/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240906.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, September 6, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 180 Headlines 3M COMPANY: Faris Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams AFFIRM HOLDINGS: Clemmerson Sues Over Failure to Secure Data ALASKA AIRLINES: 9th Cir. Revives USERRA Military Leave Class Suit AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Jenkins Labor Suit Removed to D. Nev. AUSTIN, TX: Taxpayers Sue Over Public Transit Expansion BEAUTY HEALTH: Continues to Defend Alghazwi Class Suit BLOSSOM RIDGE HOME: Davidson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. BROOKLYN PIZZA: Arguello Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages CARESPRING HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Data Breach CCFI COMPANIES: Yancey Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Cal. COMMUNICATION FEDERAL: Traylor Files Suit in Okla. Dist. Ct. CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY: Young Sues Over Website Inaccessibility CONDE NAST: Deivaprakash Sues Over Invasion of Privacy CRST EXPEDITED: Kelchner Sues Over Lease-Driver Business Program CSM-KEY BISCAYNE: Brito Sues Over Inaccessible Property DESKTOP METAL: M&A Probes Proposed Merger With Nano Dimension DISCORD INC: Lippold Alleges Illegal Collection Practices DRAFTKINGS INC: Bonus Class Action Moves to Discovery Phase ELITE STAFFING SERVICES: Flores Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ENDAVA PLC: Faces Securities Lawsuit Over 41.76% Stock Price Drop ENROLL CONFIDENTLY: Guyette Sues Over Failure to Protect Data FAIRBORN, OH: Joins Class-Action Settlement for PFAS Contamination FISHER INVESTMENTS: Human Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri FISKER OCEAN: Car Owners Join Class Suit Over Bankruptcy Filing FIVE BELOW: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set September 30 FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Class Cert Bid Filing Due April 23, 2025 FURTHERED INC: Discloses Subscribers' Personal Info, Jolly Says GEICO GENERAL: Appeals Court Revives Insurance Agents' Class Suit GENERAL MOTORS: 6th Circuit Revives 'Dieselgate' Class Action GENERAL MOTORS: Appeals Court Authorizes Fraud Suit to Proceed GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Cook Orders Disclosure in Class Suit Funding GIANT EAGLE: Faces Kherer ERISA Class Suit in W. D. Pa. GKN DRIVELINE: Seeks to Stay Class Cert Briefing in Ayers Suit GKN DRIVELINE: Seeks to Stay Class Cert Briefing in Carson Suit GKN DRIVELINE: Seeks to Stay Class Cert Briefing in Ferges Suit GOLDEN PEAR FUNDING: Canales Files Suit in S.D. New York GOLDMAN SACHS: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in New York GOLDMAN SACHS: Dismissal of Securities Suit Under Appeal GOLDMAN SACHS: Settlement in GoHealth-Related Suit Gets Final OK GOODRX HOLDINGS: Negotiation in SDFL Class Suit Ongoing GOOGLE LLC: UK App Developers Sue Over Anti-Competitive Strategies HAITECH WORKS: Faces Lozada Wage-and-Hour Suit in N.D.N.Y. HOME DEPOT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Muia Suit Alleges INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Faces Securities Suit in Connecticut JASPER WELLER: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Moranz Alleges JERICO PICTURES: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Jenkins Says JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Seeks Dismissal of Talcum Powder Class Action LABCORP HOLDINGS: Faces Nolan Suit in NC Court LIFEPOINT HEALTH: Caregivers at Olympia Hospital Gets Settlement LYFT INC: Azizan Sues to Recover Lost Wages MAZDA MOTOR OF AMERICA: Cauller Sues Over Engine Defect METHODE ELECTRONICS: Faces Shareholders Class Action Lawsuit MILWAUKEE, WI: Residents Announce Class-Action Suit Against HACM MISTER CAR WASH: Court Approves Settlement in Securities Suit MONDELEZ GLOBAL: Faces Nabisco Whole Wheat Class Action Lawsuit MOVE INC: Agents Sue Over Fake Lead Generation Products MOVE INC: Bandy Files Suit Over Fraudulent Lead Generation Services MUNICIPAL PARKING: Nelson Suit Transferred to N.D. Florida NIKOLA CORPORATION: Can File Certain Documents Under Seal NIO INC: Rosen Law Announces Pendency of Securities Class Action NORTHEAST WORK: Class Cert Bid Deadline Amended to April 15, 2025 NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Jennings Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. OAK STREET: McCrae Suit Seeks Class Certification OKLAHOMA: Mental Health Class Settlement Faces Pushback OPINION EVEREST: Court Dismisses Adkins Suit OPPFI INC: Continues to Defend Breach of Fiduciary Duties Suit PAPA INC: Pardo Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class PERMIAN RESOURCES: Faces Oil Price-Fixing Class Suit in Baltimore PERMIAN RESOURCES: Faces Suit Over Crude Oil Price Monopoly PERMIAN RESOURCES: Santillo Suit Transferred to D. New Mexico PERMIAN RESOURCES: These Paws Suit Transferred to D. New Mexico PERMIAN RESOURCES: Western Cab Suit Transferred to D. New Mexico PERRYS RESTAURANTS: Allen Suit Transferred to S.D. Texas PIERCE COUNTY, WA: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due April 10, 2025 PIONEER METAL: Laverenz Conditional Certification Bid Tossed POINT QUEST INC: Michael Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. POINTSBET USA: Court Narrows Claims in Gutman Suit PRO SOURCE LENDING: Shelton Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Plaintiffs Deny Violating Orders in Class Suit PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Settlement Classes in Verardo Get Initial Nod PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Settlement Classes in Volino Get Initial Nod QUANTUM OMEGA: Class Certification Bids in Reich Suit Due Dec. 10 QUANTUM RESIDENTIAL: Dunne Class Settlement Gets Initial Nod RAYMOND JAMES FINANCIAL: Conran Sues Over Implemented Scheme ROBLOX CORP: Private Mediation in Colvin Extended to Feb. 7, 2025 ROTO-ROOTER SERVICES: Simpkins Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. RUSHMORE LOAN: O'Brien Class Certification Bid Denied as Moot SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Zabransky Must Oppose Dismissal Bid by Sept 19 SAR GROUP INC: Avila Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages SAZERAC COMPANY: Seeks to File Expert Reports Under Seal SCHINDLER ELEVATOR: Removes Nazar Suit to S.D. of Cal. SCRATCH FINANCIAL: Conditional Class Cert Filing Due April 18, 2025 SELECT REHAB: Discovery in McLaughlin Suit Due August 1, 2025 SELECT REHABILITATION: Plaintiffs Seek Answer to Interrogatories SIGNALHIRE LLC: Court Directs Discovery Plan Filing in Gaul Suit SIGNET JEWELERS: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website SILKROAD HINSDALE: Escobar Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation SMITH & WESSEN: Court Denies Certification in Mass Shooting Suit SNYDER'S-LANCE INC: Messinger Files Suit in D. Delaware SOHO GEM INC: Raheel Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website SOLANO RAG COMPANY: Griffin Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SOUTH FLORIDA STADIUM: Manco Suit Removed to S.D. Florida SPI LIGHTING: Conditional Cert. Deadline Extended to Oct. 23 SPIRE GLOBAL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set October 21 SPRING EQ LLC: Mason Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS: Class Settlement in McFadden Gets Final Nod STATE FARM: Adams Sues Over Unlawful Subrogation of PIP STMICROELECTRONICS NV: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit STMICROELECTRONICS NV: Faces Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit STMICROELECTRONICS NV: Malm Files Suit Over Share Price Drop STMICROELECTRONICS NV: Sued Over False and Misleading Statements STONEPEAK CERAMICS: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response SYNCHRONY BANK: Faces CareCredit Interest Rates Class Action TALKSPACE NETWORK: Class Action Alleges Data Sharing With Tiktok TEKSYSTEMS INC: Bid to Compel Arbitration in Avery Suit Tossed TEMUAPP.ME: Faces New Class Action Over Unsolicited Text Messages TEREZ UNIVERSE: Young Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website TWITTER INC: Court Narrows Claims in Borodaenko Suit TWITTER INC: Court Narrows Claims in Weinberg Suit TWITTER INC: Weinberg Class Suit Alleges Violations of FMLA TWO JINN: Medina Bid to Certify Class Tossed U.S. HEALTHWORKS: Court Certifies Job Seekers Class Action Suit UCOR LLC: Bid to Certify Court Order for Interlocutory Appeal Nixed UNITED PARKS: Eastman Suit Removed to M.D. Florida UNITED STATES: Burton Seeks to Certify Class of Vietnam Veterans UNITY SOFTWARE: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Calif. UNLIMITED FURNITURE: Andrews Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website URBAN STRATEGIES: Castillo Sues Over Failure to Secure Information VERVE THERAPEUTICS: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit VETCOMM US: Williams Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California VICTORY HOME: Shelton Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania VISA INC: Extends Deadline for Claims Filing to February 4, 2025 WACKS LAW GROUP: Beller Sues Over Failure to Protect PII WALMART INC: Cetoute Sues Over Unlawful Discrimination WALMART INC: Myers Alleges Overcharging for Food, Baby Products WALMART INC: Williams Suit Transferred to E.D. California WARDEN FCI: Stroud Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Inmates WARNER MUSIC: Exhibits in Hall Class Suit Maintained Under Seal WEBTPA EMPLOYER: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to August 28, 2025 WELLSPACE HEALTH: Mixon Suit Removed to E.D. California WELLSPACE HEALTH: Removes Mixon Suit to E.D. Cal. WESTERN AUSTRALIA: Aboriginal Tenants Sue Over Housing Conditions WILLIAM BARR: Black Lives Matter Seeks to Certify Classes WILLIAM LEE: Asks to Reconsider Order Striking Supplemental Brief WISCONSIN: Stinson Seeks to Certify Class of Prisoners WOLFGANG PUCK CATERING: Anderson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. YARDI SYSTEMS: Shephard Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ZAGER GUITAR: Walkup Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ZAGG INC: Nasim Seeks Conditional Collective Certification Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Reports 6,248 PI Claims Pending ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Inc. Defends 42 Personal Injury Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Estee Lauder Defends 273 Product Liability Cases ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fundamental Global Faces Personal Injury Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Reading Int'l. Still Receives Exposure Claims ********* 3M COMPANY: Faris Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ---------------------------------------------------------------- Franklin Faris, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:24-cv-04709-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 28, 2024), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of Decedent's exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Decedent's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with thyroid cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq. Steven D. Gacovino, Esq. GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 270 West Main Street Sayville, NY 11782 Phone: 631-600-0000 Facsimile: 631-543-5450 - and - Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: 205-328-9200 Facsimile: 205-328-9456 AFFIRM HOLDINGS: Clemmerson Sues Over Failure to Secure Data ------------------------------------------------------------ Douglas Clemmerson, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons v. AFFIRM HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-06097 (N.D. Cal., Aug. 28, 2024), is brought against Defendant for failing to secure its systems and data from cyberattacks and for failing to conduct sufficient due diligence before entrusting the non-public PII of Defendant's customers to Evolve Bank & Trust, a third-party bank with deficient data security measures. Affirm uses Evolve Bank & Trust ("Evolve") as its banking partner. On June 25, 2024, Evolve announced that a "known cybercriminal organization" stole its customers' personal identification information ("PII") and posted it on the dark web (the "Data Breach"). This PII included Affirm customers' data. The data which the Defendant collected from the Plaintiff and Class Members, and which was exfiltrated by cybercriminals from the Defendant, were highly sensitive. Upon information and belief, the exfiltrated data included personal identifying information ("PII") like individuals' names, health insurance and treatment information. Prior to and through the date of the Data Breach, the Defendant obtained Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII and then maintained that sensitive data in a negligent and/or reckless manner. As evidenced by the Data Breach, Affirm performed inadequate, if any, due diligence before selecting Evolve as its banking partner, including permitting it to store Affirm's clients' PII and other sensitive information. Upon information and belief, the risk of the Data Breach was known to the Defendant. Thus, the Defendant was on notice that its inadequate data security created a heightened risk of exfiltration, compromise, and theft. Then, after the Data Breach, the Defendant failed to provide timely notice to the affected Plaintiff and Class Members—thereby exacerbating their injuries. Ultimately, the Defendant deprived Plaintiff and Class Members of the chance to take speedy measures to protect themselves and mitigate harm. Simply put, the Defendant impermissibly left Plaintiff and Class Members in the dark—thereby causing their injuries to fester and the damage to spread. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to remedy these injuries on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated individuals whose PII were exfiltrated and compromised in the Data Breach, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a customer of Defendant. Affirm is a financial technology software application.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael F. Ram, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94102 Phone: (415) 846-3862 Fax: (415) 358-6923 Email: mram@forthepeople.com - and - John A. Yanchunis, Esq. Ronald Podolny, Esq. Antonio Arzola, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 North Franklin Street 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Phone: (813) 223-5505 Fax: (813) 223-5402 Email: JYanchunis@forthepeople.com ronald.podolny@forthepeople.com ararzola@forthepeople.com ALASKA AIRLINES: 9th Cir. Revives USERRA Military Leave Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Bradford J. Kelley of Littler reports that on August 22, 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued its decision in Synoracki v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., reviving a class action under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA). The case was brought by pilots who served in the Air Force Reserves who were seeking from their civilian employer sick leave and vacation accruals during periods of military leave. The complaint alleges that the class is entitled to accrue vacation and sick leave while on military leave because the airline allowed non-military pilots on sick leave and jury duty to do so. The Ninth Circuit's decision marks the latest noteworthy pro-USERRA-plaintiff decision calling attention to the issue of whether the act requires employers to provide short-term paid military leave if they provide paid leave for comparable non-military absences, such as for jury duty, vacation, bereavement, or sick time. USERRA prohibits employers from discriminating and retaliating against employees or applicants because of their military status or military obligations. USERRA also protects the reemployment rights of individuals who leave their civilian jobs to serve in the military. Pertinent to the short-term paid military leave litigation, USERRA requires employers to provide employees on military leave with the same rights and benefits provided to other employees on comparable non-military related leaves of absence.2 Put differently, USERRA requires employers to treat military leave no less favorably than other comparable forms of non-military leave. The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has issued a regulation providing guidance for what constitutes a comparable form of leave under USERRA, including a list of non-exhaustible factors to consider.3 Those factors include the duration of the leave, purpose of the leave, and whether the employee can decide when they can take the leave. The DOL regulation also specifies that the service member employee must be given the most favorable treatment accorded to any comparable form of leave when they perform military service. The issue of whether USERRA requires employers to provide short-term paid military leave if they provide paid leave for comparable non-military absences has generated a significant amount of litigation across the country in recent years, including the Synoracki class action the Ninth Circuit recently revived. In Synoracki, an airline pilot and former U.S. Air Force Reserve officer who took military leaves of absence during his employment brought a class action suit against the airline alleging the employer violated USERRA when it denied the accrual of sick time during periods of military leave and denied the accrual of vacation time during the first 90 days of military leave. A U.S. district court in Washington granted the airline's motion for summary judgment, holding the pilots' military leave was not comparable to other paid short-term leave. The district court emphasized both the frequency and duration of military leave. The Ninth Circuit has vacated and remanded, finding the district court's decision was issued before its decision in Clarkson v. Alaska Airlines in 2023 holding that when assessing USERRA claims, comparability of the military leave taken by the service member and other paid leave offered by an employer is to be determined by examining the length of the leave at issue, rather than by using a categorical approach. In ruling that the district court improperly focused on longer leave periods, the Clarkson court concluded that to "follow the district court's approach and consider military leaves categorically would render USERRA's protections meaningless." In Synoracki, the Ninth Circuit explained that "because the allegations and issues in Clarkson are similar to those here, and because the district court did not have the benefit of Clarkson when reaching its decision, we vacate the district court's order as to Plaintiff's non-seniority benefits claims and remand such claims for the district court's reconsideration under Clarkson." The Ninth Circuit also instructed the district court to consider certifying a narrower, temporally limited class on remand (i.e., the plaintiff can limit the request for recovery of benefits to specific, shorter periods of military leaves). The federal courts of appeal that have addressed short-term paid military leave under USERRA have unanimously ruled in favor of the USERRA plaintiffs. The Ninth, Seventh, Third, and Eleventh Circuits have all ruled that employers that pay employees for some types of short-term leave must provide equal benefits to employees who take short-term leave for military service. These decisions favoring service member employees will surely increase attention to unpaid short-term military leave. Employers should pay special attention to the recent circuit court rulings and nationwide trend in the case law. The potential exposure arising from any noncompliant military leave policies is amplified by the fact that USERRA is an often overlooked, yet wide-reaching employment statute. Most significantly, USERRA does not contain a statute of limitations and does not have an exhaustion requirement. Employers confronted with potential USERRA claims could also face reputational damage due to the public's support for the military and veterans. Ultimately, these recent USERRA short-term paid military leave decisions and the overall litigation trend across the country underscores that it is a critical time for employers to review their military leave policies. Indeed, employers should consider revising their military leave policies to ensure compliance with these evolving legal requirements, especially if an employer provides paid leave for sick leave, jury duty, bereavement, vacation, and jury duty but not for military service. [GN] AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Jenkins Labor Suit Removed to D. Nev. ---------------------------------------------------------- The class action suit styled RAYSHAWN JENKINS, Plaintiff v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. A-24-895707-C, was removed from the Eighth Judicial District Court of Clark County, Nevada to the United States District Court for the District of Nevada on August 23, 2024. The Plaintiff alleges three causes of action against Amazon: (1) failure to pay wages for each hour worked; (2) failure to pay overtime; and (3) failure to timely pay all wages due and owing. Amazon.com Services, LLC provides e-commerce services. The Company retails books, diamond jewelry, electronics, appliances, apparels, and accessories.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Bradley J. Hamburger, Esq. Megan M. Cooney, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197 Telephone: (213) 229-7000 E-mail: bhamburger@gibsondunn.com mcooney@gibsondunn.com - and - Montgomery Y. Paek, Esq. Amy L. Thompson, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 3960 Howard Hughes Parkway Suite 300 Las Vegas, NV 89169 Telephone: (702) 862-8800 Facsimile: (702) 862-8811 E-mail: mpaek@littler.com athompson@littler.com AUSTIN, TX: Taxpayers Sue Over Public Transit Expansion ------------------------------------------------------- Nathan Bernier, writing for Austin Monitor, reports that a new class-action lawsuit is seeking to block the city from collecting any property taxes, potentially starving Austin's municipal government of almost all revenue, until it kills a tax approved by voters in 2020 to fund the largest public transit expansion in Central Texas history. The lawsuit is being brought by some of the same taxpayers who filed an earlier challenge to the transit plan known as Project Connect. The previous suit -- targeting the funding mechanism for borrowing billions to build a light-rail starter system -- is now frozen while the state's 3rd Court of Appeals considers arguments. The new suit was filed late Monday, August 26, in the 126th Travis County District Court. It claims the city's property tax rate was miscalculated because it includes the Project Connect tax, which is generating revenue for transit projects including a light-rail plan whose initial scope reduced from 20.2 miles to 9.8 miles. "The City violated its promises to taxpayers. The City has drastically reduced the Project Connect plan but continues to collect the full amount of the Project Connect tax," attorneys Bill Aleshire and Rick Fine wrote in their filing. The Austin Transit Partnership (ATP) -- a local government corporation responsible for financing and building light-rail -- dialed back the first phase of the rail plan last year, eliminating plans for a downtown subway and moving the rail to street level instead. ATP blamed post-pandemic inflation while acknowledging the biggest cost increases were early design ambitions that pushed too far beyond the initial estimate of $5.8 billion. No funding has been identified for light rail beyond phase one, except for money to design the next part of the network. The new class action lawsuit was filed under a provision of the Texas tax code written into law in 2019 by a state Legislature concerned about rising property taxes. Plaintiffs acknowledge in their filing that the "lawsuit is filed under a relatively new and untested provision" of the law. Senate Bill 2 entitled any taxpayer to stop any taxing unit -- like a city, county or school district -- from collecting taxes if the taxing unit violates new rules requiring voter approval of bigger tax increases. SB 2 was the same legislation that allowed Austin to seek voter approval for the Project Connect tax hike. The Project Connect tax rate will generate $172 million this year, ATP expects. For the owner of a $500,000 homestead, it amounts to $395 on their annual tax bill. The median taxable value for a home in Travis County is about $402,000. The lawsuit contends these funds are "simply being stockpiled" with hundreds of millions of dollars in unspent taxpayer money already accumulated. More than $450 million of Project Connect tax revenue has not yet been spent as ATP waits for the federal government to grant environmental clearance for the light-rail project. The light-rail financial plan depends on the Federal Transit Administration covering up to half the construction costs, estimated at more than $7 billion after inflation. [GN] BEAUTY HEALTH: Continues to Defend Alghazwi Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------ Beauty Health Co. 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 Alghazwi class suit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. On November 16, 2023, a putative class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against the Company, its then-current president and chief executive officer, Andrew Stanleick, its former chief financial officer, Liyuan Woo, and its current chief financial officer, Michael Monahan. The complaint, styled Abduladhim A. Alghazwi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. The Beauty Health Company, Andrew Stanleick, Liyuan Woo, and Michael Monahan, Case No. 2:23-cv-09733 (C.D. Ca.) (the "Securities Class Action"), asserts claims for violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against all defendants (First Claim), and violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual defendants (Second Claim). The complaint alleges that, between May 10, 2022 and November 13, 2023, defendants materially misled the investing public by publicly issuing false and/or misleading statements and/or omissions relating to Hydrafacial's business, operations, and prospects, specifically with respect to the performance of and demand for the Syndeo 1.0 and 2.0 devices. The relief sought in the complaint includes a request for compensatory damages suffered by the plaintiff and other members of the putative class for damages allegedly sustained as a result of the alleged securities violations. On January 16, 2024, putative class members Jeff and Kevin Brown (the “Browns”), Priscilla and Martjn Dijkgraaf (the "Dijkgraafs”), and Joseph Jou filed three competing motions for appointment as lead plaintiff under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA"), 17 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3). On January 31, 2024, Joseph Jou filed a notice of non-opposition to the Browns' and Dijkgraafs' motions for appointment as lead plaintiff. On May 2, 2024, the court granted the Dijkgraafs' motion for appointment as lead plaintiff and approved the Dijkgraafs' counsel, Hagens Berman, as lead counsel. On May 9, 2024, the parties submitted a joint stipulation to the court setting forth a proposed schedule for the filing of an amended complaint and defendants' response thereto. The proposed schedule has not yet been approved by the court. On July 1, 2024, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action complaint asserting the same causes of action as the original complaint. The Securities Class Action case is assigned to U.S. District Judge Sherilyn Peace Garnett. The Company believes that the claims asserted in the Securities Class Action have no merit and intends to vigorously defend them. Headquartered in Long Beach, CA, Beauty Health is a health and beauty company. Its flagship brand is Hydrafacial through which the company provides goods and services related to hydradermabrasion, a dermatological procedure involving a mechanical exfoliation and infusion of facial serums.[BN] BLOSSOM RIDGE HOME: Davidson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Blossom Ridge Home Health Agency, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Dawn Davidson, on behalf of members of the general public similarly situated v. Blossom Ridge Home Health Agency, LLC, Case No. 24CV017121 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Aug. 28, 2024). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Blossom Ridge Home Health Agency -- https://blossomridge.com/ -- provides skilled medical services throughout the greater Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties areas and beyond.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Han, Esq. JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION 751 N Fair Oaks Ave, Ste. 101 Pasadena, CA 91103 Phone: (818) 230-7502 Fax: (818) 230-7259 Email: dhan@justicelawcorp.com BROOKLYN PIZZA: Arguello Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Alex Henry Arguello, Esteban Cuba Vargas, Gamal L. Belisle, Jose Hildemaro Suarez Heredia, and Eutiquio Vasquez Ortega, on behalf of themselves, and others similarly situated v. BROOKLYN PIZZA & PASTA OF NEW YORK LLC, doing business as BKLYN PIZZA CO.; BROOKLYN NY PIZZA COMPANY INC., doing business as BKLYN PIZZA CO. or any other business entity doing business as BKLYN PIZZA CO., located at 36 Ralph Avenue, Brooklyn, NY, 11221 and PHILLIPO GALLINA SALVATORE GALLINA, individually, Case No. 1:24-cv-06018 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 28, 2024), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), they are entitled to recover from the Defendants: unpaid wages, minimum wages, and overtime compensation; liquidated damages; prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and attorneys' fees and costs. The Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff at the proper statutory minimum wage rate for all hours worked. The Defendants knowingly and willfully operated their business with a policy of not paying either the FLSA minimum wage or the New York State minimum wage to Plaintiff and Other similarly situated employees. The Defendants knowingly and willfully operated their business with a policy of not paying the FLSA overtime rate (of time and one-half) or the New York State overtime rate (of time and one-half) to Plaintiff for work performed over 40 hours in a workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants. Le General Services, Inc., was and is a domestic business entity organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Cilenti, Esq. Peter Hans Cooper, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC 60 East 42nd Street - 40th Floor New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 209-3933 Fax: (212) 209-7102 Email: pcooper@jcpclaw.com CARESPRING HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------ Jessica R. Towhey, writing for McKnights Long-Term Case News, reports that an Ohio healthcare company that provides long-term care services has been named in a class-action lawsuit over an October cyber attack in which hackers claim to have accessed a massive trove of data on nearly 80,000 people. The suit alleges that Carespring Health Care Management was negligent about its cybersecurity, despite warnings from federal law enforcement agencies that bad actors were targeting healthcare companies. Martin Creutz of Dayton, KY, filed the suit on behalf of himself and others who are described as current and former clients and patients who provided sensitive information about themselves to Carespring. Carespring has 17 senior living, skilled nursing, and rehabilitation locations in Cincinnati; Dayton, OH; and Northern Kentucky. The company told McKnight's Long-Term Care News Tuesday, August 24, that proper steps were taken once the breach was discovered and that there have been no signs of abuse of the compromised data. The complaint blames Caresprings' alleged "unreasonable and inadequate data security practices" put Creutz and others "current and ongoing risk of identity theft." In addition, the suit claims individuals have suffered "numerous actual and concrete injuries and damages." Carespring could have prevented the data breach by "properly securing and encrypting the systems containing the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members." The company also could have pre-emptively destroyed the data, especially for people it had not business with for a long time, the filing claims. The suit alleges that Carespring "became aware of suspicious activity" in its network in late October 2023 but did not send notices to any affected individuals -- current or former -- until this month. Full details of the timeline are a bit more nuanced, Carespring said in a statement sent to McKnight's on Tuesday. The company learned of the data breach on Oct. 28, 2023, alerted law enforcement, and began a "thorough" investigation," Carespring explained. On Nov. 17, 2023, the company posted an incident notice on its website and set up a toll-free phone number to answer consumer questions, the statement added. A "thorough forensic investigation and manual review of the impacted documents" ensued, and showed that a ‘limited amount' of data such as Social Security numbers, medical information, health insurance information, and credit card numbers that were stored on the company's network "may have been accessed," the company said. "We have no indication that there has been any fraud as a result of this incident," the company noted, adding that "out of an abundance of caution," it mailed letters on Aug. 15 to people who may have been impacted. A ransomware group called NoEscape took credit for the breach and claimed to have stolen 364 gigabytes of data, the lawsuit states. Carespring's notification to the Maine Attorney General said 76,719 people were impacted by the breach. [GN] CCFI COMPANIES: Yancey Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled JOVON YANCEY, individually, and on behalf of Aggrieved Employees pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act, Plaintiff v. CCFI COMPANIES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company dba CALIFORNIA CHECK CASHING STORES, and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 23CV011756, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Sacramento to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on August 29, 2024. The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned Case No. 2:24-at-01112 to the proceeding. The case seeks civil penalties under the California Labor Code's Private Attorneys General Act for Defendant's alleged failure to pay minimum and overtime wages, alleged failure to provide compliant meal and rest break opportunities, alleged failure to pay required meal and rest break premium wages, the alleged failure to timely pay current and final wages, the alleged failure to provide accurate wage statements or keep accurate records, and the alleged failure to reimburse business expenses. CCFI Companies, LLC operates as an alternative financial services business that offers customers short-term cash solutions. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Michael J. Nader, Esq. Paul M. Smith, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2800 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 840-3150 Facsimile: (916) 840-3159 E-mail: michael.nader@ogletree.com paul.smith@ogletree.com COMMUNICATION FEDERAL: Traylor Files Suit in Okla. Dist. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Communication Federal Credit Union, et al. The case is styled as Michael Traylor, on behalf of minor child T.N.T., and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Communication Federal Credit Union, Case No. CJ-2024-5534 (Okla. Dist. Ct., Oklahoma Cty., Aug. 28, 2024). The case type is stated as "Civil relief more than $10,000: Negligence General." Communication Federal Credit Union -- https://www.comfedcu.org/ -- is a financial institution with 23 branches in OK and KS.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kennedy M. Brian, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73120 Phone: 405-286-1607 Fax: 405-239-2112 CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY: Young Sues Over Website Inaccessibility ------------------------------------------------------------- LESHAWN YOUNG, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY IRVINE, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-06523 (S.D.N.Y., August 29, 2024) arises from Defendant's 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 Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website is a violation of her rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act and The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which prohibit discrimination against the blind. By failing to make its website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, the Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services, says the Plaintiff. Concordia University Irvine is a private university located in Irvine, CA. It owns and operates an online interactive website and retail store that provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services including information about Defendant's athletics, sports teams, schedule of team games, roster of team participants, game statistics, team news, purchasing admission tickets for team sporting events, viewing videos of team sporting events, website terms and conditions, and the sale of online retail goods like college and team merchandise such as T shirts, sweat shirts, hats and other apparel. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal CONDE NAST: Deivaprakash Sues Over Invasion of Privacy ------------------------------------------------------ Aaron Deivaprakash, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CONDE NAST DIGITAL, Case No. 1:24-cv-06503 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 28, 2024), is brought to prevent Defendant from further violating the privacy rights of California residents, and to recover statutory damages for Defendant's violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA"). When users visit the websites newyorker.com (the "New Yorker Website") and wired.com (the "Wired Website") (collectively, the "Websites"), Defendant causes three Trackers—the DoubleClick Tracker, Audiencerate Tracker, and AGKN Tracker (collectively, the "Trackers")--to be installed on the Website visitors' internet browsers. Defendant then uses these Trackers to collect Website visitors' IP addresses. Because the Trackers capture Website visitors' "routing, addressing, or signaling information," each Tracker constitute a "pen register" under the CIPA. By installing and using the Trackers without Plaintiff's prior consent and without a court order, Defendant violated CIPA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was in California when he visited the Website. Conde Nast Digital owns and operates the Websites.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Kopel, Esq. Alec M. Leslie, Esq. Max S. Roberts, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Phone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 Email: ykopel@bursor.com aleslie@bursor.com mroberts@bursor.com CRST EXPEDITED: Kelchner Sues Over Lease-Driver Business Program ---------------------------------------------------------------- HARLEY KELCHNER, an individual, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CRST Expedited, Inc., CRST Specialized Transportation, Inc. CRST Lincoln Sales, Inc. and John Smith, an individual, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00082 (N.D. Iowa, August 23, 2024) arises from CRST Trucking's "lease-driver" business opportunity program whereby certain of its truck drivers, including Plaintiff, leased trucks from CRST Lincoln Sales and simultaneously agreed to provide driving services to CRST Expedited, Inc or any of its divisions/subsidiaries utilizing such trucks. According to the complaint, the Driving Opportunity program involved CRST Trucking's provision of product, equipment, supplies, and/or services to the drivers for the purpose of enabling drivers to start a business and requiring the drivers to make payment for same to CRST Trucking and/its affiliates or designee. However, CRST Trucking and Lincoln Sales have not complied with the disclosure requirements for offering such plans under Iowa Code, alleges the suit. Plaintiff Kelchner and the members of the putative Class are current and former drivers for CRST Trucking and lessees of CRST Lincoln Sales. CRST Expedited, Inc. provides transportation services to various clients with its principal place of business in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Barton Goplerud, Esq. Brian O. Marty, Esq. SHINDLER, ANDERSON, GOPLERUD & WEESE P.C. 5015 Grand Ridge Drive, Suite 100 West Des Moines, IA 50265 Telephone: (515) 223-4567 Facsimile: (515) 223-8887 E-mail: goplerud@sagwlaw.com marty@sagwlaw.com - and - Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq. FEGAN SCOTT LLC 150 S. Wacker Dr., 24th Floor Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 741-1019 Facsimile: (312) 264-0100 E-mail: beth@feganscott.com - and - Robert S. Boulter, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT S. BOULTER 1101 5th Ave #310 San Rafael, CA 94901 Telephone: (415) 233-7100 E-mail: rsb@boulter-law.com CSM-KEY BISCAYNE: Brito Sues Over Inaccessible Property ------------------------------------------------------- Carlos Brito, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated mobility-impaired individuals v. TROPICAL PARK PLAZA C-REV, LLC; THREE KINGS ON 135TH, LLC; TORINO ITALIAN RESTAURANT, INC. d/b/a IL BAMBINO RISTORANTE; and TROPICAL CHINESE RESTAURANT CORP. d/b/a TROPICAL CHINESE RESTAURANT, Case No. 1:24-cv-23301-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Aug. 28, 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 retail plaza (hereinafter the "Commercial Property") being inaccessible to people who are disabled. Although over 30 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 and Restaurant 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 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 is a paraplegic (paralyzed from his T-6 vertebrae down) and requires the use of a wheelchair to ambulate. TROPICAL PARK PLAZA C-REV, LLC, owned and operated a commercial property located in Key Miami, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Beverly Virues, Esq. Armando Mejias, Esq. GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L. 350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200 Coral Gables, Fl 33134 Phone: (305) 553-3464 Primary Email: bvirues@lawgmp.com Secondary Emails: amejias@lawgmp.com jacosta@lawgmp.com - and - Ramon J. Diego, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A. 5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103 Miami, FL, 33155 Phone: (305) 350-3103 Primary Email: rdiego@lawgmp.com Secondary Email: ramon@rjdiegolaw.com DESKTOP METAL: M&A Probes Proposed Merger With Nano Dimension ------------------------------------------------------------- Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating Desktop Metal, Inc. (NYSE: DM), relating to its proposed merger with Nano Dimension Ltd. Under the terms of the agreement, Desktop Metal shareholders will receive $5.50 in cash per share of Desktop Metal stock they hold. ACT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for October 2, 2024. Click here for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/desktop-metal-inc-2/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . . and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common stock in any of the above listed companies and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 United States of America jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN] DISCORD INC: Lippold Alleges Illegal Collection Practices --------------------------------------------------------- DEANDRE LIPPOLD, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DISCORD INC., Defendant, Case No. 205416532 (Fla. Cir., 9th Judicial, Orange Cty., August 23, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for allegedly violating the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant sent an electronic communication to Plaintiff in connection with the collection of the consumer debt. The electronic communication was sent to Plaintiff between the hours of 9:00 PM and 8:00 AM in the time zone of Plaintiff. The Defendant did not have the consent of Plaintiff to communicate with him between the said hours. As such, by and through the electronic communication, the Defendant violated the FCCPA, says the suit. The Plaintiff is the alleged debtor of the consumer debt. Discord Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business located in San Francisco, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq. Faaris K. Uddin, Esq. Zane C. Hedaya, Esq. Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. The LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 907-1136 E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com faaris@jibraellaw.com zane@jibraellaw.com gerald@jibraellaw.com DRAFTKINGS INC: Bonus Class Action Moves to Discovery Phase ----------------------------------------------------------- Jessica Welman, writing for SBCAmericas, reports that the legal team at DraftKings is certainly staying busy. Last week, a Massachusetts judge denied DraftKings' motion to dismiss a class action filed by two residents, Shane Harris and Melissa Scanlon, working with the Public Health Advocacy Institute. MA judge says case against bonus promotion can move to discovery The gist of the lawsuit is that DraftKings is in violation of state consumer protection laws for the way it presented its $1,000 sign-up bonus. The plaintiffs noted that in order to maximize the bonus, customers needed to deposit $5,000 and wager through $25,000 over the course of 90 days. DraftKings scored a victory early on, successfully relocating the case from the Massachusetts Superior Court of Middlesex County to the state's Business Litigation court. The two groups presented oral arguments on the merits of the case in late July. Then, on Aug. 21, Judge Debra A. Squires-Lee delivered her response, siding with the plaintiffs that the case should move forward. Squires-Lee rejected DraftKings' argument that the plaintiffs had not adequately described the injury or loss they experienced from the deposit. "These allegations plausibly suggest that they were harmed because they bought into a service worth less than they believed based on the promotion," she wrote. The judge also concluded that she needed more information about how the promotion was presented and depicted in order to fully decide if the practices were deceptive or not. The case will now move to the discovery phase. The case is one of several on DraftKings' plate right now. In July, a Massachusetts District Court denied DraftKings' motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit arguing that the company's NFT Marketplace and Reignmaker products constituted unregulated securities. Once it was clear the case would be moving forward, DraftKings announced its decision to shutter its NFT products. That decision led to another court case filed last week. The NFL Player's Association (NFLPA) filed a suit against DraftKings for anticipated breach of contract since DraftKings allegedly refuses to pay the remainder of its deal with the NFLPA for licensing player images and likenesses for the NFT Marketplace. This week, plaintiff Steven Jacobs is expecting to respond to DraftKings' motion to dismiss a lawsuit he brought against the company, who he claimed helped two professional bettors, Oscar Jones and Gadoon "Spanky" Kyrollos, threaten and attempt to extort him. If that weren't a busy enough agenda, a case where DraftKings is the plaintiff continues to be active in three separate courts. DraftKings sued former head of VIP Mike Hermalyn and his new employer, Fanatics, for breach of contract. That case is active in the Massachusetts District Court, a state court in California and the First Circuit Court of Appeals, where Hermalyn is appealing the partial injunction granted by the lower court. One case that won't be moving forward is another class action similar to the one brought by Harris and Scanlon. Samantha Guery had filed a class action suit in the New York Southern District Court over the advertising of its sign-up offer. The case was voluntarily dropped by the plaintiff after she ceased communicating with her representation. [GN] ELITE STAFFING SERVICES: Flores Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Viridiana Avendano Flores, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Elite Staffing Services, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company; CP Boulders LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; Columbia Sussex Corporation, a Kentucky corporation; John Doe Corporations I-XX; Dulce Matias and John Doe Matias, and married couple, and Joseph Rodriguez and Jane Doe Rodriguez, a married couple, Case No. 2:24-cv-02241-DWL (D. Ariz., Aug. 28, 2024), is brought for unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and interest under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all similarly-situated current and former employees of Defendants who and were not paid all overtime owed for the total time worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours in a given workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is an individual residing in Maricopa County, Arizona, and is a former Hourly Worker of Defendants. The Defendants own and operate as "Elite Staffing Services," an employment placement agency doing business in Maricopa County, Arizona.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clifford P. Bendau, II, Esq. Christopher J. Bendau, Esq. BENDAU & BENDAU PLLC P.O. Box 97066 Phoenix, AZ 85060 Phone: (480) 382-5176 Facsimile: (480) 304-3805 Email: cliffordbendau@bendaulaw.com chris@bendaulaw.com ENDAVA PLC: Faces Securities Lawsuit Over 41.76% Stock Price Drop ----------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Endava plc ("Endava" or the "Company") (NYSE: DAVA). Such investors are advised to contact Danielle Peyton at newaction@pomlaw.com or 646-581-9980, (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. The class action concerns whether Endava and certain of its officers and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other unlawful business practices. You have until October 25, 2024, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class if you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired Endava securities during the Class Period. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. On February 29, 2024, Endava announced its financial results for the three months ended December 31, 2023. Among other items, Endava stated that it was running behind its recent revenue trajectory by approximately £70 million, or nearly 9% below prior projections at the midpoint. The Company further stated that certain of its clients had delayed their orders due to economic uncertainty. On this news, Endava's American depositary share ("ADS") price fell $26.65 per ADS, or 41.76%, to close at $37.17 per ADS on February 29, 2024. Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later, Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered billions of dollars in damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomlaw.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Danielle Peyton Pomerantz LLP dpeyton@pomlaw.com 646-581-9980 ext. 7980 [GN] ENROLL CONFIDENTLY: Guyette Sues Over Failure to Protect Data ------------------------------------------------------------- Alexxi Guyette, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Enroll Confidently, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-02231-ESW (D. Ariz., Aug. 28, 2024), is brought arising from Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. The Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI")--together "PII/PHI"--about its current and former consumers. But Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach (the "Data Breach"). It is unknown for precisely how long the cybercriminals had access to Defendant's network before the breach was discovered. In other words, Defendant had no effective means to prevent, detect, stop, or mitigate breaches of its systems--thereby allowing cybercriminals unrestricted access to its current and former consumers' PII/PHI. On information and belief, cybercriminals were able to breach Defendant's systems because Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class's PII/PHI. In short, Defendant's failures placed the Class's PII/PHI in a vulnerable position--rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a Data Breach victim. The Defendant is an Arizona-based corporation that "provides a benefits enrollment platform to support employers and benefits providers throughout the employee enrollment process."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: (872) 263-1100 Fax: (872) 263-1109 Email: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com FAIRBORN, OH: Joins Class-Action Settlement for PFAS Contamination ------------------------------------------------------------------ London Bishop, writing for Dayton Daily News, reports that the city of Fairborn has joined another class-action settlement against a major chemical manufacturer sued for PFAS contamination of public water systems. Firefighting foam manufacturers Tyco and BASF reached a class action settlement agreement earlier this year for $750 million related to firefighting foam that contaminated local waterways with per -- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS. Fairborn city council authorized entering into the agreement Monday. The Tyco settlement is the third major PFAS settlement in recent years. Last summer, chemical manufacturers DuPont and 3M reached $1.2 billion and $10.5--12.5 billion agreements, respectively, to settle claims by water providers related to PFAS contamination. Fairborn also agreed to enter into a class action settlement against both 3M and DuPont, alongside Bellbrook, Dayton and more than 300 other cities. It's hard to predict what Fairborn's portion of that settlement is going to be, Fairborn City Solicitor Mike McNamee said, but the process with Tyco follows the same one for the 3M and DuPont lawsuit. Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, are toxic, persistent, man-made substances that have been linked to a host of ailments, including cancer, pregnancy defects, liver and immune problems, Tasha Stoiber, a senior scientist at Washington, D.C.-based Environmental Working Group previously told the Dayton Daily News. The chemicals have been found in firefighting foam, as well as consumer products labeled "non-stick," or 'stain-repellent." In April, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency set maximum enforceable levels of two PFAS chemicals -- perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) -- at 4.0 parts per trillion. [GN] FISHER INVESTMENTS: Human Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Daniel Human, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated v. Fisher Investments, Inc., Case No. 24SL-CC03265 was removed from the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on Aug. 28, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:24-cv-01177-JMB to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Fisher Investments -- http://www.fisherinvestments.com/en-us-- is an independent money management firm headquartered in Plano, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendants are represented by: Matthew D. Guletz, Esq. THOMPSON COBURN LLP - St. Louis One US Bank Plaza, Suite 2700 St. Louis, MO 63101 Phone: (314) 552-6311 Fax: (314) 552-7000 Email: mguletz@thompsoncoburn.com FISKER OCEAN: Car Owners Join Class Suit Over Bankruptcy Filing --------------------------------------------------------------- Autobody News reports that more than 800 owners of 2023 and 2024 Fisker Ocean EVs have retained automotive litigation firm Hagens Berman to bring lawsuits against EV startup Fisker, which declared bankruptcy earlier in 2024. According to the law firm, Fisker's Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing in June wreaked havoc on its customers, who have been "reporting harrowing and frustrating experiences: car doors locking passengers inside the vehicle, software glitches that cause the car to suddenly go into park, hours on hold with service departments with no answer, a bricked $80,000 paperweight with only 2,000 miles on the odometer." Hagens Berman is now representing Fisker Ocean owners who financed their SUVs through Fisker Finance or J.P. Morgan Chase Bank. The firm said customers were not warned about the impending bankruptcy filing, which caused the loss of warranty protection, ongoing software problems and an inability to obtain software updates. The customers told Hagens Berman that Fisker had turned to "aggressive" tactics to meet its sales quotas, offering low interest rates to move inventory. "Many say these offers are what sealed the deal or kept them from cancelling their reserved Ocean EVs," the law firm said. "[Fisker EO] Henrik Fisker has now bankrupted two companies, and owners of Fisker vehicles who paid upwards of $80,000 are now unjustly paying the consequences of bad business," said Steve Berman, managing partner of Hagens Berman. "Fisker owners have reached out to our firm reporting serious safety issues, with some left unable to use their vehicles after only having driven 2,000 miles." The law firm said customers who reached out to it reported Fisker has "shirked many of its responsibilities" after filing for bankruptcy, including servicing the SUVs it had sold. The EV maker has also reportedly failed to respond to calls and other communications regarding repairs, active recalls and warranty concerns. In an effort to salvage its business, Fisker sold its assets and significantly reduced the salaries of co-CEOs Henrik and Geeta Gupta-Fisker to $1 per year. However, they retained more than 843,000 shares, maintaining majority voting control of the company. [GN] FIVE BELOW: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set September 30 ------------------------------------------------------------- If you suffered a loss on your Five Below, Inc. (NASDAQ:FIVE) investment and want to learn about a potential recovery under the federal securities laws, follow the link below for more information: https://zlk.com/pslra-1/five-below-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=97815&wire=1 or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. via email at jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or call (212) 363-7500 to speak to our team of experienced shareholder advocates. THE LAWSUIT: A class action securities lawsuit was filed against Five Below, Inc. that seeks to recover losses of shareholders who were adversely affected by alleged securities fraud between March 20, 2024 and July 16, 2024. CASE DETAILS: According to the complaint, defendants provided investors with false and/or materially misleading information about FIVE's financial strength and operations, including its outlook for the first quarter and full year 2024. This information included FIVE's statement that net sales are expected to be in the range of $826 million to $846 million based on opening approximately 55 to 60 new stores in the first quarter. Further, FIVE claimed that net sales for the full year are expected to be in the range of $3.97 billion to $4.07 billion based on opening between 225 and 235 new stores. Investors discovered that these statements were false and/or materially misleading when, on June 5, 2024, FIVE announced disappointing first quarter 2024 sales result and cut its full year 2024 guidance stating, "Net sales are expected to be in the range of $3.79 billion to $3.87 billion based on opening approximately 230 new stores." At the same time, FIVE claimed that for the second quarter, "Net sales are expected to be in the range of $830 million to $850 million based on opening approximately 60 new stores." In response to the disclosure, FIVE's stock price declined $14.07/per share within the span of just one day. On July 16, 2024, FIVE announced the resignation of Joel Anderson from his positions as President and Chief Executive Officer, as well as from his seat on the Company's Board of Directors. Concurrently, FIVE projected a decrease of 6% to 7% in comparable sales for the fiscal second quarter ending August 3, 2024. Following this news, FIVE's stock price dropped over 25% on July 17, 2024. WHAT'S NEXT? If you suffered a loss in FIVE stock during the relevant time frame - even if you still hold your shares - go to https://zlk.com/pslra-1/five-below-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=97815&wire=1 to learn about your rights to seek a recovery. There is no cost or obligation to participate. WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Over the past 20 years, Levi & Korsinsky LLP has established itself as a nationally-recognized securities litigation firm that has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders and built a track record of winning high-stakes cases. The firm has extensive expertise representing investors in complex securities litigation and a team of over 70 employees to serve our clients. For seven years in a row, Levi & Korsinsky has ranked in ISS Securities Class Action Services' Top 50 Report as one of the top securities litigation firms in the United States. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Levi & Korsinsky, LLP Joseph E. Levi, Esq. Ed Korsinsky, Esq. 33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 jlevi@levikorsinsky.com Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 https://zlk.com/ [GN] FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Class Cert Bid Filing Due April 23, 2025 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wilson v. Frontier Communications Parent, Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-01418 (N.D. Tex., Filed June 10, 2024), the Hon. Judge Sam A. Lindsay entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to extend deadline to move for class certification and extending the deadline for the Plaintiffs to move for class certification to April 23, 2025. The nature of suit states Diversity-Breach of Contract. Frontier is an American telecommunications company.[CC] FURTHERED INC: Discloses Subscribers' Personal Info, Jolly Says --------------------------------------------------------------- KAMILAH JOLLY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FURTHERED, INC. d/b/a LAWLINE, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-06401-LJL (S.D.N.Y., August 23, 2024) is a consumer digital privacy class action lawsuit against Lawline for violating the Video Privacy Protection Act by disclosing Plaintiff and similarly situated digital subscribers' personally identifiable information in the form of video viewing history and services. Through the use of analytics tools, Lawline tracks and discloses to third-party business partners, its users' personal viewing information and, most notably, unique identifying information along with requested or obtained video content. This occurs even when the user has not shared (nor consented to share) such information. Lawline's disclosures allow third parties to know the video viewing history and services one of its users viewed on Lawline's website, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this class action for legal and equitable remedies to redress and put a stop to Lawline's practices of intentionally disclosing its users' personal viewing information to Facebook or any other third parties in knowing violation of VPPA. FurtherEd, Inc., d/b/a Lawline, is a provider of online continuing legal education offering courses to attorneys in all 50 states of the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David S. Almeida, Esq. Matthew J. Langley, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 849 W. Webster Avenue Chicago, IL 60614 Telephone: (312) 576-3024 E-mail: david@almeidalawgroup.com matt@almeidalawgroup.com GEICO GENERAL: Appeals Court Revives Insurance Agents' Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Shane Dilworth, writing for Business Insurance, reports that the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Monday, August 23, 2024, a judge erred when dismissing a proposed class action brought by "captive" insurance agents against Geico and two of its subsidiaries based on documents filed in response to the lawsuit. The three-judge appellate panel in James Moyer v. Government Employees Insurance Co. et al. said the lower court should not have relied on the insurers' documents on welfare benefits and profit sharing to find that the agents could not participate in any other benefits plans. The panel said disputes exist whether the documents were reliable. The agents, led by James Moyer, sued Geico, a subsidiary and the administrator of the insurer's benefits plans, in federal court in Columbus, Ohio, accusing them of violating the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 by classifying them as independent contractors who cannot receive the full slate of benefits the insurer offers to corporate employees. Specifically, the agents said Geico only allowed them to participate in health and life insurance plans but not a group dental plan, a profit-sharing plan, a Roth 401(k) plan, and a long-term disability plan, court records show. The agents did not include any of the plan documents with their complaint. After Geico filed a motion to dismiss, the judge ordered the parties to submit copies of the relevant plans. Geico submitted copies of some plans, but the agents sought more information. The judge sided with Geico after reviewing the documents and deciding they showed the agents were not eligible to receive the benefits. Representatives for the parties did not respond to requests for comment. [GN] GENERAL MOTORS: 6th Circuit Revives 'Dieselgate' Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Meera Gajjar, writing for Westlaw Today, reports that purchasers and lessors of General Motors LLC trucks featuring the Duramax "clean diesel" engine can resume litigation against the company over vehicles that did not achieve advertised emissions reductions, a federal appeals court has ruled. Fenner et al. v. General Motors LLC et al., Nos. 23-1648, 23-1696, 23-1697 and 23-1698, (6th Cir. Aug. 21, 2024). A split 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel ruled Aug. 21 that federal law did not preempt state-law fraud claims, reversing a dismissal ruling by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. The appeals court affirmed the trial court's determination that the plaintiffs lacked standing to assert a claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The truck owners take issue with GM advertisements saying the Duramax engine in Sierra and Silverado trucks for model years 2011-2016 would "turn heavy diesel fuel into a fine mist," achieving a "whopping reduction" in emissions compared with older models. In 2015, news broke that Volkswagen and other automakers had used defeat devices that reduce diesel emissions in testing environments, but disable pollution controls under normal driving conditions. In 2017, Andrei Fenner and Joshua Herman filed a class-action suit against GM and emissions-controls manufacturers Robert Bosch GmbH and Robert Bosch LLC, alleging that they participated in the "Dieselgate" scheme. GM violated consumer protection laws in various states by marketing Duramax trucks as low-pollution models when it had outfitted the vehicles with defeat devices that caused excessive nitrogen oxide emissions, a precursor to harmful ozone, the suit says. The plaintiffs asserted in an amended complaint that the defendants' collaboration on the clean diesel fraud amounted to racketeering under RICO, 18 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1962. The District Court denied the defendants' dismissal motions and consolidated the action with more than 25 additional lawsuits involving hundreds of plaintiffs. While the cases against GM and Bosch proceeded, the 6th Circuit ruled that the federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act preempted consumers' state-law fraud claims in In re Ford Motor Co. F-150 and Ranger Truck Fuel Economy Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, 65 F.4th 851 (6th Cir. 2023). Citing Ford, the District Court granted summary judgment to the defendants in 2023, and the plaintiffs appealed. Writing for the majority, U.S. Circuit Judge Karen Nelson Moore distinguished this case from Ford, which focused on fraud committed against the Environmental Protection Agency. The Ford opinion applied preemption against claims that the automaker cheated on fuel economy and emissions testing, saying the plaintiffs impermissibly challenged the EPA's approval of the data. The present case instead mirrors Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555 (2009), which involved failure-to-warn claims against a drug manufacturer, the majority said. "Because GM 'bears responsibility for the contents of its [advertisements] at all times,' and the advertisements are the basis of the state-law claims, the state-law claims are not preempted," Judge Moore wrote, quoting Wyeth. As to RICO, the indirect purchaser rule from Apple Inc. v. Pepper, 587 U.S. 273 (2019), barred the claim because more than two steps in the distribution chain separated the plaintiffs and defendants, according to the 6th Circuit. U.S. Circuit Judge Raymond M. Kethledge dissented from the majority's analysis of Ford, saying that all of the fraud claims boiled down to an attack on the EPA's approval of the trucks. Steve W. Berman of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP argued for the appellants. Jay P. Lefkowitz of Kirkland & Ellis LLP presented GM's arguments. [GN] GENERAL MOTORS: Appeals Court Authorizes Fraud Suit to Proceed -------------------------------------------------------------- Elliot Mincberg, writing for Peoplefor.org, reports that Judge Rachel Bloomekatz, nominated by President Biden to the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, cast the deciding vote in a 2-1 ruling that reversed a lower court and allowed a class action against GM for fraud and misrepresentation to go forward. She joined an opinion by Judge Karen Nelson Moore, a Clinton nominee, to which George W Bush nominee Raymond Kethledge dissented. The August 2024 decision was in Fenner v General Motors LLC. Andrei Fenner was one of numerous consumers who purchased a 2011-2016 GM Silverado or similar vehicle, based at least in part on representations by GM in advertising that the vehicle had a "clean diesel" engine with "low emissions" of nitrogen oxide and other pollutants. Fenner, other individuals, and a class of consumers filed a lawsuit against GM because they contend those representations were false and that the vehicles emit pollutants "at levels many times higher" than EPA standards, comparable vehicles, or as advertised. Fenner filed suit in 2017, and by 2019, more than 2700 plaintiffs had joined on behalf of an even larger class of consumers. The complaint contended that GM and other defendants had violated state consumer protection and fraud laws, and had also breached the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. After some discovery, however, the district court granted summary judgment for GM and dismissed the case. The court held that the consumers did not have standing under RICO and that the Clean Air Act had pre-empted the state law claims. Fenner and the other consumers appealed to the Sixth Circuit. All three judges on the appellate panel agreed that the consumers did not have standing under RICO. But Judge Karen Nelson Moore wrote a 2-1 opinion, joined by Judge Bloomekatz, that reversed the dismissal of the state law claims and held that they were not pre-empted by the Clean Air and could go forward. Judge Moore carefully analyzed precedent and relevant statutes concerning pre-emption. She explained that in general, the courts had recognized there is a "presumption" against concluding that a federal law has pre-empted and made irrelevant a state law, especially in an area in which states have "traditionally" played a significant role like consumer and environmental protection. She also distinguished a recent case in which the Sixth Circuit had found that federal law pre-empted claims that a car company had committed "fraud on the agency" by misusing EPA data, which was not the case here. Even if "the EPA did not exist" or "there were no federal emissions standards," she pointed out, the claims that GM "fraudulently omitted facts about its emissions systems in advertisements" in violation of state law "would live on." The ruling made possible by Judge Bloomekatz's deciding vote is obviously important to Andrei Fenner and the many other consumers who contend they were defrauded by GM. The decision also sets an important precedent concerning claims that federal environmental law pre-empts state law claims, particularly in the Sixth Circuit, which includes Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee. The case also serves as a reminder of the importance of promptly confirming fair-minded judges to our federal courts. [GN] GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Cook Orders Disclosure in Class Suit Funding ---------------------------------------------------------------- Alison Frankel of Reuters reports that for litigation financiers backing class actions in Delaware Chancery Court, weird facts have just led to potentially problematic precedent. Vice Chancellor Nathan Cook ruled last week that class action plaintiffs suing insurer Genworth Financial (GNW.N) and several related Genworth entities must show defendants their lawyers' unredacted agreement with the outside funders that are paying plaintiffs' counsel to prosecute the case. The Delaware judge rejected arguments by plaintiffs' lawyers at Shapiro Haber & Urmy and Andrews & Springer that the funding agreement is irrelevant because the as-yet unidentified financiers backing the case have pledged not to control or interfere with the litigation. Class actions, Cook said, are not like ordinary cases in which a plaintiff exercises a "heightened degree of oversight." So the risk of improper meddling by a third-party funder, the judge wrote, "seems especially ripe." Cook, who appears to have delved deeply into scholarship on litigation funding for class actions, said concerns about conflicts of interest between plaintiffs and funders are particularly acute when lawyers for the class have separately contracted with a funder to pay their legal fees and expenses. Class members -- including the class representatives in this case -- may not even be aware of such deals, he said. The judge agreed with Genworth's lawyers from Dentons; Hueston Hennigan; and Richards, Layton & Finger that the defendants are entitled to know the identity of the funder and the terms of its deal in order to test their contention that the class action is being driven by class counsel and their backers. Genworth's brief opposing plaintiffs' motion for class certification argues that the name plaintiffs are "asleep at the switch" and have only a vague understanding of their own case. Cook's ruling is the first Delaware Chancery Court decision to address litigation funding disclosure in a class action. Chancery Court judges, as Cook noted, have previously ruled in a handful of cases that defendants were entitled to the production of litigation funding agreements with redactions for work-products privilege. Plaintiffs' lawyers cited that privilege in their opposition to Genworth's motion to compel production of the litigation funding agreement. But Cook, who has already seen the six-paragraph funding deal after ordering plaintiffs in June to produce the document for in-camera review, said in last week's decision that plaintiffs failed to explain why any part of the document must be shielded. The agreement, he said, "does not reflect any opinion work product, risk analyses or other meaningful reference to strategy, mental impressions, or the lawsuit's merits." What it does show -- and why I've described the circumstances of this dispute as weird -- is that funder behind the Genworth class action is not a traditional litigation financier. Instead, according to Cook, the class action is apparently being funded by Genworth competitors with an interest in "financing litigation against a market peer." The story laid out in briefing on Genworth's motion to compel disclosure of the funding agreement is even more odd. The class action, broadly speaking, alleges that the Genworth defendants deliberately stripped assets and capital from a subsidiary that provides long term care insurance. Policyholders and insurance brokers contend that the allegedly fraudulent transfers have left Genworth's long term care subsidiary without sufficient resources to pay future claims by policyholders and future commissions to brokers who sold the policies. The Genworth defendants insist that a 2016 restructuring, which was thoroughly reviewed and approved by Delaware insurance officials, was not fraudulent. They also argue that the post-restructuring long term care business is in good financial condition. None of that is particularly weird. But Genworth contends that behind the scenes of the class action filed by Shapiro Haber, another lawyer -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius insurance regulatory partner Harold Horwich -- was secretly communicating with prospective class members. Horwich, according to privilege logs cited by Genworth, began exchanging emails with prospective plaintiffs, including another Morgan Lewis partner, in 2017, the year before Shapiro Haber filed the class action in Chancery Court. His communications with name plaintiffs continued into 2019. Horwich did not respond to my email query. Shapiro Haber also did not respond. We don't know exactly what the Morgan Lewis partner said in these email exchanges with class members because the name plaintiffs asserted privilege when Glenworth lawyers asked about them. But Shapiro Haber has acknowledged that Horwich was providing "legal advice about potential litigation" and Horwich referred the plaintiffs to Shapiro Haber. Cook's opinion did not refer to Horwich or his apparent role in originating the case against Genworth. The defendants sought to compel production of Horwich's email exchanges, arguing that privilege does not apply because he is not counsel of record in the case. Cook reserved judgment on that request and said he planned to issue an order for supplemental briefing. But in light of the judge's revelation that the class action is apparently being funded by Genworth competitors, it's reasonable to ask whether Horwich is somehow involved with those competitors. If so, Cook's concern about potential conflicts between funders and absent class members seems all the more justifiable. The vice chancellor acknowledged that his decision may provoke "general concerns" that disclosure requirements will chill litigation funding. He said in this case, that concern should be tempered by a provision in the funding agreement that specifically said the class action's backers expected their deal to be "disclosed in some fashion during litigation." Cook said that expectation was "perhaps unsurprising" because the funders are not traditional litigation financiers. But his reasoning on the relevance of litigation funding agreements in class actions is not limited to the unusual circumstances of this case. Cook's ruling is sure to provide ammunition for litigation funding critics to argue that funders can't be trusted to defer to the interests of absent class members. Like I said, strange facts have made caselaw that's bad for litigation funders. [GN] GIANT EAGLE: Faces Kherer ERISA Class Suit in W. D. Pa. ------------------------------------------------------- CHERYL KHERER, individually, on behalf of the Giant Eagle, Inc. Employee Savings Plan, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GIANT EAGLE, INC., INVESTMENT and ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE of the Giant Eagle, Inc. Employee Savings Plan, JOHN DOES 1-30 in their capacities as members of the Investment or Administrative Committees, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-01211 (W.D. Pa., August 23, 2024) is a class action brought pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 against the fiduciaries of the Giant Eagle, Inc. Employee Savings Plan for breaching their duties under the law to the participants and beneficiaries of the Plan during the Class Period. Prior to filing suit, pursuant to ERISA, the Plaintiff requested copies of the Defendants' quarterly monitoring reviews and reports, and additional documents, including recordkeeping contracts in effect pertaining to the operation of the Plan, but Giant Eagle, Inc. specifically refused to provide any of the contracts, as well as many other requested documents and asserted that such documents have no role in the operation of the Plan. Accordingly, as this litigation proceeds, and particularly in regard to any Rule 12(b) motions or other defenses raised by Defendants, the Court should preclude Defendants from attempting to rely upon any such contracts and documents or the information contained therein, says the suit. The Plaintiff was an employee of the Company and/or a participant in the Plan. Giant Eagle, Inc. is an American supermarket chain with stores in Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, Indiana, and Maryland.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edwin J, Kilpela, Jr., Esq. Paige T. Noah, Esq. WADE KILPELA SLADE LLP 6425 Living Place Suite 200 Pittsburgh, PA 15206 Telephone: (412) 314-0515 E-mail: ekilpela@waykayslay.com pnoah@waykayslay.com - and - Peter A. Muhic, Esq. MUHIC LAW LLC 923 Haddonfield Road Suite 300 Cherry Hill, NJ 08002 Telephone: (856) 324-8252 E-mail: peter@muhiclaw.com GKN DRIVELINE: Seeks to Stay Class Cert Briefing in Ayers Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES AYERS, DOYLE CAWTHON, JR., DEAUL STARR, AND DARRON GRAY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. GKN DRIVELINE NORTH AMERICA, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-00581-LCB-LPA (M.D.N.C.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting motion to stay briefing on the Plaintiffs' motion to conditionally certify this matter as a collective action and for a court-authorized notice to be issued under section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act(FLSA) and plaintiffs' motion for class certification under fed. r. civ. p. 23 and for appointment of class counsel under fed. r. civ. p. 23(g), pending ruling on GKN's motion to strike the Plaintiffs' collective and class allegations. GKN manufactures automotive parts. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Aug. 20, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SbeTwd at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Kevin S. Joyner, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 4208 Six Forks Road, Suite 1100 Raleigh, NC 27609 Telephone: (919) 787-9700 Facsimile: (919) 783-9412 E-mail: Kevin.Joyner@ogletreedeakins.com - and - Paul Decamp, Esq. Adriana S. Kosovych, Esq. EPSTEIN, BECKER & GREEN, P.C. 1227 25th Street, N.W., Suite 700 Washington, DC 20037 Telephone: (202) 861-1819 Facsimile: (202) 861-3571 E-mail: PDeCamp@ebglaw.com AKosovych@ebglaw.com GKN DRIVELINE: Seeks to Stay Class Cert Briefing in Carson Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN CARSON AND RANDALL STARK, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. GKN DRIVELINE NORTH AMERICA, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-00583-LCB-LPA (M.D.N.C.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting motion to stay briefing on the Plaintiffs' motion to conditionally certify this matter as a collective action and for a court-authorized notice to be issued under section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act(FLSA) and plaintiffs' motion for class certification under fed. r. civ. p. 23 and for appointment of class counsel under fed. r. civ. p. 23(g), pending ruling on GKN's motion to strike the Plaintiffs' collective and class allegations. GKN manufactures automotive parts. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Aug. 20, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ShMPNA at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Kevin S. Joyner, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 4208 Six Forks Road, Suite 1100 Raleigh, NC 27609 Telephone: (919) 787-9700 Facsimile: (919) 783-9412 E-mail: Kevin.Joyner@ogletreedeakins.com - and - Paul Decamp, Esq. Adriana S. Kosovych, Esq. EPSTEIN, BECKER & GREEN, P.C. 1227 25th Street, N.W., Suite 700 Washington, DC 20037 Telephone: (202) 861-1819 Facsimile: (202) 861-3571 E-mail: PDeCamp@ebglaw.com AKosovych@ebglaw.com GKN DRIVELINE: Seeks to Stay Class Cert Briefing in Ferges Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAMEKA FERGES AND DARRICK PAYLOR, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. GKN DRIVELINE NORTH AMERICA, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-00585-LCB-LPA (M.D.N.C.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting motion to stay briefing on the Plaintiffs' motion to conditionally certify this matter as a collective action and for a court-authorized notice to be issued under section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act(FLSA) and plaintiffs' motion for class certification under fed. r. civ. p. 23 and for appointment of class counsel under fed. r. civ. p. 23(g), pending ruling on GKN's motion to strike the Plaintiffs' collective and class allegations. GKN manufactures automotive parts. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Aug. 20, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fnQDDc at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Kevin S. Joyner, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 4208 Six Forks Road, Suite 1100 Raleigh, NC 27609 Telephone: (919) 787-9700 Facsimile: (919) 783-9412 E-mail: Kevin.Joyner@ogletreedeakins.com - and - Paul Decamp, Esq. Adriana S. Kosovych, Esq. EPSTEIN, BECKER & GREEN, P.C. 1227 25th Street, N.W., Suite 700 Washington, DC 20037 Telephone: (202) 861-1819 Facsimile: (202) 861-3571 E-mail: PDeCamp@ebglaw.com AKosovych@ebglaw.com GOLDEN PEAR FUNDING: Canales Files Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Golden Pear Funding II, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Maria Canales, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated v. Golden Pear Funding II, LLC, Golden Pear Funding Opco, LLC, Daniel Amsellem, John Does 1 to 10, Case No. 1:24-cv-06512 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 28, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit. Golden Pear -- https://goldenpearfunding.com/ -- is a Specialty Finance solution working with law firms, medical providers, and plaintiffs to offer products that empower them to unlock the full potential of their personal injury cases.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yongmoon Kim, Esq. KIM LAW FIRM, LLC 411 Hackensack Ave Ste 701 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (551) 777-0102 Email: ykim@kimlf.com GOLDMAN SACHS: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in New York -------------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2024, that on December 20, 2018, a putative securities class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against it and certain former officers of the firm alleging violations of the anti-fraud provisions of the Exchange Act with respect to its disclosures and public statements concerning 1MDB and seeking unspecified damages. The plaintiff filed the second amended complaint on October 28, 2019. On June 28, 2021, the court dismissed the claims against one of the individual defendants but denied the defendants' motion to dismiss with respect to the firm and the remaining individual defendants. On August 4, 2023, the plaintiff filed a third amended complaint. On September 29, 2023, the plaintiff moved for class certification. On April 5, 2024, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the plaintiff's motion for class certification be granted in part and denied in part. On May 3, 2024, the defendants filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation with the district court. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation, together with its consolidated subsidiaries, is a global financial institution that delivers a broad range of financial services to a large and diversified client base that includes corporations, financial institutions, governments and individuals. GOLDMAN SACHS: Dismissal of Securities Suit Under Appeal -------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2023, that the group is a defendant in putative securities class actions filed beginning in October 2021 and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. On March 28, 2024, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaints with prejudice. On April 26, 2024, the plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The complaints allege that the group, along with another financial institution, sold shares in Baidu Inc., Discovery Inc., GSX Techedu Inc., iQIYI Inc., Tencent Music Entertainment Group, ViacomCBS, and Vipshop Holdings Ltd. based on material nonpublic information regarding the liquidation of the position of Archegos Capital Management, LP in Baidu, Discovery, Gaotu, iQIYI, Tencent, ViacomCBS and Vipshop, respectively. The complaints generally assert violations of Sections 10(b), 20A and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and seek unspecified damages. On June 13, 2022, the plaintiffs in the class actions filed amended complaints. On March 31, 2023, the court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the amended complaints without prejudice. In May 2023, the plaintiffs in the class actions filed second amended complaints, and on July 18, 2023, the defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaints. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation, together with its consolidated subsidiaries, is a global financial institution that delivers a broad range of financial services to a large and diversified client base that includes corporations, financial institutions, governments and individuals. GOLDMAN SACHS: Settlement in GoHealth-Related Suit Gets Final OK ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2024, that its subsidiary Goldman Sachs and Co. (GS&Co.) is among the underwriters named as defendants in putative securities class actions filed beginning on September 21, 2020 and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois relating to GoHealth, Inc.'s (GoHealth) $914 million July 2020 initial public offering. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include GoHealth, certain of its officers and directors and certain of its shareholders. On May 22, 2024, the court approved a final settlement, which does not require a contribution from GS&Co. GS&Co. underwrote 11,540,550 shares of common stock representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $242 million. On February 25, 2021, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint. On April 5, 2022, the defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint was denied. On September 23, 2022, the plaintiffs moved for class certification. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation, together with its consolidated subsidiaries, is a global financial institution that delivers a broad range of financial services to a large and diversified client base that includes corporations, financial institutions, governments and individuals. GOODRX HOLDINGS: Negotiation in SDFL Class Suit Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------- GoodRx 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 negotiation between parties in SDFL class suit is ongoing. On October 27, 2023, six plaintiffs filed a class action complaint (Case No. 1:23-cv-24127-BB; the "SDFL Class Action Matter") against the Company in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ("SDFL"). The plaintiffs alleged, on behalf of the same nationwide class as the NDCA Class Action Matter, substantially the same statutory and common law violation claims as alleged in that matter as well as claims based on the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act, invasion of privacy under California common law and the California constitution, invasion of privacy under New Jersey's Constitution, and violations of Pennsylvania's Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act, Florida's Security of Communications Act, New York's Civil Rights Law and Stop Hack and Improve Electronic Data Security Act. The plaintiffs in the SDFL Class Action Matter seek various forms of monetary damages as well as injunctive and other unspecified equitable relief. On October 27, 2023, the Company entered into a proposed settlement agreement with the plaintiffs in the SDFL Class Action Matter, on behalf of a nationwide settlement class that includes the NDCA Class Action Matter, which it provides for a payment of $13.0 million. On October 30, 2023, the plaintiffs in the SDFL Class Action Matter filed a motion and memorandum in support of preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement and, on October 31, 2023, the SDFL granted preliminary approval of the proposed settlement. The proposed settlement is subject to final approval of the court. Members of the class have the opportunity to opt-out of the class and commence their own actions. In response to the proposed settlement in the SDFL Class Action Matter, plaintiffs in the NDCA Class Action Matter filed (i) on November 1, 2023, a motion in the NDCA for an order to require the Company to cease litigation of, or alternatively file a motion to stay in, the SDFL Class Action Matter and enjoin us from seeking settlement with counsel other than plaintiffs' counsel in the NDCA Class Action Matter; and (ii) on November 2, 2023, a motion in the SDFL for that court to allow them to intervene and appear in the SDFL action, transfer the SDFL Class Action Matter to the NDCA and reconsider and deny its preliminary approval of the proposed settlement. The SDFL has issued an order requiring the SDFL plaintiffs to, among other things, file a response to the NDCA plaintiffs' motion to intervene. Additionally, U.S. District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín in the NDCA issued an order for the Company to show cause as to why it should not be sanctioned for an alleged failure to provide notification to the NDCA of the pendency of the SDFL Class Action Matter. The Company filed its written response to this order on November 8, 2023. The NDCA held a hearing on November 14, 2023, and ordered parties to the litigation to participate in mediation. The parties participated in mediation on January 10, 2024, and have agreed to participate in an additional day of mediation, which occurred on March 7, 2024. Negotiations between the parties remain ongoing. GoodRx Holdings, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of GoodRx Intermediate Holdings, LLC, which itself is a wholly-owned subsidiary of GoodRx Holdings, Inc. It operates a price comparison platform that provides consumers with curated, geographically relevant prescription pricing, and provides access to negotiated prices through our codes that can be used to save money on prescriptions across the United States. GOOGLE LLC: UK App Developers Sue Over Anti-Competitive Strategies ------------------------------------------------------------------ Harry Moran, writing for Legal Funding Journal, reports that a leading competition law expert, Professor Barry Rodger, has filed a legal claim worth up to GBP1.04 billion against Google before the UK Competition Appeal Tribunal ("CAT"). Google is accused of abusing its dominant position to the detriment of a large class of thousands of UK app developers who need to use its app marketplace, 'Play Store' or 'Google Play', to access their customers. The class action lawsuit seeks compensation for the losses in revenues suffered by those individuals and businesses, many of whom are SMEs, from August 2018 onwards. Professor Rodger alleges that Google has used a variety of technical and contractual restrictions to ensure that Google's Play Store is the only place where UK app developers can market or sell apps designed for Android devices. The result is that UK app developers have little choice other than to use the Google Play Store if they want to reach a wide audience. Google has then used its dominant position in app distribution to require developers to pay excessive and unfair commissions (of up to 30%) on all their sales of digital content to customers. Professor Rodger claims that absent the combination of exclusionary and exploitative conduct, app developers would have paid less to distribute their apps and sell their digital content. Professor Rodger's action follows significant litigation and regulatory scrutiny of Google's Play Store conduct around the world, including by the European Commission, the UK's Competition and Markets Authority and the US Congress. A class action is needed in the present case because UK app developers would not individually have the means to each bring claims against Google. The UK's opt-out class action regime in the CAT provides a mechanism by which these app developers can legitimately seek damages for the harm they have suffered as a result of Google's conduct. Professor Rodger's claim is backed by a legal team composed of competition litigation and digital markets specialists, Geradin Partners and a counsel team of Robert O'Donoghue (Brick Court Chambers), Daniel Carall-Green (Fountain Court Chambers) and Sarah O'Keeffe (Brick Court Chambers). The claim also relies on the expertise of Professor Amelia Fletcher CBE, Professor of Competition Policy at the University of East Anglia, who has been assisted in preparing her economic report by a team of economists at Fideres. The claim is funded by Bench Walk Advisors, a leading litigation funder with a team of multi awardwinning finance professionals and litigators. [GN] HAITECH WORKS: Faces Lozada Wage-and-Hour Suit in N.D.N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------- Brandon Alfonso Campos Lozada, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Haitech Works LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-01041-AMN-DJS (N.D.N.Y., August 23, 2024) seeks to recover Plaintiff's unpaid wages and other damages owed under the Fair Labor Standards Act as a collective action, and the New York Labor Law as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiff alleges the Defendant's failure to pay overtime wages, failure to issue wage notices, and failure to furnish wage statements/pay stubs. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a general worker from January 2023 until August 2023. He was classified by the Defendant as a W-2 employee and paid on an hourly basis. Based in Albany, New York, Haitech Works LLC is an enterprise engaged in the operation of an institution primarily engaged in the construction business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel I. Schlade, Esq. JUSTICIA LABORAL, LLC 6232 N. Pulaski, #300 Chicago, IL 60646 Telephone: (773) 550-3775 E-mail: dschlade@justicialaboral.com HOME DEPOT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Muia Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------- ANTHONY MUIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-05912 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 23, 2024) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Muia was employed by the Defendant as a sales specialist. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. operates home improvement retail stores. The Company offers building materials, home improvement, lawn, garden, kitchen, lighting, storage, and flooring design products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alex Rissmiller, Esq. RISSMILLER PLLC 5 Pennsylvania Plaza, 19th Floor New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (646) 664-1412 Email: arissmiller@rissmiller.com INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Faces Securities Suit in Connecticut --------------------------------------------------------- Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. (IB Group) 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 December 18, 2015, a former individual customer filed a purported class action complaint against IB LLC, IBG, Inc., and Thomas Frank, Ph.D., the company's Executive Vice President and Chief Information Officer, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. The complaint alleges that a purported class of IB LLC's customers were harmed by alleged "flaws" in the computerized system used to close out (i.e., liquidate) positions in customer brokerage accounts that have margin deficiencies. The complaint seeks, among other things, undefined compensatory damages and declaratory and injunctive relief. On September 28, 2016, the District Court issued an order granting the company's motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety, without leave to amend. On September 28, 2017, the plaintiff appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On September 26, 2018, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff's claims of breach of contract and commercially unreasonable liquidation but vacated and remanded back to the District Court plaintiff’s claims for negligence. The company's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's subsequent second amended complaint was denied on September 30, 2019. On July 14, 2022, after obtaining leave to amend his complaint, the plaintiff filed a third amended complaint. The Company’s answer and counterclaim were filed on July 26, 2022. On August 25, 2023, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for class certification, certifying a class that consists of IB LLC account holders who are U.S. residents (with some exclusions) who had positions liquidated from December 18, 2013, to the date of trial at prices outside of a "pricing corridor" defined in the court's decision. On September 8, 2023, the Company filed a petition for permission to appeal the District Court's class certification decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which denied the company's petition on December 19, 2023. The company continues to believe that a purported class action is inappropriate given the great differences in portfolios, markets, and many other circumstances surrounding the liquidation of any particular customer's margin-deficient account. Under a District Court scheduling order, the trial is tentatively scheduled to commence in 2025. IB LLC and the related defendants continue to believe that the plaintiff’s claims are deficient and intend to continue to defend themselves vigorously and, consistent with past practice, may pursue any potential claims for counsel fees and expenses incurred in defending the case. Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. is a Delaware holding company. JASPER WELLER: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Moranz Alleges -------------------------------------------------------- WALTER MORANZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JASPER WELLER, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-01564 (D. Nev., Aug. 23, 2024) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Moranz was employed by the Defendant as a staff. Jasper Weller, LLC engages in the business of selling and/or repairing trucks or their components. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leon Greenberg, Esq. Ruthann Devereaux-Gonzalez, Esq. LEON GREENBERG PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 1811 South Rainbow Blvd- Suite 210 Las Vegas, NV 89146 Telephone: (702) 383-6085 Facsimile: (702) 385-1827(fax) Email: leongreenberg@overtimelaw.com JERICO PICTURES: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Jenkins Says ------------------------------------------------------------- NINA JENKINS, and LINDA McMILION, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JERICO PICTURES, INC., d/b/a NATIONAL PUBLIC DATA, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00388-MCR-HTC (N.D. Fla., August 23, 2024) seeks to remedy the harms caused to Plaintiff and all similarly situated individuals whose personally identifiable information was accessed during a data breach. According to the complaint, the Defendant collects and sells access to personal data for use in background checks, private investigations, mobile applications, and by data resellers. In April 2024, a cybercriminal called "USDoD" claimed to have access to almost 2.7 billion records of personal information that was obtained from National Public Data databases and subsequently leaked the data on a hacking forum. To date, the Defendant has failed to send data breach notice letters to individuals who were affected by the data breach discussing the details of the root cause of the incident, says the suit. The Plaintiffs allege that the data breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to implement reasonable safeguards to protect PII from a foreseeable and preventable risk of unauthorized disclosure. Had Defendant implemented administrative, technical, and physical controls consistent with industry standards and best practices, it could have prevented the data breach, the Plaintiffs contend. Jerico Pictures, Inc., d/b/a National Public Data, is a studio that provides consultancy services for production of film and television content.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq. D. Nicole Guntner, Esq. AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC 17 E. Main Street, Suite 200 Pensacola, FL 32502 Telephone: (850) 202-1010 E-mail: baylstock@awkolaw.com nguntner@awkolaw.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Seeks Dismissal of Talcum Powder Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Irvin Jackson, writing for About Lawsuits, reports that Johnson & Johnson is asking a federal judge to dismiss class action claims that seek to force the company to pay for medical monitoring of former talcum powder users, who now face an increased risk of ovarian cancer and mesothelioma. The talcum powder medical monitoring lawsuits are just one facet of the litigation Johnson & Johnson faces for failing to warn about the presence of asbestos particles in its talc-based powders, which have been found to increase the risk of ovarian cancer among adult women who apply it around their genitals, and mesothelioma for individuals who breathe in the fibers. The company currently faces tens of thousands of Baby Powder lawsuits and Shower-to-Shower lawsuits, most of which involve claims brought by former users already diagnosed with cancer. However, a recently filed lawsuit seeks to force the company to cover the costs associated with medical monitoring for future cancers that may develop. Motion to Dismiss Talcum Powder Medical Monitoring Lawsuit The complaint was filed in June, by a group of individuals who indicate that they now live in fear of a cancer diagnosis due to their past use of talcum powder products, indicating that Johnson & Johnson was aware of this risk for decades, but failed to take action or warn consumers. Plaintiffs seek class action status to pursue damages for all former users of talcum powder products, and to require the manufacturer and its subsidiaries to cover the costs associated with regular medical examinations, in hopes of detecting the development of cancer from Johnson's talcum powder products as early as possible. The lawsuit followed a report published in May in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, which found that genital talcum powder use was linked to a 17% increased risk of ovarian cancer. On August 21, Johnson & Johnson responded with a notice of motion, indicating that the company is seeking to dismiss the medical monitoring class allegations. In a memorandum supporting the motion, Johnson & Johnson argues that the class action lawsuit asks the company to do the impossible, by covering "not only everyone who currently has ovarian cancer, but also everyone who ever used Defendants' talc products and may develop cancer in the future." "The reason no one has done this over the past decade is because it is plainly not possible," the memorandum states. "And a class like the one Plaintiffs proposed is particularly impossible where the Court would have to apply the differing laws of all 50 states." The company claims that some of the plaintiffs who filed the class action lawsuit come from states where medical monitoring lawsuits are banned. Those states who have not banned these types of lawsuits have widely varying criteria for what claims can be class certified, the memorandum argues. Johnson & Johnson's attorneys have asked the Court to schedule future oral arguments over the motion. August 2024 Johnson & Johnson Talcum Powder Settlement Update Johnson & Johnson has already been hit with billions in judgments from claims brought by former users diagnosed with ovarian cancer or mesothelioma. However, instead of attempting to negotiate settlements to potentially resolve claims individually, the company has made two failed attempts to force the litigation into the U.S. bankruptcy system, by transferring all liability it owes for failing to warn about the link between talc and cancer into a new subsidiary, which then promptly filed for bankruptcy. Federal judges have rejected both of these efforts, noting that the parent company, Johnson & Johnson, faces no real financial distress from the litigation, and has sufficient assets to settle the claims. However, Johnson & Johnson proposed a third bankruptcy attempt in May, including a $6.5 billion settlement to resolve all current and future Baby Powder lawsuits involving women diagnosed with ovarian cancer. More than 75% of plaintiffs have reportedly signed off on the deal in a recent secret talcum powder settlement vote, but the company continues to face fierce opposition from several plaintiffs who maintain that the amount of the offer is insufficient to resolve the company's liability for withholding information about the cancer risks for decades. [GN] LABCORP HOLDINGS: Faces Nolan Suit in NC Court ---------------------------------------------- Labcorp Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2024, that on April 10, 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued an order affirming in part, reversing in part, and remanding a putative class action lawsuit, "Nathaniel J. Nolan, et al. v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings," to the District Court for further proceedings. On December 29, 2021, the company was sued in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. The complaint alleges that the company's patient acknowledgement of estimated financial responsibility form is misleading. The lawsuit seeks a declaratory judgment under the consumer protection laws of Nevada and Florida that the form is materially misleading and deceptive, an injunction barring the use of the form, damages on behalf of an alleged class, and attorney's fees and expenses. On February 28, 2022, the company filed a Motion to Dismiss all claims. On February 13, 2023, the court entered an order granting the company's Motion to Dismiss. On March 13, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal. Labcorp(R) Holdings Inc. is into comprehensive laboratory services for doctors, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, researchers, and patients, mainly diagnostics and drug development capabilities. LIFEPOINT HEALTH: Caregivers at Olympia Hospital Gets Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Annette Cary, writing for The Bellingham Herald, reports that nurses and other workers caring for patients at Capital Medical Center in Olympia and two hospitals in the Tri-Cities have been awarded a total of $4.4 million in a class and collective action settlement after saying they often had to work or be on call during unpaid meal breaks. The settlement approved Friday, August 23, in Eastern Washington District U.S. Court covers workers at Trios Health in Kennewick, Trios Physicians in Kennewick and Lourdes Health in Pasco. It also includes Columbia Capital Medical Center in Olympia, which had the same owner, LifePoint Health, until Multicare purchased Capital Medical Center in 2021. The settlement also includes workers' attorney fees and costs of just over $1.2 million, which was less than requested, and some other costs, including $24,000 to a settlement administrator and $15,000 to compensate the efforts of the lead plaintiff in the case, Myla Kurtz. The $4.4 million will be paid to about 1,966 hourly workers who provided direct patient care, including registered nurses, licensed practical nurses and nursing assistants, according to the proposal submitted to U.S. Judge Mary Dimke. The average net payment is estimated at $1,732 and the highest estimated payment could be about $7,165, according to the settlement as proposed. The amount per worker is based largely on weeks worked starting in April 2016 through early September 2023 for Tri-Cities workers and through March 2021 for the Olympia workers. The lawsuit filed in 2019 said that nursing staff assigned to patient care were not permitted to take 30-minute uninterrupted meal periods or 10-minute rest breaks due to the demands of their jobs during most of their shifts. "In the rare instances where they attempt a meal period or rest break, they remain on duty in that they are required to respond to calls from patients, doctors, patients' families, other nursing staff and hospital staff, attend to the normal demands of the job, and otherwise respond to emergencies," the lawsuit said. Hospitals and clinics encouraged interruptions to meal periods and rest breaks by requiring them to carry a device at all times to receive calls and requests from patients and hospital workers, and they were required to respond to any calls they received, according to the lawsuit. Rest breaks are required by Washington state law, and workers were not paid for the 30-minute meal break that was included in their schedule, according to the lawsuit. Caregivers also performed other work off the clock for which they were not paid either their regularly hourly wages or overtime, according to the lawsuit. The hospitals denied the allegations. [GN] LYFT INC: Azizan Sues to Recover Lost Wages ------------------------------------------- Fazail Azizan, on behalf of himself, and all others similarly situated v. LYFT, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-03820-ML (N.D. Ga., Aug. 28, 2024), is brought to recover lost wages, reimbursement of expenses, and other relief resulting from Lyft's willful decision to misclassify him and other drivers as independent contractors in violation the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Georgia Labor Code, and Georgia's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"). Lyft does not pay Plaintiff and drivers overtime for hours worked over eight in a day or over 40 in a week. Furthermore, although Lyft suffers or permits Plaintiff and drivers to log on to the Lyft App and make himself available to pick up rides, Lyft fails to pay them while they are logged on but not providing a ride. In this way, Lyft fails to pay the minimum wage for all hours actually worked and instead limits his drivers to a piece rate for each ride. Even limiting the calculation of minimum wage to the hours Plaintiff is engaged in providing a ride, Lyft fails to pay him a minimum wage for all hours worked, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a driver for Defendant. Lyft is an App-based transportation provider that has been based in San Francisco, California since 2012.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Macklyn A. Smith, Sr., Esq. ATTORNEY AT LAW Fax: 770-963-0413 Phone: 770 -963-5716 Email: macklynsmithattorney@vahoo.com MAZDA MOTOR OF AMERICA: Cauller Sues Over Engine Defect ------------------------------------------------------- Abraham Jewett of Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Matt Cauller filed a class action lawsuit against Mazda Motor of America Inc. d/b/a Mazda North American Operations and Mazda Motor Corporation. Why: Cauller claims Mazda knowingly sold certain vehicles with a dangerous engine defect. Where: The class action lawsuit was filed in California federal court. A new class action lawsuit alleges that Mazda knowingly exposed the purchasers of hundreds of thousands of vehicles to a dangerous engine defect. Plaintiff Matt Cauller's class action lawsuit claims Mazda failed to disclose that its SKYACTIV-G 2.5T engines equipped in certain of its model year 2018-2021 Mazda6, 2021-2024 Mazda3 and CX-30, 2016-2023 CX-9, 2019-2024 CX-5, and 2022-2024 CX-50 vehicles were defective. Cauller says the alleged engine defect causes the engine to leak coolant, which causes the engine to overheat and leads to "catastrophic engine failure." "Because of the Engine Defect, Mazda's advertising about the safety and dependability of the Class Vehicles is untrue and materially misleading," the Mazda class action says. Cauller wants to represent a class of South Carolina consumers who purchased or leased in the state a class vehicle with a SKYACTIV-G 2.5T engine. Mazda has admitted to the existence of the engine defect via a series of technical service bulletins, yet has failed to warn consumers, extend the vehicles' warranty, or issue a recall, the Mazda class action alleges. "Mazda has long known of the Engine Defect. It has amassed years of research, data, and Engine Defect warranty claims," the Mazda class action claims. Cauller claims Mazda is guilty of unjust enrichment and fraudulent omission and violating South Carolina's Unfair Trade Practices Act and state codes regarding breach of express warranty and breach of implied warranty of merchantability. The plaintiff demands a jury trial and requests declaratory and injunctive relief and an award of actual and statutory damages for himself and all class members. A group of consumers filed a separate class action lawsuit against Mazda earlier this year over claims the automaker sold certain vehicles equipped with defective infotainment systems. The plaintiffs are represented by Timothy G. Blood, Paula R. Brown and Jennifer L. MacPherson of Blood Hurst & O'Reardon, LLP and W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, H. Clay Barnett, III, J. Mitch Williams, Dylan T. Martin and Trent H. Mann of Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, P.C. The Mazda class action lawsuit is Cauller, et al. v. Mazda Motor of America Inc., Case No. 8:24-cv-01807, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. [GN] METHODE ELECTRONICS: Faces Shareholders Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------ A shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against Methode Electronics, Inc. ("Methode" or "the Company") (NYSE: MEI). The lawsuit alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (a) the Company had lost highly skilled and experienced employees during the COVID-19 pandemic necessary to successfully complete the Company's transition from its historic low mix, high volume production model to a high mix, low production model at its Monterrey facility; (b) Methode's attempts to replace its GM center console production with more diversified, specialized products for a wider array of vehicle manufacturers and OEMS, in particular in the EV space, had been plagued by production planning deficiencies, inventory shortages, vendor and supplier problems, and, ultimately, botched execution of the Company's strategic plans; (c) the Company's manufacturing systems at its critical Monterrey facility suffered from a variety of logistical defects, such as improper system coding, shipping errors, erroneous delivery times, deficient quality control systems, and failures to timely and efficiently procure necessary raw materials; (d) Methode had fallen substantially behind on the launch of new EV programs out of its Monterrey facility, preventing the Company from timely receiving revenue from new EV program awards; and (e) as a result of (a)-(d) above, Methode was not on track to achieve the 2023 diluted EPS guidance or the 3-year 6% organic sales CAGR represented to investors and such estimates lacked a reasonable factual basis. If you bought shares of Methode between June 23, 2022 and March 6, 2024, and you suffered a significant loss on that investment, you are encouraged to discuss your legal rights by contacting Corey D. Holzer, Esq. at cholzer@holzerlaw.com, by toll-free telephone at (888) 508-6832 or you may visit the firm's website at www.holzerlaw.com/case/methode-electronics/ to learn more. The deadline to ask the court to be appointed lead plaintiff in the case is October 25, 2024. Holzer & Holzer, LLC, an ISS top rated securities litigation law firm for 2021, 2022, and 2023, dedicates its practice to vigorous representation of shareholders and investors in litigation nationwide, including shareholder class action and derivative litigation. Since its founding in 2000, Holzer & Holzer attorneys have played critical roles in recovering hundreds of millions of dollars for shareholders victimized by fraud and other corporate misconduct. More information about the firm is available through its website, www.holzerlaw.com, and upon request from the firm. Holzer & Holzer, LLC has paid for the dissemination of this promotional communication, and Corey Holzer is the attorney responsible for its content. CONTACT: Corey Holzer, Esq. (888) 508-6832 (toll-free) cholzer@holzerlaw.com [GN] MILWAUKEE, WI: Residents Announce Class-Action Suit Against HACM ---------------------------------------------------------------- On August 28, dozens of HACM residents and Common Ground leaders are announcing a class-action lawsuit (attached) against the Housing Authority of the City of Milwaukee (HACM) for "uninhabitable" living conditions. Working with Barton Cerjak S.C., College Court residents filed a complaint in Milwaukee County Circuit Court against HACM for persistent and rampant bedbugs, asking a court to declare that their rent is subject to the equitable remedy of abatement unless the condition is immediately remediated. This historic lawsuit represents a significant escalation in Common Ground's campaign to reform HACM and marks the first time that Milwaukee public housing residents are suing HACM via class action. In a records request served on HACM, Common Ground discovered that over the past 5 years more than 2,000 work orders were submitted by College Court tenants to address pervasive "pest control" issues. Stacy Ream, one of five plaintiffs, explains: "I've been paying for a bed-bug infested unit that I haven't been able to sleep in for nine months! I've had to stay at my mom's despite paying rent reliably every month." The bugs affect residents physically and psychologically. "I found two dead bed bugs in my ear," shares Carmella Holloway, another complainant. "Earlier this year, I went to the emergency room because I scratched bed bug bites, causing blood to drip down my arms and legs. I haven't gotten a decent night's sleep in months. I never have company over anymore. How is this okay? Most of us are senior citizens and people with disabilities. Yet we pay our rent. Don't evict us, evict the bed bugs!" In the complaint, tenants ask the court to declare that College Court's bedbug infestation "materially affects the health or safety" of each tenant and "substantially affects the use and occupancy of the premises." The tenants further ask the Court to order an abatement remedy pursuant to Wis. Stat. Sec. 704.07(4) if the condition is not immediately rectified. "We have emailed Wilie Hines about this 5 times since March. He didn't even respond to us. . . . No reply. No answer to our request to meet. Nothing. He's hiding from us, and Mayor Johnson is protecting him," says Holloway. "He's left us no choice but to sue," concludes Ream. "See you in court, Willie." "This is yet another systemic failure by Willie Hines, a failure that deeply hurts residents," declares Will Davis, Pastor of Invisible Reality Ministries and member of Common Ground's Strategy Team. "Nothing at HACM will improve until Hines and senior leadership are replaced. HACM's biggest problem is incompetent management--not money or systems. Anyone protecting Hines is partly to blame for residents' suffering." Background context: HACM is the 2nd largest landlord in Milwaukee. It is a legally separate entity from the City. CG went public with our Tenants United campaign in March 2023, with 1,007 people. Since, we have exposed major HACM failures regarding rent, maintenance, and security mismanagement. On August 1, 2024, approximately 200 HACM residents from all across Milwaukee signed a public letter criticizing Mayor Johnson for protecting Willie Hines, questioning whether he was protecting Hines until he could retire with a full pension. College Court has been in the news for poor conditions many times over the past year. See Spectrum News (Aug 2023), FOX6 (Sept 2023), WISN (Feb 2024), Spectrum (Feb 2024), TMJ4 (Apr 2024), Journal Sentinel (Apr 2024), WISN (May 2024), Washington Post (May 2024), Spectrum (June 2024), and WISN (June 2024). The highest-ranking official for public housing at HUD nationally, Richard Monocchio, specifically visited College Court and Locust Court to investigate issues earlier this month. However, HUD announced no specific interventions. Logistics: College Court front lawn, 3334 W Highland Blvd -- street parking Contact: Kevin Solomon Common Ground Associate Organizer (727) 667-6329 [GN] MISTER CAR WASH: Court Approves Settlement in Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Mister Car Wash, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2023, that after undergoing mediation in October 2023, the parties in a purported class action lawsuit in the Stanislaus County Superior Court, California, on behalf of all non-exempt employees employed by its subsidiary Prime Shine LLC reached a consensus to resolve the lawsuit. The court entered final approval of the class action settlement on July 19, 2024. This agreement is contingent upon the formalization through a written settlement document and subsequent approval from the California Department of Labor and the court. Should all these conditions be met, the class action lawsuit will be considered settled. On February 14, 2023, a plaintiff filed a purported class action lawsuit in the Stanislaus County Superior Court, California, on behalf of all non-exempt employees employed by Prime Shine LLC in California any time between February 14, 2019, and the present, against Prime Shine, LLC and Does 1–20 inclusive. Plaintiff alleges eight claims for violations of the California Labor Code and one claim for violation of the California Business & Professions Code. On June 13, 2023, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint to add a claim for penalties pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act and seeks, among other things, an unspecified amount for unpaid wages, actual, consequential, and incidental losses, penalties and attorneys' fees and costs. Mister Car Wash, Inc. is a provider of conveyorized car wash services. As of September 30, 2023, it operated 462 car washes in 21 states. MONDELEZ GLOBAL: Faces Nabisco Whole Wheat Class Action Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Jessy Edwards, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that a New York woman sued Mondelez. Why: The plaintiff claims the company falsely markets Nabisco whole grain crackers. Where: The Nabisco whole wheat class action lawsuit was filed in a New York federal court. A New York woman slapped Mondelez with a class action lawsuit alleging it misled consumers into believing Nabisco Whole Grain Premium Saltine Crackers are predominantly made with whole grain flour when they are not. Plaintiff Edna Norment Ransom filed the class action lawsuit against Nabisco parent company Mondelez Global LLC Aug. 16 in a New York federal court. The lawsuit claims the company's branding of Nabisco Whole Grain Premium Saltine Crackers is deceptive and violates both state and federal consumer laws. It alleges Nabisco's packaging prominently features the term "whole grain" to induce health-conscious consumers to purchase a product they believe is primarily made from whole grain flour. However, according to the lawsuit, the main flour ingredient in the crackers is actually non-whole grain enriched wheat flour, which contradicts the branding and label. Ransom says she bought the product from a local Walmart in March 2024, paying approximately $3.70. She claims she relied on the "whole grain" claim displayed on the front of the package and believed the crackers were made predominantly from whole grain flour. When she discovered that the crackers were mostly composed of enriched wheat flour instead, she felt she had been "deceived and overcharged," the lawsuit states. The class action also highlights the growing concern among consumers about misleading food labeling, particularly when it comes to whole grain claims. The Food and Drug Administration and Federal Trade Commission noted unqualified whole grain claims can easily confuse consumers, leading them to believe products with a mix of whole and refined grains are mostly made from whole grains, the Nabisco class action lawsuit states. It points to a recent study showing nearly half of the respondents mistakenly believed bread labeled with a whole grain claim was healthier than bread where whole grain was the primary ingredient, which it claims further underscores the confusion caused by such marketing tactics. Ransom seeks to represent anyone in the United States who bought the crackers under the same mistaken belief. She's suing for violations of New York General Business Law and seeking certification of the class action, damages, fees, costs and a jury trial. In related news, a consumer hit Kellogg's with a class action lawsuit alleging Harvest Wheat Toasteds crackers contain a smaller amount of whole grain than what the company represents on its packaging. The Nabisco whole wheat class action lawsuit is Edna Norment Ransom v. Mondelez Global LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-06216, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. [GN] MOVE INC: Agents Sue Over Fake Lead Generation Products ------------------------------------------------------- AJ LaTrace, writing for Real Estate News, reports that a group of real estate agents filed a class action lawsuit late last week against Realtor.com parent company Move, Inc. and the National Association of Realtors that centers around Move's lead generation products. Specifically, the plaintiffs allege in the complaint that Move participated in "unlawfully bundling" low quality or "fake" leads and then sold them to agents. They also claim that NAR was complicit due to its association with the other defendants. The plaintiffs -- eight agents from the states of Nevada, California, Washington, Florida, New York and Georgia -- are seeking to open the class up to agents nationwide who have purchased leads from Move over the last four years. The suit was filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court where Move is headquartered, and also names News Corp, which owns Move, along with subsidiaries Move Sales and OpCity. Agents take issue with 'fake' leads: In the complaint, attorneys for the plaintiffs allege that a significant number of Move's leads were not properly vetted or even leads at all, but rather information that the company farmed from individuals "who have no interest in purchasing real estate." "In many cases, Defendants knew they could not verify that the personally identifying information sold to Plaintiffs is even legitimate or truly associated with an actual, living human being," the complaint reads. "Defendants failed and refused to take any action to vet, legitimize and/or confirm the identity of these so-called 'leads' and deliberately sold fake and false leads along with other leads which ranged from highly questionable to legitimate." Plaintiffs also took issue with qualifiers such as "exclusive" leads, which they allege were sold to other agents, arguing that upward of half of the leads that plaintiffs purchased through Move brands were "fake" leads. Why NAR is listed as a defendant: The plaintiffs also named the National Association of Realtors in the suit. While Move and Realtor.com operate independently of NAR, the plaintiffs accuse NAR of providing cover for Move through its relationship in licensing the Realtor branding. "NAR is (and at all times was) independently and intimately aware of the scheme and complicit therein through NAR's relationship with and reliance upon the other defendants to build its membership ranks," the complaint reads. "NAR allows and contributes to its affiliation with its co-defendants to act as a broad endorsement of the conduct alleged herein so that the Plaintiffs and each member of the prospective class trusted and relied upon NAR's affiliation with the other Defendants." In a statement to Real Estate News, an NAR spokesperson offered this response: "NAR does not own or operate Move, Inc. We will address these false allegations in court." A Realtor.com spokesperson also denied the allegations: "We don't intend to comment on pending litigation and will vigorously defend ourselves against all claims contained in the lawsuit." Who the lawsuit affects: The plaintiffs allege that the "unlawful conduct" is "so widespread that it has caused harm to the goodwill of each prospective class member and the residential real estate agency (and brokerage) business as a whole." Additionally, the plaintiffs are asking to open the class to "all real estate agents within the United States" who purchased "fake leads" from Move in the last four years. Neither representatives from Move nor from the plaintiffs' legal counsel were immediately available for comment. Other litigation: Move has made headlines as a party in another recent suit, but as a plaintiff. The company is suing CoStar for alleged theft of trade secrets (something CoStar CEO Andy Florance referred to as "laughable.") Meanwhile, NAR has been hit with two lawsuits from within the industry in recent weeks, one filed by agents challenging mandatory membership rules, and another filed by flat-fee brokerage Homie alleging anticompetitive practices and steering. [GN] MOVE INC: Bandy Files Suit Over Fraudulent Lead Generation Services ------------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES BANDY; JUAN CARLOS CARRERA, BRYAN CASTRO; MICHAEL ECHTERNKAMP; KAMESHA SYLVESTER HAMILTON; MARIA HARDY; NIDIA SANCHEZ and CLIFF WOODHALL; each individually and on behalf of all other similarly-situated, Plaintiffs v. MOVE, INC.; MOVE SALES, INC.; NEWS CORPORATION; NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS; OPCITY ACQUISITION, LLC; OPCITY, INC. and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 24STCV21494 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., August 23, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for fraudulent inducement, breach of oral contract, breach of implied covenant, fraud, conversion, violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act and engagement in unfair business practices. According to the complaint, each Plaintiff is an individual who is a licensed real estate agent and was fraudulently induced by Defendants to purchase so-called "lead generation" services from the Defendants under various brands owned and operated jointly and severally by each of the Defendants and to the collective, mutual benefit of said Defendants. In each instance of each transaction, each Plaintiff paid monies to Defendants based upon each of the oral agreements and complied with the terms thereof in good faith. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Defendants proceeded with the scheme and sold 40%-50% or more fake leads within each and every transaction related to the Leads and the Lead Generation Business products to each Plaintiff. The Defendants, and each of them, engaged in a civil conspiracy to deprive Plaintiffs and other similarly-situated real estate agents and/or brokers of their rights and to cause Plaintiffs and such other similarly-situated real estate agents and/or brokers injury, harm and damages, says the suit. Move, Inc. is a real estate listing company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael S. Traylor, Esq. TRAYLOR LAW OFFICE, PC 8601 Lincoln Blvd. 180, Suite 525 Los Angeles, CA 90045 Telephone: (310) 401-6610 E-mail: traylorlawoffice@gmail.com MUNICIPAL PARKING: Nelson Suit Transferred to N.D. Florida ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Christopher Peggy A. Nelson, Christopher Williams, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. MUNICIPAL PARKING SERVICES INC, Case No. 2:24-cv-00913 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida on Aug. 28, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-00396-TKW-ZCB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights for Personal Injury. Municipal Parking Services -- https://municipalparkingservices.com/ -- provides EcoSmart parking solutions that address the needs of multiple constituents.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Austin Brock Whitten, Esq. Jonathan Stephen Mann, Esq. PITTMAN DUTTON HELLUMS ET AL PC - BIRMINGHAM AL 2001 Park Place North, Suite 1100 Birmingham, AL 35203 Phone: (205) 322-8880 Fax: (205) 328-2711 Email: austinw@pittmandutton.com jonm@pittmandutton.com The Defendant is represented by: Charles A. Stewart, III, Esq. BRADLEY ARANT BOULT ETC LLP - MONTGOMERY AL 445 Dexter Ave., Suite 9075 Montgomery, AL 36104 Phone: (334) 956-7700 Email: cstewart@bradley.com NIKOLA CORPORATION: Can File Certain Documents Under Seal --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Daniel Borteanu, v. Nikola Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-01797-SPL (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Steven Logan entered an order granting the Defendants' Motion to Seal. The Clerk of Court is directed to file Defendants' lodged Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Class Certification and Motion to Exclude the Opinions and Proposed Testimony of Zachary Nye under seal. Nikola Corporation is an American manufacturer of heavy-duty commercial battery-electric vehicles, fuel-cell electric vehicles, and energy solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 21, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=G5crkh at no extra charge.[CC] NIO INC: Rosen Law Announces Pendency of Securities Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. announces that the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York has approved the following announcement of a pending class action that may affect the rights of certain purchasers of American Depositary Shares of NIO, Inc. (NYSE: NIO): SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION This Notice May Affect Your Rights. Please Read It Carefully. This Notice was authorized by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. To Members of the Following Class: (1) All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") of NIO Inc. ("NIO") pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with NIO's September 12, 2018 Initial Public Offering ("IPO"); and (2) all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired NIO ADSs during the period from October 8, 2018 to March 5, 2019, both dates inclusive.1 YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, that the above-captioned litigation (the "Action") has been certified as a class action. In the Action, Class Representatives allege that Defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing false and misleading statements concerning the construction of NIO's manufacturing facility in Shanghai, China. Defendants have denied and continue to deny that they violated any federal securities laws. At this time, there is no judgment, settlement, or monetary recovery. The Court has not yet set a trial date. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THIS ACTION. This is only a summary of matters regarding the litigation. A detailed notice (the "Notice") describing the litigation and the rights of potential class members, including procedures for participating or seeking exclusion, has been mailed to potential class members whose contact information is already known. You may download the notice from the Notice Administrator's website, www.NIOSecuritiesLitigation.com. You may also obtain a copy of the more detailed notice by contacting the Notice Administrator by mail, email, or telephone as follows: NIO Inc. Securities Litigation c/o Strategic Claims Services P.O. Box 230 600 N. Jackson St., Ste. 205 Media, PA 19063 Tel: (866) 274-4004 Fax: (610) 565-7985 info@strategicclaims.net 1 Excluded from the Class are (a) persons and entities who suffered no compensable losses; and (b) Defendants, the present and former officers and directors of NIO, members of such excluded persons' immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns, and any entity in which any of the Defendants, or any person excluded under this subsection (b), has or had a majority ownership interest at any time. Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, may be made to Class Counsel: THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. Laurence Rosen Yu Shi 275 Madison Ave, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 THIS NOTICE IS NOT AN EXPRESSION OF ANY OPINION BY THE COURT AS TO THE MERITS OF ANY CLAIMS OR DEFENSES ASSERTED BY EITHER SIDE IN THIS CASE. THE SOLE PURPOSE OF THIS NOTICE IS TO INFORM YOU OF THE LAWSUIT SO THAT YOU CAN MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION AS TO WHETHER YOU SHOULD REMAIN IN OR OPT OUT OF THIS CLASS ACTION. If you are a Class Member, you have the right to decide whether to remain a member of the Class. If you choose to remain a member of the Class, you do not need to do anything at this time other than to retain your documentation reflecting your transactions and holdings in NIO ADSs. You will be represented by Class Counsel and the Class Representatives appointed by the Court. You will also have the right to appear by your own counsel at your own expense. Regardless of whether you appear by your own counsel, if you are a Class Member and do not exclude yourself from the Class, you will be bound by the proceedings in this Action, including all orders and judgments of the Court, whether favorable or unfavorable. If you ask to be excluded from the Class, you will not be bound by any order or judgment of this Court, and you will not be eligible to receive a share of any money which might be recovered for the benefit of the Class. To exclude yourself from the Class, you must submit a written request for exclusion postmarked no later than October 15, 2024 to the Notice Administrator in accordance with the instructions set forth in the full, more detailed Notice. To ensure that you receive all future notices in this Action, you are requested to register your name and contact information with the Notice Administrator at www.NIOSecuritiesLitigation.com. If the Notice Administrator does not have your correct address, you may not receive any future notices that may be disseminated in this Action. You do not need to register if you are excluding yourself from the Class. DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING THIS NOTICE. Dated: July 19, 2024 BY ORDER OF THE COURT: United States District Court For the Eastern District of New York [GN] NORTHEAST WORK: Class Cert Bid Deadline Amended to April 15, 2025 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Obermeier v. Northeast Work & Safety Boats, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00046 (D. Conn., Filed Jan. 11, 2023), the Hon. Judge Sarala V. Nagala entered an order amending the Scheduling Order as follows: -- Plaintiff shall submit an updated damages Nov. 13, 2024 analysis by: -- Fact discovery shall be completed by: Jan. 14, 2025 -- The second joint status report, due: Jan. 21, 2025 -- The deadline for Plaintiff to move for April 15, 2025 Rule 23 class certification, and for Defendants to move to decertify the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective, is: The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Northeast Work provides rescue, inspection work boats and work platforms and barges.[CC] NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Jennings Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled JELANI J. JENNINGS, an individual, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation; GARY STANKOVICH, an individual; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 24STCV15966, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on August 23, 2024. In his complaint, the Plaintiff alleges 10 causes of action against Defendant: (1) failure to pay overtime wages; (2) failure to pay minimum wages; (3) failure to provide meal periods; (4) failure to provide rest periods; (5) failure to pay all wages due upon termination; (6) failure to provide accurate wage statements; (7) failure to timely pay wages during employment; (8) failure to indemnify; (9) violation of Labor Code Section 227.3; and (10) unfair competition. Northrop Grumman Corporation is an American multinational aerospace and defense company.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Jesse A. Cripps, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 229-7000 Facsimile: (213) 229-7520 E-mail: JCripps@gibsondunn.com - and - Matthew T. Sessions, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 3161 Michelson Drive Irvine, CA 92612-4412 Telephone: (949) 451-3800 Facsimile: (949) 451-4220 E-mail: MSessions@gibsondunn.com OAK STREET: McCrae Suit Seeks Class Certification ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAHARI MCCRAE, on behalf of herself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class, v. OAK STREET HEALTH, INC. and OAK STREET HEALTH MSO, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-01670-JPO-KHP (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for 23(b)(2) class certification, declaratory relief, and notice to class. Oak Street is a health care network of primary care centers for older adults with Medicare. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 20, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AJSf3u at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 OKLAHOMA: Mental Health Class Settlement Faces Pushback ------------------------------------------------------- Barbara Hoberock of Oklahoma Voice reports that efforts to settle a class action lawsuit against the state appear to have hit a brick wall. The Contingency Review Board on Wednesday voted 2-0 to send the federal judge overseeing the case a letter outlining concerns about a potential settlement agreement between the Oklahoma Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services and plaintiffs. The civil rights class action lawsuit alleges the state agency is violating the due process rights of mostly indigent defendants declared incompetent to stand trial and being held in county jails. The suit alleged the state was failing to provide timely court-ordered competency restoration treatment to defendants, who in some cases, had been waiting for many months while their criminal cases remained on hold. Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond, who is representing the mental health department, skipped the meeting, telling Gov. Kevin Stitt, who chairs the panel, that the meeting was premature because no consent decree has been approved to settle the case. "Your zeal to proceed out of order strikes me as more political theater than clear-eyed leadership," Drummond wrote. "My objective is to support victims of crime, not to provide cover for a state agency that has failed to do its job for the last six years." He said that the settlement agreement his office has negotiated with the plaintiffs would save the state "many millions of dollars" and "deliver long-delayed justice for crime victims while ensuring due process." The settlement of certain cases requires the approval of the Contingency Review Board when lawmakers are not in session. The bulk of the meeting consisted of Gov. Kevin Stitt posing questions to mental health Commissioner Allie Friesen. Friesen said she told Drummond multiple times that she would not agree to the consent decree as drafted. She said the decree removes her ability to help those in a jail-based setting. "I cannot and will not agree to withholding services from those that are suffering," she said. The document removes the ability of clinicians and experts to drive evidence-based care and places those decisions in the hands of attorneys, she said. "It positions the department for immediate violation of court orders to provide competency restoration services to those in need, and puts the state on a conveyor belt of endless fines and contempt citations that will result in additional financial burdens," Friesen said. It removes her authority to authorize when individuals should be moved to the Oklahoma Forensic Center in Vinita, she said. The agency has restored 216 people back to competency since January 2023 through jail-based competency restoration programs, she said. The decree could cost taxpayers about $142 million, she said, adding that it would impact the agency’s ability to provide other services. Under questioning from House Speaker Charles McCall, R-Atoka, Friesen said the proposal is similar to the Pinnacle Plan, implemented after a class action lawsuit challenging how the state treated children in foster care. She said it has the same attorneys, a similar structure and no reasonable timeframe to end. Stitt said the state has spent more than $400 million on the Pinnacle Plan, including $18 million on consultants. Friesen said the concerns can be solved without the settlement agreement. [GN] OPINION EVEREST: Court Dismisses Adkins Suit -------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANGELA ADKINS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, V. OPINION EVEREST GLOBAL SERVICES, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-00004-RK-JBD (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Robert Kirsch entered an order granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss. The Plaintiff may file a Second Amended Complaint within 30 days, which addresses the deficiencies identified by the Court. Failure to file an amended pleading within 30 days will result in dismissal with prejudice. An appropriate Order will accompany this opinion. The Plaintiff, however, fails to identify any specific contracts, or even the parties with whom Defendant entered these contracts. Nor does the Plaintiff clarify the explicit provisions of the alleged contracts that demonstrate these contracts were made with the intent to benefit Plaintiff—the "key" to a third-party beneficiary breach of contract claim. These "conclusory" and "threadbare" assertions cannot carry Plaintiffs burden to allege this claim. Aside from failing to demonstrate the intent of the contract, the Plaintiff fails to allege the existence, let alone the breach, of any agreements between Defendant and a third-party. Without such factual allegations, the Court cannot determine in the first place whether there was a breach of a contract to support a third-party beneficiary claim. Therefore, the Court grants Defendant's Motion as to the third-party beneficiary breach of contract claim and dismisses this claim without prejudice The Plaintiff brings this purported class action arising from a 2022 data breach. The Plaintiff alleges that Everest is an insurance and reinsurance provider, and that in the ordinary course of their services, Everest maintains personally identifiable information ("PII") of its customers, including names. Social Security numbers ("SSN"), dates of birth, financial information, and medical information. A copy of the Court's opinion dated Aug. 21, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Eaf1bz at no extra charge.[CC] OPPFI INC: Continues to Defend Breach of Fiduciary Duties Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- OppFi 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 breach of fiduciary duties class suit in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. On July 20, 2023, a stockholder filed a putative class action complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (Case No. 2023-0737) on behalf of a purported class of Company stockholders naming certain of FGNA's former directors and officers and its controlling stockholder, FG New America Investors, LLC (the "Sponsor"), as defendants. The lawsuit alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the stockholders of FGNA stemming from FGNA's merger with OppFi-LLC and that the defendants were unjustly enriched. The lawsuit seeks, among other relief, unspecified damages, redemption rights, and attorneys' fees. Neither the Company nor any of the Company's current officers or directors are parties to the lawsuit. The Company is obligated to indemnify certain of the defendants in the action. The Company has tendered defense of this action under its directors' and officers' insurance policy. Due to the early stage of this case, neither the likelihood that a loss, if any, will be realized, nor an estimate of the possible loss or range of loss, if any, can be determined. OppFi Inc., formerly FG New America Acquisition Corp. (FGNA), collectively with its subsidiaries, is a mission-driven fintech platform that provided access to credit with digital specialty finance products. PAPA INC: Pardo Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jennifer Pardo and Evangeline Matthews, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Papa, Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-06326-RS (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on Oct. 19, 2024, will move for an order to certify the following class pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23(b)(3): "All individuals who performed work for Defendant in the state of California who were classified as independent contractors from four years prior to the filing of this action, Aug. 12, 2018, to the date of trial." The Plaintiffs further seek to have certified for resolution each of the causes of action alleged in their Third Amended Complaint, including their claims for Defendant's failure to pay minimum wages under California law, Defendant's failure to pay overtime wages under California law, Defendant's failure to provide compliant meal periods and rest breaks, Defendant's failure to pay wages upon separation of employment and within the required time, Defendant's failure to furnish accurate and itemized wage statements, Defendant's failure to reimburse all business expenses, and Defendant's violation of California's Unfair Competition Law. Lastly, the Plaintiffs will move for the Court to appoint Plaintiffs as Class Representatives and Plaintiffs' counsel – Lebe Law, APLC and attorneys Jonathan M. Lebe and Zachary T. Gershman – as Class Counsel under Rule 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiff Pardo worked for Defendant as a Papa Pal in California from December of 2020 until February of 2021. During her time working for the Defendant, the Plaintiff Pardo completed virtual visits with Papa's customers, providing the companionship services that Papa markets to its customers. Papa is an elder care and companionship company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 19, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0v1o55 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jonathan M. Lebe, Esq. Zachary T. Gershman, Esq. LEBE LAW, APLC 777 S. Alameda Street, Second Floor Los Angeles, CA 90021 Telephone: (213) 444-1973 E-mail: Jon@lebelaw.com Zachary@lebelaw.com PERMIAN RESOURCES: Faces Oil Price-Fixing Class Suit in Baltimore ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Scarcella of Reuters reports that the city of Baltimore has hit major U.S. shale oil producers including Hess and Permian Resources with a lawsuit alleging they conspired to curb production, leading to higher prices for gasoline, diesel fuel and heating oil. The proposed class action was filed in New Mexico federal court, where a panel of U.S. judges this month consolidated more than a dozen lawsuits accusing seven shale producers of participating in a price-fixing conspiracy. The lawsuit was the first by any state or municipality in the consolidated litigation. Baltimore's lawsuit, filed by the national plaintiffs firm Berger Montague and other firms, also named Chesapeake Energy, Occidental Petroleum, Diamondback Energy and Pioneer Natural Resources, which is now a subsidiary of Exxon Mobil. The complaint accused the companies of a scheme that artificially inflated the price of crude oil and light petroleum products, in violation of antitrust law. The lawsuit said the alleged conspiracy began in 2017. Hess, Permian Resources, Chesapeake Energy and other defendants did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The defendants have said the plaintiffs' complaints fail to state any claim under antitrust law and should be dismissed. Baltimore and its lawyers also did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Baltimore, a seaport and the largest city in Maryland, purchased petroleum products from a wholesale supplier. The city said it paid higher prices than it should have for gasoline and other products during the alleged conspiracy. "The defendants acted against their economic self-interest by declining to ramp up production in the face of high crude oil prices," the lawsuit said. Baltimore will seek class action status for Maryland and other states that allow monetary damages for claims involving the "indirect" purchase of a product from a defendant. Those states include California, Illinois, Florida, Michigan, New York and North Carolina. The lawsuit estimated a class size of thousands of members. Baltimore is seeking damages of more than $5 million and a court order barring any further price coordination. U.S. District Judge Matthew Garcia in Albuquerque, who was confirmed to the court last year, was selected on Aug. 1 to oversee the multidistrict litigation. Garcia is a former chief of staff to Democratic New Mexico Governor Michelle Grisham. The case is Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Permian Resources Corp et al, U.S. District Court, District of New Mexico, No. 24-cv-842. [GN] PERMIAN RESOURCES: Faces Suit Over Crude Oil Price Monopoly ----------------------------------------------------------- MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PERMIAN RESOURCES CORP. f/k/a CENTENNIAL RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT, INC.; CHESAPEAKE ENERGY CORPORATION; CONTINENTAL RESOURCES INC.; DIAMONDBACK ENERGY, INC.; EOG RESOURCES, INC.; HESS CORPORATION; OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION; PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00842 (D.N.M., Aug. 24, 2024) alleges violation of the Sherman Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants are engaged in the conspiracy to restrict the production of crude oil, being the major U.S. producers of shale oil. The Defendants' conspiracy appears to have begun sometime around 2017 and continues to the present day. The purpose and effect of the conspiracy is to inflate the price of crude oil, which is refined to produce petroleum products. Higher oil prices and higher petroleum product prices are leading and have led to higher profits for U.S. producers of shale oil and fatter financial returns for their Wall Street investors. The inflation in the price of crude oil caused a direct, arithmetic impact on the price of light petroleum products. Crude oil makes up the largest cost of transportation fuels. Increases in crude oil prices will lead Americans to pay higher gasoline and diesel fuel prices at the pump and bear the burden of greater heating oil and jet fuel costs, says the suit. Permian Resources Corporation operates as an oil and gas company. The Company focuses on the development of unconventional oil and associated liquid-rich natural gas reserves in the Permian Basin, as well as offers geology, engineering, and drilling services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian McMath, Esq. Brian Moore, Esq. NACHAWATI LAW GROUP 5489 Blair Road Dallas, TX 75231 Telephone: (214) 890-0711 Email: bmcmath@ntrial.com bmoore@ntrial.com - and - Michael Dell'Angelo, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3080 Email: mdellangelo@bm.net - and - Richard D. Schwartz, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1720 W Division Chicago, IL 60622 Telephone: (773) 257-0255 Email: rschwartz@bm.net - and - Adam Farra, Esq. Times Wang, Esq. FARRA & WANG PLLC 1300 I Street N.W., Suite 400E Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: (202) 505-5990 Facsimile: (202) 505-6227 Email: afarra@farrawang.com twang@farrawang.com PERMIAN RESOURCES: Santillo Suit Transferred to D. New Mexico ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Laurie Olsen Santillo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Permian Resources Corp. formerly known as: Centennial Resource Development, Inc., Chesapeake Energy Corporation, Continental Resources Inc., Diamondback Energy, Inc., EOG Resources, Inc., Hess Corporation, Occidental Petroleum Corporation, Pioneer Natural Resources Company, Case No. 2:24-cv-00279 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico on Aug. 27, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-00856-MLG-LF to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Antitrust. Permian Resources Corporation -- https://permianres.com/ -- is an independent oil and natural gas company, focuses on the development of crude oil and related liquids-rich natural gas reserves in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel O. Herrera, Esq. Jennifer W. Sprengel, Esq. Kaitlin Naughton, Esq. CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP 135 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3210 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 782-4880 Email: dherrera@caffertyclobes.com jsprengel@caffertyclobes.com knaughton@caffertyclobes.com - and - Robert F. Purdy, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ANDREW M. LEAVITT 633 South 7th St. Las Vegas, NV 89101 Phone: (702) 382-2800 Fax: (702) 382-7438 Email: robert.purdy@andrewleavittlaw.com PERMIAN RESOURCES: These Paws Suit Transferred to D. New Mexico --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as These Paws Were Made for Walkin' LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Permian Resources Corp. formerly known as: Centennial Resource Development, Inc., Chesapeake Energy Corporation, Continental Resources Inc., Diamondback Energy, Inc., EOG Resources, Inc., Hess Corporation, Occidental Petroleum Corporation, Pioneer Natural Resources Company, Case No. 2:24-cv-00164 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico on Aug. 27, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-00854-MLG-LF to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Antitrust. Permian Resources Corporation -- https://permianres.com/ -- is an independent oil and natural gas company, focuses on the development of crude oil and related liquids-rich natural gas reserves in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Arielle S. Wagner, Esq. Brian D. Clark, Esq. Kaitlin Naughton, Esq. Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP 100 Washington Avenue S, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: (612) 596-4055 Email: aswagner@locklaw.com bdclark@locklaw.com knaughton@caffertyclobes.com rapeterson@locklaw.com - and - Martin Muckleroy, Esq. 6077 S Fort Apache Rd, Suite 140 Las Vegas, NV 89148 Phone: (702) 909-0097 Fax: (702) 938-4065 Email: martin@muckleroylunt.com - and - Stephen J. Teti, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P. 265 Franklin Street, Ste 1702 Boston, MA 02110 Phone: (617) 456-7701 Fax: (612) 339-0981 Email: sjteti@locklaw.com PERMIAN RESOURCES: Western Cab Suit Transferred to D. New Mexico ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Western Cab Company, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Permian Resources Corp. formerly known as: Centennial Resource Development, Inc., Chesapeake Energy Corporation, Continental Resources Inc., Diamondback Energy, Inc., EOG Resources, Inc., Hess Corporation, Occidental Petroleum Corporation, Pioneer Natural Resources Company, Case No. 2:24-cv-00401 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico on Aug. 27, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-00858-MLG-LF to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Antitrust. Permian Resources Corporation -- https://permianres.com/ -- is an independent oil and natural gas company, focuses on the development of crude oil and related liquids-rich natural gas reserves in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Artemus W. Ham, IV, Esq. Erica Entsminger, Esq. Robert M. Adams, Esq. Robert T. Eglet, Esq. EGLET ADAMS EGLET HAM HENRIOD 400 S. 7th Street, Suite 400 Las Vegas, NV 89101 Phone: (702) 450-5400 Email: aham@egletlaw.com eentsminger@egletlaw.com badams@egletlaw.com reglet@egletlaw.com - and - Brent W. Johnson, Esq. Robert W. Cobbs, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Ave. NW, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202) 408-4600 Email: bjohnson@cohenmilstein.com rcobbs@cohenmilstein.com - and - Michael B. Eisenkraft COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 88 Pine Street, Ste 14th Floor New York, NY 10005 Phone: (212) 838-7797 Fax: (212) 838-7745 Email: meisenkraft@cohenmilstein.com PERRYS RESTAURANTS: Allen Suit Transferred to S.D. Texas -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Michael Allen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Perrys Restaurants LTD doing business as: Perrys Steakhouse and Grille, Christopher V. Perry, individually, Case No. 1:24-cv-00731 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas on Aug. 27, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:24-cv-03197 to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act for Collecting Unpaid Wages. Perry's -- https://perryssteakhouse.com/ -- has redefined dining with an experience that is truly Rare and Well Done.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jamila M. Brinson, Esq. Lionel M. Schooler, Esq. Michael A. Drab, Esq. JACKSON WALKER LLP 1401 McKinney Street, Suite 1900 Houston, TX 77010 Phone: (713) 752-4356 Fax: (713) 308-4112 - and - Matt Dow, Esq. Katharine L. Carmona, Esq. JACKSON WALKER LLP 100 Congress Ave., Ste. 1100 Austin, TX 78701 Phone: (512) 236-2000 PIERCE COUNTY, WA: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due April 10, 2025 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ECHOTA C. WOLFCLAN, v. PIERCE COUNTY, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-05399-TSZ-SKV (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge S. Kate Vaughan entered the discovery and class certification deadlines: Event Date All motions related to discovery must be Feb. 10, 2025 filed by this date and noted for consideration no earlier than 21 days thereafter All discovery must be completed by this date Mar. 10, 2025 Plaintiff's motion for class certification, Apr. 10, 2025 any motions related to other class certification issues, and any motions for summary judgment relating to individual claims or issues must be filed by this date Defendants' opposition to Plaintiff's motion May 12, 2025 for class certification, and any responses to motions related to other class certification issues or to motions for summary judgment relating to individual claims or issues must be filed by this date Plaintiff's reply in support of the motion June 11, 2025 for class certification, and any replies in support of motions related to other class certification issues or to motions for summary judgment relating to individual claims or issues must be filed by this date Pierce County is nestled in southeast Georgia and provides residents and visitors with a beautiful rural atmosphere year-round. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 21, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DV6wor at no extra charge.[CC] PIONEER METAL: Laverenz Conditional Certification Bid Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMANDA LAVERENZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. PIONEER METAL FINISHING, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00692-WCG (E.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge William Griesbach entered an order: -- denying Laverenz' Motion for Conditional Certification and Authorization of Notice to Similarly Situated Persons; and -- granting Pioneer's motion for leave to file a sur-reply brief. In sum, Laverenz has not met her burden. Indeed, the court is satisfied that, even under the more lenient standard that this court has applied in the past, her showing falls short of what is needed to show the similarity required to justify the broad notice she requests. This is not to say the claims themselves are doomed; it simply means she has failed to provide a sufficient basis for the court to facilitate notice to potential plaintiffs. Her motion for conditional certification and notice is, therefore, denied. The Plaintiff Amanda Laverenz brought this action against Defendant Pioneer Metal Finishing, LLC, on behalf of herself and other similarly situated hourly employees whom she claims were not paid their agreed upon wages for all hours worked, including overtime compensation, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and and Wisconsin state law. It was this rounding practice that gave rise to the present lawsuit. One of Pioneer’s hourly employees, Ryan Moore, filed suit on June 15, 2022, alleging the rounding practice deprived him of compensation in violation of the FLSA and Wisconsin wage and hour law. Pioneer is a privately held company headquartered in Green Bay, Wisconsin. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 21, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tZ55f1 at no extra charge.[CC] POINT QUEST INC: Michael Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Point Quest, Inc. The case is styled as Tara Denise Michael, on behalf of others similarly situated v. Point Quest, Inc., Case No. 24CV016886 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Aug. 26, 2024). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Full Steam Staffing -- https://www.fullsteamstaffing.com/ -- is a staffing and temp agency helping you find a job or find talent nationwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas H. Schelly, Esq. 880 Apollo St., Ste. 336 El Segundo, CA 90245-4783 Phone: 310-322-2211 Fax: 310-322-2252 Email: thomas@kallaw.com POINTSBET USA: Court Narrows Claims in Gutman Suit -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIC GUTMAN, RYAN BOYLE, ERIC SPIVACK, KEITH NATHAN, and KYLE JOHNSON, each individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. POINTSBET USA INC., POINTSBET NEW YORK LLC, POINTSBET INDIANA LLC, POINTSBET IOWA LLC, POINTSBET MICHIGAN LLC, POINTSBET NEW JERSEY LLC, POINTSBET COLORADO LLC, POINTSBET ILLINOIS LLC, POINTSBET WEST VIRGINIA LLC, POINTSBET VIRGINIA LLC, and POINTSBET PENNSYLVANIA LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-02137-SKC-SBP (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge S. Kato Crews entered an order adopting in part report and recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge: 1. Plaintiffs' Rule 56(d) Motion is denied; 2. Defendants' MTD is converted to a motion for summary judgment and their Motion for Summary Judgment is granted on all class action claims; and 3. Plaintiff's remaining individual claims are dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(h)(3). A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 21, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SjycmU at no extra charge.[CC] PRO SOURCE LENDING: Shelton Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pro Source Lending Group LLC. The case is styled as James E. Shelton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Pro Source Lending Group LLC doing business as: Fast Fund Group, doing business as: Fast Funds Group, Case No. 2:24-cv-04394-GAM (E.D. Pa., Aug. 22, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Pro Source Lending Group -- https://www.prosourcelg.com/ -- provides business lending services to new and established companies throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Roman Perrong, Esq. PERRONG LAW LLC 2657 Mt. Carmel Ave Glenside, PA 19038 Phone: (215) 225-5529 Fax: (888) 329-0305 Email: a@perronglaw.com PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Plaintiffs Deny Violating Orders in Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Scarcella and David Thomas of Reuters reports that the Law firm Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe and a plaintiffs' lawyer have denied violating court orders in a U.S. legal proceeding over the 2023 breach of Progress Software's MOVEit program that affected hundreds of organizations worldwide. In a court filing on Tuesday, August 27, plaintiffs attorney William Federman said he and Orrick had authority to negotiate a $900,000 settlement in Oklahoma state court that was outside the scope of a related proceeding in federal district court in Massachusetts. Orrick last week in a filing said its settlement negotiations for defendant Paycom Payroll were proper, and urged U.S. District Judge Alison Burroughs in Boston to find that the law firm, one of the country's largest, had not run afoul of case management orders. Oklahoma-based Paycom last year was a victim of the MOVEit-related cyber attack. Federman told Reuters on Wednesday that the opposition from lawyers involved in the Boston litigation amounted to "personal attacks" against him. He defended the Oklahoma settlement as being good for the plaintiffs. Orrick did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Wednesday, and neither did the attorneys who are leading the multidistrict litigation in Boston. The submissions from Orrick and Federman, who is based in Oklahoma, came in response to an Aug. 13 order from Burroughs directing the firm and attorney to explain their actions. The attorneys leading the federal litigation had raised questions about the propriety of the settlement in Oklahoma, prompting Burroughs to investigate. In a filing, the lawyers in Burroughs' court asserted that Orrick and Federman had negotiated a settlement that could unfairly knock out claims in the litigation in Boston. The lawyers in the federal case contend they were not timely told about the negotiations in Oklahoma and that the attorneys there were engaging in "bad-faith procedural gamesmanship." Orrick and Federman countered that the settlement negotiations in Oklahoma began in February, before Burroughs issued a key case management order that is in dispute. Federman's filing accused class counsel of spinning a "false narrative." Orrick told Burroughs that Paycom wants to "put money in the pockets of the individuals whose data was impacted, and move on with business." Burroughs has not yet said what further steps, if any, she will take as part of her review. The case is In Re: MOVEit Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, No. 1:23-md-03083-ADB. [GN] PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Settlement Classes in Verardo Get Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL VERARDO, ET AL., v. PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL., Case No. 1:22-cv-01714-LGS (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lorna Schofield entered an order granting preliminary approval of the following Settlement Classes: -- First Party Class: "All persons who made a first-party claim on a policy of insurance issued by any Progressive Group entity to a New York resident who, from July 28, 2015 through the date of Preliminary Approval, received compensation from one of the Defendants for the total loss of a covered vehicle, where that compensation was based on an Instant Report prepared by Mitchell International, Inc. and the actual cash value was decreased based upon Projected Sold Adjustments to the comparable vehicles used to determine actual cash value." -- Third Party Class: "All persons who made a third-party claim on a policy of insurance issued by any Progressive Group entity to a New York resident who, from July 28, 2018, through the date of Preliminary Approval, received compensation from one of the Defendants for the total loss of a covered vehicle, where that compensation was based on an Instant Report prepared by Mitchell and the actual cash value was decreased based upon Projected Sold Adjustments to the comparable vehicles used to determine actual cash value." Excluded from the Settlement Classes are (1) any judge presiding over this Action and members of their families; (2) Defendants, their subsidiaries, parent companies, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which any Defendant or its parents have a controlling interest and their current or former officers, directors, agents, attorneys, and employees. All persons who are members of the Settlement Classes are referred to collectively as "Settlement Class Members" or individually as a "Settlement Class Member." Deadlines Summary -- Deadline for Defendants to provide updated Sept. 5, 2024 Settlement Class List to Epiq: -- Settlement Notice Date: Oct. 5, 2024 -- Motion for Final Approval and Application Nov. 4, 2024 for Attorneys' Fees, Litigation Expenses, and Service Awards: -- Opt Out Deadline: Nov. 19, 2024 -- Objection Deadline: Nov. 19, 2024 -- Any Reply or Response to Objections: Dec. 3, 2024 Progressive provides personal, automobile, homeowner, boat, renters, business, life, and health insurance services. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 20, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=E7rgbg at no extra charge.[CC] PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Settlement Classes in Volino Get Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DOMINICK VOLINO, ET AL., v. PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL., Case No. 1:21-cv-6243-LGS (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lorna Schofield entered an order granting preliminary approval of the following Settlement Classes: -- First Party Class: "All persons who made a first-party claim on a policy of insurance issued by any Progressive Group entity to a New York resident who, from July 28, 2015 through the date of Preliminary Approval, received compensation from one of the Defendants for the total loss of a covered vehicle, where that compensation was based on an Instant Report prepared by Mitchell International, Inc. and the actual cash value was decreased based upon Projected Sold Adjustments to the comparable vehicles used to determine actual cash value." -- Third Party Class: "All persons who made a third-party claim on a policy of insurance issued by any Progressive Group entity to a New York resident who, from July 28, 2018, through the date of Preliminary Approval, received compensation from one of the Defendants for the total loss of a covered vehicle, where that compensation was based on an Instant Report prepared by Mitchell and the actual cash value was decreased based upon Projected Sold Adjustments to the comparable vehicles used to determine actual cash value." Excluded from the Settlement Classes are (1) any judge presiding over this Action and members of their families; (2) Defendants, their subsidiaries, parent companies, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which any Defendant or its parents have a controlling interest and their current or former officers, directors, agents, attorneys, and employees. All persons who are members of the Settlement Classes are referred to collectively as "Settlement Class Members" or individually as a "Settlement Class Member." Deadlines Summary -- Deadline for Defendants to provide updated Sept. 5, 2024 Settlement Class List to Epiq: -- Settlement Notice Date: Oct. 5, 2024 -- Motion for Final Approval and Application Nov. 4, 2024 for Attorneys' Fees, Litigation Expenses, and Service Awards: -- Opt Out Deadline: Nov. 19, 2024 -- Objection Deadline: Nov. 19, 2024 -- Any Reply or Response to Objections: Dec. 3, 2024 Progressive provides personal, automobile, homeowner, boat, renters, business, life, and health insurance services. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 20, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=exwdYP at no extra charge.[CC] QUANTUM OMEGA: Class Certification Bids in Reich Suit Due Dec. 10 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as REICH BROTHERS INC., v. QUANTUM OMEGA LLC, et al., Case No. 9:24-cv-80764-RLR (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Robin Rosenberg entered an order setting status conference, calendar call, pretrial deadlines, and trial date, order of requirements, order of reference to magistrate judge, and order of reference to mediation. -- Trial, Calendar Call, and Status Conference: May 5, 2025 -- Rule 26(a)(1)(A) Initial Disclosures: Sept. 19, 2024 -- Deadline to designate a mediator and to Sept. 19, 2024 schedule a time, date, and place for mediation: -- Joinder of Additional Parties and Amend Oct. 18, 2024 Pleadings: -- Any motions for class certification shall Dec. 10, 2024 be filed: A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 19, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dTuM4S at no extra charge.[CC] QUANTUM RESIDENTIAL: Dunne Class Settlement Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIMOTHY DUNNE, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated, v. QUANTUM RESIDENTIAL, INC., a Washington for-profit corporation, Case No. 3:23-cv-05535-DGE (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge David Estudillo entered an amended order granting unopposed motion for preliminary approval of settlement and class certification Jury Trial Demanded Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Collective Action Rule 23 Class Action. The Court finds, on a preliminary basis, that Plaintiffs’ Counsel has adequately represented the proposed class of Rule 23 Class Members, which are defined as follows: "All hourly, non-exempt Quantum maintenance workers who worked in Washington at any time between June 14, 2020, and June 14, 2023 ("Washington Class Members"). The Court appoints Michael Josephson of Josephson Dunlap, LLP, Richard "Rex" Burch of Bruckner Burch PLLC, and Michael C. Subit of Frank Freed Subit & Thomas, LLP as Class Counsel. The Court also approves named Plaintiff Timothy Dunne as class representative. The Court appoints the class action settlement administration firm ILYM Group, Inc. as the Settlement Administrator. The Parties and the Settlement Administrator shall have the following deadlines. The Parties may, by mutual written agreement, agree upon a reasonable extension of time for the deadlines in this paragraph, without further notice to the Court: Quantum Residential is an accredited management organization with the institute of real estate management. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 20, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7B9KAX at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and – Michael C. Subit, Esq. FRANK FREED SUBIT & THOMAS LLP 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1200 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 624-6411 E-mail: msubit@frankfreed.com - and – Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com RAYMOND JAMES FINANCIAL: Conran Sues Over Implemented Scheme ------------------------------------------------------------ Toni Conran, individually and as Trustee of the CONRAN FAMILY TRUST, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. RAYMOND JAMES FINANCIAL, INC., RAYMOND JAMES FINANCIAL SERVICES ADVISORS, INC., and RAYMOND JAMES FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-00780 (M.D. Fla., Aug. 25, 2024), is brought concerning a simple ruse: instead of fulfilling its fiduciary duties, contractual obligations, and a regulatory mandate to act only in the best interests of its clients, Defendants implement a scheme whereby they use their clients' cash balances to generate massive profits for themselves while shortchanging their clients. Raymond James, like many financial services companies, offers "cash sweep" programs to its clients. Cash sweep programs figuratively "sweep" clients' cash balances into interest-bearing accounts at a network of banks. Raymond James makes more money when its clients' funds are invested in the Raymond James cash sweep programs rather than in similar cash options and equivalents because Raymond James' cash sweep programs offer unreasonably low interest rates. When clients are in the Raymond James cash sweep programs, Raymond James pays and/or secures interest rates on the client's cash balances that are neither reasonable nor in compliance with its legal duties. The interest rates Raymond James pays to or secures for its clients in the Sweep Programs violate Raymond James' duties to its clients because the rates are not reasonable, which constitutes a breach of Raymond James' fiduciary and contractual duties to its clients and falls below the standard of care set out in Regulation Best Interest. Raymond James' continual sweep of Plaintiff's and the Class members' cash into the Sweep Programs during the entire period in which they held accounts with Raymond James constitutes a continuing wrong and was a continuing breach of Raymond James' duties to Plaintiff and the Class members. Each time Raymond James placed Plaintiff's and the Class members' cash into the Sweep Programs, Raymond James newly injured Plaintiff and the Class members, says the complaint. The Plaintiff maintained a traditional IRA account with Defendant. RJFS is a Florida corporation with its principal place of business within this District and is a registered broker-dealer with the SEC.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Juan P. Bauta, II, Esq. SIMMONS HANLY CONROY LLP One Court Street Alton, IL 62002 Phone: (618) 259-2222 Facsimile (618) 259-2251 Email: jbauta@simmonsfirm.com - and - Thomas I. Sheridan, III, Esq. Sona R. Shah, Esq. SIMMONS HANLY CONROY LLP 112 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 784-6404 Facsimile: (212) 213-5949 Email: tsheridan@simmonsfirm.com sshah@simmonsfirm.com - and - Matthew L. Dameron, Esq. Clinton J. Mann, Esq. WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON LLC 1100 Main Street, Suite 2600 Kansas City, MO 64105 Phone: (816) 945-7110 Facsimile: (816) 945-7118 Email: matt@williamsdirks.com cmann@williamsdirks.com - and - Bruce D. Oakes, Esq. Richard B. Fosher, Esq. OAKES & FOSHER, LLC 1401 Brentwood Boulevard, Suite 250 Saint Louis, MO 63144 Phone: (314) 804-1412 Facsimile: (314) 428-7604 Email: boakes@oakesfosher.com rfosher@oakesfosher.com ROBLOX CORP: Private Mediation in Colvin Extended to Feb. 7, 2025 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RACHELLE COLVIN, individually and as next friend of minor Plaintiff, G.D., DANIELLE SASS, individually and as next friend of minor plaintiff, L.C., DAVID L. GENTRY, individually and as next friend of minor plaintiff, L.G., OSMANY RODRIGUEZ, individually, and as next friend of minor plaintiff, O.R., JOSHUA R. MUNSON, individually and as next friend of minor plaintiffs D.C., J.M., T.T., and R.T, and LAVINA GANN, individually and as next friend of minor plaintiff, S.J., and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ROBLOX CORPORATION, SATOZUKI LIMITED B.V., STUDS ENTERTAINMENT LTD., and RBLXWILD ENTERTAINMENT LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-04146-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria entered an order that the deadline to complete private mediation in the case is extended to Feb. 7, 2025. -- The parties have not previously requested extension of the Aug. 16, 2024 deadline to complete mediation. -- The parties believe that mediation would be more productive with the benefit of the Court's ruling on Roblox Corporation's motion to dismiss, as well as further discovery and expert disclosures pursuant to the Court's case management order. -- Extension of the private mediation deadline would not impact any other deadline in this case. On April 18, 2024, the Court ordered the parties to complete private mediation by Aug. 16, 2024. Notwithstanding that Roblox Corporation filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' Consolidated Class Action Complaint on May 14, 2024, the parties have been participating in discovery and are proceeding toward initial and rebuttal class certification expert disclosure deadlines. Roblox Corporation is an American video game developer. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 19, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QjsRIk at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James J. Bilsborrow, Esq. WEITZ & LUXENBERG, PC 700 Broadway New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 558-5500 E-mail: jbilsborrow@weitzlux.com The Defendants are represented by: Tiana Demas, Esq. Kevin T. Carlson, Esq. Kristine A. Forderer, Esq. Kyle C. Wong, Esq. Robby L.R. Saldaña, Esq. COOLEY LLP 110 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 4200 Chicago, IL 60606-1511 Telephone: (312) 881-6500 Facsimile: (312) 881-6598 E-mail: tdemas@cooley.com ktcarlson@cooley.com kforderer@cooley.com kwong@cooley.com rsaldana@cooley.com ROTO-ROOTER SERVICES: Simpkins Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Roto-Rooter Services Co. The case is styled as Marshawn Kieon Simpkins, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Roto-Rooter Services Co., Case No. 24CV089223 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., Aug. 27, 2024). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Roto-Rooter -- https://www.rotorooter.com/ -- provides fast, reliable plumbing repair, sewer & drain, and water damage cleanup services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Keledjian, Esq. D.LAW, INC. 880 E Broadway Glendale, CA 91205-1218 Phone: 818-962-6465 Fax: 818-962-6469 Email: d.keledjian@d.law RUSHMORE LOAN: O'Brien Class Certification Bid Denied as Moot -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as O'Brien v. Rushmore Loan Management Services, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-01369 (D. Conn., Filed Oct. 18, 2023), the Hon. Judge Michael P. Shea entered an order on motion to certify class. The motion for class certification is denied as moot in light of Plaintiff's notice of withdrawal. The nature of suit states real property – foreclosure -- diversity-fraud. Rushmore is a multi-faceted residential mortgage servicer.[CC] SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Zabransky Must Oppose Dismissal Bid by Sept 19 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Susan Zabransky, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. and SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., Case No. 2:24-cv-02133-EP-MAH (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Evelyn Padin entered an order of the following schedule: The Plaintiffs' Opposition to the Motion will be due Sept. 19, 2024; The Defendant's Reply in further support of the Motion will be due Oct. 11, 2024; and The return date of the Motion will be adjourned to Oct. 21, 2024. Samsung Electronics filed a motion to dismiss the complaint of the Plaintiff on July 26, 2024, with a return date of Aug. 19, 2024. Counsel for Plaintiffs obtained a two-week extension pursuant to L. Civ. R. 7.1(d)(5) so that the current return date is Sept. 3, 2024. Samsung Electronics manufactures electronic products. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 19, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RCrQSM at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Randee M. Matloff, Esq. Bruce H. Nagel, Esq. NAGEL RICE LLP 103 Eisenhower Parkway Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 618-0400 E-mail: rmatloff@nagelrice.com - and - Joseph LoPiccolo, Esq. John N. Poulos, Esq. PEGUERO LUCIANO LAW FIRM 1305 South Roller Road Ocean, NJ 07712 Telephone: (732) 757-0165 E-mail: lopiccolo@pllawfirm.com poulos@pllawfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Stephen Cha-Kim, Esq. ARNOLD & PORTER 250 West 55th Street New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 836-7270 E-mail: stephen.cha-kim@arnoldporter.com SAR GROUP INC: Avila Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Misael Avila, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SAR GROUP INC., SERGIO ARTURO RAYMUNDO, individually, and CESAR DAVID HERNANDEZ, individually, Case No. 1:24-cv-06397 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 23, 2024), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), New York Construction Industry Fair Play Act, Wage Theft Protection Act, and implementing regulations as a result of the Defendants failure to pay proper overtime wages. The Plaintiff routinely worked more than 40 hours per week. Every other workweek, Plaintiff worked six days per week from 7:00 AM to 3:30 PM (i.e., approximately 48 hours per week). As part of their regular business practice, Defendants intentionally, willfully, and repeatedly engaged in a pattern, practice, and/or policy of violating the FLSA with respect to the Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective. This policy and pattern or practice includes, but is not limited to: willfully failing to pay its employees, including Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective, the appropriate premium overtime wages for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek; and willfully failing to record all the time that its employees, including Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective, have worked for the benefit of Defendants, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was ostensibly employed as a drywall installer. SAR GROUP INC is a Domestic Business Corporation organized under the laws of the County of Ulster State of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clifford Tucker, Esq. Oscar Alvarado, Esq. SACCO & FILLAS LLP 31-19 Newtown Ave, Seventh Floor Astoria, NY 11102 Phone: 718-269-2243 Fax: 718-559-6517 Email: CTucker@SaccoFillas.com OAlvarado@SaccoFillas.com SAZERAC COMPANY: Seeks to File Expert Reports Under Seal -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER McKAY, TERRY MYERS, and DAWN OUTLAW, as individuals, on behalf of themselves, the general public, and those similarly situated, v. SAZERAC COMPANY, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-00522-EMC (N.D. Cal.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting administrative motion in connection with Plaintiffs' pending class certification motion, which is set to be heard on Oct. 10, 2024. The Defendant requests that the Court permit it to file under seal portions of its expert reports and declarations submitted in opposition to Plaintiffs' class certification, as well as specific references to those documents contained within Defendant's opposition brief. The Defendant has reviewed and complied with Civil L.R. 79-5. Attached to the Declaration of Creighton R. Magid in Support of Defendant's Administrative Motion to File Materials Under Seal are unredacted versions of the documents Sazerac seeks to be filed under seal, with highlighting indicating the portions of the documents that are subject to this administrative motion. As set forth in the Magid Sealing Dec., the portions of these documents for which Sazerac seeks sealing meet the requirements of Rule 79-5. Sazerac Company is a privately held American alcoholic beverage company. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Aug. 19, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=voQ8qt at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Kent J. Schmidt, Esq. Creighton R. Magid, Esq. DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP 600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 2000 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (714) 800-1400 Facsimile: (714) 800-1499 E-mail: schmidt.kent@dorsey.com magid.chip@dorsey.com SCHINDLER ELEVATOR: Removes Nazar Suit to S.D. of Cal. ------------------------------------------------------ FRED NAZAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SCHINDLER ELEVATOR CORPORATION; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego (Case No. 24CU002451C) to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on Aug. 23, 2024. The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-01498-DMS-SBC. The case is assigned to Judge Dana M. Sabraw and referred to Magistrate Steve B. Chu. Schindler Elevator Corporation manufactures, installs, and services elevators and moving stairways. The Company offers hydraulic and traction elevator systems, machine room-less traction elevators, traction elevator systems, high-speed elevators, and components. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Lynne C. Hermle, Esq. Anjali Prasad Vadillo, Esq. ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 1000 Marsh Road Menlo Park, CA 94025-1015 Telephone: (650) 614-7400 Facsimile: (650) 614-7401 Email: lchermle@orrick.com avadillo@orrick.com - and - Katie E. Briscoe, Esq. ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 400 Capitol Mall, 30th Fl Sacramento, CA 95814-4497 Telephone: (916) 447-9200 Facsimile: (916) 329-4900 Email: kbriscoe@orrick.com - and - Lauren R. Leibovitch, Esq. ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 631 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2C Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 633-2800 Facsimile: (310) 633-3849 Email: lleibovitch@orrick.com SCRATCH FINANCIAL: Conditional Class Cert Filing Due April 18, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALICE SOWDERS, DVM d/b/a FAIRBORN ANIMAL HOSPITAL, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, v. SCRATCH FINANCIAL, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-00056-TMR-PBS (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Thomas Rose entered a preliminary pretrial conference order as follows: 1. Required disclosures under Fed. R. June 6, 2024 Civ. P. 26(a)(1): 2. Cut-off date for motions to amend the Sept. 15, 2024 pleadings and to add parties: 3. Cut-off date for motions directed to Completed the pleadings (including motions to dismiss and motions for judgment on the pleadings): 4. Cut-off date for filing motion for April 18, 2025 conditional class certification: Further, a Telephone Scheduling Conference shall be set upon this Court's ruling of the motion for condition class certification. Scratch Financial provides veterinary payment services. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 20, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dgdlGc at no extra charge.[CC] SELECT REHAB: Discovery in McLaughlin Suit Due August 1, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTINE MCLAUGHLIN, CRYSTAL VANDERVEEN, and JUSTIN LEMBKE, and SCOTT HARDT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, V. SELECT REHABILITATION, LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-00059-HES-MCR (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Harvey Schlesinger entered an order granting the "Joint Proposed Case Management Schedule" as follows: Event Deadline Deadline for refiling any of the stricken Thirty days from the discovery motions date of this order Plaintiffs' deadline for disclosing any May 1, 2025 expert report Defendant's deadline for disclosing any June 2, 2025 expert report Deadline for disclosing any rebuttal July 1, 2025 expert report Discovery Deadline Aug. 1, 2025 Deadline for responding to class Oct. 30, 2024 certification Dispositive motion and Daubert motion Sept. 5, 2025 deadline Final Pretrial Jan. 28, 2026 Trial Term March 2, 2026 Select Rehabilitation provides comprehensive therapy services. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 21, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lyxDEF at no extra charge.[CC] SELECT REHABILITATION: Plaintiffs Seek Answer to Interrogatories ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTINE MCLAUGHLIN, CRYSTAL VANDERVEEN, JUSTIN LEMBKE, and SCOTT HARDT, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SELECT REHABILITATION LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-00059-HES-MCR (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their renewed motion to compel defendant to better answer second set of interrogatories, produce responsive records and overrule objections. The Plaintiffs request an award of their reasonable attorney's fees Pursuant to Rule 37 for obtaining this Order. The Plaintiffs served the Defendant with Plaintiffs' Second Interrogatories on Oct. 2, 2023. The Defendant refuses to Answer fully and primarily objects. Without the information, the Plaintiffs are greatly prejudiced. The Defendant has refused now for 1 year and 5 months to search and produce any responsive emails, opposing in totality both Plaintiffs' ESI search protocols contained in Plaintiffs Amended First Request to Produce and Fourth Request to Produce, along with all enumerated requests for emails in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Requests to Produce. Select Rehabilitation provides comprehensive therapy services. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 21, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0dIV23 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mitchell L. Feldman, Esq. FELDMAN LEGAL GROUP 12610 Race Track Road, Suite 225 Tampa, FL 33626 Telephone: (813) 639-9366 Facsimile: (813) 639-9376 E-mail: mfeldman@flandgatrialattorneys.com - and - Benjamin L. Williams, Esq. WILLIAMS LAW P.A. 123 18th Avenue N. Unit A Jacksonville Beach, FL 32250 Telephone: (904) 580-6060 E-mail: bwilliams@williamslawjax.com SIGNALHIRE LLC: Court Directs Discovery Plan Filing in Gaul Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gaul v. SignalHire LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01301-JES-JEH (C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge entered an order Hon. Judge Jonathan E. Hawley entered a standing order as follows: -- Rule 16 scheduling conference The Court will set a Rule 16 scheduling conference approximately 30 days after the answer or other responsive pleading is filed. The conference will generally be conducted by telephone. -- Discovery plan The discovery plan shall be filed with the Court at least three calendar days before the Rule 16 scheduling conference. -- Waiver of the Rule 16 scheduling conference If the parties agree on all matters contained in the discovery plan, then the parties may waive the Rule 16 scheduling conference. To do so, the parties shall indicate in the discovery that the parties agree upon all maters contained within the discovery plan, and they request that the Rule 16 scheduling conference be cancelled. -- Failure of counsel to attend a scheduled telephone hearing For the convenience of counsel, the Court conducts most hearings by telephone when possible. Counsel's failure to appear for a telephone hearing will be treated as a failure of counsel to appear for an in-person hearing. -- Discovery disputes brought to the Court's attention after the discovery deadline has already passed The parties may not raise a discovery dispute with the Court after the relevant discovery deadline has passed; all discovery disputes must be brought to the Court's attention before the relevant discovery deadline passes. Any discovery disputes raised with the Court after the expiration of the relevant discovery deadline shall be deemed waived by the Court, even if the parties agreed to conduct discovery after the relevant discovery deadline has passed. If the parties agree to conduct discovery after the expiration of a deadline set by the Court, they must still file a motion requesting that the Court move that deadline as agreed by the parties in order to avoid any subsequent discovery disputes being deemed waived. -- Settlement conferences and mediation The parties are encouraged to seek a settlement conference or mediation with a magistrate judge. Where parties request a settlement conference or mediation in a case referred to Judge Hawley, Judge Hawley will conduct said conference or mediation. SignalHire is a highly developed HR and recruitment platform designed to streamline the hiring process. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 20, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5MWKib at no extra charge.[CC] SIGNET JEWELERS: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------ Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Signet Jewelers Inc. d/b/a Kay Jewelers, Case No. 0:24-cv-03419 (D. Minn., Aug. 26, 2024), is brought arising because Defendant's Website (www.kay.com) (the "Website" or "Defendant's Website") is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA") and its implementing regulations. In addition to her claim under the ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Website and is responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning the Website's development and maintenance. As a consequence of her experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from investigation performed on her behalf, Plaintiff found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to important Website content--Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users. Still, Plaintiff would like to, intends to, and will attempt to access Defendant's Website in the future to browse, research, or shop online and purchase the products and services that Defendant offers. The Defendant's policies regarding the maintenance and operation of its Website fail to ensure its Website is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with vision-related disabilities. The Plaintiff and the putative class have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is and has been legally blind. The Defendant offers jewelry and accessories for sale including, but not limited to, rings, earrings, necklaces, bracelets, watches, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC Jason Gustafson (#0403297) 222 South Ninth Street, Suite 1600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (763) 515-6110 Email: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com SILKROAD HINSDALE: Escobar Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation ----------------------------------------------------------------- Rony Garcia Escobar, an individual, and Hermelindo Garcia Escobar, an individual, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, known and unknown v. SILKROAD HINSDALE LLC, an Illinois limited liability company d/b/a SUSHI MURA CHICAGO, ALLYSON KIM, an individual, and YOON JAE KIM, an individual, Case No. 1:24-cv-07709 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 27, 2024), is brought arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL"), and the Chicago Minimum Wage and Paid Sick Leave Ordinance ("CMWO") of the Municipal Code of Chicago, for Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiffs, and other similarly situated employees, overtime compensation for hours worked over 40 a workweek. The Defendants did not compensate Plaintiffs, and other non-exempt cooks, bussers, cleaners, and kitchen staff employees, at one and one half times their regular hourly rates of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 in individual workweeks. The Defendants never paid Plaintiffs, and other non-exempt cooks, bussers, cleaners and kitchen staff employees, an overtime premium when they worked more than 40 hours in a workweek. The Defendants paid all of Plaintiffs' hours, including all of their overtime compensable hours, at their straight-time hourly rates of pay. In violation of the statutes and implementing regulations of the FLSA, IMWL and CMWO, Defendants failed to create, maintain, and preserve complete and accurate payroll records for the Plaintiffs and other non-exempt employees, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are current and former cooks, bussers, cleaners, and kitchen staff employees for Defendants' Sushi Mura Chicago restaurant. Silkroad Hinsdale LLC is an Illinois limited liability company that operates the Sushi Mura Chicago restaurant on North Southport Avenue in Chicago, Illinois and is engaged in selling and serving prepared food and beverages, including alcoholic beverages, to customers for consumption on and off its premises.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy M. Nolan, Esq. NOLAN LAW OFFICE 53 W. Jackson Blvd., Ste. 1137 Chicago, IL 60604 Phone: (312) 322-1100 Email: tnolan@nolanwagelaw.com SMITH & WESSEN: Court Denies Certification in Mass Shooting Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Gannon Beaulne anf Thomas Feore, writing for Mondaq, report that the Ontario Superior Court recently emphasized the need, in a negligent design claim, for evidence on the product from a qualified design expert, even in the context of a certification motion. In Price v Smith & Wessen Corp (Price), Justice Paul Perell refused to certify a class action against the manufacturer of the handgun used to carry out the 2018 mass shooting on Danforth Avenue in Toronto. The plaintiffs brought their claim on behalf of those killed or otherwise affected by the tragedy. After a two-phase process, Justice Perell found no basis in fact for concluding that the handgun used in the shooting had been negligently designed or that the manufacturer's alleged negligence had caused the plaintiffs' injuries. The decision followed an earlier determination in the case that the plaintiffs' negligent design claim -- based on the lack of certain safety features in the handgun's design -- was not bound to fail based on the pleadings. In 2020, Justice Perell bifurcated the certification process into two phases: (1) an initial assessment of the adequacy of the plaintiffs' claims based only on the pleadings; and (2) if the claims could proceed to the next phase based on the pleadings, an assessment of the threshold adequacy of those claims at the certification stage based on the evidence. While the plaintiffs' negligent design claim survived pleadings scrutiny (as discussed in Are Gun Manufacturers Liable for Mass Shootings?), Justice Perell found that the plaintiffs' evidence in support of that claim did not meet the "some basis in fact" standard applied at the certification stage. This decision sets clear and specific guidelines for the evidence that courts will expect from plaintiffs before certifying a negligent design claim. It also shows that any "information deficit" of plaintiffs relative to defendants about design decisions and other details -- often highlighted by plaintiffs in products liability cases -- does not relieve plaintiffs of the onus of proving some basis in fact for their design negligence claims, including through expert evidence. This decision also reinforces the now well-established principle that proving some basis in fact for common issues requires not only some basis in fact that the proposed issues can be answered in common across the class, but also some basis in fact that the proposed common issues actually exist. No Basis in Fact for Negligent Design To make out a negligent design claim, a plaintiff must: 1. identify the design defect in the product; 2. establish that the defect created a substantial likelihood of harm; and 3. establish that there are safer yet economically feasible ways to manufacture the product. Whether a manufacturer designed a product negligently turns on a risk-utility analysis that weighs the utility of the chosen design against the foreseeable risks associated with that design. Economic feasibility is a factor -- the alternative design must be able to be manufactured without unduly impairing the utility of the product or spiking its cost. In Price, the product was Smith & Wesson's M&P40, a semi-automatic pistol made for military and police use. The plaintiffs alleged that the design defect was the absence of "smart gun" technology, also known as "authorized user technology". In the firearms context, authorized user technologies aim to prevent the criminal misuse of weapons by unauthorized persons. Those technologies seek to prevent a firearm from functioning in the hands of anyone other than an authorized user. They include radio-frequency identification (RFID), proximity tokens, magnetic rings, palm-print recognition, fingerprint recognition, voice identification, other mechanical, automated identification and biometric identification tools. The M&P40 used in the Danforth shooting was manufactured in the United States and lawfully exported to Canada in 2013. It was reported stolen in Saskatchewan in 2016 and came into the possession of the shooter in or about 2018. The shooter was not an authorized user of the M&P40 used in the shooting. The plaintiffs alleged (among other things) that because Smith & Wesson knew the risks related to the unauthorized use of its firearms and had even sought patents for certain authorized user technologies, it was negligent in designing the M&P40 by not integrating authorized user technology into that product. One "remarkable" feature of the expert evidence on the certification motion, Justice Perell observed, was the absence of any opinion from a qualified expert in handgun design. The plaintiffs' experts stated that the M&P40 should have included a mechanical internal lock, RFID and biometric recognition technology, and that an alternative design including these features would be safer. However, the plaintiffs led no evidence that a prototype of their proposed safer design had ever been tested. Indeed, the record before the court contained no evidence about the testing of any form of authorized user technology. The plaintiffs argued that they should not be required to provide evidence for their risk-utility position at the certification stage. Justice Perell disagreed, finding that "the evidentiary threshold . . . was to have an expert opine that: (1) an M&P40 without authorized user technology was a design defect that could have caused the harm suffered by the Class members; (2) an M&P40 with authorized user technology was a feasible alternative that could have been implemented at a reasonable cost; and (3) the implementation of authorized user technology would not have impaired the utility of the M&P40 for its intended users". Justice Perell held that a "design negligence case ultimately requires evidence from an expert in design". The plaintiffs provided no evidence that an M&P40 designed with authorized user technologies would be reliable, economically feasible or even safer. There was no evidence that a reasonable firearms manufacturer in Smith & Wesson's position would have chosen a different design for the M&P40. The M&P40 was designed for use by military and law enforcement personnel. The reasonableness of the product's design thus depends on the needs of its intended users -- in this case, members of the military and police trained in the use of handguns. As the plaintiffs' experts acknowledged, adding authorized user technology to the product's design would affect the complexity, weight and balance (among other features) of the weapon, which would adversely affect its reliability and therefore utility. The plaintiffs' experts also acknowledged that adding authorized user technology to the product would increase the cost of manufacturing it. Justice Perell concluded that the feasibility of the authorized user technologies identified by the plaintiffs was at best "theoretical feasibility based on the existence of patents and by the use of authorized user technology in other products such as cell phones and automobiles". He found that there was no evidence that all M&P40s would be made safer for all users or for the public by the incorporation of locking mechanisms. As a result, Justice Perell held that there was no basis in fact to conclude that Smith & Wesson's design fell below the standard of care. While he found that the plaintiffs may have a "public policy argument" that authorized user technology should be a product standard for all handguns, "a public policy argument is not the same thing as a design negligence cause of action against a handgun manufacturer who made design decisions not to incorporate authorized user technology in a handgun that it was manufacturing as a military and police weapon". Causation Justice Perell also considered, "because of the likelihood of appeals," whether general causation could be certified as a common issue. Answering in the negative, Justice Perell observed that the plaintiffs had failed to lead expert evidence from a criminologist to show that there is some basis in fact for concluding that adding authorized user technology to the M&P40 would reduce gun accidents and gun crimes of the nature that occurred on Danforth Avenue. The plaintiffs contended that, since the shooter was an unauthorized user, he would not have been able to use the weapon to wound or kill the putative class members if the product's design had integrated authorized user technology. Justice Perell found that the shooter's use of an M&P40 without authorized user technology was an "incidental fact but not a causal fact that connects Smith & Wesson to the harm done". He found the harm was "caused by what [the shooter] did", not "by an aspect of how he did it." Without expert evidence explaining how the lack of authorized user technology related to the shooter's crimes, Justice Perell held that "common sense does not fill the evidentiary void" and, especially because about half of gun crimes in Canada are committed by authorized users, "it cannot be said that but for the want of authorized user technology . . . [the shooter] would not have perpetrated his evil crimes". The most that could be said, he found, was that the use of authorized user technology may have altered the means of the shooting, but not its occurrence. While praising the plaintiffs "for their aspirations to find a means to prevent others from suffering as they have suffered", Justice Perell concluded that "it is for Parliament or the Legislatures not the courts to legislate public safety product standards." Looking Forward The Price decision emphasizes the need in a negligent design claim for evidence on the product from a qualified design expert, even in the context of a certification motion. As Justice Perell held, common sense -- no matter how apparently compelling, as a matter of public policy -- cannot displace properly qualified expert opinion (among other evidence) in support of an alternative product design being safer, yet also economically feasible to produce and as effective for its intended purpose and users. This decision could greatly affect attempts by victims of mass shootings to use tort law and class actions to seek redress from the manufacturers of the firearms used in those shootings. The claims in the Price case were framed in negligent design. Importantly, Justice Perell did not foreclose the prospect of claims falling into that category of negligence or the prospect of other types of tort claims addressing similar facts, but he did make clear that the design features of a particular firearm used to carry out a shooting or other crime are -- by themselves -- merely incidental features of how the harm was caused and do not alter the shooter's ultimate causal responsibility. Without expert empirical criminology evidence supporting that the plaintiffs' alternative product design would reduce gun crimes of the kind that in fact occurred, this decision suggests that meeting the some-basis-in-fact standard in relation to a causal chain between a manufacturer and a shooter will be difficult. The absence of adequate expert evidence in this matter was notably significant to the ultimate outcome. The decision also suggests that any informational disadvantage as between the plaintiff-victim and the defendant-manufacturer on design decisions and other pertinent details does not diminish the requirement of satisfying the some-basis-in-fact standard through expert and other evidence at the certification stage of a proposed class action. While courts should take any imbalance into account, it is irrelevant to the ability of a plaintiff to identify the common alleged design defect and establish a methodology for making a risk-utility calculation. [GN] SNYDER'S-LANCE INC: Messinger Files Suit in D. Delaware ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Snyder's-Lance, Inc. The case is styled as David Messinger, on behalf of himself and all those similarly situated v. Snyder's-Lance, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-04377 (D. Del., Aug. 21, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Labor Litigations. Snyder's-Lance, Inc. -- https://www.lance.com/ -- is the second largest salty snack maker in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Natalie Frances Bare, Esq. DUANE MORRIS LLP 30 South 17th Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 979-1962 Email: Nfbare@duanemorris.com SOHO GEM INC: Raheel Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------- Aisha Raheel, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Soho Gem, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-05906 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 23, 2024), is brought against Defendant for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to services Soho Gem provides to their non-disabled customers through https://www.sohogem.com (hereinafter "Sohogem.com" or "the website"). Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). Because Defendant's website, Sohogem.com, is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Soho Gem's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination, 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. Soho Gem provides to the public a website known as Sohogem.com which provides consumers with access to high-quality jewelry such as earrings, necklaces, bracelets rings and various custom designs which Defendant offers in connection with their physical location.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Asher Cohen, Esq. ASHER COHEN PLLC 2377 56th Dr, Brooklyn, NY 11234 Phone: +1 (718) 914-9694 Email: acohen@ashercohenlaw.com SOLANO RAG COMPANY: Griffin Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against SOLANO RAG COMPANY, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Terrence Eugene Griffin, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SOLANO RAG COMPANY, LLC, a limited liability company, J. MANN, LLC, a limited liability company, Does 1-10, Case No. 24CV016825 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Aug. 23, 2024). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Rag Solano Company, Inc. was founded in 1983. The Company's line of business includes the retail sale of used merchandise, antiques, and secondhand goods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kane Moon, Esq. MOON & YANG, APC 725 South Figueroa St., 31st Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: 213-232-3128 Fax: 213-232-3125 Email: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com SOUTH FLORIDA STADIUM: Manco Suit Removed to S.D. Florida --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Jason Manco, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SOUTH FLORIDA STADIUM, LLC d/b/a HARD ROCK STADIUM, Case No. 2024-013421-CA-01 was removed from the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on Aug. 22, 2024, and assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-23195-XXXX. The Complaint alleges that it arises from circumstances surrounding the Copa America final held at Hard Rock Stadium on July 14, 2024 (the "Event"). The Plaintiff's allegations focus on the security and crowd control measures at the Event and ticketholders being denied access to the Event.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954)-400-4713 Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and - Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954)-907-1136 The Defendants are represented by: Melissa C. Pallett-Vasquez, Esq. Matthew W. Tieman, Esq. BILZIN SUMBERG BAENA PRICE & AXELROD LLP 1450 Brickell Avenue, Suite 2300 Miami, FL 33131-3456 Phone: (305) 350-2393 Facsimile: (305) 374-7593 Email: mpallett@bilzin.com mtieman@bilzin.com eservice@bilzin.com SPI LIGHTING: Conditional Cert. Deadline Extended to Oct. 23 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Stumpf v. SPI Lighting Holdings LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-00258 (E.D. Wisc., Filed Feb. 27, 2024), the Hon. Judge Brett H. Ludwig entered an order extending the conditional certification deadline until on or before Oct. 23, 2024, and the final certification, class certification, and decertification deadline until on or before March 6, 2025, to focus their efforts on a possible settlement. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). SPI is a designer and manufacturer of American made architectural and performance luminaires.[CC] SPIRE GLOBAL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set October 21 ------------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of securities of Spire Global, Inc. (NYSE: SPIR) between March 6, 2024 and August 14, 2024, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October 21, 2024. SO WHAT: If you purchased Spire Global securities during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Spire Global class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=28159 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October 21, 2024. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, during the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) there were embedded leases of identifiable assets and pre-space mission activities for certain Space Services contracts; (2) Spire Global lacked effective internal controls regarding revenue recognition for these contracts; (3) as a result, Spire Global overstated revenue for certain Space Services contracts; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about Spire Global's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. To join the Spire Global class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=28159 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] SPRING EQ LLC: Mason Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Spring EQ LLC. The case is styled as Robert Mason, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Spring EQ LLC, Case No. 5:24-cv-01833 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 27, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Spring EQ -- https://mortgage.springeq.com/ -- is the fast, easy, simple mortgage lender.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Adam Edelsberg, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 1925 Century Park East Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS: Class Settlement in McFadden Gets Final Nod ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEVIN MCFADDEN, DAVID SCHMIDT, and PETER DONCEVIC on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS EMPLOYEE BENEFITS COMMITTEE, and JOHN/JANE DOES 1-5, Case No. 2:22-cv-02464-DDC-GEB (D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge Daniel Crabtree entered an order granting final approval of settlement, awarding attorneys' fees, expenses, and service awards: 1. The court preliminarily certified the class for settlement purposes on April 9, 2024. Under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court finally certifies the class, defined as: "All participants and beneficiaries of the Plan who began receiving a 50%, 75%[,] or 100% JSA or a QPSA2 on or after Nov. 11, 2016, through and including April 9, 2024 whose benefits had a present value that was less than the present value of the SLA3 they were offered using the applicable Treasury Assumptions as of each participant's Benefit Commencement Date." Excluded from the Class are Defendants and any individuals who are subsequently determined to be fiduciaries of the Plan. Doc. 38-1 at 17. 2. Class plaintiffs seek final approval of the Settlement. Rule 23(e) permits parties to settle the claims of a certified class action, but "only with the court's approval." And, the court may approve a settlement only after conducting a hearing and finding that the settlement is "fair, reasonable, and adequate[.]" 3. The Notice was sent to Class members "in a reasonable manner," Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1)(B), and it notified Class members of the Settlement details and their right to object. The Notice apprised the Class members of further Settlement information available on the Settlement website. All Class members were afforded a full and fair opportunity to be heard on these matters. 4. The court confirms the prior appointments of plaintiffs Kevin McFadden, David Schmidt, Peter Doncevic as class representatives, and the law firms of Izard, Kindall & Raabe, LLP and Foulston Siefkin LLP as class counsel. 5. The motion also requests an attorneys' fees award of one-third of the Settlement amount, a class counsel expenses award of $25,926.01, and class representative service awards of $5,000 each. No Class member objected to these awards. As set forth below, the court grants the motion and awards the requested attorneys' fees and expenses. In contrast, the court finds that the total requested service award is unreasonable and orders a lesser award from the Settlement fund. The court explains each of these conclusions, below. 6. Plaintiffs and class counsel moved for an award of attorneys' fees of one-third of the $3.5 million Settlement amount, which amounts to $1,166,666.67. On Apr. 9, 2024, this court granted preliminary approval of the proposed class action Settlement set forth in the Settlement Agreement. Sprint Communications provides long distance telecommunication services. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 21, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7a3W9n at no extra charge.[CC] STATE FARM: Adams Sues Over Unlawful Subrogation of PIP ------------------------------------------------------- Whitney Adams, individually, as legal guardian for minors C.R. and C.R., and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 4:24-cv-04643-SAL (D.S.C., Aug. 23, 2024), is brought as a result of Defendant's wide spread subrogation of Personal Injury Protection ("PIP") and MedPay policies in direct violation of South Carolina Code of Laws. The Defendant's subrogation practices deprive Plaintiff and other members of the Class from their required payable PIP and MedPay policy benefits. The Defendant's refusal to correct its unlawful PIP and MedPay coverage subrogation is in bad faith and at the expense of Plaintiff and other members of the Class. This action seeks damages in the amount Plaintiff and other members of the Class are owed, together with other damages pled herein. As a condition of enrollment, Plaintiff and members of the class were required to and did pay all insurance premiums when due to Defendant. However, when Plaintiff and other Class Members were entitled to medical payments coverage, Defendant sent their MedPay checks directly to medical providers resulting in subrogation in violation of the polices and State law. The Defendant has refused and continues to refuse to pay insured policy holders their benefits per the policy and State law, says the complaint. The Plaintiff and other Class Members elected to enroll in Defendant's optional MedPay policies. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company is incorporated and organized under the laws of the state of Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY ANASTOPOULO, LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Phone: (803) 222-2222 Email: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com cmad@poulinwilley.com STMICROELECTRONICS NV: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------ If you suffered a loss on your STMicroelectronics N.V. (NYSE:STM) investment and want to learn about a potential recovery under the federal securities laws, follow the link below for more information: https://zlk.com/pslra-1/stmicroelectronics-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=97808&wire=1 or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. via email at jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or call (212) 363-7500 to speak to our team of experienced shareholder advocates. THE LAWSUIT: A class action securities lawsuit was filed against STMicroelectronics N.V. that seeks to recover losses of shareholders who were adversely affected by alleged securities fraud between January 25, 2024 and July 24, 2024. CASE DETAILS: According to the complaint, STMicroelectronics disclosed on July 25, 2024, its U.S. GAAP financial results for the second quarter ending June 29, 2024, and subsequently revised its full-year revenue and margin projections downward for the second time within the current fiscal year. The company now anticipates total revenue for 2024 to fall within the range of $13.2 billion to $13.7 billion, a reduction from the prior forecast of $14 billion to $15 billion. Notably, during the fourth-quarter 2023 earnings call held in January, the company had projected 2024 revenues to range between $15.9 billion and $16.9 billion. For the second quarter, revenue experienced a 25.3% decline year-over-year, amounting to $3.23 billion. Additionally, net sales to Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) and through Distribution channels decreased by 14.9% and 43.7%, respectively, on a year-over-year basis. On this news, the stock dropped over 13% during pre-market trading on July 25, 2024. WHAT'S NEXT? If you suffered a loss in STMicroelectronics stock during the relevant time frame - even if you still hold your shares - go to https://zlk.com/pslra-1/stmicroelectronics-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=97808&wire=1 to learn about your rights to seek a recovery. There is no cost or obligation to participate. WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Over the past 20 years, Levi & Korsinsky LLP has established itself as a nationally-recognized securities litigation firm that has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders and built a track record of winning high-stakes cases. The firm has extensive expertise representing investors in complex securities litigation and a team of over 70 employees to serve our clients. For seven years in a row, Levi & Korsinsky has ranked in ISS Securities Class Action Services' Top 50 Report as one of the top securities litigation firms in the United States. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Levi & Korsinsky, LLP Joseph E. Levi, Esq. Ed Korsinsky, Esq. 33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 jlevi@levikorsinsky.com Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 https://zlk.com/ [GN] STMICROELECTRONICS NV: Faces Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- A shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against STMicroelectronics N.V. ("STM," "STMicroelectronics," or "the Company") (NYSE: STM). The lawsuit alleges that Defendants created the false impression that they possessed reliable information pertaining to the Company's projected revenue outlook and anticipated growth while also minimizing risk from seasonality and macroeconomic fluctuations. Such statements are alleged to have caused Plaintiff and other shareholders to purchase STM's securities at artificially inflated prices. If you bought shares of STMicroelectronics between January 25, 2024 and July 24, 2024, and you suffered a significant loss on that investment, you are encouraged to discuss your legal rights by contacting Corey D. Holzer, Esq. at cholzer@holzerlaw.com, by toll-free telephone at (888) 508-6832 or you may visit the firm's website at www.holzerlaw.com/case/stmicroelectronics/ to learn more. The deadline to ask the court to be appointed lead plaintiff in the case is October 22, 2024. Holzer & Holzer, LLC, an ISS top rated securities litigation law firm for 2021, 2022, and 2023, dedicates its practice to vigorous representation of shareholders and investors in litigation nationwide, including shareholder class action and derivative litigation. Since its founding in 2000, Holzer & Holzer attorneys have played critical roles in recovering hundreds of millions of dollars for shareholders victimized by fraud and other corporate misconduct. More information about the firm is available through its website, www.holzerlaw.com, and upon request from the firm. Holzer & Holzer, LLC has paid for the dissemination of this promotional communication, and Corey Holzer is the attorney responsible for its content.  CONTACT: Corey Holzer, Esq. (888) 508-6832 (toll-free) cholzer@holzerlaw.com [GN] STMICROELECTRONICS NV: Malm Files Suit Over Share Price Drop ------------------------------------------------------------ MACKEL MALM, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. STMICROELECTRONICS N.V., JEAN MARC CHERY, and LORENZO GRANDI, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-06384 (S.D.N.Y., August 23, 2024) is a federal securities class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired ST securities between January 25, 2024 and July 24, 2024, both dates inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials. Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) contrary to prior representations, demand in ST's automotive and industrial sectors continued to decline in the first half of 2024; (ii) as a result, the Company's revenues and gross margins also continued to decline during this period; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times, says the suit. On this news, ST's common share price fell $6.07 per share, or 15.35%, to close at $33.47 per share on July 25, 2024. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, the suit contends. STMicroelectronics N.V. designs, develops, manufactures, and sells semiconductor products in Europe, the Middle East, Africa, the Americas, and the Asia Pacific.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood, II, Esq. Thomas H. Przybylowski, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (917) 463-1044 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com tprzybylowski@pomlaw.com - and - Peretz Bronstein, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 697-6484 Facsimile: (212) 697-7296 E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com STMICROELECTRONICS NV: Sued Over False and Misleading Statements ---------------------------------------------------------------- Liyu Wang, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. STMICROELECTRONICS N.V., JEAN MARC CHERY, and LORENZO GRANDI, Case No. 1:24-cv-06370 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 23, 2024), is brought on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired STM securities between January 25, 2024 to July 24, 2024, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws (the "Class") as a result of materially false and misleading statements. The Defendants provided investors with material information concerning STM's expected revenue for the fiscal year 2024. Defendants' statements included, among other things, confidence in the Company's understanding of the industrial and automotive sectors' recovery paths, repeated indications that they had hit the proverbial "bottom" of these trends, and continued claims that the low points of their original and updated guides factored in the risks associated with these macro trends. The Defendants provided these overwhelmingly positive statements to investors while, at the same time, disseminating materially false and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse facts concerning the true state of STM's forecasting ability; notably, that the Company did not truly have appropriate visibility to generate the guidance it put forth, failed to appropriately analyze the visibility it did have, or otherwise the Company was simply not truly equipped to handle the ongoing challenges in its end-market industries as they had projected. Such statements absent these material facts caused Plaintiff and other shareholders to purchase STM's securities at artificially inflated prices. The truth emerged on July 25, 2024, when STM announced its financial results for the second quarter of fiscal 2024 and reduced its revenue guidance for the full fiscal year 2024. The Company attributed their results and lowered guidance as, "contrary to our prior expectations, customer orders for Industrial did not improve and Automotive demand declined." Investors and analysts reacted immediately to STM's revelation. The price of STM's common stock declined dramatically. From a closing market price of $39.54 per share on July 24, 2024, STM's stock price fell to $33.47 per share on July 25, 2024, a decline of more than 15.3% in the span of one day, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased STM common stock at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period and was damaged upon the revelation of the Defendants' fraud. STM is a global company that designs, develops, manufactures, and sells semiconductor products around the world.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam M. Apton, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 Phone: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 Email: aapton@zlk.com STONEPEAK CERAMICS: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN MOORE and JESSIE WOOLVERTON, individually, and on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. STONEPEAK CERAMICS, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-00006 (M.D. Tenn.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order extending the deadline to respond to the Plaintiffs' motion to facilitate notice to Sept. 12, 2024. The Plaintiffs filed their Motion to Facilitate Notice on Aug. 15, 2024, making Stonepeak's deadline to respond, Aug. 29, 2024. Stonepeak moves to extend its deadline to respond to Plaintiffs' Motion by two (2) weeks to Sept. 12, 2024 so that it may have adequate time to prepare a response to a motion that may have a significant impact on this litigation. Furthermore, counsel for Stonepeak had Covid and was out part of last week and this week, further necessitating the need for a short extension of time such as that requested here. The Plaintiffs assert claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). Stonepeak is an American manufacturer of high-tech porcelain floor and wall tiles. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Aug. 20, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Oh0pPB at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. J. Joseph Leatherwood IV, Esq. JACKSON SHIELDS YEISER HOLT OWEN & BRYANT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Telephone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 759-1745 E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com jleatherwood@jsyc.com The Defendant is represented by: Rachael Rustmann, Esq. Christine Hogan, Esq. CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE, LLP 750 Old Hickory Blvd., Suite 260-2 Brentwood, TN 37027 Telephone: (615) 340-3805 E-mail: rrustmann@constangy.com chogan@constangy.com SYNCHRONY BANK: Faces CareCredit Interest Rates Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Abraham Jewett of Top Class Actions reports that a consumer filed a class action lawsuit against Synchrony Bank. Why: The class action lawsuit claims Synchrony Bank offers exploitative high-interest so-called CareCredit loans to consumers in need of financial help during emergency medical situations. Where: The CareCredit class action was filed in New York federal court. Synchrony Bank offers "exploitative" high-interest loans to individuals in need of emergency care at medical and veterinary offices, a new class action lawsuit alleges. The class action lawsuit claims the so-called CareCredit loans offered by Synchrony Bank often carry "extraordinarily" high interest rates that are "above and beyond what is permitted by New York’s state usury law." "To compound such matters, these loans are offered to consumers at extremely vulnerable moments in their lives – and they are unable to grasp the potential financial ruin that awaits them when they ultimately choose to pull the trigger on one of these usurious loans," the CareCredit class action says. The consumer behind the complaint is seeking to represent a nationwide class of CareCredit account holders who signed up on the CareCredit website and who accrued interest above 16% per annum during the applicable statutory period. The consumer argues the interest rate on a new CareCredit account is an "astonishing" 32.99% per annum as of May 30, 2024, and account holders who end up being late on payments can see their interest rate go as high as 39.99%. "(CareCredit’s) product is designed to take advantage of the flaws in the medical and veterinary services industries on the backs of unwitting consumers that they eventually crush under a mountain of debt," the CareCredit class action says. The plaintiff claims Synchrony Bank is guilty of unjust enrichment and breach of good faith and fair dealing, and violating New York’s Deceptive Trade Practices Statute and Usury Laws. They demand a jury trial and requests declaratory and injunctive relief and an award of compensatory, punitive, actual and statutory damages for themself and all class members. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ordered Synchrony Bank -- then known as GE Capital Bank -- to pay $34.1 million in June 2014 to refund more than 1 million consumers who signed up for a CareCredit credit card under the belief they were interest free.[GN] TALKSPACE NETWORK: Class Action Alleges Data Sharing With Tiktok ---------------------------------------------------------------- Abraham Jewett of Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Courtney Mitchener filed a class action lawsuit against Talkspace Network LLC. Why: Mitchener claims Talkspace violated California's Trape and Trace Law by installing a tracker on its website that shares its visitors' data with TikTok without their consent. Where: The class action lawsuit was filed in California federal court. Online health care and therapy service provider Talkspace unlawfully installed tracking software designed by TikTok on its website, a new class action lawsuit alleges. Plaintiff Courtney Mitchener's class action lawsuit claims the TikTok tracking software collects "as much data as it can" from Talkspace website visitors, who would otherwise be anonymous. "The TikTok Software begins to collect information the moment a user lands on the Website. Thus, even though the Website has a 'cookie banner' the information has already been sent to TikTok regarding the user's visit," the Talkspace class action says. The class action further argues data collected by TikTok includes medical information related to minors. Mitchener wants to represent a California class of Talkspace website visitors whose chats were transcribed by third parties and/or whose identifying information was sent to TikTok. Mitchener argues Talkspace did not obtain the legally required express or implied consent from its website visitors prior to sharing their data with TikTok for the purposes of fingerprinting and de-anonymization. "Defendant did not obtain consent from Plaintiff or any of the class members before using trap and trace technology to identify users of its Website," the Talkspace class action says. Mitchener claims that Talkspace is guilty of violating California's Trap and Trace Law. She demands a jury trial and requests injunctive relief along with an award of statutory and punitive damages for herself and all class members. A consumer filed a separate class action lawsuit against Talkspace last year over claims that the company accepts new patients without having the necessary number of therapists to meet all their mental health needs. The plaintiff is represented by Robert Tauler and Matthew J. Smith of Tauler Smith LLP. The Talkspace class action lawsuit is Mitchener, et al. v. Talkspace Network LLC, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-07067, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. [GN] TEKSYSTEMS INC: Bid to Compel Arbitration in Avery Suit Tossed -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BO AVERY, et al., v. TEKSYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-02733-JSC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley entered an order denying TEK's motion to compel arbitration. TEK's imposition of the arbitration agreement after class certification was fully briefed was misleading and interfered with the Recruiters' rights. Further, TEK waived any right to arbitration of the claims of certified class members by litigating this action for two years before filing the motion to compel arbitration. A class of Recruiters for TEK allege that TEK improperly classifies the Plaintiffs and other Recruiters as exempt from California overtime, wage, and hour laws and therefore illegally underpays Recruiters. The Plaintiffs in this case filed a putative class action in state court on January 28, 2022. TEK removed the case to federal court on May 6, 2022. On Oct. 6, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the class. On June 10, 2024, more than two years after TEK removed this action to this Court, TEK moved to compel arbitration of the claims of certain certified class members. TEKsystems provides information technology services. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 21, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aRJtaC at no extra charge.[CC] TEMUAPP.ME: Faces New Class Action Over Unsolicited Text Messages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Laurel Deppen, writing for FashionDive, reports that Temu is facing a class action lawsuit that accuses the fast fashion giant of sending unsolicited text messages to consumers who have opted out of them, according to court documents filed last week. On April 10, the plaintiff in the lawsuit attempted to opt out of Temu's marketing text messages by texting "Stop," but the marketing texts continued, according to the complaint. Attorneys are seeking a jury trial, and further allege that Temu's behavior resulted in "the intrusion upon seclusion, invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life" of the plaintiff and class members. Dive Insight: This is the second class action lawsuit recently brought against Temu under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Last month, Temu's holding company Whaleco Inc. was sued for sending promotional text messages to phone numbers on the national do-not-call registry. That case is ongoing. The new complaint was filed on Aug. 21 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. In the complaint, attorneys said Temu's "refusal to honor Plaintiff's opt-out requests" shows that it doesn't maintain a stand-alone do-not-call list, and further claims Temu doesn't provide training to its telemarketing personnel. "Temu takes consumer protection seriously," a Temu spokesperson said in an email to Fashion Dive. "We believe the lawsuit is without merit and intend to defend our interests vigorously." In addition to these two class action cases regarding text messages, Temu is facing two other class action lawsuits related to data privacy. Last year, Temu was accused of failing to secure its customers' personal and financial data and failing to disclose the extent of a data breach and notify customers affected. The complaint additionally accused Temu of wiretapping the electronic communications of its website visitors, saying the company gains access to its users' cameras and microphones while using the app. In another case, Temu was sued for allegedly misleading consumers about the scope and reach of its data collection. The complaint said Temu intentionally loaded dangerous malware and spyware onto users' devices and collected biometric information such as facial characteristics, voiceprints and fingerprints from consumers. Both cases are ongoing. Recent surveys have shown that Temu remains popular among budget-conscious consumers. However, one report from Omnisend found that only 6% of surveyed U.S. consumers trust Temu, although 68% still shopped there. Temu holding company PDD Holdings released second-quarter earnings Monday, August 26, in which it reported 97.1 billion yuan, or about $13.6 billion, in revenue for the period. Its revenue growth rate slowed quarter-on-quarter, according to Jun Liu, vice president of finance at PDD. "Profitability will also likely to be impacted as we continue to invest resolutely," Liu said in the PDD release. Following the announcement, shares of PDD dropped 29%, its worst loss since its 2018 IPO, according to a report from Bloomberg. [GN] TEREZ UNIVERSE: Young Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------- Leshawn Young, for himself and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, v. TEREZ UNIVERSE LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-06403 (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://www.terez.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. TEREZ UNIVERSE LLC, operates the Terez online retail store, physical retail stores, as well as the Terez interactive Website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, N.Y. 10003-2461 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal dana@gottlieb.legal jeffrey@gottlieb.legal TWITTER INC: Court Narrows Claims in Borodaenko Suit ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DMITRY BORODAENKO, et al., v. TWITTER, INC., et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-07226-AMO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin entered an order: -- granting Twitter's motion to strike allegations from the SAC because the Plaintiffs reached beyond the leave to amend granted in the court's initial order of dismissal, -- denying Twitter's motion to strike class claims at the pleading stage because that action is disfavored, and, -- granting Twitter's motion to dismiss the remaining disability discrimination claims on both theories – disparate treatment and disparate impact. Borodaenko may file an amended complaint regarding his disability discrimination claims within 28 days from the date of this Order. No additional parties or claims may be added without leave of Court or stipulation of Defendant. The new allegations fail to move the needle to plead a plausible disparate impact claim. The Court therefore dismisses Borodaenko's disability discrimination claims to the extent they are founded on a theory of disparate impact. Accordingly, the hearing set for June 20, 2024, was vacated. The Plaintiff Borodaenko is a former Engineering Manager who worked at Defendant Twitter, Inc., from June 2021 until November 2022. Borodaenko, a cancer survivor, is particularly vulnerable to COVID-19, and he is unable to work in an office due to his disability. Plaintiff Borodaenko filed this class action lawsuit on November 16, 2022, asserting class claims for discrimination in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), the California Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA"), and the Declaratory Judgment Act. On May 5, 2023, the Honorable Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., granted Twitter's motion to dismiss Plaintiff Borodaenko's claims and compelled Plaintiff Mehta's claims to arbitration. Twitter provides online social networking and microblogging services. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 21, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=F4bSIm at no extra charge.[CC] TWITTER INC: Court Narrows Claims in Weinberg Suit -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NHU WEINBERG, et al., v. TWITTER, INC., et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-04016-AMO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin entered an order granting in part and denying in part Twitter's motion to dismiss. The Plaintiffs' claims under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA) are sufficiently pleaded, as are those alleging disparate treatment and disparate impact under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA). The Plaintiffs' claims of racial discrimination under Title VII are dismissed with leave to amend, but the claims of sex discrimination are sufficiently pleaded. The Plaintiffs may file an amended complaint within 28 days from the date of this order. No new claims or parties may be added without leave of Court or stipulation of Defendant. Before the Court is Defendants Twitter, Inc.'s and X Corp.'s motion to dismiss the Complaint. The matter is fully briefed and suitable for decision without oral argument. Accordingly, the hearing set for June 6, 2024, was vacated. Weinberg alleges she was terminated within one month of returning from 10 weeks of FMLA leave. Weinberg asserts a FMLA claim "on behalf of employees, who were laid off by Twitter following Musk's acquisition of the company who had recently taken, or were preparing to take, a family and medical leave, under the FMLA." The Plaintiffs are former employees of Defendant X Corp., successor in interest to Twitter, Inc. Twitter provides online social networking and microblogging services. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 21, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3CuUp5 at no extra charge.[CC] TWITTER INC: Weinberg Class Suit Alleges Violations of FMLA ----------------------------------------------------------- Nhu took 10 weeks of leave under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) to care for her child. Less than a month after she returned to work, she was told that she was included in a reduction in force (RIF), also known as downsizing or a layoff, when a new owner took over the company. Determining the layoffs More than half of the company's workforce was being laid off. The decisions about which employees to include in the RIF, however, were made hastily by a small group of managers under the owner's supervision. Some of these managers were brought in from other companies the owner ran and had little knowledge about business operations at this facility. In selecting employees for layoffs, management paid little attention to: -- Job performance, -- Qualifications, -- Experience, and -- Abilities. The company notified the laid off employees in November 2022, however, approximately 60 percent of employees notified about being laid off were on FMLA leave at the time, compared to about 51 percent of employees overall. Must be 'extremely hardcore' to stay employed Most of the employees who were on leave but not terminated during the RIF were no longer employed by the company following the new owner's ultimatum. He said that employees must agree to being "extremely hardcore" and "working long hours at high intensity" to remain employed. Nhu sued, asking for a class action on behalf of all employees who were laid off and who had recently taken, or were preparing to take, FMLA leave. In court, the employer argued that Nhu's use of FMLA leave wasn't relevant since she was one of about 2,600 employees laid off. The court did not agree with the employer and denied its request to dismiss the case, allowing the class action case to continue. The court pointed out that the employer's decision to undertake a RIF did not mean it could discriminate against employees who took FMLA leave. Nhu's termination could have been motivated by multiple reasons, but if one of those reasons was her recent FMLA leave, then the company unlawfully interfered with her rights under the FMLA. How the employer treated employees who were on leave (especially FMLA leave) showed the court that these employees were discriminated against because of their FMLA leave. Weinberg et al., v. Twitter, Inc., et al., Northern District of California, No. 23-cv-04016, August 21, 2024. [GN] TWO JINN: Medina Bid to Certify Class Tossed -------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SARA MEDINA, et al., v. TWO JINN, INC., et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-02540-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Rita Lin entered an order: -- granting the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; -- dismissing with leave to amend the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act ("CCRAA") claim; -- dismissing with prejudice, without leave to amend the Rosenthal Act claim; and -- denying the Motion to Certify Class. If appropriate, the Plaintiffs may renew the Motion to Certify Class as to the Unlawful Credit Reporting Class or file a new class certification motion after amendment. If the Plaintiffs wish to file a third amended complaint correcting the deficiencies identified in this order, they must do so within 21 days. The Plaintiffs may not add new causes of action or parties without leave of Court or stipulation by the parties pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. If a third amended complaint is not filed by the deadline, the Second Amended Complaint will remain dismissed, judgment will be entered in favor of the Defendants, and the case will be closed. If a third amended complaint is filed, the Defendants must respond within 21 days. A case management conference is set for Oct. 16, 2024. The parties shall file a joint case management statement by Oct. 9, 2024. Accordingly, the First Amended Complaint does not relate back, and the proposed letter is not within the statute of limitations. The Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is therefore granted as to the Rosenthal Act claim. Because amendment would be futile, dismissal is with prejudice and without leave to amend. The Plaintiffs challenge debts that they accrued by co-signing bail bonds agreements for the release of their loved ones from jail. Because Plaintiffs were allegedly not provided required disclosures about their liabilities as co-signors, their debts are unenforceable under California law. Nonetheless, the bail bonds company Two Jinn and collection agency AWA allegedly reported the debts as past due to credit reporting agencies, which Plaintiffs contend violated the CCRAA and the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. TWO Jinn offers bail bond, payment options, and other legal services. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 21, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NrO8J3 at no extra charge.[CC] U.S. HEALTHWORKS: Court Certifies Job Seekers Class Action Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Meriel Kim, Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., and Jennifer A. Riley of Duane Morris report that in Raines, et al. v. U.S. Healthworks Medical Group, Case No. 19-CV-1539 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 16, 2024), Judge Dana M. Sabraw of the U.S. District Court for Southern District of California recently certified a class consisting of every applicant for a paid position who underwent a post-offer, pre-placement examination and allegedly received the employer's health history questionnaire pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(3). This case gives a warning to businesses acting as agents for employers in the on-boarding process. Case Background Under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA"), Cal. Gov't. Code Sec. 12900, et seq, an employer can condition an employment offer upon the job application passing a pre-placement examination ("PPE") only if the examinations are related to the job and consistent with business necessity. Gov't Code 12940(e). In this case, Plaintiffs Kristina Raines and Darrick Figg, two applicants for jobs, filed a class action lawsuit alleging that the PPE involved "intrusive, highly offensive, overbroad, and unrelated" medical questions on a standardized health history questionnaire ("HHQ"), used by Defendant U.S. Healthwors Medical Group ("USHW"), an occupational health provider that acted on behalf of employers. Id. at 1. After applying for a food service position, Plaintiff Raines allegedly answered all of the 150 questions on the HHQ and save for one she thought completely unrelated to her job duties. Id. The employer then allegedly revoked its employment offer to Raines because she refused to complete the medical examination. Id. at 3. Plaintiff Figg alleged that, like Raines, USHW directed him to complete the same HHQ for a volunteer position. Id. Figg answered all of the questions, and his employer ultimately hired him as an unpaid volunteer. Id. In their complaint, Plaintiffs Raines and Figg claimed, individually and on behalf of putative class members, that USHW's medical examinations: (1) violated the FEHA; (2) violated the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code Sec. 51, et seq.; (3) intruded on Plaintiffs' right to seclusion; and (4) violated California's Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Business & Professions Code Sec. 17200, et seq. Id. Plaintiffs sought to certify a class under the FEHA against USHW consisting of 370,000 job applicants for both paid and unpaid positions who underwent a PPE and were subjected to USHW's standardized HHQ at one of its approximately 78 facilities in California between October 23, 2017, and December 31, 2018. The Court's Class Certification Ruling The Court examined all prerequisites under Rule 23(a), including numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation. The Court held that Plaintiff Raines met all of the prerequisites under Rule 23(a) but that Plaintiff Figg failed to satisfy the typicality requirement because he was not an applicant for a paid position and therefore did not attain employee status under the FEHA. The Court then examined the requirements under Rule 23(b)(3), which calls for two separate inquiries, including: (1) whether the issues of fact or law common to the class "predominate" over issues unique to individual class members; and (2) whether the proposed class action is "superior" to other methods available for adjudicating the controversy. The Court found that Plaintiffs' proposed class met both requirements and certified the class. In reaching its conclusion, the Court determined that: (1) USHW "administered the PPEs on behalf of and at the direction of employers;" (2) all class members received the same HHQ from USHW regardless of the duties or functions of the job conditionality offered; and (3) at least one question on the HHQ was not relevant to any job. The Court held that, given such evidence, whether USHW acted on behalf of referring employers and engaged FEHA-related activities by administering a medical questionnaire could be adjudicated on a class-wide basis. The Court further ruled that Plaintiffs' common evidence also addressed injury, causation, and damages because the alleged injury to class members was caused by their being subjected to overbroad and offensive medical inquiries from a standing HHQ in violation of Sec. 12940(e). Because Plaintiffs were pursuing only nominal and punitive damages, the Court disagreed that it would need to engage in thousands of individualized inquiries among class members to properly assess damages. Key Takeaways This class certification ruling shows how a court can use the workers' common evidence to resolve class-wide agency issue. Additionally, the massive number of potential class members pursuing only nominal and punitive damages convinced the Court to certify the class. The decision further implicates the potential hurdles faced by businesses acting as "agents" of referring employers in challenging putative class actions under the FEHA. Businesses acting as agents should carefully evaluate whether their practices are in compliance with FEHA as this ruling confirms that the FEHA's definition of "employer" may include employer's agents. [GN] UCOR LLC: Bid to Certify Court Order for Interlocutory Appeal Nixed ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NATHAN LARUE et al., v. UCOR LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-00064-TRM-DCP (E.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Travis R. McDonough entered an order denying the Defendant's motion to certify the Court's order for interlocutory appeal. The Defendant's proffered reasons are insufficient to establish that this is one of the "exceptional cases" disrupting the standard rule that interlocutory appeals should be "granted sparingly." This matter can proceed as scheduled, and any disagreement with the Court’s prior memorandum opinion can be addressed on appeal. In August 2021, Defendant announced that it would require all its employees and subcontracted employees to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 by Nov. 1, 2021. The Plaintiffs requested an accommodation the from Defendant based on their religious beliefs which conflicted with the vaccine requirement. The Defendant denied each Plaintiff's accommodation request and, when the Plaintiffs refused to comply with the vaccine requirement, terminated them on Nov. 1, 2021. The proposed class consisted of: "All employees, staff augmentation employees, and subcontractors who (i) were subject to UCOR’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate, (ii) who submitted an accommodation/exemption request based on their sincerely held religious belief opposing the receipt of the vaccine, (iii) whose request for an accommodation/exemption was denied and (iv) who subsequently suffered an adverse employment action for their refusal to receive and provide proof of having received the vaccine. On Nov. 6, 2023, the Court denied the motion to certify the class, and sixteen days later Plaintiffs moved to intervene in Speer II. On Feb. 13, 2024, the Court denied their motion, finding that intervention would result in undue delay and prejudice to the adjudication of the original parties' rights. The Defendant is a business that provides nuclear and environmental cleanup services at the East Tennessee Technology Park, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and the Y-12 National Security Complex. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 20, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=d5rc7z at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED PARKS: Eastman Suit Removed to M.D. Florida -------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Tatiana Eastman, individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. UNITED PARKS AND RESORTS, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2024-CA-006435-O was removed from the Circuit Court of the Ninth Judicial District in and for Orange County, Florida, to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida on Aug. 21, 2024, and assigned Case No. 6:24-cv-01534. On July 18, 2024, Plaintiff Tatiana Eastman filed a putative class action complaint in the Ninth Judicial Circuit in and for Orange County, Florida.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Daniel J. Gerber, Esq. Samantha C. DUKE, Esq. RUMBERGER, KIRK & CALDWELL, P.A. 300 South Orange Avenue, Suite 1400 Orlando, FL 32801 Phone: 407.872.7300 Fax: 407.841.2133 Primary Email: dgerber@rumberger.com docketingorlando@rumberger.com sduke@rumberger.com docketingorlando@rumberger.com Secondary Email: dgerbersecy@rumberger.com sdukesecy@rumberger.com UNITED STATES: Burton Seeks to Certify Class of Vietnam Veterans ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as John Burton, and unnamed class Members, v. United States of America, Dennis Richard McDonough, and U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs, et al., Case No. 8:23-cv-01372-CEH-SPF (M.D. Fla.), Burton asks the Court to certify class to include all Vietnam Veteran excluded from the 1.9 Trillion Dollar Veteran Retraining Assistance Program (VRRAP) program which began March 21, 2021, and ended Dec. 11, 2021. According to the complaint there are 610,000 veterans in America as of 2020. As of 2020, there were approximately 6.3 million veterans of the United States Military still alive who served during the period of the Vietnam War from 1964 to 1975. Around 8.75 million service personnel served during the war with 40% of those stationed in Vietnam and surrounding Southeast Asian countries. Veterans of this conflict the largest cohort of American veterans still alive in terms of service era. Vietnam War veterans. These range from mental health conditions such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and depression, to health conditions caused by exposure to toxic chemicals used to clear trees and plans in the Vietnamese jungle during the war. Since the signing of the Vietnam War Veterans Recognition Act of 2017 by President Donald J. Trump, March 29th is designated in the U.S. as National Vietnam War Veterans Day. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 21, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7An2rJ at no extra charge. The Plaintiff appears pro se.[CC] UNITY SOFTWARE: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Unity Software 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 securities class suit in the United States District Court in the Northern District of California. On July 6, 2022, a putative securities class action complaint was filed in U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California against the Company and certain of its executives (the "Securities Class Action"). The complaint was amended on March 24, 2023, and captioned In re Unity Software Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 5:22-cv-3962 (N.D. Cal.). On May 25, 2023, all defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. The plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motions to dismiss on July 26, 2023. The Company filed a response to the plaintiffs' opposition on September 1, 2023. On March 15, 2024, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the complaint, and on April 12, 2024, the plaintiffs' filed a second amended complaint. The Company has moved to dismiss the amended complaint. The plaintiffs have filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss, and the Company has filed a response to the plaintiff's opposition. A hearing on the motion to dismiss is currently schedule for September 12, 2024. The operative complaint names as defendants Unity, its former Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, and General Manager of Operate Solutions, as well as Unity shareholders, Sequoia Capital, Silver Lake Group, and David Helgason. The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and alleges that the Company and its executives made false or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose issues with the Company's product platform and the likely impact of those issues on the Company's fiscal 2022 guidance. The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all persons and entities (other than the defendants) who acquired Unity securities between May 11, 2021 and May 10, 2022, and requests unspecified damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and an award of attorneys' fees and costs. The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend the case. Unity creates and operates an interactive real-time 3D content platform. The Company's platform provides software solutions to create, run, and monetize interactive, real-time 2D and 3D content for mobile phones, tablets, PCs, consoles, and augmented and virtual reality devices. One of the tools on the Company's product platform is the Audience Pinpointer, a user acquisition service which uses real-time user valuation at the time of an ad request.[BN] UNLIMITED FURNITURE: Andrews Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------------- Victor Andrews, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Unlimited Furniture Group Branch, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-05908 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 23, 2024), is brought against Defendant for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to services Soho Gem provides to their non-disabled through https://www.unlimitedfurnituregroup.com (hereinafter "Unlimitedfurnituregroup.com" or "the website"). Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). Because the Defendant's website, Unlimitedfurnituregroup.com, is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures to that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination, 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. Unlimited Furniture Group Branch provides to the public a website known as Unlimitedfurnituregroup.com which provides consumers with access to an array of indoor and outdoor furniture, home decor, mattresses, lighting and kitchen accessories which Defendant offers in connection with their physical location.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Asher Cohen, Esq. ASHER COHEN PLLC 2377 56th Dr, Brooklyn, NY 11234 Phone: +1 (718) 914-9694 Email: acohen@ashercohenlaw.com URBAN STRATEGIES: Castillo Sues Over Failure to Secure Information ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ricardo Castillo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. URBAN STRATEGIES LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-01494 (E.D. Va., Aug. 26, 2024), is brought against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive information of its partners' members' partners. The Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal information--which they entrusted to Defendant on the mutual understanding that Defendant would protect it against disclosure--was targeted, compromised and unlawfully accessed due to the Data Breach. The Defendant collected and maintained certain personally identifiable information and protected health information of Plaintiff and the putative Class Members, who are (or were) members at Defendant's partners. The Private Information compromised in the Data Breach included Plaintiff's and Class Members' full names and driver's licenses or government identification card numbers ("personally identifiable information" or "PII") and medical information, which is protected health information ("PHI", and collectively with PII, "Private Information") as defined by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA"). The Private Information compromised in the Data Breach was exfiltrated by cyber-criminals and remains in the hands of those cyber-criminals who target Private Information for its value to identity thieves. The Data Breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect consumers' Private Information from a foreseeable and preventable cyber-attack, says the complaint. The Plaintiff entrusted their sensitive information to Defendant. The Defendant is a limited liability company that works with faith-based and community-based organizations to provide family support services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lee A. Floyd, Esq. BREIT BINIAZAN, PC 2100 East Cary Street, Suite 310 Richmond, VA 23223 Phone: (804) 351-9040 Facsimile: (804) 351-9170 Email: Lee@bbtrial.com - and - Nicholas J.N. Stamatis, Esq. BREIT BINIAZAN, PC 1010 N. Glebe Road, Suite 310 Arlington, VA 22201 Phone: (703) 291-6656 Facsimile: (703) 563-6692 Email: nick@bbtrial.com - and - David K. Lietz, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW Washington, D.C. 20015-2052 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Facsimile: (202) 686-2877 Email: dlietz@milberg.com VERVE THERAPEUTICS: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Verve Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: VERV) between August 9, 2022 and April 1, 2024, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Verve Therapeutics investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Verve Therapeutics class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=28262 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose, among other things, that: (1) defendants did not fully disclose the circumstances under which the Heart-1 Phase 1b clinical trial (the "Heart-1 Trial") of VERVE-101 would be halted (VERVE-101 is an investigational gene editing medicine designed to be a single course treatment that permanently turns off the PCSK9 gene in the liver to reduce disease-driving low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C)); (2) defendants overstated the potential benefits of its proprietary lipid nanoparticle (LNP) delivery system; and (3) as a result, defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October 28, 2024. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=28262 or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at case@rosenlegal.com. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] VETCOMM US: Williams Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against VetComm US. The case is styled as Jack Williams, IV, individually and on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v. VetComm US, Case No. 8:24-cv-01864 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 26, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. VETCOMM US -- https://www.vetcomm.us/ -- is a veteran-owned organization dedicated to helping veterans across the Nation navigate the VA disability claim process offering an Advanced VA Disability FAST-PASS distance learning Course & Workbook.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gustavo Ponce, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC 245 Fischer Avenue Suite D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Phone: (800) 400-6808 Fax: (800) 520-5523 Email: gustavo@kazlg.com VICTORY HOME: Shelton Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Victory Home Remodeling LLC. The case is styled as James E. Shelton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Victory Home Remodeling LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-04395-KBH (E.D. Pa., Aug. 22, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Victory Home Remodeling -- https://www.victoryhrg.com/ -- offers New Jersey seamless home renovation projects.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Roman Perrong, Esq. PERRONG LAW LLC 2657 Mt. Carmel Ave Glenside, PA 19038 Phone: (215) 225-5529 Fax: (888) 329-0305 Email: a@perronglaw.com VISA INC: Extends Deadline for Claims Filing to February 4, 2025 ---------------------------------------------------------------- UPDATE: In the massive antitrust class action against Visa, Mastercard and more than 25 banks, the deadline has been extended to February 4, 2025 for victims of overpaid credit or debit card transaction fees to file a claim to their share of the $5.54 billion settlement -- one of the largest class action settlements in history. Merchants that accepted Visa or Mastercard credit or debit card payments in the United States between January 1, 2004 and January 25, 2019 may be entitled to monetary damages or other forms of relief as compensation for the overcharges. The deadline for eligible businesses to file a claim has been extended to February 4, 2025. Companies of all sizes across industries may be eligible to file a claim, especially in retail, e-commerce, hospitality and financial services. Class membership is automatic, but receiving a share of the settlement requires filing a timely claim. Class members who do not file a claim by February 4 will get nothing. This is the second time the court has extended the deadline, but companies should not count on the court agreeing to any further extensions. It is not too late to start the process for filing a claim by providing evidence of eligibility of class membership. This is often as simple as providing a legal name, DBA and Tax Identification Number. The class administrator (CA) may require additional evidence to make a positive match and give approval to file the claim. If a company has not been notified as a class member, it does not mean it is ineligible. It is very common for eligible companies to not have been notified of their class membership -- so much so that the CA set up a specific process to address such instances. The court recently ruled that payment facilitators (e.g., PayPal) are not members of the class. Instead, their merchant-customers are the class members who are eligible for recovery. Clients who use payment facilitators for their Visa and Mastercard transactions should contact us to ensure their rights are protected. Visa/Mastercard Case Background Spanning decades of litigation, the Visa/Mastercard antitrust class action is principally about the interchange fees attributable to merchants that accepted Visa and Mastercard credit and debit cards from January 2004 to January 2019, and the card issuers' rules for merchants accepting their cards. In April 2019, the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York issued a public notice of the proposed settlement -- not less than $5.54 billion would be paid to class members filing claims, making this one of the largest class action settlements in history. Later that year, the court granted final approval of the settlement, which, following appeal, was upheld by the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in March 2023. In December 2023, the CA began mailing cards to class members with information about their claims and how to file for their share or request additional information. The cards included a summary of the number of transactions, purchase volume and interchange fees maintained in the CA's database. The CA also set an original deadline for May 31, 2024 for the class members to either accept the CA's numbers or seek additional information. Interest in the case grew exponentially this spring. The CA was overwhelmed by requests for additional information and by other procedural issues arising out of the unprecedented number of claims. As a result, the court extended the time for class members to submit their claims to August 30, 2024. Counsel then determined that many class members were not sent claims forms in 2023 and extended the deadline a second time to February 4, 2025. This extension gives the CA time to analyze address data and create a mailing list of class members who were not sent claim forms. The mailing is expected to be complete by October. Companies should take advantage of this extension to ensure their rights are protected -- even if they are not included in the upcoming mailing -- and should not expect the deadline to be further extended. [GN] WACKS LAW GROUP: Beller Sues Over Failure to Protect PII -------------------------------------------------------- Theresa Beller, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals v. THE WACKS LAW GROUP, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-08671-JKS-JSA (D.N.J., Aug. 22, 2024), is brought against WLG for its failure to protect and safeguard Plaintiff's and the Class's highly sensitive personally identifiable information ("PII"). As a result of WLG's insufficient data security, cybercriminals easily infiltrated WLG's inadequately protected computer systems, accessing and acquiring the PII of Plaintiff and the Class (the "Data Breach" or "Breach"). Now, Plaintiff's and the Class's PII is in the hands of cybercriminals who will undoubtedly use their PII for nefarious purposes for the rest of their lives. WLG acquired, collected, and stored Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information in connection with the legal services it provided. Therefore, at all relevant times, WLG knew or should have known that Plaintiff's and Class Member's sensitive data, including their highly confidential PII would be stored on its networks. By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII, Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties to Plaintiff and the Class. These duties arose from state and federal statutes and regulations as well as common law principles. The Defendant disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly and/or negligently failing to take and implement adequate and reasonable measures to ensure that Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII was safeguarded, failing to take available steps to prevent an unauthorized disclosure of data and failing to follow applicable, required and appropriate protocols, policies and procedures regarding the encryption of data, even for internal use. As a result, the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members was compromised through disclosure to an unknown and unauthorized third party—an undoubtedly nefarious third party that seeks to profit off this disclosure by defrauding Plaintiff and Class Members in the future, says the complaint. The Plaintiff received a Notice of Data Breach Letter from WLG dated August 6, 2024, notifying her that her name, Social Security number, and driver's license number were compromised in the Data Breach. WLG is a New Jersey-based law firm that provides estate planning, Medicaid planning, asset preservation planning, businesses services, and other legal services to clients in New Jersey and New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Vicki J. Maniatis, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (865) 412-2700 Email: vmaniatis@milberg.com - and - David K. Lietz, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 5335 Wisconsin Ave., NW, Suite 440 Washington, DC 20015 Phone: 866.252.0878 Email: dlietz@milberg.com - and - William B. Federman, Esq. Kennedy M. Brian, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave. Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Phone: (405) 235-1560 Fax: (405) 239-2112 Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com kpb@federmanlaw.com WALMART INC: Cetoute Sues Over Unlawful Discrimination ------------------------------------------------------ Johnny Cetoute, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WALMART INC., Case No. N24C-08-344 EMD (Del. Super. Ct., Aug. 27, 2024), is brought as a result of the Defendant's deprivation the Plaintiff of his rights secured by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), and the Delaware Discrimination in Employment Act ("DDEA"), when it considered, and intentionally used, Plaintiff's race and color as a motivating factor of Plaintiff's termination. The Defendant's Associate Arrest, Charges and Convictions Policy ("Policy") disproportionally screened out Plaintiff and others similarly situated to him due to their Title VII and DDEA-protected class status, race, and the Policy is not job related for Plaintiff's position, nor is it consistent with a business necessity. The Plaintiff was qualified to, and continued to, work for Defendant until he was arrested. Despite his arrest, Plaintiff remained qualified for his position. Plaintiff's arrest was neither related to Plaintiff's position, nor was it inconsistent with a business necessity. Plaintiff was terminated due to his arrest. The Plaintiff's experiences are not isolated situations, but rather part of a broader pattern where Defendant employs an overbroad arrest and conviction policy that fails to consider whether an applicant or employee's arrest or conviction is job- related or create a business necessity for denial of employment in part by failing to account for rehabilitation or mitigation. This results in Defendant's disproportionate screening of African American applicants and employees and Defendant's denial of employment to qualified applicants and employees because of their criminal record, even when the arrest and or conviction has no bearing on their suitability for the job. As a result of Defendant's actions, Plaintiff brings class wide claims alleging that Defendant's criminal history screening policy and practice perpetuates the gross racial disparities in the criminal justice system into its applicant and employee pool, in violation of Title VII and the DDEA, and unfairly and unlawfully creates hurdles for individuals with criminal records seeking employment, says the complaint. The Plaintiff began his employment with Defendant on May 2021 as an Asset Protection Supervisor, and successfully maintained his position until his wrongful termination on April 9, 2023. The Defendant is a multinational retail corporation headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas, and incorporated in Wilmington, Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michele D. Allen, Esq. ALLEN & ASSOCIATES 4250 Lancaster Pike Suit 230 Phone: (302) 234-8600 Fax: (302) 397-3930 Email: michele@allenlaborlaw.com WALMART INC: Myers Alleges Overcharging for Food, Baby Products --------------------------------------------------------------- Anne Bucher of Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Quina Myers filed a class action lawsuit against Walmart Stores Inc. Why: Myers claims that Walmart charges consumers more than the price listed on Rollback stickers, price stickers and yellow stickers causing them to overpay for the items. Where: The Walmart class action lawsuit was filed in Arkansas federal court. A new Walmart class action lawsuit alleges the retail giant overcharges consumers for food, baby products, appliances and other products. Plaintiff Quina Myers claims Walmart charged incorrect prices for items tagged in the aisles between Feb. 1 and July 29, 2024. Myers says she shopped for food and baby products at Walmart during this timeframe. When she reviewed her receipts, she says she noticed the price she was charged did not match the price quoted on the product. She says she selected the items with the expectation she would be charged the amount on the price sticker. However, when she checked out, "Walmart's [point of sale] system deceptively, programmatically and artificially increased the prices of the products," the Walmart class action lawsuit says. The Walmart class action lawsuit notes the retail giant accounted for more than a quarter of all grocery revenues in the United States, accumulating $648 billion in sales in 2024. Myers claims Walmart gained its market power by squeezing out smaller grocery stores and other retailers with its low prices and consolidated shopping experiences. The Rollback stickers, price stickers and yellow stickers printed on items are important to consumers' purchasing decisions and entice them to purchase the products at the listed prices, the Walmart class action lawsuit alleges. Consumers reasonably expect they will be charged for the amount listed on the Rollback stickers, price stickers and yellow stickers, Myers claims. She claims consumers were charged amounts that exceeded the lowest advertised prices on the price stickers, causing them to suffer actual damage by overpaying for the products. Myers filed the Walmart class action lawsuit on behalf of herself and a proposed nationwide class of consumers who purchased Roll Back or Price Sticker products from a Walmart store in the United States during the class period. She also seeks to represent a Pennsylvania subclass. The Walmart class action lawsuit asserts claims for violations of Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, declaratory judgment and unjust enrichment. Walmart employees recently won a 'substantial' settlement over required pre-shift COVID-19 screenings. Myers is represented by Jacob Dylan White and Russell Winburn of Taylor King Law and Seth Little of Poulin Willey Anastopoulo LLC. The Walmart class action lawsuit is Quina Myers v. Walmart Inc., Case No. 5:24-cv-05182-TLB, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas. [GN] WALMART INC: Williams Suit Transferred to E.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Skylar Williams, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WALMART, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-02173 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on Aug. 23, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-01003-JLT-BAM to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Walmart, Inc. -- http://corporate.walmart.com/-- is an American multinational retail corporation that operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and grocery stores in the United States and 23 other countries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary M. Klinger Russell M. Busch MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Email: gklinger@milberg.com rbusch@milberg.com - and - Nick Suciu III, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 6905 Telegraph Rd., Suite 115 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301 Phone: (313) 303-3472 Email: nsuciu@milberg.com - and - J. Hunter Bryson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 405 E 50th Street New York, NY 10022 Phone: (630) 796-0903 Email: hbryson@milberg.com - and - Luis Cardona, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 1311 Ponce de Leon Avenue San Juan, PR 00907 Phone: (516) 862-0194 Ext 5861. Email: lcardona@milberg.com - and - Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Phone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 Email: pfraietta@bursor.com WARDEN FCI: Stroud Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Inmates --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARCUS STROUD, et al., v. WARDEN FCI DANBURY, et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-01331-SVN (D. Conn.), the the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order determining the action be maintained as a class action on behalf of the following class: "All persons incarcerated at Federal Correctional Institution Danbury's male low security prison during the summer of 2024." A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 19, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2gXcH3 at no extra charge. The Plaintiffs appear pro se.[CC] WARNER MUSIC: Exhibits in Hall Class Suit Maintained Under Seal --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN HALL, an individual; and LANCE HOPPEN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. WARNER MUSIC GROUP CORP., a Delaware Corporation; WARNER MUSIC INC., a Delaware Corporation; and WARNER RECORDS INC., a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 3:22-cv-00457 (M.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge entered an order granting the Defendants' motion to maintain under seal certain exhibits filed with Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Warner is a global music entertainment company across recorded music, music publishing, and artist services. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 19, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SNfW2v at no extra charge.[CC] WEBTPA EMPLOYER: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to August 28, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Harrell v. Webtpa Employer Services LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-01158 (N.D. Tex., Filed May 15, 2024), the Hon. Judge Sam A. Lindsay entered an order: -- granting the Plaintiffs' motion for extended deadline to move for class certification to Aug. 28, 2025; -- denying without prejudice the Defendants' motion to stay discovery; and -- terminating as moot the Plaintiffs' motion to extend deadline to move for class certification. The nature of suit states Diversity-Other Contract.[CC] WELLSPACE HEALTH: Mixon Suit Removed to E.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Latasha Mixon and Rosana Korman, individually, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. WELLSPACE HEALTH, a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 24CV011792 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Sacramento, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on Aug. 23, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-02290-DJC-CSK. The Plaintiffs' Complaint alleges that WellSpace improperly transmitted and disclosed Plaintiffs' and Class Members' confidential protected health information ("PHI") to third party Google LLC d/b/a Google, via tracking pixels installed on WellSpace's website. .[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Reid E. Dammann, Esq. GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP 633 West Fifth Street, 52nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 576-5000 Facsimile: (213) 680-4470 Email: rdammann@grsm.com WELLSPACE HEALTH: Removes Mixon Suit to E.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------- The Defendant in the case of LATASHA MIXON; and ROSANA KORMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WELLSPACE HEALTH; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Sacramento (Case No. 24CV011792) to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on Aug. 23, 2024. The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned Case No. 1:24-at-00667. Wellspace Health offers health care services. The Company provides medical, prenatal care, addiction counseling, pediatric, dental, and pregnancy testing services. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Reid E. Dammann, Esq. GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP 633 West Fifth Street, 52nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 576-5000 Facsimile: (213) 680-4470 Email: rdammann@grsm.com rdammann@grsm.com WESTERN AUSTRALIA: Aboriginal Tenants Sue Over Housing Conditions ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jacqueline So, writing for AustralAsian Lawyer, reports that Slater and Gordon has initiated a class action against the Housing Authority and the state of WA on behalf of thousands of Aboriginal tenants residing in public housing across remote areas of the state. The Federal Court suit alleges that the respondents violated residential tenancy, contract, and consumer protection laws as lessors of public housing in remote Aboriginal communities between 1 July 2010 and 19 August 2024. The accusations include: -- inadequate delivery of maintenance, repair, and improvement services to public housing properties and/or failure to provide these services within a reasonable timeframe -- the provision of housing that is not reasonably secure and comfortable -- failure to provide public housing rental properties that complied with basic health and safety laws The suit also claims that given their knowledge of the fact that there were few housing providers in remote Aboriginal communities, the Housing Authority and the State engaged in unconscionable conduct by taking advantage of Aboriginal tenants' limited housing options, lack of negotiating power, and lack of information about their rights. Moreover, high rents were reportedly charged for substandard properties; rent amounts could also change without adequate explanation. Australian Lawyers for Remote Aboriginal Rights has partnered with Slater and Gordon on this case. As suggested in the statement of claim, tenants who leased or are leasing the thousands of public housing properties rented by Aboriginal tenants across East Kimberley, West Kimberley, Pilbara, Wheatbelt, Mid West, Gascoyne, and Goldfields-Esperance during the set timeframe are included in the suit. As per Slater and Gordon's investigation of nearly 200 such housing properties, many homes did not have functioning toilets, showers, cooking facilities, lights, safe drinking water, doors, functioning locks, reliable electricity and/or inadequate heating and/or cooling. Some tenants also reportedly had to reside in properties with broken windows, blocked, pipes, exposed electrical wiring, mould and pest infestations. "Aboriginal Australians are paying hundreds of dollars a fortnight to live in houses that don't provide even the most basic needs", Slater and Gordon class actions principal lawyer Gemma Leigh-Dodds said. "There are some communities where the water from the tap is not safe to drink due to high levels of contaminants like nitrates and uranium. As a result, some community members are forced -- and have been for years -- to rely on bottled water for drinking and cooking. It's as if the State has decided, 'that'll do' when it comes to Aboriginal Australians. This class action will establish, among many other things, that the supply of safe drinking water is a basic legal entitlement that every tenant should have access to in Australia in 2024". In the class action, the lead applicant and other group members are seeking the following: -- financial compensation for losses and damages, including reimbursement of rent for properties lacking basic working amenities, as well as for inconvenience, disappointment and distress caused by housing issues -- reimbursement for costs incurred in addressing housing defects, such as the purchase and installation of air conditioners, door locks and increased power costs "Every person, regardless of where they live, deserves safe and reasonable housing. For too long, Aboriginal people living in remote communities have been expected to 'put up and shut up' regarding their housing rights. By filing this class action on their behalf, we are demanding better housing justice for Aboriginal Western Australians", Leigh-Dodds said. [GN] WILLIAM BARR: Black Lives Matter Seeks to Certify Classes --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BLACK LIVES MATTER D.C., et al., v. WILLIAM P. BARR, et al. Case No. 1:20-cv-01469-DLF (D.D.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying two classes of individuals present at Lafayette Square and/or the surrounding area on June 1, 2020, around or shortly after 6:30 p.m. First, Plaintiffs Keara Scallan, Lia Poteet, Dustin Foley, and Eden Foley move to certify claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act, against Defendants William P. Barr, Mark Adamchik, Cara Seiberling, Thomas LoCascio, Nicholas Jarmuzewski, Jeffrey Hendrickson, Sean Cox, Bryan McDonald, Lawrence Sinacore, Jonathan Daniels, Luis Feliciano, and Sean Kellenberger pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3), or alternatively Rule 23(c)(4), on behalf of the following class: "All individuals present at Lafayette Square, defined here as the area in Washington, D.C. between the north side of the White House and H Street NW and between Madison Place and Jefferson Place NW, or the streets or sidewalks adjacent to or surrounding Lafayette Square (including specifically: H Street NW between 15th and 17th Streets NW, Vermont Avenue between H and I Streets NW, 16th Street between H and I Streets NW, and Connecticut Avenue between H and I Streets NW), on June 1, 2020, at, around, or shortly after 6:30 p.m., who, on or before June 1, 2022, sought compensation by filing a Standard Form 95 with the U.S. Park Police, U.S. Secret Service, Federal Bureau of Prisons, D.C. National Guard, and/or any other federal agency whose officers participated in the events alleged in the Fourth Amended Complaint ("the FTCA Class")." Second, Dustin Foley and Eden Foley seek to certify claims under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 against Defendants Jeffery Carroll, Anthony Alioto, Jeffery Buchanan, Timothy Hargrove, Christopher Meyer, Clifton Murphy, Tiffany Payne, Justin Taylor, Daniel M. Thau, and Anthony A. Willis pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3), or alternatively Rule 23(c)(4), on behalf of the following class: "All individuals located one block west of Lafayette Square, at or around the intersection of 17th Street NW and H Street NW, on June 1, 2020, around or shortly after 6:30 p.m., when MPD officers launched a concerted, uniform offensive that included chemical irritants, tear gas, and physical force against those individuals ("the Section 1983 Class")." Each class excludes Defendants, their employees, co-conspirators, officers, directors, legal representatives, heirs, successors, and wholly or partly owned subsidiaries or affiliated companies; counsel and their employees; and the judicial officers and their immediate family members and associated court staff assigned to this case. The Plaintiffs also request that the Court (1) appoint Keara Scallan, Lia Poteet, Dustin Foley, and Eden Foley as the class representatives for the FTCA Class and appoint Dustin Foley and Eden Foley as the class representatives for the Section 1983 Class; and (2) appoint the undersigned counsel as Class Counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g). A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 19, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Hqziom at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John A. Freedman, Esq. David E. Kouba, Esq. Sonia Tabriz, Esq. ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP 601 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 942-5000 E-mail: John.Freedman@arnoldporter.com David.Kouba@arnoldporter.com Sonia.Tabriz@arnoldporter.com - and - Scott Michelman, Esq. Arthur B. Spitzer, Esq. Michael Perloff, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 915 15th Street NW, Second Floor Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 457-0800 E-mail: smichelman@acludc.org aspitzer@acludc.org mperloff@acludc.org - and - Kaitlin Banner, Esq. WASHINGTON LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS AND URBAN AFFAIRS 700 14th Street, NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 319-1000 Facsimile: (202) 319-1010 E-mail: kaitlin_banner@washlaw.org - and - David Brody, Esq. LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER LAW 1500 K Street N.W., Suite 900 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 662-8600 E-mail: dspence@lawyerscommittee.org dbrody@lawyerscommittee.org WILLIAM LEE: Asks to Reconsider Order Striking Supplemental Brief ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TENNESSEE CONFERENCE OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, et al., v. WILLIAM LEE, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-01039 (M.D. Tenn.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a), to reconsider its Order striking Defendants' supplemental brief on class certification, due to an oversight regarding the content of Defendants' brief. In the alternative, if the Court is of the opinion that the record would benefit from direct references and citations to the Defendants' policy changes, the Defendants have attached a proposed brief with those additions underlined as Exhibit 2, and Defendants request leave to file this proposed brief with the additions. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Aug. 20, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LBxwxD at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Zachary L. Barker, Esq. Philip Hammersley, Esq. Andrew Coulam, Esq. Dawn Jordan, Esq. David Rudolph, Esq. Robert Wilson, Esq. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Nashville, TN 37202-0207 E-mail: Zachary.Barker@ag.tn.gov WISCONSIN: Stinson Seeks to Certify Class of Prisoners ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Deyontae Cornail Stinson, et al., v. Wisconsin Department of Corrections, Kevin A. Carr, Jared Hoy, Melisa Roberts, Christopher Stevens, and John Kind, Case No. 2:24-cv-00391-JPS (E.D. Wis.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying a class of prisoners. Wisconsin Department of Corrections is responsible for corrections in Wisconsin, including state prisons and community supervision. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 19, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cc0cms at no extra charge. The Plaintiff appears pro se.[CC] WOLFGANG PUCK CATERING: Anderson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wolfgang Puck Catering and Events, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Michaesha Andersonm on behalf of herself the States of California as a Private Attorney General and all others similarly situated v. Wolfgang Puck Catering and Events, LLC, Compass Group USA Inc., Case No. 24STCV21526 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Aug. 23, 2024). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Wolfgang Puck Catering -- https://wolfgangpuckcatering.com/ -- offers nationwide event catering services that set the standard for culinary excellence.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony Joshua Orshansky, Esq. COUNSELONE, PC 9465 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 300 Beverly Hills, CA 90212-2624 Phone: 310-277-9945 Fax: 424-277-3727 Email: anthony@counselonegroup.com YARDI SYSTEMS: Shephard Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ----------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Angela Shephard and Anna Burzawa, Illinois residents, individually and as representatives of a class of similarly situated persons v. YARDI SYSTEMS INC., a California corporation, Case No. 2024-013421-CA-01 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Aug. 23, 2024, and assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-07698. The Plaintiffs allege Yardi violated the Illinois Right of Publicity Act ("IRPA"). This Court has jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA") because minimal diversity exists and the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Ruddy S. Abam, Esq. HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP 191 N. Franklin Street, Suite 2500 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 704-3000 Email: RAbam@hinshawlaw.com - and - Ryan D. Watstein, Esq. James M. Ruley, Esq. Abigail L. Howd, Esq. WATSTEIN TEREPKA LLP 1055 Howell Mill Road, 8th Floor Atlanta, GA 30318 Phone: (404) 905-2416 Email: ryan@wtlaw.com jruley@wtlaw.com ahowd@wtlaw.com ZAGER GUITAR: Walkup Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------- Rick Walkup, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Zager Guitar International, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-06372 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 23, 2024), is brought against Defendant for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to services Soho Gem provides to their non-disabled through https://www.zagerguitar.com (hereinafter "Zagerguitar.com" or "the website"). Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). Because the Defendant's website, Zagerguitar.com, is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures to that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination, 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. Zager Guitar International provides to the public a website known as Zagerguitar.com which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to view a variety of "Easy to Play" acoustic and electric guitars in various models, left-handed guitars, as well as accessories like cases, strings, picks, straps, capos and tuners.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Asher Cohen, Esq. ASHER COHEN PLLC 2377 56th Dr, Brooklyn, NY 11234 Phone: +1 (718) 914-9694 Email: acohen@ashercohenlaw.com ZAGG INC: Nasim Seeks Conditional Collective Certification ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMNA NASIM, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. ZAGG, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-10826-IT (D. Mass.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting conditional certification of the collective action, and authorizing notice to issue to a putative class consisting of: "All individuals who ZAGG, Inc. employed as Market Sales Managers within the United Stated during the three years preceding the filing of the complaint in this matter (from March 29, 2021 to the present)." Zagg designs, manufactures, and distributes mobile phone accessories. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 19, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xKiSJP at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam J. Shafran, Esq. Eric J. Walz, Esq. Solal Wanstok, Esq. RUDOLPH FRIEDMANN LLP 92 State Street Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 723-7700 Facsimile: (617) 227-0313 E-mail: ashafran@rflawyers.com ewalz@rflawyers.com swanstok@rflawyers.com Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Reports 6,248 PI Claims Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation has 6,248 total claims pending for the six months ended June 30, 2024, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "Claims have been asserted alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos-containing components historically used in some products manufactured by predecessors of Air & Liquid (the "Asbestos Liability"). Air & Liquid, and in some cases the Corporation, are defendants (among a number of defendants, often in excess of 50 defendants) in claims filed in various state and federal courts." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fN7SAW ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Inc. Defends 42 Personal Injury Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Ashland Inc. has recorded 42 open claims alleging personal injury caused by exposure to asbestos for the nine months ended June 30, 2024, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "Such claims result from indemnification obligations undertaken in 1990 in connection with the sale of Riley Stoker Corporation (Riley) and the acquisition of Hercules in November 2008. Although Riley, a former subsidiary, was neither a producer nor a manufacturer of asbestos, its industrial boilers contained some asbestos-containing components provided by other companies. Hercules, an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Ashland, has liabilities from claims alleging personal injury caused by exposure to asbestos. Such claims typically arise from alleged exposure to asbestos fibers from resin encapsulated pipe and tank products sold by one of Hercules’ former subsidiaries to a limited industrial market. "During the most recent update completed in fiscal 2024, it was determined that the liability for Ashland asbestos-related claims should be increased by $24 million. Total reserves for asbestos claims were $282 million at June 30, 2024 compared to $281 million at September 30, 2023." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kZYFDt ASBESTOS UPDATE: Estee Lauder Defends 273 Product Liability Cases ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Estée Lauder Companies Inc. has been named as a defendant in civil actions alleging that certain cosmetic talcum powder products sold by the Company were contaminated with asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "As of June 30, 2024, there were 273 individual cases pending against the Company in state and federal courts throughout the United States, as compared to 185 cases as of June 30, 2023. During the year ended June 30, 2024, 200 new cases were filed and 112 cases were resolved by voluntary dismissal, dismissal by the court, or settlement. The value of settlements, either individually or in the aggregate, in fiscal 2024, 2023, and 2022 was not material. "The Company believes that a portion of its costs incurred in defending and resolving these claims may be covered by insurance policies issued by several insurance carriers, subject to deductibles, exclusions, retentions and policy limits." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at: https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1ORa90 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fundamental Global Faces Personal Injury Lawsuits ------------------------------------------------------------------ Fundamental Global Inc. is named as a defendant in personal injury lawsuits based on alleged exposure to asbestos-containing materials, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. A majority of the cases involve product liability claims based principally on allegations of past distribution of commercial lighting products containing wiring that may have contained asbestos. Each case names dozens of corporate defendants in addition to Fundamental Global. In Fundamental Global's experience, a large percentage of these types of claims have never been substantiated and have been dismissed by the courts. Fundamental Global has not suffered any adverse verdict in a trial court proceeding related to asbestos claims and intends to continue to defend these lawsuits. Under the Fundamental Global Asset Purchase Agreement, the Company agreed to indemnify Fundamental Global for future losses, if any related to current product liability or personal injury claims arising out of products sold or distributed in the U.S. by the operations of the businesses being transferred to the Company in the Separation, in an aggregate amount not to exceed $250,000 per year, as well as to indemnify Fundamental Global for all expenses (including legal fees) related to the defense of such claims. As of June 30, 2024, the Company has a loss contingency reserve of approximately $0.2 million, of which $0.1 million represents future payments on a settled case and the remaining $0.1 million represents the Company's estimate of its potential losses related to the settlement of open cases. When appropriate, Fundamental Global may settle additional claims in the future. The Company does not expect the resolution of these cases to have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yHmlCm ASBESTOS UPDATE: Reading Int'l. Still Receives Exposure Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- From time to time, there are claims brought against Reading International, Inc., relating to the exposure of former employees to asbestos and/or coal dust, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "These are generally covered by an insurance settlement reached in September 1990 with our insurance providers. However, this insurance settlement does not cover litigation by people who were not employees of our historic railroad operations and who may claim direct or second-hand exposure to asbestos, coal dust and/or other chemicals or elements now recognized as potentially causing cancer in humans. Our known exposure to these types of claims, asserted or probable of being asserted, is not material." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WAuXoz ********* 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 ***