/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240911.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, September 11, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 183 Headlines 3M CO: Faces New Class Suit Over PFAS Forever Chemicals on Carpets APPLE COMMUTER: Fact Discovery & Briefing Date Extended APPLE INC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Mirage Wine Due Sept. 12, 2025 AVANT HEALTHCARE: Class Cert Bid Filing in Byron Due June 13, 2025 BACI TRADE: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Karim Suit Alleges BBBB BONDING: Plaintiff's Bid for Class Cert Due May 16, 2025 BBG INC: Fails to Pay Appraisers' OT Wages, Brittan Suit Alleges BEDROOM GALLERIES: Claude Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website BEL-BORN MANAGEMENT: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Karim Alleges BEST EXPRESS FOODS: Gonzalez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. BUMBLE TRADING: Settles BIPA Class Action Lawsuit for $40-Mil. CALBEE NORTH: Young Balks at Blind-Inaccessible Website CARLOTZ INC: Class Discovery in Securities Suit Due May 30, 2025 CARVANA LLC: Class Settlement in Koeppen Suit Gets Final Nod CASSAVA SCIENCES: Seeks More Time to File Surreply CLALLAM COUNTY PUBLIC: Settlement in Britt Suit Gets Initial Nod COLD BORE: Toomey Suit Alleges Failure to Pay Proper Overtime COMCAST CABLE: Faces Privacy Class Suit Over Xfinity Robocalls CONSUMER CELLULAR: Morris Suit Seeks to Certify Class COOK GROUP: Dinwiddie Suit Transferred to N.D. California COSTCO WHOLESALE: Waller Suit Removed to E.D. Mo. COUNTRY MUTUAL: Cameron Seeks to Certify Class CYRACOM INT'L: Class Settlement in Heid Suit Gets Final Nod DEL MONTE FOODS: Vlacich Seeks to Certify Class Action DESKTOP METAL: M&A Probes Proposed Merger With Nano Dimension DOVETAIL ENERGY: Court Orders Biodigester Class Settlement DX ENTERPRISES: Filing for Class Cert Bid Modified to May 30, 2025 ECOATM LLC: Morris Suit Seeks to Certify Class ED FINANCIAL: Class Cert Bid Filing in Bailey Due May 2, 2025 EDGEPOINT WEALTH: Kim Spencer Probes Securities Law Violation EIDP INC: Caporale Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes ELEVANCE HEALTH: Class Cert Bid Filing in Alvarado Due Oct. 18 EMBLEMHEALTH INC: Bid for Initial OK of Settlement Due Oct. 15 EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Court Vacates Order Denying Bid to Seal Docs EQUITYEXPERTS.ORG LLC: Must Respond on Bid to Compel by Sept. 19 ERICKSON DEMEL: Settlement in King Suit Gets Initial OK EVRY JEWELS: Faces Beaver Suit Over Fake Prices, Discounts EXAMONE WORLD: Seeks to Exclude Expert Testimony and Opinions EZ FESTIVALS: Palie Seeks to Adjourn Class Cert Deadline FCA US: Court Stays Class Certification, Discovery Deadlines FCA US: Plaintiffs Seek to File Three Exhibits Under Seal FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS: Court to Junk Alward Suit w/o Prejudice FIRST NATIONAL: Crouse Suit Remanded to Baltimore Court FIRST NATIONAL: Davis Suit Remanded to Baltimore Court FLO HEALTH: Frasco Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses FLO HEALTH: Frasco Suit Seeks to File Class Cert Docs Under Seal G & H DAIRY: Faces Suit Over Unpaid Wages, Discrimination G&D INTEGRATED: Court Directs Discovery Plan Filing in Hawkins Suit GENERAL MOTORS: Court Certifies Faulty Transmissions Class Suit GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Loses Summary Judgment Bid vs Trauernicht GLENDALE, CA: Civil Standing Order Entered in Williams Lawsuit GLOBAL E-TRADING: Bid to Stay Class Cert. Proceedings Deferred GMRI INC: Kappler Seeks to Certify Class of Servers & Bartenders GOLD MEDAL: Wertz Collective Action Gets Conditional Certification GOOGLE LLC: Faces Barulich Class Suit Over Cloud Contact Center AI HEALTH AND HUMAN: D.C. Circuit Upholds Dismissal of Class Suit HEARST TELEVISION: Must Oppose Saunders Class Cert Bid by Nov. 8 HEIGHTS HEALTHCARE: Bid for Continuance of Class Cert Deadline OK'd HILCORP ENERGY: Class Cert Bid Filing in Colton Suit Due Dec. 6 HRB GREEN RESOURCES: Williams Suit Removed to C.D. California HUNTINGTON NATIONAL: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due March 10, 2025 ICF TECHNOLOGY: Nizeul Files FLSA Suit in D. Connecticut INNODATA INC: Continues to Defend D'Agostino Class Suit in N.J. INTERNATIONAL ALLIANCE: Faces Bishop Suit Over Labor Discrimination INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Plaintiffs' Class Cert Reply Due Oct. 8, 2024 JEWISH HOME: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Breach JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces Class Suit Over Excessive PBM Fees LA ROSA HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss Palmer National Suit Pending LIBERTY SIRIUS: Renewed Arbitration Bid in Posternock Suit Pending MARELLA LLC: Faces Wilhelm Suit Over BIPA Violations MDL 2903: Settlement in Fisher-Price's RNPS Case Wins Initial Nod MDL 2903: Settlement in Kimmel v. Fisher Price Wins Initial Nod MDL 2903: Settlement in Mulvey v. Fisher Price Wins Initial Nod MDL 2903: Settlement in Nadel v. Fisher Price Wins Initial Nod MEDICAL PROPERTIES: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Alabama MICROVAST HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend WARN Act-Related Class Suit MILWAUKEE, WI: Housing Authority Sued Over Poor Living Conditions MONTEFIORE HEALTH: Cruz Suit Seeks Class Settlement Initial Nod MPT OPERATING: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in NY MPT OPERATING: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Alabama MY DAILY: Consolidated Class Complaint Filing Extended to Sept. 26 NATERA INC: Hearing in Schneider Set for Nov. 19 NIKOLA CORP: Continues to Defend Borteanu Class Suit in Arizona NUSCALE POWER: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit OUTSET MEDICAL: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit PAPA JOHNS: Continues to Defend Employee Antitrust Class Suit PARAMOUNT GLOBAL: Sued Over Fiduciary Duties Violations PERFORMANCE FOOD: Fails to Pay Supervisors' OT, Barnett Says PHOTON INFOTECH: Floyd Suit Removed to W.D. Washington PIG NEWTON: Stachovic Sues Over Data Privacy Violations PIGEONSHUB LLC: Morgenstern Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Washington PINGPOD INC: Herrera Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website PROPERTY RESULTS: Briscoe Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Virginia PURPLE HAZE: Sumlin Balks at Blind-Inaccessible Website READY CAPITAL: Continues to Defend Broadmark Class Suit REMARKABLE CAREGIVERS: Twitty Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. RESIDEO TECHNOLOGIES: PAGA Settlement in Tredo Suit for Court OK SAC POOL PROS: Rodriguez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SELECTQUOTE INSURANCE: Yaw Files TCPA Suit in D. South Carolina SHIFT4 PAYMENTS: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit SINCLAIR INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Antitrust Class Suit SKIPTHEDISHES: Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Arbitration Appeal STARBUCKS CORP: Faces Class Suit Over Investor Deception STARBUCKS CORPORATION: Garbaccio Sues Over Inflated Prices STOOPS NYC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Igartua Says SUPER MICRO: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims SUPER MICRO: Spatz Sues Over Drop in Share Price SYDNEE DICKSON: Kush Files Suit in D. Utah TAINA CORP: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind Users, Vega Says TASKUS INC: Continues to Defend Lozada Class Suit in Delaware TASKUS INC: Forsberg Class Suit Stayed TESLA INC: Court Dismissed Dogecoin Manipulation Class Action Suit TICKETMASTER LLC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Smith Alleges TKO GROUP: Continues to Defend Consolidated WWE Class Suit TKO GROUP: Johnson Class Suit Trial Date Not Set TKO GROUP: Oct. 28 Tentative Trial Date for Le Class Suit Set TRENDS DISPENSARIES: Igartua Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind TRUIST FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Bickerstaff Class Suit TURO INC: Refuses to Engage in Arbitration, Trifan Says U.G.N. INC: Faces Smith Suit Over ERISA Violations UNITED PARCEL SERVICE: Labar Suit Removed to W.D. Washington US PREMIUM: Continues to Defend Antitrust Class Suit in Minnesota US PREMIUM: NBP Continues to Defend Brown Suit in Colorado VALLEY NATIONAL BANK: Corsini Sues Over Unpaid Compensation VENTYX BIOSCIENCES:Continues to Defend Yuksel Securities Class Suit VERTEX ENERGY: Continues to Defend Mobile Refinery Class Suit VOYA RETIREMENT: Continues to Defend Ravarino Class Suit VSC HOLDINGS: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Young Says WAL-MART INC: Emery Suit Transferred to E.D. California WALGREENS INC: Mucinex Contains Benzene, Birdsong Suit Alleges WELLS FARGO: Browne Sues Over Unauthorized Electronic Fund YOUNG CONSULTING: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Bichoffe Says YOUNG CONSULTING: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Andrews Says ZYMERGEN INC: Court Narrows Claims in Biao Securities Fraud Case ********* 3M CO: Faces New Class Suit Over PFAS Forever Chemicals on Carpets ------------------------------------------------------------------ A new class-action lawsuit alleges millions of homes and businesses contain carpets infused with so-called 'forever chemicals," a fact that major manufacturers have attempted to cover up for decades, despite alleged awareness of their harms to human health, according to attorneys at Hagens Berman. The lawsuit was filed August 31 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota and, based on findings in cited studies, accuses defendants 3M, Chemours Company and EIDP Inc. (referred to as Old DuPont in the lawsuit) of allegedly engaging in a massive coverup deliberately designed to mislead the public about the alleged harms of the chemicals, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), which have been used widely in carpets and rugs. A large percentage of PFAS produced worldwide is used to treat carpets, rugs and other home textiles to impart stain-, soil-, oil- or water-resistance. These products constitute nearly half of all floor coverings in U.S. houses and workplaces. Because children are especially sensitive to the alleged harms of PFAS, daycares are businesses of exceptional concern. Through normal use, treated carpets, rugs and other consumer products release PFAS into indoor air and dust, which people inhale or ingest. If you purchased carpeting and had it installed before 2020, find out more about your consumer rights in the class-action lawsuit. 'Consumers in millions of homes across the country would be shocked to learn that under their feet are carpets infused with PFAS, otherwise known as forever chemicals, for their allegedly persistent and widespread harms to human health, especially children," said Steve Berman, managing partner of Hagens Berman. 'This isn't the first rodeo for these companies," Berman added. 'Many have already been forced to pay monumental amounts related to PFAS contamination, meaning they've been on notice in more ways than one, yet have allegedly continued to sweep these chemicals under the rug of unsuspecting home and businessowners." 3M agreed to pay $10.3 billion to settle claims that it contaminated public water systems with PFAS, while Old DuPont and related companies Chemours and Corteva Inc., agreed to pay $1.19 billion to settle similar claims, among other settlements cited in the newly filed lawsuit. Decades of Alleged Coverup The lawsuit illustrates the history of the use of PFAS in various products manufactured by defendants, which attorneys say constitutes racketeering, bringing claims under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. The alleged coverup includes DuPont's Teflon non-stick products, which it began making for industrial use in 1951. Only three years later, employees reported internally that PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid, a type of PFAS) might be toxic, according to the lawsuit. Allegedly, despite this knowledge, DuPont continued to promote its products containing PFOA and other PFAS, and Teflon-coated products hit the consumer marketplace in 1961. 'Between 1951 and 2000, 3M produced at least a hundred million pounds of PFOS [perfluorooctane sulfonate, and type of PFAS] and chemicals that degrade into PFOS. This is roughly the weight of the Titanic," the lawsuit states. In 2000, John R. Bowman, an in-house counsel for PFOA issues, wrote an email to several colleagues, 'We are going to spend millions to defend these lawsuits and have the additional threat of punitive damages hanging over our head. Getting out in front and acting responsibly can undercut and reduce the potential for punitives . . .. Our story is not a good one." Another in-house attorney described Old DuPont's response to the issue as 'a debacle at best," the complaint details. In 2004, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) filed an administrative enforcement action against Old DuPont for its failure to disclose toxicity and exposure information for PFOA. EPA called the settlement the 'largest civil administrative penalty EPA has ever obtained under any federal environmental statute." At about the time this penalty was issued, Old DuPont was making approximately $1 billion a year in revenue from products containing PFOA. Amid rising scrutiny of PFAS- and PFOA-containing products, 3M's strategy included funding outside research through 'grant money" including millions of dollars to a professor, John Giesy, who publicly presented himself as an independent expert but behind the scenes worked for 3M by reviewing articles submitted to academic journals for publishing. Dr. Giesy's goal, as expressed in a 2008 email, was to 'keep ‘bad' papers [regarding PFAS] out of the literature" because 'in litigation situations they can be a large obstacle to refute," as cited in the lawsuit. Consumers' Rights PFAS' strong carbon-fluorine bonds make them extremely resistant to degradation in the environment and difficult for the body to effectively metabolize or excrete. Forever chemicals are biomagnified, remaining and building over time as exposure continues. Exposure to PFAS can lead to adverse health outcomes in humans including reproductive and developmental, liver and kidney and immunological effects. In addition to RICO claims, the lawsuit brings a whopping 125 further claims against defendants, many of which invoke state consumer-rights laws seeking to protect everyday buyers from various forms of corporate fraud. Attorneys also bring claims of nuisance, failure to warn and design defects. Hagens Berman seeks to recover compensation on behalf of purchasers of affected carpets, which may also include punitive damages under various laws. Find out more about consumers' class-action lawsuit against 3M and DuPont regarding PFAS in carpets. About Hagens Berman Hagens Berman is a global plaintiffs' rights complex litigation law firm with a tenacious drive for achieving real results for those harmed by corporate negligence and fraud. Since its founding in 1993, the firm's determination has earned it numerous national accolades, awards and titles of 'Most Feared Plaintiff's Firm," MVPs and Trailblazers of class-action law. More about the law firm and its successes can be found at www.hbsslaw.com. Follow the firm for updates and news at @ClassActionLaw. Media Contact Ash Klann pr@hbsslaw.com (206) 268-9363 [GN] APPLE COMMUTER: Fact Discovery & Briefing Date Extended ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Abuladze, et al., v. Apple Commuter, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-08684-MMG-RFT (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Robyn Tarnofsky entered an order granting the parties' application for a 30-day extension of time to complete fact discovery, and the briefing of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Jude Tarnofsky said that he find that the parties' representation that these deadlines will impede the parties' scheduled mediation constitutes the necessary very good cause for the extension. However, he does not anticipate granting any future requests for extension of time based on scheduled mediation sessions or other settlement efforts, the Judge adds. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 28, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1bnILa at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: George D. Vallas, Esq. GREENWALD DOHERTY 30 Ramland Road, Suite 201 Orangeburg, NY 10962 Telephone: (845) 589-9300 Facsimile: (845) 638-2707 APPLE INC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Mirage Wine Due Sept. 12, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mirage Wine + Spirits, Inc., et al., v. Apple Inc. et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-03942-DWD (S.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge David Dugan entered an order granting scheduling and discovery plans as follows: 1. Discovery prior to Class Certification must be sufficient to permit the Court to determine whether the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 are satisfied, including a sufficient inquiry into the merits of the case to ensure appropriate management of the case as a Class Action. Once class certification is decided, the Court will schedule an additional conference with the parties to address entering a new discovery order, addressing any additional merits discovery needed as necessary. 2. Initial interrogatories and requests to produce, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 33 and 34 and SDIL-LR 33.1, shall be served on opposing parties by November 1, 2024. 3. Plaintiff(s) depositions shall be taken by Feb. 26, 2026. 4. Defendant(s) depositions shall be taken by Feb. 26, 2026. 5. Third Party actions must be commenced within 90 days following the scheduling conference. 6. Expert witnesses for Class Certification, if any, shall be disclosed, along with a written report prepared and signed by the witness pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2), as follows: Plaintiff(s) expert(s): Sept. 12, 2025. Defendant(s) expert(s): Dec. 12, 2025. 7. Depositions of Class Certification expert witnesses must be taken by: Plaintiff(s) expert(s): Nov. 14, 2025. Defendant(s) expert(s): Feb. 6, 2026 8. Plaintiff(s) Motion for Class Certification and Memorandum in Support shall be filed by Sept. 12, 2025 (such date shall be no later than 8 months prior to the first day of the trial month or the first day of the month of the trial setting) and shall not exceed 40 pages. Apple designs, manufactures, and markets smartphones, personal computers, tablets, wearables and accessories. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 28, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xZl5MO at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Walter W. Noss, Esq. Christopher M. Burke, Esq. Yifan (Kate) Lv, Esq. Stephen M. Tillery, Esq. Marc Wallenstein, Esq. KOREIN TILLERY P.C. 401 West A Street, Suite 1430 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 625-5620 Facsimile: (314) 241-3525 E-mail: wnoss@koreintillery.com cburke@koreintillery.com klv@koreintillery.com stillery@koreintillery.com mwallenstein@koreintillery.com - and - K. Craig Wildfang, Esq. Thomas J. Undlin, Esq. Stacey P. Slaughter, Esq. Ryan Marth, Esq. Geoffrey H. Kozen, Esq. ROBINS KAPLAN LLP 800 Lasalle Avenue, Suite 2800 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 349-8500 Facsimile: (612) 339-4181 E-mail: kcwildfang@RobinsKaplan.com tundlin@RobinsKaplan.com sslaughter@RobinsKaplan.com rmarth@RobinsKaplan.com gkozen@RobinsKaplan.com - and - David R. Scott, Esq. Patrick J. McGahan, Esq. Carmen Medici, Esq. Sean Russell, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP 156 South Main Street Colchester, CT 06415 Telephone: (860) 537-5537 Facsimile: (860) 537-4432 E-mail: david.scott@scott-scott.com pmcgahan@scott-scott.com cmedici@scott-scott.com srussell@scott-scott.com - and - Amelia F. Burroughs, Esq. BURROUGHS LEGAL Ferndale, CA 95536 Telephone: (707) 786-3955 E-mail: amelia@burroughslegal.com The Defendants are represented by: Brette Tannenbaum, Esq. Nina Kovalenko, Esq. Gary R. Carney, Esq. Donna Ioffredo, Esq. PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 373-3000 E-mail: btannenbaum@paulweiss.com nkovalenko@paulweiss.com gcarney@paulweiss.com dioffredo@paulweiss.com - and - Robert J. Vizas, Esq. Anne P. Davis, Esq. Matthew A. Eisenstein, Esq. ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP Three Embarcadero Center, Tenth Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4024 Telephone: (415) 471-3100 E-mail: robert.vizas@arnoldporter.com anne.davis@arnoldporter.com matthew.eisenstein@arnoldporter.com - and - Michael S. Shuster, Esq. Demian A. Ordway, Esq. HOLWELL SHUSTER & GOLDBERG LLP 425 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (646) 837-5151 E-mail: mshuster@hsgllp.com dordway@hsgllp.com bkaminsky@hsgllp.com - and - Belinda S Lee, Esq. Sarah M. Ray, Esq. Ashley M. Bauer, Esq. Aaron T. Chiu, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111-6538 Telephone: (415) 391-0600 Facsimile: (415) 395-8095 E-mail: belinda.lee@lw.com sarah.ray@lw.com ashley.bauer@lw.com aaron.chiu@lw.com AVANT HEALTHCARE: Class Cert Bid Filing in Byron Due June 13, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as LUCINDA BYRON and LATOYA LEWIS, v. AVANT HEALTHCARE PROFESSIONALS, LLC, Case No. 6:23-cv-01645-JSS-LHP (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Julie Sneed entered an order that: 1. The parties' joint motion to amend the Case Management and Scheduling Order is granted in part and denied in part. 2. Plaintiffs' deadline for disclosure of class certification expert reports is March 14, 2025. 3. Defendant's deadline for disclosure of class certification expert reports is April 14, 2025. 4. The class discovery deadline is May 14, 2025. 5. The deadline for the motion for class certification is June 13, 2025. 6. The Case Management and Scheduling Order otherwise remains in full effect. Avant Healthcare is a nurse staffing and recruitment agency. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 26, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7hqBHv at no extra charge.[CC] BACI TRADE: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Karim Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- JESSICA KARIM, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Baci Trade, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-06644 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 3, 2024) alleges that Baci failed 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 in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and services Baci Trade provides to their non-disabled customers through https://www.bacifashion.com. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the law. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using her computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or "visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200. Some blind people who meet this definition have limited vision; others have no vision. Bacifashion.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials and other programs offered by Baci Trade. Yet, Bacifashion.com contains significant access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the website. In fact, the access barriers make it impossible for blind and visually-impaired users to even complete a transaction on the website. Thus, Baci Trade excludes the blind and visually-impaired from the full and equal participation in the growing Internet economy that is increasingly a fundamental part of the common marketplace and daily living, says the suit.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gabriel A. Levy, Esq. 1129 Northern Blvd, Suite 404 Manhasset, NY 11030 Telephone: (347) 941-4715 E-mail: Glevyfirm@gmail.com BBBB BONDING: Plaintiff's Bid for Class Cert Due May 16, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Benton v. BBBB Bonding Corp., et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-01294 (E.D. Cal., Filed May 3, 2024), the Hon. Judge Daniel J. Calabretta entered an order modifying the scheduling order as follows: -- Plaintiff's motion for class certification May 16, 2025 shall be filed no later than: -- Shall be noticed for hearing on: July 10, 2025 The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Bbbb is a leading import company in USA.[CC] BBG INC: Fails to Pay Appraisers' OT Wages, Brittan Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- BRUCE BITTAN, JACK ENRIGHT, and PATRICK SMITH, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. BBG, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-01008-UNA (D. Del., Sept. 3, 2024) is a case about the Defendant's willful refusal to pay overtime wages to its Appraisers who perform substantially similar, low level appraisal work throughout the United States under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Wage Laws. According to the complaint, the Defendant has steadfastly refused to pay its in-house Appraisers any overtime compensation in willful violation of the FLSA and state wage and hour protections. The Plaintiffs and the putative Collective and Class Members were or are employed by Defendant as Appraisal Analysts, Research Appraisers, Trainee Appraisers, and other substantially similar positions. Plaintiffs Enright and Smith bring Count I of this lawsuit as a collective action pursuant to the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) on behalf of themselves and the following similarly situated persons: "All individuals who worked for BBG, Inc. as Appraisal Analysts, Trainee Appraisers, Researcher Appraisers, and those in similar positions during the past three years in United States who were not paid overtime compensation when they worked over 40 hours in a workweek (the FLSA Collective or FLSA Collective Members)." Plaintiffs Bittan and Enright bring Counts II and III of this lawsuit as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, on behalf of themselves and the following class: "All individuals who worked for BBG, Inc. as Appraisal Analysts, Trainee Appraisers, Researcher Appraisers, and those in similar positions (collectively, "Appraisers") during the past six (6) years in New York who were not paid overtime compensation when they worked over forty (40) hours in a workweek (the "New York Class" or "New York Class Members").[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Russell Paul, Esq. Alexandra K. Piazza, Esq. Olivia Lanctot, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 800 N. West Street, Suite 200 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 691-9545 Facsimile: (215) 875-4620 E-mail: rpaul@bm.net apiazza@bm.net olanctot@bm.net BEDROOM GALLERIES: Claude Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- Wislande Claude, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. BEDROOM GALLERIES LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, Case No. 2:24-cv-08878 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 30, 2024), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its goods and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's website, www.kidsbedroomgallery.com (the "Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. The Defendant is a company that owns and operates its Website, offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services and by which Defendant ensures the delivery of such goods and services throughout the United States, including the State of New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com BEL-BORN MANAGEMENT: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Karim Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- JESSICA KARIM, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Bel-Born Management Corporation, Case No. 1:24-cv-06650 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 3, 2024) alleges that Baci failed 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 in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and services Bel-Born Management provides to their non-disabled customers through https://www.villagehatshop.com. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under ADA. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using her computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or "visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200. Some blind people who meet this definition have limited vision; others have no vision. Villagehatshop.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials and other programs offered by Bel-Born Management. Yet, Villagehatshop.com contains significant access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the website. In fact, the access barriers make it impossible for blind and visually-impaired users to even complete a transaction on the website, says the suit.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gabriel A. Levy, Esq. 1129 Northern Blvd, Suite 404 Manhasset, NY 11030 Telephone: (347) 941-4715 E-mail: Glevyfirm@gmail.com BEST EXPRESS FOODS: Gonzalez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Best Express Foods, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Mireya Gonzalez, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. Best Express Foods, Inc., Vision Fine Foods, LLC, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2024-0010764 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Aug. 29, 2024). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Best Express Foods -- https://www.bestxfoods.com/ -- is a recognized leader in quality and value amongst club store members and mass merchandiser customers across the Country and abroad.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Orlando J. Villalba, Esq. CAPSTONE LAW APC 1875 Century Park E., Ste. 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2533 Phone: 310-712-8002 Email: Orlando.Villalba@capstonelawyers.com BUMBLE TRADING: Settles BIPA Class Action Lawsuit for $40-Mil. -------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Bumble and Badoo users in Illinois can participate in a $40 million Bumble settlement resolving claims the dating apps violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. The settlement benefits Bumble or Badoo users who resided or were located in Illinois and accessed the apps between Nov. 1, 2016, and Dec. 31, 2021. According to the plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit, Bumble and Badoo unlawfully collected biometric information, such as facial geometry scans, from photos users uploaded to the apps. This data collection allegedly violated BIPA. Bumble and Badoo are dating apps owned by Bumble Inc. Bumble and Badoo haven't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay $40 million to resolve the BIPA class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the Bumble settlement, class members will receive an equal share of the net settlement fund. These payments will vary depending on the number of claims filed and other factors. No payment estimates are available at this time. The settlement also includes non-monetary relief. Bumble and Badoo agreed to delete all previously collected biometric information and comply with BIPA in the future. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Sept. 20, 2024. The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for Oct. 23, 2024. To receive Bumble settlement payments, class members must submit a valid claim form by Sept. 20, 2024. Who's Eligible Bumble or Badoo users who resided or were located in Illinois and accessed the apps between Nov. 1, 2016, and Dec. 31, 2021 Potential Award TBD Proof of Purchase App user information (usernames, associated email addresses, associated phone numbers, etc.) Claim Form Deadline 9/20/2024 Case Name Howell, et al. v. Bumble Trading LLC, et al., Case No. 2021-L-307, in the Illinois Circuit Court for Winnebago County Final Hearing 10/23/2024 Claims Administrator Howell v. Bumble Trading L.L.C. Settlement Administrator P.O. Box 2567 Portland, OR 97208-2567 info@HowellBIPASettlement.com (877) 763-0944 Class Counsel Katrina Carroll LYNCH CARPENTER LLP Jonathan M Jagher FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC [GN] CALBEE NORTH: Young Balks at Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------- LESHAWN YOUNG, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CALBEE NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-06441 (S.D.N.Y., August 26, 2024) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://shop.harvestsnaps.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on August 17, 2024, in an attempt to purchase Crunchy Loops Sour Cream & Onion from Defendant and to view the information on the Website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied her a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public; and that denied her the full enjoyment of the goods, and services of the Website by being unable to purchase Crunchy Loops Sour Cream & Onion, as well as other products available online and to ascertain information relating to Defendant's plant-based snack crisps, as well as other types of goods, pricing, privacy policies and internet pricing specials, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Calbee North America, LLC offers food products. The Company operates the website that produces and manufactures wide variety of flavored chips.[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 CARLOTZ INC: Class Discovery in Securities Suit Due May 30, 2025 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit RE CARLOTZ, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 1:21-cv-05906-AS (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Arun Subramanian entered an order adopting the following Case Management Plan pursuant to Rules 16 and 26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 1. All parties do not consent to conducting all further proceedings before a United States Magistrate Judge, including motions and trial. 28 U.S.C. section 636(c). 2. First request for production of documents, if any, must be Served by Sept. 20, 2024. 3. All discovery is to be completed by May 30, 2025. 4. All depositions (including any expert depositions, see item 5(c) above) must be completed by May 30, 2025. 5. Post-discovery summary judgment motions in the form prescribed by the Court's Individual Practices shall be served by June 30, 2025, answering papers by July 31, 2025, and reply papers by Aug. 15, 2025. 6. All motions and applications shall be governed by Judge Subramanian's Individual Practices. Counsel shall promptly familiarize themselves with all of the Court's Individual Practices, as well as with the Local Rules for the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The initial pretrial conference currently set for Sept. 4, 2024, is canceled. The parties should meet and confer and propose a briefing schedule for plaintiff's motion for class certification by that same date. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 29, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=usZkV0 at no extra charge.[CC] CARVANA LLC: Class Settlement in Koeppen Suit Gets Final Nod ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as RONELL KOEPPEN, v. CARVANA, LLC, Case No. 3:21-cv-01951-TSH (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Thomas Hixson entered an order granting final approval of class action settlement and motion for attorneys' fees: -- granting Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the parties' class action settlement in the amount of $1,050,000.00; and -- granting Plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees and costs; Specifically, the Court awards the following: $367,500 in attorney's fees; $11,870.29 in litigation costs; $11,000 in settlement administration costs; and $5,000 service award to Plaintiff Ronell Koeppen. The parties shall file a proposed judgment that complies with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(3) by August 29, 2024. The Plaintiff worked as an hourly, nonexempt Customer Advocate for the Defendant from January to July 2020. He sought to represent a class defined as: "All current and former hourly-paid or non-exempt employees who worked for the Defendant within the State of California at any time during the period from December 16, 2016, to final judgment and who reside in California." The Plaintiff's core allegations are that Defendant violated the California Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code by failing to properly pay minimum and overtime wages, failing to provide compliant meal and rest periods or pay associated premiums, failing to timely pay wages during employment and upon termination and associated waiting time penalties, failing to provide compliant wage statements, and failing to reimburse necessary business-related expenses. On December 16, 2020, Plaintiff filed his original complaint in the Superior Court of California for the County of Alameda, Case No. RG20084625. On February 22, 2021, he filed the operative First Amended Class Action Complaint. On June 10, 2021, the parties notified the Court that they had agreed and scheduled a private mediation with mediator Jeffrey A. Ross to occur on February 14, 2022. Carvana offers new and used cars and vehicles. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 22, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IvsGQ8 at no extra charge.[CC] CASSAVA SCIENCES: Seeks More Time to File Surreply --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as In Re Cassava Sciences, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:21-cv-00751-DAE (W.D. Tex.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting an extension of time until Oct. 4, 2024 to seek leave to file a Surreply responding to Plaintiffs' Reply in Further Support of Motion for Class Certification. Given the extensive new evidence and arguments raised in Plaintiffs' Reply, the Defendants are entitled to a Surreply to respond to the Plaintiffs' new arguments and evidence. The Defendants request six weeks to prepare and file their Motion for Leave, which is reasonable given that the Plaintiffs had eight weeks to prepare and file their Reply. The Defendants met and conferred with Plaintiffs regarding this request, but the parties were unable to reach agreement. The Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class Certification on March 13, 2024. The Defendants filed their Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification on June 28, 2024. The Plaintiffs filed their Reply in Further Support of Motion for Class Certification eight weeks later, on Aug. 23, 2024. Cassava is a biotechnology company focused on Alzheimer's disease. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Aug. 30, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Mevzn1 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Gregg Costa, Esq. Trey Cox, Esq. Monica K. Loseman, Esq. Scott Campbell, Esq. John Turquet Bravard, Esq. Mary Beth Maloney, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 811 Main Street Suite 3000 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (346) 718-6600 Facsimile: (346) 718-6979 E-mail: gcosta@gibsondunn.com tcox@gibsondunn.com CLALLAM COUNTY PUBLIC: Settlement in Britt Suit Gets Initial Nod ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER BRITT, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. CLALLAM COUNTY PUBLIC HOSPITAL DISTRICT NO. 2 d/b/a OLYMPIC MEDICAL CENTER, a Washington Municipal Corporation, Case No. 3:23-cv-05377-MJP (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Marsha Pechmanlass entered an order: -- granting the Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class and Collective Settlement -- certifying the following Settlement Class: "All current and former hourly, non-exempt employees employed by the Defendant in Washington at any time starting April 27, 2020, through the date of Preliminary Approval of the Settlement." -- approving the terms and conditions contained in the Settlement Agreement pertaining to the FLSA Collective, which is defined as follows: "All current and former hourly, non-exempt employees employed by the Defendant in Washington at any time starting April 27, 2020, through the date of Preliminary Approval of the Settlement, who timely submit the FLSA Collective Consent Form to join the collective action." -- appointing Michael C. Subit of Frank Freed Submit & Thomas LLP, Michael A. Josephson, Andrew W. Dunlap, and William M. Hogg of Josephson Dunlap LLP, Richard J. (Rex) Burch of Bruckner Burch PLLC, and William C. (Clif) Alexander and Austin W. Anderson of Anderson Alexander PLLC, as Settlement Class Counsel -- directing the Plaintiff to amend Sections 10 and 11 of the Class Notice as per the Court's instructions in Sections B.6–7 of this Order. Plaintiff is then ORDERED to adhere to the procedure approved of by the Court in Section B of this Order. The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to all counsel. This case concerns claims that Britt, along with approximately 1,350 current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt employees of the Defendant whom she seeks to represent, performed work for OMC that remained unpaid due to OMC's practices and policies. The Parties have agreed on a gross settlement amount of $1,400,000.00. The Settlement Agreement proposes that the amount be divided into two tranches. The first is the "FLSA Net Settlement Fund," a separate $250,000.00 fund to compensate Class Members who agree to settle their federal FLSA claims by opting-in to the FLSA Collective Action. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 23, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=auO06N at no extra charge.[CC] COLD BORE: Toomey Suit Alleges Failure to Pay Proper Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- WILL TOOMEY, Individually and On Behalf of Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. COLD BORE TECHNOLOGY CORP., Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-01579 (D. Nev., August 26, 2024) is a class and collective action lawsuit brought by the Plaintiff to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages from the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New Mexico Minimum Wage Act. The complaint relates that Plaintiff Toomey and the other day rate workers regularly work more than 40 hours a workweek. But Cold Bore does not pay them overtime. Instead, Cold Bore misclassifies them as independent contractors and pays them a flat amount for each day worked, regardless of the total number of hours they work in a workday or in a workweek, says the suit. Plaintiff Toomey worked for Cold Bore as a Data Analyst in New Mexico, Texas, and Louisiana from approximately May 2021 until November 2023. Cold Bore Technology, Corp. provides software solutions. The Company develops down-hole sonic communication tools for the directional drilling industry. Cold Bore Technology serves oil and gas sector globally.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Esther C. Rodriguez, Esq. RODRIGUEZ LAW OFFICES, P.C. 10161 Park Run Drive, Suite 150 Las Vegas, NV 89145 Telephone: (702) 320-8400 Facsimile: (702) 320-8401 E-mail: info@rodriguezlaw.com COMCAST CABLE: Faces Privacy Class Suit Over Xfinity Robocalls -------------------------------------------------------------- Kelsey McCroskey, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a consumer claims in a proposed class action lawsuit that Xfinity has violated federal law by placing numerous debt collection robocalls to his cell phone without consent. The 13-page privacy lawsuit alleges that Comcast Cable Communications LLC, which does business as Xfinity, ran afoul of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act when it made prerecorded calls to the plaintiff, a Georgia man who says he has never done business with the company. According to the suit, the plaintiff began receiving robocalls from Xfinity in late 2023. When the man answered, he heard a prerecorded message stating that he owed approximately $300 on two accounts and should call back to make the payment, the case shares. The plaintiff says that when he called Xfinity in January 2024 to ask why he was being contacted, company employees were "unable to associate his name, phone number or address to any Xfinity accounts." Despite requesting that the calls stop, the man continued to receive unwanted contact from the company, the complaint contends. The plaintiff claims the alleged robocalls have been a "nuisance" and invaded his privacy. The Xfinity robocall lawsuit looks to represent anyone in the United States who, in the past four years, received a prerecorded call on their cell phone from the company and was not an Xfinity accountholder. [GN] CONSUMER CELLULAR: Morris Suit Seeks to Certify Class ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Zachary Morris, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. CONSUMER CELLULAR INCORPORATED, Case No. 2:24-cv-01112-SCD (E.D. Wis.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: -- certifying the proposed classes, -- appointing the Plaintiff as class representative, -- appointing Stein Saks PLLC as Class Counsel, -- staying the class certification motion until an amended motion for class certification is filed, and -- granting the parties relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and requirement that Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents in support of this motion. Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class action complaint could moot a class representative's case by depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the court enter judgment in the plaintiff’s favor prior to the filing of a class certification motion. To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion. As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended motion is filed. Consumer Cellular is an American postpaid mobile virtual network operator. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 2, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HflFZS at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620, Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com COOK GROUP: Dinwiddie Suit Transferred to N.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Jennifer L. Dinwiddie, and all others similarly situated v. Cook Group Inc.; COOK MED INSTITUTE, INC.; MED INSTITUTE, INC.; Cook Medical Incorporated also known as: COOK MEDICAL INC.; Cook Medical LLC; Cook Incorporated; MEDICAL ENGINEERING AND DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE, INC.; COOK MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES; COOK DENMARK INTERNATIONAL APS; COOK DENMARK HOLDING APS; COOK GROUP EUROPE APS; COOK NEDERLAND BV; William Cook Europe APS; Case No. 4:21-cv-00882 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Aug. 29, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-06133-VC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability. Cook Group -- https://www.cookgroup.com/ -- is a global, family-owned group of businesses spanning medical devices, life sciences, services, property management, and resorts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher L. Schnieders, Esq. NAPOLI SHKOLNIK PLLC 6731 W. 121st St., Ste. 201 Overland Park, KS 66209 Phone: (913) 246-3860 Fax: (312) 610-5680 Email: cschnieders@napolilaw.com COSTCO WHOLESALE: Waller Suit Removed to E.D. Mo. ------------------------------------------------- The case styled as VALERIE WALLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORP., NIAGARA BOTTLING, LLC, and DOES 1 through 10, Defendants, Case No. 24SL-CC03404, was removed from the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, State of Missouri, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on August 26, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:24-cv-01169 to the proceeding. The removed case alleges that "Kirkland" branded purified water contains false and deceptive claims related to the use of the phrase "with minerals added for taste" on the product packaging. The Plaintiff asserts claims for (i) breach of warranty, (ii) breach of implied contract, (iii) unjust enrichment, and (iv) violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act alongside other consumer protection statutes from various states. Costco Wholesale Corp. is an American multinational corporation which operates a chain of membership-only big-box warehouse club retail stores.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Laura A. Bentele, Esq. Samra Cordic, Esq. ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP 7700 Forsyth Blvd., Suite 1800 St. Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 621-5070 Facsimile: (314) 621-5065 E-mail: lbentele@atllp.com scordic@atllp.com COUNTRY MUTUAL: Cameron Seeks to Certify Class ---------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as George Cameron and Janin Cameron, Country Mutual Insurance Company claimants, and all others similarly situated throughout Washington State and the United States of America, v. Country Mutual Insurance Company, an insurance company, Country Financial, an insurance conglomerate, Country Casualty Insurance Company, An insurance company, Preferred Insurance Company, an Insurance company, Country Investor Life Assurance Company, an insurance Company and Country Life Insurance Company, an insurance company, Case No. 1:24-cv-03075-MKD (E.D. Wash.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting Plaintiffs' motion to certify class. According to the complaint, Country Financial has standard claim settlement practices which violate the requirements in the Model Regs. This fact establishes that Country Financial harmed every claimant whose claim was partially or totally denied. This common issue dominates all others. Absent a class certification, many consumers who have been injured by Country Financial's bad actions may not be able to have knowledge of or meaningfully recover for the harm inflicted upon them. This class can always be modified later as additional information becomes available. Therefore, this Court should grant class certification. The lead plaintiff in this case, George Cameron, has an insurance contract with Country Mutual which had a covered occurrence on Jan. 8, 2022. After reporting the occurrence to his insurance agent, the claim was sent to Country Financial's claim settlement division. The claim settlement process engaged in by Country Financial violated the WACs in at least four known ways. First, it failed to give Cameron any forms or instructions to help Cameron file his claim. Second, it failed to undertake a reasonable investigation of the scope of his loss recoverable under the contract. Third, it failed to reasonably explain why it denied and mited some of his claims. Finally, it enforced a provision which limited the timeframe in which Cameron could submit a claim without first 3 giving the required 30-day notice of the deadline. No effort has been taken by Country Financial to ensure its claim settlement practices conform to the obligations created by the good faith duties of insurer or the Model Regs. Because Country Financial does not have individualized or targeted claim settlement practices every claimant within the past four year was denied a part of the value which the customer was entitled to under the insurance contract. This proposed class action is necessary to protect all customers of Country Financial from the harm done to them by a common practice and to institute a public injunction to protect all future claimants. The potential class members should be defined as all first party insurance claimants whose claim was partially or totally denied by one of Defendants. The geographic scope should contain individuals throughout the United States Country Mutual provides investment management, retirement, and trust and planning services. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept. 2, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bfZizY at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth M. Reynolds, Esq. SETH REYNOLDS, ESQ. 32nd Ave. S #105 Seattle, WA 98118 E-mail: seth@robertreynoldslaw.com CYRACOM INT'L: Class Settlement in Heid Suit Gets Final Nod ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as HELAINE HEID, INGRID LEEMAN, and MIRIAM SARAIVA, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. CYRACOM INT'L, INC, et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-01445-MMA-KSC (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Michael Anello entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective and class settlement. 1. The Court certifies this action as a FLSA collective action under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) and as a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) for the purposes of settlement only. 2. The Court approves the Settlement Agreement, attached as Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Shant A. Karnikian as fair, reasonable, and adequate pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e). 3. The Court orders the parties to undertake the obligations set forth in the Settlement Agreement and directs that the Gross Settlement Amount be distributed in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. 4. The Court finds that distribution of the Notices of Settlement directed to Class/Collective Members as set forth in the Settlement Agreement and the other matters set forth therein have been completed in substantial conformity with the Preliminary Approval Order, including individual notice to all Class/Collective Members who could be identified through reasonable effort. 5. The Court finds and determines that the notice procedure afforded adequate protections to Class/Collective Members. The Notices of Settlement provided due and adequate notice of the proceedings and of the matters set forth therein, including the proposed Settlement set forth in the Settlement Agreement, to all persons entitled to such notice, and the Notices of Settlement fully satisfied the requirements of due process. 6. The Court excludes from the California Settlement Class those persons who properly and timely request exclusion. 7. The Court approves the PAGA Gross Settlement Amount of $250,000.00. 8. The Court awards attorneys' fees to Class Counsel in the amount of $900,000.00 and costs in the amount of $31,110.36. 9. The Court awards administration costs to the Settlement Administrator Apex Class Action, LLC in the amount of $50,000.00. 10. The Court further awards to Named Plaintiffs an incentive payment for work performed as the class representatives in the amount of $7,500.00 each, for a total of $22,500.00. CyraCom is a provider of language interpreting services. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 30, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=B3RqUu at no extra charge.[CC] DEL MONTE FOODS: Vlacich Seeks to Certify Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jennifer Vlacich, Brenda Robert, Elena Nacarino, Ana Krstic, Christina Vink, Lora Grodnick, Lisa Malara, and Teena Stambaugh, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Del Monte Foods, Inc., Case No. 4:22-cv-00892-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court to certify class action. California Plaintiff Elena Nacarino seeks to certify a California class for her CLRA, UCL, and express warranty claims. New York Plaintiffs Jennifer Vlacich and Brenda Robert seek to certify a New York class for their General Business Law sections349 & 350 claims. Illinois Plaintiff Ana Krstic seeks to certify an Illinois class for her Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act claim. New Jersey Plaintiff Lora Grodnick seeks to certify a New Jersey class for her Consumer Fraud Act and express warranty claims. Ohio Plaintiff Teena Stambaugh seeks to certify an Ohio class for her express warranty claim. Pennsylvania Plaintiff Lisa Malara seeks to certify a Pennsylvania class for her express warranty claim. And Virginia purchaser Christina Vink seeks to certify a Virginia class for her express warranty claim. The Plaintiffs also move for their respective appointments as class representatives, and for the appointment of Simon Franzini, Jonas Jacobson, and Richard Lyon of Dovel & Luner and Zack Broslavsky of Broslavsky & Weinman as class counsel. The motion is based on the attached memorandum of law, declarations, and exhibits. The Plaintiffs seek to certify seven statewide classes: California class: "All consumers who purchased No MSG Products in California, during the applicable statute of limitations." The Plaintiffs seek to certify Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), and express warranty claims. California purchaser Elena Nacarino is the proposed class representative. New York class: "all consumers who purchased No MSG Products in New York, during the applicable statute of limitations. Plaintiffs seek to certify General Business Law (“GBL”) §§349 & 350 claims (Dkt. 86, Counts 1- 2). New York purchasers Jennifer Vlacich and Brenda Robert are the proposed class representatives. Illinois class: "All consumers who purchased No MSG Products in Illinois, during the applicable statute of limitations. Plaintiffs seek to certify Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (ICFA) (815 ILCS 505/2, et seq.) claims. Illinois purchaser Ana Krstic is the proposed class representative. New Jersey class: "All consumers who purchased No MSG Products in New Jersey, during the applicable statute of limitations. Plaintiffs seek to certify Consumer Fraud Act and express warranty claims." New Jersey purchaser Lora Grodnick is the proposed class representative. Ohio class: "All consumers who purchased No MSG Products in Ohio, during the applicable statute of limitations. Plaintiffs seek to certify an express warranty claim." Ohio purchaser Teena Stambaugh is the proposed class representative. Pennsylvania class: "All consumers who purchased No MSG Products in Pennsylvania, during the applicable statute of limitations. Plaintiffs seek to certify an express warranty claim." Pennsylvania purchaser Lisa Malara is the proposed class representative. Virginia class: "All consumers who purchased No MSG Products in Virginia, during the applicable statute of limitations. For the Virginia Class, Plaintiffs seek to certify an express warranty claim.:" Virginia purchaser Christina Vink is the proposed class representative. Del Monte is an American food production and distribution company and subsidiary of NutriAsia. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 30, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=STxcjP at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Richard Lyon, Esq. Simon Franzini, Esq. Jonas B. Jacobson DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 656-7066 Facsimile: (310) 656-7069 E-mail: rick@dovel.com simon@dovel.com jonas@dovel.com - and - Zack Broslavsky, Esq. BROSLAVSKY & WEINMAN, LLP 1500 Rosecrans. Ave, Suite 500 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Telephone: (310) 575-2550 Facsimile: (310) 464-3550 E-mail: zbroslavsky@bwcounsel.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. 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] DOVETAIL ENERGY: Court Orders Biodigester Class Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------- London Bishop, writing for Dayton Daily News, reports that Fairborn and Bath Twp. residents have settled with Dovetail Energy LLC in a four-year long class-action lawsuit over the biodigester located at the Greene County farm. Dovetail Energy LLC has been ordered to pay $635,000 plus attorney's fees, as well as permanently close its Greene County operation, according to the filing. The company already did close the facility earlier this year as part of a separate lawsuit with the Ohio Attorney General. A lump sum of $10,000 will be paid to each named member of the class-action settlement, and an equal share of the money paid to unnamed parties of the lawsuit who resided in the settlement area of Fairborn and Bath Twp. at the time. The Ohio Attorney General and the Ohio EPA sued Renergy twice over violations of the state's air and water pollution laws in the past few years. The first suit resulted in a settlement agreement, and Renergy was required to obtain a permit to install and operate the digestate lagoon. The second suit resulted in Renergy agreeing to shut down the biodigester, according to the Ohio AG's office. The biodigester ceased operations in February. The Dovetail biodigester, previously operated by Ohio-based bioenergy company Renergy, used an anaerobic process to break down food waste and manure into fertilizer and methane gas for electricity in Greene County. The facility was a source of controversy for years, as neighbors complained of odors, and Bath Twp. officials pursued zoning controls. Retired Judge Dennis Langer presided over the case. Lawyers for both parties did not return requests for comment. [GN] DX ENTERPRISES: Filing for Class Cert Bid Modified to May 30, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as McClaine v. DX Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-01168 (S.D. Ill., Filed April 6, 2023), the Hon. Judge David W. Dugan entered an order granting parties' joint motion to extend deadline for parties to complete depositions and expert discovery. -- Party depositions must be completed Oct. 29, 2024 on or before: -- Plaintiff's experts for class Nov. 14, 2024 certification purposes must be disclosed on or before: -- Defendant's experts for class Dec. 16, 2024 certification purposes must be disclosed on or before: -- Plaintiff's experts must be deposed March 11, 2025 on or before: -- Defendant's experts must be deposed April 15, 2025 on or before: -- Plaintiff's motion for class May 30, 2025 certification shall be filed on or before: with Defendant to respond on or July 15, 2025 before: Plaintiff to file her reply on or July 28, 2025 Before: The nature of suit states labor litigation. DXE is a staffing and logistics company that provides staffing services for the engineering sector.[CC] ECOATM LLC: Morris Suit Seeks to Certify Class ---------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Zachary Morris, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. ECOATM, LLC D/B/A GAZELLE, Case No. 2:24-cv-01111-WED (E.D. Wis.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: -- certifying the proposed classes, -- appointing the Plaintiff as class representative, -- appointing Stein Saks PLLC as Class Counsel, -- staying the class certification motion until an amended motion for class certification is filed, and -- granting the parties relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and requirement that Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents in support of this motion. Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class action complaint could moot a class representative's case by depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the court enter judgment in the plaintiff’s favor prior to the filing of a class certification motion. To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion. As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended motion is filed. Ecoatm develops and manufactures an automated self-serve kiosk systems. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 2, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fAxKJ1 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620, Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com ED FINANCIAL: Class Cert Bid Filing in Bailey Due May 2, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PHILIP BAILEY on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated, v. ED FINANCIAL SERVICES LLC, Case No. 4:24-cv-00144-WMR-WEJ (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Walter Johnson entered a scheduling order as follows: This case has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge. As an initial matter, although the parties indicate there is no possibility of settlement, they should be aware that the Court offers the services of its Magistrate Judges to mediate cases at no cost. Should the parties desire to do so, they may contact the chambers of the Honorable Russell G. Vineyard (404-215-1375), Chief United States Magistrate Judge. Furthermore, all pretrial motions and proceedings, including discovery issues, shall be determined under this referral by the undersigned. This case is assigned to a twelve-month discovery track commencing August 23, 2024. Parties with discovery disputes are directed to contact the Chambers of the undersigned BEFORE filing any Motion. The Court prefers to handle such disputes via telephone conference where possible. The further entered an order that the Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be filed no later than May 2, 2025. The Defendant's opposition shall be filed no later than May 30, 2025, and plaintiff's reply shall be filed no later than June 20, 2025. EdFinancial is a financial company which provides student loan A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 23, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Q7uf7T at no extra charge.[CC] EDGEPOINT WEALTH: Kim Spencer Probes Securities Law Violation ------------------------------------------------------------- Kim Spencer McPhee Barristers P.C. is investigating a possible class action lawsuit against EdgePoint Wealth Management Inc., OneMove Capital Limited, Engine Capital LP, and Blacksheep Fund Management Ltd. (collectively, the Activist Shareholders). The class action would be brought on behalf of shareholders of Dye & Durham Limited other than the Activist Shareholders and any shareholder who may have been acting jointly or in concert with the Activist Shareholders. What is this proposed lawsuit about? As of October 2023, the Activist Shareholders collectively held in excess of 20% of the issue and outstanding common shares of Dye & Durham. Since October 2023, the Activist Shareholders have, in aggregate, acquired additional shares of Dye & Durham. Kim Spencer McPhee is currently investigating whether Activist Shareholders were acting jointly and in concert with each other in relation to Dye & Durham once that threshold was reached. Under the Securities Act (Ontario), a takeover bid is an offer to acquire more than 20% of a class of securities by a single person or by two or more persons acting jointly or in concert. Where a takeover bid is made, the bidder must, among other things, issue a takeover bid circular, issue a news release and make the bid to all holders of the class of securities, offering the same terms to all holders. Pursuant to section 105 of the Securities Act, where a bidder or bidders have not complied with the takeover bid provisions of the Act and regulation under the Act, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice may, among other things, make an order compensating an interested party for damages suffered as a result of a contravention of the Act or the regulation. Damages could be equal to the consideration that shareholders would have received had the Activist Shareholders complied with the Act and regulation and made a bid to all holders on the same terms as the Activist Shareholder paid in acquiring shares in market and private purchases. What is a class action? A class action is a lawsuit by which one or more representative persons makes a claim on behalf of a similarly situated class of persons who have the same or a similar legal claim. A class action seeks to hold a defendant or defendants responsible for their conduct that affects each member of the class, by resolving issues that are common to the class in the same legal proceeding, instead of each class member bringing their own claim. The representative plaintiff or plaintiffs who commence the lawsuit must ask the Court for permission to proceed as a class action. If permission is granted, the Court will approve the appointment of the individual or individuals to represent the best interests of the defined class in the litigation, following which the case may proceed as a class action. Each person who meets the criteria of the class group is considered to be a member of the class. Interested in serving as a representative plaintiff? Our firm is interested in hearing from shareholders of Dye & Durham. If you have been a shareholder of Dye & Durham since October 2023, and are interested in serving as a representative plaintiff, please contact: Contact: Megan B. McPhee, Managing Principal Kim Spencer McPhee Barristers PC Email: mbm@complexlaw.ca Tel: (416) 349-6574 1200 Bay Street, Suite 1203 Toronto ON M5R 2A5 [GN] EIDP INC: Caporale Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CANDY CAPORALE, et al., v. EIDP, INC., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01672-JLH-SRF (D. Del.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying two separate classes, pursuant to Fed. R. Fed. P. 23(b)(3), to permit the just and efficient litigation of Count III of the Third Amended Complaint, sounding in negligence, against all Defendants. The first class action would be limited to litigation of liability issues pertaining to personal injury (with the quantification of damages, if Defendants are found liable, subsequently handled on an individualized basis). The second class action would incorporate the liability findings (there would be no need for a separate trial) and have a class resolution of the residential property damage caused by Defendants’ conduct, which is readily calculable on a class-wide basis (yielding a percentage quantification of how much the PFOA and PFOS contamination devalued property in this area, which then could be applied on an individualized basis to calculate the precise damages suffered by each propertyowning class member). The Plaintiffs Candy Caporale, Bruce Davis, Gene Sullenberger, and Christine Wootten, have filed this lawsuit in a representative capacity, seeking authorization to represent over 1,600 individuals who live, or have lived, and own or have owned residential property, in or near the Town of Blades, Sussex County, Delaware, all of whom have suffered concrete injury due to exposure to contaminated groundwater, which is the sole source of the drinking water and domestic potable water flowing to these residences, from both the public water system and from private wells. This water has been contaminated due to Defendants’ products incorporating forever chemicals known as PFAS which contain dangerous levels of perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonate ("PFOS"). For many years, the Plaintiffs have been unknowingly exposed to PFOA and PFOS at concentrations hazardous to their health. The Plaintiffs' property values have been damaged due to the presence of PFCs in their drinking water and the resulting stigma associated with the Town of Blades contaminated municipal and private water supplies. The Plaintiffs seek recovery from Defendants, jointly and severally, for personal injuries, property damage, and diminution in property value caused by the presence PFOA and PFOS in the drinking water wells EIDP, Inc. provides seeds and crop protection products for the agriculture. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 26, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zFTXK3 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Paul J. Napoli, Esq. Coral M. Odiot Rivera, Esq. Veronica Vazquez Santiago, Esq. Gabriel M. Vazquez, Esq. NS PR LAW SERVICES LLC 1302 Avenida Ponce de León San Juan PR 00907-3982 Telephone: (833) 271-4502 E-mail: pnapoli@nsprlaw.com codiot@nsprlaw.com vvazquez@nsprlaw.com gvazquez@nsprlaw.com - and - Thomas C. Crumplar, Esq. David T. Crumplar, Esq. Patrick C. Gallagher, Esq. JACOBS & CRUMPLAR, P.A. 10 Corporate Circle, Suite 301 New Castle DE 19720-2418 Telephone: (302) 656-5445 E-mail: tom@jcdelaw davy@jcdelaw.com pat@jcdelaw.com ELEVANCE HEALTH: Class Cert Bid Filing in Alvarado Due Oct. 18 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as IVAN ALVARADO and GLADYS E. BOCCONGELLA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. THE ELEVANCE HEALTH COMPANIES, INC., an Indiana corporation; ELEVANCE HEALTH, INC., an Indiana corporation, Case No. 2:22-cv-09433-JLS-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Josephine Staton entered a second amended scheduling order as follows: (1) The deadlines provided in the Amended Scheduling Order are vacated. (2) Counsel's attention is directed to the Court's Civil Trial Order. (3) Below, the Court sets a Rule 23 class certification briefing schedule. The reports disclosed no later than the filing of the motion (Plaintiffs) and the opposition brief (Defendants). (4) Except for the motion for class certification, counsel shall notice all hearings for the first available motions date at the time of the filing of the motion, and the deadlines for opposition and reply briefs shall be in accordance with Local Rule 7-9 and 7-10. (5) The motion for class certification shall be noticed for hearing on the first available motions hearing date at the time of the filing of the motion, but no earlier than January 17, 2025. (6) The dates and deadlines set forth below will not be continued except upon a showing of good cause, which generally requires unforeseeable circumstances. (7) The Court will set a trial date and an exhibit conference date at the Final Pretrial Conference. Last Day to File a Motion for Oct. 18, 2024 Class Certification: Last Day to File an Opposition to Nov. 29, 2024 Motion for Class Certification: Last Day to File a Reply to Motion Dec. 27, 2024 for Class Certification: Fact Discovery Cutoff: June 20, 2025 Last Day to File Motions July 4, 2025 (Excluding Daubert Motions and all other Motions in Limine): Last Day to Serve Initial Expert July 4, 2025 Reports: Elevance Health is an American health insurance provider. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 26, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Sbc1zr at no extra charge.[CC] EMBLEMHEALTH INC: Bid for Initial OK of Settlement Due Oct. 15 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cordova et al., v. EmblemHealth Inc. et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-02933-JHR-GWG (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Gabriel Gorenstein entered an order as follows: -- The deadline for the class certification motion is adjourned sine die. -- The motion for preliminary approval of a class settlement shall be filed on or before Oct. 15, 2024. -- The motion will be returnable before Judge Rearden and shall comply with her Individual Practices absent consent to the undersigned presiding over this matter. The parties are currently in the process of negotiating all remaining settlement terms and finalizing a settlement agreement. As such, we request that the current deadline of September 13, 2024, for Plaintiffs to file a motion for class certification be held in abeyance. The parties anticipate being able to file a motion for preliminary approval of a class settlement within 45 days of this letter. Emblem Health provides health care insurance and benefit plans. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 29, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ySBnKc at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Tanvir H. Rahman, Esq. FILIPPATOS PLLC 199 Main Street, Suite 800 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 984-1111 Facsimile: (914) 984-1111 E-mail: trahman@filippatoslaw.com EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Court Vacates Order Denying Bid to Seal Docs ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Corinna Sullivan, v. Equifax Information Services LLC, Case No. 4:22-cv-00061-JGZ-BGM (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Bruce Macdonald entered an order: -- granting the Defendant's Motion for Clarification and Request to File Motion to Seal and Supporting Memorandum; and -- vacating the Court's August 22, 2024 Order denying Plaintiff's Motion to Lodge Documents Marked Confidential Under Seal and to File Redacted Motion. Defendant shall have fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order to respond to Plaintiff’s motion to seal. The Court will revisit the issue upon Defendant's filing of its response to Plaintiff's motion. The Clerk of Court shall place Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class and corresponding documents, under seal on the case docket. In its motion, the Defendant ask the Court to clarify its Aug. 22, 2024, Order denying Plaintiff's motion to lodge under seal. The Defendant observes that the Plaintiff's motion offered inconsistent language, was actually a request to file documents "without seal," and was procedurally improper and premature. Equifax offers financial, consumer and commercial data, and analytical solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 28, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iNYc3Q at no extra charge.[CC] EQUITYEXPERTS.ORG LLC: Must Respond on Bid to Compel by Sept. 19 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIMBERLI LEWIS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. EQUITYEXPERTS.ORG, LLC, Case No. 5:22-cv-00302-FL-BM (E.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Louise Wood Flanagan entered an order granting the Defendant's "Motion to Extend Time to Respond to Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class." The Defendant's response to the Plaintiff's Motion to Compel shall be due on or before Sept. 19, 2024. Equity Experts provides HOA and association collections solutions for community associations driven by technology and proactive outreach. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 29, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pzES9u at no extra charge.[CC] ERICKSON DEMEL: Settlement in King Suit Gets Initial OK ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CANDICE KING, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. ERICKSON DEMEL & ASSOCIATES, PLLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00398-ADA (W.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Alan Albright entered an order granting motion for preliminary approval: 1. Class Certification for Settlement Purposes Only. The Settlement Agreement provides for a Settlement Class defined as follows: "All individuals residing in the United States to whom Defendant sent a notice concerning the Security Incident." Excluded from the Settlement Class are (i) Erickson Demel, its officers and directors; (ii) all Settlement Class Members who timely and validly request exclusion from the Settlement Class; (iii) any judges assigned to this case and their staff and family; and (iv) any other person found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be guilty under criminal law of initiating, causing, aiding or abetting the criminal activity occurrence of the Security Incident or who pleads nolo contendere to any such charge. 2. Settlement Class Representatives and Settlement Class Counsel. The Court finds that Plaintiff Candice King will likely satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(e)(2)(A) and should be appointed as the Settlement Class Representative. Additionally, the Court finds Raina C. Borrelli of Turke & Strauss LLP will likely satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(e)(2)(A) and should be appointed as Settlement Class Counsel and should be appointed as Class Counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g)(1 3. Preliminary Settlement Approval. 4. Final Approval Hearing. A Final Approval Hearing shall be held on 9 A.M. Central Thursday, February 20, 2025, via Zoom, 5. Settlement Administrator. The Court appoints Simpluris as the Settlement Administrator, with responsibility for class notice and settlement administration. The Settlement Administrator is directed to perform all tasks the Settlement Agreement requires. The Settlement Administrator's fees will be paid pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Erickson Demel is an accounting company offering tax services to individuals, small businesses, and not-for-profit organizations. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 22, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fD2rly at no extra charge.[CC] EVRY JEWELS: Faces Beaver Suit Over Fake Prices, Discounts ---------------------------------------------------------- KATIE BEAVER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EVRY JEWELS INCORPORATED, Case No. 4:24-cv-06215 (N.D. Cal., Sept. 3, 2024), alleges that on its website, the Defendant creates the false impression that its Products' regular prices are higher than they truly are. At any given time, on its website, the Defendant advertises steep discounts on its Products. These discounts always offer "X%" off sitewide. Reasonable consumers reasonably interpret Defendant's advertisements to mean that they will be getting a discount "off" of the prices that Defendant usually charges for its Products, the lawsuit says. On its website, the Defendant lists prices and advertises purported time-limited discounts from those listed prices. These include "Limited Time" discounts offering "X% off Sitewide." The Defendant purports that sales are close to ending by claiming that they subsist "Only While Supplies Last!". In truth, these discounts run in perpetuity. And it advertises these discounts extensively: on an attention-grabbing banner on every webpage of its website, on the products listing pages, and on the individual product pages for each Product. It advertises them by touting "X% off"; and by advertising list prices in strikethrough font next to lower, purported discount prices, alleges the lawsuit. Evry sells and markets jewelry products and accessories online through the Evry Jewels website, www.evryjewels.com.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christin Cho, Esq. Simon Franzini, Esq. Grace Bennett, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 656-7066 Facsimile: (310) 656-7069 E-mail: christin@dovel.com simon@dovel.com grace@dovel.com EXAMONE WORLD: Seeks to Exclude Expert Testimony and Opinions ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LARS F. BRAUER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. EXAMONE WORLD WIDE INC. and QUEST DIAGNOSTICS CLINICAL LABORATORIES, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-07760-MEMF-JC (C.D. Cal.), the Defendants will move the Court to exclude the testimony and opinions of Jonathan Jaffe offered in support of Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification as inadmissible under Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, including the following: Expert Report of Jonathan Jaffe (March 21, 2024) ¶¶ 12–19, 24–30, 42– 49, and 152–182 and all corresponding footnotes and Exhibits; and Rebuttal Report of Jonathan Jaffe (April 19, 2024) ¶¶ 34, 36, 46– 49, 53, 59–61, 66–68, 73–75, 82–83, 90, 98, 107–108, 112, 114, 116 and all corresponding footnotes. Accordingly, the Court should exclude Jaffe's opinions about errors in ScriptCheck(TM) reports as unhelpful to prove that actual inaccuracies exist in the reports of each and every member of the Maximum Accuracy Class. As in Grodzitsky, Jaffe has failed to distinguish—and is in fact incapable of distinguishing—actual inaccuracies from the underlying "undifferentiated mass of potential problems." Examone World provides Diagnostics services. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Aug. 29, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TGzFQp at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Sean A. Commons, Esq. Kristina Martinez, Esq. Mark B. Blocker, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 350 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 896-6000 E-mail: scommons@sidley.com mblocker@sidley.com EZ FESTIVALS: Palie Seeks to Adjourn Class Cert Deadline -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Palie, et al., v. EZ FESTIVALS LLC et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-08422 (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order adjourning the deadline for Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Defendants' opposition is due Sept. 30, 2024, and Plaintiffs' reply is due on Oct. 18, 2024 – which is after the settlement conference currently scheduled for Oct. 8, 2024. We are requesting this extension based on our assessment that adjourning class certification briefing until after the settlement conference would enable the parties to take into account the result of that conference. If the parties are successful, Plaintiffs would move to certify a settlement class. Further, the conference itself may provide insight into issues to be addressed in the class certification briefing. Accordingly, we request the following briefing schedule: -- Plaintiffs' opening brief: Nov. 8, 2024 -- Defendants' opposition: Dec. 9, 2024 -- Plaintiffs' reply brief: Dec. 27, 2024 A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 28, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6WcSk5 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Shelly L. Friedland, Esq. PARKER POHL LLP 99 Park Avenue, Suite 1510 New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 202-8886 Facsimile: (646) 924-3100 E-mail: parkerpohl.com FCA US: Court Stays Class Certification, Discovery Deadlines ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LISA WHITE, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. FCA US, LLC, Case No. 4:21-cv-11696-SDK-DRG (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Shalina Kumar entered an order staying current discovery, class certification, and dispositive motion deadlines and setting a deadline to file the Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement for Sept. 27, 2024. The Court first stayed proceedings on Oct. 1, 2021, for the Parties to explore early settlement and participate in mediation. The Parties met and conferred and mediated this Case with Mr. Gregory P. Lindstrom, but the Parties were unable to resolve this matter. The Parties continued negotiating a settlement, and the Parties again mediated this case on Feb. 20, 2024, with Mr. Tom McNeil. The Parties are currently negotiating and finalizing the settlement agreement, which the Parties anticipate should be complete in the following weeks. To allow the Parties to devote their time and resources finalizing the settlement, the Parties respectfully request that all current discovery, class certification, and dispositive motion deadlines be stayed. FCA designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells vehicles. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 29, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EKnNeK at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: E. Powell Miller, Esq. Dennis A. Lienhardt, Jr., Esq. THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C. 950 West University Drive, Suite 300 Rochester, MI 48307 Telephone: (248) 841-2200 E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com dal@millerlawpc.com - and - Richard D. McCune, Esq. David C. Wright, Esq. Steven A. Haskins, Esq. Mark I. Richards, Esq. MCCUNE LAW GROUP, MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO VERCOSKI KUSEL WECK, APC 3281 East Guasti Rd., Ste. 100 Ontario, CA 91761 Telephone: (909) 557-1250 E-mail: rdm@mccunewright.com dcw@mccunewright.com sah@mccunewright.com mir@mccunewright.com - and - W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq. H. Clay Barnett, III, Esq. J. Mitch Williams, Esq. BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C. 272 Commerce St. Montgomery, AL 36104 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 E-mail: dee.miles@beasleyallen.com clay.barnett@beasleyallen.com mitch.williams@beasleyallen.com - and - Adam J. Levitt, Esq. John E. Tangren, Esq. Daniel R. Ferri, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT 10 N. Dearborn St., 10th floor Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 214-7900 E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com jtangren@dicellolevitt.com dferri@dicellolevitt.com The Defendant is represented by: Stephen A. D'Aunoy, Esq. Thomas L. Azar, Jr., Esq. KLEIN THOMAS LEE & FRESARD 100 N. Broadway, Ste. 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 888.2970 E-mail: steve.daunoy@kleinthomaslaw.com tom.azar@kleinthomaslaw.com FCA US: Plaintiffs Seek to File Three Exhibits Under Seal --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDWARD PISTORIO, et al., v. FCA US LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-11838-SFC-RSW (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Sean F. Cox entered an order that the Plaintiffs shall file three exhibits identified below under seal. Document Description Plaintiffs' Exhibit 15 Internal report of confidential FCA_Pistorio-084135 and competitively sensitive (Panasonic VP4 Refresh 17MY engineering information regarding UF and L* Program FCA US's products, including testing, Acceptance) assessment and evaluation results and processes, root cause Plaintiffs' Exhibit 6 Internal report of confidential FCA_Pistorio-111842 and competitively sensitive (Panasonic VP4 Refresh engineering information regarding FOTA Plan) FCA US's products, including testing, assessment and evaluation results and processes, assessment of alternative strategies for evaluating and implementing future product changes, and root cause assessment and assessment procedures. Plaintiffs' Exhibit 7 Internal FCA US email reporting and FCA_Pistorio-105619 discussing confidential and competitively sensitive information regarding engineering development and testing, testing data, assessment, and analysis regarding FCA US's products. While FCA US has not requested sealing of other exhibits Plaintiffs intend to utilize, these three documents comprise the type of "development and testing information" that "would have value to [FCA US's] competitors" and are appropriately sealed. FCA US designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells vehicles. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 30, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7f83vw at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: E. Powell Miller, Esq. Dennis A. Lienhardt, Jr., Esq. Mitchell J. Kendrick, Esq. THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C. 950 West University Drive, Suite 300 Rochester, MI 48307 Telephone: (248) 841-2200 E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com dal@millerlawpc.com mjk@millerlawpc.com - and - Lawrence Deutsch, Esq. Jeffrey L. Osterwise, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3062 E-mail: ldeutch@bm.net josterwise@bm.net - and - Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq. Cody R. Padgett, Esq. Laura E. Goolsby, Esq. Nathan N. Kiyam, Esq. CAPSTONE LAW APC 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-4811 E-mail: Tarek.Zohdy@capstonelawyers.com Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com Laura.Goolsby@capstonelawyers.com Nate.Kiyam@capstonelawyers.com - and - Joshua H. Haffner, Esq. Vahan Mikayelyan, Esq. HAFFNER LAW PC 15260 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1520 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (213) 514-5681 E-mail: jhh@haffnerlawyers.com vh@haffnerlawyers.com The Defendant is represented by: Stephen A. D'Aunoy, Esq. Thomas L. Azar, Jr., Esq. Scott H. Morgan, Esq. Fred J. Fresard, Esq. Ian K. Edwards, Esq. Ellisse Thompson, Esq. KLEIN THOMAS LEE & FRESARD 100 N. Broadway, Ste. 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 888-2970 E-mail: steve.daunoy@kleinthomaslaw.com tom.azar@kleinthomaslaw.com scott.morgan@kleinthomaslaw.com fred.fresard@kleinthomaslaw.com ian.edwards@kleinthomaslaw.com ellisse.thompson@kleinthomaslaw.com FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS: Court to Junk Alward Suit w/o Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MATTHEW KEITH ALWARD, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, Case No. 1:24-cv-00461-JMB-SJB (W.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Jane Beckering will: -- dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint without prejudice as duplicative and frivolous, under 28 U.S.C. sections 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b), and 42 U.S.C. section 1997e(c); and -- will deny as moot the Plaintiff's motion for order for judicial intervention; motion to intervene and remove plaintiff from segregation; motion to transfer to new facility; motion for order for administrative remedy forms; motion for order for transportation to appear in front of the parole board; motion for order to stop sanctions; motion for order seeking emergency intervention, and motion asking the Court to compel the United States Marshal Service to provide locations and arrival and departure dates for Plaintiff's transfer to this Court. The Plaintiff sues the BOP because an officer instructed Plaintiff, a white male, to move from the dining hall table, where he sat alone, to another table. Then the officer directed "8 seated latino immigrants" to move to the table that Plaintiff had vacated. The Plaintiff contends that the officer was discriminating against the Plaintiff on the basis of race. The Plaintiff seeks $1,500,000.00 in damages. The Plaintiff is presently incarcerated with the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) at FCI Cumberland in Cumberland Maryland. When he filed his complaint, he was incarcerated at FCI Allenwood in White Deer, Pennsylvania. Federal Bureau of Prisons is responsible for all federal prisons and provides for the care, custody, and control of federal prisoners. A copy of the Court's opinion dated Aug. 29, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cFskrw at no extra charge.[CC] FIRST NATIONAL: Crouse Suit Remanded to Baltimore Court ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES CROUSE, v. FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF PENNSYLVANIA, Case No. 1:24-cv-01216-SAG (D. Md.), the Hon. Judge Stephanie Gallagher entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion to remand case to the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, Maryland. Because this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, this case must be remanded. This case is one in a series of class action lawsuits alleging violations of Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"). The Plaintiff alleges that the Bank received kickbacks in exchange for referring mortgage loans (including his) to a now-defunct title and settlement company. The Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on behalf of himself and persons similarly situated on Feb. 9, 2024, in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, Maryland. The Defendant was served on March 27, 2024, and timely removed the case to this Court on April 25, 2024, citing federal-question jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction as grounds for removal. The Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on July 11, 2024, to expressly exclude members of the Bezek class from the proposed class definition. First National provides a full range of commercial banking, consumer banking and wealth management services. A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated Aug. 30, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VwALrN at no extra charge.[CC] FIRST NATIONAL: Davis Suit Remanded to Baltimore Court ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as HAROLD G. DAVIS, v. FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF PENNSYLVANIA, Case No. 1:24-cv-01575-SAG (D. Md.), the Hon. Judge Stephanie Gallagher entered an order granting Plaintiff's motion to remand case to the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, Maryland. This case is one in a series of class action lawsuits alleging violations of Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"). The Plaintiff alleges that the Bank received kickbacks in exchange for referring mortgage loans (including his) to a now-defunct title and settlement company. The Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on behalf of himself and persons similarly situated on April 26, 2024, in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, Maryland. The Defendant was served on May 2, 2024, and timely removed the case to this Court on May 31, 2024, citing federal-question jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction as grounds for removal. The Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on July 11, 2024, to expressly exclude members of the Brasko class from the proposed class definition. First National provides a full range of commercial banking, consumer banking and wealth management services. A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated Aug. 30, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=W42AgQ at no extra charge.[CC] FLO HEALTH: Frasco Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERICA FRASCO, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FLO HEALTH, INC., META PLATFORMS, INC., GOOGLE, LLC, and FLURRY, INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-00757-JD (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, for an order certifying the following Proposed Classes: Nationwide Damages Class: "All Flo App users who entered menstruation and/or pregnancy information into the Flo Health App between Nov. 1, 2016 and Feb. 28, 2019, inclusive." California Subclass: "All Flo App users in California who entered menstruation and/or pregnancy information into the Flo Health App while residing in California between Nov. 1, 2016 and Feb. 28, 2019, inclusive." Injunctive Relief Class: "All Flo App users who entered menstruation and/or pregnancy information into the Flo Health App between Nov. 1, 2016 and Feb. 28, 2019, inclusive." California Subclass: "All Flo App users in California who entered menstruation and/or pregnancy information into the Flo Health App while residing in California between Nov. 1, 2016 and Feb. 28, 2019, inclusive." The Plaintiffs seek the appointment of these Plaintiffs as Class Representatives. Plaintiffs also seek appointment of Carol Villegas (Labaton Keller Sucharow), Christian Levis (Lowey Dannenberg), and Diana Zinser (Spector Roseman & Kodroff) as Class Counsel. The case concerns the systematic collection, disclosure, and commercial exploitation of millions of women's reproductive health information by Defendant Flo Health, Inc., and three of the largest advertising and analytics companies: Defendants Google, LLC, Meta Platforms, Inc., and Flurry, Inc. Flo is a maker of the Flo Period & Ovulation Tracker mobile app. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 29, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VrEc4W at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James M. Wagstaffe, Esq. ADAMSKI MOROSKI MADDEN CUMBERLAND & GREEN LLP San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-3835 Telephone: (805) 543-0990 Facsimile: (805) 543-0980 E-mail: wagstaffe@ammcglaw.com - and - Christian Levis, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C. 44 South Broadway, Suite 1100 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 997-0500 Facsimile: (914) 997-0035 E-mail: clevis@lowey.com - and - Carol C. Villegas, Esq. LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 Facsimile: (212) 818-0477 E-mail: cvillegas@labaton.com - and - Diana J. Zinser, Esq. SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C. 2001 Market Street, Suite 3420 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 496-0300 Facsimile: (215) 496-6611 E-mail: dzinser@srkattorneys.com FLO HEALTH: Frasco Suit Seeks to File Class Cert Docs Under Seal ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERICA FRASCO, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FLO HEALTH, INC., META PLATFORMS, INC., GOOGLE, LLC, and FLURRY, INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-00757-JD (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order sealing narrowly tailored portions of its Motion for Class Certification and their accompanying exhibits. The documents Plaintiffs seek to seal, with proposed redactions marked, are listed in the accompanying proposed order and attached to this motion. The Plaintiffs seek to seal: (i) portions of Plaintiffs' deposition transcripts and (ii) Plaintiffs' responses and objections to interrogatories served in this litigation, both of which contain personal health information. The health information in these documents, which is intimate in nature and identifiable as to each named Plaintiff, is the type of information intended to be protected by the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act ("HIPAA"). Should this health information be made available to the public, it could be used for improper purposes, such as to embarrass or defraud the named Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs request that the Court maintain the limited portions of the exhibits identified in the attached proposed order under seal A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 29, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ddFifu at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Carol C. Villegas, Esq. Michael P. Canty, Esq. Jake Bissell-Linsk, Esq. David Saldamando, Esq. Danielle Izzo, Esq. Gloria J. Medina, Esq. LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 Facsimile: (212) 818-0477 E-mail: cvillegas@labaton.com mcanty@labaton.com jbissell-linsk@labaton.com dsaldamando@labaton.com dizzo@labaton.com gmedina@labaton.com - and - Diana J. Zinser, Esq. Jeffrey L. Kodroff, Esq. Icee N. Etheridge, Esq. Cary Zhang, Esq. SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C. 2001 Market Street, Suite 3420 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 496-0300 Facsimile: (215) 496-6611 E-mail: dzinser@srkattorneys.com jkodroff@srkattorneys.com ietheridge@srkattorneys.com czhang@srkattorneys.com - and - Christian Levis, Esq. Amanda Fiorilla, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C. 44 South Broadway, Suite 1100 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 997-0500 Facsimile: (914) 997-0035 E-mail: clevis@lowey.com afiorilla@lowey.com - and - James M. Wagstaffe, Esq. ADAMSKI MOROSKI MADDEN CUMBERLAND & GREEN LLP San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-3835 Telephone: (805) 543-0990 Facsimile: 805-543-0980 E-mail: wagstaffe@ammcglaw.com - and - Ronald A. Marron, Esq. Alexis M. Wood, Esq. Kas L. Gallucci, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON 651 Arroyo Drive San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone: (619) 696-9006 Facsimile: (619) 564-6665 E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com alexis@consumersadvocates.com kas@consumersadvocates.com - and - Kent Morgan Williams, Esq. WILLIAMS LAW FIRM 1632 Homestead Trail Long Lake, MN 55356 Telephone: (612) 940-4452 E-mail: williamslawmn@gmail.com - and - William D. Harris, II, Esq. HARRIS LEGAL ADVISORS LLC 3136 Kingsdale Center, Suite 246 Columbus, OH 43221 Telephone: (614) 504-3350 Facsimile: (614) 340-1940 E-mail: will@harrislegaladvisors.com G & H DAIRY: Faces Suit Over Unpaid Wages, Discrimination --------------------------------------------------------- JUAN VILLALOVOS-GUTIERREZ, SERGIO IVAN RODRIGUEZ RODRIGUEZ, JOSE DE JESUS GONZALEZ-VILLALOBOS, BONIFACIO CASTRO-MORALES and REYES MORALES-DELGADILLO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GERARD VAN DE POL; GERARD VAN DE POL AND HENRY VAN DE POL's ESTATE d/b/a G & H DAIRY; G & H DAIRY, A GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-at-01083 (E.D. Cal., August 23, 2024) arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful practices and policies in violation of the California Business and Professions Code, California Labor Code, California Fair Employment and Housing Act, California Unruh Act, and Agricultural Worker Protection Act. The Plaintiffs are Hispanic persons born outside of the United States who were employed by Defendants at G & H Dairy in Escalon, California. They allege that Defendants discriminatorily recruited and hired Hispanic persons born outside of the United States to whom they provided unlawful pay, illegal working conditions, and substandard housing knowing the laborers lacked employment and housing opportunities and were unlikely to complain or demand that Defendants comply with the law. Despite having been previously sued, and subject to a consent judgment, the Defendants have nonetheless continued to violate state and federal law in their agricultural operations, say the Plaintiffs. The Defendants violated the Business and Professions Code by engaging in employment practices that violated state law. These practices have unjustly enriched the Defendants, providing them with a competitive advantage in the dairy industry that is contrary to California law and public policy, the suit asserts. G & H Dairy is a dairy company with principal office in San Joaquin County in Escalon, California.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Dawson Morton, Esq. James Knoepp, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF DAWSON MORTON 1808 Sixth Street Berkeley, CA 94710 Telephone: (404) 590-1295 Facsimile: (510) 529-4111 G&D INTEGRATED: Court Directs Discovery Plan Filing in Hawkins Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hawkins v. G&D Integrated Transportation, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-01243-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. G&D Integrated provides Contract Logistics and Transportation services. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 29, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MQUKsF at no extra charge.[CC] GENERAL MOTORS: Court Certifies Faulty Transmissions Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that General Motors (GM.N) was ordered by a federal appeals court to face a class action claiming it violated laws of 26 U.S. states by knowingly selling several hundred thousand cars, trucks and SUVs with faulty transmissions. The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said a lower court judge had discretion to let drivers sue in groups over Cadillac, Chevrolet and GMC vehicles equipped with 8L45 or 8L90 eight-speed automatic transmissions, and sold in the 2015 through 2019 model years. Drivers said the vehicles shudder and shake in higher gears, and hesitate and lurch in lower gears, even after repair attempts. They also accused GM of telling dealers to provide assurance that harsh shifts were "normal." GM did not immediately respond on Thursday, August 29, to requests for comment. The decision was issued on Wednesday, August 28, by a three-judge panel of the Cincinnati-based appeals court. Class actions can result in greater recoveries at lower cost than if plaintiffs were forced to sue individually. The GM litigation covers about 800,000 vehicles, including 514,000 in the certified classes. Vehicles include the Cadillac CTS, CT6 and Escalade; Chevrolet Camaro, Colorado, Corvette and Silverado; and GMC Canyon, Sierra and Yukon, among others. In opposing class certification, GM said most class members never experienced problems and therefore lacked standing to sue. It also said there were too many differences among class members to justify group lawsuits. Circuit Judge Karen Nelson Moore, however, said overpaying for allegedly defective vehicles was enough to establish standing. She also said "exactly how, and to what extent, each of the individual plaintiffs experienced a shudder or shift quality issue is irrelevant" to whether GM concealed known defects, and whether drivers would have found that information material. The court also rejected GM's argument that many potential claims belonged in arbitration. It returned the case to U.S. District Judge David Lawson in Detroit, who certified the classes in March 2023. "We look forward to holding GM accountable before a Michigan jury," Ted Leopold, a Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll partner representing the drivers, said in a statement. The case is Speerly et al v. General Motors LLC, 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 23-1940. [GN] GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Loses Summary Judgment Bid vs Trauernicht ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PETER TRAUERNICHT, et al., V. GENWORTH FINANCIAL, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-00532-REP (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Robert Payne will deny Defendant's motion for summary judgment. Genworth's evidence regarding the broader but not retirement investment community is relevant to dispositive of, the issue of loss causation. It must be weighed against Plaintiffs' evidence and expert testimony applying this Plan's IPS to the facts of the case. That weighing of evidence is not appropriate at the summary judgment stage. The Court finds that a genuine dispute of material fact exists on the issue of loss causation. Class Representatives Peter Trauernicht and Zachary Wright, on behalf of themselves, the Genworth Financial Inc. Retirement and Savings Plan, and all other similarly situated individuals, filed suit against the Genworth alleging that Genworth breached its fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"). Genworth Financial provides life insurance, long-term care insurance, mortgage insurance, and annuities. A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated Aug. 29, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eQpqwy at no extra charge.[CC] GLENDALE, CA: Civil Standing Order Entered in Williams Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRANDON JOE WILLIAMS, v. CITY OF GLENDALE, Case No. 2:24-cv-07039-HDV-PD (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Hernan Vera entered a civil standing order as follows: -- The Plaintiff shall promptly serve the Complaint in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 and shall comply with Local Rule 5-3 with respect to all proofs of service. -- Any answers filed in state court must be refiled in this Court as a supplement to the Notice of Removal. Any pending motions must be re-noticed in accordance with the Local Rules. -- The Court is committed to fostering the development of new and diverse lawyers in the legal community. -- The Court expects that everyone in the courtroom be treated with dignity and respect at all times -- Motions Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12. Many motions to dismiss or strike can be avoided if the parties confer in good faith as required by Local Rule 7-3, especially for perceived defects in a complaint, answer, or counterclaim that can be corrected by amendment. -- Counsel in putative class actions shall commence litigation promptly and begin discovery immediately so that the motion for class certification can be filed expeditiously A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 2, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0whwCH at no extra charge.[CC] GLOBAL E-TRADING: Bid to Stay Class Cert. Proceedings Deferred -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sihler, et al., v. Global e-Trading, LLC, et al., Case No. 8:23-cv-01450 (M.D. Fla., Filed June 28, 2023), the Hon. Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Cov entered an order deferring ruling on the Defendants' opposed motion to stay class certification proceedings pending resolution of the Defendants' petition for Rule 23(f) permissive appeal. Before the Court rules on the motion to stay, the Court would like to review the Rule 23(f) petition that Defendants presumably filed with the Eleventh Circuit on the deadline of August 27, 2024. Accordingly, Defendants are directed to file a copy of the Rule 23(f) petition that they filed with the Eleventh Circuit on the docket of this case by Aug. 29, 2024. The suit alleges violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. Global E-Trading, Llc operates within the data processing, hosting, and related services industry.[CC] GMRI INC: Kappler Seeks to Certify Class of Servers & Bartenders ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEANNA KAPPLER and CHRISTIAN GUERRA on Behalf of Themselves and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, V. GMRI, INC., OLIVE GARDEN HOLDINGS, LLC and DARDEN CORPORATION, Case No. 4:23-cv-40106-IT (D. Mass.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court, pursuant to section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), for an Order conditionally certifying this case as a collective action. The class that Plaintiffs seek to certify is defined as follows: "All current and former servers and bartenders who worked at an Olive Garden restaurant operated by Defendants and were paid an hourly rate less than the minimum wage during the three-year period prior to the filing of this Complaint the present." The Court should grant conditional certification for this group of workers because Plaintiffs and the Class Members are workers who performed the same job duties, shared the same job title, followed the same policies and procedures, were subject to the same employment conditions, and were routinely paid less than the minimum wage. Therefore, conditional certification is warranted because these tipped workers constitute a group of employees that performed the same primary duty and were paid in the same, illegal manner. Accordingly, the Court should conditionally certify this action as a collective action and order that notice be given to the Class Members informing them of their right to join in the action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) The Plaintiff Guerra worked for Olive Garden as server in Tennessee and Plaintiff Kappler worked for Olive Garden as a server and bartender in Illinois. The Plaintiffs seek to remedy Olive Garden's violations of the law. As a result of Olive Garden's uniform compensation policies, timekeeping practices, and aggressive attempts to reduce its labor costs, Olive Garden violated the law by: (1) failing to provide the statutory tip credit notice to the Plaintiffs and Class Members, (2) requiring the Plaintiffs and Class Members to perform work that is unrelated to a tipped occupation, and (3) requiring the Plaintiffs and the Class Members to perform non-tip producing work related to a tipped occupation for greater than 20% of their time at work. GMRI operates a nationwide chain of restaurants. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 23, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KCqkD6 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Don J. Foty, Esq. HODGES & FOTY, LLP 2 Greenway Plaza, Suite 250 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 523-0001 E-mail: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com - and - Arnold. J. Lizana, III, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ARNOLD J. LIZANA III, P.C. 1350 Main Street, Suite 302 Springfield, MA 01103 E-mail: alizana@attorneylizana.com Telephone: (877) 443-0999 GOLD MEDAL: Wertz Collective Action Gets Conditional Certification ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as RUSSELL WERTZ, v. GOLD MEDAL ENVIRONMENTAL OF PA, INC., PARKS GARBAGE SERVICE INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-02352-MAK (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Kearney entered an order conditionally certifying a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act of: "All waste disposal drivers working for Gold Medal Environmental of PA Inc. and/or Parks Garbage Service Inc. anywhere in the United States from May 30, 2021, through present." Mr. Wertz makes the modest factual showing required for conditional certification. We agree with Gold Medal a sixty-day notice period is sufficient. Mr. Wertz claims Gold Medal and its related company Parks Garbage follow a common policy of: (1) improperly deducting wages for 30-minute lunch breaks they know the drivers do not take; and (2) paying lower overtime wages by excluding the drivers' non- discretionary safety bonuses when determining their regular rates of pay. He claims Gold Medal violated the Fair Labor Standards Act. Mr. Wertz worked as a waste disposal driver for Gold Medal and/or Parks Garbage Service from 2018 until May 2024. Gold Medal provides waste collection and disposal services to commercial, industrial, and residential customers. A copy of the Court's memorandum dated Aug. 28, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OG8ALq at no extra charge.[CC] GOOGLE LLC: Faces Barulich Class Suit Over Cloud Contact Center AI ------------------------------------------------------------------ CHRISTOPHER BARULICH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GOOGLE, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-06225 (, Sept. 3, 2024) is a class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all other individuals who called Home Depot customer service and had their privacy violated when Home Depot allowed Google to access, record, read, and learn the contents of their calls. Google developed and operates a service called Cloud Contact Center AI that enables it to listen to and analyze customer service calls in real time. Beginning in 2021 or earlier, and without first implementing a practice of obtaining authorization from callers, Home Depot employed Google to use its CCAI technology to monitor and analyze all of its live customer service calls. The California Invasion of Privacy Act prohibits the surreptitious third-party monitoring and recording of phone calls carried out by Home Depot and Google in this case. The Defendants violated CIPA each time someone called Home Depot and the contents of that call were disclosed to third-party Google without prior consent from all parties to the call. The Plaintiff brings this action seeking remedy for these illegal practices. Plaintiff Barulich is an adult citizen of the State of California who resides in Los Angeles, California. On multiple occasions while located in California, Plaintiff Barulich used his cell phone to call Home Depot and spoke with live-agent customer service representatives. Google is an American multinational corporation and technology company focusing on online advertising, search engine technology, cloud computing, computer software, quantum computing, e-commerce, consumer electronics, and artificial intelligence.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Neal J. Deckant, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ndeckant@bursor.com - and - Anthony G. Simon, Esq. Jeremiah W. Nixon, Esq. THE SIMON LAW FIRM, P.C. 800 Market Street, Suite 1700 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 241-2929 Facsimile: (314) 241-2029 E-mail: asimon@simonlawpc.com jnixon@simonlawpc.com HEALTH AND HUMAN: D.C. Circuit Upholds Dismissal of Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Samuel Dennis Mkrtchian, writing for JDSupra, reports that on August 9, 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld a lower court's decision to dismiss a proposed class action accusing HHS of causing a shortage of home health aides willing to assist Medicare beneficiaries. The D.C. Circuit Court affirmed the lower court's ruling that the lead plaintiffs lacked standing because they failed to prove the causation and redressability requirements of standing. The lead plaintiffs consist of Medicare beneficiaries with chronic illnesses that depend on the services of home health aides. While these services are generally covered by Medicare, the plaintiffs alleged Medicare-enrolled home health agencies (HHAs) have failed to provide in-home care or offered fewer services than the Medicare beneficiaries are entitled to under Medicare due to HHS's policies, enforcement practices, and/or lax oversight of HHAs. Specifically, the plaintiffs sued HHS under two types of claims. First, the plaintiffs alleged HHS violated Medicare laws by insufficiently enforcing the conditions of participation on HHAs and unlawfully implementing the Medicare home health benefit. The plaintiffs claimed Medicare-enrolled HHAs regularly disregard the Medicare conditions of participation by underserving the chronically ill and that HHS has continuously failed to prevent these violations. Moreover, the plaintiffs argued that HHS's policies and practices contributed to the shortage of home health services available to Medicare beneficiaries. Second, the plaintiffs claim that HHS's alleged actions (or lack thereof) violated the ban on disability discrimination. HHA's alleged refusal to accept or adequately care for Medicare beneficiaries has led to patients being forced into nursing homes or other institutionalized settings. The plaintiffs therefore contended HHS violated its responsibility to ensure health care is provided to individuals in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs. Based on these allegations, the plaintiffs sued HHS and sought to represent a class of chronically ill and disabled Medicare beneficiaries who had similarly been unable to find Medicare-covered home health services. The plaintiffs requested both declaratory judgement and injunctive relief in an effort to compel systemwide reforms to improve the provision of Medicare-covered home health aides to Medicare beneficiaries, such as stricter enforcement of the Medicare conditions of participation governing home health services and policy reforms related to HHS's auditing, payment, and quality rating system. However, in an opinion authored by Circuit Judge Neomi Rao, the D.C. Circuit affirmed the U.S. District Court Judge Trevor McFadden's decision that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring such claims. The D.C. Circuit agreed with the lower court's ruling that the plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege that the requested relief would redress any harm. The D.C. Circuit noted that the plaintiffs' allegations were purely speculative as to whether the denials of services can be traced to HHS's enforcement practices. The D.C. Circuit also reasoned that HHAs can freely choose whether to accept a patient and that there are many economic and practice reasons why an HHA may decide against providing services to chronically ill Medicare beneficiaries. The D.C. Circuit reasoned that the shortage of home health care services are a result of choices made by private HHAs. The lack of a plausible causal link between HHS's enforcement practices and the injuries alleged by the plaintiffs ultimately proved fatal to the plaintiff's claims. Accordingly, the D.C. Circuit held that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate their injuries are redressable and therefore failed to establish standing. [GN] HEARST TELEVISION: Must Oppose Saunders Class Cert Bid by Nov. 8 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Saunders, et al., v. Hearst Television, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-10998 (D. Mass., Filed May 5, 2023), the Hon. Judge Richard G. Stearns entered an order granting motion to amend pretrial schedule as follows. -- The deadline for Therrien's motion for class certification remains unchanged. -- Hearst will serve any discovery requests on and notice any deposition of Therrien by Sept. 6, 2024, and Therrien will respond to the discovery requests by Oct. 7, 2024. -- If Hearst notices a deposition of Therrien, the deposition must be taken by October 18, 2024. -- Hearst's opposition to the class certification motion will be due Nov. 8, 2024. -- Therrien's expert disclosures are due Oct. 18, 2024, and Hearst's expert disclosures are due Nov. 8, 2024. -- Expert discovery ends Dec. 6, 2024. -- Dispositive motions are due Jan. 17, 2025, with oppositions due Feb. 7, 2025. The nature of suit states Other Statutes -- Other Statutory Actions. Hearst Television is a broadcasting company in the United States owned by Hearst Communications, made up of a group of television and radio stations, and Hearst Media Production Group, a distributor of programming in broadcast syndication.[CC] HEIGHTS HEALTHCARE: Bid for Continuance of Class Cert Deadline OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHELE STOLL, et al. v. HEIGHTS HEALTHCARE OF TEXAS, LLC d/b/a WHITE ROCK MEDICAL CENTER, et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-01373-S (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Karen Gren Scholer entered an order grating the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for continuance of the deadline to file a motion for class certification. The case is abated and administratively closed, without prejudice to its being reopened upon motion by any party to enter a judgment or order of dismissal or for further proceedings if the settlement is not consummated. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 27, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Cel87N at no extra charge.[CC] HILCORP ENERGY: Class Cert Bid Filing in Colton Suit Due Dec. 6 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gregg B. Colton, and Cindy H. Colton, as Trustees of the Gregg B. Colton Trust, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons, v. Hilcorp Energy Development, LP, Case No. 2:22-cv-00149-ABJ (D. Wyo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order amending the Court's current scheduling order and setting briefing schedule for the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification: Event Current Proposed New Deadline Deadline Deadline for Hilcorp's Rule Oct. 15, 2024 30(b)(6) Deposition to be taken Plaintiffs' Rebuttal Expert Nov. 1, 2024 Disclosures Close of Discovery Aug. 5, 2024 Nov. 15, 2024 Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Dec. 6, 2024 Certification Hilcorp's Response to Dec. 27, 2024 Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification Plaintiffs' Reply in Further Jan. 24, 2024 Support of its Motion for Class Certification On July 30, 2024, counsel for the Plaintiffs conferred with counsel for the Defendant Hilcorp regarding the relief requested in this Motion to Amend. Hilcorp Energy operates as an oil and natural gas producer. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 28, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KJ0tHB at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: George A. Barton, Esq. Stacy A. Burrows, Esq. Seth K. Jones, Esq. BARTON AND BURROWS, LLC 5201 Johnson Drive, Ste. 110 Mission, KS 66205 Telephone: (913) 563-6250 E-mail: George@bartonburrows.com Stacy@bartonburrows.com Seth@bartonburrows.com - and – Kelly Shaw, Esq. Travis Koch, Esq. KOCH LAW. P.C. 121 W. Carlson St. Suite 3 Cheyenne, WY 82009 Telephone: (307) 426-5010 E-mail: kshaw@kochlawpc.com tkoch@kochlawpc.com HRB GREEN RESOURCES: Williams Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Edward Williams, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HRB GREEN RESOURCES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 24CV04104 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Barbara, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Aug. 30, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-07454. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that HRB failed to provide meal periods and rest periods, underpaid sick pay wages, provided inaccurate itemized wage statements, and engaged in unfair or unlawful business practices. Based on these allegations, Plaintiff seeks damages, penalties, and other remedies under California Labor Code and California Business & Professions Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Adam J. Karr, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP 400 South Hope Street, Suite 1900 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2899 Phone: (213) 430-6000 Facsimile: (213) 430-6407 Email: akarr@omm.com - and - Allan W. Gustin, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP 610 Newport Center Drive, 17th Floor Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: (949) 823-6900 Facsimile: (949) 823-6994 Email: agustin@omm.com HUNTINGTON NATIONAL: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due March 10, 2025 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TERESA KEELING, in her own right and as representative of a class of persons similarly situated, v. THE HUNTINGTON NATIONAL BANK, Case No. 3:23-cv-00352 (S.D.W. Va.), the Hon. Judge Robert Chambers entered an order granting joint motion and incorporated memorandum of law to amend the current scheduling order. -- The parties shall complete all discovery requests by Dec. 23, 2024, and all depositions for fact discovery by Feb. 6, 2025. Pursuant to L.R. 26.1(c), the Court adopts and approves agreements of the parties with respect to limitations on discovery (numbers of interrogatories, requests for admissions, and depositions). -- The party bearing the burden of proof on an issue shall make the disclosures of information required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(A) and (B) for that issue to all other parties or their counsel no later than Dec. 9, 2024. -- Plaintiffs shall file their motion for class certification by March 10, 2025. Response in opposition shall be due within 21 days and a reply withing 14 days of a response. -- All dispositive motions, except those filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b), together with depositions, admissions, documents, affidavits or other exhibits, and a memorandum in support of such motions shall be filed by April 28, 2025. Huntington provides online banking solutions, mortgage, investing, loans, credit cards, and personal, small business, and commercial financial services. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 26, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eQjIxV at no extra charge.[CC] ICF TECHNOLOGY: Nizeul Files FLSA Suit in D. Connecticut -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against ICF Technology, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Shana Nizeul, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. ICF Technology, Inc., Accretive Technology Group, Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-01393-MPS (D. Conn., Aug. 29, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. ICF Technology, Inc. -- https://icftechnology.com/ -- is a world-leading player in the live streaming technology field.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Eugene Hayber, Esq. HAYBER, MCKENNA & DINSEMORE, LLC 750 Main Street, Suite 904 Hartford, CT 06103 Phone: (860) 522-8888 Email: rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com INNODATA INC: Continues to Defend D'Agostino Class Suit in N.J. --------------------------------------------------------------- Innodata Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2024, that the Company continues to defend itself from the D'Agostino class suit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. On February 21, 2024, David D'Agostino filed a putative class action captioned D'Agostino v. Innodata Inc., et al., in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company and certain of its current and former officers (the "Securities Class Action"). The Securities Class Action complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and it alleges, among other things, that the defendants made false and misleading statements regarding the Company's artificial intelligence ("AI") technology and services. The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages, fees, interest, and costs. Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the Company cannot predict the outcome of the actions at this time and can give no assurance that the asserted claims will not have a material adverse effect on its financial position or results of operations. Headquartered in Ridgefield Park, NJ, Innodata is a global data engineering company that purports to be "delivering the promise of AI to many of the world's most prestigious companies." The company states that it provides AI-enabled software platforms and managed services for AI data collection/annotation, AI digital transformation, and industry-specific business processes. The company's stock trades on the Nasdaq under the ticker symbol "INOD." INTERNATIONAL ALLIANCE: Faces Bishop Suit Over Labor Discrimination ------------------------------------------------------------------- RONALD BISHOP, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. INTERNATIONAL ALLIANCE OF THEATRICAL STAGE EMPLOYEES LOCAL 52, AMAZON MGM STUDIOS, LLC, CBS STUDIOS, INC., MARVEL STUDIOS LLC, UNIVERSAL TELEVISION, LLC, NETFLIX PRODUCTIONS, LLC, SONY PICTURES TELEVISION, LLC, APPLE STUDIOS, INC., HBO STUDIOS, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-06148 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 3, 2024) is a class action complaint, pursuant to the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law and the Labor Management Relations Act for discrimination and breach of contract against the producers of and labor organization for many of the entertainment industry's most popular and high-profile film and television productions for systemic racial discrimination in hiring and promotion in the film and television production industry. Through this complaint, Mr. Bishop seeks to put a spotlight on his experiences working in this industry, and the general practices that result in the exclusion of qualified African Americans and Latinos from equal job opportunities. In 2012, the Civil Rights Bureau of the New York State Office of the Attorney General launched an investigation into the admissions policies of the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, Local 52, Motion Picture Studios Mechanics after receiving complaints about discrimination against qualified African American and Latino applicants for Local 52 membership. The NYOAG's thorough two-year investigation found that Local 52's admissions policies and practices had a disparate impact on qualified African American and Latino applicants, depriving them of an equal opportunity to join this high-paying and desirable field of work. Today, in 2024, many of the same practices and policies found by the NYOAG to deprive African Americans and Latinos of equal job opportunities still exist. The same policies and outright discrimination continue to deprive Mr. Bishop, and all others similarly situated, of millions of dollars in compensation and benefits. Mr. Bishop applied to the electric craft. The most recent CBA between the producers and the industry's unions was negotiated and signed in July 2021. That CBA contains a "union security" clause. A union security clause is an agreement between a union and employer, usually in a collective bargaining context, that defines the rights and obligations of employers in relation to workers represented by unions, e.g., whether employees will be compelled to join the union, or whether employers are required to collect union dues from union represented workers. The Local 52 CBA union security agreement requires signatory employers to collect dues from non-union member, says the suit. Mr. Bishop is an African/American male and is a resident of Kings County in the State of New York. International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, Local 52, Motion Picture Studio Mechanics' Union is a labor organization and is the largest New York branch of the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees ("IATSE"), the self-styled Union Behind Entertainment. Marvel Studios, LLC is a motion picture production company, and is a division of the Walt Disney Company, Inc. CBS Studios, Inc. is a motion picture production company, and is a division of Paramount Global, Inc. Netflix Productions, LLC is a motion picture production company, and is a division of Netflix, Inc.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Fred V. Charles, Esq. CHARLES LAW, P.C. 244 Fifth Ave., Suite#2717 New York, NY 100001 Telephone: (646) 494-2662 E-mail: fcharles@charleslawpc.com INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Plaintiffs' Class Cert Reply Due Oct. 8, 2024 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LARKIN COMMUNITY HOSPITAL v. Intuitive Surgical Inc. (DA VINCI SURGICAL ROBOT ANTITRUST LITIGATION), Case No. 3:21-cv-03825-AMO (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter the proposed schedule as follows: Event Proposed Date Plaintiffs' Reply Oct. 8, 2024 Hearing on the motion The Court's earliest available date in 2025 On June 6, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class Certification and a report from one expert. On Aug. 2, 2024, Intuitive filed its Opposition to the Motion. Intuitive develops, manufactures, and markets robotic products designed to improve clinical outcomes of patients through minimally invasive surgery. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Aug. 28, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BFnPCq at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey J. Corrigan, Esq. Jeffrey L. Spector, Esq. Icee N. Etheridge, Esq. SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C. 2001 Market Street, Suite 3420 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 496-0300 Facsimile: (215) 496-6611 E-mail: jcorrigan@srkattorneys.com jspector@srkattorneys.com ietheridge@srkattorneys.com - and - Manuel J. Dominguez, Esq. Benjamin D. Brown, Esq. Daniel McCuaig, Esq. Christopher J. Bateman, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 11780 U.S. Highway One, Suite N500 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33408 Telephone: (561) 515-2604 Facsimile: (561) 515-1401 E-mail: jdominguez@cohenmilstein.com bbrown@cohenmilstein.com dmccuaig@cohenmilstein.com cbateman@cohenmilstein.com - and - Gary I. Smith, Jr., Esq. Samuel Maida, Esq. Reena A. Gambhir, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3200 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 633-1908 Facsimile: (415) 358-4980 E-mail: gsmith@hausfeld.com smaida@hausfeld.com rgambhir@hausfeld.com - and - Michael J. Boni, Esq. Joshua D. Snyder, Esq. John E. Sindoni, Esq. BONI, ZACK & SNYDER LLC 15 St. Asaphs Road Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Telephone: (610) 822-0200 Facsimile: (610) 822-0206 E-mail: mboni@bonizack.com jsnyder@bonizack.com jsindoni@bonizack.com The Defendant is represented by: Allen Ruby, Esq. ALLEN RUBY, ATTORNEY AT LAW 15559 Union Ave. 138 Los Gatos, CA 95032 Telephone: (408) 477-9690 E-mail: allen@allenruby.com - and - Joshua Hill, Esq. Kenneth A. Gallo, Esq. Paul D. Brachman, Esq. William B. Michael, Esq. Crystal L. Parker, Esq. Daniel A. Crane, Esq. PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP 2001 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-1047 Telephone: (202) 223-7300 Facsimile: (202) 204-7420 E-mail: kgallo@paulweiss.com pbrachman@paulweiss.com wmichael@paulweiss.com cparker@paulweiss.com dcrane@paulweiss.com jhill@paulweiss.com - and - Kathryn E. Cahoy, Esq. Sonya E. Winner, Esq. Andrew Lazerow, Esq. Ashley E. Bass, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP 3000 El Camino Real 5 Palo Alto Square, 10th Floor Palo Alto, CA 94306-2112 Telephone: (650) 632-4700 Facsimile: (650) 632-4800 E-mail: kcahoy@cov.com swinner@cov.com alazerow@cov.com abass@cov.com JEWISH HOME: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Breach -------------------------------------------------------- John Fitzgerald, writing for WestLaw Today, reports that a company that runs elder care facilities in New York is facing a class-action lawsuit over a January data breach that a media report has attributed to a notorious ransomware gang. Daley v. Jewish Home Lifecare, No. 24-cv-6467, complaint filed (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2024). The suit, filed Aug. 27 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, says Jewish Home Lifecare, doing business as The New Jewish Home, could have avoided the exposure of patient and employee data had it encrypted the data under its control, deleted it when it was no longer needed, and improved its security network. The New Jewish Home offers care for the elderly at facilities in Manhattan, the Bronx and Westchester, New York, as well as in-home care, according to its website. A Jan. 7 data breach exposed the personally identifiable information of more than 104,000 New Jewish Home patients and employees, according to a filing with the Maine attorney general. The exposed PII included names, addresses, birthdates, Social Security numbers and health insurance information, the complaint says. A Fox affiliate based in Kansas City has reported that the ALPHV/BlackCat ransomware group claimed responsibility for the data breach in February. The New Jewish Home has refused to comment on whether the gang is responsible for the data breach or if it has paid a ransom, according to the media report. The complaint does not mention the group or a ransom. The New Jewish Home should have anticipated the data breach because of the rapid increase in similar data breaches over the past several years, the complaint says, adding that the company should have employed industry-standard data protection measures such as encryption and deletion of unnecessary PII. As a result of the company's negligence, those affected by the data breach not only face an increased risk of identity theft, but also the diminution in the value of their PII as well as emotional stress and anxiety, the suit says. Plaintiff Kameka Daley seeks to represent a class of those whose PII was exposed in the data breach. She alleges negligence and breach of fiduciary duty. She seeks injunctive relief as well as damages, attorney fees and costs. Daley is represented by attorneys from The Law Offices of Jibrael S. Hindi and Hiraldo PA. [GN] JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces Class Suit Over Excessive PBM Fees ----------------------------------------------------------- Christopher M. Humes, Bryce C. Loveland, and Adam P. Segal, writing for mondaq, report that a new litigation trend is emerging regarding fiduciaries of health plans and their duties to prudently evaluate fees being charged by pharmacy benefit managers ("PBM"). Two Fortune 50 employers, Johnson & Johnson and Wells Fargo & Company, and related fiduciaries of the employers' health plans, were sued only months apart by a class of participants alleging that the employers and fiduciaries committed breaches of fiduciary duty and prohibited transactions related to their agreement to pay large fees to Express Scripts and Accredo, Express Scripts' specialty pharmacy. Specifically, the lawsuits allege that breaches of fiduciary duties occurred because the health plans contracted with Express Scripts to pay fees under the traditional model, where the health plan receives rebates on certain prescriptions and Express Scripts makes a large profit by overcharging the health plans for a variety of prescription drugs. In some instances, the lawsuits allege that Express Scripts charged between a 5,000% to 10,000% markup for certain drugs when compared to the pharmacy acquisition cost for the same prescriptions. For example, the Johnson & Johnson complaint alleges that Express Scripts charged more than $10,000 for a 90-day prescription of generic drug teriflunomide, used to treat multiple sclerosis, which would have only cost $28 from an online pharmacy. Because of that, the lawsuits allege that the fiduciaries did not prudently administer the health plans and did not spend plan assets for the sole purpose of benefitting participants. Time will tell as to the potential likelihood of success of these lawsuits and the valid defenses the employers may have against the claims, but given the complaints with essentially identical allegations against different employers and fiduciaries, we highlight below certain best practices that will increase protections for the plan. Carefully review and analyze PBM contracts These recent lawsuits highlight that trustees should review and analyze PBM contracts to ensure that the plan is not being taken advantage of by PBMs through the form of overblown fees and prescription drug prices. Trustees should work with their plan professionals to identify problematic contract terms and potential savings well ahead of the time to renegotiate with the PBM so the plan can have a clear picture of which parts of the contract should be amended to avoid unnecessarily high PBM fees. Explore a pass-through model of PBM pricing One method health plans have adopted to curb PBM fees is insisting on a "pass-through" model rather than the traditional PBM contract method. In the pass-through PBM model, the amount the PBM bills the plan is equal to the amount the PBM pays the pharmacy. In this model, the PBM passes through all discounts and rebates to the plan. The pass-through PBM is only compensated by charging a flat administrative fee, usually assessed on a per-member, per-month basis. The pass-through model has been widely regarded as much more transparent than the traditional PBM model and enables fiduciaries of health plans to more easily assess the amounts being spent on prescription drugs. Identify PBMs that steer specialty drug prescriptions to their own specialty pharmacies As noted in both lawsuits, PBMs may have wholly owned specialty pharmacies that the PBM steers participants to use when filling specialty drug prescriptions. This creates a situation where the PBM ensures that it will receive high prices for specialty drugs, thereby increasing the profit for the PBM through its specialty pharmacy. By identifying such business arrangements, a plan can avoid higher fees that result from this form of participant steering by PBMs. Take more control over the plan's formulary More and more fiduciaries are insisting on increased control of their health plan's formulary rather than simply accepting the PBM's recommended actions. This more hands-on approach saves plan assets and benefits the participants in the form of lower drug prices, rather than accepting a PBM's recommendation that might be influenced by the PBM's desire to increase its own profitability. Conclusion We continue to work with your consultants and other professionals to obtain the best results for the plan and its participants. The emerging litigation trend signals that fiduciaries, including the trustees, must be vigilant in their contractual arrangements with PBMs and prioritize the plan and participants over all else when it comes to paying PBM fees. [GN] LA ROSA HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss Palmer National Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- La Rosa Holdings Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quaterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 15, 2024, that the Palmer national class suit dismissal motion is pending in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division. On January 3, 2024, Ms. Sarah Palmer filed a putative national class action complaint against La Rosa Realty, LLC in the United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division. Ms. Palmer alleges that she received two (2) brief pre-recorded calls one week apart to her cell phone from La Rosa Realty, LLC presenting her an employment opportunity as a real estate agent. Ms. Palmer seeks an undisclosed amount of monetary damages from La Rosa Realty, LLC for the alleged would-be injurious, isolated and opportunistic employment gestures to her through a purported nationwide class action. Ms. Palmer claims that the defendant violated her privacy, annoyed and harassed her, constituted a nuisance, and occupied her telephone line. On March 12, 2024 La Rosa Realty, LLC filed a motion to dismiss the case with prejudice, which is still pending. La Rosa is a is a real estate brokerage firm.[BN] LIBERTY SIRIUS: Renewed Arbitration Bid in Posternock Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------ Liberty Sirius XM 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 16, 2024, that the renewed arbitration motion for the Posternock class suit remains pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. On May 17, 2023, Robyn Posternock, Muriel Salters and Philip Munning, individually, as private attorneys general, and on behalf of all other New Jersey persons similarly situated, filed a class action complaint against Sirius XM in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Sirius XM filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration on August 18, 2023. Sirius XM renewed that motion on June 14, 2024 and the renewed motion remains pending. Liberty Sirius XM Holdings Inc. engages in the entertainment business in the United States, the United Kingdom, and internationally. MARELLA LLC: Faces Wilhelm Suit Over BIPA Violations ---------------------------------------------------- CANDICE WILHELM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MARELLA, LLC, d/b/a Changelly, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-07828 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 28, 2024) alleges violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. The Plaintiff asserts in the complaint that the Defendants are engaged in unlawful collections, obtainments, use, storage, and disclosure of the Plaintiff's sensitive and proprietary biometric identifiers and biometric information. The Defendant collected, stored, and used the Plaintiff's and the Class Members' biometric information without ever receiving a written release executed by the Plaintiff or the Class Members which would consent to or authorize the Defendant to do the same, the suit contends. MARELLA, LLC, d/b/a Changelly operates as a crypto exchange platform. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael L. Fradin, Esq. 8401 Crawford Ave., Ste.104 Skokie, IL 60076 Telephone: (847) 986-5889 Facsimile: (847) 673-1228 Email: mike@fradinlaw.com - and - James L. Simon, Esq. Simon Law Co. 11 1/2 N. Franklin Street Chagrin Falls, OH 44022 Telephone: (216) 816-8696 Email: james@simonsayspay.com MDL 2903: Settlement in Fisher-Price's RNPS Case Wins Initial Nod ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit Re: Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, Case No. 1:19-cv-02903 (W.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Geoffrey Crawford entered an order granting motion for preliminary certification of a settlement class and approval of class action settlement: The proposed settlement class consist of: "All Persons in the United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and all other United States territories and/or possessions who, during the Class Period, (a) purchased (including to be given as a gift to another Person) or acquired (by gift) an RNPS, or (b) have an RNPS in their possession." Excluded from the class are (i) Persons who participated in the Recall and received a cash fund; (ii) Persons who purchased an RNPS for the sole purpose of resale to consumers at wholesale or retail; (iii) Defendants, their subsidiaries, and their legal representatives, successors, assignees, officers, directors and employees; (iv) Plaintiff's counsel; and (v) judicial officers and their immediate family members and associated court staff assigned to this case. In addition, persons or entities are not Settlement Class Members once they timely and properly exclude themselves from the Class, as provided in this Settlement Agreement, and once the exclusion request id finally approved by the Court. The Court appoints class counsel: Demet Basar, Esq. James Eubank, Esq. Paul Evans, Esq. BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES P.C., 218 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36104 Telephone: (800) 898-2034 E-mail: Demet.Basar@BeasleyAllen.com James.Eubank@BeasleyAllen.com Paul.Evans@BeasleyAllen.com The court appoints the following persons as class representatives for the proposed settlement class: Elizabeth Alfaro, Emily Barton, Linda Black, Luke Cuddy, Rebecca Drover, Megan Fieker, Karen Flores, Nancy Hanson, Jena Huey, Samantha Jacoby, Megan Kaden, Kerry Mandley, Cassandra Mulvey, Joshua Nadel, Melanie Nilius Nowlin, Daniel Pasternacki, Jessie Poppe, Katherine Shaffer, Emily Simmonds, Josie Willis and Renee Wray. The Court appoints Kroll Settlement Administration LLC as Settlement Administrator. These actions share factual questions arising from allegations that Fisher-Price's Rock 'n Play Sleeper (RNPS) is unsafe because, among other reasons, its angled design does not allow infants to sleep in a supine position, which allegedly increases the risk that infants will suffer from positional asphyxia, plagiocephaly, and torticollis. The Plaintiffs uniformly allege that the defendants' advertising and marketing for the RNPS was false and misleading, and that Fisher Price's April 2019 recall of the RNPS was deficient. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 26, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Hn6yCG at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 2903: Settlement in Kimmel v. Fisher Price Wins Initial Nod --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kimmel v. Fisher Price, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00695 (W.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Geoffrey Crawford entered an order granting motion for preliminary certification of a settlement class and approval of class action settlement: The proposed settlement class consist of: "All Persons in the United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and all other United States territories and/or possessions who, during the Class Period, (a) purchased (including to be given as a gift to another Person) or acquired (by gift) an RNPS, or (b) have an RNPS in their possession." Excluded from the class are (i) Persons who participated in the Recall and received a cash fund; (ii) Persons who purchased an RNPS for the sole purpose of resale to consumers at wholesale or retail; (iii) Defendants, their subsidiaries, and their legal representatives, successors, assignees, officers, directors and employees; (iv) Plaintiff's counsel; and (v) judicial officers and their immediate family members and associated court staff assigned to this case. In addition, persons or entities are not Settlement Class Members once they timely and properly exclude themselves from the Class, as provided in this Settlement Agreement, and once the exclusion request id finally approved by the Court. The Court appoints class counsel: Demet Basar, Esq. James Eubank, Esq. Paul Evans, Esq. BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES P.C., 218 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36104 Telephone: (800) 898-2034 E-mail: Demet.Basar@BeasleyAllen.com James.Eubank@BeasleyAllen.com Paul.Evans@BeasleyAllen.com The court appoints the following persons as class representatives for the proposed settlement class: Elizabeth Alfaro, Emily Barton, Linda Black, Luke Cuddy, Rebecca Drover, Megan Fieker, Karen Flores, Nancy Hanson, Jena Huey, Samantha Jacoby, Megan Kaden, Kerry Mandley, Cassandra Mulvey, Joshua Nadel, Melanie Nilius Nowlin, Daniel Pasternacki, Jessie Poppe, Katherine Shaffer, Emily Simmonds, Josie Willis and Renee Wray. The Court appoints Kroll Settlement Administration LLC as Settlement Administrator. The Kimmel case is consolidated in MDL 2903 United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL 2903) re: Fisher-Price Rock 'N Play Sleeper Marketing, Sales Practices, and products liability litigation. These actions share factual questions arising from allegations that FisherPrice's Rock 'n Play Sleeper (RNPS) is unsafe because, among other reasons, its angled design does not allow infants to sleep in a supine position, which allegedly increases the risk that infants will suffer from positional asphyxia, plagiocephaly, and torticollis. The Plaintiffs uniformly allege that the defendants' advertising and marketing for the RNPS was false and misleading, and that Fisher Price's April 2019 recall of the RNPS was deficient. Fisher-Price is an American company that produces educational toys for infants, toddlers and preschoolers. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 26, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=s9Kmii at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 2903: Settlement in Mulvey v. Fisher Price Wins Initial Nod --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mulvey v. Fisher-Price, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00518 (W.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Geoffrey Crawford entered an order granting motion for preliminary certification of a settlement class and approval of class action settlement: The proposed settlement class consist of: "All Persons in the United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and all other United States territories and/or possessions who, during the Class Period, (a) purchased (including to be given as a gift to another Person) or acquired (by gift) an RNPS, or (b) have an RNPS in their possession." Excluded from the class are (i) Persons who participated in the Recall and received a cash fund; (ii) Persons who purchased an RNPS for the sole purpose of resale to consumers at wholesale or retail; (iii) Defendants, their subsidiaries, and their legal representatives, successors, assignees, officers, directors and employees; (iv) Plaintiff's counsel; and (v) judicial officers and their immediate family members and associated court staff assigned to this case. In addition, persons or entities are not Settlement Class Members once they timely and properly exclude themselves from the Class, as provided in this Settlement Agreement, and once the exclusion request id finally approved by the Court. The Court appoints class counsel: Demet Basar, Esq. James Eubank, Esq. Paul Evans, Esq. BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES P.C., 218 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36104 Telephone: (800) 898-2034 E-mail: Demet.Basar@BeasleyAllen.com James.Eubank@BeasleyAllen.com Paul.Evans@BeasleyAllen.com The court appoints the following persons as class representatives for the proposed settlement class: Elizabeth Alfaro, Emily Barton, Linda Black, Luke Cuddy, Rebecca Drover, Megan Fieker, Karen Flores, Nancy Hanson, Jena Huey, Samantha Jacoby, Megan Kaden, Kerry Mandley, Cassandra Mulvey, Joshua Nadel, Melanie Nilius Nowlin, Daniel Pasternacki, Jessie Poppe, Katherine Shaffer, Emily Simmonds, Josie Willis and Renee Wray. The Court appoints Kroll Settlement Administration LLC as Settlement Administrator. The Mulvey case is consolidated in MDL 2903 United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL 2903) re: Fisher-Price Rock 'N Play Sleeper Marketing, Sales Practices, and products liability litigation. These actions share factual questions arising from allegations that Fisher-Price's Rock 'n Play Sleeper (RNPS) is unsafe because, among other reasons, its angled design does not allow infants to sleep in a supine position, which allegedly increases the risk that infants will suffer from positional asphyxia, plagiocephaly, and torticollis. The Plaintiffs uniformly allege that the defendants' advertising and marketing for the RNPS was false and misleading, and that Fisher Price's April 2019 recall of the RNPS was deficient. Fisher-Price is an American company that produces educational toys for infants, toddlers and preschoolers. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 26, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=d4hoRd at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 2903: Settlement in Nadel v. Fisher Price Wins Initial Nod -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Nadel, et al., v. Fisher-Price, Inc. et al. Case No. 1:19-cv-00791 (W.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Geoffrey Crawford entered an order granting motion for preliminary certification of a settlement class and approval of class action settlement: The proposed settlement class consist of: "All Persons in the United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and all other United States territories and/or possessions who, during the Class Period, (a) purchased (including to be given as a gift to another Person) or acquired (by gift) an RNPS, or (b) have an RNPS in their possession." Excluded from the class are (i) Persons who participated in the Recall and received a cash fund; (ii) Persons who purchased an RNPS for the sole purpose of resale to consumers at wholesale or retail; (iii) Defendants, their subsidiaries, and their legal representatives, successors, assignees, officers, directors and employees; (iv) Plaintiff's counsel; and (v) judicial officers and their immediate family members and associated court staff assigned to this case. In addition, persons or entities are not Settlement Class Members once they timely and properly exclude themselves from the Class, as provided in this Settlement Agreement, and once the exclusion request id finally approved by the Court. The Court appoints class counsel: Demet Basar, Esq. James Eubank, Esq. Paul Evans, Esq. BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES P.C., 218 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36104 Telephone: (800) 898-2034 E-mail: Demet.Basar@BeasleyAllen.com James.Eubank@BeasleyAllen.com Paul.Evans@BeasleyAllen.com The court appoints the following persons as class representatives for the proposed settlement class: Elizabeth Alfaro, Emily Barton, Linda Black, Luke Cuddy, Rebecca Drover, Megan Fieker, Karen Flores, Nancy Hanson, Jena Huey, Samantha Jacoby, Megan Kaden, Kerry Mandley, Cassandra Mulvey, Joshua Nadel, Melanie Nilius Nowlin, Daniel Pasternacki, Jessie Poppe, Katherine Shaffer, Emily Simmonds, Josie Willis and Renee Wray. The Court appoints Kroll Settlement Administration LLC as Settlement Administrator. The Nadel case is consolidated in MDL 2903 United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL 2903) re: Fisher-Price Rock 'N Play Sleeper Marketing, Sales Practices, and products liability litigation. These actions share factual questions arising from allegations that Fisher-Price's Rock 'n Play Sleeper (RNPS) is unsafe because, among other reasons, its angled design does not allow infants to sleep in a supine position, which allegedly increases the risk that infants will suffer from positional asphyxia, plagiocephaly, and torticollis. The Plaintiffs uniformly allege that the defendants' advertising and marketing for the RNPS was false and misleading, and that Fisher Price's April 2019 recall of the RNPS was deficient. Fisher-Price is an American company that produces educational toys for infants, toddlers and preschoolers. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 26, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oc8hfd at no extra charge.[CC] MEDICAL PROPERTIES: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Alabama ------------------------------------------------------------------ Medical Properties Trust Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2024, that the Company continues to defend itself from a securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. On April 13, 2023, the Company and certain of its executives were named as defendants in a putative federal securities class action lawsuit alleging false and/or misleading statements and/or omissions resulted in artificially inflated prices for its common stock, filed by a purported stockholder in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama (Case No. 2:23-cv-00486). The complaint seeks class certification on behalf of purchasers of its common stock between July 15, 2019 and February 22, 2023 and unspecified damages including interest and an award of reasonable costs and expenses. This class action complaint was amended on September 22, 2023 and alleges that it made material misstatements or omissions relating to the financial health of certain of its tenants. The Company believes the claims are without merit and intends to defend the case vigorously. Medical Properties Trust, Inc. engages in the business of investing in, owning, and leasing healthcare real estate through its operating partnership subsidiary, MPT Operating Partnership, L.P. MICROVAST HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend WARN Act-Related Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Microvast 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 9, 2024, that the Company continues to defend itself from the WARN Act class suit. Deidra Milan is an ex-employee of Microvast, and is the putative representative of a class of more than 100 individual employees who were let go from their jobs at a plant in Clarksville, Tennessee. She has filed Civil Action No. 3:24-cv-00627, Deidre Milan, Plaintiff v. Microvast, Inc. and Microvast Holdings, Inc. The Company filed an answer to the suit on July 19, 2024. The Class Action Complaint is brought under the Worker Adjustment and Notification Act, 29 U.S.C. §§2101-2109 (the "WARN Act"), which requires advance notice before laying off employees in a plant closing and under certain other circumstances. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants made the decision to terminate over 50 employees and at least one-third of their workforce from the Clarksville, Tennessee facility. The complaint also alleges that Defendants have continued the layoffs with other employees being let go in April and as recently as May 17, 2024. Plaintiffs allege that these layoffs were not in good faith, all in violation of the WARN Act. Plaintiffs seek backpay, medical expenses, attorney's fees and statutory penalties in an unspecified amount. Microvast is a lithium-ion battery technology company which designs, develops, and manufactures battery components and systems, primarily for electric commercial vehicles and utility-scale energy storage systems.[BN] MILWAUKEE, WI: Housing Authority Sued Over Poor Living Conditions ----------------------------------------------------------------- Isiah Holmes, writing for Wisconsin Examiner, reports that residents express discontent with intolerable conditions in city-owned properties. "We are tired, we are beyond tired of the consistent bed bug infestation here at College Court," said Stacy Ream, who's lived at the property -- one of the roughly 5,000 rental units owned by the city of Milwaukee's Housing Authority -- for the past nine months. August 28, 2024, Wednesday afternoon, spurred by an increasingly intolerable bedbug and rodent infestation, Ream took time off from studying human services and social work to join other residents in announcing a class action lawsuit, filed against the Housing Authority. The lawsuit calls on the Milwaukee County Circuit Court to "hold [the Housing Authority] to the very basic standard required of every other landlord in our city." Ream spoke in front of College Court, with the property's two brown, water-stained brick towers looming several stories high, lined with rows of dark windows. From one of those windows, a large piece of cardboard used as improvised insulation by a resident fell to the grass below during the Wednesday, August 28, press conference. Some of the residents who'd gathered with Ream noticed a public safety security vehicle pull into the parking lot. A police officer stood by College Court's main doors, watching the press conference from afar. "We are asking the Milwaukee County Circuit Court to declare that our building's bedbug infestation materially affects the health and safety of every tenant," Ream said to a brief applause, "and to abate rent if the bedbugs are not immediately exterminated." Other residents accompanied Ream at the press conference, some of whom were members of the organization Common Ground. In March 2023, Common Ground launched a "Tenants United" campaign, which has helped residents speak out about their living conditions in properties owned by the Housing Authority. Prior to moving to College Court, Ream said that she lived at another Housing Authority property for 12 years. While living there, Ream said she experienced problems, "including my apartment being flooded, I saw drug deals, prostitution, trash, and rodents everywhere." She also said the Housing Authority overcharged her for fees. After becoming paralyzed in 2019, Ream had to wait three years before being moved to another unit which had disability accommodations. "I was finally transferred here to College Court, and once again I am paying rent for a unit that I cannot sleep in," said Ream. The bed bugs, which Ream said she noticed immediately after moving in, forced her to live with her mother. According to the complaint filed in circuit court, Ream "found bedbugs out of the baseboards, in the bathtub, and all over towels in the bathroom." Like other residents, Ream made numerous attempts to request a "work order" to address the infestation, the court filing states. A document listing work orders, obtained through open records requests by the activist organization Common Ground, lists over 4,100 work orders requested since 2019 as "work completed." Over 2,500 work orders were for "pest control," including dozens of mentions of bedbugs, mice and nearly 400 for roaches. It's a reality Carmella Holloway has lived with for 18 of the nearly 68 years she has spent living at College Court. "About four months ago, I kept feeling something crawling around in my ear," she said during the press conference. "I was extremely uncomfortable. Imagine feeling a lump of something deep in your ear, making it harder, and harder to hear. I picked, and picked, and I couldn't get it out. Finally, I took my finger nail and pulled two dead bed bugs out of my ear. They had turned a different color. I was disgusted." Holloway saved the insects in a plastic pill container and plastic bag, which she displayed during the press conference. "This morning, I picked one out of my ear," said Holloway. "I should not have to live like this! I pay rent faithfully every month, I'm not behind in nothing, and yet they treat me like I'm not even here." For months, Holloway said, she's struggled with the bites from the bedbugs. Earlier this year, Holloway went to the emergency room because she "was bleeding all over." Although she feared it was shingles, doctors told Holloway that it was from the bed bugs. "Do you know how that make me feel?! Degraded!" Last year, shortly before Christmas, Holloway's 1-year-old niece sustained bites during a nap. "I can't imagine of her on her head, if they got in her ears or anything," said Holloway. Other family members and friends refuse to visit Holloway due to the infestations. "I am ashamed," said Holloway, "I don't want to get them to get bitten by these bed bugs, so I isolate myself." The emotional and physical toll on Holloway's life has caused her to contemplate suicide, she said. "My apartment is uninhabitable! The bugs are everywhere. They're coming through the drains, the toilet, the baseboards and the kitchen pipes!" Another resident, 75-year-old Marion Moore, has seen College Court decline over her decades of living there. "It was really nice when I first moved here 44 years ago," said Moore. But the building has gone downhill, she added, "over the last 15 or 20 years." Moore feels that Willie Hines Jr., secretary-executive director of the Milwaukee Housing Authority, "should face up to the plate, and do what he was supposed to do." Moore told Wisconsin Examiner that, "if he did what he was supposed to do, there wouldn't be Common Ground or nobody else, if he was doing his job. But he not doing his job. He's just getting paid." Moore stressed that Hines, "brought this on himself." The longtime resident also wants Mayor Cavalier Johnson to "stop covering up for Hines." Joining the Housing Authority as its Associate Director in 2015, Hines was appointed to lead the Housing Authority in 2022. The position is not appointed directly by the mayor, but the Housing Authority's seven-member board -- whose members are appointed by the mayor -- selects who will lead the organization. Over the past year, the Housing Authority has been rocked with controversy after a federal audit found "risk of serious fraud," the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported. Certain properties, and particularly the decades-old high rise apartments like College Court, are notorious for their structural disrepair, pest infestations, and prevalence of crime. College Court and another high rise apartment tower called Locust Court collectively generated over 800 calls to the Milwaukee Police Department between January 2023, and March 2024. Residents reported drug sales, prostitution and people sleeping in hallways. Specializing in low-income, elderly, disabled, and veteran Milwaukeeans, the Housing Authority serves about 15,000 people across the city. A major city landlord and a key distributor of millions of dollars in federal section 8 rental vouchers, the Housing Authority also performs contracting, property management and real estate consulting through a branch organization called Travaux. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, the average property owned by the Housing Authority is 50 years old. A Housing Authority spokesperson declined to comment for this story due to pending litigation. Mayor Johnson, at an unrelated press conference held a few blocks down Highland Avenue, said he was aware of the lawsuit. "We'll let that process play itself out in court," said Johnson. "I can tell you from my perspective, we've worked with individuals, with organizations, with residents that wanted more enforcement from the city. When we found that we had the ability to have the Department of Neighborhood Services to go in and to inspect units, I said, ‘Yes, let's use my executive authority,' and that's exactly what we did." Johnson also said that the city has supported the Housing Authority "in a number of other ways," including making appointments to the agency's board. "That's my statutory obligation," said Johnson. "Now, those qualified individuals are sitting over at the Common Council." Johnson called on the Common Council to confirm his appointees, so that things can get moving forward. Johnson made appointments after his election in 2022 that have still not been confirmed, he emphasized, something he said has not been acknowledged enough. Johnson shot down the claim that he is protecting Hines. The mayor also said that rather than residents making that claim, it's really "certain organizations" behind the attacks. "And I think that they're Trumpian really in some of their responses to that." Johnson cited a letter from Common Ground accusing him of protecting Hines just long enough for him to retire, and collect a city pension for his role leading the Housing Authority. "I don't know how old Willie Hines is, or when he's going to retire, or anything. . . That is silly. And I think it's Trumpian just throwing things at the wall, no matter if they're true or not, just seeing what sticks. That unfortunately is just . . . It is not true." Residents of College Court seemed to anticipate the mayor's response to their charges at their press conference, which was held before the mayor's. Attorney Michael Cerjak, who is representing the plaintiffs in the class action, explained during the press conference that the legal action is rather novel. Cerjak was unable to find another similar example of litigation in the City of Milwaukee. Ideally, Cerjak hopes the court will find the Housing Authority responsible for improving and maintaining conditions at College Court, without any monetary judgement, discovery phase, or trial needed. If the Housing Authority chooses the fight the lawsuit, then further steps will need to be taken, Cerjak told Wisconsin Examiner. "We have emailed Willie Hines about this five 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," concluded Ream. "See you in court, Willie." [GN] MONTEFIORE HEALTH: Cruz Suit Seeks Class Settlement Initial Nod --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANNY RAMIREZ CRUZ GUERRERO and CRISTOPHER ISMAEL RAMIREZ MOREL, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. MONTEFIORE HEALTH SYSTEM, INC. and CSS BUILDING SOLUTIONS INC. Case No. 1:22-cv-09194-KHP (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs will move this Court before the Hon. Judge Katharine H. Parker, for an order pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure preliminarily approving the Parties' settlement on a class basis. Montefiore is a premier academic health systems. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 30, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ml9rHW at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Louis Pechman, Esq. Vivianna Morales, Esq. PECHMAN LAW GROUP PLLC 488 Madison Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 583-9500 E-mail: pechman@pechmanlaw.com morales@pechmanlaw.com MPT OPERATING: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in NY -------------------------------------------------------------- MPT Operating Partnership L.P. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2024, that the Company continues to defend itself from federal securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On September 29, 2023, the Company and certain of its executives were named as defendants in a putative federal securities class action lawsuit filed by a purported stockholder in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Case No. 1:23-cv- 08597). The complaint seeks class certification on behalf of purchasers of its common stock between May 23, 2023 and August 17, 2023 and alleges false and/or misleading statements and/or omissions in connection with certain transactions involving Prospect. The Company believes these claims are without merit and intend to defend the case vigorously. MPT Operating Partnership LP acquires and develop healthcare facilities and lease the facilities to healthcare operating companies under long-term net leases. MPT OPERATING: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Alabama ------------------------------------------------------------- MPT Operating Partnership L.P. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2024, that the Company continues to defend itself from federal securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. On April 13, 2023, the Company and certain of its executives were named as defendants in a putative federal securities class action lawsuit alleging false and/or misleading statements and/or omissions resulted in artificially inflated prices for its common stock, filed by a purported stockholder in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama (Case No. 2:23-cv-00486). The complaint seeks class certification on behalf of purchasers of its common stock between July 15, 2019 and February 22, 2023 and unspecified damages including interest and an award of reasonable costs and expenses. This class action complaint was amended on September 22, 2023 and alleges that it made material misstatements or omissions relating to the financial health of certain of its tenants. The Company believes these claims are without merit and intend to defend the case vigorously. MPT Operating Partnership LP acquires and develop healthcare facilities and lease the facilities to healthcare operating companies under long-term net leases. MY DAILY: Consolidated Class Complaint Filing Extended to Sept. 26 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit re: MY DAILY CHOICE, INC. Data Breach Litigation, Case No. 3:24-cv-00254-ART-CSD (D. Nev.), the Hon. Judge Anne Traum entered an order that the deadline for Plaintiffs to file their Consolidated Class Action Complaint shall be extended to Sept. 26, 2024, and the Deadline for Defendant to file its answer or responsive pleading to the Complaint shall be extended to Nov. 10, 2024. The Defendant expressly reserves all rights, remedies, defenses, objections, and legal arguments, including, but not limited to, its right to move to compel arbitration, its right to move to dismiss any individual or consolidated complaint, its right to challenge joinder of plaintiffs to one another, its right to oppose class certification on any grounds, its rights to oppose consolidation in any other forum or further consolidation in this forum, and its right to file a motion or motions for summary judgment, among others. This is the first stipulation for extension of time for Plaintiffs to file a Consolidated Class Action Complaint and Defendant to file an answer or a responsive pleading to the Consolidated Complaint. This extension of time is needed for Plaintiffs and Defendant to conduct resolution discussions and factual investigations, is limited to thirty (30) days, and is sought by the Parties in good faith and not for reasons of delay. My Daily Choice provides personal care products. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 26, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vWn4jW at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David C. O'Mara, Esq. THE O'MARA LAW FIRM, P.C. 311 East Liberty Street Reno, NV 89501 Telephone: (775) 323-1321 Facsimile: (775) 323-4082 - and - Todd S. Garber, Esq. Andrew C. White, Esq. FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP FREIPEARSON & GARBER, LLP One North Broadway, Ste 900 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 298-3283 E-mail: tgarber@fbfglaw.com awhite@fbfglaw.com - and - Gustavo Ponce, Esq. Mona Amini, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 6940 S. Cimarron Road, Suite 210 Las Vegas, NV 89113 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: mona@kazlg.com gustavo@kazlg.com - and - Mason A. Barney, Esq. Tyler J. Bean, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 E-mail: mbarney@sirillp.com tbean@sirillp.com NATERA INC: Hearing in Schneider Set for Nov. 19 ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as John Harvey Schneider, et al. v. Natera, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00398-DAE (W.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Dustin Howell entered an order that the parties are to appear for an in-person hearing on Tuesday, Nov. 19, 2024. -- The hearing will last no more than 3 hours with each side afforded 1.5 hours to make its arguments. -- The parties are advised and hereby placed on notice that the undersigned may award expenses against any party that is uncooperative in discovery. The District Court referred the motions for disposition pursuant to Rule CV-72, Appendix C of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Natera is a clinical genetic testing company. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 27, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xEtjHv at no extra charge.[CC] NIKOLA CORP: Continues to Defend Borteanu Class Suit in Arizona --------------------------------------------------------------- Nikola Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2024, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Borteanu class suit in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. The Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors are defendants in a consolidated securities class action lawsuit pending in the United States District Court of the District of Arizona (the "Shareholder Securities Litigation"). On December 15, 2020, the United States District Court for the District of Arizona consolidated the actions under lead case Borteanu v. Nikola Corporation, et al., No. CV-20-01797-PXL-SPL, and appointed Angelo Baio as the "Lead Plaintiff". On December 30, 2020, a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to vacate the District Court's Lead Plaintiff order and directing the court to appoint another Lead Plaintiff was filed before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Case No. 20-73819. On July 23, 2021, the Ninth Circuit granted in part the mandamus petition, vacated the district court's December 15, 2020 order, and remanded the case to the District Court to reevaluate the appointment of a Lead Plaintiff. On November 18, 2021, the court appointed Nikola Investor Group II as Lead Plaintiff. On January 24, 2022, Lead Plaintiffs filed the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint which asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, based on allegedly false and/or misleading statements and omissions in press releases, public filings, and in social media regarding the Company's business plan and prospects. On April 8, 2022, Defendants moved to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint. On February 2, 2023, the court issued a ruling granting the Defendants' motions to dismiss, without prejudice. As a result, Plaintiffs' complaint was dismissed in its entirety, with leave to amend by April 3, 2023. On April 3, 2023, Plaintiffs filed the Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint. Defendants filed their motions to dismiss the Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint on May 15, 2023. On December 8, 2023, the court granted in part and denied in part Defendants' motion to dismiss. On January 26, 2024, the Company and certain former officers and directors answered the Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint. On February 23, 2024, the parties exchanged initial disclosures. On May 17, 2024, Lead Plaintiffs moved for class certification. Briefing is scheduled to conclude on October 1, 2024. Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount in damages, attorneys' fees, and other relief. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself. The Company is unable to estimate the potential loss or range of loss, if any, associated with these lawsuits, which could be material. Nikola Corporation operates as a zero-emissions transportation and infrastructure solution provider. The Company is a designer and manufacturer of battery-electric and hydrogen-electric vehicles, electric vehicle drivetrains, vehicle components, energy storage systems, and hydrogen fueling station infrastructure.[BN] NUSCALE POWER: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Nuscale Power Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2024, that the Company continues to defend itself from a consolidated securities class suit in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon. Two other shareholder class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon against the Company, John Hopkins, Chris Colbert, Robert Hamady and Clayton Scott: (1) Sigman v. NuScale Power Corp., et al. (Case No. 23-1689, filed November 15, 2023), and (2) Ryckewaert v. NuScale Power Corp., et al. (Case No. 23-1956, filed December 26, 2023). These lawsuits assert virtually identical allegations and claims and were consolidated before the same judge on February 2, 2024. The lawsuits assert claims under the federal securities laws and allege that the Company and members of management made materially false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations and prospects, and specifically about certain of the Company's agreements with customers. The Court has appointed lead plaintiff and lead counsel, and they filed an amended complaint on April 18, 2024 that makes similar allegations as the original complaints. Defendants' filed a motion to dismiss on June 17, 2024. While no assurance can be given as to the ultimate outcome of this matter, the Company does not believe it is probable that a loss will be incurred and the Company has not recorded any liability as a result of these actions. Heaquartered in Portland, OR, NuScale is a nuclear power company that develops small modular reactor technology. Its common stock and warrants trade on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol "SMR." [BN] OUTSET MEDICAL: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), announces that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned Porcelli v. Outset Medical, Inc., et al., Case No. 24cv6124, on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Outset Medical, Inc. ("Outset Medical" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: OM) securities between August 1, 2022 and August 7, 2024, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). Investors are hereby notified that they have 60 days from the date of this notice to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this action. If you suffered a loss on your Outset Medical investments or would like to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact information at www.glancylaw.com/cases/Outset-Medical-Inc-1/. You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights. On July 7, 2023, after the market closed, Outset Medical disclosed that it had received a Warning Letter from the FDA which "asserted that certain materials . . . promote continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT), a modality outside of the current indications for the Tablo Hemodialysis System" and "assert[ed] that the TabloCart with Prefiltration . . . requires prior 510(k) clearance for marketing authorization," and that the Company would "work collaboratively with the FDA to resolve this observation, including potentially submitting a 510(k) on TabloCart." On this news, Outset Medical's stock price fell $1.20, or 5.9%, to close at $19.26 per share on July 10, 2023, on unusually heavy trading volume. On August 2, 2023, after the market closed, the Company issued a press release which announced a "Shipment Pause of TabloCart with Prefiltration Pending 510(k) Clearance." On this news, Outset Medical's stock price fell $1.97, or 10.18%, to close at $17.39 per share on August 3, 2023, on unusually heavy trading volume. On October 12, 2023, after the market closed, the Company revealed that revenue growth had been significantly impacted by the FDA's warning letter. Specifically, the Company issued a press release announcing preliminary third quarter 2023 financial results, as well as updated financial guidance for 2023 revenue, which reflected that "[g]rowth in the quarter was dampened by a larger-than-expected impact in the field from the recent FDA warning letter." On this news, the Company's share price fell $3.38, or 49.9%, to close at $3.39 per share on October 13, 2023, on unusually heavy trading volume. On August 7, 2024, after the market closed, Outset Medical released its second quarter 2024 financial results, significantly missing consensus estimates and lowering its full year 2024 revenue guidance by $39 million at the midpoint. The Company disclosed it would be forced to take "clear steps to improve our execution" including "sales team and process restructuring." As a result, the Company disclosed it would be unable to deliver on a post-approval sales ramp of TabloCart previously forecast. On this news, the Company's share price fell $2.33, or 68.53%, to close at $1.07 per share on August 8, 2024, on unusually heavy trading volume. The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) the Tablo products were marketed for continuous renal replacement therapy, which is not one of the indications approved by the FDA; (2) that, as a result, Outset Medical was reasonably likely to submit an additional 510(k) application for the Tablo products; (3) that there was a substantial risk that the Company would cease sales of the Tablo products pending FDA approval of additional indications; (4) that Outset Medical lacked the sales team and process to execute on the ramp of Tablo sales; (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's revenue growth would be adversely impacted; and (6) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Outset Medical securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than 60 days from the date of this notice to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. Contacts Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles Charles H. Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 www.glancylaw.com shareholders@glancylaw.com [GN] PAPA JOHNS: Continues to Defend Employee Antitrust Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Papa Johns Intl. 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 an employee antitrust class suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. In re Papa John's Employee & Franchise Employee Antitrust Litigation is a putative class action filed in December 2018 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. The suit alleges that the "no-poaching" provision previously contained in the Company's franchise agreement constituted an unlawful agreement or conspiracy in restraint of trade and commerce in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. On April 14, 2022, the parties reached a settlement in principle to resolve the case. Pursuant to the terms of the proposed settlement, in exchange for the Company's payment of a total aggregate settlement amount of $5.0 million and other non-monetary consideration, all claims in the action will be dismissed, the litigation will be terminated, and the Company will receive a release. The settlement amount was recorded in General and administrative expenses in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations in the first quarter of 2022 and remained accrued in Accrued expenses and other current liabilities in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as of June 30, 2024. The proposed settlement remains subject to approval by the District Court and contains certain customary contingencies. The Company continues to deny any liability or wrongdoing in this matter. Papa John's is an American pizza restaurant chain. PARAMOUNT GLOBAL: Sued Over Fiduciary Duties Violations -------------------------------------------------------- Paramount Global 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 faces a fiduciary duties violations class suit in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. On July 24, 2024, a purported holder of Paramount Class B Common Stock filed a putative class action lawsuit in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against NAI, Shari E. Redstone, Barbara Byrne, Linda M. Griego, Judith McHale, Charles E. Phillips, Jr. and Susan Schuman, among other defendants (the "Complaint"). The Complaint alleges breaches of fiduciary duties to Paramount’s Class B stockholders in connection with the negotiation and approval of the Transaction Agreement, among other claims. The Complaint seeks unspecified damages, costs and expenses, as well as other relief. Paramount Global is a global media, streaming and entertainment company that creates premium content and experiences for audiences worldwide. It owns CBS Television Network which merged with Viacom Inc. PERFORMANCE FOOD: Fails to Pay Supervisors' OT, Barnett Says ------------------------------------------------------------ Michael Barnett, Plaintiff v. Performance Food Group, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-02422 (D. Colo., Sept. 3, 2024) is a class action lawsuit brought by the Plaintiff pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) on his own behalf and as a representative of individuals similarly situated who are current or former Supervisors of PFG, seeking overtime pay, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and interest under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Missouri Minimum Wage Law. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all Supervisors who worked for PFG nationwide at any point between three years prior to filing their consent forms in this action to the present and on behalf of all Supervisors who worked for PFG in Missouri at any point between three years prior to the filing of this action to the present. On June 1, 2022, the Plaintiff began his employment with PFG, performing primarily non-exempt tasks, such as moving and organizing large boxes of meats, moving and organizing pallets, operating a pallet jack, working on the production line, operating pneumatic packaging machines, cleaning and maintenance throughout the warehouse and food quality testing. In his employment for PFG, the Plaintiff regularly and consistently worked between 6070 hours per workweek. PFG delivers more than 300,000 food and related products to customers across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James L. Simon, Esq. SIMON LAW CO. 11 1/2 N. Franklin Street Chagrin Falls, Ohio 44022 Telephone: (216) 816-8696 E-mail: james@simonsaypay.com PHOTON INFOTECH: Floyd Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Alexander Floyd, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PHOTON INFOTECH INC., a foreign profit corporation; and DOES 1-20, as yet unknown Washington entities, Case No. 24-2-17258-1 SEA was removed from the Superior Court of Washington for King County, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on Aug. 29, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-01372. The Complaint purports to seek relief from Defendant for one cause of action: violation of Washington's Equal Pay and Opportunity Act, RCW, by alleged failure to disclose the wage scale or salary range being offered in Defendant's job postings. Plaintiff seeks relief through statutory damages, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, fees and costs, and pre- and post-judgment interest.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy W. Emery, Esq. Patrick B. Reddy, Esq. Paul Cipriani, Esq. EMERY REDDY, PLLC 600 Stewart Street, Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 442-9106 Fax: (206) 441-9711 Email: emeryt@emeryreddy.com reddyp@emeryreddy.com paul@emeryreddy.com The Defendants are represented by: Victoria E. Ainsworth, Esq. Blake Marks-Dias, Esq. CORR CRONIN LLP 1015 Second Avenue, Floor 10 Seattle, WA 98104-1001 Phone: (206) 625-8600 Fax: (206) 625-0900 Email: tainsworth@corrcronin.com bmarksdias@corrcronin.com - and - Jeffrey N. Lindemann, Esq. FROST BROWN TODD LLP One Columbus Center 10 West Broad Street, Suite 2300 Columbus, OH 43215 Phone: (614) 464-1211 Fax: (614) 464-1737 Email: jlindemann@fbtlaw.com - and - Jae Wook (Jerry) Lee, Esq. FROST BROWN TODD LLP 1 MacArthur Place, Suite 200 Santa Ana, CA 92707 Phone: (714) 852-6800 Fax: (714) 852-6899 Email: jlee@fbtlaw.com PIG NEWTON: Stachovic Sues Over Data Privacy Violations ------------------------------------------------------- ELIZABETH STACHOVIC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PIG NEWTON, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-06589 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 30, 2024) is an action against the Defendant's practices of knowingly disclosing the Plaintiff's and its other customers' identities and the titles of the prerecorded video materials that they purchased to Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly known as Facebook, Inc., in violation of the federal Video Privacy Protection Act. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the information the Defendant disclosed, and continues to disclose, to Meta via the Meta Pixel includes the customer's Facebook ID and the title of the specific prerecorded video material that each of its customers purchased on its website. An FID is a unique sequence of numbers linked to a specific Meta profile. A Meta profile, in turn, identifies by name the specific person to whom the profile belongs, and also contains other personally identifying information about the person. Entering "Facebook.com/[FID]" into a web browser returns the Meta profile of the person to whom the FID corresponds. Thus, the FID identifies a person more precisely than a name, as numerous persons may share the same name, but each person's Facebook profile (and associated FID) uniquely identifies one and only one person. In the simplest terms, the Meta Pixel installed by Defendant captures and discloses to Meta information that reveals the specific videos that a particular person purchased on Defendant's website (hereinafter, "Private Viewing Information"). The Defendant disclosed and continues to disclose its customers' Private Viewing Information to Meta without asking for, let alone obtaining, their consent to these practices, says the suit. Pig Newton, Inc. is a television production company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Elliot O. Jackson, Esq. HEDIN LLP 1395 Brickell Ave., Suite 610 Miami, FL 33131-3302 Telephone: (305) 357-2107 Facsimile: (305) 200-8801 Email: ejackson@hedinllp.com - and - Frank S. Hedin, Esq. HEDIN LLP 1395 Brickell Ave., Suite 610 Miami, FL 33131-3302 Telephone: (305) 357-2107 Facsimile: (305) 200-8801 Email: fhedin@hedinllp.com - and - Tyler K. Somes, Esq. HEDIN LLP 1100 15th Street NW, Ste 04-108 Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: (202) 900-3332 Facsimile: (305) 200-8801 Email: tsomes@hedinllp.com PIGEONSHUB LLC: Morgenstern Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Washington -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against PigeonsHub LLC. The case is styled as Dexter Morgenstern, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PigeonsHub LLC, The Mitchelle LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-01371 (W.D. Wash., Aug. 29, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. PigeonsHub -- https://pigeonshub.com/ -- is a digital marketing and advertising firm that prioritizes accelerating client growth.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan Lee McBride, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC 2221 Camino Del Rio S., Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108 Phone: (800) 400-6808 Email: ryan@kazlg.com PINGPOD INC: Herrera Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------- Edery Herrera, for himself and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, v. PINGPOD INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-06513 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 29, 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://pingpod.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. PINGPOD INC., operates the PingPod online retail store, physical retail stores, as well as the PingPod interactive Website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, 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: dana@gottlieb.legal michael@gottlieb.legal jeffrey@gottlieb.legal PROPERTY RESULTS: Briscoe Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Virginia ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Property Results, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Isaiah Briscoe, Aylin Ore, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated individuals v. Property Results, LLC, Main 2323 Master Tenant, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-00614 (E.D. Va., Aug. 28, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Property Results, LLC -- https://propertyresults.net/ -- is a real estate development consulting firm that specializes in historic rehabilitations.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gregg Cohen Greenberg, Esq. ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC. 8757 Georgia Ave., Suite 400 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Phone: (301) 587-9373 Fax: (240) 839-9142 Email: ggreenberg@zagfirm.com PURPLE HAZE: Sumlin Balks at Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------- DENNIS SUMLIN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Purple Haze, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-06373 (S.D.N.Y., August 23, 2024) is a civil rights action against Purple Haze for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website, www.shoppurplehaze.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. Plaintiff Sumlin has made an attempt to complete a purchase on Shoppurplehaze.com. On July 19, 2024, he was searching online for tobacco shops that offer blunt wraps and found the website Shoppurplehaze.com, specializing in a wide range of smoking accessories and products. He tried to purchase blunt wrap cones, and was unable to complete the purchase independently because of the many access barriers on Defendant's website. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, inaccurate heading hierarchy, incorrectly formatted lists, inadequate focus order, changing of content without advance warning, unclear labels for interactive elements, inaccessible drop-down menus, the lack of navigation links, the lack of adequate labeling of form fields, the denial of keyboard access for some interactive elements, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse, says the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Purple Haze's policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Purple Haze, Inc. is a Colorado based company that operates the website featuring smoke shop and glass gallery.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Asher Cohen, Esq. ASHER COHEN PLLC 2377 56th Dr. Brooklyn, NY 11234 Telephone: (718) 914-9694 E-mail: acohen@ashercohenlaw.com READY CAPITAL: Continues to Defend Broadmark Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------- Ready Capital Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2024, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Broadmark class suit in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland. On June 6, 2024, a purported former stockholder of Broadmark filed a class action lawsuit, captioned Eibling v. Pyatt, et al., Case No. C-24-CV-24-000818, in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland (the "Action"). The Action names as defendants Broadmark's former board of directors and alleges they breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the Broadmark Merger by failing to properly consider acquisition proposals that were purportedly superior to the Broadmark Merger, by relying on purportedly false and misleading valuation analyses, and by authorizing the issuance of a purportedly false and misleading proxy statement. The Action also asserts claims against Broadmark's financial advisor for aiding and abetting these alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The Action seeks damages in the form of compensatory damages, quasi-appraisal damages, rescissory damages, and disgorgement of any merger-related benefits. The Action also seeks reimbursement for litigation expenses and attorneys' and experts' fees. Although the Company is not a defendant in the Action, it is subject to contractual indemnification obligations (conditioned on the satisfaction of various contractual requirements) in connection therewith, including with respect to the defendants' service as Broadmark directors and provision of services to Broadmark, as applicable. The defendants intend to vigorously defend against the Action. Ready Capital Corporation operates as a real estate finance company. The company acquires, originates, manages, services, and finances small balance commercial (SBC) loans, small business administration (SBA) loans, residential mortgage loans, and mortgage backed securities collateralized primarily by SBC loans, or other real estate-related investments. Ready Capital Corporation was founded in 2007 and is headquartered in New York, New York. REMARKABLE CAREGIVERS: Twitty Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Remarkable Caregivers AGTR LLC. The case is styled as Annie Twitty, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public v. Remarkable Caregivers AGTR LLC, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2024-0010640 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Aug. 28, 2024). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Remarkable Caregivers AGTR LLC -- https://remarkablecaregivers.myltcguide.com/ -- provide home care services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Otkupman, Esq. OTKUPMAN LAW FIRM, ALC 28632 Roadside Dr, Ste 203 Agoura Hills, CA 91301-6015 Phone: (818) 293-5623 Fax: (888) 850-1310 Email: roman@OLFLA.com RESIDEO TECHNOLOGIES: PAGA Settlement in Tredo Suit for Court OK ----------------------------------------------------------------- Resideo Technologies Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 29, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2024, that the PAGA settlement in the Tredo class suit is for court approval. On June 28, 2023, Lisset Tredo, a Company employee, filed a putative class action complaint in the San Diego County Superior Court on behalf of all non-exempt employees in California, in which she alleged violations by the Company of the California Labor Code related to sick leave pay, accurate wage statements, recordkeeping, and pay timing, and on August 28, 2023 she filed a first amended complaint adding a claim under the California Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"). The parties executed a Class Action and PAGA Settlement Agreement on or about June 3, 2024 in which they agreed, subject to Court approval, to settle the entire action for a gross amount of $0.3 million. As part of the settlement, the Company denied all liability and the claims against it will be released. Resideo Technologies, Inc. is a manufacturer and developer of technology-driven smoke and carbon monoxide detection home safety products and security solutions. It is also a wholesale distributor of low-voltage security products including access control, fire detection, fire suppression, security, and video products. SAC POOL PROS: Rodriguez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sac Pool Pros, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Sergio Rodriguez, Eduardo Romero, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated individuals v. Sac Pool Pros, Inc., David A. Randolph, Does 1-50, Case No. 24CV017124 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Aug. 28, 2024). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Sac Pool Pros -- https://sacpoolpros.com/ -- build, repair, remodel swimming pools.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Donald Sutton, Esq. ADVOCATES FOR WORKER RIGHTS LLP 212 9th St., Ste. 314 Oakland, CA 94607-4479 Phone: 510-269-4200 Fax: 408-657-4684 Email: jds@advocatesforworkers.com SELECTQUOTE INSURANCE: Yaw Files TCPA Suit in D. South Carolina --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against SelectQuote Insurance Services. The case is styled as Tina Delynn Osteen Yaw, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated v. SelectQuote Insurance Services, SelectQuote Inc., Case No. 6:24-cv-04706-JDA (D.S.C., Aug. 28, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Selectquote Insurance Services -- https://www.selectquote.com/ -- provides insurance agent and broker services. The Company offers auto and home, life, and medical insurance.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dave Maxfield, Esq. DAVE MAXFIELD, ATTORNEY, LLC PO Box 11865 Columbia, SC 29211 Phone: (803) 509-6800 Fax: (855) 299-1656 Email: dave@consumerlawsc.com SHIFT4 PAYMENTS: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Shift4 Payments Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2024, that the Company continues to defend itself from a consolidated securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On August 18, 2023, a shareholder filed a putative securities class action against the Company and certain of its current and former executive officers in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, captioned O'Meara v. Shift4 Payments, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:23-cv-03206-JFL (the "O'Meara Action"). Plaintiff O'Meara seeks to represent purchasers of the Company's securities between November 10, 2021 and April 18, 2023. On October 13, 2023, another shareholder represented by the same law firm as O'Meara filed a similar complaint against the same defendants in the same court, captioned Baer v. Shift4 Payments, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:23-cv-03969-JFL (the "Baer Action"). Plaintiff Baer seeks to represent purchasers of the Company's securities between June 5, 2020, and April 18, 2023. Both complaints allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, based on allegedly false and misleading statements about the Company's business, operations, and compliance policies, and both seek unspecified damages. On October 19, 2023, Plaintiff Baer filed a motion to consolidate the O'Meara Action and the Baer Action and appoint Baer as lead plaintiff. On November 3, 2023, the court consolidated the O'Meara and Baer Actions and appointed Plaintiff Baer as the lead plaintiff in the consolidated action. Lead Plaintiff Baer and Plaintiff O'Meara filed an amended complaint on January 5, 2024, purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities between June 5, 2020 and April 18, 2023, and alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, based on allegedly false and misleading statements about the Company's business, operations, and compliance policies. The Company moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on February 19, 2024. A hearing is not yet scheduled on the Company's motion to dismiss. The Company disputes the allegations in the above-referenced matters, intends to defend the matters vigorously, and believes that the claims are without merit. SHIFT4 PAYMENTS, INC. provides payment processing solutions. The Company offers software for transaction and money transfer activities. [BN] SINCLAIR INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Antitrust Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Sinclair 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 9, 2024, that the Company continues to defend itself from a consolidated antitrust class suit in the Northern District of Illinois. The Company is aware of twenty-two putative class action lawsuits that were filed against the Company following published reports of the DOJ investigation into the exchange of pacing data within the industry. On October 3, 2018, these lawsuits were consolidated in the Northern District of Illinois. The consolidated action alleges that the Company and thirteen other broadcasters conspired to fix prices for commercials to be aired on broadcast television stations throughout the United States and engaged in unlawful information sharing, in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The consolidated action seeks damages, attorneys' fees, costs and interest, as well as injunctions against adopting practices or plans that would restrain competition in the ways the plaintiffs have alleged. The Court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss on November 6, 2020. Discovery commenced shortly after that and is continuing. Under the current schedule set by the Court, fact discovery is scheduled to close 90 days after a Special Master completes his review of the plaintiffs' objections to the defendant's privilege claims. That privilege review is ongoing. On August 18, 2023, the defendants filed objections to the Special Master's First Report and Recommendations with the Court. The Court overruled the defendants' objections on January 31, 2024. The Special Master has not indicated when he expects to complete his privilege review. On December 8, 2023, the Court granted final approval of the settlements the plaintiffs had reached with four of the original defendants (CBS, Fox, Cox Media, and ShareBuilders), who agreed to pay a total of $48 million to settle the plaintiffs' claims against them. The Company and the other non-settling defendants continue to believe the lawsuits are without merit and intend to vigorously defend themselves against all such claims. Headquartered in Hunt Valley, MD, Sinclair, Inc. is the operator of Tennischannel.com, one of the most popular sports streaming services in the country dedicated to providing prerecorded and live coverage of tennis and other racquetball sports. [BN] SKIPTHEDISHES: Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Arbitration Appeal --------------------------------------------------------------- Canada's highest court has refused to hear an appeal by Skip the Dishes in a potential class-action lawsuit that could ultimately lead to sweeping changes in how workers in the gig economy are treated. The Supreme Court of Canada on Thursday, August 29, denied the Winnipeg-based company leave to appeal Manitoba court decisions shooting down Skip's efforts to enforce a clause in its agreement with drivers that employment disputes must be handled through arbitration, not the court system. Because of that clause, the courts had no jurisdiction to hear the case, the company unsuccessfully argued. Following its usual practice, the Supreme Court offered no reasons for declining to hear Skip's appeal. The Manitoba Court of King's Bench lawsuit, filed by former Skip the Dishes courier Charleen Pokornik in 2018, argues the company misled its drivers by classifying them as independent contractors rather than employees, allowing it to avoid labour laws covering minimum wages, paid sick leave and other benefits. "These are very real things [that] we say, as employees, they are not getting," said Paul Edwards, a lawyer representing Pokornik's class-action application. The case will now return to Manitoba's superior court, where lawyers for Pokornik will fight for class-action certification involving multiple Canadian jurisdictions, Edwards said in an interview with CBC News on August 30, Friday. If that is approved, then a trial on the merits of the case can take place. Edwards acknowledged the length of time that's elapsed since the case was initially filed but said the fight is worth it. "These are keenly contested matters," said Edwards, describing the power imbalance between individual gig-economy workers and companies as underscoring the need for class-action civil suits. "The class-action method is the only way these matters get before a court and get dealt with," he said. B.C. standards The legal development in Manitoba comes as British Columbia implements new gig-worker regulations on Tuesday, August 27. The legislation implements a minimum wage for "engaged time" and measures for pay transparency for more than 45,000 ride-hailing and delivery workers. The pay standard does not apply when workers are waiting between jobs. Platform companies will be prohibited from withholding or making deductions from tips. They will also be required to register workers for WorkSafeBC workers' compensation coverage. Gig workers in B.C. to be paid minimum of $20.88 an hour But even with the new regulations, experts have said gig workers don't have access to all the benefits of the B.C. Employment Standards Act, such as vacation pay, benefits, pensions or employment insurance. However, B.C.'s new rules define gig workers as employees, giving them some of the same rights as other workers in B.C., experts say — an issue at the very heart of the Pokornik lawsuit in Manitoba. "I think everybody generally recognizes it's not a level playing field and these [workers] deserve better," Edwards said. The CBC has requested comment from Skip the Dishes. The company is a subsidiary of the Dutch multinational Just Eat Takeaway. A date for continuing the Manitoba lawsuit has not been set. [GN] STARBUCKS CORP: Faces Class Suit Over Investor Deception -------------------------------------------------------- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Starbucks Corporation ("Starbucks" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:SBUX) in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Starbucks securities between November 2, 2023, and April 30, 2024, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors have until October 28, 2024 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. According to the complaint, on April 30, 2024, after market hours, investors began to question the veracity of defendants' public statements following Starbucks' press release announcing its second quarter fiscal 2024 earnings and the accompanying same-day earnings call. In pertinent part, defendants announced disappointing Q2 Fiscal 2024 results, stating that store sales declined globally 4%, with traffic falling 7%, and further disclosed a 2% decline in new revenues to $8.6 billion. On the back of these results, Starbucks additionally lowered their guidance for FY 2024, citing global declines in store sales, net revenues, and both GAAP and non- GAAP earnings. The Company attributed its results and lowered guidance on the issues Starbucks was facing in China, with CFO Ruggeri stating, in reference to the Chinese market, "we still see the effects of a slower-than-expected recovery, and we see fierce competition among value players in the market." Investors and analysts reacted immediately to Starbucks' revelation. The price of Starbucks' common stock declined dramatically. From a closing market price of $88.49 per share on April 30, 2024, Starbucks' stock price fell to $74.44 per share on May 1, 2024, a decline of over 15% in the span of just a single day. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Starbucks shares and suffered a loss, are a long-term stockholder, have information, would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Brandon Walker or Marion Passmore by email at investigations@bespc.com, telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to you. About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.: Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country. For more information about the firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Contact Information: Brandon Walker, Esq. Marion Passmore, Esq. Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Telephone: (212) 355-4648 investigations@bespc.com www.bespc.com [GN] STARBUCKS CORPORATION: Garbaccio Sues Over Inflated Prices ---------------------------------------------------------- Charles Garbaccio, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. STARBUCKS CORPORATION, LAXMAN NARASIMHAN, and RACHEL RUGGERI, Case No. 2:24-cv-01362 (W.D. Wash., Aug. 28, 2024), is brought on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Starbucks securities between November 2, 2023 and April 30, 2024, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws (the "Class") due to artificially inflated prices. The Defendants provided investors with material information concerning Starbucks' fiscal year revenue for 2023 and expected guidance for the fiscal year 2024. Defendants' statements included, among other things, confidence in Starbucks' Reinvention and diversification of its global portfolio, which relies largely on both Rewards customers and more occasional consumers. 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 related to Starbucks' Reinvention strategy, comprising: a roadmap and clear plan for success outside of the US, including opening new stores; positive same-store sales; and strong local innovation in foreign economies. Such statements absent these material facts caused Plaintiff and other shareholders to purchase Starbucks' securities at artificially inflated prices. On April 30, 2024, after market hours, the truth emerged when investors began to question the veracity of Defendants' public statements following Starbucks' press release announcing its second quarter fiscal 2024 earnings and the accompanying same-day earnings call. In pertinent part, Defendants announced disappointing Q2 Fiscal 2024 results, stating that store sales declined globally 4%, with traffic falling 7%, and further disclosed a 2% decline in new revenues to $8.6 billion. On the back of these results, Starbucks additionally lowered their guidance for FY 2024, citing global declines in store sales, net revenues, and both GAAP and non-GAAP earnings. The Company attributed its results and lowered guidance on the issues Starbucks was facing in China, with CFO Ruggeri stating, in reference to the Chinese market, "we still see the effects of a slower-than-expected recovery, and we see fierce competition among value players in the market." Investors and analysts reacted immediately to Starbucks' revelation. The price of Starbucks' common stock declined dramatically. From a closing market price of $88.49 per share on April 30, 2024, Starbucks' stock price fell to $74.44 per share on May 1, 2024, a decline of over 15% in the span of just a single day, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased Starbucks common stock at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. Starbucks is an American multinational chain of coffeehouses and roastery reserves.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roger Townsend, Esq. BRESKIN JOHNSON TOWNSEND PLLC 1000 Second Avenue, Suite 3670 Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: (206) 652-8660 Email: rtownsend@bjtlegal.com - and - 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 STOOPS NYC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Igartua Says ------------------------------------------------------------- JUAN IGARTUA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STOOPS NYC IP LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-06381 (S.D.N.Y., August 23, 2024) is a civil action against the Defendant for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate the Defendant's website, www.stoopsnyc.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State Civil Rights Law. The Plaintiff was injured when attempting to access Defendant's New York City based website on August 4, 2024 from his home in Bronx County, in an effort to search for and purchase Defendant's products and services that would provide needed relief from his various ailments, via their online portal. Despite the website's apparent thoroughness and transparency, the Plaintiff encountered significant accessibility barriers that prevented him from fully utilizing its services, when he attempted to access the site by himself. This has not only limited his ability to make informed decisions but also infringed on his rights as a consumer and individual with a disability, says the suit. The Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Stoops NYC IP LLC, is a cannabis company that owns and maintains the website.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq. Bennitta L. Joseph, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 110 East 59th Street, Suite 2300 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 227-5700 Facsimile: (212) 656-1889 E-mail: jon@norinsberglaw.com bennitta@employeejustice.com SUPER MICRO: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims --------------------------------------------------------- Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Super Micro Computer, Inc. (NASDAQ: SMCI) resulting from allegations that Super Micro Computer may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. So What: If you purchased Super Micro Computer securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. What to do next: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=28261 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. What is this about: On August 27, 2024 Hindenburg Research released a report entitled, "Super Micro: Fresh Evidence Of Accounting Manipulation, Sibling Self-Dealing And Sanctions Evasion At This AI High Flyer." The report found issues regarding "accounting red flags, evidence of undisclosed related party transactions, sanctions and export control failures, and customer issues." On this news, Super Micro Computer's stock fell $14.87 per share, or 2.6%, to close at $547.64 per share on August 27, 2024. 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. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. 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. 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] SUPER MICRO: Spatz Sues Over Drop in Share Price ------------------------------------------------ MICHAEL SPATZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUPER MICRO COMPUTER, INC.; CHARLES LIANG; and DAVID WEIGAND, Defendants, Case No. 5:24-cv-06193 (N.D. Cal., Aug. 30, 2024) is a securities class action brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Super Micro's publicly traded common stock between February 2, 2021 and August 26, 2024, seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that throughout the Class Period, Defendants reported to investors and the market the Company's continued record demand, surging revenue growth, and increased product shipments. The Company also represented that it adhered to U.S. and other applicable trade control regulations and confirmed that no sales of any products actually occurred in the Russian Federation during fiscal years 2023 and 2024 and that the Company and its subsidiaries did not sell products or provide services to the Russian Federal Security Service. As a result of the Defendants' representations and the Company's reported financial and operational results, the price of Super Micro common stock surged above $1,255 per share. On August 28, 2024, the price of Super Micro common stock continued to decline, falling $104.15 per share, or 19.02 percent, to close at $443.49, says the suit. Super Micro Computer, Inc. designs, develops, manufactures and sells server solutions based on modular and open-standard architecture. The Company offers servers, motherboards, chassis, and accessories. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian O. O'Mara, Esq. Steven M. Jodlowski, Esq. Hani Y. Farah, Esq. Ruben Pena, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT LLP 4747 Executive Drive, Suite 240 San Diego, CA 92121 Tel: (619) 923-3939 Email: briano@dicellolevitt.com stevenj@dicellolevitt.com hfarah@dicellolevitt.com rpena@dicellolevitt.com SYDNEE DICKSON: Kush Files Suit in D. Utah ------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sydnee Dickson, et al. The case is styled as Remy Kush, on behalf of all other similarly situated v. Sydnee Dickson, Scott Jones, Utah State Board of Education Superintendant; Spencer Cox, Governor; Gary Herbert, Former Governor; U.S. Department of Education, Department of Education building; T-Mobile Corporation; AT and T Corp.; Verizon Corp.; Case No. 2:24-cv-00639-JCB (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 28, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Dr. Sydnee Dickson -- https://schools.utah.gov/superintendency -- has been serving the children of Utah as a proud educator for the past 41 years.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. TAINA CORP: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind Users, Vega Says ------------------------------------------------------------- NORBERTO VEGA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TAINA CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-08887 (D.N.J., Aug. 30, 2024) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, www.buona-sera.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Taina Corporation operates an Italian restaurant. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com TASKUS INC: Continues to Defend Lozada Class Suit in Delaware ------------------------------------------------------------- TaskUs 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 89 2024, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Lozada class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On February 23, 2022, a purported class action lawsuit captioned Lozada v. TaskUs, Inc. et al., No. 22-cv-1479-JPC, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, its President, and its Chief Financial Officer. The complaint alleges that the registration statement filed in connection with the Company's initial public offering and the Company's second and third quarter 2021 earnings calls contained materially false and misleading information in violation of the federal securities laws. On October 20, 2022, the Court entered an order appointing Humberto Lozada as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. On December 16, 2022, lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint, alleging additional misstatements in certain of the Company's 2021 earnings releases filed on Form 8-K and at an investor conference, and asserting additional securities claims, including against members of TaskUs's board of directors as well as BCP FC Aggregator L.P. The complaint seeks unspecified damages and an award of costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees, as well as equitable relief. On February 17, 2023, TaskUs and the other named defendants filed a motion to dismiss. On October 16, 2023, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed with prejudice certain claims based on certain theories of liability. On January 5, 2024, the Court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss. Defendants filed an answer to the complaint on February 9, 2024, and an initial pretrial conference was held on February 16, 2024 after which a Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order was entered by the Court on February 20, 2024. The Company cannot predict at this point the length of time that this action will be ongoing or the liability, if any, which may arise therefrom. The Company believes that the lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously. TaskUs is an outsourcing company that handles content moderation. TASKUS INC: Forsberg Class Suit Stayed -------------------------------------- TaskUs Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2024, that the United States District Court for the District of Delaware has stayed the Forsberg class suit. On April 1, 2022, a purported class action lawsuit captioned Gregory Forsberg, Christopher Gunter, Samuel Kissinger, and Scott Sipprell vs. TaskUs, Inc. and Shopify, Inc., Shopify Holdings (USA), Inc., Shopify (USA) Inc., No. 1:22-cv-00436-UNA, was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint alleges the named defendants failed to exercise reasonable care in securing and safeguarding consumer information in connection with a 2020 data breach impacting Ledger SAS cryptocurrency hardware wallets, resulting in the unauthorized public release of approximately 272,000 pieces of detailed personally identifiable information, including Plaintiffs' and class members' full names, email addresses, postal addresses, and telephone numbers. The four named plaintiffs allege aggregate losses of approximately $140,000, and allege that the damages exceed $5 million for purposes of class action jurisdiction. On April 8, 2022, the Company filed a motion to dismiss, which is currently pending. This case is currently stayed. TaskUs is an outsourcing company that handles content moderation. TESLA INC: Court Dismissed Dogecoin Manipulation Class Action Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Timmy Shen of The Block, reports that Elon Musk and his electric vehicle firm, Tesla, won a class action lawsuit against them in 2022, alleging that Musk's comments manipulated Dogecoin DOGE +0.80% 's market and harmed investors. U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice on Thursday, August 29, meaning it has been permanently dismissed. In June 2022, investors sued Musk and his firm, claiming their activities around Dogecoin, including a series of tweets, had defrauded them. The investors alleged that Musk's statements -- including his claims about agreeing to become Dogecoin's CEO and his suggestion of putting a Dogecoin in SpaceX and flying it to the moon -- were misleading. A group of investors filed a suit in the Southern District of New York on behalf of them against Musk and his businesses, Tesla and SpaceX. "These statements are aspirational and puffery, not factual and susceptible to being falsified," Judge Hellerstein wrote in his order, adding that no reasonable investor could rely upon them. The judge also said that it is "not possible to understand" the allegations that form the basis of plaintiffs' conclusion of market manipulation, Musk and Tesla's alleged "pump and dump" scheme, and a breach of a fiduciary duty amounting to insider trading. Dogecoin, the ninth-largest cryptocurrency by market capitalization, edged down 1.2% over the past 24 hours to trade at around $0.1. Its market cap currently stands at $14.6 billion. [GN] TICKETMASTER LLC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Smith Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- ALISA SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TICKETMASTER, LLC; LIVE NATION ENTERTAINMENT, INC.; and SNOWFLAKE, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-07446 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 30, 2024) is an action arising out of the recent targeted cyberattack and data breach where unauthorized third-party criminals retrieved and exfiltrated the highly sensitive data belonging to the Plaintiff and hundreds of millions of Class Members, as a result of the Defendants' failure to reasonably and adequately secure this highly sensitive consumer data (the "Data Breach") and failure to adequately implement, and ensure third-party vendors implemented, reasonable cybersecurity protocols. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Data Breach involved a targeted cyberattack against Defendant Snowflake, Inc. ("Snowflake"), a major player in the data storage and analysis industry, as well as several of Snowflake's corporate clients, including the Defendants Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. ("Live Nation") and Ticketmaster, LLC ("Ticketmaster"). The Data Breach resulted in the theft of extensive customer data -- affecting more than half a billion individuals -- and was of such a significant scale that it spurred a Congressional investigation into the breach. The Data Breach was a direct result of the Defendants' failure to implement adequate and reasonable cybersecurity procedures and protocols, consistent with industry standards, and necessary to protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII from the foreseeable threat of a cyberattack. This included Defendants' failure to employ and enforce Multi-Factor Authentication. As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and Class Members face a substantial risk of imminent harm relating to the exposure and misuse of their Private Information. Plaintiff and Class Members have and will continue to suffer injuries associated with this risk, including but not limited to a loss of time, mitigation expenses, and anxiety over the misuse of their Private Information, says the suit. Ticketmaster L.L.C. operates as a ticket distribution company. The Company buys, transfers, and sells tickets for live music, sporting, arts, theater, and family events. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq. Adrian J. Buonanoce, Esq. PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP 15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (818) 788-8300 Facsimile: (818) 788-8104 Email: dwarshaw@pwfirm.com abuonanoce@pwfirm.com - and - James J. Pizzirusso, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 888 16th Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 Telephone: (202) 540-7200 Email: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com TKO GROUP: Continues to Defend Consolidated WWE Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- TKO Group Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 13, 2024, that the Company continues to defend itself from the consolidated WWE class suit in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. On November 17, 2023, a purported former stockholder of WWE, Laborers' District Council and Contractors' Pension Fund of Ohio ("Laborers"), filed a verified class action complaint on behalf of itself and similarly situated former WWE stockholders in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware ("Delaware Court"), captioned Laborers District Council and Contractors' Pension Fund of Ohio v. McMahon, C.A. No. 2023-1166-JTL ("Laborers Action"). On November 20, 2023, another purported former WWE stockholder, Dennis Palkon, filed a verified class action complaint on behalf of himself and similarly situated former WWE stockholders in the Delaware Court, captioned Palkon v. McMahon, C.A. No. 2023-1175-JTL ("Palkon Action"). The Laborers and Palkon Actions allege breach of fiduciary duty claims against former WWE directors Vincent K. McMahon, Nick Khan, Paul Levesque, George A. Barrios, Steve Koonin, Michelle D. Wilson, and Frank A. Riddick III (collectively, the "Individual Defendants"), arising out of the Transactions. On April 24, 2024, the City of Pontiac Reestablished General Employees' Retirement System ("Pontiac"), a purported former stockholder of WWE, filed another verified class action complaint on behalf of itself and similarly situated former WWE stockholders in the Delaware Court captioned City of Pontiac Reestablished General Employees' Retirement System v. McMahon, C.A. No. 2024-0432 ("Pontiac Action"). The Pontiac Action similarly alleges breach of fiduciary duty claims against the Individual Defendants, and adds claims against WWE and TKO for denying stockholders their appraisal rights under DGCL § 262, as well as claims against EGH for aiding and abetting the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties and for civil conspiracy to violate DGCL § 262. On May 2, 2024, the Court entered an order consolidating the Laborers, Palkon and Pontiac actions under the caption In re World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. Merger Litigation, C.A. No. 2023-1166-JTL ("Consolidated Action"). The Consolidated Action is in the early stages, and the parties agreed that TKO, WWE and EGH will not be required to respond to the complaints until a lead plaintiff is appointed and the lead plaintiff designates an operative pleading. TKO Group Holdings, Inc. is into amusement and recreation services specifically American professional wrestling and MMA and is based in New York NY. TKO GROUP: Johnson Class Suit Trial Date Not Set ------------------------------------------------ TKO Group Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 13, 2024, that the United States District Court for the District of Nevada has still not set a trial date for the Johnson class suit. On June 24, 2021, another lawsuit, Johnson et al. v. Zuffa, LLC et al., No. 2:21-cv-1189-RFB-BNW (D. Nev.), was filed by a putative class of former UFC fighters and covering the period from July 1, 2017 to the present and alleged substantially similar claims to the Le case and sought injunctive relief. On March 13, 2024, TKO OpCo, and certain of its affiliates, including Endeavor, reached an agreement to settle all claims asserted in Johnson class action lawsuit for an aggregate amount of $335.0 million payable by the Company and its subsidiaries, which was submitted to the court for preliminary approval. During the six months ended June 30, 2024, the Company recorded a charge of $335.0 million, which is included as a component of selling, general and administrative expenses in the consolidated statements of operations. On July 30, 2024, following the court's hearings on plaintiffs' submission to approve the settlement, the court issued an order denying the motion for preliminary approval of the settlement agreement and stated that an opinion setting forth the reasons for the denial would be issued at a later date. The Company is evaluating all of its options, including, without limitation, an appeal, and has also initiated discussions with plaintiffs' counsel, who have expressed a willingness to engage in settlement discussions for Johnson cases. A motion to dismiss the complaint in Johnson remains pending and no trial date has been set. TKO Group Holdings, Inc. is into amusement and recreation services specifically American professional wrestling and MMA and is based in New York NY. TKO GROUP: Oct. 28 Tentative Trial Date for Le Class Suit Set ------------------------------------------------------------- TKO Group Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 13, 2024, that the United States District Court for the District of Nevada has set a tentative trial date for the Le damages class suit for October 28, 2024. Five related class-action lawsuits were filed against Zuffa between December 2014 and March 2015 by a total of eleven former UFC fighters. The lawsuits, which were substantially identical, were transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Nevada and consolidated into a single action in June 2015, captioned Le et al. v. Zuffa, LLC, No. 2:15-cv-1045-RFB-BNW (D. Nev.) (the "Le" case). The lawsuit alleged that Zuffa violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act by monopsonizing an alleged market for the services of elite professional MMA athletes. The fighter plaintiffs claimed that Zuffa's alleged conduct injured them by artificially depressing the compensation they received for their services, and they sought treble damages under the antitrust laws, as well as attorneys' fees and costs, and, in some instances, injunctive relief. On August 9, 2023, the district court certified the lawsuit as a damages class action, encompassing the period from December 16, 2010 to June 30, 2017. The fighter plaintiffs in the Le case abandoned their claim for injunctive relief, so the only relief the fighter plaintiffs would have sought at trial was damages. On March 13, 2024, TKO OpCo, and certain of its affiliates, including Endeavor, reached an agreement to settle all claims asserted in Le class action lawsuit for an aggregate amount of $335.0 million payable by the Company and its subsidiaries, which was submitted to the court for preliminary approval. During the six months ended June 30, 2024, the Company recorded a charge of $335.0 million, which is included as a component of selling, general and administrative expenses in the consolidated statements of operations. On July 30, 2024, following the court's hearings on plaintiffs' submission to approve the settlement, the court issued an order denying the motion for preliminary approval of the settlement agreement and stated that an opinion setting forth the reasons for the denial would be issued at a later date. The court has scheduled a status conference for August 19, 2024 and a tentative trial date for Le for October 28, 2024. The Company is evaluating all of its options, including, without limitation, an appeal, and has also initiated discussions with plaintiffs' counsel, who have expressed a willingness to engage in separate settlement discussions for the Le and Johnson cases. TKO Group Holdings, Inc. is into amusement and recreation services specifically American professional wrestling and MMA and is based in New York NY. TRENDS DISPENSARIES: Igartua Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind ----------------------------------------------------------------- JUAN IGARTUA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRENDS DISPENSARIES LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-06383 (S.D.N.Y., August 23, 2024) is a civil action against Defendant for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate the Defendant's website, www.trendslic.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State Civil Rights Law. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was injured when attempting to access Defendant's website on August 10, 2024, from his home in Bronx County, in an effort to search for and purchase Defendant's products and services, including their premium edible cannabis, "Excite Wild Cherry by Camino," but encountered various access barriers that denied him full and equal access to Defendant's online goods, content, and services. Specifically, Plaintiff's counsel conducted accessibility audits using the Wave, "Web Accessibility Evaluation" tool. This program confirmed the presence of multiple violations of the ADA, as reflected within the completion of said audits, says the suit. The Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Trends Dispensaries LLC, a New York limited liability company, owns and maintains the website that serves as a cannabis dispensary.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq. Bennitta L. Joseph, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 110 East 59th Street, Suite 2300 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 227-5700 Facsimile: (212) 656-1889 E-mail: jon@norinsberglaw.com bennitta@employeejustice.com TRUIST FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Bickerstaff Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Truist Financial Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 13, 2024, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Bickerstaff class suit in Fulton County State Court. The case is captioned Bickerstaff v. SunTrust Bank class action case was filed in Fulton County State Court on July 12, 2010. An amended complaint was filed on August 9, 2010. Plaintiff alleges that all overdraft fees charged to his account which related to debit card and ATM transactions are actually interest charges and therefore subject to the usury laws of Georgia. The amended complaint asserts claims for violations of civil and criminal usury laws, conversion, and money had and received, and seeks damages on a class-wide basis, including refunds of challenged overdraft fees and pre-judgment interest. On October 6, 2017, the trial court granted plaintiff's motion for class certification and defined the class as "Every Georgia citizen who had or has one or more accounts with SunTrust Bank and who, from July 12, 2006, to October 6, 2017 (i) had at least one overdraft of $500.00 or less resulting from an ATM or debit card transaction (the "Transaction"); (ii) paid any Overdraft Fees as a result of the Transaction; and (iii) did not receive a refund of those Fees," and the granting of a certified class was affirmed on appeal. The class seeks a return of up to $452 million in paid overdraft fees from the 2006 to 2017 period above, plus prejudgment interest which, based on the amount of claimed fees, was estimated to be approximately $415 million as of June 30, 2024. A court-ordered mediation was held on February 28, 2024, but no resolution was reached. On March 4, 2024, the trial court issued an order granting in part and denying in part Truist's motions to amend the class definition to narrow the scope of the class, to compel arbitration against certain class members, and for summary judgment. Truist and the class have separately appealed the trial court's order to the Georgia Court of Appeals. Truist Financial Corporation is a bank holding company based in North Carolina. TURO INC: Refuses to Engage in Arbitration, Trifan Says ------------------------------------------------------- RODICA TRIFAN, individually, and behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TURO INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-07686 (N.D. Ill., August 26, 2024) seeks all remedies available under the law for Defendant's violations of consumer protection laws and breach of contract, including declaratory and injunctive relief to require Defendant to answer Plaintiff's and Class members' claims and provide redress for their injuries. The Defendant's terms of service require that disputes be resolved in an arbitration administered by either FairClaims or the American Arbitration Association pursuant to the FairClaims Rules or AAA's Consumer Arbitration Rules, as appropriate. In violation of the terms of service and the applicable Rules of Defendant's own chosen arbitration forums, when Plaintiff and Class members initiated arbitrations, the Defendant systematically refused to engage in arbitration and refused to comply with its obligation to pay its share of the arbitration filing fee, says the suit. As a result, the Defendant deprived Plaintiff and Class members of their benefit of the bargain, wasted Plaintiff's and Class members' time and money, and effectively prevented them from resolving disputes with Turo in the low cost and efficient process of consumer arbitration under the rules of either FairClaims or the AAA, the suit asserts. Turo Inc. is an American peer-to-peer car sharing company based in San Francisco, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marc E. Dann, Esq. Brian D. Flick, Esq. Marita I. Ramirez, Esq. DANNLAW 15000 Madison Avenue Lakewood, OH 44107 Telephone: (216) 373-0539 Facsimile: (216) 373-0536 E-mail: notices@dannlaw.com - and - Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq. Sharon A. Harris, Esq. Matthew C. De Re, Esq. Jeffrey D. Blake, Esq. ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C. 77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 440-0020 Facsimile: (312) 440-4180 E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com sharon@attorneyzim.com matt@attorneyzim.com jeff@attorneyzim.com U.G.N. INC: Faces Smith Suit Over ERISA Violations -------------------------------------------------- CHARLES K. SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. U.G.N., INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-07908 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 30, 2024) alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, For the Defendant's employees to maintain health insurance coverage under a the Defendant's-sponsored plan, the UGN Inc. Employee Health Care Plan ("UGN Plan" or "Plan"), they must declare whether they use tobacco products. Those UGN employees who do use tobacco products are required to pay an additional fee of $96 per month ($1,152 per year) -- hereafter referred to as the "tobacco surcharge" -- to maintain coverage. The Plaintiff brings the lawsuit individually and on behalf of all similarly situated plan participants, seeking to have these unlawful fees returned, and for plan-wide relief under the ERISA. UGN Inc. produces automobile parts and accessories. The Company offers carpets, dampers, dash insulators, headliners, hood and dash outer absorbers, mudguards, and other automotive components. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul M. Secunda, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 125 South Wacker Drive, Suite 300 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (414) 828-2372 Facsimile: (262) 565-6469 Email: psecunda@walcheskeluzi.com - and - Robert P. Kondras, Jr., Esq. HASSLER KONDRAS MILLER LLP 100 Cherry Street Terre Haute, IN 47807 Telephone: (877) 656-7602 Facsimile: )812) 234-2881 Email: kondras@hkmlawfirm.com UNITED PARCEL SERVICE: Labar Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Barry Labar and Christina Bruglia, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., a Foreign Public Utility Corporation and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 24-2-09695-2 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington for Pierce County, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on Aug. 30, 2024, and assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-05722. On July 26, 2024, Plaintiffs commenced this action by filing a "Class Action Complaint for Violations of Washington's Wage Transparency Law. Plaintiffs assert one claim against UPS under the Equal Pay and Opportunities Act ("EPOA"). Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that "they and the Class applied for job openings with Defendant where the job postings did not disclose the wage scale, salary range, and/or a general description of the benefits and other compensation to be offered."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig J. Ackermann, Esq. Brian Denlinger, Esq. Avi Kreitenberg, Esq. ACKERMANN & TILAJEF, P.C. 2602 North Proctor Street, Suite 205 Tacoma, WA 98406 Phone: 310.277.0614 Fax: 310.277.0635 Email: cja@ackermanntilajef.com bd@ackermanntilajef.com ak@ackermanntilajef.com The Defendants are represented by: Javier F. Garcia, Esq. Emily A. Bushaw, Esq. Kyle D. Nelson, Esq. Shannon McDermott, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Phone: +1.206.359.8000 Facsimile: +1.206.359.9000 Email: JGarcia@perkinscoie.com EBushaw@perkinscoie.com KyleNelson@perkinscoie.com SMcDermott@perkinscoie.com US PREMIUM: Continues to Defend Antitrust Class Suit in Minnesota ----------------------------------------------------------------- U. S. Premium Beef LLC disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 29, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2024, that the NBP, of which it is a minority owner, continues to defend itself from the Cattle and Beef Antitrust class suit in the United States District Court, Minnesota District. NBP is a defendant in (i) five putative class action lawsuits in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota alleging that NBP violated some combination of the Sherman Antitrust Act, the Packers and Stockyards Act, the Commodity Exchange Act, and various state laws and (ii) putative class action lawsuits in the Supreme Court of British Columbia and the Superior Court of Quebec for the district of Montreal alleging that it violated the Canadian Competition Act and various provincial laws (the "Beef Class Actions"). The Beef Class Actions are entitled In re Cattle Antitrust Litigation, which was filed originally on April 23, 2019; Peterson et al. v. JBS USA Food Company Holdings, et al., which was filed originally on April 26, 2019; In re DPP Beef Litigation, which was filed originally on April 26, 2019; Erbert & Gerbert's, Inc. v. JBS USA Food Company Holdings, et al., which was filed originally on June 18, 2020; Specht v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., which was filed originally on October 31, 2022; Giang Bui v. Cargill, Incorporated, et al. which was filed originally on February 18, 2022; and Sylvie De Bellefeuille v. Cargill, Inc. et al., which was filed originally on March 24, 2022. Since the original class action complaints were filed, certain purchasers of beef products have opted to file individual complaints and to proceed with direct actions making similar claims (the "Opt-Out Cases"), and others may do so in the future. The Opt-Out Cases are entitled Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. and Bi-Lo Holding, LLC v. Cargill, Inc., et al., which was filed on August 2, 2021 in the United States District Court, Minnesota; Cheney Brothers, Inc. v. Cargill, Inc., et al., which was filed on January 31, 2022 in the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida; Subway v. Cargill, Inc. et al., which was filed on February 22, 2022 in the United States District Court, Connecticut; Amory Investments LLC v. Cargill, Inc. et al., which was filed originally on March 8, 2022 in the United States District Court, Northern District of New York; Associated Grocers, Inc., et al. v. Cargill, Inc., et al., which was filed originally on May 12, 2022 in the United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois; Giant Eagle, Inc. v. Cargill, Inc., et al., which was filed originally on June 8, 2022 in the United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois; Sysco Corporation v. Cargill, Inc., et al., which was filed originally on June 24, 2022 in the United States District Court, Southern District of Texas; John Soules Foods, Inc. v. Cargill, Inc., et al., which was filed originally on August 5, 2022 in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas; Associated Grocers of the South et al. v. Cargill, Inc., et al., which was filed originally on September 15, 2022 in the United States District Court, District of Montana; The Kroger Co. et al. v. Cargill, Inc., et al., which was filed originally on September 15, 2022 in the United States District Court, District of Montana; Spartannash Co vs. Cargill, Inc. et al, which was filed originally on September 21, 2022 in the United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois; Kraft Heinz Food Company v. Cargill Inc., et al., which was filed originally on September 30, 2022 in the United States District Court, Eastern District of New York; Aramark Food and Support Services Group., Inc. v. Cargill Inc., et al., which was filed originally on September 30, 2022 in the United States District Court, Eastern District of New York; ARCOP, Inc. v. Cargill, Inc., et al., which was filed originally on December 19, 2022 in the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida; CKE Restaurant Holdings, Inc. v. Cargill, Inc., et al., which was filed originally on December 19, 2022 in the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida; Sonic Industries Services Inc. v. Cargill, Inc. et al., which was filed originally on December 20, 2022 in the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida; Restaurant Services, Inc. v. Cargill, Inc., et al., which was filed originally on December 20, 2022 in the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida; Whatabrands LLC et al. vs. Cargill, Inc., et al. which was filed originally on December 20, 2022 in the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida; Sherwood Food Distributors, LLC et al.v. Cargill, Inc., et al., which was filed originally on March 7, 2023 in the United States District Court, Easter District of New York; McClane Company, Inc v. Cargill, Inc., et al., which was filed originally on April 3, 2023 in the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida; Aldi, Inc v. Cargill, Inc., et al., which was filed originally on August 28. 2023 in the United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois; Quirich Foods, LLC et al. v. Cargill, Inc., et al., which was filed originally on October 9, 2023 in the United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois; Conagra Brands, Inc v. Cargill, Inc., et al., which was filed originally on October 31, 2023 in the United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois; Compass Group USA, Inc v. Cargill, Inc., et al., which was filed originally on October 31, 2023 in the United States District Court, Western District of North Carolina; Target Corp v. Cargill, Inc., et al., which was filed originally on December 29, 2023 in the United States District Court, Eastern District of New York; BJ’s Wholesale Club, Inc v. Cargill, Inc., et al., which was filed originally on December 29, 2023 in the United States District Court, Eastern District of New York; Glazier Foods Co et al. v. Cargill, Inc., et al., which was filed originally on December 29, 2023 in the United States District Court, Eastern District of New York; Jetro Holdings, Inc v. Cargill, Inc., et al., which was filed originally on December 29, 2023 in the United States District Court, Eastern District of New York; Quality Supply Chain Co-Op, Inc. v. Cargill, Inc., et al., which was filed originally on December 29, 2023 in the United States District Court, Eastern District of New York; and Sodexo, Inc., et al. v. Cargill, Inc., et al., which was filed originally on April 29, 2024 in the United States District Court of Maryland. On October 4, 2022, the United States Beef Class Actions and Opt-Out Cases were consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the United States District Court, Minnesota District under the style In re: Cattle and Beef Antitrust Litigation. The plaintiffs in these cases seek treble damages and other relief under various laws including the Sherman Antitrust Act, the Canadian Competition Act, the Packers & Stockyards Act, and/or the Commodities Exchange Act and various state and provincial laws and attorneys' fees. NBP believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims in these cases and intends to defend them vigorously. There can be no assurances, however, as to the outcome of these matters or the impact on NBP's consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows. U.S. Premium Beef, LLC operates an integrated cattle processing and beef marketing enterprise based in Missouri. US PREMIUM: NBP Continues to Defend Brown Suit in Colorado ---------------------------------------------------------- U. S. Premium Beef LLC disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 29, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2024, that the NBP, of which it is a minority owner, continues to defend itself from the Brown class suit in United States District Court for the District of Colorado. NBP is a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit entitled Brown, et al. v. JBS USA Food Company et al. and filed in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on November 1, 2022. The defendants filed motions to dismiss, which the court denied except as to NBP's subsidiary, Iowa Premium. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on January 12, 2024. The amended complaint alleges that the defendants directly and through industry wage surveys and a benchmarking service (i) fixed wages and benefits, and (ii) exchanged information regarding compensation and benefits in an effort to depress and stabilize wages and benefits in violation of federal antitrust laws. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, treble monetary damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, declaratory and injunctive relief and the costs of the suit (including attorney fees). NBP believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims in this case, and if this proceeds to trial, intends to defend the case vigorously; however, NBP has negotiated a settlement with the plaintiffs in the employee wages and benefits matter. The settlement has been submitted to the court for approval and NBP has made an accrual for the potential settlement. There can be no assurances, however, as to the outcome of this case or the impact on the NBP's consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows. U.S. Premium Beef, LLC operates an integrated cattle processing and beef marketing enterprise based in Missouri. VALLEY NATIONAL BANK: Corsini Sues Over Unpaid Compensation ----------------------------------------------------------- Anthony Corsini, individually, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. VALLEY NATIONAL BANK and VALLEY NATIONAL BANCORP, Case No. 2:24-cv-08853 (D.N.J., Aug. 29, 2024), is brought against the Defendants seeking all available remedies under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law ("NJWHL"). In order to do so, Defendants employs individuals, such as Plaintiff and those similarly situated ("Underwriters") to review mortgage loan applications to ensure they conform with Valley's policies and guidelines. The Plaintiff and similarly situated Underwriters for Defendants regularly work over 40 hours per workweek. Regardless of the number of hours worked, Defendants pay Underwriters on a salary basis and do not pay overtime compensation for hours worked over 40 per workweek. In this regard, Defendants improperly classify Underwriters as exempt from overtime. As such, Defendants failed to pay Underwriters overtime owed under the FLSA and corresponding state wage and hour laws, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked as an Underwriter from 2021 until December 1, 2023. Valley National Bank, a subsidiary of Valley National Bancorp, is a regional bank with approximately $62 billion in assets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian S. Schaffer, Esq. Dana M. Cimera, Esq. FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP 28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor New York, NY 10005 Phone: (212) 300-0375 Email: bschaffer@fslawfirm.com dcimera@fslawfirm.com VENTYX BIOSCIENCES:Continues to Defend Yuksel Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Ventyx Biosciences 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 Yuksel securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. On March 1, 2024, a putative securities class action complaint, captioned Yuksel v. Ventyx Biosciences, Inc., et al., No. 3:24-cv-00415-AGA-DDL, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California against the company and certain of its current and former officers and directors, asserting violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act. Stemming from the Company's disclosure on November 6, 2023 of the results of its Phase 2 SERENITY trial of VTX958 and its decision to terminate ongoing activities and clinical trials for the development of VTX958 for the treatment of plaque psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, the complaint alleges that that the defendants issued materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse facts in connection with its October 21, 2021 initial public offering and in public statements from October 21, 2021 through November 6, 2023 regarding the effectiveness and clinical and commercial prospects of VTX958, the Company's ability to develop and commercialize product candidates, and its business prospects. On April 30, 2024, a motion for appointment of a lead plaintiff was filed. The lead plaintiff motion remains pending. The Company intends to defend the case vigorously. VERTEX ENERGY: Continues to Defend Mobile Refinery Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Vertex Energy Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 13, 2024, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Mobile Refinery's 2022 financial performance class suit in the Southern District of Texas. On April 13, 2023, William C. Passmore filed a putative class action lawsuit against the Company; Benjamin P. Cowart, its Chief Executive Officer and Chairman; and Chris Carlson, its Chief Financial Officer; in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama (Southern Division). In May 2023 and June 2023, additional plaintiffs filed virtually identical putative class action lawsuits against the same three defendants, the first of which was filed in the same courthouse and the second of which was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Houston Division). On January 24, 2024, the putative class action lawsuits were consolidated in the Southern District of Texas, and the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on February 1, 2024. The consolidated amended complaint alleges that the Company, through Messrs. Cowart and Carlson, issued materially false and misleading statements, or omitted material information, regarding the financial performance of the Mobile Refinery in 2022. The plaintiffs have asserted claims for violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, against all defendants. The Company moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on June 7, 2024, with briefing on the motion currently scheduled to be complete by August 20, 2024. The Company has retained counsel to respond to the putative class action and its assessment of the respective allegations is ongoing. All defendants intend to vigorously defend against the allegations. Houston-based Vertex Energy, Inc. (NASDAQ: VTNR) is a specialty refiner of alternative feedstocks and marketer of petroleum products. VOYA RETIREMENT: Continues to Defend Ravarino Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Voya Retirement Insurance & Annuity 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 Ravarino class suit in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. The case is captioned Ravarino, et al. v. Voya Financial, Inc., et al. (USDC District of Connecticut, No. 3:21-cv-01658)(filed December 14, 2021). In this putative class action, the plaintiffs allege that the named defendants, which include the Company, breached their fiduciary duties of prudence and loyalty in the administration of the Voya 401(k) Savings Plan. The plaintiffs claim that the named defendants did not exercise proper prudence in their management of allegedly poorly performing investment options, including proprietary funds, and passed excessive investment-management and other administrative fees for proprietary and non-proprietary funds onto plan participants. The plaintiffs also allege that the defendants engaged in self-dealing through the inclusion of the Voya Stable Value Option into the plan offerings and by setting the "crediting rate" for participants' investment in the Stable Value Fund artificially low in relation to Voya's general account investment returns in order to maximize the spread and Voya's profits at the participants' expense. The complaint seeks disgorgement of unjust profits as well as costs incurred. On June 13, 2023, the Court issued a ruling granting in part and denying in part Voya's motion to dismiss. The court largely dismissed the claims for breach of fiduciary duty. The remaining claims concern allegations of breaches of the ERISA prohibited transactions rule and a claim for failure to monitor the Voya Small Cap Growth fund. The Company denies the allegations, which it believes are without merit, and intends to defend the case vigorously. Voya Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company, together with its subsidiaries, operates as a stock life insurance company in the United States. The company was formerly known as ING Life Insurance and Annuity Company and changed its name to Voya Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company in September 2014. The company is based in Windsor, Connecticut. Voya Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company operates as a subsidiary of Voya Institutional Plan Services, LLC. VSC HOLDINGS: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Young Says ------------------------------------------------------------- LESHAWN YOUNG, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VSC HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-06442 (S.D.N.Y., August 26, 2024) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://store.vermontsmokeandcure.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on August 17, 2024, in an attempt to purchase BBQ Beef Sticks 1 oz (24 count) from Defendant and to view the information on the website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public; and that denied Plaintiff the full enjoyment of the goods, and services of the website, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. VSC Holdings, LLC operates the website that sells handcrafted and smoked meat snacks.[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 WAL-MART INC: Emery Suit Transferred to E.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Christopher Emery, Anthony Ryan, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-05019 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on Aug. 28, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-01020-EPG to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Walmart Inc. -- https://www.walmart.com/ -- is an American multinational retail corporation that operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and grocery stores in the United States, headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Melody Dickson, Esq. Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq. WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL 4740 Grand Avenue, Suite 300 Kansas City, MO 64112 Phone: (816) 701-1100 Fax: (816) 531-2372 Email: mdickson@wcllp.com tcartmell@wcllp.com The Defendant is represented by: James Larkin Smith, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 1100 Louisiana Street, Suite 4100 Houston, TX 77002 Phone: (713) 276-7363 Email: jsmith@kslaw.com - and - Keri E. Borders, Esq. KING & SPALDING 633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1600 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 443-4393 Email: kborders@kslaw.com WALGREENS INC: Mucinex Contains Benzene, Birdsong Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- Miriam Birdsong and Cheryl Mikel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WALGREENS INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-07994 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 3, 2024) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of the Plaintiffs, and all others similarly situated who purchased generic store brand Mucinex from Walgreens, from around May 2024 to around August 2024, which contains the cancer-causing chemical benzene. Benzene is a colorless, flammable liquid that has been used to make plastics, synthetic fibers, household cleaners, gasoline and rubber, and has been linked to diseases such as leukemia and lymphoma. The brand-name version of Mucinex, which is sold by British pharmaceutical giant Reckitt Benckiser Group, uses a white powder called carbomer, which creates the extended-release effect that helps ease symptoms over a 12-hour period, as an inactive ingredient that does not contain benzene. Benzene can be found in several popular medicines and household products beyond Mucinex, including Walgreens' version of the oral pain reliever Anbesol, Walmart's Equate brand face moisturizer with sunscreen, and Rite Aid's generic Bengay muscle rub, the suit says. The Defendant is a well-established corporation known for the marketing of medical products sold in retail in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roy T. Willey, IV, Esq. Paul Doolittle, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY ANASTOPOULO, LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 E-mail: roy@poulinwilley.com Paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com cmad@poulinwilley.com WELLS FARGO: Browne Sues Over Unauthorized Electronic Fund ---------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Browne, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, and DOES 1-10, Case No. 2:24-at-01113 (E.D. Cal., Aug. 29, 2024), is brought pursuant to the Electronic Funds Transfer Act ("EFTA") and violations of California's Commercial Code, and California's Unfair Competition Law, seeking damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of Defendant routinely holding consumers liable for unauthorized electronic fund transfers made out of their deposit accounts held with Defendant, thereby violating the EFTA. On June 20, 2024, Plaintiff Brown received a text message from the number 804-301-0776 from someone purporting to be Defendant regarding a fraudulent charge to one of his accounts in the amount of $187.32. the Plaintiff responded to this message indicating that he did not authorize such a charge. Immediately after, he received a text message from the same number indicating that one of Defendant's representatives would contact him shortly. The Plaintiff then called the number on his debit card to speak to Defendant's representative and confirm that the charge he had been notified of was not authorized by him. This call lasted approximately three minutes. Several minutes later, Plaintiff received an incoming call from Defendant's customer service phone number. On this call, Plaintiff requested that all of his accounts be closed as he suspected there was fraudulent activity occurring on his accounts. The call lasted nearly half an hour. The Plaintiff did not authorize or initiate any such wire transfer, so he immediately reported the transaction as fraudulent to Defendant's customer service representative but was told that there was nothing Defendant could do to stop this transaction. Later that same afternoon, Plaintiff called Defendant's customer service phone number to again report fraudulent activity on his accounts. The call lasted over an hour, and despite Plaintiff's repeated requests, Defendant refused to prevent any of the fraudulent transactions from occurring, close Plaintiff's accounts, or suspend the associate credit or debit cards. The Plaintiff then drove to his local Wells Fargo branch for further assistance, but was again told that Defendant did not believe there was anything it could do to help Plaintiff, says the complaint. The Plaintiff maintained two checking accounts, a savings account, and a credit card with Defendant. Wells Fargo Bank, National Association was a national bank.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. Matthew R. Snyder, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21031 Ventura Blvd, Suite 340 Woodland Hills, CA 91364 Phone: 323-306-4234 Fax: 866-633-0228 Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com msnyder@toddflaw.com YOUNG CONSULTING: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Bichoffe Says --------------------------------------------------------------- MARINA BICHOFFE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. YOUNG CONSULTING, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-03940-TWT (N.D. Ga., Sept. 3, 2024) seeks to redress Young Consulting's unlawful, willful and wanton failure to protect the personal identifiable information of approximately 954,177 individuals that was exposed in a major data breach impacting the Defendant's network (the "Data Breach"). Young Consulting provides software solutions for the marketing, underwriting, and administration of medical stop loss insurance. Young Consulting provides risk management services to Blue Shield of California and, in that capacity, receives the personal information of Blue Shield of California customers. The Data Breach was discovered on April 13, 2024, when Young Consulting became aware of suspicious activity on its systems. Based on a subsequent forensic investigation, Young Consulting determined that cybercriminals infiltrated its inadequately secured computer systems and thereby gained access to its network from April 10, 2024, through April 13, 2024. The investigation further determined that, through this infiltration, cybercriminals potentially accessed and acquired files containing the sensitive personal information of Plaintiff and the Class Members. On Aug. 26, 2024, the Plaintiff received a breach notification letter from Young Consulting informing her that her Private Information, including her name, Social Security number, date of birth, and insurance claim information had been exposed to cybercriminals during the Data Breach. The Plaintiff and the Class Members have had their personal identifiable information exposed as a result of Young Consulting's inadequately secured computer network. Defendant betrayed the trust of Plaintiff and the other Class Members by failing to properly safeguard and protect their personal identifiable information and thereby enabling cybercriminals to steal such valuable and sensitive information. Young Consulting provides software solutions for the marketing, underwriting, and administration of medical stop loss insurance.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kristen Tullos Oliver, Esq. J. Cameron Tribble, Esq. THE BARNES LAW GROUP, LLC 31 Atlanta Street Marietta, GA 30060 Telephone: (770) 227-6375 Facsimile: (770) 227-6373 E-mail: ktullos@barneslawgroup.com ctribble@barneslawgroup.com - and - A. Brooke Murphy, Esq. MURPHY LAW FIRM 4116 Will Rogers Pkwy, Suite 700 Oklahoma City, OK 73108 Telephone: (405) 389-4989 E-mail: abm@murphylegalfirm.com YOUNG CONSULTING: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Andrews Says ------------------------------------------------------------- FAALON ANDREWS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. YOUNG CONSULTING, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-03938-TWT (N.D. Ga., Sept. 3, 2024) arises from the Defendant's failure to secure the personally identifiable information protected health information of Plaintiff and the members of the proposed Class. On April 13, 2024, Young Consulting became aware of a cyberattack on its system. Young Consulting determined that between April 10, 2024, and April 13, 2024, an unauthorized actor downloaded filed off its system. The Private Information intruders accessed and infiltrated from Defendant's systems included, at the very least name, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, and insurance policy/claim information. As a result of the Data Breach, which Defendant failed to prevent, the Private Information of Young Consulting's clients' current and former customers, including Plaintiff and the proposed Class Members, was stolen, says the suit. Instead, the Defendant disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, and/or negligently failing to implement reasonable measures to safeguard its clients current and former customers' Private Information and by failing to take necessary steps to prevent unauthorized disclosure of that information. The Defendant's woefully inadequate data security measures made the Data Breach a foreseeable, and even likely, consequence of its negligence, the suit added. The Plaintiffs are current and former customers of the Defendant's clients. Young Consulting is a software solutions company that provides employers with solutions for marketing, underwriting, and administering services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: MaryBeth V. Gibson, Esq. GIBSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC 4279 Roswell Road, Suite 208-108 Atlanta, GA 30342 Telephone: (678) 642-2503 E-mail: marybeth@gibsonconsumerlawgroup.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT One West Law Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 332-4200 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com ZYMERGEN INC: Court Narrows Claims in Biao Securities Fraud Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge P. Casey Pitts of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California ruled on the motions filed by SoftBank, DCVC, and True Ventures to dismiss Biao Wang's second amended complaint in the securities fraud case arising from Zymergen, Inc.'s 2021 public offering. The Court concludes SoftBank's and True Ventures’ motions to dismiss are denied as to the claims for secondary liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior. DCVC's motion to dismiss is granted as to secondary liability. The Court says DCVC's motion to dismiss is granted with leave to amend as to the Section 15 claim based on control of Matthew Ocko, a DCVC co-owner, as well as the secondary liability claims based on respondeat superior. Any amended complaint is due September 12, 2024. DCVC's motion is otherwise denied, and SoftBank's and True Ventures’ motions are denied in full. Lead plaintiff Biao Wang, representing a putative class of people who bought the stock, claims that the registration statement for Zymergen's public offering was inaccurate and misleading. He seeks damages from the company, its underwriters, and the board members and executives who signed the statement. He also asserts that Zymergen's three largest investors -- SoftBank, DCVC, and True Ventures -- are liable as well because they controlled Zymergen and the three board members they had picked. Zymergen is a biotechnology company incorporated in 2013. It set out to bring together computing and manufacturing to design and produce molecules, microbes, and materials for industrial use. Its "biofacturing platform" used algorithms to identify gene changes that could make it cheaper to produce bio-products and identify new molecules with unique properties. Zymergen is headquartered in Emeryville, California. Zymergen is headquartered in Emeryville, California. It was co-founded by Josh Hoffman, Jed Dean, and Zach Serber. Mr. Hoffman was its chief executive officer and Mr. Serber its chief science officer. Zymergen went public in April 2021. It sold over 18.5 million shares at $31 each. Zymergen had three early investors: DCVC, True Ventures, and SoftBank. DCVC was Zymergen's initial seed investor. At the time of Zymergen's public offering, these three investors were Zymergen's three largest shareholders, and the only investors entitled to appoint a board member. SoftBank owned around a third of Zymergen's shares, while DCVC and True Ventures each owned just under 10%. Together, these three investors owned more than half of Zymergen's outstanding shares before the public offering, including nearly 60% of its preferred shares. SoftBank's investment in Zymergen was overseen by two of its managing partners, Dipchand Nishar and Vikas Parekh. SoftBank appointed another of its employees, Travis Murdoch, to its seat on Zymergen's board. DCVC's investment in Zymergen was overseen by the firms' two co-owners, Matthew Ocko and Zachary Bogue, as well as its chief operating officer, Spencer Punter. DCVC appointed Mr. Ocko to its board seat. The complaint alleges that DCVC controlled Mr. Ocko because Mr. Ocko served as an agent of DCVC and would receive financial incentives from DCVC if its Zymergen investment succeeded. True Ventures’ investment was similarly overseen by the firm's two co-owners, Jon Callaghan and Phil Black, as well as chief financial officer Ulrike Kellmereit and chief operating officer Jim Stewart. True Ventures appointed its employee Rohit Sharma to its board seat. Like Mr. Murdoch, Mr. Sharma received both a salary as well as a carried interest in the True Ventures funds that invested in Zymergen. Mr. Sharma reported to Mr. Callaghan, Mr. Black, Ms. Kellmereit, and Mr. Stewart. He had to receive explicit authorization for major decisions. In addition to Mr. Murdock, Mr. Ocko, and Mr. Sharma, the other directors on Zymergen's nine-seat board were Mr. Hoffman (the CEO), Enakshi Singh (the chief financial officer), Zach Serber (the chief science officer), Jay Flatley, Christine Gorjanc, and Sandra Peterson. This case was filed on August 4, 2021, the day after Zymergen's "unexpected" disclosure. The initial complaint named Zymergen, CEO Hoffman, CFO Singh, the other members of the board, and the underwriters of the IPO as defendants. That complaint was filed by Hariram Shankar, represented by Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP. On December 20, 2021, the Court appointed Mr. Wang lead plaintiff and appointed his selected counsel, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, as lead counsel for the putative class. On February 24, 2022, Mr. Wang filed the first amended complaint, adding the individual SoftBank, True Ventures, and DCVC funds (but not the management companies) as defendants. It included a claim under Section 11 of the Securities Act against Zymergen, individual board members and executives, and the underwriters, as well as a Section 15 claim against the individual defendants and the three investors. Three motions to dismiss were filed by: 1. Zymergen, the individual defendants, and the True Ventures funds (also joined by the underwriters); 2. the DCVC funds; and 3. the SoftBank funds. On November 29, 2022, the Court denied the motions to dismiss as to the Section 11 claim and granted them as to the Section 15 claim. The order stated that the dismissal of the Section 15 claim was "with leave to amend" and that an "amended complaint is due within 28 days of this order." But the order also noted that "if the plaintiffs wish to proceed on this complaint, they can always seek leave to amend at a later stage if discovery reveals additional information relevant to the dismissed claims." Mr. Wang did not file an amended complaint within 28 days. The Court held a case management conference and set a December 21, 2023 deadline to amend pleadings. On August 11, 2023, the Court granted Mr. Wang's motion to certify the class. Zymergen, the individual defendants, and the underwriters had indicated that they did not oppose this motion. The SoftBank, DCVC, and True Ventures funds did not participate. On December 21, 2023, after this case was reassigned to a new district judge, Mr. Wang filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint that would reassert the Section 15 claim against the individual defendants and the SoftBank, DCVC, and True Ventures funds and add the three respective management companies as defendants to the Section 15 claim. SoftBank, DCVC, and True Ventures each opposed the proposed amendment, as did the individual defendants. The Court granted Mr. Wang's motion. The SoftBank, DCVC, and True Ventures defendants then filed motions to dismiss the second amended complaint and the Court held a hearing. DCVC and True Ventures request judicial notice of several documents filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. These requests are granted. This judicial notice is limited to the existence of these filings and does not extend to the accuracy of their contents. All three sets of investors argue that plaintiffs' claims against them are time barred. At the pleading stage, however, the investors fail to establish that this defense is certain to apply, the Court finds. The Section 15 claims against both the funds and the management companies are subject to the one-year statute of limitations set forth in Section 13. Plaintiffs briefly contend that because Section 13 only refers explicitly to liability created under Section 11, it does not apply to Section 15 claims. Judge Pitts says, "This argument fails." He explains, "Section 11 makes several people liable when a registration statement issued ahead of a public offering includes a false statement of material fact or omits a material fact, including everyone who signed the statement, every director/partner of the issuer, and every underwriter. Section 15 then extends this liability to anyone who "controls" someone liable under Section 11. It provides that a controlling person is liable "jointly and severally with and to the same extent" as the controlled person. Because Section 15 controlling person liability is 'created under' Section 11 and exists 'to the same extent' as the underlying Section 11 liability, both Section 11 and Section 15 claims are subject to the same Section 13 limitations period." The first amended complaint asserted a Section 15 claim against the funds. The Court dismissed this claim with leave to amend. In this case, because the Court did not enter final judgment as to the funds, the order dismissing the Section 15 claim against the funds did not end the action as to the Section 15 claim or the funds, and the funds remained parties to this action. Because the claims against the funds in the second amended complaint are asserted against existing parties, whether they relate back to the date the first amended complaint was filed is governed by Rule 15(c)(1)(B). Relation back under Rule 15(c)(1)(B) depends entirely on the contents of the original and amended pleadings. The Court points out that the Section 11 and Section 15 claims asserted in this case against the funds in the second amended complaint clearly "arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set out" in the first amended complaint. Indeed, the very same claims were asserted in that prior complaint. The claims against the funds therefore relate back to the date on which the first amended complaint was filed and are not barred by the statute of limitations. The first amended complaint did not name the management companies as defendants. Accordingly, Rule 15(c)(1)(C), which governs changes to the party against whom a claim is asserted, determines whether the claims against the management companies relate back to the timely filed first amended complaint. The Court explains that, unlike under Rule 15(c)(1)(B), relation back under Rule 15(c)(1)(C) depends not just on the pleadings but on questions of fact focused on the defendant, including whether the defendant had actual notice of the action and whether the defendant knew (or should have known) that it would have been named except for a mistake. First, as with the claims against the funds, the claims against the management companies easily satisfy the requirements of Rule 15(c)(1)(B). Both the Section 11 and Section 15 claims against the management companies clearly "arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set out -- or attempted to be set out -- in the original pleading." Second, the pleadings and judicially noticeable materials at least suggest that the management companies should have received notice of this action when the funds were named in the first amended complaint. The complaint alleges that each set of funds is managed by the respective management company. The Court can draw the reasonable inference from this allegation that the management companies would have received notice of this action when it was initially brought against the funds they managed. This inference is further bolstered by the fact that each newly named management company is now represented by the same counsel as each set of previously-named funds. Finally, the pleadings and judicially noticeable materials at least suggest that the management companies knew or should have known that the action would have been brought against them but for a mistake concerning their identity. At this stage, the Court continues, there are plausible allegations to suggest that the claims against the management companies will relate back. This is enough to require the denial of a motion to dismiss based on a statute of limitations defense at this stage. Mr. Wang claims the investors as well as the individual defendants are liable under Section 15 of the Securities Act --the individual defendants because they controlled Zymergen, and the investors because they controlled both Zymergen and their respective board appointees. The investors challenge Mr. Wang's Section 15 claim against them on both bases. There are two elements to a Section 15 claim: First, that another person violated Section 11 or 12. Second, that the defendant had "actual power or control over" that person. The Court previously concluded that plaintiffs have adequately pleaded the first element of their Section 15 claims, the underlying violation of Section 11 by Zymergen, Mr. Murdoch, Mr. Ocko, and Mr. Sharma (among others). The question on this motion is only whether plaintiffs have adequately pleaded that the investors possessed power or control over any of these people. The statute does not itself define control other than by example: control can be exercised "by or through stock ownership, agency, or otherwise." Whether someone has the ability to control someone else and whether they in fact exercised this control are separate questions, the Court notes. To establish actual power or control for purposes of a Section 15 claim, a plaintiff "need not show that the defendant was a culpable participant in the violation." In other words, "it is not necessary to show actual participation or the exercise of actual power." It is enough to allege at the pleading stage that the defendant possessed actual power, even if the plaintiff cannot show that the defendant used that power to cause the underlying violation. The complaint alleges that each of the investors controlled their respective appointees to Zymergen's board. The amended complaint alleges that, individually, each investor had the power to prevent Zymergen from going public. It also alleges that, collectively, the three investors considered, and two of the three had to approve, most business decisions, and that the investors had a formal agreement to vote together on some issues. These allegations are sufficient to establish that the investors at least possessed the power to control Zymergen, the Court says. Section 15 extends control person liability to anyone who individually controls a liable party, as well as to anyone who "pursuant to or in connection with an agreement or understanding with one or more other persons" exercises such control. In this case, each of the investors is liable if they exercised control over Zymergen either on their own or via an agreement or understanding with other parties, including the other investors. As amended, the complaint alleges that two of the three investors had to sign off on most business matters, that each of the investors' authorization was required in order to issue common stock, and that each of the investors formally authorized Zymergen's IPO and the prerequisite governance changes. It alleges that the investors helped write Zymergen's registration statement and provided input throughout the drafting process. It also alleges that each of the investors could have blocked the challenged statements from being issued or required them to be corrected by not signing off on Zymergen's registration statement. Taken together, these allegations are sufficient to plead that each of the three investors possessed the power to control Zymergen as it prepared for and registered its public offering, both individually and acting together, the Court states. But in this case, plaintiffs allege more. The amended complaint alleges that, individually, each investor had the power to prevent Zymergen from going public. It also alleges that, collectively, the three investors considered, and two of the three had to approve, most business decisions, and that the investors had a formal agreement to vote together on some issues. These allegations are sufficient to establish that the investors at least possessed the power to control Zymergen, the Court says. In sum, the amended complaint adequately pleads that SoftBank and True Ventures controlled their respective board appointees, and that all three investors controlled Zymergen, the Court concludes. Section 15 claim that DCVC controlled Mr. Ocko is dismissed with leave to amend. The motions to dismiss the Section 15 claims against the investors are otherwise denied, the Court holds. The amended complaint asserts that because each board member was an agent of the investor that appointed them, the investors are secondarily liable for both the Section 11 and Section 15 claims under the respondeat superior doctrine. According to the Court, whether Mr. Murdoch and Mr. Sharma were in fact acting within the scope of their employment in taking the actions alleged to violate Section 11 and Section 15 is a question to be resolved at summary judgment or trial. Unlike Mr. Murdoch and Mr. Sharma, the Court continues, the complaint does not allege Mr. Ocko had to receive approval from DCVC before making decisions as a board member. Because the complaint does not plausibly allege that Mr. Ocko was acting as DCVC's agent in taking the actions alleged to violate Section 11 and Section 15, the allegations are insufficient to hold DCVC secondarily liable for his actions, the Court finds. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3iyG2L About Zymergen Inc. Zymergen, Inc., which was founded in April 2013, is a science and material innovation company focused on designing, developing and commercializing bio-based products for use in a variety of industries. It is based in Emeryville, Calif. Zymergen and its affiliates filed Chapter 11 petitions (Bankr. D. Del. Lead Case No. 23-11661) on Oct. 3, 2023. At the time of the filing, Zymergen reported $100 million to $500 million in both assets and liabilities. The Debtors tapped Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell, LLP as legal counsel and Epiq Corporate Restructuring, LLC, as claims and noticing agent. The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors retained Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP as lead counsel, Landis Rath & Cobb LLP as co-counsel, and Berkeley Research Group, LLC, as financial advisor. ********* 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 ***