) 350-9701
E-mail: rmr@classlawgroup.com
rlm@classlawgroup.com
LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA: Website Inaccessible to Bind, Dalton Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Luxottica of America Inc., d/b/a Sunglass Hut, Case No.
0:24-cv-03380 (D. Minn., Aug. 23, 2024) arises because the
Defendant's Website (www.sunglasshut.com) is not fully and equally
accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in
violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the
effective communication and auxiliary aids and services
requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the
Minnesota Human Rights Act.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring a change in
Defendant's corporate policies to cause its online store to become,
and remain, accessible to individuals with visual disabilities; a
civil penalty payable to the state of Minnesota pursuant to Minn.
Stat. 363A.33, Subd. 6 and Minn. Stat. section 363A.29, subd. 4
(2023); damages, and a damage multiplier pursuant to Minn. Stat.
section 363A.33, subd. 6 (2023), and Minn. Stat. section 363A.29,
subd. 4 (2023).
The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and others who are similarly
situated, seeks relief including an injunction requiring Defendant
to make its Website accessible to Plaintiff and the putative class;
and requiring Defendant to adopt sufficient policies, practices,
and procedures, the details of which are more fully described
below, to ensure that Defendant's Website remains accessible in the
future.
The Plaintiffs also seek an award of statutory attorney's fees and
costs, damages, a damages multiplier, a civil penalty, and such
other relief as the Court deems just, equitable, and appropriate.
The injunctive relief that Plaintiff seeks will inure to the
benefit of an estimated 2.3 percent of the United States population
who reports having a visual disability.
Luxottica does business as Sunglass Hut. The Defendant has physical
Sunglass Hut locations within and around the State of Minnesota.
The Defendant offers sunglasses and prescription sunglasses for
sale including Ray-Ban, Oakley, Prada, and Versace.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason Gustafson, Esq.
Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq.
Chad A. Throndset, Esq.
THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC
80 South 8th Street, Suite 900
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (763) 515-6110
E-mail: jason@throndsetlaw.com
pat@throndsetlaw.com
chad@throndsetlaw.com
M.S. WALKER INC: Albernaz Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as David Albernaz, Raphael Angulo, Jonathon
Ausiello, Troy Benoir, Wayne Burch, Oscar Carbajal, Matthew Conley,
Cesar Delacruz, Corey Donovan, Victor Figuroa, Kyle Frederick,
Eddie Kadek, Andrew Leach, Fatjon Loloci, Sammy Mercado, Kristeon
Mesa, Javier Molina, Jeff Morales, Matthew Nelson, Richard Otis,
Sopheak Ou, James Pari, Earl Reynolds, and Senna Sor, on behalf of
a class of other similarly situated employees of Defendant v. M.S.
Walker, Inc., Case No. 2482-cv-00648 was removed from the
Massachusetts Superior Court in and for Norfolk County, to the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on
Aug. 19, 2024, and assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-12124.
The Plaintiffs, who remain employed with Defendant, further allege
that these intermittent day-to-day layoffs each constituted a
"discharge" under the Massachusetts Wage Act, and that Defendant
did not provide employees with their pay on the dates of alleged
discharge.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Keith H. McCown, Esq.
Damien M. DiGiovanni, Esq.
Brendan T. Sweeney, Esq.
MORGAN, BROWN & JOY, LLP
200 State Street, Suite 11A
Boston, MA 02109-2605
Phone: (617) 523-6666
Email: kmccown@morganbrown.com
ddigiovanni@morganbrown.com
bsweeney@morganbrown.com
MAIDEN HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Raschbaum Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Maiden Holdings Ltd. 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 Raschbaum class suit in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey.
A putative class action complaint was filed against Maiden
Holdings, Arturo M. Raschbaum, Karen L. Schmitt, and John M.
Marshaleck in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey on February 11, 2019.
On February 19, 2020, the Court appointed lead plaintiffs, and on
May 1, 2020, lead plaintiffs filed an amended class action
complaint (the "Amended Complaint").
The Amended Complaint asserts violations of Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 (and Section 20(a) for control person
liability) arising in large part from allegations that Maiden
failed to take adequate loss reserves in connection with
reinsurance provided to AmTrust.
Plaintiffs further claim that certain of Maiden Holdings’
representations concerning its business, underwriting and financial
statements were rendered false by the allegedly inadequate loss
reserves, that these misrepresentations inflated the price of
Maiden Holdings' common stock, and that when the truth about the
misrepresentations was revealed, the Company's stock price fell,
causing Plaintiffs to incur losses.
On September 11, 2020, a motion to dismiss was filed on behalf of
all Defendants.
On August 6, 2021, the Court issued an order denying, in part,
Defendants' motion to dismiss, ordering Plaintiffs to file a
shorter amended complaint no later than August 20, 2021, and
permitting discovery to proceed on a limited basis.
On February 7, 2023, the District Court denied Plaintiffs' motion
for reconsideration of the District Court's decision denying
Plaintiffs' objection to the Magistrate Judge's December 2021
ruling on discovery.
On May 26, 2023, the Company filed a Renewed Motion to Dismiss the
Second Amended Complaint or, in the Alternative, for Summary
Judgment, which has been fully briefed.
On December 19, 2023, the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey granted summary judgment on plaintiffs' claim for
securities fraud under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
to Maiden Holdings, Ltd. and individual defendants Arturo
Raschbaum, Karen Schmitt, and John Marshalek.
The Court held that the factual record failed to support, as a
matter of law, plaintiffs' allegations that the defendants had made
false statements regarding the Company's loss reserves.
The Court also dismissed plaintiffs' claims that the individual
defendants were liable as control persons under Section 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act for any such alleged false statements.
Plaintiffs have appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit.
The Company believes the claims are without merit and intends to
vigorously defend ourselves.
Maiden Holdings Ltd. is a Bermuda based holding company with
insurance subsidiaries that provides specialty reinsurance products
for the global property and casualty market.
MAISON SOLUTIONS: Continues to Defend Kim Class Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
Maison Solutions 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 13, 2024, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Kim class suit in the Supreme Court of
the State of New York.
On January 2, 2024, the Company and its executive officers and
directors, as well as Joseph Stone Capital LLC, and AC Sunshine
Securities LLC, the underwriters in the Company's initial public
offering (together, the "Defendants"), were named in a class action
complaint filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York
alleging violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933, as amended (Ilsan Kim v. Maison Solutions Inc., et. al, Index
No. 150024/2024).
As relief, the plaintiffs are seeking, among other things,
compensatory damages.
On or about April 17, 2024, the parties agreed to stay the action
in favor of the Rick Green matter.
On January 4, 2024, the Defendants were named in a class action
complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California alleging violations of Sections 11 and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, as well as violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended (Rick Green and Evgenia Nikitina v. Maison Solutions Inc.,
et. al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00063). As relief, the plaintiffs are
seeking, among other things, compensatory damages.
The Company and Defendants believe the allegations in both
complaints are without merit and intend to defend each suit
vigorously. It is reasonably possible that a loss may be incurred;
however, the possible range of losses is not reasonably estimable
given the pending status of both cases.
MAISON SOLUTIONS INC. operates as a supermarket. The Company offers
traditional Asian foods and merchandises such as fresh produce,
meat, seafood, and other daily necessities. [BN]
MARINUS PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend Bishins Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Marinus Pharmaaceuticals 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 13, 2024, that the Company
continues to defend itself from the Bishins securities class suit
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.
On June 5, 2024, a securities class action lawsuit captioned
Bishins v. Marinus Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et. al., Case
2:24-cv-02430, was filed against the Company and certain of its
officers in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.
The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (Exchange Act) and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder on the basis of purportedly materially
false and misleading statements and omissions concerning our RAISE
and RAISE II clinical trials.
The complaint seeks, among other things, unspecified damages,
attorneys' fees, expert fees, and other costs.
Motions to appoint lead plaintiffs and lead counsel for the action
were due on August 5, 2024.
One purported stockholder filed a motion by the August 5 deadline.
That motion is currently pending, and the Compny intends to move to
dismiss the complaint once a schedule has been set.
The Company intends to vigorously defend against this action.
Headquartered in Radnor, PA, Marinus is a pharmaceutical company
that develops treatment for seizure disorders. Its common stock
trades on the NASDAQ exchange under the ticker symbol "MRNS." [BN]
MASSAGE ENVY: Grosso Sues Over Membership Fee Improper Collection
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL GROSSO and VALENCIA JEFFERSON, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. MASSAGE ENVY FRANCHISING, LLC, a
Delaware Limited Liability Company; ME SPE FRANCHISING, LLC, a
Delaware Limited Liability Company; MASSAGE ENVY FLW, LLC, an
Arizona Limited Liability Company; ME HOLDING CORPORATION, a
Georgia Corporation; ME FUNDING, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability
Company; ME SPE HOLDCO, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company;
MASSAGE ENVY CLINIC OPERATIONS, LLC, an Arizona Limited Liability
Company; MASSAGE ENVY, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company;
and DOES 1 Through 10, inclusive,, Case No. 3:24-cv-05585 (N.D.
Cal., Aug. 21, 2024) is a proposed nationwide and California class
action alleging Defendants' improper collection of membership fees
from Massage Envy franchise clients after the closing of
franchises.
Plaintiffs Daniel Grosso and Valencia Jefferson bring this lawsuit
individually and on behalf of a Proposed Class of
"All persons in the United States who have been charged a
monthly membership fee by Defendants, after the Franchisee
Entity location with which they entered into a Wellness
Agreement closed, at any time within four years from the date
this Class Action Complaint was filed"
as well as on behalf of a Proposed Electronic Funds Transfer
("EFTA") class of
"All persons in the United States whose bank accounts were
debited on a reoccurring basis by Defendants, after the
California Franchisee Entity location with which these persons
entered into a Wellness Agreement closed, without obtaining a
written authorization signed or similarly authenticated for
preauthorized electronic fund transfers within the one year
prior to the filing of this Complaint."
These monthly membership fee charges by Defendants have been
rampant, to the detriment of the Proposed Classes and in violation
of several laws, including conversion and common law claims for
money had and received and unjust enrichment, and in violation of
California's Unfair Competition Law, California's Automatic
Purchase Renewals Law, and Electronic Funds Transfer Act.
Mr. Grosso entered into a Wellness Agreement with the Massage
Envy-Alameda Towne Centre Franchisee Entity location, located at
2233 S. Shore Ctr., Alameda, California, on April 14, 2008. Mr.
Grosso was charged a monthly membership fee, which he could use to
redeem for massages and other personal care services, called
"Benefits." The Alameda location was closed in March 2024. Mr.
Grosso was not notified of this closure, and no effort was made by
the closed Massage Envy Franchisee Entity or any other party to
direct him to another open Massage Envy Franchisee Entity
location.
Massage Envy is an American massage and skin care national
franchisor.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Isam C. Khoury, Esq.
Michael D. Singer, Esq.
Maggie Realin, Esq.
Rosemary C. Khoury
COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER
605 C Street, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 595-3001
Facsimile: (619) 595-3000
E-mail: ikhoury@ckslaw.com
msinger@ckslaw.com
mrealin@ckslaw.com
rkhoury@ckslaw.com
MDL 2873: West Alleges Injury Due to Toxic Chemical Exposure
------------------------------------------------------------
MARK WEST, 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; ANGUS
FIRE ARMOUR CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BASF
CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE &
SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC.; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION;
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.;
CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.;
DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. DYNAX CORPORATION; E. I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS
AND COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; NATION FORD
CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP;
RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; ROYAL CHEMICAL COMPANY, LTD.;
THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS, LP; and JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS 1-20, Defendants, Case No.
2:24-cv-04225-RMG (D.S.C., July 31, 2024) is a class action against
the Defendants seeking damages for personal injury resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (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. The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal
absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, directly and
proximately, caused him to develop the serious medical conditions
and complications, and to suffer severe personal injuries, pain,
suffering, and emotional distress, says the suit.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and during his service as a firefighter in the
United States Army. The Plaintiff was also exposed to Defendants'
PFAS-containing AFFF products and fluorochemical products by
ingesting drinking water contaminated with PFAS.
The West 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:
James L. Ferraro, Esq.
James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq.
THE FERRARO LAW FIRM
600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 375-0111
E-mail: jlf@ferrarolaw.com
james@ferrarolaw.com
MERCURY SYSTEMS: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in MA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mercury Systems 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 13, 2024, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the securities class suit in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
On December 13, 2023, a securities class action complaint was filed
against the Company, Mark Aslett, and Michael Ruppert in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
The complaint asserted Section 10(b) and 20(a) securities fraud
claims on behalf of a purported class of purchasers and sellers of
its stock from December 7, 2020, through June 23, 2023.
The complaint alleged that its public disclosures in SEC filings
and on earnings calls were false and/or misleading.
On February 27, 2024, the Court entered an order appointing
Carpenters Pension Trust Fund for Northern California as lead
plaintiff.
On April 18, 2024, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint
including William Ballhaus and David Farnsworth as additional
defendants and amended the class period to February 3, 2021 through
February 6, 2024.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss on May 24, 2024, and after
the plaintiffs' filed their opposition motion and it filed its
reply to their opposition, a hearing on the motion was conducted by
the Court on July 24, 2024.
On July 24, 2024, the Court dismissed the case without prejudice
and permitted the plaintiffs 30 days to file an amended complaint.
Subject to the terms of iyd by-laws and applicable Massachusetts
law, Mr. Aslett, its former Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Ruppert,
its former Chief Financial Officer, Mr. Ballhaus, its current Chief
Executive Officer, and Mr. Farnsworth, its current Chief Financial
officer, are indemnified by the Company for this matter.
It believes the claims in the complaint are without merit and
intends to defend itself vigorously.
Mercury Systems, Inc. is a technology company that delivers
processing power for the most demanding aerospace and defense
missions. Its end-to-end processing platform enables a broad range
of aerospace and defense programs, optimized for mission success in
some of the most challenging and demanding environments.
MERCY SYSTEMS: Continues to Defend PAGA Labor Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Mercury Systems 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 13, 2024, that the Company continues
to defend itself from PAGA labor class suit in the California state
court in Los Angeles County.
On January 31, 2024, a former employee at our Torrance, California
location, filed a wage and hour class action lawsuit in California
state court in Los Angeles County, along with a companion Private
Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") lawsuit, to act in a representative
capacity for other Mercury Mission Systems, LLC employees in
California, alleging a range of violations of California wage and
hour regulations.
The Company believes the claims in the complaints are without merit
and intends to defend itself vigorously.
Mercury Systems, Inc. is a technology company that delivers
processing power for the most demanding aerospace and defense
missions. Its end-to-end processing platform enables a broad range
of aerospace and defense programs, optimized for mission success in
some of the most challenging and demanding environments.
MNGI DIGESTIVE: Demsky Alleges Inadequate Data Security
-------------------------------------------------------
BARBARA DEMSKY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MNGI DIGESTIVE HEALTH, P.A., Defendant, Case
No. 27-CV-24-11526 (Minn. Dist., 4th Judicial, Hennepin Cty.,
August 2, 2024) seeks to hold Defendant responsible for the
injuries MNGI inflicted on Plaintiff and over 765,000 others due to
Defendant's inadequate data security, which resulted in the private
information of Plaintiff and those similarly situated to be exposed
to unauthorized third parties.
The Plaintiff brings this action against MNGI and assert claims for
negligence, negligence per se, unjust enrichment, breach of
fiduciary duty, and breach of implied contract.
According to MNGI, on August 25, 2023, MNGI detected unauthorized
activity within its information technology systems. On June 7,
2024, MNGI determined that privacy of Plaintiff's and Class
Members' personal identifying information and protected health
information was impacted on August 20, 2023.
Instead of following the rules, however, MNGI disregarded the
rights of Plaintiff and Class Members by intentionally, willfully,
recklessly, and/or negligently failing to implement reasonable
measures to safeguard the private information and by failing to
take necessary steps to prevent unauthorized disclosure of that
information. MNGI's woefully inadequate data security measures made
the data breach a foreseeable, and even likely, consequence of its
negligence, says the suit.
MNGI is a healthcare provider that specializes in gastrointestinal
medical care.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq.
Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
100 Washington Avenue South Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339-6900
Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
E-mail: khriebel@locklaw.com
kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com
- and -
Jean Sutton Martin, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 223-5505
Facsimile: (813) 223-5402
E-mail: jeanmartin@forthepeople.com
MODIVCARE INC: Continues to Defend Caregivers' Labor Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
ModivCare 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 caregivers labor class suit in New York.
In 2017, one of the PCS segment subsidiaries, All Metro Home Care
Services of New York, Inc. d/b/a All Metro Health Care ("All
Metro"), received a class action lawsuit in state court claiming
that, among other things, it failed to properly pay live-in
caregivers who stay in patients' homes for 24 hours per day
("live-ins").
The Company pays live-ins for 13 hours per day as supported through
a written opinion letter from the New York State Department of
Labor ("NYSDOL").
A similar case involving this issue has been heard by the New York
Court of Appeals (New York's highest court), which on March 26,
2019, issued a ruling reversing earlier lower courts' decisions
that an employer must pay live-ins for 24 hours.
The Court of Appeals agreed with the NYSDOL's interpretation to pay
live-ins 13 hours instead of 24 hours if certain conditions were
being met.
Following All Metro's motion to oppose class certification, which
was heard on June 23, 2022, the state court issued an order
certifying the class on December 12, 2022.
Because the parties to date have been unable to settle their
dispute through mediation, discovery in the matter is continuing.
If the plaintiffs prove successful in this class action lawsuit,
All Metro may be liable for back wages and liquidated damages
dating back to November 2021.
All Metro believes that it is and has been in compliance in all
material respects with the laws and regulations covering pay for
live-in caregivers, intends to continue to defend itself vigorously
with respect to this matter, and the Company does not believe in
any event that the ultimate outcome of this matter will have a
material adverse effect on the Company's business, liquidity,
financial condition or results of operations.
ModivCare Inc. is a technology-enabled healthcare services company
that provides a suite of integrated supportive care solutions for
public and private payors and their members.
MONDELEZ GLOBAL: Ransom Files Saltine Cracker Mislabeling Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
EDNA NORMENT RANSOM, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONDELEZ GLOBAL LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:24-cv-06216 (S.D.N.Y., August 16, 2024) asserts claims
on behalf of the Plaintiff and similarly situated purchasers for
Defendant's alleged violation of the New York General Business
Law.
This is a class action on behalf of purchasers of Defendant's
Nabisco Whole Grain Premium Saltine Cracker products. The
Defendant's "Whole Grain" branding and labeling of the products is
deceptive and misleading because it conveys that the products' main
flour ingredient is whole grain when, in fact, the main flour
ingredient is non-whole grain enriched wheat flour.
The Defendant's "Whole Grain" representation is featured on the
products' labeling to induce consumers to purchase items that are
made predominantly from whole grain flour. The Defendant markets
its products in a systematically misleading manner by
misrepresenting that the products are predominantly made with whole
grain flour, even though that is not the case. As a result,
Plaintiff and the putative class members were overcharged for the
products, says the suit.
Mondelez Global LLC is an American multinational confectionery,
food, holding, beverage and snack food company based in Chicago,
Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph I. Marchese, Esq.
Israel Rosenberg, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: jmarchese@bursor.com
irosenberg@bursor.com
MORAVIAN FLORIST: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Raheel Says
------------------------------------------------------------
AISHA RAHEEL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Moravian Florist & Garden Center, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-05725 (E.D.N.Y., August 16, 2024) is a
civil rights action against Moravian Florist & Garden Center for
their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their
website, https://www.moravianflorist.com, to be fully accessible to
and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New
York City Human Rights Law.
This case arises from Moravian Florist & Garden Center's policy and
practice of denying the blind access to the services offered by
Moravianflorist.com. These barriers are pervasive and include, but
are not limited to: incorrectly formatted lists, ambiguous link
texts, changing of content without advance warning, the lack of
adequate labeling of form fields, hidden elements on the web page,
inaccurate drop-down menus, and the requirement that transactions
be performed solely with a mouse, says the suit.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Moravian Florist & Garden Center's policies, practices, and
procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint
also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for
having been subjected to unlawful discrimination.
Moravian Florist & Garden Center, Inc. operates the website which
offers flowers, plants, and floral services for different events
and holidays.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Asher Cohen, Esq.
ASHER COHEN PLLC
2377 56th Dr,
Brooklyn, NY 11234
Telephone: (718) 914 9694
E-mail: acohen@ashercohenlaw.com
MORGAN STANLEY: Loses Bid to Dismiss Doe Discrimination Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DOE v. Morgan Stanley & Co., LLC, Case No.
1:24-cv-10391 (D. Mass.), Judge Julia E. Kobick of the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied
Morgan Stanley & Co., LLC's motion to compel arbitration and
dismiss the putative class action complaint filed by Jane Doe.
In this putative class action, plaintiff Jane Doe alleges that
defendant Morgan Stanley & Co., LLC, violated M.G.L. c. 151B, Sec.
4(9) by requiring her and similarly situated individuals to furnish
information about arrests that did not result in criminal
convictions when they applied to work for the company.
Morgan Stanley moves to compel arbitration under Section 4 of the
Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. Sec. 4, and to dismiss the
complaint. It contends that when Doe began her job application, she
agreed to submit all claims arising out of the job application and
recruitment process to binding arbitration and waived the right to
proceed on a class-wide basis in court or before an arbitrator.
Doe disputes that she formed such a contract with Morgan Stanley.
She maintains that when she clicked an "I Accept" button in Morgan
Stanley's online job application portal, she did not have actual or
reasonable notice of an arbitration agreement offered by Morgan
Stanley and did not manifest her assent to arbitrate claims arising
out of her job application.
Applying Massachusetts contract law, the Court concludes that Doe
has the better of the arguments and will deny Morgan Stanley's
motion. The nature of the transaction and the design of Morgan
Stanley's online interface would not give a reasonable job
applicant in Doe's position notice of the arbitration agreement,
nor did that interface disclose the full scope of the terms and
conditions offered by the company, the Court finds. Because Doe did
not have an adequate opportunity to review the terms of the offer,
she lacked reasonable notice of the arbitration agreement and its
class action waiver provision and therefore formed no contract with
Morgan Stanley, the Court says.
Separately, Doe moves to proceed by using a pseudonym throughout
this litigation. That motion will be denied because Doe has already
submitted an affidavit to the Court signed with her real name, and
thus has waived her request to shield her identity from public
disclosure.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated
August 6, 2024, is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YwyNKy
MULLEN AUTOMOTIVE: Continues to Defend Schaub Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Mullen Automotive 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 12, 2024, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Schaub securities class suit in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California.
On May 5, 2022, Plaintiff Margaret Schaub, a purported stockholder,
filed a putative class action complaint in the United States
District Court Central District of California against the Company,
as well as its Chief Executive Officer, David Michery, and the
Chief Executive Officer of a predecessor entity, Oleg Firer (the
"Schaub Lawsuit").
This lawsuit was brought by Schaub both individually and on behalf
of a putative class of the Company's shareholders, claiming false
or misleading statements regarding the Company's business
partnerships, technology, and manufacturing capabilities and
alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.
An amended complaint was filed on September 23, 2022, asserting
claims against the Company, Mullen Technologies, Inc., and Mr.
Michery.
The Schaub Lawsuit seeks to certify a putative class of
shareholders, seeks monetary damages, and an award of reasonable
fees and expenses.
As of June 30, 2024, the Company has created a provision for
losses expected to arise from this litigation.
Mullen Automotive Inc., is a Southern California-based
development-stage electric vehicle company that operates in various
verticals of businesses focused within the automotive industry.
NATIONAL ENTERTAINMENT: Appeals Denied Bid to Dismiss Hines Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
NATIONAL ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, LLC is taking an appeal from a court
order denying its motion to dismiss in the lawsuit entitled Jessica
Hines, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. National Entertainment Group, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 2:23-cv-02952, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio.
On September 13, 2023, the Plaintiff brought this complaint against
the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act,
and the Ohio Semi-Monthly Payment Act, and for common law unjust
enrichment.
On Oct. 30, 2023, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for lack
of jurisdiction or in the alternative to stay the matter pending
completion of arbitration, which the Court denied through an Order
entered by Judge Algenon L. Marbley on Aug. 7, 2024.
The Court held that the Plaintiff has standing to sue and that the
Arbitration Agreement in the Lease Agreement Waiver is void and
unenforceable. Accordingly, the Defendant's motion to dismiss is
denied.
The appellate case is captioned Jessica Hines v. National
Entertainment Group, LLC, Case No. 24-3725, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed on August 19, 2024.
[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellee JESSICA HINES, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Michael Fradin, Esq.
8 N. Court Street, Suite 403
Athens, OH 45701
Telephone: (847) 644-3425
Defendant-Appellant NATIONAL ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, LLC, doing
business as Vanity, is represented by:
Damion M. Clifford, Esq.
ARNOLD CLIFFORD
115 W. Main Street, Fourth Floor
Columbus, OH 43215
Telephone: (614) 460-1600
ND OTM: Bid for Class Certification in Demmons Suit Due Sept. 20
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEMMONS et al v. ND OTM
LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00305 (D. Maine, Filed Oct 07, 2022), the
Hon. Judge Nancy Torresen entered an order resetting class
certification deadlines:
-- Motion for class certification due by: Sept. 20, 2024
-- Defendant's opposition to motion for Oct. 18, 2024
class certification due by:
-- Plaintiff's reply to motion for class Nov. 1, 2024
certification due by:
-- Deadline for Plaintiff to move for Sept. 20, 2024
class certification is extended to:
-- Deadline for Defendant to file opposition Oct. 18, 2024
to motion for class certification is
extended to:
-- Deadline for Plaintiff to file reply Nov. 1, 2024
memorandum in support of motion for
class certification is extended to:
The nature of suit states Real Property -- Torts to Land.[CC]
NEUEHEALTH INC: Continues to Defend Marquez Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NeueHealth 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 13, 2024, that the Company continues to defend
itself from the Marquez securities class suit in the Eastern
District of New York.
On January 6, 2022, a putative securities class action lawsuit was
filed against the Company and certain of its officers and directors
in the Eastern District of New York.
The case is captioned Marquez v. Bright Health Group, Inc. et al.,
1:22-cv-00101 (E.D.N.Y.).
The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that it made materially
false and misleading statements regarding its business, operations,
and compliance policies, which in turn adversely affected its stock
price.
An amended complaint was filed on June 24, 2022, which expands on
the allegations in the original complaint and alleges a putative
class period of June 24, 2021 through March 1, 2022.
The amended complaint also adds as defendants the underwriters of
its initial public offering.
The Company has served a motion to dismiss the amended complaint,
which has not yet been ruled on by the court.
The Company is vigorously defending the Company in the above
actions, but there can be no assurance that it will be successful
in any defense.
NeueHealth Inc., formerly known as Bright Health Inc., designs,
delivers, and manages high-performing networks.
NeueHealth infuse providers with advanced technology, a wealth of
health care expertise, and proven models of care.
NEWS CORP: Continues to Defend Antitrust Class Suit in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
News 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 13, 2024, that the Company continues to defend
itself from antitrust and competition laws violations class suit in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.
Beginning in February 2021, a number of purported class action
complaints have been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York (the "N.Y. District Court") against
Amazon.com, Inc. ("Amazon") and certain publishers, including the
Company's subsidiary, HarperCollins Publishers, L.L.C.
("HarperCollins" and together with the other publishers, the
"Publishers"), alleging violations of antitrust and competition
laws.
The complaints seek treble damages, injunctive relief and
attorneys' fees and costs.
In August 2023, the N.Y. District Court dismissed the complaints in
one of the cases with prejudice and in March 2024, the court
dismissed the complaint against the Publishers in the remaining
case with prejudice.
However, the plaintiffs' time to appeal the N.Y. District Court's
decision to dismiss in the latter case does not expire until the
complaint against Amazon in that case has been finally determined.
While it is not possible at this time to predict with any degree of
certainty the ultimate outcome of these actions, HarperCollins
believes it has been compliant with applicable laws and intends to
defend itself vigorously.
News Corporation (Nasdaq: NWS, NWSA; ASX: NWS, NWSLV) is a global,
diversified media and information services company focused on
creating and distributing authoritative and engaging content and
other products and services.
NEXSTAR MEDIA: Continues to Defend Advertising Antitrust Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Nexstar Media 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 8, 2024, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Local TV Advertising Antitrust class suit
in the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
Starting in July 2018, a series of plaintiffs filed putative class
action lawsuits against the Defendants and others alleging that
they coordinated their pricing of television advertising, thereby
harming a proposed class of all buyers of television advertising
time from one or more of the Defendants since at least January 1,
2014.
The plaintiff in each lawsuit seeks injunctive relief and money
damages caused by the alleged antitrust violations.
On October 9, 2018, these cases were consolidated in a
multi-district litigation in the District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois captioned In Re: Local TV Advertising
Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:18-cv-06785 ("MDL Litigation").
On January 23, 2019, the Court in the MDL Litigation appointed
plaintiffs' lead and liaison counsel.
The MDL Litigation is ongoing.
The Plaintiffs' Consolidated Complaint was filed on April 3, 2019;
Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss on September 5, 2019.
Before the Court ruled on that motion, the Plaintiffs filed their
Second Amended Consolidated Complaint on September 9, 2019.
This complaint added additional defendants and allegations.
The Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss and Strike on October 8,
2019.
The Court denied that motion on November 6, 2020.
On March 16, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed their Third Amended
Complaint.
The Third Amended Complaint adds two additional plaintiffs and an
additional defendant, but does not make material changes to the
allegations.
The parties are in the discovery phase of litigation.
The Court has not yet set a trial date.
Nexstar and Tribune deny all allegations against them and will
defend their advertising practices.
NORTHWOOD HEALTHCARE: Deadline for Class Cert Bid Vacated
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DONNA GIFFORD, v.
NORTHWOOD HEALTHCARE GROUP, LLC, et al., Case No.
2:22-cv-04389-SDM-CMV (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Chelsey Vascura
entered an order:
-- granting the Parties' joint motion to set aside case management
plan deadlines, (ECF No. 119), in which the Parties request
that
certain deadlines set in the Preliminary Pretrial Order be
vacated
pending the Parties’ efforts to resolve this matter through
private mediation.
-- vacating the current deadlines for (1) completion of discovery;
(2) any motion for class certification; and (3) dispositive
motions
-- directing the parties to file a joint written report detailing
the
status of this case on or before Nov. 11, 2024, unless they
have
filed a dismissal entry in accordance with Federal Rule of
Civil
Procedure 41(a)(1)(A) in the interim.
Northwood is a healthcare private investment firm.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 16, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5TwWCy at no extra
charge.[CC]
NOWHERE HOLDCO: De La Rosa Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
JAVIER FERNANDO DE LA ROSA, on behalf of himself and current and
former aggrieved employees, Plaintiff v. NOWHERE HOLDCO, LLC DBA
EREWHON MARKET; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
24STCV18484 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 25, 2024) is a
Labor Code representative action brought by Plaintiff under the
Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, on behalf of the State of
California, himself and other current and former aggrieved
employees of Defendants who worked as hourly non-exempt employees
during the relevant time period.
The suit seeks civil penalties associated with Defendants'
violation of the Labor Code based on Defendants' failure to pay
wages for all hours worked at the employees' minimum wage rate or
overtime rate, failure to pay reporting time pay, failure to
provide all legally required and legally compliant meal and rest
periods, failure to timely pay earned wages during employment,
failure to provide complete and accurate wage statements, and
failure to timely pay all unpaid wages following separation of
employment.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants in an hourly position
at Defendants' location in Los Angeles County from approximately
November 15, 2020, until April 2023.
NOWHERE HOLDCO, LLC, DBA EREWHON MARKET, is an American supermarket
chain with ten locations, all in Los Angeles County,
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph Lavi, Esq.
Vincent C. Granberry, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Schwartz, Esq.
LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
8889 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Telephone: (310) 432-0000
Facsimile: (310) 432-0001
E-mail: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
vgranberry@lelawfirm.com
jschwartz@lelawfirm.com
NU RIDE INC: Continues to Defend Diamond Peak Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
NU Ride 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 13, 2024, that the Company continues to defend
itself from the Diamond Peak class suit in the Delaware Court of
Chancery.
Two putative class action lawsuits were filed against former
DiamondPeak directors and DiamondPeak Sponsor LLC on December 8 and
13, 2021 in the Delaware Court of Chancery (Hebert v. Hamamoto, et
al. (C.A. No. 2021-1066); and Amin v Hamamoto, et al. (C.A. No.
2021-1085)) (collectively, the "Delaware Class Action Litigation").
The plaintiffs purport to represent a class of investors in
DiamondPeak and assert breach of fiduciary duty claims based on
allegations that the defendants made or failed to prevent alleged
misrepresentations regarding vehicle pre-orders and production
timeline, and that but for those allegedly false and misleading
disclosures, the plaintiffs would have exercised a right to redeem
their shares prior to the de-SPAC transaction.
On February 9, 2023, the parties filed a stipulation and proposed
order consolidating the two putative class action lawsuits,
appointing Hebert and Amin as co-lead plaintiffs, appointing
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP and Pomerantz LLP as
co-lead counsel and setting a briefing schedule for the motions to
dismiss and motions to stay.
The motions to stay were fully briefed as of February 23, 2023 and
the court held oral argument on February 28, 2023.
On March 7, 2023, the court denied the motion to stay.
On March 10, 2023, defendants filed their brief in support of their
motion to dismiss.
The motion to dismiss was fully briefed on April 27, 2023, and was
scheduled for oral argument on May 10, 2023.
On May 6, 2023, defendants withdrew the motion to dismiss without
prejudice.
On July 22, 2023, co-lead plaintiffs filed an amended class action
complaint asserting similar claims.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended class action
complaint on October 14, 2023. Plaintiffs' answering brief and
Defendants' reply brief were due on November 18 and December 9,
2023, respectively.
Oral argument on the motion to dismiss was scheduled for January 6,
2023.
On January 5, 2023, the defendants withdrew their motion to
dismiss.
On February 2, 2023, the court issued a case scheduling order
setting forth pre-trial deadlines and a date for trial in March
2024.
On February 3, 2023, defendants filed their answer to plaintiffs'
amended class action complaint.
On February 7, 2023, plaintiffs served the Company, as a non-party,
with a subpoena for certain information, which the Company
responded to on February 21, 2023.
On June 9, 2023, the court granted in part and denied in part the
plaintiffs' motion to compel regarding the appropriate scope of the
Company's response to the subpoena.
On July 5, 2023, in the Chapter 11 Cases, the Company filed (i) an
adversary complaint seeking injunctive relief to extend the
automatic stay to the plaintiffs in the Delaware Class Action
Litigation, initiating the adversary proceeding captioned Lordstown
Motors Corp. v. Amin, Adv. Proc. No. 23-50428 (Bankr. D. Del.) and
(ii) a motion and brief in support thereof, seeking a preliminary
injunction extending the automatic stay to the Delaware Class
Action Litigation.
On August 3, 2023, the Bankruptcy Court denied the Company's
preliminary injunction motion.
On July 21, 2023, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification
in the Delaware Class Action Litigation.
The parties have advised the Company that they have reached an
agreement to resolve this matter, and the former DiamondPeak
directors are seeking indemnification from the Company with respect
to a portion of the settlement amount.
The Company believes it has defenses to such indemnification
claims, including that such indemnification claims are subject to
subordination pursuant to applicable law, and, if allowed, should
receive the treatment set forth in Article III B.8 of the Plan.
The proceedings remain subject to uncertainties inherent in the
litigation process.
Nu Ride Inc. f/k/a Lordstown Motors Corp. is an electric vehicle
OEM developing innovative light duty commercial fleet vehicles,
with the Endurance all electric pickup truck as its first vehicle.
It has engineering, research and development facilities in
Farmington Hills, Mich. and Irvine, Calif.
OCUGEN INC: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ocugen 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 securities class suit in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
In April 2024, a securities class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company and certain of its agents in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania(Case No. 2:24-cv-01500)
that purported to state a claim for alleged violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, based on statements made by the Company concerning the
Company's previously-issued audited consolidated financial
statements for each fiscal year beginning January 1, 2020 and its
previously-issued unaudited interim condensed consolidated
financial statements for each of the first three quarters in such
years and the effectiveness of the Company's disclosure controls
and procedures during each such period.
The complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees,
and other costs.
The Company believes that the lawsuit is without merit and intends
to vigorously defend against it.
OCUGEN, INC. operates as a clinical stage biopharmaceutical
company. The Company offers products for improving the body's
ability to regenerate healthy cartilage, joint function, and
prevention of degenerative diseases. [BN]
ON24 INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ON24 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 securities class suit in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California.
The Company, its Chief Executive Officer, its Chief Financial
Officer, certain current and former members of its Board of
Directors and the underwriters that participated in the Company's
IPO are named as defendants in a consolidated putative class
action, captioned In re ON24, Inc. Securities Litigation,
4:21-cv-08578-YGR (filed in November 2021), that is currently
pending in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.
The consolidated complaint purports to assert claims under Sections
11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of all persons
and entities that purchased, or otherwise acquired, the Company's
common stock issued in connection with the Company's IPO.
The complaint alleges that the Company's registration statement and
prospectus contained untrue statements of material fact and/or
omitted material facts about ON24's growth and customer base.
Plaintiff seeks, among other things, an award of damages and
attorneys' fees and costs.
The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in May 2022,
which the district court granted with leave to amend in July 2023.
Plaintiff filed its amended complaint in September 2023, and the
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in
October 2023.
In March 2024, the district court granted the defendants’ motion
to dismiss with prejudice.
Plaintiff has filed a notice of appeal of the district court's
order and briefing in the appeal is currently ongoing.
The Company believes the allegations in the amended complaint are
without merit.
ON24, Inc. and its subsidiaries provides a cloud-based platform for
digital engagement for interactive webinar experiences, virtual
event experiences and multimedia content experiences. The company
is headquartered in San Francisco, California.
OXFORD HOTELS: Discloses Personal Info to Third Parties, Dion Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
MADELINE DION, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. OXFORD HOTELS AND RESORTS, LLC d/b/a THE
GODFREY HOTEL HOLLYWOOD and AMADEUS HOSPITALITY, INC. d/b/a
TRAVELCLICK, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-6562 (C.D. Cal., August
2, 2024) arises from the Defendants' alleged violation of the
California Invasion of Privacy Act by aiding, employing, or
otherwise enabling a third party, Facebook and/or Google, to
eavesdrop on communications sent and received by Plaintiff and
Class Members, including communications that contain sensitive and
confidential information.
According to the complaint, when guests like Plaintiff make
reservations on a hotel website that employs the TravelClick
Platform, like Godfrey's website, www.godfreyhotelhollywood.com,
guests are redirected to the TravelClick booking Platform which
allows those guests to choose the dates of their stay, hotel room
and rate, before providing their payment information and completing
their reservation. However, unbeknownst to them, any guest who
books a hotel reservation on Godfrey's Website, which employs the
TravelClick Platform, has their personally identifiable information
and unlawfully discloses it to third parties including Meta
Platforms, Inc. and Google, Inc.
This unlawful disclosure occurs because Defendants installed third
party tracking technologies such as the Meta Pixel as well as
Google Analytics and Google Tag Manager onto their Website and/or
the TravelClick Platform. By failing to procure consent before
enabling Facebook and Google's interception of these
communications, Defendants violated CIPA, says the suit.
Godfrey Hotel Hollywood is a boutique hotel owned by Oxford Hotels
and Resorts and located in Los Angeles, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew J. Langley, Esq.
ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC
849 W. Webster Avenue
Chicago, IL 60614
Telephone: (312) 576-3024
E-mail: matt@almeidalawgroup.com
PATELCO CREDIT: Van Antwerp Alleges Inadequate Data Security
------------------------------------------------------------
Darren Van Antwerp and Bradley Tanzman, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Patelco Credit
Union and Does 1-50, Defendants, Case No. 24CV084848 (Cal. Super.,
Alameda Cty., July 25, 2024) is a class action against the
Defendants for their failure to adequately secure and safeguard
their and at least 450,000 other individuals' personally
identifying information.
In the course of providing services to its members, Plaintiffs and
other customers provided their PII, including names, dates of
birth, addresses, Social Security numbers, driver's license
numbers, and financial account information. Patelco owes these
individuals a duty to adequately protect and safeguard this private
information against theft and misuse. Despite such duties created
by statute and common law, at all relevant times, Patelco utilized
deficient data security practices, allowing its members' sensitive
and private data to fall into the hands of malicious actors, says
the suit.
Despite the data breach being first detected on June 29, 2024,
Patelco allegedly failed to disclose what customer data was
disclosed to cybercriminals, and it has not directly notified its
members as to what data was stolen. These failures exacerbate the
damages and risks to Class Members in violation of California,
asserts the suit.
The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, herein allege claims for negligence, unjust enrichment or
quasi-contract, invasion of privacy, violation of California's
Consumer Privacy Act, California's Customer Records Act,
California's Unfair Competition Law, and declaratory and injunctive
relief.
Patelco Credit Union is a member owned, not-for-profit credit union
that serves Northern California, particularly the San Francisco Bay
Area.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Robert C. Schubert, Esq.
Amber L. Schubert, Esq.
SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
2001 Union. St., Suite 200
San Francisco, CA 94123
Telephone: (415) 788-4220
Facsimile: (415) 788-0161
E-mail: rschubert@sjk.law
aschubert@sjk.law
PETE'S ARBOR: Quintanilla Awarded $32.6K in Attorney's Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Quintanilla v. Pete's Arbor Care Services, Inc. et al,
Case No. 2:19-cv-06894 (E.D.N.Y.), Judge Joan M. Azrack of the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
granted in part and denied in part William Quintanilla's motion for
attorney's fees and costs in the overtime wage suit it filed
against Peter Fiore and Pete's Arbor Care Services, Inc.
Before the court is Plaintiff's post-trial motion for attorney's
fees and costs under New York Labor Law section 198(1-a).
Plaintiff commenced this action by filing his Complaint in December
2019. Plaintiff asserted, on behalf of himself and a putative class
of similar employees of Defendants, that Defendants violated the
Fair Labor Standards Act and NYLL by failing to provide a wage
notice and wage statements; failing to make minimum wage, spread of
hours, and overtime payments; and retaliating in response to
complaints about the failure to pay those amounts.
Notwithstanding the denial of the parties' summary judgment
motions, some claims were dismissed before trial. Plaintiff
withdrew the FLSA claims at the Court's request given their
redundancy to the NYLL claims. The Court dismissed Plaintiff's
wage notice and wage statement claims for lack of standing.
The jury trial began on November 13, 2023, and concluded on
November 16, 2023. At trial, the Court dismissed the minimum wage
and spread of hours claims. Thus, the claims that went to the jury
were for unpaid overtime wages from 2015 to 2019 and retaliation
for complaining about wages. At trial, Plaintiff contended he was
paid a flat daily rate; sought compensatory and liquidated damages
for allegedly entirely unpaid overtime hours worked between 2015
and 2019; and sought front pay, back pay, pain and suffering, and
punitive damages for the alleged retaliation. The jury, however,
found that:
(1) Plaintiff was paid hourly rather than a flat daily rate,
(2) Plaintiff was owed only $1,600 for partially unpaid overtime
wages earned in 2015,
(3) Defendants acted in good faith when they neglected to make
those payments, and
(4) Plaintiff failed to establish that Defendants retaliated
against him.
After trial, the parties briefed Plaintiff's instant motion for
attorney's fees and costs.
The NYLL requires the Court to award Plaintiff reasonable
attorney's fees and costs for his successful wage claim.
Plaintiff seeks attorney's fees for work performed by his
attorneys, Ms. Nadia M. Pervez and Ms. Aneeba Rehman, and two
student law clerks. Plaintiff requests $88,660.10 in fees based on
205.37 hours worked by the attorneys and 20.58 hours worked by the
law clerks. Plaintiff also seeks $2,309.80 in costs.
As a threshold matter, Defendants insist that Plaintiff should not
receive any fee award. The supporting arguments fail to persuade
the Court to deny or even reduce a fee award in this case.
Defendants assert that Plaintiff's motion is deficient because it
does not include a retainer agreement. Defendants contend that
Plaintiff's motion is deficient because it does not attach proof of
what "paying clients" remit to Plaintiff's counsel. That argument
fails as a matter of law and logic. Defendants cite no authority
that requires such proof.
Defendants argue that Plaintiff acted "in bad faith" because he
brought claims that were ultimately dismissed, and because he
explored but did not ultimately seek collective or class action
relief. The Court says Defendants' conclusory allegations of bad
faith are meritless.
First, Plaintiff dismissed the FLSA claims -- at the Court's
request -- solely to streamline the issues at trial because nearly
identical relief was available for the claims under New York law.
Second, the minimum wage and spread of hours claims were only
dismissed after the Court explained to the parties that calculating
Plaintiff's hourly wages confirmed that he made no less than the
minimum wage at all relevant times. Defendants' failure to raise
(and perhaps even undertake) the same calculation over the nearly
four years the minimum wage and spread of hours claims were pending
undermines the argument that those claims were so patently
deficient that Plaintiff must have brought them in bad faith.
Third, the authority whereby the Court dismissed the wage notice
and wage statement claims -- TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S.
413 (2021) and its progeny -- postdate the commencement of this
case by at least eighteen months.
Fourth, that Plaintiff's counsel did not ultimately seek relief on
behalf of similarly situated individuals does not mean that the
collective and class action portions of the Complaint and
Plaintiff's pursuit of related discovery reflect bad faith.
Ultimately, Defendants fall far short of meeting the "high
standard" to show that Plaintiff acted in bad faith.
Plaintiff requests a $425 hourly rate for time billed by his
counsel. At all relevant times, Ms. Pervez and Ms. Rehman have been
shareholders in the firm of Pervez & Rehman, P.C. Accordingly, the
Court concludes that a $375 hourly rate is reasonable for time
expenditures by Plaintiff's counsel on legal matters.
Plaintiff seeks an $80 hourly rate for time billed by the two
student law clerks. The Court will apply the requested $80 hourly
rate.
Plaintiff's counsel provided detailed billing records for this
case. The records set forth each task and its date, duration, and
billing individual. The records describe a total of 225.95 hours
expended over four years and encompass, among other things,
communications, pleadings, court conferences, mediations, discovery
-- including five discovery motions, summary judgment briefing, and
the three-day jury trial. Of that time, 205.37 hours were
reportedly expended by counsel and 20.58 hours were expended by
student law clerks.
The Court will not award attorney's fees for the wage notice and
wage statement claims because they were dismissed for lack of
standing. The Court also will not award attorney's fees for the
unsuccessful retaliation claims because they are "legally and
factually distinct" from the successful overtime claim.
Accordingly, the Court deems appropriate a flat 25% reduction to
the hours component of the lodestar calculation.
A substantial reduction in attorney's fees is warranted given
Plaintiff's dismal success relative to the relief he sought. The
Court concludes that a 40% reduction is warranted because Plaintiff
obtained "just a fraction" of the relief he sought.
Therefore, Plaintiff is awarded $32,580.63 in attorney's fees.
Plaintiff seeks $2,309.80 for costs incurred to file the case,
obtain deposition transcripts, mail motion papers, and print
materials for trial. Defendants raise no issues with the accuracy
or value of the costs Plaintiff seeks to recover. Accordingly, the
Court grants Plaintiff $2,309.80 for costs.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated August
6, 2024, is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1PhS7n
PIER SIXTY: Faces Shahani Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------
MAHESH SHAHANI, on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. PIER SIXTY LLC d/b/a
PIER SIXTY COLLECTION, and PAUL GALLEN, individually, Defendants,
Case No. 1:24-cv-06211 (S.D.N.Y., August 16, 2024) is a civil
action for damages and other redress based on Defendants' willful
violations of Plaintiff's rights guaranteed by the tip retention
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law; New York common law, based on Defendants' conversion of
Plaintiff's gratuities; the NYLL's requirement that employers
furnish employees with a wage statement; and any other claims that
can be inferred from the facts set forth in this complaint.
The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants as a food server from
October 1998 to the present, with the exception of when the
business was closed during the pandemic.
Pier Sixty LLC, d/b/a Pier Sixty Collection, owns and operates
three private event spaces, Pier Sixty, the Lighthouse, and
Current, all located in the Chelsea Piers sports and entertainment
complex in Manhattan, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yuezhu Liu, Esq.
Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
910 Franklin Avenue, Suite 205
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (516) 248-5550
Facsimile: (516) 248-6027
POLYGLASS USA: Bid for Class Certification Due Jan. 10, 2025
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANILKA CASTRO, v.
POLYGLASS USA, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-01059-KM (M.D. Pa.), the Hon.
Judge Karoline Mehalchick entered an order that the motions for
Rule 23 Class Certification and Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
Conditional Certification shall be filed by Jan. 10, 2025.
The Court entered an order that the case referred to Judge William
I. Arbuckle for purposes of conducting a settlement conference by
Oct. 31, 2024.
Polyglass is a manufacturer of high-quality modified bitumen
roofing and waterproofing solutions.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 16, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=G8DI9h at no extra
charge.[CC]
POTBELLY CORP: Continues to Defend Washington Equal Pay Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Potbelly 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 Washington Equal Pay class suit.
In June 2024, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
Washington state against the Company relating to the Washington
Equal Pay and Opportunities Act.
The Company cannot currently estimate the potential loss or range
of loss that may result from this action.
Potbelly Corporation, through its subsidiaries, owns, operates, and
franchises Potbelly Sandwich Works sandwich shops in the United
States. The company was formerly known as Potbelly Sandwich Works,
Inc. and changed its name to Potbelly Corporation in 2002. Potbelly
Corporation was founded in 1977 and is headquartered in Chicago,
Illinois.
POWER SOLUTIONS: Initial OK of Settlement in Treadwell Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Power Solutions International 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 12, 2024, that the
preliminary settlement approval in the Treadwell class suit is
pending in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois.
In October 2018, a punitive class-action complaint was filed
against the Company and NOVAtime Technology, Inc. ("NOVAtime" or
"Plaintiff") in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois.
In December 2018, NOVAtime removed the case to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division (the
"Court") under the Class Action Fairness Act.
Plaintiff has since voluntarily dismissed NOVAtime from the lawsuit
without prejudice and filed an amended complaint in April 2019.
The operative, amended complaint asserts violations of the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA") in connection with
employees' use of the time clock to clock in and clock out using a
finger scan and seeks statutory damages, attorneys' fees, and
injunctive and equitable relief.
An aggrieved party under BIPA may recover (i) $1,000 per violation
if the Company is found to have negligently violated BIPA or (ii)
$5,000 per violation if the Company is found to have intentionally
or recklessly violated BIPA plus reasonable attorneys’ fees.
In May 2019, the Company filed its motion to dismiss the
Plaintiff's amended complaint.
In December 2019, the court denied the Company's motion to dismiss.
In January 2020, the Company moved for reconsideration of the
Court's order denying the motion to dismiss, or in the alternative,
to stay the case pending the Illinois Appellate Court's ruling in
McDonald v. Symphony Healthcare on a legal question that would be
potentially dispositive in this matter.
In February 2020, the Court denied the Company's motion for
reconsideration, but required the parties to submit additional
briefing on the Company's motion to stay.
In April 2020, the Court granted the Company's motion to stay and
stayed the case pending the Illinois Appellate Court's ruling in
McDonald v. Symphony Healthcare.
In October 2020, after the McDonald ruling, the Court granted the
parties' joint request to continue the stay of the case for 60
days.
The Court also ordered the parties to schedule a settlement
conference with the Magistrate Judge in May 2021 which went forward
without a settlement being reached.
On May 22, 2023, the Company filed the answer to the amended
complaint.
Plaintiff and PSI have since reached a preliminary settlement of
the case, and Plaintiff filed an Unopposed Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Class Action Settlement on February 23, 2024, which is
currently pending with the Court.
As of both June 30, 2024 and December 31, 2023, the Company had
recorded an estimated liability of $2.4 million, recorded within
Other accrued liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheet related
to the potential settlement of this matter.
Power Solutions International, Inc. is a global producer and
distributor of a broad range of high-performance, certified,
low-emission power systems, including alternative-fueled power
systems for original equipment manufacturers of off-highway
industrial equipment and certain on-road vehicles and large
custom-engineered integrated electrical power generation systems.
PREMIER NUTRITION: Loses Bid for Class Decertification
------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARY BETH MONTERA, individually and on behalf of all
others
similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. PREMIER
NUTRITION CORPORATION, FKA Joint Juice, Inc., Case No. 22-16622
(9th Cir.), Judge Morgan Christen of the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California's orders denying
Premier Nutrition Corporation's motion for class decertification,
judgment as a matter of law, and for a new trial.
The panel affirmed in part, reversed in part, and vacated and
remanded in part the district court's judgment following a jury
trial and award of statutory damages in a consumer class action
alleging that Premier engaged in deceptive conduct and false
advertising in violation of New York law based on representations
made on the packaging of Joint Juice, a dietary supplement drink
made by Premier, that touted its ability to relieve joint pain.
Mary Beth Montera sued Premier on behalf of a class of New York
consumers for violations of New York General Business Law (GBL)
Secs. 349 and 350, which require a plaintiff to show that the
defendant engaged in (1) consumer-oriented conduct that is (2)
materially misleading and that (3) plaintiff suffered injury as a
result of the allegedly deceptive act or practice.
On appeal, Premier argues that Montera failed to prove deceptive
conduct, injury, and causation under New York law. Premier also
argues that the district court abused its discretion in its class
certification and trial rulings, and erred in its calculation of
statutory damages and prejudgment interest. Montera appeals the
district court's reduction of the statutory damages award.
Premier next argues that, even if Montera's injury is cognizable,
it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law because Montera did
not show that the class members' injuries were caused by the
statements on Joint Juice's packaging. In Premier's view, Montera's
theory of injury -- that the class members would not have purchased
Joint Juice absent Premier's misrepresentations -- required her to
prove at trial that Premier's "deceptive statement[s] caused each
purchase." Premier further argues that because causation in this
case is "an individual issue," common issues did not predominate
and the district court should have granted Premier's pre- and
post-trial motions to decertify the class.
In the alternative, Premier argues that judgment must be granted in
its favor "because no reasonable jury could find causation proven
based on the evidence at trial."
Addressing Premier's liability under GBL Secs. 349 and 350, the
panel rejected Premier's argument that its statements about Joint
Juice's efficacy were not materially misleading, held that
Montera's injury is cognizable under New York law, and held that
Montera proved at trial that the class members' injuries were
caused by Premier's misrepresentations. The panel also rejected
Premier's argument that class certification was improper.
According to Judge Christen, "We reject Premier's causation
argument because it is inconsistent with New York law. Premier
acknowledges that its argument would require Montera to prove that
each class member relied on the challenged statements to make their
purchase decisions. The Court of Appeals has unequivocally held
that reliance is not required to show causation under GBL Secs. 349
and 350."
Judge Christen adds, "Having rejected Premier's view of New York's
causation requirement, we easily dispose of Premier's remaining
arguments that class certification was improper
and that there was insufficient evidence for the jury to find
causation."
The panel rejected Premier's contention that the district court's
evidentiary rulings and Montera's counsel's inflammatory arguments
entitled it to a new trial. The panel affirmed the district court's
ruling that statutory damages under GBL Secs. 349 and 350 should be
calculated on a per-violation basis. The panel remanded for the
district court to consider whether the imposition of the total
award of statutory damages, which the district court had reduced,
would violate Premier's due process rights in light of the factors
identified in Wakefield v. ViSalus, Inc., 51 F.4th 1109 (9th Cir.
2022). Finally, the panel reversed the district court's award of
prejudgment interest.
Judge Christen says, "We conclude that the award of prejudgment
interest was an error. The statutory damages award in this case was
not compensatory because it exceeded the jury's actual damages
award of $1,488,078.49, which the jury based on the number of units
sold during the class period and the average price class members
paid per unit of Joint Juice. As such, any award of prejudgment
interest in addition to an award of statutory damages would
constitute a windfall."
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated August 6, 2024, is
available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VPI2kB
PROGRESSIVE WASTE: Bernard First Bid to Certify Class Nixed as Moot
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bernard, et al., v.
Progressive Waste Solution, ET AL., Case No. 2:18-cv-08218-SM-MBN
(E.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Susie Morgan entered an order denying as
moot the Plaintiffs' first motion to certify class.
The Plaintiffs filed their first motion to certify Class on Aug.
29, 2023.
On May 15, 2024, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Motion to Certify
Class.
The Defendant provides waste collection, transfer, disposal and
recycling services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 16, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EnjwKE at no extra
charge.[CC]
PROGRESSIVE WASTE: Ictech-Bendeck Bid to Certify Class Tossed
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ictech-Bendeck, v.
Progressive Waste Solutions, ET AL., Case No. 2:18-cv-07889-SM-MBN
(E.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Susie Morgan entered an order denying as
moot the Plaintiffs' first motion to certify class.
The Plaintiffs filed their first motion to certify Class on Aug.
29, 2023.
On May 15, 2024, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Motion to Certify
Class.
The Defendant provides waste collection, transfer, disposal and
recycling services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 16, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PEXTrb at no extra
charge.[CC]
PROGRESSIVE WASTE: Landry-Boudreaux Bid to Certify Class Tossed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Landry-Boudreaux v.
Progressive Waste Solutions, ET AL., Case No. 2:18-cv-09312-SM-MBN
D (E.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Susie Morgan entered an order denying
as moot the Plaintiffs' first motion to certify class.
The Plaintiffs filed their first motion to certify Class on Aug.
29, 2023.
On May 15, 2024, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Motion to Certify
Class.
The Defendant provides waste collection, transfer, disposal and
recycling services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 16, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GrWbiz at no extra
charge.[CC]
PROSPECT MEDICAL: Court Narrows Claims in Roma Data Breach Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as JOANNE ROMA et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PROSPECT
MEDICAL HOLDINGS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 23-3216 (E.D. Pa.),
Judge Wendy Beetlestone of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted in part and denied in part
Prospect Medical Holdings, Inc.'s motion to dismiss plaintiffs'
amended complaint.
Prospect is a medical group with over 18,000 employees and about
600,000 members that provides healthcare services at sixteen
different hospitals across five states.
Early in the morning of August 3, 2023, Prospect reported a
cyberattack to the Connecticut public health department. The
company had detected unauthorized access to its network sometime
over the four previous days. This data breach had exposed
customers' "full names, Social Security numbers, addresses, dates
of birth, driver's license numbers, financial information,
diagnosis information, lab results, prescription information,
treatment information, health insurance information, claims
information, and medical record numbers."
A ransomware gang called Rhysida took responsibility for the
attack, posting a dataset with over one terabyte of customers' PII
and PHI on the dark web.
Starting on September 29, almost two months after the data breach
had been discovered, Prospect began to notify state Attorneys
General that it had been the victim of a cyberattack.
Prospect offered its customers free credit monitoring and identity
protection services and encouraged them to "review[ their] account
statements and free credit reports for any
unauthorized activity."
The Amended Complaint is brought on behalf of a nationwide class
(and a California subclass) led by several Named Plaintiffs each of
whom received the notice but each of whose experiences
following the data breach vary somewhat. They allege that not only
do they face a "substantially increased risk of fraud, identity
theft, and misuse" of their personal information, but they also
have: spent time . . . on the telephone and sorting through [their]
unsolicited emails, verifying the legitimacy of the Data Breach,
exploring credit monitoring and identity theft insurance options,
and self-monitoring [their] accounts.
They also "have suffered anxiety, emotional distress, [and a] loss
of privacy." Six -- but not all -- of them allege that, since the
data breach, they have seen evidence that unauthorized parties have
tried to make financial transactions on their behalf.
The claims alleged by Plaintiffs are that Prospect's failure to
safeguard their data: (1) breached its duty of care to them and
thus constituted negligence; (2) violated Section Five of the
Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 45, thus constituting
negligence per se; (3) breached their implied contract with the
company; (4) amounted to an intentional intrusion into matters in
which they had a reasonable expectation of privacy; (5) violated
the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, Cal.
Civ. Code Sec. 56 et seq.; (6) violated the California Unfair
Competition Act, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 17200 et seq.; and,
(7) violated Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution,
Cal. Const. art. I, Sec. 1. They seek both damages and injunctive
relief, including a court order mandating that Prospect overhaul
its information security practices.
The putative nationwide class consists of: "All persons in the
United States whose personal information was compromised in or as a
result of Prospect's data breach on or around July 31, 2023 through
August 3, 2023, which was announced on or around September 29,
2023." The putative subclass consists of: "All persons residing in
California whose personal information was compromised in or as a
result of Prospect's data breach on or around July 31, 2023 through
August 3, 2023, which was announced on or around September 29,
2023." The alleged violations of California statutory and
constitutional law are pressed on behalf of the California subclass
only (all the Named Plaintiffs are citizens of California and are
members of the subclass).
Prospect moves to dismiss the Amended Complaint on two grounds.
First, the company argues that none of the Named Plaintiffs has
standing to sue consistent with Article III of the United States
Constitution. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). But each Named Plaintiff
has plausibly alleged cognizable concrete and imminent injuries
that confer them with standing, so Prospect's Motion will be denied
in that regard. Second, the company argues that Plaintiffs have not
plausibly alleged that they are entitled to relief under any of the
common-law or statutory claims in their Amended Complaint. That is
the case for some, but not all, of Plaintiffs' claims, so
Prospect's Motion will be granted in part and denied in part in
this respect.
Prospect argues that, because Plaintiffs lack Article III standing,
the Court must dismiss the Amended Complaint for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction.
The Court finds Plaintiffs' injuries are "actual" or "imminent" as
required to confer them Article III standing.
The risk of identity theft that the Plaintiffs identify is
sufficiently concrete to satisfy Article III with respect to both
their claims for equitable relief and damages, the Court states.
Each Named Plaintiff has plausibly alleged that his or her injuries
are concrete and thus has suffered an injury in fact.
Prospect contends that Plaintiffs' injuries were "isolated events"
that "are facially unrelated to" the company's conduct "besides a
tenuous temporal proximity." But the Amended Complaint describes a
plausible causal link between Prospect's conduct and Plaintiffs'
injuries. In late July or early August of 2023, the company
suffered a data breach. Prospect's data appeared en masse on the
dark web later in August. It is reasonable to infer that this
included Plaintiffs' personal information.
In sum, at least one Named Plaintiff (indeed, more than one) has
plausibly alleged that they have suffered an injury in fact, and
that those injuries can fairly be traced to Prospect's conduct. As
Prospect does not contest that their injuries would be redressed by
the relief Plaintiffs seek, they therefore plausibly have alleged
Article III standing, the Court says.
Prospect moves to dismiss each of the claims included in the
Amended Complaint.
Contrary to Prospect's argument, the Amended Complaint alleges that
all Plaintiffs suffered various injuries arising out of the data
breach, including "financial costs incurred mitigating the
materialized risk and imminent threat of identity theft" and
"financial costs incurred due to actual identity theft." These are
recognized forms of damages in data breach cases. Therefore,
Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged they suffered cognizable tort
damages, and their negligence claim will not be dismissed, the
Court holds.
Plaintiffs also maintain a separate count alleging negligence per
se under the theory that Prospect's alleged lax protection of their
personal information violated Section Five of the FTC
Act, which prohibits "unfair . . . practices in or affecting
commerce."
In this case, Plaintiffs allege that they are "consumers" and thus
fall "within the class of persons" the law "was meant to protect."
Considering this pleading and the weight of this persuasive
authority, and because "a decision in favor of [Prospect] on this
point would not dispose of [Plaintiffs'] underlying negligence
claim," the appropriate decision is to defer judgment of the
viability of the FTC Act as a hook for negligence per se to summary
judgment.
Prospect's Motion to Dismiss therefore will be granted with respect
to Plaintiffs' separate count alleging negligence per se, but
Plaintiffs may press it as a theory to support their negligence
claim and may rely on Prospect's alleged violation of the FTC Act
in doing so.
Prospect argues that Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for
breach of an implied contract because they contend that the mere
requirement that customers share their personal information with a
defendant does not give rise to an implied contract.
In this case, Plaintiffs do not point to any company policy or
other statement plausibly indicating that Prospect promised that
their personal information would be safeguarded. Instead,
Plaintiffs allege that: (1) "accepting [their] information and
payment for services;" and, (2) "specific industry data security
standards and FTC guidelines on data security" gave rise to that
promise.
Thus, Plaintiffs fail to plausibly plead the existence of an
implied contract between them and Prospect to safeguard their
personal information, and their claim seeking to enforce such a
contract will be dismissed without prejudice, the Court finds.
According to the Court, all of Plaintiffs' privacy claims fail as
the Amended Complaint does not allege that Prospect, as opposed to
Rhysida, intentionally intruded on information in which Plaintiffs
had a reasonable expectation of privacy, as necessary to win
relief. In this case, the Amended Complaint merely accuses
Prospect of, at most, negligence in how it handled Plaintiffs'
personal information. Unlike Rhysida, which is accused of having
conducted the cyberattack and stolen Plaintiffs' data, Prospect is
alleged to have merely "fail[ed] to implement adequate data
security measures and protocols to properly safeguard and protect"
that data, which led to "a foreseeable cyberattack on its systems
that resulted in [its] unauthorized access and theft." Only Rhysida
is plausibly alleged to have intentionally intruded on anyone's
privacy.
Because the Amended Complaint does not allege intentional conduct
by Prospect itself, Plaintiffs' common-law and constitutional
invasion of privacy claims will be dismissed with prejudice, the
Court says.
Prospect argues that Plaintiffs' CMIA claim should be dismissed for
two reasons. First, the company submits that Plaintiffs have failed
to plausibly allege "that purported negligence by [the company] . .
. caused a third party to access and view their medical
information. Second, any information that was exposed was not
"medical information" that it had a duty to protect under Section
56.101(a).
But these arguments are belied by the allegations in the Amended
Complaint, the Court finds. As to Prospect's first argument,
Plaintiffs allege that Rhysida not only had posted this data on the
Dark Web, but also that the group indicated that it had "already
sold more than half of" it. In such circumstances, it is more than
reasonable to infer that Plaintiffs' personal information had been
wrongfully viewed or accessed.
As to Prospect's second argument, Plaintiffs allege that the data
breach exposed, among other things, their "diagnosis information,
lab results, prescription information, [and] treatment
information."
Thus, Prospect's Motion to Dismiss will be denied with respect to
Plaintiffs' CMIA claim.
The last count to be addressed is Plaintiffs' allegation that
Prospect violated California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"),
which "prohibits, and provides civil remedies for, unfair
competition, which it defines as ‘any unlawful, unfair or
fraudulent business act or practice.'"
Because the Amended Complaint contains no allegation that
Plaintiffs lack an adequate remedy at law, their UCL claim will be
dismissed without prejudice, the Court states.
Prospect argues that Plaintiffs' failure to plead that they lack an
adequate remedy at law dooms their claim.
The Court points out the Amended Complaint contains no allegations
regarding the viability of Plaintiffs' remedies at law, so it
cannot be characterized even as pleading in the alternative . .
Instead, it merely alleges that Plaintiffs "were injured and lost
money or property, which would not have occurred but for the unfair
and unlawful acts alleged."
Plaintiffs' UCL claim will be dismissed without prejudice with
opportunity to plead that they lack an adequate remedy at law,t the
Court concludes.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated August 6, 2024, is
available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=I1k8Rk
PROVIDENT FINANCIAL: Bid for Initial OK of Settlement Due Sept. 6
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Provident Financial Services Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report
for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2024, that the
preliminary approval motion on the Fraud Act class suit settlement
is due on September 6, 2024.
On May 2, 2022, a purported class action complaint was filed
against the Bank in the Superior Court of New Jersey, which alleges
that the Bank wrongfully assessed overdraft fees related to debit
card transactions.
The complaint asserted claims for breach of contract and breach of
the covenant of good faith and fair dealing as well as an alleged
violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.
Plaintiff sought to represent a proposed class of all the Bank's
checking account customers who were charged overdraft fees on
transactions that were authorized into a positive available
balance.
The parties mediated the matter on May 28, 2024, and agreed in
principle to a settlement resolving the dispute with the Bank
contributing $1.85 million to a settlement fund.
The motion for preliminary approval is due to the Court on
September 6, 2024.
Provident Financial Services, Inc. provides banking services. The
Company offers checking accounts, home equity loans, credit cards,
investment, telephone banking, bills payments, and merchant banking
services. Provident Financial Services serves customers in the
United States.
QUOTEWIZARD.COM LLC: Mantha Wins Class Certification Bid
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH MANTHA, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. QUOTEWIZARD.COM,
LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-12235-LTS (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Leo T.
Sorokin entered an order:
-- denying QuoteWizard's Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Anya
Verkhovskaya, Mantha's expert witness,
-- allowing the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification, and
-- certifying the following class:
"All persons within the United States (a) whose telephone
numbers
were listed on the National Do Not Call Registry, and (b) who
received more than one telemarketing text within any
twelve-month
period at any time from Drips, (c) to promote the sale of
QuoteWizard's goods or services, and (d) whose numbers are
included on the Class List."
With all discovery concluded and the class certified, the parties
shall file a joint status report setting forth their joint or
separate positions regarding (a) when the Court should schedule
trial; (b) how long the parties anticipate for trial; (c) a
schedule for the dispositive motion on consent; (d) any other
summary judgment issues; (e) a schedule for notice to the Class
along with any related procedures or proceedings; (f) whether the
parties wish to participate in the Court's mediation program and,
if so, when in the course of the
remainder of the schedule that should occur; and (g) any other
matter the Court should account for in setting the schedule for
this case.
The parties shall file the joint status report by Sept. 9, 2024.
The Court finds that Mantha has sufficiently shown that a class
action is a superior method for resolving the instant controversy.
This is a putative class-action dispute over telemarketing messages
allegedly sent by Defendant QuoteWizard.com, LLC, in violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), 47 U.S.C.
section 227.
On Oct. 29, 2019, Mantha brought a class action lawsuit against
QuoteWizard in this Court, alleging violations of the TCPA.
On Jan. 12, 2024, Mantha moved for class certification.
QuoteWizard.com offers an insurance comparison platform for auto,
home, life, health, and renters insurances.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 16, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bLcRvY at no extra
charge.[CC]
RACEWAY PLAZA: Property and Business Violates ADA, Foster Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LELAND FOSTER, v. RACEWAY PLAZA, LLC, an Ohio limited liability
company, Case No. 3:24-cv-01427 (N.D. Ohio, Aug. 21, 2024) is an
action against the Defendant for injunctive relief, damages,
attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
The suit contends that the shopping center and the tenant spaces
owned or operated by the Defendant are non-compliant with the
remedial provisions of the ADA.
Mr. Foster is a Swanton, Ohio resident and frequents the
restaurants, shopping centers, businesses and establishments of
Toledo, Lucas County, Ohio and surrounding area, including the
Defendants properties.
Most recently on July 26, 2024 and on Nov. 12, 2022, the Plaintiff
was a customer at the Defendant's shopping center and the Subway
restaurant, and he plans to return to the property to avail himself
of the goods and services offered to the public at the property.
The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers at the subject
property. The barriers to access at the property have endangered
his safety and protected access to Defendant's place of public
accommodation, the suit claims.
The Defendant has discriminated against the Plaintiff by denying
him access to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services,
facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the
buildings, the suit asserts.
Mr. Foster is an individual diagnosed with cerebral palsy and
permanently uses a wheelchair for mobility. He is substantially
limited in performing one or more major life activities, including
standing and walking, as defined by the ADA and its regulations.
Raceway owns the property located at 20 E. Alexis Rd. Toledo in
Lucas County, Ohio, which is a neighborhood shopping center.[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
E-mail: obdjt@owendunnlaw.com
RBS CITIZENS: Bid to Certify Class in Reinig Suit Granted in Part
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as ALEX REINIG, KEN GRITZ, BOB SODA, MARY LOU
GRAMESKY, PETER WILDER SMITH, WILLIAM KINSELLA, DANIEL KOLENDA,
VALERIE DAL PINO, AHMAD NAJI, ROBERT PEDERSON, TERESA FRAGALE,
DAVID HOWARD, DANIEL JENKINS, MARK ROSS, Plaintiffs, v. RBS
CITIZENS, N.A., Defendant, Case No. 2:15-CV-01541-CCW (W.D. Pa.),
Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand of the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania granted in part and denied
in part the motion for class certification filed by plaintiffs Ken
Gritz, Alex Reinig, and Bob Soda. The Court granted the
defendant's motion for summary judgment.
On August 25, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion for
reconsideration of the Court's decision granting summary judgment
in favor of Citizens on a narrow claim under the Pennsylvania
Minimum Wage Act. Specifically, Plaintiffs argued that the Court
erred in finding that Citizens' payment of overtime by a 0.5
multiplier, rather than a 1.5 multiplier of Plaintiffs' regular
hourly rate, did not violate the PMWA. On very narrow grounds, the
Court found that Citizens was not entitled to summary judgment on
the PMWA claim related to the proper overtime premium multiplier
and held that "[a]t trial, Plaintiffs may present evidence that
Citizens paid a 0.5, rather than 1.5, multiplier to Mr. Reinig, Mr.
Gritz, and Mr. Soda and, if they prove that by a preponderance of
the evidence, the jury would then calculate the damages owed to
them." This narrow and limited claim regarding Citizen's use of 0.5
overtime multiplier has been referred to as the "PMWA Regular Rate
Claim."
Following the Court's narrow decision, the parties disputed whether
and to what extent Plaintiffs could pursue class relief on the PMWA
Regular Rate Claim. On September 15, 2023, the Court held that
although there was not presently a certified PMWA class, Plaintiffs
shall have an opportunity to move for limited class certification
regarding their PMWA Regular Rate Claim.
On December 22, 2023, Plaintiffs filed their motion for class
certification for their PMWA Regular Rate Claim. In that motion,
however, Plaintiffs sought to certify nine (9) subclasses for the
following states: Pennsylvania, Connecticut, New York,
Massachusetts, Illinois, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Michigan,
and New Hampshire. Citizens opposed the motion. On February 28,
2024, the Court denied the motion for class certification, without
prejudice. The Court summarily denied the motion as to the
non-Pennsylvania Named Plaintiffs, as their "recapture" claims that
they sought to certify had long been adjudicated and dismissed. As
to the Pennsylvania Named Plaintiffs, the Court found that their
proposed class definition contained too many deficiencies for the
Court to analyze the proposed class under Rule 23.
After denying Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, the Court
ordered the parties to confer and file a joint status report as to
the PMWA Regular Rate Claim.
Accordingly, the Court issued an Order permitting Pennsylvania
Named Plaintiffs to file a renewed motion for class certification
of the PMWA Regular Rate Claim, attempting to certify two classes
-- one for standard commission and one for overtime commission --
and permitting Citizens to file a motion for summary judgment as to
the PMWA Regular Rate Claim.
On April 11, 2024, the Pennsylvania Named Plaintiffs filed their
Motion for Class Certification. On April 25, 2024, Citizens filed
its Motion for Summary Judgment.
The Pennsylvania Named Plaintiffs seek certification of two
proposed subclasses relative to their PMWA Regular Rate Claim
pursuant to Rules 23(a), (b)(3), and (b)(2). The proposed
subclasses are defined as:
(1) [A]ll Mortgage Loan Officers employed by Defendant in
Pennsylvania between November 24, 2012 and the present, who
were paid Standard Overtime by Defendant in at least one workweek
(the "PMWA Standard Overtime Subclass"); and
(2) [A]ll Mortgage Loan Officers employed by Defendant in
Pennsylvania between November 24, 2012 and the present, who
were paid Commission Overtime by Defendant in at least one
workweek (the "PMWA Commission Overtime Subclass") (the
PMWA Standard Overtime Subclass and the PMWA Commission
Overtime Subclass may collectively be referred to as the "PMWA
Subclasses").
Citizens filed an opposition to the Motion for Class Certification,
however, it only seeks to refine the class definitions of the PMWA
Subclasses and to oppose certification pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2).
Citizens does not otherwise contest the PMWA Subclasses' ability to
meet the Rule 23 requirements.
According to the Court, in order to satisfy Rule 23(a), plaintiff
must show: (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members
is impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or fact common to
the class; (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties
are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and (4) the
representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the
interests of the class.
A plaintiff satisfies Rule 23(a)'s numerosity requirement if "the
class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable."
The Court says in this case, based on Citizens' pay records for
Mortgage Loan Officers "who were hired prior to January 2017 and
who worked for Defendant in Pennsylvania between 2012 and the
present," there are over 40 Mortgage Loan Officers in the PMWA
Subclasses. Citizens does not dispute numerosity. Accordingly, the
Court finds that Pennsylvania Named Plaintiffs have satisfied the
numerosity requirement of Rule 23(a)(1).
In this case, Pennsylvania Named Plaintiffs argue that "there are
no material factual variations between the class members' claims"
and that the Subclasses "challenge a common policy that was applied
uniformly to all class members." Citizens does not dispute
typicality. Accordingly, the Court finds that Pennsylvania Named
Plaintiffs have satisfied the typicality requirements of Rule
23(a)(3).
The Court finds that Pennsylvania Named Plaintiffs' counsel will
adequately represent the interest of the class and that
Pennsylvania Named Plaintiffs will serve as an adequate
representative. Accordingly, the Court finds that Pennsylvania
Named Plaintiffs have satisfied the adequacy requirement of Rule
23(a)(4).
In this case, Pennsylvania Named Plaintiffs' claims arise under the
PMWA. The Subclasses contend that Citizens' manner of calculating
standard overtime and commission overtime violates the PMWA's
requirement that overtime be paid at 1.5 multiplier of the regular
rate. Pennsylvania Named Plaintiffs argue that Citizens "acted in a
uniform fashion and subjected all class members to a materially
identical" formula which is being challenged on a class-wide basis
and can be proven with common evidence. Citizens does not dispute
predominance. The Court finds that the common issues regarding the
lawfulness of Citizens' overtime calculation will predominate over
any individual issues. Accordingly, the Court finds that
Pennsylvania Named Plaintiffs have satisfied the predominance
requirement of Rule 23(b)(3), and therefore, the commonality
requirement of Rule 23(a)(2).
Pennsylvania Named Plaintiffs contend that absent class
certification, there would be "potentially hundreds of separate
lawsuits, filed in both state and federal courts throughout
Pennsylvania, creating a risk of an unwieldy and inconsistent
patchwork of decisions across various courts." Pennsylvania Named
Plaintiffs further argue that absent class certification, subclass
members would incur greater costs of litigation and lose out on the
efficiencies from litigating in a single forum. Citizens does not
dispute superiority. The Court agrees with Pennsylvania Named
Plaintiffs. As courts presiding over other wage and hour cases of
this type have observed, "there is 'little incentive for Plaintiffs
to bring their claims individually because the amount of recovery,
if any, would be very small. Class actions are particularly
appropriate in such cases.'"
Accordingly, the Court finds that Pennsylvania Named Plaintiffs
have satisfied the superiority requirement of Rule 23(b)(3). Having
found that the requirements of Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3) are met
in this case, the Court will certify the Subclasses proposed in
Pennsylvania Named Plaintiffs' Motion.
Pennsylvania Named Plaintiffs also seek to certify the Subclasses
under Rule 23(b)(2), arguing that in addition to money damages,
they seek injunctive and declaratory relief in this action. They
argue that the cohesiveness requirement of Rule 23(b)(2) is
satisfied because Citizens employed a uniform practice or policy as
to its overtime calculations. Citizens disputes Pennsylvania Named
Plaintiffs' entitlement to certification under (b)(2), arguing that
the Subclasses are not cohesive due to "disparate factual
circumstances" as "so
many of the putative class members are former Citizens employees,
and thus in no need of such relief" and therefore there are
standing issues. Citizens further argues that Pennsylvania Named
Plaintiffs themselves lack standing to serve as (b)(2) class
representatives, as all of them are former, not current, employees.
Citizens also argues that certification under (b)(2) is
inappropriate here because the Subclasses are seeking individual
monetary damages, and therefore the declaratory or injunctive
relief is not "incidental." The Pennsylvania Named Plaintiffs did
not request leave to file a reply in support of their Motion and
therefore did not address Citizens' arguments.
The Court agrees with Citizens that the Pennsylvania Named
Plaintiffs lack standing to be class representatives for a Rule
23(b)(2) subclass. In this case, it is undisputed that the
Pennsylvania Named Plaintiffs are former employees of Citizens, and
are therefore not likely to suffer future injury. Accordingly, the
Pennsylvania Named Plaintiffs lack standing for the injunctive
relief they seek on behalf of the class and the requirements of
Rule 23(b)(2) are not met here. The Court will not certify the
Subclasses proposed in Pennsylvania Named Plaintiffs' Motion.
Citizens moves for summary judgment on the PMWA Regular Rate Claim,
arguing that there are no genuine disputes of material fact as to
how it calculates overtime, and as a matter of law, Citizens'
calculations do not violate the PMWA.
The Court points out regardless of the Pennsylvania Named
Plaintiffs' purported recharacterization, the fact remains that
Citizens' calculation of standard overtime results in the
Pennsylvania Named Plaintiffs and members of the PMWA Standard
Overtime Subclass receiving 1.5x their regular rate for all
overtime hours worked. Accordingly, Citizens is entitled to summary
judgment on this claim, the Court holds.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated August 6, 2024, is
available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NrI6Uj
REVANCE THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Daxxify-Related Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Revance Therapeutics Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 8, 2024, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the DAXXIFY securities class suit in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.
On December 10, 2021, a putative securities class action complaint
was filed against the Company and certain of its officers on behalf
of a class of stockholders who acquired the Company's securities
from November 25, 2019 to October 11, 2021, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California.
The complaint alleges that the Company and certain of its officers
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of Exchange Act by making false
and misleading statements regarding the manufacturing of DAXXIFY
and the timing and likelihood of regulatory approval and seeks
unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the putative class and an
award of costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees.
The court appointed the lead plaintiff and lead counsel on
September 7, 2022.
The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on November 7, 2022.
On January 23, 2023, the Company filed a motion to dismiss, and on
March 30, 2024, the Court granted the motion with leave for the
plaintiff to amend the complaint.
On May 1, 2024, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which
asserted similar claims to those in the prior complaint.
On June 25, 2024, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint.
The Company disputes the claims in these lawsuits and intends to
defend these matters vigorously.
Revance is a biotechnology company focused on developing and
commercializing innovative aesthetic and therapeutic offerings for
muscle movement disorders, cervical dystonia and upper limb
spasticity.
ROOSEVELT CONNECTION: Lewis Hits Illegal Text Message Solicitations
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ADAM LEWIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ROOSEVELT CONNECTION, LTD., Defendant, Case
No. CACE-24-011012 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial, Broward Cty., August
4, 2024) is an action for injunctive and declaratory relief, and
damages for Defendant's violations of the Florida Telephone
Solicitation Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant made text message sales
calls that promoted Defendant's services and violated the Caller ID
Rules when it transmitted to the recipients' caller identification
services a telephone number that was not capable of receiving
telephone calls.
The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of a class of persons
similarly situated further seeks injunctive relief to ensure
Defendant complies with the Caller ID Rules when it makes text
message sales calls.
Roosevelt Connection, Ltd. is a global hospitality company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua A. Glickman, Esq.
Shawn A. Heller, Esq.
SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL
974 Howard Ave.
Dunedin, FL 34698
Telephone: (202) 709-5744
Facsimile: (866) 893-0416
E-mail: josh@sjlawcollective.com
shawn@sjlawcollective.com
ROYAL LEAF: Saunders Suit Alleges Website Inaccessible to the Blind
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL SAUNDERS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ROYAL LEAF CLUB DISPENSARY CORP., Defendant,
Case No. 1:24-cv-06208 (S.D.N.Y., August 16, 2024) is a civil
action against Defendant for their failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate their website https://royalleafclub.com to be
fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans
with Disabilities Act.
On August 2, 2024, while attempting to access Defendant's website
from his home in Bronx County to search for and purchase products
and services, Plaintiff Saunders encountered various access
barriers. These barriers denied him full and equal access to the
Defendants online platform offering those goods, content and
services which he consistently needs to assist in managing his
physical condition. These access barriers include "Linked Images
Missing Alternative Text," "Images Containing a Title Attribute but
no Alternative Value," and numerous instances of "Redundant Links,"
says the suit.
The Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so
that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
Royal Leaf Club Dispensary Corp. operates the website that serves
as a weed dispensary in Queens, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq.
Bennitta L. Joseph, Esq.
JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC
New York, NY 10022
110 East 59th Street, Suite 2300
Telephone: (212) 227-5700
Facsimile: (212) 656-1889
E-mail: jon@norinsberglaw.com
bennitta@employeejustice.com
SAGINAW COUNTY, MI: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due Oct. 15
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS A. FOX, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. COUNTY OF SAGINAW,
by its BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, et al., Case No.
1:19-cv-11887-TLL-PTM (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Thomas Ludington
entered an order:
-- granting the Plaintiffs' Motion for Appointment of Interim
Class
Counsel,
-- appointing Attorneys E. Powell Miller and Philip Ellison as
Interim Class Counsel.
-- setting the following schedule:
Joint draft of class notice due: Sept. 12, 2024
TEAMS Status Conference to discuss Sept. 16, 2024
draft notice:
Limited Pre-Certification-Motion Oct. 3, 2024
Discovery Cutoff:
Class Certification Motion Deadline: Oct. 15, 2024
Class Certification Motion Response Nov. 5, 2024
Deadline:
Class Certification Motion Reply Nov. 12, 2024
Deadline:
In sum, "because the interests of the potential class members would
be better protected," and appointment of interim class counsel will
not prejudice Defendants, "it is appropriate to appoint interim
class counsel at this time."
In June 2019, Plaintiff Thomas Fox filed a class-action lawsuit
against 27 Michigan counties, alleging that those counties violated
property owners' state and federal constitutional rights each time
they followed the statutorily prescribed tax-foreclosure scheme by
foreclosing on properties with delinquent property taxes and
retaining the surplus proceeds.
In October 2020, this Court certified a class of “all persons and
entities that owned real property” in 27 Michigan counties whose
property was “seized through a real property tax foreclosure”
and then “sold at tax auction for more than the total tax
delinquency.” E
Saginaw is located in Mid-Michigan, in the Great Lakes Bay Region.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 16, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XjQSau at no extra
charge.[CC]
SALVATION ARMY: Seventh Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Taylor Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as DARRELL TAYLOR, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. THE SALVATION ARMY NATIONAL CORPORATION
and SALVATION ARMY d/b/a CENTRAL TERRITORIAL OF THE SALVATION ARMY,
Defendants-Appellees, No. 23-1218 (7th Cir.), Judge Kenneth F.
Ripple of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit affirmed the judgment of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois granting the Salvation Army's
motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims.
The Salvation Army operates residential rehabilitation programs for
individuals seeking spiritual, emotional, and social assistance.
Many participants enroll voluntarily in the rehabilitation programs
because of problems such as
homelessness and substance abuse. Other individuals are on
parole or probation and are referred to the programs by
courts or parole or probation departments. There is no charge for
enrollment, and participants receive food, clothing, and housing
from the Salvation Army for the duration of the program. Each
participant must complete at least forty hours per week of what the
Salvation Army terms "work therapy." This activity can include
cooking, washing dishes, bussing tables, shoveling snow, loading
and unloading donations from trucks, working in stockrooms and
warehouses, or doing other work for the Salvation Army's thrift
stores. Participants receive a small gratuity (between $1 and $25
per week) for the work, and they typically remain in the program
for about six months.
The plaintiffs contend that the Salvation Army uses its
rehabilitation programs not to rehabilitate people in need but
instead as a "coercive labor arrangement that serves only the
organization's financial interests." Their complaint alleges that
the Salvation Army targets marginalized individuals with "nowhere
else to go" in order to obtain a workforce that is reliant on the
Salvation Army. According to the complaint, the Salvation Army
cements this dependence in part through a "black-out period"
spanning the first month to six weeks of the program. During that
time, participants are prohibited from communicating with anyone
outside the program. The Salvation Army also requires participants
to assign temporarily any government benefits that they may be
receiving, including Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
benefits, to the Salvation Army. The work that the participants are
required to do is physically demanding and sometimes dangerous. If
participants do not work fast enough during their regular work
shifts, they are required to work overtime.
Salvation Army staff often remind the participants that if they
leave the program, they will lose the food and shelter that the
Salvation Army provides. Such reminders tend to have a strong
effect on the participants, especially those who entered while they
were experiencing some combination of poverty, food insecurity, and
homelessness. The stakes are even higher for participants on parole
and probation. Before enrolling, some of those participants are
told by their parole or probation officers that staying at the
Salvation Army for at least some time is mandatory. While these
participants are in the program, the parole and probation officers
stay in "constant contact" with Salvation Army staff. The staff
tell the participants as much, threatening to reach out to the
officers if they fail to complete their required labor in the time
and manner dictated by the Salvation Army. Salvation Army staff
even spell out the consequences that could follow from such
reports, telling justice-referred participants that "if they do not
follow the rules, including working, they will be kicked out of the
program and will likely be incarcerated.
Four former participants in the Salvation Army rehabilitation
programs filed this action against Salvation Army National and
Salvation Army Central Territory. The Salvation Army moved to
dismiss their initial complaint on various grounds. Rather than
respond to the motion to dismiss, these four former participants,
along with one other former participant, filed an amended
complaint. The five plaintiffs named in that amended complaint
include three individuals who participated in the program while on
parole or probation and two who were not on parole
or probation when they participated. The plaintiffs assert claims
under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1589(a), which makes it unlawful to obtain
labor by means of "serious harm," "threats of serious harm," or an
"abuse or threatened abuse of law or legal process." They also
assert claims under provisions that make it unlawful to knowingly
benefit from participation in a venture that violates Sec. 1589(a);
to recruit a person for labor or services covered
by Sec. 1589(a); to attempt to violate Sec. 1589(a); and to
conspire to violate Sec. 1589(a). The plaintiffs seek to represent
classes of participants and former participants in Salvation Army
rehabilitation programs located in the Salvation Army's Central
Territory.
The Salvation Army filed a motion to dismiss the
plaintiffs' first amended complaint, and the district court
granted that motion. The district court first held that the
plaintiffs had Article III standing. It reasoned that they had
alleged an injury in fact (forced labor) fairly traceable to the
Salvation Army's conduct (causing plaintiffs to work through
allegedly unlawful threats) that can be redressed by the court
(through a damages award). The district court then considered the
applicability of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine to the claims brought
by the justice-referred plaintiffs. The court noted the allegation
that justice-referred participants are generally referred to the
adult rehabilitation programs "by court order or as a condition of
probation or parole." The district court seemed to discern from
that allegation that those plaintiffs participated "because a state
court order compelled them to do so."9 From there, the district
court concluded that it could not redress their injuries "without
overturning the state court's orders that required them to
participate" in the rehabilitation programs. The district court
accordingly dismissed the justice-referred plaintiffs' claims on
Rooker-Feldman grounds.
The district court then turned to the claims brought by the
walk-in plaintiffs. It reasoned that the threats on which the
walk-in plaintiffs relied were not sufficiently serious because
there was "no allegation that Plaintiffs' access to food, clothing,
and shelter could be withheld from them even after they had left
the [rehabilitation] program." Regarding the sub-standard working
conditions alleged in the first amended complaint, the district
court reasoned that a reasonable person in the walk-in plaintiffs'
position would have felt free to leave and to try to obtain a
better situation elsewhere.
The district court further concluded that the walk-in
plaintiffs' claims failed for the additional reason that their
allegations did not plausibly indicate that either of the Salvation
Army defendants acted with the requisite scienter. The district
court thus dismissed the walk-in plaintiffs' claims for failure to
state a claim. It then immediately entered judgment for the
Salvation Army on all of the plaintiffs' claims.
The plaintiffs filed a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend
the judgment and for leave to file a second amended
complaint. They submitted that a proposed second amended
complaint, which they attached to the motion, addressed any
deficiencies in the first amended complaint, including the
supposed Rooker-Feldman issue. In evaluating the plaintiffs'
motion, the district court stated that the plaintiffs would only be
entitled to amend their complaint if they could satisfy the
requirement courts normally read into Rule 59(e): that the movant
show a manifest mistake of law or fact or newly discovered
evidence. The district court concluded that the plaintiffs had not
satisfied that requirement. The district court added that the
plaintiffs "had already amended their complaint . . . in response
to a prior motion to dismiss." It accordingly denied the
plaintiffs' motion to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59(e).
This appeal followed.
Judge Ripple says they affirm the judgment of the district court,
although, on some issues, our analysis differs from that of the
district court. At the outset, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not
bar the claims brought by the plaintiffs who were on parole or
probation at the time of their participation, because those
plaintiffs do not seek what in substance would be appellate review
of any state-court judgments. Their claims fail on the merits,
however, because they participated in the Salvation Army's program
while subject to criminal sentences that seriously constrained
their liberty -- a fact with which they have not come to grips in
this litigation. The other plaintiffs fare no better. Those
plaintiffs were free to leave at any time, and the Salvation Army
was entitled to condition its provision of food, housing, and
clothing to them on their continued satisfactory participation in
the program. Finally, the district court correctly denied leave to
amend. The plaintiffs' proposed second amended complaint, like
their first amended complaint, did not contain plausible
allegations indicating that the Salvation Army violated the forced
labor provisions at issue in this case.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated August 6, 2024, is
available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=h7tKzn
SCHMIDT BAKING: Silva Appeals Order Compelling Arbitration
----------------------------------------------------------
NATHANIEL SILVA, et al. have filed an appeal in the lawsuit
entitled Nathaniel Silva, et al., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Schmidt Baking
Distribution, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-1695, the
U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
brought this putative class action against the Defendants for
alleged misclassification as independent contractors, unlawful
deductions from their wages, and failure to pay them for overtime
work in violation of Connecticut wage laws.
On Jan. 5, 2024, the Defendants filed a motion to compel
arbitration, which the Court granted through an Order entered by
Judge Michael P. Shea on May 2, 2024.
In sum, Judge Shea held that the Plaintiffs are not exempt under
Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"); the arbitration
agreements are binding on them as owners and officers of their
respective businesses; and the arbitration agreements validly
delegate their unconscionability challenges to the arbitrator.
Thus, all of the Plaintiffs' remaining arguments are to be decided
by an arbitrator.
Accordingly, the Court granted the Motion to Compel Arbitration,
and the action was stayed. The Clerk was instructed to
administratively close the case. Either party may move to reopen
the case following the decision by the arbitration panel. Any such
motion must be filed within 30 days of the rendering of the
decision and a copy of the decision must be filed with the Court.
The appellate case is captioned Silva v. Schmidt Baking
Distribution, LLC, Case No. 24-2201, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on August 22, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants NATHANIEL SILVA, et al., on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Harold Lichten, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Defendants-Appellees SCHMIDT BAKING COMPANY, INC., et al. are
represented by:
William J. Anthony, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.
900 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 471-4404
SCYNEXIS INC: Continues to Defend Feldman Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Scynexis 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 Feldman securities class suit in the United States
District Court, District of New Jersey.
On November 7, 2023, a securities class action was filed by Brian
Feldman against the Company and certain of the Company's executives
in the United States District Court, District of New Jersey,
alleging that, during the period from March 31, 2023 to September
22, 2023, the Company made materially false and/or misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, alleging
specifically that the Company failed to disclose to investors: (1)
that the equipment used to manufacture ibrexafungerp was also used
to manufacture a non-antibacterial beta-lactam drug substance,
presenting a risk of cross-contamination; (2) that the Company did
not have effective internal controls and procedures, as well as
adequate internal oversight policies to ensure that its vendor
complied with current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMP); (3)
that, due to the substantial risk of cross-contamination, the
Company were reasonably likely to recall its ibrexafungerp tablets
and halt its clinical studies; and (4) as a result of the
foregoing, the Company's statements about its business, operations,
and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.
The complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest, fees and costs
on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased and/or acquired
shares of the Company's common stock between March 31, 2023 to
September 22, 2023.
The Company disagrees with the allegations and intends to defend
the litigation vigorously and the Company has not recognized any
expense for these contingencies.
SCYNEXIS, Inc. is a biotechnology company, headquartered in Jersey
City, New Jersey, that is developing its proprietary class of
enfumafungin-derived antifungal compounds as broad-spectrum,
systemic antifungal agents for multiple fungal indications.
SEASTAR MEDICAL: Continues to Defend Wells Class Suit in Colorado
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SeaStar Medical Holding 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 13, 2024, that the Company
continues to defend itself from the Wells class suit in the United
States District Court for the State of Colorado.
On July 5, 2024, Forrest A K Wells (the "Plaintiff"), a purported
stockholder of SeaStar Medical Holding Corporation, a Delaware
Corporation (the "Company"), filed a putative class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the State of
Colorado (the "Class Action"), alleging that the Company and its
management members made material misstatements or omissions
regarding the Company's business and operations, including
disclosures relating to FDA approval of product candidates of the
Company, allegedly culminating in the restatement of the Company's
consolidated financial statements as disclosed in the Form 8-K
filed on March 27, 2024.
The Class Action asserts claims under Section 10(b) of the Exchange
Act against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and former
Chief Financial Officer (collectively, the "Defendants"), as well
as claims under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the
Defendants.
Among other remedies, the Class Action seeks to recover
compensatory and other damages.
The Company intends to vigorously defend the action.
The Company has not recognized a contingent liability for this
Class Action event as it does not qualify for the recognition
criteria under ASC 450 - Contingencies.
Seastar Medical Holding Corp., a medical device company, develops a
platform therapy to reduce the consequences of hyperinflammation on
vital organs in the United States.[BN]
SERVICE MANAGEMENT: Flores Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
SALVADOR FLORES LARIOS and BORYS ARROLIGA, on behalf of themselves
and the putative Collective and Class Members, v. SERVICE
MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC.; TOWNSHIP BUILDING SERVICES, INC.; AND
TOWNSHIP RETAIL SERVICES, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-05838-AGT (N.D.
Cal., Aug. 23, 2024) seeks full compensation for all unpaid wages,
unpaid overtime, noncompliant meal and rest periods, waiting time
penalties, and premium pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938.
The Plaintiffs also seek declaratory and injunctive relief,
including restitution. Finally, Plaintiffs seek reasonable
attorneys’ fees and costs under the FLSA, California, and
Washington laws. Plaintiffs seek damages in an amount that exceeds
$75,000.00
The action stems from the Defendants' policies and practices of:
(1) failing to pay Plaintiffs and putative Collective and Class
Members minimum wage for all hours worked;
(2) failing to pay Plaintiffs and putative Collective and Class
Members overtime wages;
(3) failing to provide or make available to Plaintiffs and
putative Class Members the meal periods to which they are entitled
by law, and failing to pay premium compensation payment for
non-compliant meal breaks;
(4) failing to authorize and permit rest periods, and failing to
pay premium compensation payment for non-compliant rest periods;
(5) failing to reimburse Plaintiffs and putative Class Members
for business expenditures;
(6) failing to provide Plaintiffs and putative Class Members
with accurate, itemized wage statements;
(7) failing to timely pay all wages upon separation from
employment to Plaintiffs and putative Class Members;
(8) and engaging in unfair business practices.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as a Janitor.
The Plaintiffs bring the First Count (the FLSA claim) as an
"opt-in" collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) on
behalf of themselves and a proposed collection of similarly
situated employees defined as:
"All current and former non-exempt, hourly janitorial employees
of Service Management Systems, Inc., Township Building
Services, Inc., and Township Retail Services, Inc. throughout
The United States during the time period from three years prior
to the filing of the complaint until resolution of this action.
(the "Collective")."
The Defendants specialize in housekeeping, maintenance, and survey
and consultant programs for high-traffic, public facilities.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq.
Ori Edelstein, Esq.
Robert E. Morelli, Esq.
SCHNEIDER WALLACE
COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
Emeryville, CA 94608
Telephone: (415) 421-7100
Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com
oedelstein@schneiderwallace.com
rmorelli@schneiderwallace.com
SHIELDS HEALTH: Class Cert. Bid in Biscan Reset to Jan. 14, 2025
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Biscan v. Shields Health
Care Group, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-10901 (D. Mass., Filed June 09,
2022), the Hon. Judge Patti B. Saris entered an order resetting
scheduling order as to:
-- Class Certification Discovery to be Jan. 14,
2025
completed by:
-- Plaintiffs' Class Certification Motion: Jan. 14,
2025
-- Defendant's Class Certification Opposition: May 16,
2025
-- Plaintiffs' Class Certification Reply: June 30,
2025
The nature of suit states Diversity -- Other Contract.[CC]
SIMPLE FAST LOANS: Ward Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Maxwell Ward, an individual on behalf of
himself, all other similarly situated, and the general public v.
SIMPLE FAST LOANS, INC., a California corporation; FULTON LOAN
SERVICING, INC., a Georgia corporation; COMMUNITY LOANS OF AMERICA,
INC., a Georgia corporation; and JOHN DOES 1–10, Case No.
24STCV17536 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California on Aug. 20,
2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-07068.
The Plaintiff's Complaint purports to seek restitution, public
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, and costs for the following
claims against Defendants: violation of California's Unfair
Competition Law (the "UCL"); and false advertising and violation of
California's False Advertising Law (the "FAL").[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Julia B. Strickland, Esq.
David W. Moon, Esq.
Adam R. Hoock, Esq.
STEPTOE LLP
2029 Century Park East, 18th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067-3086
Phone: 213-439-9400
Facsimile: 213-439-9598
Email: docketing@steptoe.com
jstrickland@steptoe.com
dmoon@steptoe.com
ahoock@steptoe.com
SPECIALTY NETWORKS: Blevins Sues Over Failure to Secure PHI & PII
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Waymon Blevins and Vickie Lynn Blevins, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. SPECIALTY NETWORKS, LLC, Case
No. 1:24-cv-00288 (E.D. Tenn., Aug. 20, 2024), is brought against
the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard
Plaintiffs' and other similarly situated current and former
patients of Defendant's clients' ("Class Members," defined infra)
sensitive information, including protected health information
("PHI") and other personally identifiable information ("PII"),
including names, dates of birth, driver's license numbers, and
Social Security numbers, medical record numbers, treatment and
condition information, diagnoses, medication, and health insurance
information ("Private Information").
The Defendant received Plaintiffs and Class Members' Private
Information in its provision of services to its clients for the
benefit of Plaintiffs and Class Members. By obtaining, collecting,
using, and deriving a benefit from the Private Information of
Plaintiffs and Class Members, Defendant assumed legal and equitable
duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that
information from unauthorized access and intrusion.
On August 15, 2024, Defendant announced that an unauthorized actor
acquired certain data stored within its systems on or around
December 11, 2023 ("Data Breach"). The Private Information of over
thousands of individuals is believed to have been exposed by the
Data Breach.
The Defendant failed to adequately protect Plaintiffs' and Class
Members' Private Information––and failed to even encrypt or
redact this highly sensitive information. This unencrypted,
unredacted Private Information was compromised due to Defendant's
negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and its utter failure
to protect its clients' patients' sensitive data. Hackers targeted
and obtained Plaintiffs' and Class Members' Private Information
because of its value in exploiting and stealing the identities of
Plaintiffs and Class Members. The present and continuing risk to
victims of the Data Breach will remain for their respective
lifetimes, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs provided their Private Information to Defendant in
connection with services he received from their medical provider.
The Defendant was founded in 2004 as an application services
provider for Picture Archive and Communication Systems (PACS).[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
Grayson Wells, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Phone: (615) 254-8801
Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com
amize@stranchlaw.com
- and -
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (954) 525-4100
Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com
cardoso@kolawyers.com
SPX FLOW US: Groce Files Suit in Ill. Cir. Ct.
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SPX Flow US LLC. The
case is styled as Dangelo Groce, on behalf all similarly situated
v. SPX Flow US LLC, Case No. 2024-LA-0000225 (Ill. Cir. Ct.,
Winnebago Cty., July 30, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Tort - Money Damages (over
$50,000.00)."
SPX FLOW -- http://www.spxflow.com/-- solves processing
challenges, helping customers lower costs, increase uptime, save
energy, reduce waste, and improve quality.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Hammervold, Esq.
155 S. Lawndale Ave.
Elmhurst, IL 60126
Phone: 405.509.0372
STONEPEAK CERAMICS: Moore Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN MOORE and JESSIE
WOOLVERTON, individually, and on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, v. STONEPEAK CERAMICS, INC., Case No.
2:24-cv-00006 (M.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter
an order:
(1) authorizing to proceed as a collective action for overtime
violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), on
behalf of themselves and similarly-situated past and present
StonePeak Ceramics, Inc. employees, with the collective to
be
defined as follows:
"All individuals StonePeak Ceramics Inc. employed as
hourly-
paid production employees at its Clarksville, Tennessee
facility from Feb. 13, 2021, through the present";
(2) directing the Defendant to produce to the Plaintiffs'
counsel
within ten days of the Order granting this Motion a list
containing the names, the last known addresses, last known
email addresses, social security numbers, dates of
employment,
and last known phone numbers for hourly-paid personnel
employed
by the Defendant from Feb. 12, 2021 to present; and
(3) authorizing to send notice, in the form attached as Exhibit
B,
and consent to join, in the form attached as Exhibit C, to
all
individuals whose names appear on the list produced by the
Defendant's counsel by first-class mail and email so that
they
can assert their claims on a timely basis as part of this
litigation. Additionally, the Plaintiffs move for
authorization
to require Defendant to internally post the notice
prominently
on any time clocks or computers used by putative class
members
(or alternatively on the bulletin boards where job notices
are
posted) and include the notice with all Defendant's current
hourly-paid production employees next regularly-scheduled
paycheck or stub.
Stonepeak is an American manufacturer of high-tech porcelain floor
and wall tiles.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 15, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=t2Sgig at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
J. Joseph Leatherwood IV, Esq.
JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT
OWEN & BRYANT
262 German Oak Drive
Memphis, TN 38018
Telephone: (901) 754-8001
Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
rbryant@jsyc.com
jleatherwood@jsyc.com
STRATEGIC DELIVERY: Abdisalam Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Abdulkadir Abdisalam, individually and for all
others similarly situated v. STRATEGIC DELIVERY SERVICES, LLC, Case
No. 2485CV0745D was removed from the Superior Court of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, to the United States District Court
for the District of Massachusetts on Aug. 20, 2024, and assigned
Case No. 1:24-cv-12141.
The Complaint asserts three causes of action under Massachusetts
law: independent contractor misclassification; failure to pay
wages; and reimbursement of transportation expenses.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Daniel R. Sonneborn, Esq.
PRETI FLAHERTY BELIVEAU AND PACHIOS, LLP
60 State Street, Suite 1100
Boston, MA 02109
Phone: 617-226-3852
Email: dsonneborn@preti.com
STRATEGIC DELIVERY: Plaintiffs Seek FLSA Conditional Certification
------------------------------------------------------------------
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 conditional
certification.
In sum, regardless of the state in which the drivers worked, they
were all treated as independent contractors and were not reimbursed
for the use of their personal vehicles, despite driving hundreds or
thousands of miles.
Here, all drivers bore the same work-related expenses (primarily
fuel and vehicle maintenance) and will prove their minimum wage
violations based on the same basic formula that accounts for these
expenses to ensure that Plaintiffs earned the minimum wage in each
week. Courts in the Third Circuit have frequently granted
conditional certification to drivers asserting identical minimum
wage claims.
Once SDS has produced collective action members' names and contact
information, and notices have been mailed, the collective action
members should have a 90-day window to return a signed consent
form, which "is sufficient time to provide each potential opt-in
plaintiff to make a well-informed decision about their
participation in this action, while not needlessly delaying
resolution of the litigation." Finally, Plaintiff seeks leave to
send a reminder notice to collective action members halfway through
the opt-in period.1
The Plaintiffs bring this case as a collective action under the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), on behalf of themselves and all
other pharmaceutical delivery drivers who were classified as
independent contractors by the Defendant.
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=aSwBc9 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
SUPER MICRO: Chen Files Labor Class Suit in Cal. Super.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Super Micro Computer,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Jianguo Chen v. Super Micro
Computer, Inc., et al., Case No. 24CV443886 (Cal. Super., Santa
Clara Cty., July 25, 2024).
The case is brought over Defendants' alleged employment law
violation.
A case management conference is set for January 9, 2024.
Super Micro Computer, Inc. is an American information technology
company based in San Jose, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gina M. Szeto-Wong, Esq.
19925 Stevens Creek Blvd, Ste 100
Cupertino, CA 95014-2384
Telephone: (650) 425-6264
Facsimile: (415) 869-5392
SUPERIOR CONSOLIDATED: Fails to Pay OT Wages, Fondren Says
----------------------------------------------------------
Gregory Fondren and Latasha Wilson, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Superior Consolidated Industries,
Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-01299-MMM-JEH (C.D. Ill., Aug. 23, 2024)
arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum
Wage Law for Superior's failure to pay the Plaintiffs all earned
overtime wages.
The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all
similarly-situated current and former non-exempt hourly employees
of Superior's. Superior allegedly failed to pay the Plaintiffs, the
Collective Members and the Class Members one and one-half times
their regular rate of pay for all time they spent working in excess
of 40 hours in a given workweek. The time Plaintiffs and other
similarly situated manufacturing employees spent changing into and
out of their PPE, which included safety jackets, safety hats, steel
toe boots, safety glasses, and earplugs was "an integral and
indispensable part of the principal activities" that they performed
for Defendant, says the suit.
The Plaintiffs, the Collective Members and the Class Members are
current and former employees of Superior's.
Plaintiff Fondren was employed by Defendant as a material handler
and forklift driver from 2021 through March, 2024.
Plaintiff Wilson was employed by Defendant in logistics and as a
forklift driver from 2021 through July, 2024.
The Collective Members are all current and former non-exempt hourly
employees who worked in excess of 40 hours in any given workweek
for Superior in the United States at any point in the three years
preceding the filing of this Complaint.
Superior provides manufacturing and logistics solutions to its
customers.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael L. Fradin, Esq.
8401 Crawford Ave. Ste. 104
Skokie, IL 60076
Telephone: (847) 986-5889
Facsimile: (847) 673-1228
E-mail: mike@fradinlaw.com
- and -
James L. Simon, Esq.
SIMON LAW CO.
11 ½ N. Franklin Street
Chagrin Falls, Ohio 44022
Telephone: (216) 816-8696
E-mail: james@simonsayspay.com
SYSTEM1 INC: Tentative Settlement in Securities Suit for Court Nod
------------------------------------------------------------------
System1 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 13, 2024, that the tentative settlement for
the Auto Renewal Law class suit is for court approval.
In October 2023, a putative California class action complaint (the
"Complaint") was filed against the Coous and its Protected business
regarding alleged violations of California's Auto Renewal Law
requirements related to the marketing and sale of its subscription
service offerings for anti-virus and ad-blocking software (the
"Protected Software") to consumers.
The Complaint alleges claims under California's false advertising
and unfair competition laws and primarily alleges that the
marketing and sales checkout flows for the Protected Software did
not clearly and conspicuously disclose that the named plaintiffs
set forth in the Complaint were purchasing the Protected Software
for a promotional period which would auto-renew after the
applicable promotional period.
While it disputes the claims alleged, it has reached a tentative
settlement during June 2024, which would include a release of such
claims by the relevant class, which tentative settlement is still
subject to court approval and finalizing other terms and
conditions.
The amount of such tentative settlement has been accrued
accordingly in accrued expenses and other current liabilities in
its condensed consolidated balance sheets as of June 30, 2024.
Headquartered in Marina Del Rey, CA, System1, Inc. operates an
omnichannel customer acquisition platform, delivering high-intent
customers to advertisers and marketing antivirus software packages
to end user customers.
TOYOTA MOTOR SALES: Nunez Sues Over Monopolization of Hydrogen
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alejandro Nunez, et al., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A. Inc., First
Element, Inc. a California corporation, and DOES 1 through 5,
inclusive, Case No. 2:24-cv-06414 (C.D. Cal., July 30, 2024), is
brought for violations of the Sherman Act (Tying) and the
Cartwright Act; Monopolization of Retail Hydrogen in Violation of
the Sherman Act and for Violation of Magnuson Moss Act – Implied
Warranty.
Toyota spins a web of lies and exerts unprecedented nefarious
control over Californians. Toyota wastes millions of dollars of
taxpayer money, pollutes the environment and abuses consumers for
over a decade with their hydrogen fueled car, the "Mirai."
Toyota's monopolistic conduct violates the antitrust laws and harms
consumers. Toyota is dominant in the Hydrogen Fueling Market, and
has engaged in predatory and exclusionary conduct in furtherance of
their monopolization, causing Plaintiffs and Class members to
suffer substantial economic injury as a result of Toyota's
competition reducing violations of law. This action seeks recovery
for consumers' losses, taxpayers and Toyota's unlawful gains, and
it seeks other appropriate equitable relief to prevent Toyota from
continuing to leverage its market position, as the largest car
manufacturer in the world and by far the largest hydrogen fuel car
manufacturer in the world, to harm California consumers.
But for Toyota's anticompetitive practices, consumers would have
had more options in the fueling stations for their Mirais and other
car manufacturers would have created more vehicles for consumers.
Those companies would have created fueling station options and
vehicles that competed with Toyota on the merits of clean hydrogen,
without being dependent on Toyota for sustainability. Because
Toyota anticompetitively restrained competition in its efforts to
obtain a monopoly on the hydrogen retail marker, competition was
foreclosed. Ultimately, consumers suffered, and continue to suffer,
as a result of Toyota's wantonly anticompetitive harmful conduct.
Toyota and First Element have systematically exploited their
dominant market position in the hydrogen retail market to engage in
a deceptive and manipulative pricing scheme, artificially inflating
the true cost of hydrogen cars and hydrogen fuel and reaping
profits. Their predatory practices not only drives up the price of
hydrogen fuel but also prevents consumers from obtaining fuel.
The artificial suppression of other hydrogen stations and pricing
manipulation is evidenced by the Mirai's lack of resale value,
which consistently is less than 90% of the original purchase price.
This stark disparity between the initial cost and the residual
value reveals that the advertised price is not the true value of
the vehicle, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs have suffered substantial economic injury from the
Defednants.
Toyota has sold over 14,000 of their hydrogen powered Mirais in
California.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jason M. Ingber, Esq.
THE INGBER LAW GROUP
3580 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1260
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Phone: 310-270-0089
Email: ji@jasoningber.com
UNITED OF OMAHA: Thompson Alleges Unauthorized Personal Info Access
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ERNESTINE THOMPSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED OF OMAHA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 8:24-cv-00324 (D. Neb., Augus 20, 2024) arises
from a data breach incident perpetrated by cybercriminals wherein
Defendant's computer network and the highly sensitive personal
information stored on its computer network were accessed, impacting
thousands of Defendant’s clients and/or employees of Defendant's
clients, including Plaintiff.
According to the complaint, cybercriminals were able to breach
Defendant's systems from April 21-23, 2024 because Defendant failed
to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity, failed to
adequately monitor its agents, contractors, vendors, and suppliers
in handling and securing the personally identifiable information
and protected health information of Plaintiff, and failed to
maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the
Class' PII and PHI—rendering it an easy target for
cybercriminals.
In failing to adequately protect the private information of its
clients, failing to adequately notify Class Members about the
breach, and obfuscating the nature of the breach, the Defendant
violated state law and harmed an unknown number of its current and
former employees, says the suit.
United of Omaha Life Insurance Company is an insurance company with
its principal place of business in Nebraska.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
Cassandra Miller, Esq.
STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC
One Magnificent Mile
980 N Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610
Chicago IL, 60611
Telephone: (872) 263-1100
Facsimile: (872) 263-1109
E-mail: raina@straussborrelli.com
sam@straussborrelli.com
cmiller@straussborrelli.com
- and -
Matthew R. Wilson, Esq.
MEYER WILSON CO., LPA
305 W. Nationwide Blvd
Columbus, OH 43215
Telephone: (614) 224-6000
Facsimile: (614) 224-6066
E-mail: mwilson@meyerwilson.com
UNITED PARKS: Continues to Defend Burns Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------
United Parks & Resorts 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 Burns class suit in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
On July 27, 2022, a purported class action was filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
against the Company captioned Quinton Burns individually and Next
Friend of K.B., a minor v. SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, Inc. and
SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment LLC, Civil Case No. 2:22-cv-09941.
The complaint states the putative class consists of Quinton Burns
and K.B. Burns and similarly situated Black people.
Plaintiffs then filed an amended complaint adding an additional
seven adult and seven minor class representative plaintiffs in
which they allege the class consists of themselves and similarly
situated minority persons and also disclosed an additional 89
families and 125 children represented by Plaintiffs' counsel who
are allegedly members of the purported class (the "First Amended
Complaint").
The First Amended Complaint alleges the Company engaged in
disparate treatment of class members based on their race and in so
doing violated the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and Pennsylvania common
law.
The First Amended Complaint seeks compensatory and punitive damages
and attorneys’ fees and costs as well declarative and injunctive
relief.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss all counts and a motion to
strike certification of the class.
The Court granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice as to the
negligent training and hiring claims, without prejudice as to the
negligent supervising claim, and denied the motion as to the 42 USC
1981 and negligence per se claims.
The plaintiffs sought certification of their class and to amend the
operative complaint to reassert the negligent supervising claim.
The Company filed a motion to strike class certification and a
motion for summary judgment as to all claims.
The court denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification and
granted the Company’s motion for summary judgment in part.
In particular, while the court allowed the plaintiffs to reassert
their negligent supervising claims, the court granted summary
judgment with regard to all eight individual plaintiffs as to those
claims.
As to the alleged violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the
court has granted summary judgment against two of the eight
plaintiffs, leaving six individual plaintiffs with such claims.
A jury trial of these cases commenced on May 6, 2024.
On May 8, 2024, counsel for the Plaintiffs made the Court aware of
certain questionable conduct by one of the plaintiffs.
The Court informed counsel for the Company of such conduct and, as
a result, the Company moved for a mistrial which the Court granted
and reset the case for trial in September 2024.
The Court has also severed from the main case the lawsuit brought
by the plaintiff whose alleged conduct led to the request for a
mistrial.
That case will not go forward in September and has not been reset.
The Company intends to defend these cases vigorously.
United Parks & Resorts Inc. (NYSE: PRKS) together with its
subsidiaries, operates as a theme park and entertainment company in
the United States. It operates and licenses SeaWorld theme parks in
Orlando, Florida; San Antonio, Texas; Abu Dhabi, United Arab
Emirates; and San Diego, California, as well as Busch Gardens theme
parks in Tampa, Florida, and Williamsburg, Virginia. The company
was formerly known as SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc. and changed its
name to United Parks & Resorts Inc. in February 2024. SeaWorld
Entertainment, Inc. was founded in 1959 and is headquartered in
Orlando, Florida.
UNITED STATES OIL: Continues to Defend Lucas Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
United States Oil Fund LP disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 8, 2024, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Lucas securities class suit in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
On June 19, 2020, USCF, USO, John P. Love, and Stuart P. Crumbaugh
were named as defendants in a putative class action filed by
purported shareholder Robert Lucas (the "Lucas Class Action").
The Court thereafter consolidated the Lucas Class Action with two
related putative class actions filed on July 31, 2020 and August
13, 2020, and appointed a lead plaintiff.
The consolidated class action is pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York under the caption In re:
United States Oil Fund, LP Securities Litigation, Civil Action No.
1:20-cv-04740.
On November 30, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint
(the "Amended Lucas Class Complaint").
The Amended Lucas Class Complaint asserts claims under the 1933
Act, the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5.
The Amended Lucas Class Complaint challenges statements in
registration statements that became effective on February 25, 2020
and March 23, 2020 as well as subsequent public statements through
April 2020 concerning certain extraordinary market conditions and
the attendant risks that caused the demand for oil to fall
precipitously, including the COVID-19 global pandemic and the Saudi
Arabia-Russia oil price war.
The Amended Lucas Class Complaint purports to have been brought by
an investor in USO on behalf of a class of similarly-situated
shareholders who purchased USO securities between February 25, 2020
and April 28, 2020 and pursuant to the challenged registration
statements.
The Amended Lucas Class Complaint seeks to certify a class and to
award the class compensatory damages at an amount to be determined
at trial as well as costs and attorney's fees.
The Amended Lucas Class Complaint named as defendants USCF, USO,
John P. Love, Stuart P. Crumbaugh, Nicholas D. Gerber, Andrew F
Ngim, Robert L. Nguyen, Peter M. Robinson, Gordon L. Ellis, and
Malcolm R. Fobes III, as well as the marketing agent, ALPS
Distributors, Inc., and the Authorized Participants: ABN Amro, BNP
Paribas Securities Corporation, Citadel Securities LLC, Citigroup
Global Markets, Inc., Credit Suisse Securities USA LLC, Deutsche
Bank Securities Inc., Goldman Sachs & Company, J.P. Morgan
Securities Inc., Merrill Lynch Professional Clearing Corporation,
Morgan Stanley & Company Inc., Nomura Securities International
Inc., RBC Capital Markets LLC, SG Americas Securities LLC, UBS
Securities LLC, and Virtu Financial BD LLC.
The lead plaintiff has filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of its
claims against BNP Paribas Securities Corporation, Citadel
Securities LLC, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Credit Suisse
Securities USA LLC, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Morgan Stanley &
Company, Inc., Nomura Securities International, Inc., RBC Capital
Markets, LLC, SG Americas Securities LLC, and UBS Securities LLC.
USCF, USO, and the individual defendants in In re: United States
Oil Fund, LP Securities Litigation intend to vigorously contest
such claims and have moved for their dismissal.
United States Oil Fund, LP ("USO") is a Delaware limited
partnership organized on May 12, 2005. USO maintains its main
business office at 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1530, Oakland,
California 94612. USO is a commodity pool that issues limited
partnership interests ("shares") traded on the NYSE Arca, Inc. It
operates pursuant to the terms of the Sixth Amended and Restated
Agreement of Limited Partnership dated as of March 1, 2013 (as
amended from time to time, the "LP Agreement"), which grants full
management control to its general partner, United States Commodity
Funds LLC ("USCF").
UNITED STATES: Dismissal Order in Nakka Immigration Suit Vacated
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as NAGENDRA KUMAR NAKKA; NITHEESHA NAKKA;
SRINIVAS THODUPUNURI; RAVI VATHSAL THODUPUNURI; RAJESHWAR
ADDAGATLA; VISHAL ADDAGATLA; SATYA VENU BATTULA; SANDEEP BATTULA;
SIVA PEDDADA; PAVANI PEDDADA; VENKATA PEDDADA; ABIGAIL EDWARDS;
MIRIAM EDWARDS-BUDZADZIJA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
STATE, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 22-35203 (9th Cir.), Judge
Jennifer Sung of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit Appeal vacated the United States District Court for the
District of Oregon's order granting defendants' motion to dismiss
for failure to state a claim, and remanded, holding that the
district court lacked jurisdiction over most of Plaintiffs' claims
because they were not ripe.
Plaintiffs in this putative class action are Indian nationals, who
have long resided in the United States on nonimmigrant work visas,
and their children, who are derivative beneficiaries of their
parents' visas. Plaintiffs seek to adjust their status to permanent
resident through employment-based immigrant visas, and their
operative complaint challenges certain generally applicable
policies that Defendants -- U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services and the U.S. Department of State -- use to determine
whether dependent children have "aged out” of eligibility to
adjust their status as derivative beneficiaries of their parents.
Plaintiffs claim that the challenged policies violate the Equal
Protection guarantee of the federal constitution and the
Administrative Procedure Act.
The district court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss
Plaintiffs' complaint for failure to state a claim, with leave to
amend. Instead of amending their complaint, Plaintiffs filed this
appeal. While this case was pending, the Supreme Court decided
Patel v. Garland, 596 U.S. 328 (2022), which held that, under 8
U.S.C. Sec. 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), "federal courts lack jurisdiction to
review facts found as part of discretionary-relief proceedings
under Sec. 1255 and the other provisions enumerated in Sec.
1252(a)(2)(B)(i)." 596 U.S. at 347.
The Government argued that the plain language of 8 U.S.C. Sec.
1252(a)(2)(B)(i), which limits federal court review of certain
forms of discretionary immigration relief—including adjustment of
status -- combined with the rationale of Patel, compel the
conclusion that Sec. 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) strips federal courts of
jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' claims.
The 9th Circuit disagreed, concluding that Sec. 1252(a)(2)(B)(i)
does preclude review of the denial of an enumerated form of relief
(i.e, the denial of adjustment of status), but does not strip
federal district courts of jurisdiction to hear Plaintiffs'
collateral challenges to generally applicable policies and
procedures.
However, the Appellate concluded that -- with the exception of one
Plaintiff -- Plaintiffs' claims are not ripe because Plaintiffs
have not applied for adjustment of status, and USCIS has not denied
their applications based on the challenged policies. Following
Supreme Court precedent, the 9th Circuit explained that Plaintiffs'
claims would ripen only once they took the affirmative step of
applying and having their path blocked by the challenged policies.
As to one Plaintiff, Peddada, who did apply for adjustment of
status and whose application USCIS denied, the 9th Circuit
concluded that she could establish ripeness. However, the Appellate
Court concluded that Secs. 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) and (D) (allowing
limited review of questions of law and constitutional claims raised
in a petition for review of an order of removal) channel review of
her legal and constitutional challenges into a petition for review
from a final order of removal. It recognized that individuals like
Peddada -- who have not violated any immigration laws— must
violate the law to render themselves removable in order to obtain
judicial review.
The 9th Circuit noted that its interpretation of Sec.
1252(a)(2)(B)(i)'s scope is consistent with opinions with the
court's sister circuits.
Judge Jung says, "We conclude that this case must be dismissed
because we lack constitutional and statutory jurisdiction over
Plaintiffs' claims challenging Defendants' policies. We disagree
with the Government that the 'plain language of the statute and the
rationale of Patel' compel the conclusion that Sec.
1252(a)(2)(B)(i) strips federal courts of jurisdiction over
Plaintiffs' claims. Rather, we conclude that Sec. 252(a)(2)(B)(i)
does not categorically strip federal district courts of
jurisdiction to hear Plaintiffs' claims, which challenge generally
applicable agency policies without referring to or relying on
denials of individual applications for relief. However, we conclude
that most of the named plaintiffs' claims are not ripe because they
have not applied for adjustment of status and USCIS has not denied
their applications based on the challenged policies. One named
plaintiff did apply for adjustment of status, and USCIS denied her
application based on the challenged policies. Although she can rely
on that denial to establish ripeness, we agree with the Government
that Sec. 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) and (D) channel review of her legal and
constitutional challenges to that denial into a petition for review
from a final order of removal. Accordingly, we vacate the district
court order and remand with instructions to dismiss for lack of
jurisdiction."
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated August 6, 2024, is
available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ukFrsd
US HEALTHWORKS: Raines Class Cert Bid Granted in Part
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRISTINA RAINES and
DARRICK FIGG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. U.S. HEALTHWORKS MEDICAL GROUP, a corporation; et al.,
Case No. 3:19-cv-01539-DMS-DEB (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dana
Sabraw entered an order granting in part and denying in part
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3), the
Court certifies a class consisting of every applicant for a paid
position who underwent a postoffer, pre-placement examination and
was subjected to USHW's health history questionnaire at a USHW
facility in California between Oct. 23, 2017, and Dec. 31, 2018.
Within 30 days from the filing of this Order, the parties shall
meet and confer on the form of class notice to be provided for this
Court's approval and contact the magistrate judge to schedule a
further case management conference, at which time all dates will be
set, including a trial date.
The Plaintiffs seek only nominal and punitive damages and have
significantly pared down the scope of their claims, thereby
avoiding the need for individual class member inquiries.
Thus, in the interests of judicial efficiency and economy, the
Court certifies this class.
This case involves two job applicants, Plaintiffs Kristina Raines
and Darrick Figg, who allege they and thousands like them in
California were subjected to highly offensive and irrelevant
medical questions on a standardized health history questionnaire
("HHQ") used by USHW, an occupational health provider that acted on
behalf of employers who made job offers to applicants like
Plaintiffs conditioned on their passing a pre-placement medical
exam.
The Plaintiff Raines alleges that in March of 2018, she applied for
a job with Front Porch Communities and Services ("Front Porch"),
located in Carlsbad, California.
Raines alleges USHW's HHQ asked questions that were intrusive,
highly offensive, overbroad, and unrelated to the functions of any
job position, let alone the one to which she applied.
U.S. Healthworks is a medical practice company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 16, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZSSEUH at no extra
charge.[CC]
VERRA MOBILITY: Trial in Brantley Class Suit to Begin in 2025
-------------------------------------------------------------
VERRA MOBILITY 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 trial in the
Brantley class suit is expected to start in 2025.
Brantley v. City of Gretna is a class action lawsuit filed in the
24th Judicial District Court of Jefferson Parish, Louisiana against
the City of Gretna and its safety camera vendor, Redflex Traffic
Systems, Inc. in April 2016.
The Company acquired Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc. as part of its
June 2021 purchase of Redflex Holdings Limited.
The plaintiff class, which was certified on March 30, 2021,
alleges that the City's safety camera program was implemented and
operated in violation of local ordinances and the state
constitution, including that the City's hearing process violated
the plaintiffs' due process rights for lack of a "neutral" arbiter
of liability for traffic infractions.
Plaintiffs seek recovery of traffic infraction fines paid.
The City and Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc. appealed the trial
court's ruling granting class certification, which was denied and
their petition for discretionary review of the certification ruling
by the Louisiana Supreme Court was declined.
Merits discovery in the trial court is underway.
Trial is expected to occur in mid- to late 2025. Based on the
information available to the Company at present, the Company is
unable to estimate a reasonably possible range of loss for this
action and, accordingly, it has not accrued any liability
associated with this action.
Verra Mobility Corporation offers integrated technology solutions
and services by offering toll and violation management solutions
for the commercial fleet and rental car industries by partnering
with the leading fleet management and rental car companies.
VIA RENEWABLES: Taylor Suit Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duty
------------------------------------------------------------
BRUCE TAYLOR, on behalf of himself and similarly situated former
public Class A stockholders of Via Renewables, Inc., Plaintiff v.
W. KEITH MAXWELL III, AMANDA BUSH, STEVEN KENNEDY, KENNETH M.
HARTWICK, and MICHAEL BARAJAS, Defendants, Case No. 2024-0794-KSJM
(Del. Ch., July 31, 2024) is a class action brought by the
Plaintiff against the Defendants asserting breach of fiduciary duty
claims arising from a conflicted controller transaction whereby
Via's controlling stockholder, Maxwell, acquired the remaining
shares he did not own for $11 per share (the "Merger").
According to the complaint, the Merger is a conflicted controller
transaction subject to entire fairness review. Defendant Maxwell
had 65.7% voting control of Via, making him the Company's
controlling stockholder. By wielding that voting control, as well
as his influence over management and the board of directors through
his Chairman and CEO roles at the Company, Maxwell was able to
opportunistically time a take-private bid to acquire Via at a time
when the Company's stock price was artificially depressed, creating
a windfall for himself to the detriment of the Company's public
stockholders. Maxwell breached his fiduciary duties by entering
into the unfair Merger and participating in the provision of the
materially untrue and misleading Proxy to the Company's minority
stockholders, says the suit.
Additionally, Defendant Barajas downwardly revised the Company's
projections during the middle of the sales process in an attempt to
justify Maxwell's take-private price. By doing so, Barajas placed
the interests of Maxwell (the controlling stockholder and Barajas'
boss) over the interests of the Company's stockholders. Barajas
also breached his fiduciary duties by participating in the
provision of the materially untrue and misleading Proxy to the
Company's minority stockholders, the suit alleges.
Via Renewables, Inc. is an independent retail energy services
company that provides natural gas and electricity to residential
and commercial customers in markets across the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kimberly A. Evans, Esq.
Lindsay K. Faccenda, Esq.
Irene R. Lax, Esq.
Daniel M. Baker, Esq.
BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
3801 Kennett Pike, Suite C-305
Wilmington, DE 19807
Telephone: (302) 499-3600
E-mail: kim@blockleviton.com
lindsay@blockleviton.com
irene@blockleviton.com
daniel@blockleviton.com
VIATRIS INC: EpiPen Class Suit Trial to Begin July 2026
-------------------------------------------------------
Viatris 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 13, 2024, that the EpiPen class suit trial in
the United States District Court for the District of Kansas is to
start July 2026.
On February 14, 2020, the Company, together with other non-Viatris
affiliated companies, were named as defendants in a putative direct
purchaser class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Kansas relating to the pricing and/or marketing of the
EpiPenAuto-Injector.
On September 21, 2021, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
asserting federal antitrust claims which are based on allegations
concerning a patent settlement between Pfizer and Teva and other
alleged actions regarding the launch of Teva's generic epinephrine
auto-injector.
Plaintiffs seek monetary damages, declaratory relief, attorneys'
fees and costs.
A trial is currently scheduled to begin in July 2026.
Viatris is a global healthcare company headquartered in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, with global centers in Shanghai, China and Hyderabad,
India. It operate approximately 40 manufacturing facilities, which
produce complex dosage forms, injectables, oral solid doses and
active pharmaceutical ingredients.
VIGO IMPORTING: Knowles Suit Hits Blind-Inaccessible Website
------------------------------------------------------------
CARLTON KNOWLES, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VIGO IMPORTING COMPANY, Defendant,
Case No. 1:24-cv-06295 (S.D.N.Y., August 20, 2024) is a civil
rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website,
https://alessifoods.com, to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New
York City Human Rights Law.
During Plaintiff's visits to the website, occurring on January 10,
2024, and the last occurring on Aug. 12, 2024 in an attempt to
purchase an Alessi 6 oz Sicilian Lentil Soup from Defendant and to
view the information on the website, the Plaintiff encountered
multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff a shopping
experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal
access to the goods and services offered to the public and made
available to the public. The Plaintiff was unable to locate pricing
and was not able to add the items to the cart due to broken links,
pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on
Defendant's website, says the suit.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.
Vigo Importing company is a food and beverage manufacturing
company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
VITAL FARMS: Continues to Defend Usler Class Suit in Texas
----------------------------------------------------------
Vital Farms, 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 Usler class suit in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Texas.
On May 20, 2021, the Company and certain of its current and former
officers were named as defendants in a class action complaint
captioned Nicholas A. Usler et al. v. Vital Farms, Inc. et al. in
the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas
(the "District Court").
The plaintiffs alleged false advertising claims on behalf of
themselves and a putative class of alleged consumers of the
Company's eggs.
The named officers of the Company were subsequently dismissed as
defendants in this matter.
On July 9, 2024, a U.S. Magistrate Judge issued both an order and
report and recommendation, for review and adoption by the District
Court. Collectively, the order and the report and recommendation
(i) denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification, (ii)
excluded the testimony and report of the plaintiffs' damages expert
and (iii) granted summary judgment for the Company with respect to
two plaintiffs and three of the plaintiffs' state claims.
The plaintiffs have filed objections to the order and report and
recommendation, and the matter is ongoing.
The Company believes the claims are without merit and is vigorously
defending itself in this matter.
Vital Farms, Inc. -- https://vitalfarms.com/ -- is a food company.
The Company packages, markets and distributes shell eggs, butter
and other products.[BN]
VROOM INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Vroom 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 securities class suit in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Beginning in March 2021, multiple putative class actions were filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by
certain of the Company's stockholders against the Company and
certain of the Company's officers alleging violations of federal
securities laws.
The lawsuits were captioned Zawatsky et al. v. Vroom, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 21-cv-2477; Holbrook v. Vroom, Inc. et al., Case No.
21-cv-2551; and Hudda v. Vroom, Inc. et al., Case No. 21-cv-3296.
All three of the lawsuits asserted similar claims under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and SEC Rule 10b-5. In each
case, the named plaintiff(s) sought to represent a proposed class
of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
securities during a period from June 9, 2020 to March 3, 2021 (in
the case of Holbrook and Hudda), or November 11, 2020 to March 3,
2021 (in the case of Zawatsky).
In August 2021, the Court consolidated the cases under the new name
In re: Vroom, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 21-cv-2477,
appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel and ordered a
consolidated amended complaint to be filed.
The court-appointed lead plaintiff subsequently filed a
consolidated amended complaint that reasserts claims under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and SEC Rule 10b-5 against the
Company and certain of the Company's officers, and added new claims
under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act against the
Company, certain of its officers, certain of its directors, and the
underwriters of the Company's September 2020 secondary offering.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss all claims, and briefing of
this motion is complete.
The Company believes this lawsuit is without merit and intends to
vigorously contest these claims.
Vroom, Inc., and its wholly owned subsidiaries is a end-to-end
ecommerce platform for the used vehicle industry.
VSL PHARMA: Seeks to Seal Portions of Class Cert Opposition
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID STARR, et al., v.
VSL PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., et al., Case No. 8:19-cv-02173-LKG (D.
Md.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their
motion to file under seal, portions and exhibits of the Defendant'
opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
in Support filed contemporaneously herewith, Defendants
respectfully request that the Court grant their Motion and enter
the proposed order submitted with this Motion.
VSL Pharmaceuticals provides medical food for the dietary
management of patients.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Aug. 16, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xAEY7r at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Jessica Davidson, Esq.
John H. Beisner, Esq.
SKADDEN ARPS SLATE MEAGHER AND FLOM LLP
One Manhattan West
New York, NY 10001-8602
E-mail: Jessica.Davidson@Skadden.com
john.beisner@skadden.com
- and -
Charles S. Fax, Esq.
RIFKIN WEINER LIVINGSTON LLC
4800 Hampden Lane, Suite 820
Bethesda, MD 20814
E-mail: cfax@rwllaw.com
- and -
Turner A. Broughton, Esq.
John Brian Cashmere, Esq.
WILLIAMS MULLEN
200 South 10th Street (23219)
Richmond, VA 23218-1320
Telephone: (804) 420-6000
Facsimile: (804) 420-6507
E-mail: tbroughton@williamsmullen.com
bcashmere@williamsmullen.com
WALGREENS BOOTS: Bodunde Sues Over Unsafe Acne Treatment Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
OLABISI BODUNDE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. WALGREENS BOOTS ALLIANCE, INC., Case No.
1:24-cv-00985-JLT-SAB (N.D. Ill., Aug. 21, 2024) is a class action
lawsuit regarding Defendant's manufacturing, distribution,
advertising, marketing and sale of acne treatment products under
various brands that contain the active ingredient benzoyl
peroxide.
These Products are not designed to contain benzene, and the use of
benzene in the manufacturing process is not "unavoidable." Thus,
the presence of benzene in the Products renders them adulterated
and misbranded, and therefore illegal to sell under both federal
and state law. As a result, the Products are unsafe and illegal to
sell under federal law, and therefore worthless. BPO degrades over
time into benzene, a carcinogenic impurity that has been linked to
leukemia and other cancers, the Plaintiff contends.
Although the Defendant lists both active and inactive ingredients
on the Products' labels, benzene is not among those ingredients
listed. Thus, Defendant misrepresents that the Products do not
contain benzene, or otherwise the Defendant fails to disclose that
the Products contain benzene. Furthermore, the Defendant represents
that the Products are safe for their intended use. But the Products
actually contain benzene at the time of purchase, and prospective
consumers are unaware of this fact because the chemical is not
included on the Products' ingredients list or packaging, says the
suit.
The Plaintiff and other Class Members would not have purchased the
Products, or would have paid substantially less for the Products,
had the Defendant disclosed that the Products contained or risked
containing benzene, or otherwise not misrepresented that the
Products did not contain or were not at risk of containing benzene,
the suit added.
The Plaintiff has purchased and used multiple Walgreens branded 10%
BPO products from Walgreens stores located in Chicago, including
the Walgreens Maximum Strength 10% BPO Acne Foaming Wash and the
Walgreens 10% BPO Acne Cleansing Bar.
Walgreens Boots operates as a healthcare, pharmacy, and retail
company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
Russell M. Busch, Esq.
Nick Suciu III, Esq.
J. Hunter Bryson, Esq.
Luis Cardona, 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
rbusch@milberg.com
nsuciu@milberg.com
hbryson@milberg.com
lcardona@milberg.com
- and -
Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com
WALMART INC: Sanderlin Suit Transferred to E.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Emily Sanderlin, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated v. Walmart Inc., Case No. 4:24-cv-01656 was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of South
Carolina, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California on Aug. 20, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-00971-BAM to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Walmart Inc. -- http://corporate.walmart.com/-- is an American
multinational retail corporation that operates a chain of
hypermarkets, discount department stores, and grocery stores in the
United States and 23 other countries.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Timothy Ryan Langley, Esq.
LANGLEY LAW FIRM
229 Magnolia Street
Spartanburg, SC 29306
Phone: 864-774-4662
Fax: 864-580-7041
Email: ryan@thelangleylawfirm.com
- and -
Christopher B. Hood, Esq.
HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC
2224 1st Avenue N
Birmingham, AL 35203
Phone: 205-326-3336
Facsimile: 205-314-5919
Email: chood@hgdlawfirm.com
WASTE CONNECTIONS: Plaintiffs' First Bid to Certify Class Tossed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELIAS JORGE "GEORGE"
ICTECH-BENDECK, v. WASTE CONNECTIONS BAYOU, INC., ET AL., Case No.
2:18-cv-08071-SM-MBN (E.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Susie Morgan
entered an order denying as moot the Plaintiffs' first motion to
certify class.
The Plaintiffs filed their first motion to certify Class on Aug.
29, 2023.
On May 15, 2024, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Motion to Certify
Class.
Waste Connections provides waste collection, transfer, disposal and
recycling services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 16, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IQCJqj at no extra
charge.[CC]
WASTE MANAGEMENT: Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Opposition
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re Waste Management Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:22-cv-04838-LGS (S.D.N.Y.), the Defendants
ask the Court to enter an order granting their leave to file
redacted versions of certain filings in opposition to Lead
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
On June 14, 2024, the Lead Plaintiffs filed the Motion and
supporting documents, including a memorandum of law ("Moving
Brief") and the expert report of Dr. Steven P. Feinstein. The
Moving Brief and the Feinstein Report include reference to data
from the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority ("FINRA"), which
FINRA designated "Confidential" pursuant to the Protective Order.
Lead Plaintiffs redacted references to FINRA data from their Moving
Brief and the Feinstein Report and requested leave to file the
redacted material under seal.
The Defendants' memorandum of law in opposition to the Motion and
the expert report of Lucy P. Allen include references to portions
of the Motion and the Feinstein Report that have been filed under
seal.
The Defendants take no position as to whether the information at
issue qualifies for confidential treatment or for filing under
seal, but have redacted references to the information from public
filings in accordance with the Court's Rule I.D.3 based on Lead
Plaintiffs' redactions.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Aug. 16, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6xdsVT at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
James J. Beha II, Esq.
BAKER BOTTS LLP
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY 10112-4498
Telephone: (212) 408-2510
Facsimile: (212) 259-2510
E-mail: jim.beha@bakerbotts.com
WELLS FARGO: Settlement Deal in Blessinger Class Action Approved
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GUY BLESSINGER, AUDRA
NISKI, and NELSON FERREIRA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, Case No.
8:22-cv-01029-TPB-SPF (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Tom Barber
entered an order adopting report and recommendation:
1. The report and recommendation is affirmed and adopted and
incorporated by reference into this Order for all purposes,
including appellate review.
2. "Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Class
Action
Settlement" is granted.
3. "Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Attorneys' Fees and
Litigation
Expenses" is granted.
4. Consistent with the Court's preliminary class certification,
final certification of the settlement class is granted for
the
purposes of settlement.
5. Luis Cabassa, Brandon Hill, and Amanda Heystek of the law
firm
Wenzel Fenton Cabassa, P.A. and Marc Edelman of Morgan &
Morgan,
P.A. are appointed as class counsel.
6. Named Plaintiffs Audra Niski and Nelson Ferreira are
appointed
as class representatives.
7. The settlement agreement is approved as a fair, adequate, and
reasonable resolution of the class members' claims.
8. The distribution of funds as specified in the settlement
agreement is approved.
9. Class counsel are awarded $300,000 in reasonable attorney's
fees. Class counsel are further awarded $10,772.94 in
reasonable
costs. These awards are to be paid from the settlement fund.
10. The three class members who opted out of the settlement --
Pallavi Khanna, Tran Bao Nguyen, and Surabhi Bhuttarai –
are
excluded from the settlement.
11. This action is dismissed with prejudice against Plaintiffs
and
all other settlement class members.
Wells Fargo is an American multinational financial services
company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 16, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TzTlwF at no extra
charge.[CC]
WESTIN BOSTON: Carter Sues Over Late Payment of Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
Catherine Carter and Rosario Camara, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. WESTIN BOSTON WATERFRONT HOTEL,
Case No. 24CV1994 (Commonwealth of Mass., July 30, 2024), is
brought as a result of the late payment of wages and tips and to
seek treble damages, interest, attorneys' fees and expenses, and
costs which they are entitled to receive pursuant to Mass. Gen.
The Plaintiffs were not timely paid wages and tips for the payroll
period ending October 22, 2022. On October 28, 2022, Plaintiffs pay
date for that pay period, thirty-three banquet employees did not
receive between $2.38 and S 1,691.92 in wages and tips that they
earned. In total, these employees did not receive $696.74 in wages
and $l6,577.95 in tips. On November 10, 2022, nineteen days after
the end of the pay period and thirteen days after the original
payroll date, Defendant Westin Boston Waterfront Hotel corrected
the payroll error and made these employees whole, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiffs work as Banquet Servers for the Defendant.
WESTIN BOSTON WATERFRONT HOTEL is a company that employs banquet
servers and bartenders who perform tipped banquet work for its
clients.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
James Hykel, Esq.
PYLE ROME EHRENBERG pc
2 Liberty Square, 10th Floor
Boston, MA 02109
Phone: (617) 367-7200
Email: jhykel@pylerome.com
YANKA INDUSTRIES: Discloses Info to Third Parties, Silva Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
ALAN SILVA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. YANKA INDUSTRIES, INC. D/B/A MASTERCLASS,
Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-05264 (N.D. Cal., August 16, 2024) is
an action brought by the Plaintiff for legal and equitable remedies
seeking redress and to 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 subscribers in violation of the Video Privacy
Protection Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has systematically
transmitted (and continues to transmit today) its subscribers'
personally identifying video viewing information to Meta Platforms,
Inc., doing business as Meta, and formerly named Facebook, Inc.,
using a snippet of programming code called the "Meta Pixel," which
Defendant chose to install on its masterclass.com website. The Meta
Pixel installed by Defendant captures and discloses to Meta
information that reveals the specific videos that a particular
person viewed as a subscriber of Defendant's website. The Defendant
disclosed and continues to disclose its subscribers' private
viewing information to Meta without asking for let alone obtaining
its subscribers' consent to these practices, alleges the suit.
Accordingly, on behalf of themselves and the putative Class members
defined below, Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against
Defendant for intentionally and unlawfully disclosing his personal
viewing information to Meta.
Yanka Industries Inc., d/b/a MasterClass, operates and maintains
the website masterclass.com, where it sells subscriptions to
consumers and provides its subscribers access to a digital library
comprised of various types of pre-recorded instructional and
educational videos.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
HEDIN LLP
535 Mission Street, 14th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (305) 357-2107
Facsimile: (305) 200-8801
E-mail: fhedin@hedinllp.com
ZANZIBAR SOUL: Fails to Pay Cooks' Minimum & OT Wages, Hayward Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Hayward, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Zanzibar Soul Fusion, LLC., Case No. 1:24-cv-01426
(N.D. Ohio, Aug. 21, 2024) sues the Defendant for its failure to
pay the Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees all earned
minimum and overtime wages, under the Fair Labor Standards Act,
Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and Ohio Prompt Pay Act.
According to the complaint, Zanzibar allegedly failed to pay the
Plaintiff, the Collective Members and the Class Members one and
one-half times their regular rate of pay for all time they spent
working in excess of 40 hours in a given workweek.
The Plaintiff therefore brings this Class Action and Collective
action Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 and 29 U.S.C.
section 216(b) for Zanzibar's violations of federal and Ohio law.
The Plaintiff was employed by Zanzibar as a line cook from Feb. 1,
2024 through May 15, 2024.
Zanzibar owns and operates multiple soul food restaurants in
Northeast Ohio.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James L. Simon, Esq.
SIMON LAW CO.
11 1/2 N. Franklin Street
Chagrin Falls, OH 44022
Telephone: (216) 816-8696
E-mail: james@simonsayspay.com
*********
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 ***