/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240903.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, September 3, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 177
Headlines
ACADIAN AMBULANCE: Correa Files Suit in W.D. Louisiana
ADVANCE AUTO PARTS: Arkett Sues Over Inadequate Safeguarding of PII
ADVANCED REPRODUCTIVE: A.M. Sues Over Privacy Violation
AEVA TECHNOLOGIES: Settlement Deal in Stockholder Suit for Court OK
ALLBIRDS INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in California
AMBULNZ NY: Ballesteros Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII & PHI
AMYLYX PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend Shih Class Suit
ASHFORD INC: Discovery in California Employment Class Suit Ongoing
ASN AND N INVESTMENT: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property
AT&T INC: Petroski Files Suit in D. Montana
AURA SUB LLC: Young Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
BAG-ALL INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Cantwell Suit Says
BANK OF AMERICA: Weinraub Files Suit in N.D. Georgia
BBBY ACQUISITION: Hernandez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
BEYOND MEAT: Continues to Defend Saskatchewan Healthcare Class Suit
BEYOND MEAT: Settlement in False Claims Suit for Court OK
BIO-NUTRITIONAL: Young Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
BIOMARIN PHARMACEUTICALS: Court Dismisses Delaware Shareholder Suit
BLACKSKY TECHNOLOGY: Continues to Defend Cheriyala Class Suit
BLACKSKY TECHNOLOGY: Continues to Defend Drulias Class Suit
BLADE AIR: Continues to Defend Drulias Class Suit in Delaware
BRIGHTHOUSE FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Kennedy Class Suit
BRIGHTHOUSE FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Martin Class Suit
BRIGHTHOUSE FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Newton Class Suit
CAB ENTERPRISES: Beverage Drink Contains Preservatives, Suit Says
CHRISTIAN DIOR: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Cantwell Alleges
CINEMARK HOLDINGS: Faces Waldrop Suit Over Beer Mislabeling
CITIGROUP INC: Settlement in Antitrust Suit Gets Initial Nod
COMMUNICATION FEDERAL: Fails to Secure Members' Info, Derieux Says
COMPASS INC: QJ Suit Stayed Pending Final OK of Settlement Deal
CUDDLEDOWN MARKETING: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Fernandez Says
DNVB INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Brown Suit Claims
EIDP INC: Banks Seeks OK of Amended Certification Scheduling Order
ELANCO ANIMAL: Continues to Defend Hunter Shareholder Class Suit
ELANCO ANIMAL: Continues to Defend Saffron Capital Class Suit
ELANCO ANIMAL: Hearing on Final OK of Settlement Set for December
ENDEAVOR GROUP: Continues to Defend Consolidated Class Suit in DE
ENDEAVOR GROUP: Continues to Defend Handelsbanken Class Suit
ENDEAVOR GROUP: Continues to Defend Johnson Class Suit in Nevada
EURO STYLE: Violates FLSA & NYLL, Morales Class Action Lawsuit
EVOLV TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Raby Class Suit
FATHOM HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Burton Class Suit in S.C.
FLUIDMASTER INC: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Martinez Claims
FOX CORP: Subsidiary Continues to Defend Campos Class Suit
FRANKS LTD: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Brown Suit Says
FUNKO INC: Continues to Defend Shumacher Class Suit in Delaware
FUNKO INC: Discovery in Consolidated Securities Suit Ongoing
HERTZ CORP: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Jan. 8, 2025
IANTHUS CAPITAL: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Igartua Alleges
JENNIFER ADAMS: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Brown ADA Suit Says
KUSH CULTURE: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Igartua Alleges
LUMINAR TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Johnson Class Suit
LUMINAR TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Smith Class Suit
MFG CHEMICAL: Fails to Secure Employees' Info, Burton Suit Says
NEWMARK GROUP: Bid to Dismiss Cantor SAC Pending
PRIORITY TECHNOLOGY: Invasion of Privacy Act-Related Suit Pending
PURPLE INNOVATION: Faces Consumer Suit in California Court
RESTAURANT BRANDS: Continues to Defend Arrington Class Suit
ROBERT FLEXON: Faces Spitzer Shareholder Suit in California
ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Dismissal of Golubowski Suit Under Appeal
RYVVL INC: Hearing on Bid to Dismiss Cullen Suit Set for Oct. 4
SOTERA HEALTH: Faces Shareholder Suit over IPO/SPO
SOUTHSTATE CORP: Cybersecurity-Related Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
SPERO THERAPEUTICS: Faces Securities Suits in New York
SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Faces Shareholder Suit Over Misstatements
SWEAT INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Gomberg Suit Alleges
TELEPHONE AND DATA: Faces Shareholder Suit Over Disclosures
TWIST BIOSCIENCE: Faces Peters Suit in California
TYSON FOODS: Faces Antitrust Suits Over Price-Rigging
UBS FINANCIAL: Faces Goldsmith Class Suit Over Fiduciary Duties
UNITED STATES: Cross Class Suit Seeks $92,000 Federal Tax Refund
URBAN OUTFITTERS: Send Deceptive Marketing Emails, Hartley Says
WOOD LTD: Fails to Provide Proper Wage Notices, Herrera Alleges
WRIGHT OF FLORIDA: Ortiz Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
XPONENTIAL FITNESS: Faces McGill Labor Suit in Ohio Court
XPONENTIAL FITNESS: Faces Shareholder Suit Over SEC Disclosures
*********
ACADIAN AMBULANCE: Correa Files Suit in W.D. Louisiana
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Acadian Ambulance
Service Inc. The case is styled as Donovan Correa, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Acadian Ambulance
Service Inc., Case No. 6:24-cv-01152 (W.D. La., Aug. 23, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Acadian Ambulance -- https://acadianambulance.com/ -- is an
employee-owner private ambulance service that covers most of the
state of Louisiana, a large portion of Texas, two counties in
Tennessee, and one county in Mississippi.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew Allen Lemmon, Esq.
LEMMON LAW FIRM (NO)
5301 Canal Blvd Ste A
New Orleans, LA 70124
Phone: (985) 783-6789
Email: andrew@lemmonlawfirm.com
ADVANCE AUTO PARTS: Arkett Sues Over Inadequate Safeguarding of PII
-------------------------------------------------------------------
James Arkett and Virginia Nickels, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. ADVANCE AUTO PARTS, INC., Case No.
5:24-cv-00486-M-KS (W.D. Pa., Aug. 23, 2024), is brought to address
Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Plaintiffs' and Class
Members' PII that it collected and maintained, and for failing to
provide adequate notice to the Plaintiffs and other Class Members
that their information had been stolen by criminals and listed for
sale on the dark web.
In a recent filing with the SEC, the Defendant confirmed that its
data was stolen from a third-party cloud database environment
(hereinafter referred to as the "Data Breach").
After investigating the stolen files, Defendant states "[it]
believes contain personal information for current and former
employees and job applicants, including social security numbers and
other government identification numbers" (hereinafter referred to
as "Personally Identifiable Information" or "PII").
The Defendant stored and utilized Plaintiffs' and Class Members'
PII. By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from
the PII of the Plaintiffs and Class Members, Defendant assumed
legal and equitable duties to those individuals to protect and
safeguard that information from unauthorized access and intrusion.
By voluntarily undertaking the collection of this sensitive PII,
Defendant assumed a duty to use due care to protect that
information.
Despite its responsibilities to Plaintiffs and Class Members,
Defendant stored its PII on a database that was negligently and/or
recklessly produced. This misconfiguration allowed files on the
database to be accessed without a password or any form of
multifactor authentication, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs' PII were stored, used, and maintained by the
Defendant.
The Defendant is an American automotive parts provider,
headquartered Raleigh, North Carolina.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Sara J. Watkins, Esq.
D. Aaron Rihn, Esq.
ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
707 Grant Street, Suite 125
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Phone: 412-281-7229
Fax: 412-281-4229
Email: swatkins@peircelaw.com
arihn@peircelaw.com
ADVANCED REPRODUCTIVE: A.M. Sues Over Privacy Violation
-------------------------------------------------------
A.M., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. ADVANCED REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CENTER, LTD. d/b/a CHICAGO IVF,
Case No. 1:24-cv-07559 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 21, 2024), is brought to
recover damages and restitution for: violation of the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA"), violation of the Illinois
Eavesdropping Statute ("IES"), and negligence as a result of
unlawful disclosure of patients information.
Fertility treatment can be a difficult journey--both physically and
emotionally. Defendant knows that its patients expect the intimate
details of their treatment to remain confidential. In an effort to
reassure its patients that their information is protected,
Defendant maintains a "Privacy Pledge" stating it will not "provide
any of your health information to any outside marketing company.
Despite that promise, Chicago IVF aided, employed, agreed, and
conspired with Meta Platforms, Inc. ("Facebook") to intercept
sensitive and confidential communications sent and received by
Plaintiff and Class Members, including communications related to
their reproductive health. The Defendant aided in these unlawful
disclosures without Plaintiff and Class Members' knowledge or
consent, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was in Illinois when she booked a consultation for
fertility services using Defendant's Website in 2021.
The Defendant owns and operates the website www.chicagoivf.com.
Defendant provides in-person fertility services and treatment at
clinics located in Illinois and Indiana.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sarah N. Westcot, Esq.
Stephen A. Beck, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 2100
Miami, FL 33131
Phone: (305) 330-5512
Facsimile: (305) 676-9006
Email: swestcot@bursor.com
sbeck@bursor.com
AEVA TECHNOLOGIES: Settlement Deal in Stockholder Suit for Court OK
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Aeva Technologies 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 formal settlement
agreement in the stockholder class suit is subject to the approval
of the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.
On March 7, 2024, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against InterPrivate
Acquisition Management LLC, InterPrivate LLC, and former directors
and officers of InterPrivate Acquisition Corp ("IPV").
The lawsuit is captioned Louis Smith v. Ahmed M. Fattouh, et al.,
(Del. Ch. 2024).
On June 3, 2024, a second putative class action lawsuit was filed
in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against IPV and
Soroush Salehian and Mina Rezk (collectively, the "Delaware
Stockholder Litigation").
Among other remedies, the complaints seek damages and attorneys'
fees and costs.
In connection with IPV’s March 12, 2021, business combination
transaction with Aeva Inc., Aeva agreed to assume certain
indemnification obligations to IPV's former directors and
officers.
On July 2, 2024, the Company and the parties to the Delaware
Stockholder Litigation entered into a term sheet, which is being
memorialized into a formal settlement agreement and which will be
subject to court approval, to fully and finally resolve the
Delaware Stockholder Litigation.
In connection with the settlement, the Company has agreed to pay a
total settlement cost of $14.0 million in exchange for a release of
all claims related to the business combination and expects to
recover $2.5 million from insurance carrier.
The settlement is being paid pursuant to the Company's
indemnification obligations and from available director and officer
insurance policies.
Aeva is Delaware corporation that designs a 4D LiDAR-on-chip that,
along with its proprietary software applications, has the potential
to enable the adoption of LiDAR across broad applications from
automated driving to consumer electronics, consumer health,
industrial automation and security application. [BN]
ALLBIRDS INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Allbirds 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 Shnayder and Delgado securities class
suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California.
On April 13, 2023, and on May 16, 2023, the Company and certain of
its executive officers and directors were named as defendants in
two substantially similar securities class action lawsuits,
captioned Shnayder v. Allbirds, Inc., et al., Case No.
23-cv-01811-AMO and Delgado v. Allbirds, Inc., et al., Case No.
23-cv-02372-AMO, filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.
These lawsuits allege that it violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5, promulgated
thereunder, and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by
making materially false and/or misleading statements about our
business, operations and prospects.
The plaintiffs seek damages in an unspecified amount.
On July 25, 2023, the court entered an order consolidating the two
cases, appointing lead plaintiffs, and approving lead plaintiffs'
selection of lead counsel.
On September 15, 2023, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint against the same group of defendants and asserting the
same claims.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint,
which the court granted on May 10, 2024, but provided plaintiffs
leave to amend the complaint.
An amended complaint was filed on June 24, 2024.
It intends to vigorously defend against this lawsuit.
Allbirds, Inc., together with its wholly owned subsidiaries, is a
global lifestyle brand that innovates with naturally-derived
materials to make better footwear and apparel products in a better
way, while treading lighter on our planet. The majority of its
revenue is from sales directly to consumers via its digital and
store channels.
AMBULNZ NY: Ballesteros Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII & PHI
----------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Ballesteros, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. AMBULNZ NY, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-06366
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 22, 2024), is brought seeking monetary damages and
injunctive and declaratory relief arising from the Defendant's
failure to safeguard the Personally Identifiable Information1
("PII") and Protected Health Information ("PHI") (together,
"Private Information") of its patients, which resulted in
unauthorized access to its information systems between April 21,
2024 and April 22, 2024 and the compromised and unauthorized
disclosure of that Private Information, causing widespread injury
and damages to Plaintiff and the proposed Class members.
On April 22, 2024, Ambulnz detected unusual activity in its
computer systems and ultimately determined that an unauthorized
third party accessed its network and obtained certain files from
its systems between April 21 and April 22, 2024("Data Breach").
As a result of the Data Breach, which Defendant failed to prevent,
the Private Information of Defendant's patients, including
Plaintiff and the proposed Class members, were stolen, including
their name, date of birth, address, medical record number, hospital
account number, and clinical information such as name of the
treatment facility, the number of your healthcare providers,
admission diagnosis, and date(s) and time(s) of service.
The Defendant's investigation concluded that the Private
Information compromised in the Data Breach included Plaintiff's and
other individuals' information (together, "Patients"). The
Defendant's failure to safeguard Patients' highly sensitive Private
Information as exposed and unauthorizedly disclosed in the Data
Breach violates its common law duty, New York law, and Defendant's
implied contract with its Patients to safeguard their Private
Information. The Plaintiff and Class members now face a lifetime
risk of identity theft due to the nature of the information lost,
which they cannot change, and which cannot be made private again,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiff received ambulance services from Defendant and as a
condition of receiving services, Defendant required Plaintiff to
provide them with her PII/PHI.
The Defendant is ambulance service provider with its principle
place of business in New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400
Miami, FL 33132
Phone: 305-479-2299
Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
AMYLYX PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend Shih Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Amylyx Pharmaceuticals 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 Shih class suit in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
On February 9, 2024, a putative class action lawsuit was 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
(Shih v. Amylyx Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case Number
1:24-CV-00988, or the Shih Complaint).
Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on June 24, 2024.
The Shih Complaint asserts a claim against all defendants for
alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder and a claim under Section 20(a)
against certain current and former officers as alleged controlling
persons.
The Shih Complaint alleges that defendants made materially false
and misleading statements related to the commercial results and
prospects for RELYVRIO.
The Shih Complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest, costs and
attorneys' fees, and other unspecified relief that the court deems
appropriate.
The Company intends to defend against the Shih Complaint
vigorously, and filed a motion to transfer venue on July 11, 2024.
On July 12, 2024, the court granted the motion to transfer,
ordering the clerk to transfer the case to the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts, or the Order.
The parties await a new docket number and assigned judge in light
of the Order regarding the transfer to the District of
Massachusetts.
At this time, an estimate of the impact, if any, of the claims made
in the Shih Complaint cannot be made.
The Company may also become subject to additional securities class
action lawsuits in the future.
Securities class action litigation has often been brought against a
company following a decline in the market price of its securities.
This risk is especially relevant for the Company because
pharmaceutical companies have experienced significant stock price
volatility in recent years.
Amylyx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a commercial-stage biotechnology
company into the treatment of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and
neurodegenerative diseases.
ASHFORD INC: Discovery in California Employment Class Suit Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------------
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 discovery is ongoing for the
California employment laws violations class suit.
On December 20, 2016, a class action lawsuit was filed against one
of the Company's subsidiaries in the Superior Court of the State of
California in and for the County of Contra Costa alleging
violations of certain California employment laws.
The court has entered an order granting class certification with
respect to: (i) a statewide class of non-exempt employees who were
allegedly deprived of rest breaks as a result of the subsidiary's
previous written policy requiring employees to stay on premises
during rest breaks; and (ii) a derivative class of non-exempt
former employees 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 of 2023, the trial court requested additional briefing from
the parties to determine whether the case should be maintained,
dismissed, or the class decertified.
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.
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.
ASN AND N INVESTMENT: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nigel Frank De La Torre Pardo, individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated mobility-impaired individuals v. ASN AND N
INVESTMENT GROUP LLC and EL TAMALAZO III KENDALL INC d/b/a EL
TAMALAZO III, Case No. 1:24-cv-23189-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Aug. 22,
2024), is brought for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees,
litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result of the Defendants' commercial
property, florist, and businesses (hereinafter the "Commercial
Property") being inaccessible to people who are disabled.
Although over 32 years have passed since the effective date of
Title III of the ADA, Defendants have yet to make their facilities
accessible to individuals with disabilities. Congress provided
commercial businesses one and a half years to implement the Act.
The effective date was January 26, 1992. In spite of this abundant
lead-time and the extensive publicity the ADA has received since
1990, Defendants have continued to discriminate against people who
are disabled in ways that block them from access and use of
Defendants' property and the businesses.
The Plaintiff found the Commercial Property, and the business
located within the Commercial Property to be rife with ADA
violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the
Commercial Property, Restaurant Property, and businesses located
within the Commercial Property and wishes to continue his patronage
and use of each of the premises.
The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in
violation of the ADA at the subject Commercial Property, Restaurant
Property, and businesses located within the Commercial Property.
The barriers to access at the Commercial Property, Restaurant
Property, and businesses located within the Commercial Property
have each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the
Commercial Property, Restaurant Property, and businesses located
within the Commercial Property, and have endangered his safety in
violation of the ADA.
The Defendants have discriminated against the individual Plaintiff
by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the
goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or
accommodations of the Commercial Property and business located
therein, as prohibited by the ADA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair to ambulate.
EL TAMALAZO III KENDALL INC d/b/a EL TAMALAZO III, owned and
operated a commercial restaurant located in Palmetto Bay,
Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony J. Perez, Esq.
ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC
7950 w. Flagler Street, Suite 104
Miami, FL 33144
Phone: (786) 361-9909
Facsimile: (786) 687-0445
Primary Email: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com
Secondary Email: jr@ajperezlawgroup.com
AT&T INC: Petroski Files Suit in D. Montana
-------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AT&T, Inc., et al.
The case is styled as Alex Petroski, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. AT&T, Inc., AT&T Mobility LLC,
Snowflake, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-00090-BMM (W.D. La., Aug. 23,
2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
AT&T Inc. -- https://www.att.com/ -- is an American multinational
telecommunications holding company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
A. Clifford Edwards, Esq.
Triel D. Culver
EDWARDS & CULVER
1648 Poly Drive, Suite 206
Billings, MT 59102
Phone: (406) 256-8155
Fax: (406) 256-8159
Email: jenny@edwardslawfirm.org
triel@edwardslawfirm.org
AURA SUB LLC: Young Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
--------------------------------------------------------
Leshawn Young, for himself and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, v. AURA SUB, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-06402
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 23, 2024), is brought against the Defendant for its
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive
website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by
Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons.
The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a
violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's interactive website,
https://aura.com, including all portions thereof or accessed
thereon (collectively, the "Website" or "Defendant's Website"), is
not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it
violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a
change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures
so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers.
By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible
with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and
visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods,
content, and services--all benefits it affords nondisabled
individuals--thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma
among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using her
computer.
AURA SUB, LLC, operates the Aura online interactive Website and
retail store across the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, N.Y. 10003-2461
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
dana@gottlieb.legal
jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
BAG-ALL INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Cantwell Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
LISA CANTWELL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. BAG-ALL, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-05879 (E.D.N.Y., Aug.
22, 2024) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website, www.bag-all.com, to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired people, in violation of the Americans
with Disabilities Act.
On May 30, 2024 the Plaintiff visited the Defendant's website to
purchase a travel bag set (BA Travel Set, 8-pack Black). Despite
Plaintiff's efforts, however, the Plaintiff was denied a shopping
experience similar to that of a sighted individual due to the
website's lack of a variety of features and accommodations, which
effectively barred the Plaintiff from having an unimpeded shopping
experience, the suit says.
The Website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use
by the Plaintiff using keyboards and screen-reading software. These
barriers include: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages,
incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels
for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be
performed solely with a mouse, the suit adds.
The Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so
the that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumer.
Ms. Cantwell is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using the
computer.
The Defendant offers a range of stylish and functional travel and
organizing essentials, including packing cubes, pouches, and
various organizing bags.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami Salim, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
BANK OF AMERICA: Weinraub Files Suit in N.D. Georgia
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bank of America, N.A.
The case is styled as Adam Weinraub, on behalf of himself as
representative of the beneficiaries of the Arthur N. Weinraub
Trust; Barbara Korman, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Bank of America, N.A., Case No. 1:24-cv-03780-TWT (N.D.
Ga., Aug. 26, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud for Breach of Fiduciary
Duty.
Bank of America, National Association --
https://www.bankofamerica.com/ -- operates as a bank. The Bank
offers saving and current account, investment and financial
services, online banking, and mortgage and non-mortgage loan
facilities, as well as issues credit card and business loans.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Faaris K. Uddin, Esq.
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: 954-907-1136
BBBY ACQUISITION: Hernandez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
----------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy Hernandez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. BBBY ACQUISITION CO., LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-05866
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 22, 2024), is brought against Defendant for the
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate Defendant's
website, www.buybuybaby.com (the "Website"), to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people.
The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to the Website, and
therefore denial of the goods and services offered thereby, is a
violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Defendant's website is not equally
accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers; therefore,
Defendant is in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff now seeks a
permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate
policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Website
will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired
consumers, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using the
computer.
The Defendant is a company that owns and operates the Website,
offering features which should allow all consumers to access the
goods and services and by which Defendant ensures the delivery of
such goods throughout the United States, including New York
State.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami Salim, Esq.
STEIN SAKS PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Fax: (201) 282-6501
Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
BEYOND MEAT: Continues to Defend Saskatchewan Healthcare Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Beyond Meat 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 Saskatchewan Healthcare Employees Pension
Plan class suit in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California.
On May 11, 2023, a class action complaint was filed against the
Company and certain current and former officers and directors in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California, captioned Retail Wholesale Department Store Union Local
338 Retirement Fund v. Beyond Meat, Inc., et al., Case No.
2:23-cv-03602.
On July 26, 2023, the Court granted Saskatchewan Healthcare
Employees' Pension Plan's motion to be appointed lead plaintiff and
for its counsel to be appointed lead counsel.
On August 9, 2023, the case was re-captioned as Saskatchewan
Healthcare Employees’ Pension Plan v. Beyond Meat, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 2:23-cv-03602 (“SHEPP Action”).
On October 9, 2023, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated class
action complaint.
The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company and the
individual defendants made false and misleading statements or
omissions regarding the Company's ability to manufacture its
products at scale and to its partners' specifications.
The complaint seeks an order certifying the class; awarding
compensatory damages, interest, costs, expenses, attorneys' and
expert fees; and granting other unspecified equitable or injunctive
relief.
The complaint alleges causes of action under Sections 10(b), 20(a),
and 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
"Exchange Act"), on behalf of a putative class of investors who
purchased the Company's common stock between May 5, 2020 and
October 13, 2022, inclusive.
On December 8, 2023, the Company and the individual defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated class action complaint.
The parties completed briefing on the motion to dismiss in March
2024.
On April 22, 2024, the court heard oral arguments on the
defendants' motion to dismiss.
A decision has not been rendered.
The Company intends to vigorously defend against these claims.
Beyond Meat, Inc. is a plant-based meat company offering a
portfolio of plant-based meats.
BEYOND MEAT: Settlement in False Claims Suit for Court OK
---------------------------------------------------------
Beyond Meat 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 settlement in the
false claims multidistrict class suit is subject to the court's
preliminary and final approval.
From May 31, 2022 through January 13, 2023, multiple putative class
action lawsuits were filed against the Company in various federal
and state courts alleging that the labeling and marketing of
certain of the Company's products is false and/or misleading under
federal and/or various states' laws.
Specifically, each of these lawsuits allege one or more of the
following theories of liability: (i) that the labels and related
marketing of the challenged products misstate the quantitative
amount of protein that is provided by each serving of the product;
(ii) that the labels and related marketing of the challenged
products misstate the percent daily value of protein that is
provided by each serving of the product; and (iii) that the Company
has represented that the challenged products are "all-natural,"
"organic," or contain no "synthetic" ingredients when they in fact
contain methylcellulose, an allegedly synthetic ingredient.
The named plaintiffs of each complaint seek to represent classes of
nationwide and/or state-specific consumers, and seek on behalf of
the putative classes damages, restitution, and injunctive relief,
among other relief.
Additional complaints asserting these theories of liability are
possible.
Some lawsuits previously filed were voluntarily withdrawn or
dismissed without prejudice, though they may be refiled.
On November 14, 2022, the Company filed a motion with the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to transfer and consolidate all
pending class actions. No party opposed the motion, and the Panel
held oral argument on the motion on January 26, 2023.
The Panel granted the motion on February 1, 2023, consolidating the
pending class action lawsuits and transferring them to Judge Sara
Ellis in the Northern District of Illinois for pre-trial
proceedings, In re: Beyond Meat, Inc. Protein Content Marketing and
Sales Practices Litigation, No. 1:23-cv-00669 (N.D. Ill.) (the
"MDL").
On March 3, 2023, the MDL court held the initial status conference.
The MDL court granted plaintiffs' motion to appoint interim class
counsel.
On May 3, 2023, plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint.
The Company's motion to dismiss was filed on June 5, 2023, and
plaintiffs filed a brief in opposition on July 5, 2023.
The Company's reply in support of the motion to dismiss was filed
on July 21, 2023.
On February 22, 2024, the MDL court issued an order granting in
part and denying in part the Company's motion to dismiss.
On March 5, 2024, the parties filed a joint status report noting
they had agreed to engage in mediation.
On April 24, 2024, the parties engaged in mediation before the
Honorable Wayne R. Andersen (Ret.) but did not reach agreement.
Negotiations continued and the parties entered into a confidential
binding settlement term sheet on May 6, 2024.
On July 8, 2024, the parties entered into a class action settlement
agreement, pursuant to which the Company has agreed to contribute
$7.5 million to a settlement fund in full satisfaction of all
settlement costs and attorneys' fees.
Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of the
settlement on August 5, 2024, and a hearing on the motion is set
for August 14, 2024.
Since the settlement is subject to preliminary and final court
approval, the timing of payments is uncertain; however, the Company
anticipates paying $250,000 in 2024, with the remainder, $7.25
million, anticipated to be paid in 2025.
The Company has recorded $7.5 million in SG&A expenses in its
condensed consolidated statement of operations in the six months
ended June 29, 2024, which is included in "Accrued litigation
settlement costs" in the Company's condensed consolidated balance
sheet as of June 29, 2024.
The active lawsuits, each of which was consolidated and transferred
to the MDL and is subject to the class action settlement agreement,
are:
* Roberts v. Beyond Meat, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-02861 (N.D.
Ill.) (filed May 31, 2022)
* Cascio v. Beyond Meat, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-04018 (E.D.N.Y.)
(filed July 8, 2022)
* Miller v. Beyond Meat, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-06336 (S.D.N.Y.)
(filed July 26, 2022)
* Garcia v. Beyond Meat, Inc., No. 4:22-cv-00297 (S.D.
Iowa.) (filed September 9, 2022)
* Borovoy v. Beyond Meat, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-06302 (N.D.
Ill.) (filed September 30, 2022 in DuPage Co., Ill.;
removed on Nov. 10, 2022)
* Zakinov v Beyond Meat, Inc., No. 4:23-cv-00144 (S.D.
Tex.) (filed January 13, 2023)
If the class action settlement agreement is not approved by the MDL
court, the Company is prepared to vigorously defend against all
remaining claims asserted in the complaints.
Beyond Meat, Inc. is a plant-based meat company offering a
portfolio of plant-based meats.
BIO-NUTRITIONAL: Young Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-----------------------------------------------------------
Leshawn Young, for himself and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, v. BIO-NUTRITIONAL RESEARCH GROUP INC., Case
No. 1:24-cv-06363 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 22, 2024), is brought against the
Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and
operate its interactive website to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons.
The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a
violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's interactive website,
https://powercrunch.com, including all portions thereof or accessed
thereon (collectively, the "Website" or "Defendant's Website"), is
not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it
violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a
change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures
so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers.
By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible
with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and
visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods,
content, and services--all benefits it affords nondisabled
individuals--thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma
among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using her
computer.
BIO-NUTRITIONAL RESEARCH GROUP INC., operates the Power Crunch
online interactive Website and retail store across the United
States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, N.Y. 10003-2461
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
dana@gottlieb.legal
jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
BIOMARIN PHARMACEUTICALS: Court Dismisses Delaware Shareholder Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 5, 2024, that on April 4, 2024, a
purported stockholder class action was filed against the company
and its Board of Directors in the Delaware Court of Chancery. The
suit has since been dismissed.
The complaint is also named as defendants Elliott Investment
Management L.P., Elliott Associates, L.P., and Elliott
International, L.P., which are parties to the Cooperation Agreement
with the Company. On April 11, 2024, the Elliott parties executed a
waiver of the challenged provisions in the Cooperation Agreement.
In light of that waiver, on April 16, 2024, the plaintiff filed a
stipulation and proposed order to dismiss the action as moot, with
the court to retain jurisdiction to determine the plaintiff’s
counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses.
Also on April 16, 2024, the court granted the order, dismissing all
claims with prejudice, as to the named plaintiff only.
The complaint asserted a claim for declaratory judgment, seeking an
order that certain provisions of the Cooperation Agreement are
invalid, and, on April 4, 2024, the plaintiff moved for expedited
proceedings as to the claim for declaratory judgment. In addition,
the complaint asserted a claim for breach of fiduciary duty against
certain directors in connection with the approval of the
Cooperation Agreement, as well as a claim against the Elliott
parties for aiding and abetting the directors' alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty.
BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc. is a biotechnology company based in
California.
BLACKSKY TECHNOLOGY: Continues to Defend Cheriyala Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
BlackSky Technology Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 8, 2024, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Cheriyala class suit in the Delaware
Court of Chancery.
On May 8, 2024, a putative class action relating to the Merger was
filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery. The action is captioned
Cheriyala v. Osprey Sponsor II, LLC ("Cheriyala") (Del. Ch. 2024).
The Cheriyala complaint asserts breach of fiduciary duty claims
against the former directors of the Osprey Board, the former
officers of Osprey, and the Sponsor; aiding and abetting breach of
fiduciary duty claims against BlackSky Holdings, Inc. and certain
directors and officers of Legacy BlackSky; and unjust enrichment
claims against an Osprey director.
The Cheriyala complaint seeks, among other things, damages and
attorneys' fees and costs.
The Company believes that the complaint is without merit and the
Company is evaluating potential outcomes.
BlackSky Technology Inc. is a technology Company, manufacturer of
gate arms.[BN]
BLACKSKY TECHNOLOGY: Continues to Defend Drulias Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
BlackSky Technology Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 8, 2024, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Drulias class suit in the Delaware Court
of Chancery.
On May 7, 2024, a putative class action relating to the Merger of
Legacy BlackSky on September 9, 2021 with a wholly-owned subsidiary
of Osprey was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery.
The action is captioned Drulias v. Osprey Sponsor II, LLC, et al.
("Drulias") (Del. Ch. 2024).
The Drulias complaint asserts breach of fiduciary duty and unjust
enrichment claims against the former directors of Osprey (the
"Osprey Board"); the former officers of Osprey; and Osprey Sponsor
II, LLC (the "Sponsor"); and aiding and abetting breach of
fiduciary duty claims against HEPCO Capital Management, LLC; JANA
Partners LLC; and a director of Legacy BlackSky.
The Drulias complaint seeks, among other things, damages and
attorneys' fees and costs.
The terms of the Merger required the Company to indemnify the
directors of Osprey.
The Company believes that the complaint is without merit and the
Company is evaluating potential outcomes.
BlackSky Technology Inc. is a technology Company, manufacturer of
gate arms.[BN]
BLADE AIR: Continues to Defend Drulias Class Suit in Delaware
-------------------------------------------------------------
Blade Air Mobility, 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 consolidated Drulias class suit in the
Delaware Court of Chancery.
In February 2024, two putative class action lawsuits relating to
the acquisition of Blade Urban Air Mobility, Inc. ("Old Blade")
were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery.
On April 16, 2024, these cases were consolidated under the caption
Drulias et al. v. Affeldt, et al., C.A. No. 2024-0161-SG (Del. Ch.)
("Drulias").
Plaintiffs assert claims for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust
enrichment claims against the EIC Directors, the former officers of
EIC, and Experience Sponsor LLC ("Sponsor"), and aiding and
abetting breach of fiduciary duty claim against Sponsor.
The operative complaint alleges, amongst other things, that the
Merger Proxy insufficiently disclosed EIC’s cash position, Old
Blade's value prospects and risks, and information related to Old
Blade’s chief executive officer, who is also its current chief
executive officer.
The consolidated complaints seeks, among other things, damages and
attorneys' fees and costs. Litigation is ongoing.
The Company believes that all claims in the lawsuit are without
merit and intends to defend itself vigorously against them.
Headquartered in New York, Blade Air Mobility, Inc. provides air
transportation and logistics for hospitals and passengers. [BN]
BRIGHTHOUSE FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Kennedy Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brighthouse Financial 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 Kennedy class suit in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
Kennedy v. Progress Software Corporation, et al. (U.S. District
Court, District of Massachusetts, filed October 3, 2023). BHF has
been named as a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit.
The action relates to a data security incident at an alleged
third-party vendor, PBI Research Services ("PBI"), and allegedly
involves the MOVEit file transfer system that PBI uses in its
provision of services ("MOVEit Incident").
As it relates to BHF, plaintiff seeks to certify a subclass of
persons whose private information was allegedly maintained by BHF
and accessed or acquired in connection with the MOVEit Incident.
Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that BHF negligently chose
to utilize PBI to store and transfer plaintiff's and purported
class members' private information despite PBI's use of the MOVEit
software which plaintiff contends contained security
vulnerabilities.
The complaint asserts claims against BHF for negligence, negligence
per se, and unjust enrichment, and plaintiff seeks declaratory and
injunctive relief, damages, attorneys' fees and prejudgment
interest.
The Company intends to vigorously defend this matter.
Brighthouse Financial, Inc. and together with its subsidiaries, is
a holding company formed in 2016 to own the legal entities that
historically operated a substantial portion of MetLife, Inc.'s
former retail segment until becoming a separate, publicly-traded
company in August 2017. Brighthouse Financial is a provider of
annuity and life insurance products in the U.S. through multiple
independent distribution channels and marketing arrangements with a
diverse network of distribution partners.
BRIGHTHOUSE FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Martin Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Brighthouse Financial 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 Martin class suit in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Lawrence Martin v. Brighthouse Life Insurance Company (U.S.
District Court, Southern District of New York, filed April 6,
2021).
Plaintiff has filed a purported class action lawsuit against
Brighthouse Life Insurance Company.
Plaintiff is the owner of a universal life insurance policy issued
by Travelers Insurance Company, a predecessor to Brighthouse Life
Insurance Company.
Plaintiff seeks to certify a class of similarly situated owners of
universal life insurance policies issued or administered by
defendants and alleges that cost of insurance charges were based on
improper factors and should have decreased over time due to
improving mortality but did not.
Plaintiff alleges, among other things, causes of action for breach
of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
and unjust enrichment.
Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory damages, attorney's fees,
interest, and equitable relief including a constructive trust.
Brighthouse Life Insurance Company filed a motion to dismiss in
June 2021, which was denied in February 2022.
Brighthouse Life Insurance Company of NY, a subsidiary of
Brighthouse Life Insurance Company, was initially named as a
defendant when the lawsuit was filed, but was dismissed as a
defendant, without prejudice, in April 2022.
The Company intends to vigorously defend this matter.
Brighthouse Financial, Inc. and together with its subsidiaries, is
a holding company formed in 2016 to own the legal entities that
historically operated a substantial portion of MetLife, Inc.'s
former retail segment until becoming a separate, publicly-traded
company in August 2017. Brighthouse Financial is a provider of
annuity and life insurance products in the U.S. through multiple
independent distribution channels and marketing arrangements with a
diverse network of distribution partners.
BRIGHTHOUSE FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Newton Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Brighthouse Financial 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 Newton class suit in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta
Division.
Richard A. Newton v. Brighthouse Life Insurance Company (U.S.
District Court, Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division,
filed May 8, 2020).
Plaintiff has filed a purported class action lawsuit against
Brighthouse Life Insurance Company, a subsidiary of Brighthouse
Financial, Inc.
Plaintiff was the owner of a universal life insurance policy issued
by Travelers Insurance Company, a predecessor to Brighthouse Life
Insurance Company.
Plaintiff seeks to certify a class of all persons who own or owned
life insurance policies issued where the terms of the life
insurance policy provide or provided, among other things, a
guarantee that the cost of insurance rates would not be increased
by more than a specified percentage in any contract year.
Plaintiff also alleges that cost of insurance charges were based on
improper factors and should have decreased over time due to
improving mortality but did not.
Plaintiff alleges, among other things, causes of action for breach
of contract, fraud, suppression and concealment, and violation of
the Georgia Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages, including punitive damages,
interest and treble damages, attorneys' fees, and injunctive and
declaratory relief. Brighthouse Life Insurance Company filed a
motion to dismiss in June 2020, which was granted in part and
denied in part in March 2021.
Plaintiff was granted leave to amend the complaint.
On January 18, 2023, plaintiff filed a motion on consent to amend
the second amended class action complaint to narrow the scope of
the class sought to those persons who own or owned life insurance
policies issued in Georgia.
The motion was granted on January 23, 2023, and the third amended
class action complaint was filed on January 23, 2023.
The Company intends to vigorously defend this matter.
Brighthouse Financial, Inc. and together with its subsidiaries, is
a holding company formed in 2016 to own the legal entities that
historically operated a substantial portion of MetLife, Inc.'s
former retail segment until becoming a separate, publicly-traded
company in August 2017. Brighthouse Financial is a provider of
annuity and life insurance products in the U.S. through multiple
independent distribution channels and marketing arrangements with a
diverse network of distribution partners.
CAB ENTERPRISES: Beverage Drink Contains Preservatives, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
STACY NICOTRA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CAB ENTERPRISES INC. D/B/A ELECTROLIT USA, Case No.
2:24-cv-05907 (, Aug. 23, 2024) is a class action on behalf of
purchasers of the Electrolit Hydration Beverage Drink (Products)
that claim to have "No Preservatives."
This representation is false and/or misleading because the Products
contain citric acid—a well-known preservative commonly used in
food products. The Defendant's "No Preservatives" representation is
featured on the Products' labeling in order to induce
health-conscious consumers to purchase foods that are free from
preservatives. The Defendant markets its Products in a
systematically misleading manner by misrepresenting that the
Products do not contain preservatives. The Defendant has profited
unjustly as a result of its deceptive conduct. The Plaintiff
therefore asserts claims on behalf of herself and similarly
situated purchasers for violation of New York General Business Law
sections 349 and 350, breach of express warranty, and unjust
enrichment, says the suit.
Plaintiff Stacy Nicotra is a citizen of New York who resides in
Patchogue, New York. Ms. Nicotra has purchased the Products on
numerous occasions over the prior two years.
Most recently, Plaintiff Nicotra purchased a Strawberry Kiwi
flavored Product from a ShopRite store in Patchogue, New York in or
around April 2024. In purchasing the Product, Ms. Nicotra relied on
Defendant's false, misleading, and deceptive marketing of the
Product containing "No Preservatives." Ms. Nicotra understood that
"No Preservatives" meant the Product did not contain any
preservatives. However, the Product she purchased contained the
preservative citric acid. Had Ms. Nicotra known the "No
Preservatives" representation was false and misleading, she would
not have purchased the Product, or, at the very least, would have
only been willing to purchase the Product at a lesser price, the
suit alleges.
Electrolit imports, distributes, advertises, manufactures, and/or
sells the Products throughout New York and the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Julian C. Diamond, Esq.
Alec Leslie, 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: aleslie@bursor.com
jdiamond@bursor.com
- and -
Nick Suciu III, Esq.
Erin J. Ruben, Esq.
J. Hunter Bryson, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
6905 Telegraph Rd., Suite 115
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301
Telephone: (313) 303-3472
E-mail: nsuciu@milberg.com
eruben@milberg.com
hbryson@milberg.com
CHRISTIAN DIOR: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Cantwell Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
LISA CANTWELL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. CHRISTIAN DIOR, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-05868 (E.D.N.Y.,
Aug. 22, 2024) contends that the Defendant failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.dior.com, to be
fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired people, in violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
On May 21, 2024 the Plaintiff visited Defendant's website to
purchase a perfume (Sauvage Eau de Parfum). Despite Plaintiff's
efforts, however, the Plaintiff was denied a shopping experience
similar to that of a sighted individual due to the website's lack
of a variety of features and accommodations, which effectively
barred the Plaintiff from having an unimpeded shopping experience,
the suit says.
The Website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use
by the Plaintiff using keyboards and screen-reading software. These
barriers include: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages,
incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels
for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be
performed solely with a mouse, the suit adds.
Because simple compliance with the WCAG 2.1 Guidelines would
provide the Plaintiff and other visually-impaired consumers with
equal access to the Website, the Plaintiff alleges that Defendant
has engaged in acts of intentional discrimination.
The Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so
the that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumer.
Ms. Cantwell is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using the
computer.
Christian Dior offers fragrance and accessories for Women and
Men.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami Salim, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
CINEMARK HOLDINGS: Faces Waldrop Suit Over Beer Mislabeling
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cinemark Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 2, 2024, that it is facing a case
captioned "Shane Waldrop, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated, vs. Cinemark USA, Inc."
This putative nationwide class action lawsuit was filed against the
company on April 16, 2024, in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division, alleging
violations of the Federal Food Drug & Cosmetics Act, violations of
the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, negligent
misrepresentation, fraud and unjust enrichment based on the
company's alleged mislabeling of twenty-four ounce draft beer cups
used at certain theatres.
Cinemark Holdings, Inc. is a holding company. Its wholly-owned
subsidiary, Cinemark USA, Inc., operates in the motion picture
exhibition industry, with theatres in the United States, Brazil,
Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Peru, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua,
Costa Rica, Panama, Guatemala, Bolivia and Paraguay.
CITIGROUP INC: Settlement in Antitrust Suit Gets Initial Nod
------------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 23, 2024, that on July 11, 2024, case
captioned "In Re Interest Rate Swaps Antitrust Litigation," the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
granted preliminary approval of the parties' settlement of the
class action.
This multidistrict litigation involves antitrust claims brought
against investment banks that were dealers in the market for
interest rate swaps. Plaintiffs, a putative class of investors,
assert that Defendants unlawfully conspired to boycott and
otherwise undermine trading platforms that would have supplied
investors with more competitive prices for interest rate swaps.
Plaintiffs move for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(b)(3).
Citigroup is a global diversified financial services holding
company whose businesses provide consumers, corporations,
governments and institutions with a broad, yet focused, range of
financial products and services, including consumer banking and
credit, corporate and investment banking, securities brokerage,
trade and securities services and wealth management.
COMMUNICATION FEDERAL: Fails to Secure Members' Info, Derieux Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY DERIEUX, individually and on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. COMMUNICATION FEDERAL CREDIT UNION,
Case No. 5:24-cv-00870-JD (W.D. Okla., Aug. 22, 2024) sues the
Defendant for failing to safeguard the Class Members' personal
identifiable information that the Defendant collected and
maintained, and for failing to provide timely and adequate notice
to the Plaintiff and other Class Members that their information had
been subject to the unauthorized access by an unknown third party.
Between Dec. 31, 2023 and Jan. 11, 2024, an unknown and
unauthorized criminal actor gained access to the Defendant's
network and exfiltrated Members' PII including their "name, date of
birth, contact information, government identification (such as a
driver's license or Social Security number), and financial
information (such as a bank account and bank card numbers), and
other data provided to the Defendant.
As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and Class Members
suffered injury and ascertainable losses in the form of the present
and imminent threat of fraud and identity theft, loss of the
benefit of their bargain, out-of-pocket expenses, loss of value of
their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of
the attack, and the loss of, and diminution in, value of their PII,
the Plaintiff asserts.
The Plaintiff seeks remedies including actual damages, compensatory
damages, nominal damages, and reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs.
The Plaintiff also seeks injunctive and equitable relief to
prevent future injury on behalf of himself and the putative Class.
Mr. Derieux is an individual citizen of Florida and received a
Notice of Data Breach letter from the Defendant dated August 12,
2024. He is a member of the Defendant.
Communication Federal provides financial products and services to
individuals and organizations in Kansas and Oklahoma.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A.
14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705
Miami, FL 33132
Telephone: (305) 479-2299
E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
COMPASS INC: QJ Suit Stayed Pending Final OK of Settlement Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Compass, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the fiscal year
ended September 30, 2020, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on November 7, 2023, that the company and its
subsidiaries have been named as defendants in a putative class
action lawsuit alleging, among other things, violations of Section
1 of the Sherman Act. The matter is stayed pending final approval
of the settlement agreement.
One putative class action lawsuit, "QJ Team, LLC, et al. v. Texas
Association of Realtors, Inc., et al.," No. 4:23-cv-01013 (E.D.
Tx.), filed on November 13, 2023, names Realty Austin, LLC, a
subsidiary of the company, as a defendant and alleges, among other
things, that certain trade associations, including the Texas
Association of Realtors, and a number of real estate brokerages
engaged in a continuing contract, combination, or conspiracy to
unreasonably restrain interstate trade and commerce in violation of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act, by entering into a continuing
agreement to require sellers of residential property to make
inflated payments to brokers representing buyers. "Martin, et al.
v. Texas Association of Realtors, Inc., et al.," No. 423-cv-01104
(E.D. Tex.), filed on December 14, 2023, was consolidated into the
QJ Team matter on March 21, 2024. The QJ Team matter is stayed
pending final approval of the settlement agreement.
Compass, Inc. provides an end-to-end platform for residential real
estate agents that services seller and buyer clients. It includes
an integrated suite of cloud-based software for customer
relationship management, marketing, client service and other
critical functionality, all custom-built for the real estate
industry, which enables the company's core brokerage services and
uses proprietary data, analytics, artificial intelligence, and
machine learning to deliver high value recommendations and outcomes
for compass agents and their clients.
CUDDLEDOWN MARKETING: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Fernandez Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
FELIPE FERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. CUDDLEDOWN MARKETING, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-06342
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 22, 2024) sues the Defendant for its failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate the Defendant's website,
www.cuddledown.com, to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired
people, pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act.
On April 17, 2024 the Plaintiff visited the Defendant's website to
purchase a Synthetic Filled Puffy Comforter. Despite the
Plaintiff's efforts, however, the Plaintiff was denied a shopping
experience similar to that of a sighted individual due to the
website's lack of a variety of features and accommodations, which
effectively barred the Plaintiff from having an unimpeded shopping
experience, the suit says.
The Website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use
by the Plaintiff using keyboards and screen-reading software. These
barriers include: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages,
incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels
for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be
performed solely with a mouse, the suit adds.
The Plaintiff now 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.
Mr. Fernandez is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using the
computer.
The Defendant offers bedding products, including down and synthetic
down pillows, comforters, and featherbeds.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami Salim, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
DNVB INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Brown Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
ZEBONE BROWN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. DNVB, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-06350 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 22,
2024) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct,
maintain, and operate the Defendant's website, www.nothingnew.com,
to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff
and other blind or visually-impaired people, in violation the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
On July 10, 2024 the Plaintiff visited the Defendant's website to
purchase sneakers (Women's Verge). Despite the Plaintiff's efforts,
however, the Plaintiff was denied a shopping experience similar to
that of a sighted individual due to the website's lack of a variety
of features and accommodations, which effectively barred the
Plaintiff from having an unimpeded shopping experience, the suit
says.
The Website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use
by the Plaintiff using keyboards and screen-reading software. These
barriers include missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages,
incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels
for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be
performed solely with a mouse, the suit adds.
The Plaintiff now 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.
Because simple compliance with the WCAG 2.1 Guidelines would
provide the Plaintiff and other visually-impaired consumers with
equal access to the Website, the Plaintiff alleges that the
Defendant has engaged in acts of intentional discrimination.
Ms. Brown is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using the
computer.
The Defendant produces sustainable sneakers made entirely from
recycled materials.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami Salim, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
EIDP INC: Banks Seeks OK of Amended Certification Scheduling Order
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DORIS BANKS, et al., v.
EIDP, INC., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01672-JLH-SRF (D. Del.), the
Parties ask the Court to enter the proposed amended class
certification scheduling order and EIDP, Inc. motion for summary
judgment deadlines as follows:
Event Current Amended
Deadline Deadline
Class Certification Discovery June 25, 2024 June 25, 2024
Cut-Off
Plaintiffs Motion for Class Aug. 19, 2024 Aug. 26, 2024
Certification and Brief in
Support of Motion; Plaintiffs'
Class Certification Expert
Disclosures
Deadline for Deposition of Oct. 18, 2024 Oct. 25, 2024
Plaintiffs' Class Experts
Defendants' Opposition to Nov. 18, 2024 Nov. 25, 2024
Plaintiffs' Class Certification
Motion; Defendants' Class
Certification Expert Disclosures
and Objections to Plaintiffs'
Class Certification Expert
Disclosures
Deadline for Deposition of Dec. 20, 2024 Jan. 3, 2025
Defendants' Class Experts
Plaintiffs' Answering Response Aug. 28, 2024 Sept. 4, 2024
deadline
EIDP's Reply Brief deadline Sept. 4, 2024 Sept. 11,
2024
EIDP provides seeds and crop protection products for the
agriculture industry.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Aug. 19, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5x8Iyu at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Thomas C. Crumplar, Esq.
David T. Crumplar, Esq.
Patrick C. Gallagher, Esq.
JACOBS & CRUMPLAR, P.A.
10 Corporate Circle – Suite 301
New Castle DE 19720-2418
Telephone: (302) 656-5445
E-mail: tom@jcdelaw
davy@jcdelaw.com
pat@jcdelaw.com
The Defendant are represented by:
Catherine A. Gaul, Esq.
Andrew Colin Mayo, Esq.
Randall J. Teti, Esq.
ASHBY & GEDDES, P.A.
500 Delaware Avenue – Floor 8
Wilmington DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 654-1888
E-mail: cgaul@ashbygeddes.com
amayo@ashbygeddes.com
rteti@ashbygeddes.com
- and -
Brian D. Tome, Esq.
REILLY, McDEVITT & HENRICH, P.C.
1013 Centre Road – Suite 210
Wilmington DE 19805
Telephone: (302) 777-1700
E-mail: btome@rmh-law.com
- and -
Kelly E. Farnan, Esq.
RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER, P.A.
One Rodney Square
920 North King Street
Wilmington DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 651-7700
E-mail: farnan@rlf.com
- and -
Gerry Gray, Esq.
DOROSHOW, PASQUALE,
KRAWITZ & BHAYA
14 Village Square
Smyrna DE 19977
Telephone: (302) 508-2140
E-mail: GerryGray@dplaw.com
- and -
Kaan Ekiner, Esq.
COZEN O'CONNOR
1201 North Market Street – Suite 1001
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 295-2035
E-mail: kekiner@cozen.com
- and -
David A. Schlier, Esq.
McCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP
Renaissance Centre
405 North King Street – Floor 8
Wilmington DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 984-6300
E-mail: dschlier@mccarter.com
ELANCO ANIMAL: Continues to Defend Hunter Shareholder Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Elanco Animal Health Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 8, 2024, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Hunter shareholder class suit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana.
On May 20, 2020, a shareholder class action lawsuit captioned
Hunter v. Elanco Animal Health Inc., et al. (Hunter) was filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Indiana against Elanco and certain executives.
On September 3, 2020, the court appointed a lead plaintiff, and on
November 9, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint
adding additional claims against Elanco, certain executives and
other individuals.
The lawsuit alleged, in part, that Elanco and certain of its
executives made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose certain facts about Elanco's supply
chain, inventory, revenue and projections.
The lawsuit sought unspecified monetary damages and purports to
represent purchasers of Elanco securities between September 30,
2018 and May 6, 2020, and purchasers of Elanco common stock issued
in connection with Elanco's acquisition of Aratana Therapeutics,
Inc.
On January 13, 2021, the Company filed a motion to dismiss, and on
August 17, 2022, the court issued an order granting its motion to
dismiss the case without prejudice.
On October 14, 2022, the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to
amend the complaint.
On December 7, 2022, it filed an opposition to the plaintiffs'
motion, and on September 27, 2023, the court denied the plaintiffs'
motion for leave, issuing final judgment in favor of Elanco.
On October 25, 2023, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the
United Stated Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
The Company continues to believe the claims made in the case are
meritless, and it intends to continue to vigorously defend its
position.
Elanco Animal Health, Inc. is the producer and manufacturer of
squeeze-on, topical flea and tick prevention products that utilize
Imidacloprid as the main active ingredient.[BN]
ELANCO ANIMAL: Continues to Defend Saffron Capital Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Elanco Animal Health Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 8, 2024, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Saffron Capital Class Suit in Marion
Superior Court of Indiana.
On October 16, 2020, a shareholder class action lawsuit captioned
Saffron Capital Corporation v. Elanco Animal Health Inc., et al.
was filed in the Marion Superior Court of Indiana against Elanco,
certain executives and other individuals and entities.
On December 23, 2020, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
adding an additional plaintiff.
The lawsuit alleges, in part, that Elanco and certain of its
executives made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose certain facts about Elanco's
relationships with third party distributors and revenue
attributable to those distributors within the registration
statement on Form S-3 dated January 21, 2020, and accompanying
prospectus filed in connection with Elanco's public offering which
closed on or about January 27, 2020.
The lawsuit seeks unspecified monetary damages and purports to
represent purchasers of Elanco common stock or TEUs issued in
connection with the public offering.
From February 2021 to August 2022, this case was stayed in
deference to Hunter.
On October 24, 2022, the Company filed a motion to dismiss.
On December 23, 2022, the plaintiffs filed their opposition to the
motion to dismiss.
Prior to the ruling on the motion to dismiss, on June 8, 2023, the
plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a second amended
complaint, which is now the operative complaint.
It filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on August
7, 2023, to which the plaintiffs filed their opposition on October
13, 2023.
On April 17, 2024, its motion to dismiss was granted.
The dismissal is without prejudice to plaintiffs' right to re-file
a claim, and it is possible the plaintiffs will attempt to file a
third amended complaint.
The Company continues to believe the claims made in the case are
meritless, and it intends to vigorously defend its position.
Elanco Animal Health, Inc. is the producer and manufacturer of
squeeze-on, topical flea and tick prevention products that utilize
Imidacloprid as the main active ingredient.[BN]
ELANCO ANIMAL: Hearing on Final OK of Settlement Set for December
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Elanco Animal Health Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 8, 2024, that the final approval
hearing of the settlement in the Seresto class suit is scheduled in
December 2024.
Claims seeking actual damages, injunctive relief and/or restitution
for allegedly deceptive marketing have been made against Elanco
Animal Health Inc. and Bayer HealthCare LLC, along with other
Elanco and Bayer entities, arising out of the use of Seresto, a
non-prescription flea and tick collar for cats and dogs.
During 2021, putative class action lawsuits were filed in federal
courts in the U.S. alleging that the Seresto collars contain
pesticides that can cause serious injury and death to cats and/or
dogs wearing the product.
In August 2021, the lawsuits were consolidated by the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, and the cases were transferred
to the Northern District of Illinois.
In June 2023, the parties agreed on the monetary terms of a
potential settlement of the consolidated class action lawsuits, and
as a result, a charge of $15 million was recorded within Other
expense, net in our condensed consolidated statements of operations
for the three and six months ended June 30, 2023.
As of December 31, 2023, the parties had agreed on the non-monetary
terms of a potential settlement, in addition to the monetary terms
agreed to in June 2023.
In January 2024, the court preliminarily approved the settlement.
The court set a hearing to consider final approval of the
settlement in December 2024.
Elanco Animal Health, Inc. is the producer and manufacturer of
squeeze-on, topical flea and tick prevention products that utilize
Imidacloprid as the main active ingredient.[BN]
ENDEAVOR GROUP: Continues to Defend Consolidated Class Suit in DE
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Endeavor Group 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 consolidated Laborers class
suit in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.
On November 17, 2023, a purported former stockholder of WWE,
Laborers' District Council and Contractors' Pension Fund of Ohio
("Laborers"), filed a verified class action complaint on behalf of
itself and similarly situated former WWE stockholders in the Court
of Chancery of the State of Delaware ("Delaware Court"), captioned
Laborers District Council and Contractors’ Pension Fund of Ohio
v. McMahon, C.A. No. 2023-1166-JTL ("Laborers Action").
On November 20, 2023, another purported former WWE stockholder,
Dennis Palkon, filed a verified class action complaint on behalf of
himself and similarly situated former WWE stockholders in the
Delaware Court, captioned Palkon v. McMahon, C.A. No. 2023-1175-JTL
("Palkon Action").
The Laborers and Palkon Actions allege breach of fiduciary duty
claims against former WWE directors Vincent K. McMahon, Nick Khan,
Paul Levesque, George A. Barrios, Steve Koonin, Michelle D. Wilson,
and Frank A. Riddick III (collectively, the "Individual
Defendants"), arising out of the TKO Transactions.
On April 24, 2024, the City of Pontiac Reestablished General
Employees' Retirement System ("Pontiac"), a purported former
stockholder of WWE, filed another verified class action complaint
on behalf of itself and similarly situated former WWE stockholders
in the Delaware Court captioned City of Pontiac Reestablished
General Employees' Retirement System v. McMahon, C.A. No. 2024-0432
("Pontiac Action").
The Pontiac Action similarly alleges breach of fiduciary duty
claims against the Individual Defendants, and adds claims against
WWE and TKO for denying stockholders their appraisal rights under
the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware ("DGCL") §
262, as well as claims against the Company for aiding and abetting
the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties and for civil conspiracy
to violate DGCL § 262.
On May 2, 2024, the Court entered an order consolidating the
Laborers, Palkon, and Pontiac actions under the caption In re World
Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. Merger Litigation, C.A. No.
2023-1166-JTL ("Consolidated Action").
The Consolidated Action is in the early stages, and the parties
agreed that the Company, TKO and WWE will not be required to
respond to the complaints until a lead plaintiff is appointed and
the lead plaintiff designates an operative pleading.
Endeavor Group Holdings, Inc. is an American holding company for
talent and media agencies based in California.
ENDEAVOR GROUP: Continues to Defend Handelsbanken Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Endeavor Group 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 Handelsbanken class suit in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.
On April 12, 2024, purported stockholder Handelsbanken Fonder AB
("Handelsbanken") filed a verified class action complaint on behalf
of itself and similarly situated Endeavor stockholders in the Court
of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Handelsbanken
Fonder AB v. Endeavor Group Holdings, Inc., C.A. No. 2024-0391
("Handelsbanken Action"), and filed a Motion for Expedited
Proceedings ("Motion").
The Handelsbanken Action names as defendants the Company and
certain of its affiliates, members of the Company's board of
directors, Mark Shapiro, Silver Lake and certain of its affiliates,
Wildcat EGH Holdco, L.P., Wildcat Opco Holdco, L.P., The Ariel Z.
Emanuel Living Trust, dated November 13, 2017, and The Patrick
Whitesell Revocable Trust, dated May 31, 2019, and alleges breach
of charter, tortious interference, breach of fiduciary duty, and
aiding and abetting claims arising from the Company's proposed
transaction with Silver Lake.
The Court held a hearing on Handelsbanken's Motion on May 6, 2024,
during which the Court determined that a ruling on the Motion, if
any, should come after the deadline for certain officers and
directors to make stock rollover elections, which deadline is
ninety days after the date of each of the rollover agreements,
dated April 2, 2024.
The Company disclosed the stock rollover elections to Handelsbanken
and the Court.
The Company additionally received multiple requests from purported
stockholders seeking certain books and records in connection with
the Company's proposed transaction with Silver Lake under Section
220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law.
Endeavor Group Holdings, Inc. is an American holding company for
talent and media agencies based in California.
ENDEAVOR GROUP: Continues to Defend Johnson Class Suit in Nevada
----------------------------------------------------------------
Endeavor Group 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 Johnson class suit in the
District of Nevada.
On June 24, 2021, another lawsuit, Johnson et al. v. Zuffa, LLC et
al., No 2:21-cv-1189-RFB-BNW (D. Nev.) (the "Johnson" case), was
filed by a putative class of former UFC fighters and covering the
period from July 1, 2017 to the present and alleged substantially
similar claims to the Le case and sought injunctive relief.
On March 13, 2024, TKO OpCo, and certain of its affiliates,
including Endeavor, reached an agreement to settle all claims
asserted in both class action lawsuits (Le and Johnson) for an
aggregate amount of $335.0 million payable by TKO and its
subsidiaries, which was submitted to the court for preliminary
approval.
During the six months ended June 30, 2024, the Company recorded a
charge of $335.0 million, which is included in selling, general and
administrative expenses in the consolidated statement of
operations.
On July 30, 2024, following the court's hearings on plaintiff's
submission to approve the settlement, the court issued an order
denying the motion for preliminary approval of the settlement
agreement and stated that an opinion setting forth the reasons for
the denial would be issued at a later date.
The court has scheduled a status conference for August 19, 2024 and
a tentative trial date for Le for October 28, 2024.
The Company is evaluating all of its options, including, without
limitation, an appeal, and has also initiated discussions with
plaintiffs' counsel, who have expressed a willingness to engage in
separate settlement discussions for the Le and Johnson cases. A
motion to dismiss the complaint in Johnson remains pending and no
trial date has been set.
Endeavor Group Holdings, Inc. is an American holding company for
talent and media agencies based in California.
EURO STYLE: Violates FLSA & NYLL, Morales Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
CRISTIAN MORALES PADILLA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. EURO STYLE ENTERPRISES INC., EURO STYLE
ENTERPRISES I LLC, and EURO STYLE CONCRETE CORP. and PAULO
CERQUEIRA, as an individual, Case No. 2:24-cv-05922 (E.D.N.Y., Aug.
23, 2024) seeks to recover damages for the Defendants' egregious
violations of state and federal wage and hour laws arising out of
Plaintiff's employment at Euro Style pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and liquidated damages. He
also seeks interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and all other legal
and equitable remedies this Court deems appropriate.
As a direct result of the Defendants' violations and failure to
provide proper wage notices and wage statements, the Plaintiff
suffered a concrete harm, resulting from the Plaintiff's inability
to identify Plaintiff's employer to remedy his compensation
problems, lack of knowledge about the rates of pay he was receiving
and/or should have receiving for his regular hours and overtime
hours, terms, and conditions of his pay, and furthermore, an
inability to identify his hourly rate of pay to ascertain whether
he was being properly paid in compliance with the state and federal
laws -- which he was not, says the suit.
Euro Style specializes in contemporary furniture.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Telephone: (718) 263-959
EVOLV TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Raby Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Evolv Technologies 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 Raby class suit in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
In March 2024, an Evolv shareholder filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts a putative class action
lawsuit, captioned Raby v. Evolv Technologies Holdings, Inc., et
al. case number 1:24-cv-10761, alleging that Evolv and certain of
its current and former executives and other individuals violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
based on alleged misstatements concerning the Company’s products.
This litigation is in the preliminary stages, and the outcome of
any complex legal proceeding is inherently unpredictable and
subject to significant uncertainties.
The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter.
Evolv describes itself as a "leader in Artificial Intelligence
("AI")-based weapons detection for security screening.[BN]
FATHOM HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Burton Class Suit in S.C.
--------------------------------------------------------------
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 Burton class suit in the United States
District Court for the District of South Carolina.
A purported class action complaint was filed on April 11, 2024, by
plaintiffs Shauntell Burton, Benny D. Cheatham, Robert Douglass,
Douglas Fender, and Dana Fender in the United States District Court
for the District of South Carolina.
The South Carolina lawsuit alleges unlawful conspiracy in violation
of federal antitrust law and is purportedly brought on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons who used a listing broker in the
sale of a home listed on an MLS in the District of South Carolina
beginning on November 6, 2019.
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]
FLUIDMASTER INC: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Martinez Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
NORMA MARTINEZ, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. FLUIDMASTER, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Case No. (Cal State Ct., Aug. 23, 2024)
alleges that the Defendant fails to pay minimum wages under the
California Labor Code.
The suit alleges of Defendant's failure to:
-- pay overtime compensation,
-- provide meal periods,
-- authorize and permit rest breaks,
-- indemnify necessary business, and
-- timely pay final wages.
The Class consists of Plaintiff and all other persons who have been
employed by any Defendants in California as an hourly-paid,
non-exempt employee during the statute of limitations period
applicable to the claims pleaded here.
The Defendants own/owned and operate/operated an industry,
business, and establishment within the State of California,
including Los Angeles County.BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kane Moon, Esq.
Allen Feghali, Esq.
Jacquelyne P. VanEmmerik, Esq.
MOON LAW GROUP, PC
725 S. Figueroa St., 31st Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 232-3128
Facsimile: (213) 232-3125
E-mail: kmoon@moonlawgroup.com
afeghali@moonlawgroup.com
jvanemmerik@moonlawgroup.com
FOX CORP: Subsidiary Continues to Defend Campos Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Fox Corporation 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's subsidiary Tubi
Inc. continues to defend itself from the Campos class suit in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.
In June 2023, a putative class action lawsuit titled Campos v. Tubi
was filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division (the "District Court"), alleging that
Tubi shared viewer information with third parties in violation of
the privacy protection provisions of the federal Video Privacy
Protection Act.
In February 2024, the District Court denied Tubi's motion to compel
arbitration and motion to dismiss, and Tubi appealed those rulings
to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Following a determination that Campos lacked standing to sue Tubi,
plaintiff's counsel filed a new putative class action titled
Gregory v. Tubi with the 17th Judicial Circuit Court in Winnebago
County, Illinois (the "Illinois State Court").
On July 26, 2024 the parties entered into a Settlement and Release
Agreement to resolve all claims, which includes the dismissal of
the Campos lawsuit and settlement of the Gregory lawsuit.
The Company is unable to predict the final outcome of this matter
until the Illinois State Court has approved the Settlement and
Release Agreement, but has established an accrued liability for the
settlement amount. If approved, the settlement will not have a
material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial
condition, results of operations or cash flows.
The Company intends to vigorously defend against any other actions
and arbitration claims arising from the alleged misuse of personal
information that have not been settled or resolved by the Gregory
settlement.
Fox Corporation -- http://www.foxcorporation.com/-- is a publicly
traded American multinational mass media company operated and
controlled by media mogul Rupert Murdoch.[BN]
FRANKS LTD: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Brown Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------
ZEBONE BROWN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. ST. FRANKS LTD., Case No. 1:24-cv-06348 (S.D.N.Y., Aug.
22, 2024) sues the Defendant for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate the Defendant's website, www.stfrank.com, to
be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff
and other blind or visually-impaired people, in violation the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff was injured when she attempted multiple times, most
recently on July 9, 2024 to access the Defendant's Website from her
home in an effort to shop for Defendant's products, but encountered
barriers that denied the full and equal access to the Defendant's
online goods, content, and services. Specifically, the Plaintiff
wanted to purchase a sheet set (Sage Ribbon Suzani Sheet Set), the
suit says.
The Website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use
by the Plaintiff using keyboards and screen-reading software. These
barriers include missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages,
incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels
for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be
performed solely with a mouse, added the suit.
The Plaintiff now 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. Brown is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using the
computer.
The Defendant specializes in handcrafted textiles and home goods
that reflect the cultural heritage of the communities they work
with.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami Salim, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
FUNKO INC: Continues to Defend Shumacher Class Suit in Delaware
---------------------------------------------------------------
Funko 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 Shumacher class suit in the Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware.
On January 18, 2022, a purported stockholder filed a putative class
action lawsuit in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware,
captioned Shumacher v. Mariotti, et al., relating to the Company's
corporate "Up-C" structure and bringing direct claims for breach of
fiduciary duties against certain current and former officers and
directors.
On March 31, 2022, the defendants moved to dismiss the action.
In response to defendants’ motion to dismiss, Plaintiff filed an
Amended Complaint on May 25, 2022.
The amendment did not materially change the claims at issue, and
the Defendants again moved to dismiss on August 12, 2022.
On December 15, 2022, Plaintiff opposed the Defendants' motion to
dismiss, and also moved for attorneys' fees.
Briefing on the motion to dismiss was completed on February 8,
2023; briefing on Plaintiff's fee application was completed on
April 10, 2023.
The Court heard oral argument on both motions on July 24, 2023.
On December 18, 2023, the Court denied Defendants’ motion to
dismiss and denied Plaintiffs' application for an interim fee.
The Company filed its answer on January 26, 2024, and discovery is
currently ongoing.
On March 13, 2024, the representative plaintiff moved to withdraw
as a plaintiff in the action, and another purported stockholder
moved to intervene as representative plaintiff.
Both motions remain pending.
Funko is a pop culture consumer products company that creates
figures, plush, accessories, apparel, and homewares regarding
movies, TV shows, videogames, musicians, and sports teams.[BN]
FUNKO INC: Discovery in Consolidated Securities Suit Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Funko 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 discovery is ongoing for a
consolidated securities class suit filed in Washington.
Between November 16, 2017 and June 12, 2018, seven purported
stockholders of the Company filed putative class action lawsuits in
the Superior Court of Washington in and for King County against the
Company, certain of its officers and directors, ACON, Fundamental
Capital, the underwriters of its IPO, and certain other
defendants.
On July 2, 2018, the suits were ordered consolidated for all
purposes into one action under the title In re Funko, Inc.
Securities Litigation.
On August 1, 2018, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint
against the Company, certain of its officers and directors, ACON,
Fundamental, and certain other defendants.
The Company moved to dismiss twice, and the Court twice granted the
Company's motions to dismiss, the second time with prejudice.
Plaintiffs appealed, and on November 1, 2021, the Court of Appeals
reversed the trial court's dismissal decision in most respects.
On May 4, 2022, the Washington State Supreme Court denied the
Company's petition, and the case was remanded to the Superior Court
for further proceedings.
The Company filed its answer on September 19, 2022 and the Court
certified the case as a class action on November 6, 2023.
Discovery is currently ongoing.
Funko is a pop culture consumer products company that creates
figures, plush, accessories, apparel, and homewares regarding
movies, TV shows, videogames, musicians, and sports teams.[BN]
HERTZ CORP: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Jan. 8, 2025
------------------------------------------------------
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
Hon. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley entered an order to extend class
certification deadline and set briefing schedule as follows:
1. The Plaintiffs shall file their Motion for Class
certification
on or before Jan. 8, 2025.
2. The Defendant shall file any Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion
for Class Certification on or before Feb. 5, 2025;
3. The Plaintiffs shall file any Reply in support of
Plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification on or before Feb. 19, 2025;
4. Hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification shall
be
set on March 6, 2025, at 10:00 a.m., or on a later date that
is
convenient for the Court.
Hertz Corporation is a vehicle rental company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 16, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xYX2cv 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
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
IANTHUS CAPITAL: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Igartua Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN IGARTUA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. IANTHUS CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-06379
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 23, 2024) alleges that the Defendant failed to
design, construct, maintain, and operate the Defendant's Website 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.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content while
using the computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or
"visually-impaired," as Plaintiff's central visual acuity with
correction is less than or equal to 20/200. The Defendant's Website
is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers;
therefore, Defendant is in violation of the ADA. 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, www.bestores.com will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers.
The Defendant owns various subsidiaries with concomitant Websites,
including www.bestores.com and others which are irrelevant to the
instant proceeding.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq.
Bennitta L. Joseph, Esq.
JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC
110 East 59th Street, Suite 2300
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 227-5700
Facsimile: (212) 656-1889
E-mail: jon@norinsberglaw.com
bennitta@employeejustice.com
JENNIFER ADAMS: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Brown ADA Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
ZEBONE BROWN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. JENNIFER ADAMS BRANDS, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-06344
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 22, 2024) contends that the Defendant failed to
design, construct, maintain, and operate the Defendant's website,
www.jenniferadams.com, to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired
people, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
On July 9, 2024, Plaintiff visited the Defendant's website to
purchase a sheet set (600tc Egyptian Cotton Sheets). Despite
Plaintiff's efforts, however, the Plaintiff was denied a shopping
experience similar to that of a sighted individual due to the
website's lack of a variety of features and accommodations, which
effectively barred Plaintiff from having an unimpeded shopping
experience, the suit says.
The Website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use
by the Plaintiff using keyboards and screen-reading software. These
barriers include missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages,
incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels
for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be
performed solely with a mouse, the suit adds.
The Plaintiff now 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.
Because simple compliance with the WCAG 2.1 Guidelines would
provide the Plaintiff and other visually-impaired consumers with
equal access to the Website, the Plaintiff alleges that the
Defendant has engaged in acts of intentional discrimination.
Ms. Brown is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using the
computer.
The Defendant provides high-quality home textiles, especially their
bedding products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami Salim, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
KUSH CULTURE: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Igartua Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN IGARTUA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. KUSH CULTURE INDUSTRY LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-06374
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 23, 2024) alleges that the Defendant failed to
design, construct, maintain, and operate the Defendant's Website 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.
The Defendant is a New York Limited Liability company that owns and
maintains the Website, www.terpbrosnyc.com where the proprietors
explain, "In the bustling streets of Astoria, Ditmars, Queens, a
unique retail establishment is making waves in the cannabis
industry. Terp bros, a brand-new recreational dispensary is just
not just a place to purchase cannabis products, but a destination
for memorable learning and experiences. Offering a welcoming and
inclusive environment, the Terp Bros team is eager to share their
expertise and help guide customers on their cannabis journey. But
the story of Terp Bros goes beyond their store, reflecting the tale
of resilience, entrepreneurship and firm belief in second
chances."
The Plaintiff is a blind, visually-impaired handicapped person, and
a member of a protected class of individuals under the ADA.
The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to the Website, and
therefore its denial of the goods and services offered thereby, is
a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA").[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq.
Bennitta L. Joseph, Esq.
JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC
110 East 59th Street, Suite 2300
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 227-5700
Facsimile: (212) 656-1889
E-mail: jon@norinsberglaw.com
bennitta@employeejustice.com
LUMINAR TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Johnson Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Luminar Technologies 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 Johnson class suit in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
On May 26, 2023, a putative class action styled Johnson v. Luminar
Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 6:23-cv-00982-PGB-LHP, was
filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District
of Florida, against the Company and an employee.
The suit asserts purported claims on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's securities between February 28, 2023 and March 17, 2023
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act for allegedly
misleading statements regarding the Company's photonic integrated
circuits technology.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on December 29,
2023, the motion was granted, and on July 8, 2024 Plaintiff filed
an amended complaint.
The Company disputes the allegations in the complaint and intends
to vigorously defend the litigation.
Luminar Technologies, Inc. is a global automotive technology
company into vehicle safety and autonomy.
LUMINAR TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Smith Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Luminar Technologies 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 Smith class suit in the Delaware Court of
Chancery.
On March 21, 2024, a putative class action styled Smith v. Gores,
et al., C.A. No. 2024-0285-MTZ (Del. Ch.) was filed in the Delaware
Court of Chancery against the Company and the members of its Board
of Directors.
The lawsuit asserts claims on behalf of a putative class comprised
of all stockholders other than defendants and any current directors
or officers of the Company.
The plaintiff alleges that certain provisions in the Company's
advance notice bylaws (the "Challenged Provisions") are invalid and
void and that the members of the Board have breached their
fiduciary duty of loyalty by adopting and maintaining the
Challenged Provisions.
In addition to seeking declaratory, equitable, and injunctive
relief, the plaintiff seeks an award of attorneys' fees and other
costs and expenses on behalf of the putative class.
On April 15, 2024, the Company moved to dismiss the complaint.
The Company has determined that the likelihood of this matter
resulting in a material adverse impact on the Company's financial
results is remote.
Luminar Technologies, Inc. is a global automotive technology
company into vehicle safety and autonomy.
MFG CHEMICAL: Fails to Secure Employees' Info, Burton Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jermaine Burton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MFG Chemical, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-00290 (E.D. Tenn.,
Aug. 22, 2024) sues the Defendant for its failure to properly
secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information that
it collected and maintained as part of its regular business
practices, including Plaintiff's and Class Members' names, dates of
birth, addresses, phone numbers, and Social Security numbers.
On July 18, 2024, the Defendant began sending the Plaintiff and
other victims of the Data Breach a Notice of Data Incident letter.
The Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered injury as a result of
Defendant's conduct. These injuries include: invasion of privacy;
theft of their 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;
and lost opportunity costs associated with attempting to mitigate
the actual consequences of the Data Breach, the suit asserts.
The present and continuing risk of identity theft and fraud to
victims of the Data Breach will remain for their respective
lifetimes, the suit adds.
The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons whose PII
was compromised as a result of Defendant's failure to: (i)
adequately protect the PII of the Plaintiff and Class Members; (ii)
warn the Plaintiff and Class Members of Defendant's inadequate
information security practices; and (iii) effectively secure
hardware containing protected PII using reasonable and effective
security procedures free of vulnerabilities and incidents.
The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former employees of
the Defendant.
The Defendant is a company that "operates six manufacturing
facilities which handle a diverse range of raw materials and
processes."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
Grayson Wells, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
The Freedom Center
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 254-8801
E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com
gwells@stranchlaw.com
- and -
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com
NEWMARK GROUP: Bid to Dismiss Cantor SAC Pending
-------------------------------------------------
Newmark 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 motion of
defendants to dismiss the Cantor Second Amended Complaint is
pending 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 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 Antitrust Act
of 1890, as amended, 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
$5,000,000.
The Company believes the lawsuit has no merit.
However, as with any litigation, the outcome cannot be determined
with certainty.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and in response, on May 31,
2023, plaintiffs filed an Amended Class Action Complaint alleging
similar allegations as a basis for claims for breach of contract
and violation of the Sherman Act.
Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint.
On February 23, 2024, plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint,
repleading claims for violation of federal antitrust laws and
challenging economic forfeiture and non-compete obligations as
violative of federal competition law.
Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint.
The motion is fully briefed as of May 2024 and a decision is
forthcoming.
Newmark Group, Inc., and Newmark Holdings jointly own Newmark
Partners, L.P., the operating partnership, a service provider to
large institutional investors, global corporations, and other
owners and occupiers of commercial real estate that offers a
diverse array of integrated services that includes capital markets
(investment sales and commercial mortgage brokerage), agency
leasing, valuation and advisory, property management, business
rates, due diligence consulting and other advisory services
including multifamily lending and loan servicing, and flexible
workspace solutions for owners.
PRIORITY TECHNOLOGY: Invasion of Privacy Act-Related Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Priority Technology 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 8, 2024, that the
California Invasion of Privacy Act class suit is pending in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.
The Company is involved in a case that was filed on October 11,
2023 and is currently pending in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California.
The Complaint is a putative class action against The Credit
Wholesale Company, Inc. ("Wholesale"), Priority Technology
Holdings, Inc., Priority Payment Systems ("PPS"), LLC and Wells
Fargo Bank, N.A. ("Wells Fargo").
The Complaint alleges that Wholesale is an agent of Priority, PPS
and Wells Fargo and that it made non-consensual recordation of
telephonic communications with California businesses in violation
of California Invasion of Privacy Act (the "Act").
The Complaint seeks to certify a class of affected businesses and
an award of $5,000 per violation of the Act.
As of August 8, 2024, the financial impact, if any, of the outcome
of this legal proceeding is neither probable nor estimable.
Priority Technology Holdings, Inc. provides merchant
acquiring and commercial payment solutions in the United States. It
operates through three segments: Consumer Payments, Commercial
Payments, and Integrated Partners. The company offers MX product
suite, including MX ISO/Agent and VIMAS reseller technology
systems, and MX Merchant products, which provide resellers and
merchant clients a customizable set of business applications that
enable business work functions and revenue performance management.
PURPLE INNOVATION: Faces Consumer Suit in California Court
----------------------------------------------------------
Purple Innovation, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 5, 2024, that on January 17, 2024,
two customers filed a punitive class action lawsuit against Purple
LLC in California Superior Court in the County of San Francisco
alleging unlawful marketing and pricing practices, fraud and unjust
enrichment.
The suit seeks damages and other relief on behalf of all persons
who purchased Purple LLC products during the applicable statutory
periods in California. On February 22, 2024, Purple LLC removed the
case to the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California.
Purple Innovation, Inc. designs and manufactures a variety of
comfort products, including mattresses, pillows, cushions, bases,
sheets, and other products based in Utah.
RESTAURANT BRANDS: Continues to Defend Arrington Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Restaurant Brands International Limited Partnership 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
Arrington class suit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida.
On October 5, 2018, a class action complaint was filed against
Burger King Worldwide, Inc. ("BKW") and Burger King Company,
successor in interest, ("BKC") in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida by Jarvis Arrington, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated.
On October 18, 2018, a second class action complaint was filed
against RBI, BKW and BKC in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida by Monique Michel, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated.
On October 31, 2018, a third class action complaint was filed
against BKC and BKW in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida by Geneva Blanchard and Tiffany Miller,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated.
On November 2, 2018, a fourth class action complaint was filed
against RBI, BKW and BKC in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida by Sandra Munster, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated.
These complaints have been consolidated and allege that the
defendants violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by incorporating
an employee no-solicitation and no-hiring clause in the standard
form franchise agreement all Burger King franchisees are required
to sign.
Each plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and damages for himself or
herself and other members of the class.
On March 24, 2020, the Court granted BKC's motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim and on April 20, 2020 the plaintiffs filed
a motion for leave to amend their complaint.
On April 27, 2020, BKC filed a motion opposing the motion for leave
to amend.
The court denied the plaintiffs motion for leave to amend their
complaint in August 2020 and the plaintiffs appealed this ruling.
In August 2022, the federal appellate court reversed the lower
court's decision to dismiss the case and remanded the case to the
lower court for further proceedings.
While the Company intends to vigorously defend these claims, it is
unable to predict the ultimate outcome of this case or estimate the
range of possible loss, if any.
Restaurant Brands International Limited Partnership franchises and
operates quick service restaurants serving premium coffee and other
beverage and food products under the Tim Hortons(R) brand, fast
food hamburgers principally under the Burger King(R) brand, chicken
principally under the Popeyes(R) brand and sandwiches under the
Firehouse Subs(R) brand.
ROBERT FLEXON: Faces Spitzer Shareholder Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
Capstone Green Energy Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2024, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2024, that on October 13,
2023, a putative securities class action was filed against its CEO
Robert C. Flexon in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, captioned "Spitzer v. Flexon, et al.,"
(Case No. 2:23-cv-08659), naming certain of the company's current
and former directors and officers as defendants.
The suit alleges claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder based on allegedly false and misleading
statements regarding, and allegedly inadequate disclosure
surrounding, the company's business, operations and prospects and
the circumstances leading up to the restatement of its quarterly
and annual financial statements. The suit is purportedly brought on
behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired
the company's securities between June 14, 2021, and September 22,
2023, and seeks to recover unspecified compensatory damages and
other relief, including attorney's fees.
Capstone Green Energy Corporation provides customized microgrid
solutions, Energy-as-a-Service (EaaS) solutions, and energy
technology systems.
ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Dismissal of Golubowski Suit Under Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------
Robinhood Markets 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 notice of
appeal over the dismissal of the Golubowski IPO class suit is
pending in the 9th Circuit.
In December 2021, Philip Golubowski filed a putative class action
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
against RHM, the officers and directors who signed Robinhood's
initial public offering ("IPO") offering documents, and Robinhood's
IPO underwriters.
Plaintiff's claims are based on alleged false or misleading
statements in Robinhood's IPO offering documents allegedly in
violation of Sections 11 and 12(a) of the Securities Act of 1933,
as amended (the "Securities Act").
Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory damages, rescission of
shareholders' share purchases, and an award for attorneys' fees and
costs.
In February 2022, certain alleged Robinhood stockholders submitted
applications seeking appointment by the court to be the lead
plaintiff to represent the putative class in this matter, and in
March 2022, the court appointed lead plaintiffs.
In June 2022, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.
In August 2022, Robinhood filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
In February 2023, the court granted Robinhood's motion without
prejudice.
In March 2023, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. In
January 2024, the court granted Robinhood's motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint without leave to amend.
In February 2024, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the 9th
Circuit and the appeal is currently pending.
Robinhood Markets, Inc. facilitates the purchase and sale of
options, cryptocurrencies, and equities through its platform based
in California.
RYVVL INC: Hearing on Bid to Dismiss Cullen Suit Set for Oct. 4
---------------------------------------------------------------
RYVYL 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 hearing on the bid to
dismiss Cullen's second amendment complaint is set for October 4,
2024.
On February 1, 2023, a putative class action lawsuit titled Cullen
v. RYVYL Inc. fka GreenBox POS, Inc., et al., Case No.
3:23-cv-00185-GPC-AGS, was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California against several
defendants, including the Company and certain of the Company's
current and former directors and officers (the "Cullen
Defendants").
The complaint was filed on behalf of persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the Company's publicly traded securities between
January 29, 2021 and January 20, 2023.
The complaint alleged that the Cullen Defendants violated Sections
11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the
"Securities Act") and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
by making false and/or misleading statements regarding the
Company's financial controls, performance and prospects.
On June 30, 2023, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint.
All defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint on
August 14, 2023.
On March 1, 2024, the Court issued an order granting in part and
denying in part defendants' motions to dismiss, which included
dismissing all Securities Act claims and narrowing the potential
class period.
The plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on April 30, 2024,
which alleges claims against the Cullen Defendants under Exchange
Act Sections 10(b) and 20(a) only and a class period of May 13,
2021 through January 20, 2023.
The Company filed its motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint on July 1, 2024 and the hearing is scheduled for October
4, 2024.
RYVYL Inc. is a financial technology company that develops,
markets, and sells innovative blockchain-based payment solutions,
which offer significant improvements for the payment solutions
marketplace.
SOTERA HEALTH: Faces Shareholder Suit over IPO/SPO
--------------------------------------------------
Sotera Health Co. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 5, 2024, that in January 2023, a stockholder
class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio against the company, certain past and present
directors and senior executives, the company's private equity
stockholders and the underwriters of the company's initial public
offering (IPO) in November 2020 and the company's secondary public
offering (SPO) in March 2021.
In April 2023, the court appointed the Oakland County Employees'
Retirement System, Oakland County Voluntary Employees' Beneficiary
Association, and Wayne County Employees' Retirement System to serve
as lead plaintiffs to prosecute claims on behalf of a proposed
class of stockholders who acquired shares of the Company in
connection with its IPO or SPO or between November 20, 2020, and
September 19, 2022. They allege that statements made regarding the
safety of the company's use of EO and/or its EO tort lawsuits and
other risks of its EO operations violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (when made in the registration
statements for the IPO and SPO) and Sections 10(b), Section 20(a)
and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (when made in
subsequent securities filings and other contexts). Defendants have
moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint and that motion remains
pending.
Sotera Health Co. is a healthcare provider based in Ohio.
SOUTHSTATE CORP: Cybersecurity-Related Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Southstate Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 2, 2024, that on April 3, 2024, a putative
class action lawsuit was filed against the bank in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division.
This has been voluntarily dismissed.
The plaintiff, who purports to represent the class of individuals
harmed by alleged actions and/or omissions by the bank in
connection with the cybersecurity incident that was detected on
February 6, 2024, asserts a variety of common law and statutory
claims seeking monetary damages, injunctive relief and other
related relief related to the potential unauthorized access by
third parties to personal identifiable information. While this has
been voluntarily dismissed, additional plaintiffs have initiated
litigation that names the bank as a defendant.
SouthState is a financial holding company headquartered in Winter
Haven, Florida providing a wide range of banking services and
products to customers.
SPERO THERAPEUTICS: Faces Securities Suits in New York
------------------------------------------------------
Spero Therapeutics, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 5, 2024, that two putative class
action lawsuits were filed against the company and certain of its
current and former officers in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of New York, one captioned "Richard S. Germond
v. Spero Therapeutics, Inc., Ankit Mahadevia, and Satyavrat
Shukla," Case No. 1:22-cv-03125, filed on May 26, 2022, and the
other captioned "Kashif Memon v. Spero Therapeutics, Inc., Ankit
Mahadevia, and Satyavrat Shukla" Case No. 1:22-cv-04154, filed on
July 15, 2022.
The parties moved to consolidate the two complaints on July 22,
2022, which were ordered consolidated on August 5, 2022. The
parties filed an Amended Complaint on December 5, 2022, purported
to be brought on behalf of stockholders who purchased our common
stock from September 8, 2020 through May 2, 2022.
The Amended Complaint generally alleges that the company and
certain of its current and former officers violated the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by making allegedly false and/or misleading
statements concerning the New Drug Application (NDA) for tebipenem
HBr in an effort to lead investors to believe that the drug would
receive approval from the FDA. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages,
interest, attorneys' fees, and other costs. The company filed a
fully-briefed Motion to Dismiss on June 21, 2023. The court has not
yet ruled on the Motion.
Spero Therapeutics, Inc. is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical
company based in Massachusetts.
SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Faces Shareholder Suit Over Misstatements
-------------------------------------------------------------
Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for
the quarterly period ended June 27, 2024, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2024, that on May 3, 2023, a
private securities class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York against the
Company, its former Chief Executive Officer, Tom Gentile III, and
its Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Mark J.
Suchinski. An Amended Complaint was filed on December 19, 2023, and
a Second Amended Complaint was filed, with leave of the Court, on
March 12, 2024.
The lawsuit was brought on behalf of certain purchasers of
securities of the company, who allege purported misstatements and
omissions concerning alleged faulty production controls and alleged
quality and safety issues. The specific claims in the Securities
Class Action include (i) violations of Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against all
defendants, and (ii) violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act against the individual defendants. The plaintiffs seek monetary
damages
Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc. manufactures aerostructures for
airplanes based in Kansas.
SWEAT INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Gomberg Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW GOMBERG, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Sweat, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-04419-JMY (E.D. Pa., Aug.
23, 2024) arises from the Defendant's failure to make its digital
properties accessible to legally blind individuals, which violates
the effective communication and equal access requirements of Title
III of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Because the Defendant's website, https://sweatfitness.com/, is not
equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it
violates the ADA. 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.
The Plaintiff brings this civil rights action, individually and on
behalf of those similarly situated, seeking redress for the
Defendant's actions which violate the ADA.
The Plaintiff, like approximately 2.0 million other people in the
United States, is visually impaired and legally blind. Upon
visiting Defendant's website, https://sweatfitness.com/, Plaintiff
quickly became aware of Defendant’s failure to maintain and
operate its website in a way to make it fully accessible for
himself and for other blind or visually-impaired people. The access
barriers make it impossible for blind and visually-impaired users
to enjoy and learn about the services at https://sweatfitness.com/
prior to entering Defendant's physical location.
The Plaintiff is a blind, visually-impaired person and is therefore
a member of a protected class under the ADA.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Glanzberg, Esq.
Robert Tobia, Esq.
GLANZBERG TOBIA LAW, P.C.
123 South Broad Street Suite 1640,
Philadelphia, PA 19109
Telephone: (215) 981-5400
E-mail: DGlanzberg@aol.com
robert.tobia@gtlawpc.com
TELEPHONE AND DATA: Faces Shareholder Suit Over Disclosures
-----------------------------------------------------------
Telephone and Data Systems, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 5, 2024, that on May 2, 2023, a
putative stockholder class action was filed against the company
(TDS) and UScellular and certain current and former officers and
directors in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.
An Amended Complaint was filed on September 1, 2023, which names
TDS, UScellular, and certain current UScellular officers and
directors as defendants, and alleges that certain public statements
made between May 6, 2022, and November 3, 2022 (the potential class
period) regarding, among other things, UScellular's business
strategies to address subscriber demand, violated Section 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The plaintiff seeks
to represent a class of stockholders who purchased TDS equity
securities during the potential class period and demands
unspecified monetary damages
Telephone And Data Systems, Inc. is a telecommunications company
based in Illinois.
TWIST BIOSCIENCE: Faces Peters Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------
Twist Bioscience Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 7, 2023, that it is facing a putative
securities class action lawsuit captioned "Peters v. Twist
Bioscience Corporation, et al.," Case No. 22-cv-08168 (N.D. Cal.)
filed on December 12, 2022. This case remains in the preliminary
stage and the company filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint on December 6, 2023, which the Court has taken under
submission.
Said case names the company and certain of its officers as
defendants and asserts claims under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. It is based in large part on allegations concerning,
among other things, its DNA chip technology and accounting
practices. The initial complaint alleges that various statements
that the defendants made between December 13, 2019 and November 14,
2022 were materially false and misleading in light of said
allegations and seeks unspecified damages on behalf of all persons
and entities who purchased or acquired company securities during an
alleged class period that began on December 13, 2019 and ended on
November 14, 2022, as well as certain other costs.
Twist Bioscience Corporation is a synthetic biology company that
has developed a disruptive DNA synthesis platform.
TYSON FOODS: Faces Antitrust Suits Over Price-Rigging
-----------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended June 29, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 5, 2024, that at the beginning of June 18,
2018, a series of putative class action complaints were filed
against the company and certain of its pork subsidiaries, as well
as several other pork processing companies, in the United States
District Court for the District of Minnesota styled "In re Pork
Antitrust Litigation."
The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that beginning in
January 2009, the defendants conspired and combined to fix, raise,
maintain, and stabilize the price of pork and pork products in
violation of federal antitrust laws.
The complaints on behalf of the putative classes of indirect
purchasers also include causes of action under various state unfair
competition laws, consumer protection laws, and unjust enrichment
common laws. The plaintiffs seek treble damages, injunctive relief,
pre- and post-judgment interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees on
behalf of the putative classes. Since the original filing, certain
putative class members have opted out of the matter.
The Offices of the Attorney General in New Mexico and Alaska have
filed complaints against the company and certain of its pork
subsidiaries, as well as several other pork processing companies
and Agri Stats. The complaints are based on allegations similar to
those asserted in the Pork Antitrust Civil Litigation and allege
violations of state antitrust, unfair trade practice, and unjust
enrichment laws based on allegations of conspiracies to exchange
information and manipulate the supply of pork. In the third quarter
of fiscal 2024, the company filed and joined motions for summary
judgment.
Tyson Foods, Inc. is a food manufacturing company based in
Arkansas.
UBS FINANCIAL: Faces Goldsmith Class Suit Over Fiduciary Duties
---------------------------------------------------------------
KELLY GOLDSMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. UBS FINANCIAL SERVICES INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-06354
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 22, 2024) contends that the Defendant implemented,
and continues to implement, a scheme whereby it uses its clients'
cash balances to generate massive profits for itself while
shortchanging its clients—in flagrant violation of its duties to
its clients.
The suit says that UBS violated each of its fiduciary duties when
it (1) failed to pay to or secure for the Plaintiff and the Class a
reasonable rate of interest; (2) failed to act in Plaintiff's and
the Class's best interests by not providing a reasonable default
for cash balances that paid its clients a reasonable rate of
interest on cash balances; (3) placed its own interests in
realizing financial gain from net interest income ahead of
Plaintiff and the Class's interests in obtaining a reasonable rate
of interest; (4) maintained and failed to reasonably disclose its
conflict of interest in securing increased net interest income at
the expense of its clients; and (5) failed to recommend to the
Plaintiff and the Class a cash sweep program that would pay a
reasonable rate of interest.
For the advisory accounts that Ms. Goldsmith maintained, UBS was
designated as an Investment Advisor. Since at least 2021, Ms.
Goldsmith's cash balances in her advisory accounts were swept into
one of UBS's Sweep Programs, the "UBS Insured Sweep Program."
UBS offers a money market fund for cash sweep, but it only offers
that option to 403(b) plans, qualified pooled plans, and corporate
cash management accounts. That option was not available to the
Plaintiff or the other Class members. The money market fund that
UBS offers to 403(b) plans, qualified pooled plans, and corporate
cash management clients pays significantly higher interest rates
than UBS's Sweep Programs. Accordingly, UBS's conduct damaged the
Plaintiff and the Class, says the suit.
Ms. Goldsmith is a citizen of South Carolina who maintained retail
brokerage accounts that were managed on an advisory basis with the
Defendant. Ms. Goldsmith’s accounts(ending in 43, 44 and 93) with
UBS were opened in approximately 2013 and were closed in 2023.
UBS Financial operates as a brokerage firm and investment
advisor.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew L. Dameron, Esq.
Clinton J. Mann, Esq.
WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON LLC
1100 Main Street, Suite 2600
Kansas City, MO 64105
Telephone: (816) 945-7110
Facsimile: (816) 945-7118
E-mail: matt@williamsdirks.com
cmann@williamsdirks.com
- and -
Thomas I. Sheridan, III, Esq.
Sona R. Shah, Esq.
SIMMONS HANLY CONROY LLP
112 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 784-6404
Facsimile: (212) 213-5949
E-mail: tsheridan@simmonsfirm.com
sshah@simmonsfirm.com
- and -
Bruce D. Oakes, Esq.
Richard B. Fosher, Esq.
OAKES & FOSHER, LLC
1401 Brentwood Boulevard, Suite 250
Saint Louis, MO 63144
Telephone: (314) 804-1412
Facsimile: (314) 428-7604
E-mail: boakes@oakesfosher.com
rfosher@oakesfosher.com
UNITED STATES: Cross Class Suit Seeks $92,000 Federal Tax Refund
----------------------------------------------------------------
CROSS AUTOMOTIVE, INC D/B/A MEINEKE CAR CARE CENTER v. UNITED
STATES INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE; THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case
No. 2:24-cv-00181-Z (N.D. Tex., Aug. 22, 2024) seeks a federal tax
refund of $92,309.70 for its Employee Retention Credit for the
third quarter of 2021.
The suit contends that the Plaintiff is entitled to the refund
under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, Pub.
L No. 116-136 section2301, 134 Stat. 281 (2020) ("CARES Act') and
section 3134 of the Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) because the
Plaintiff qualifies for the statutory test for a decline in gross
receipts in quarter three of 2021.
In March 2020, President Donald J. Trump signed into law the CARES
Act to aid businesses and individuals in response to the
unprecedented public health crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.
The CARES Act created the Employee Retention Credit ("ERC") for
employers who continued to pay qualified wages to their employees
during the height of the pandemic in 2020 and 2021.
The Plaintiff, Cross Automotive, Inc., qualified for, and applied
for, a refund under the ERC program with the United States Internal
Revenue Service ("IRS"). After a lengthy delay, the IRS has failed
to process Cross Automotive, Inc.'s claim for an ERC refund, the
suit alleges.
On Sept. 14, 2023, the IRS issued a moratorium on processing ERC
claims, effectively disallowing timely submitted ERC claims without
review.
Cross Automotive Inc. brings this lawsuit to obtain the credit it
is entitled to receive under the CARES Act.
Internal Revenue Service is responsible for collecting U.S. federal
taxes and administering the Internal Revenue Code.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin A. Nelson, Esq.
Weston O'Black, Esq.
Daniel Wilson, Esq.
SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 5100
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone: (713) 651-9366
E-mail: jnelson@susmangodfrey.com
woblack@susmangodfrey.com
dwilson@susmangodfrey.com
- and -
Matt Hartley, Esq.
HARTLEY LAW PLLC
200 East Van Buren, Suite 300
Phoenix AZ 85004
Telephone: (602) 769-0999
E-mail: matt.hartley@hartleylawusa.com
- and -
Frederic M. Wolfram, Esq.
THE WOLFRAM LAW FIRM, P.C.
Chase Tower
600 S. Tyler St, Suite 1406
Amarillo, TX 79101-2361
Telephone: (806) 372-3449
E-mail: eric@wolframlaw.com
URBAN OUTFITTERS: Send Deceptive Marketing Emails, Hartley Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
TOMI HARTLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. URBAN OUTFITTERS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
240800388 (Pa. Com. Pl., Philadelphia Cty., August 2, 2024) is a
class action on behalf of persons in the State of Arizona that
opened marketing emails sent to them by Defendant Urban Outfitters
in violation of the Arizona's Telephone, Utility and Communication
Service Records Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant disseminates marketing
emails to entice residents to visit their stores, purchase their
products, and to maximize sales. The Defendant embeds hidden spy
pixel trackers within its marketing emails. These trackers capture
and log sensitive information including the time and place
subscribers open and read their messages, how long the subscriber's
read the email, subscribers' location, subscribers' email client
type, subscribers' IP address, subscribers' device information and
whether and to whom the email was forwarded to. The Defendant
exploits this data to build customer profiles so it can sell and
market more products to them.
By failing to receive consent from Plaintiff and Class members,
Defendant is violating the state law, a statute which prohibits
procuring or attempting to procure the communication service
records of email recipients without their authorization, alleges
the suit.
Urban Outfitters, Inc. is a multinational fast-fashion company
headquartered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
65 Overhill Road
Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
Telephone: (954) 525-4100
E-mail: grunfeld@kolawyers.com
- and -
Yitzchak Kopel, 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: ykopel@bursor.com
WOOD LTD: Fails to Provide Proper Wage Notices, Herrera Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
ERNESTO MORALES HERRERA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. MR. WOOD LTD. and AHMAD ABU NAHLAH and
MOHAMMED ABU NAHLAH, as individuals, Case No. 1:24-cv-05901
(E.D.N.Y., Aug. 23, 2024) seeks to recover damages for the
Defendants' alleged violations of state and federal wage and hour
laws arising out of Plaintiff's employment at Mr. Wood Ltd.
The Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and liquidated damages. He
also seeks interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and all other legal
and equitable remedies this Court deems appropriate.
As a direct result of Defendants' violations and failure to provide
proper wage notices and wage statements, the Plaintiff suffered a
concrete harm, resulting from Plaintiff's inability to identify
Plaintiff's employer to remedy his compensation problems, lack of
knowledge about the rates of pay he was receiving and/or should
have receiving for his regular hours and overtime hours, terms, and
conditions of his pay, and furthermore, an inability to identify
his hourly rate of pay to ascertain whether he was being properly
paid in compliance with the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York
Labor Law -- which he was not, the suit asserts.
The employees similarly situated are the collective class.
-- Collective Class: All persons who are or have been employed by
the Defendants as woodworkers, or other similarly titled
personnel with substantially similar job requirements and pay
provisions, who were performing the same sort of functions for
Defendants, other than the executive and management positions,
who have been subject to the Defendants' common practices,
policies, programs, procedures, protocols and plans including
willfully failing and refusing to pay required minimum and
overtime wage compensation.
The Plaintiff was employed by MR. WOOD LTD. from in or around
October 2023 until in or around July 2024.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
80-02 Kew Gardens Road
Suite 601
Kew Gardens, New York 11415
Telephone: (718) 263-9591
Facsimile: (718) 263-9598
WRIGHT OF FLORIDA: Ortiz Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SAMANTHA ORTIZ Individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. WRIGHT OF FLORIDA, LLC, Case No. 5:24-cv-00445 (M.D.
Fla., Aug. 23, 2024) seeks to recover unpaid wages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938.
The Plaintiff began her employment in or around March 7, 2023, as a
Flagger. In April 2023, she was promoted to the position of Crew
Leader. The Defendant failed in its contractual duties to perform
its obligations under the Agreement. The actions of the Defendant
constitute a breach of the Employment Agreement and/or contract
between the parties. Specifically, the Plaintiff has not been paid
for all hours worked. As a direct and proximate result of the
Defendant's breach of the agreement, the Plaintiff has sustained
damages, including but not limited to the loss of wages, benefits
and entitlements under the agreement and consequential damages,
says the suit.
As a result of the breach of the Employment Agreement by Defendant,
the Plaintiff, has retained the undersigned counsel and is
obligated to pay them costs and attorneys' fees.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Wolfgang M. Florin, Esq.
Troy Longman II, Esq.
FLORIN|GRAY
16524 Pointe Village Drive, Suite 100
Lutz, FL 33558
Telephone (727) 220-4000
Facsimile (727) 483-7942
E-mail: wflorin@floringray.com
tlongman@floringray.com
XPONENTIAL FITNESS: Faces McGill Labor Suit in Ohio Court
---------------------------------------------------------
Xponential Fitness, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 5, 2024, that on November 22, 2023,
former employees of a former franchisee of the Company filed a
putative class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio, captioned "Shannon McGill et al.
v. Xponential Fitness LLC, et al.," Case No. 2:23-cv-03909, against
the Company, as well as against a former franchisee of the Company
and the franchisee's legal entity, MD Pro Fitness, LLC.
The complaint alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act,
as well as employment laws from different states in connection with
the franchisee’s owner-operated studio locations.
The company was served with the complaint on December 4, 2023.
Xponential Fitness, Inc. is a holding company based in California.
XPONENTIAL FITNESS: Faces Shareholder Suit Over SEC Disclosures
---------------------------------------------------------------
Xponential Fitness, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 5, 2024, that on February 9, 2024, a
federal securities class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company and certain of the company's officers in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California. The
complaint alleged, among other things, violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, regarding misstatements and/or omissions in certain of
the company's financial statements, press releases, and SEC filings
made during the putative class period of July 26, 2021, through
December 7, 2023.
On July 26, 2024, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint,
additionally bringing claims for Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of
the Securities Act.
Xponential Fitness, Inc. is a holding company based in California.
*********
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 ***