/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/241004.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, October 4, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 200 Headlines 1 COLUMBIA DELI: Maldonado Sues Over Unpaid Compensations 32 BAR BLUES: Wheatley Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website 3M COMPANY: Leach Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ADVANCE MAGAZINE: Balogun Sues Over Deceptive Conduct ALLARITY THERAPEUTICS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set Nov 12 ALLIANCE ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Feller Video Privacy Suit in Florida ALLIANCE ENTERTAINMENT: Settlement Deal Entered in McKnight Suit AMMO INC: Larmay Sues Over Exchange Act Violation BARE BONES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ramirez Suit Alleges BEAST COAST GROUP: Wheatley Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website BRAD'S ORGANIC: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Senior Says BUDBIZ LLC: Wheatley Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website CANADA: Super. Court OKs Suit Over Use of Closed Work Permits CANNA LIFE: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Igartua Suit Says CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG HOSPITAL: Underwood Sues Over Data Breach COINBASE GLOBAL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set Nov. 12 DMC SINAI GRACE: Sued for Sexually Abusing, Videotaping Patients DO & CO NEW YORK: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Rosado Alleges DUFFY'S HR INC: Shaw Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct. DUSTY RUSSELL: Morgan Files Suit in S.D. Indiana DYLA LLC: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Young Suit Says ENGAGESMART INC: Altshares Sues Over Material Misstatements FACEAPP INC: Judge Rules Agreement Arbitration Clause "Sufficient" FIDELITY LIFE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Robertson Claims FIREWORKS SOFTWARE: Adamek Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII GOLDEN YEARS: Dell Files FLSA Suit in M.D. Tennessee HUMANA INC: Must Produce End of Day Reports by Oct. 8 HYATT CORP: Stipulation on Continuation of Trial Tossed INCA CHICKEN: Martinez Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Pelvic Mesh Class Suit Victims Await Payouts L&G CLEAN SERVICES: Alvarez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages MAISON SOLUTIONS: Court Stays Ilsan Suit MARS HILL: Website Inaccessible to Visually-Impaired, Bishop Says MDL 2873: 4 Suits Transferred to D.S.C. MDL 3031: Consumer IPPs Seek to Certify Class in Antitrust Suit MDL 3031: Hyatt Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Antitrust Class Action MDL 3096: Andersen v. Perry Johnson Transferred to E.D.N.Y. MERCER COUNTY, PA: Oct. 4 Deadline to File Class Cert Reply Sought MICHIGAN: Babcock Must File Class Cert. Bid by Nov. 2 MONDELEZ INT'L: California Wheat Thins Purchaser Class Certified MOUNTAIN VIEW: Class Settlement in Lewis Suit Gets Initial Nod MURDER MYSTERY: Degroot Sues Over Unpaid Compensations NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Fact, Expert Discovery Due Jan. 3, 2025 NELNET SERVICING: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Oct. 3, 2025 NEW YORK, NY: Plaintiffs' Fraud Claim Dismissed w/o Prejudice NIKE INC: Share Data Without Consent, Jurdi Suit Alleges NYC CANNABIS: Wheatley Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website OHIO: Disability Rights Ohio Sue Over Disabled Students' Rights PEOPLES AUTO: Removes Soto Class Suit to N.D. Ill. PEOPLES AUTO: Soto Privacy Suit Removed to N.D. Ill. PLURALSIGHT INC: $20MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Feb. 4 PRODIGAL COMPANY: Fiorito Files FLSA Suit in D. Minnesota PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Kirigin Suit Removed to W.D. Washington PROPARK LLC: Miller Sues Over Unauthorized Personal Info Access PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Seeks to Seal Specific Exhibits QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Court Dismisses ERISA-Related Suit RACK ROOM: Faces Smith Suit Over Data Privacy Violations RAFAEL HOLDINGS:M&A Probes Proposed Merger With Cyclo Therapeutics ROBLOX CORP: Parties Seeks June 30, 2025 Class Cert Bid Filing SAVAGE ENTERPRISES: Nguyen Suit Removed to E.D. Ark. SEGUNDO INC: Lopez Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages SIBANYE STILLWATER: Employees Sue Over Data Breach SIEGFRIED'S BASEMENT: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Pontillo Says SLEEP NUMBER: Evans Sues Over Deceptive Sale Practices SMASHBURGER MASTER: Wilkins Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania SPACE COAST: Bid to Extend Time to File Class Cert Tossed as Moot STEBAR FOOD: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Orozco Alleges STRIPE INC: Hossain Files Motion to Compel Production of Documents SUSHI UKAI: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Uravac Alleges SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Carlson Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action TAPESTRY INC: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Randolph Says TARGET CORP: Bid to Dismiss Boyd Class Action Tossed TD BANK: Burns Seeks Final OK of Class Action Settlement TD BANK: Fishstore Seeks Final Approval of Class Action Settlement THERAPYMATCH INC: Faces Suit Over Data Privacy Violations UNITED STATES: Must File Class Cert Opposition by Nov. 6 WELLLIFE NETWORK: Wilson Balks at Unprotected Personal Info WILLIAMS-SONOMA INC: Shares Data Without Consent, Heiting Alleges XEROX HOLDINGS: $2.2MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Oct. 29 YODLEE INC: Bid to Strike Olsen's Testimony Denied in Clark Suit YOUNG CONSULTING: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Turner Says ZANDER GROUP: Class Cert Bid Filing in Jones Amended to Oct. 28 [*] New Westminster, BC to Join Suit Over "Sue Big Oil" Campaign Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dynarex Corp. Recalls Baby Powder Due to Asbestos ASBESTOS UPDATE: H.B. Fuller Still Defends Exposure Lawsuits ********* 1 COLUMBIA DELI: Maldonado Sues Over Unpaid Compensations --------------------------------------------------------- Bernardo Nava Maldonado, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. 1 COLUMBIA DELI INC (D/B/A ONE COLUMBIA DELI & GRILL), FATHI ALQABILI, and HERIBERTO RAMIREZ, Case No. 1:24-cv-07333 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 27, 2024), is brought for unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, and for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law, including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiff was ostensibly employed as a delivery worker. However, he was required to spend a considerable part of his work day performing non-tipped duties, including but not limited to stock merchandise and cleaning the kitchen (hereafter the "non-tipped duties"). The Plaintiff worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the hours that he worked. Rather, Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay the Plaintiff appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. Further, Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which he had to work over 10 hours a day. Furthermore, Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff wages on a timely basis. In this regard, Defendants have failed to provide timely wages to the Plaintiff Defendants employed and accounted for the Plaintiff as a delivery worker in their payroll, but in actuality his duties required a significant amount of time spent performing the non-tipped duties, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed as a delivery worker, a stock worker, and a kitchen helper by the Defendants. The Defendants own, operate, or control a deli, located in New York City, under the name "One Columbia Deli & Grill."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Catalina Sojo, Esq. CSM LEGAL, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 32 BAR BLUES: Wheatley Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------- Hannibal Wheatley, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. 32 BAR BLUES LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-07324 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 27, 2024), is brought against Defendant for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate the Defendant's Website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to the Website, www.32barblues.com and therefore its denial of the goods and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Defendant's Website is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers; therefore, Defendant is in violation of the ADA. 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, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content while using the computer. 32 BAR BLUES LLC is a Delaware Limited Liability company that owns and maintains the Website, www.32barblues.com.[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 Phone: (212) 227-5700 Fax: (212) 656-1889 Email: jon@norinsberglaw.com bennitta@employeejustice.com 3M COMPANY: Leach Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jerod Leach, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD. CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); Case No. 2:24-cv-05392-RMG (D.S.C., Sept. 27, 2024), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") and firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's working career in the military and/or as a civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with kidney cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Constantine Venizelos, Esq. CONSTANT LEGAL GROUP LLP 737 Bolivar Rd., Suite 440 Cleveland, OH 44115 Phone: 216-815-9000 Facsimile: 216-274-9365 ADVANCE MAGAZINE: Balogun Sues Over Deceptive Conduct ----------------------------------------------------- Tosin Balogun and Alexandra Mason, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. ADVANCE MAGAZINE PUBLISHERS INC. d/b/a CONDE NAST, Case No. 1:24-cv-07326 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 27, 2024), is brought to stop bad faith and deceptive conduct by Conde Nast, namely first depriving its customers of the right to a jury trial by imposing an arbitration agreement, while at the same time deliberately flouting its own obligations under the arbitration rules it chose so that consumers cannot vindicate their claims in arbitration. Conde Nast's systematic and bad faith failure to honor its own agreements to arbitrate is designed to put individuals in legal limbo and prevent them from proceeding with claims against Conde Nast. Conde Nast requires everyone who subscribes to its magazines and visits its websites to agree to its standardized arbitration clause, as part of a lengthy set of terms and conditions. According to Conde Nast's Terms and Conditions (the "Terms"), as effective when Plaintiffs' claims accrued and under which Plaintiffs sought to initiate their arbitrations, any disputes Plaintiffs have with Conde Nast must be brought in arbitration before the American Arbitration Association ("AAA"). The Plaintiffs, along with other individuals represented by undersigned counsel, followed their contractual obligations and initiated arbitration in the AAA by first sending a notice of dispute to Conde Nast pursuant to the Terms. The notice of dispute advised that Plaintiffs and others sought relief under a variety of laws depending on their state of residence and other factors, bringing claims under, inter alia, the Video Privacy Protection Act ("VPPA"), the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA"), the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act ("WESCA"), the Federal Wiretap Act, and New York's General Business Law ("GBL"). Unbeknownst to Plaintiffs, while purporting to bind them to pursue claims in arbitration, Conde Nast was stacking the deck so that it could unilaterally avoid honoring its own agreement to arbitrate Plaintiffs' claims. In particular, Conde Nast deliberately did not register the Terms with the AAA, in clear violation of the AAA's own rules for companies that choose to use the AAA in forced arbitration clauses--rules that were chosen by Conde Nast itself to govern the arbitration agreement. This set up allowed Conde Nast to bind consumers to arbitration while retaining the option to sabotage any arbitration proceeding by refusing to comply with the AAA rules, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are current or former subscribers to magazines and their related websites owned and operated by Conde Nast. Conde Nast operates websites for the subscribers of various notable magazines, including Architectural Digest, Bon Appetit, Glamour, GQ, Self, Teen Vogue, The New Yorker, Vanity Fair, and Vogue.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raphael Janove, Esq. JANOVE PLLC 500 7th Ave., 8th Fl. New York, NY 10018 Phone: (646) 347-3940 Email: raphael@janove.law - and - Liana Vitale, Esq. 979 Osos St., Ste. A5 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Phone: (805) 505-9550 Email: liana@janove.law - and - Matt Hartley, Esq. HARTLEY LAW PLLC 200 E. Van Buren St., 3rd Fl. Phoenix, AZ 85004 Phone: (844) 844-1444 Email: matt.hartley@hartleylawusa.com ALLARITY THERAPEUTICS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set Nov 12 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP ("Wolf Haldenstein") announces that a federal securities class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Allarity Therapeutics, Inc. ("Allarity" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:ALLR) securities between May 17, 2022 and July 19, 2024, inclusive (the "Class Period"). All investors who purchased shares and incurred losses are advised to contact the firm immediately at classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You may obtain additional information concerning the action or join the case on our website, www.whafh.com. The filed complaint 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 that: -- Defendants had overstated the Dovitinib New Drug Application's ("NDA") continued regulatory prospects; -- Allarity and three of its former officers had engaged in illegal, illicit, and/or otherwise improper conduct in connection with the Dovitinib NDA and/or the Dovitinib-Drug Related Problems ("DRP") Pre-Market Approval ("PMA"); -- the foregoing misconduct subjected the Company to an increased risk of regulatory and/or governmental scrutiny and enforcement action, as well as significant legal, monetary, and reputational harm; -- following Allarity's announcement that it was, in fact, being investigated for wrongdoing in connection with the Dovitinib NDA and/or the Dovitinib-DRP PMA, the Company downplayed the substantial likelihood that an enforcement action would result from such investigation; and -- as a result, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. On February 6, 2023, Allarity disclosed that it had received a letter to produce documents from the United States Securities and Commission ("SEC"). The letter stated that the staff of the SEC was conducting an investigation to determine if violations of the federal securities laws, relating to disclosures regarding submissions, communications and meetings with the FDA concerning the NDA for Dovitinib or Dovitinib-DRP. On this news, Allarity's stock price fell 3.8% to close at $0.228 per share on February 6, 2023. On December 11, 2023, Allarity disclosed that its CEO had been terminated from his role "and all other positions with the Company and its subsidiaries." On this news, Allarity's stock price fell 13.4% to close at $0.486 per share on December 11, 2023. Subsequently, on July 22, 2024, Allarity disclosed that it had received a Wells Notice from the SEC "relating to the Company's previously disclosed SEC investigation," advising that "[t]he Wells Notice relates to the Company's disclosures regarding meetings with the [FDA] regarding the Company's NDA for Dovitinib or Dovitinib-DRP, which was submitted to the FDA in 2021"; and per the Company's understanding, "all conduct relating to the SEC Wells Notice occurred during or prior to fiscal year 2022"; and "that three of its former officers received Wells Notices from the SEC relating to the same conduct." On this news, Allarity's stock price fell $0.004, or 2.4%, to close at $0.164 per share on July 22, 2024. If you have incurred losses, you may, no later than November 12, 2024, request that the Court appoint you as the lead plaintiff of the proposed class. Please contact Wolf Haldenstein to learn more about your rights. Wolf Haldenstein has experience in the prosecution of securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm has attorneys in various practice areas, and offices in New York, Chicago, Nashville and San Diego. The reputation and expertise of this firm in shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated litigation. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact Wolf Haldenstein by telephone at (800) 575-0735 or via e-mail at classmember@whafh.com. CONTACT: Gregory Stone, Esq. Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP Tel: (800) 575-0735 (212) 545-4774 Email: gstone@whafh.com classmember@whafh.com[GN] ALLIANCE ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Feller Video Privacy Suit in Florida ------------------------------------------------------------------- Alliance Entertainment Holding Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2024, a class action complaint, "Feller v. Alliance Entertainment, LLC and DirectToU, LLC," (S.D. Fla.) was filed under the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA). The complaint alleges that the company violated the VPPA by disclosing users' personally identifiable information, as well as information regarding videos they viewed on the Company’s website, to Facebook through the use of Facebook Pixel. Alliance Entertainment Holding Corporation is a comprehensive provider of distribution services for pre-recorded music, video movies, video games, and associated accessories and merchandise. ALLIANCE ENTERTAINMENT: Settlement Deal Entered in McKnight Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Alliance Entertainment Holding Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 20, 2024, that on August 8, 2024, the company entered into a settlement agreement regarding a March 31, 2023 class action complaint, titled "Matthew McKnight v. Alliance Entertainment Holding Corp. f/k/a Adara Acquisition Corp., Adara Sponsor LLC, Thomas Finke, Paul G. Porter, Beatriz Acevedo-Greiff, W. Tom Donaldson III, Dylan Glenn, and Frank Quintero," pending litigation. A settlement hearing is scheduled for November 25, 2024. Said action was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery against its pre-Business Combination board of directors and executive officers and Adara Sponsor LLC, alleging breaches of fiduciary duties by purportedly failing to disclose certain information in connection with the merger of Alliance, Adara Acquisition Corp. and a certain merger sub in February 2023. Alliance Entertainment Holding Corporation is a comprehensive provider of distribution services for pre-recorded music, video movies, video games, and associated accessories and merchandise. AMMO INC: Larmay Sues Over Exchange Act Violation ------------------------------------------------- Arias Larmay, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ammo, Inc., Fred W. Wagenhals, Jared R. Smith, and Robert D. Wiley, Case No. 2:24-cv-02619-JFM (D. Ariz., Sept. 27, 2024), is brought on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired AMMO securities between August 19, 2020 and September 24, 2024, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and pursues claims against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). On September 24, 2024, after the market closed, AMMO announced that its Chief Financial Officer had resigned "at the request of the Board." Further, the Company disclosed that it is conducting an independent investigation into its "internal control over financial reporting for the fiscal years 2020 through 2023." The Company further disclosed that it had retained a law firm to conduct an independent investigation into whether the Company and its management control persons at the time: "accurately disclosed all executive officers, members of management, and potential related party transactions in fiscal years 2020 through 2023; properly characterized certain fees paid for investor relations and legal services as reductions of proceeds from capital raises rather than period expenses in fiscal years 2021 and 2022; and appropriately valued unrestricted stock awards to officers, directors, employees and others in fiscal years 2020 through 2022." On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.08, or 5.26%, to close at $1.44 per share on September 25, 2024, on unusually heavy trading volume. 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: that the company lacked adequate internal controls over financial reporting; that there was a substantial likelihood the Company failed to accurately disclose all executive officers, members of management, and potential related party transactions in fiscal years 2020 through 2023; that there was a substantial likelihood the Company failed to properly characterize certain fees paid for investor relations and legal services as reductions of proceeds from capital raises rather than period expenses in fiscal years 2021 and 2022; there was a substantial likelihood the Company failed to appropriately value unrestricted stock awards to officers, directors, employees and others in fiscal years 2020 through 2022; and 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. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased AMMO securities during the Class Period. AMMO designs, produces, and markets ammunition and ammunition component products for public consumers, manufacturers, and law enforcement and military agencies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark D. Lammers, Esq. RUSING LOPEZ &LIZARDI, P.L.L.C. 6363 North Swan Road, Suite 151 Tucson, AX 85718 Phone: (520) 792-4800 Facsimile: (520) 529-4262 mdlammers@rllaz.com BARE BONES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ramirez Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- BRYAN SUAREZ RAMIREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BARE BONES OF HOWARD COUNTY, INC.; and JOSEPH J. REESE, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-02759-JMC (D. Md., Sept. 25, 2024) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Ramirez was employed by the Defendants as a busser and a server. Bare Bones of Howard County, Inc. operates as a restaurant in Ellicott City, Howard County, Maryland. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: T. Bruce Godfrey, Esq. ZIPIN AMSTER & GREENBERG 8757 Georgia Avenue #400 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: (301) 587-9373 Facsimile: (240) 839-9142 Email: bgodfrey@zagfirm.com BEAST COAST GROUP: Wheatley Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- Hannibal Wheatley, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. BEAST COAST GROUP LLC d/b/a HOUSE OF STRAINS, Case No. 1:24-cv-07339 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 27, 2024), is brought against Defendant for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate the Defendant's Website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to the Website, www.houseofstrains.com and therefore its denial of the goods and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Defendant's Website is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers; therefore, Defendant is in violation of the ADA. 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, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content while using the computer. 32 BAR BLUES LLC is a Delaware Limited Liability company that owns and maintains the Website, www.houseofstrains.com.[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 Phone: (212) 227-5700 Fax: (212) 656-1889 Email: jon@norinsberglaw.com bennitta@employeejustice.com BRAD'S ORGANIC: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Senior Says ------------------------------------------------------------- MILAGROS SENIOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BRAD'S ORGANIC LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-07200 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 24, 2024) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://bradsorganic.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. Brad's Organic LLC produces organic and all natural products. [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 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal BUDBIZ LLC: Wheatley Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------- Hannibal Wheatley, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. BUDBIZ LLC d/b/a NYCBUD, Case No. 1:24-cv-07344 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 27, 2024), is brought against Defendant for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate the Defendant's Website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to the Website, www.NYCBud.com and therefore its denial of the goods and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Defendant's Website is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers; therefore, Defendant is in violation of the ADA. 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, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content while using the computer. BUDBIZ LLC d/b/a NYCBUD is a New York Limited Liability company that owns and maintains the Website, www.NYCBud.com.[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 Phone: (212) 227-5700 Fax: (212) 656-1889 Email: jon@norinsberglaw.com bennitta@employeejustice.com CANADA: Super. Court OKs Suit Over Use of Closed Work Permits ------------------------------------------------------------- Quebec's Superior Court has approved a class-action lawsuit targeting the federal government's use of closed work permits. These permits, which tie temporary foreign workers to a single employer, have been widely criticized for creating exploitative conditions. The lawsuit questions the fairness and constitutionality of these permits and could lead to major reforms in Canada's immigration system, particularly under the Temporary Foreign Worker Program (TFWP). What Are Closed Work Permits? A closed work permit restricts a foreign worker to one employer, limiting their ability to seek new employment without facing a lengthy bureaucratic process. Critics argue that these permits trap workers in abusive situations because they risk losing their jobs and being deported if they report mistreatment. The Quebec court's decision to allow the lawsuit to move forward signals an important step toward addressing the power imbalance between employers and foreign workers. Class-Action Lawsuit Details Filed By Association des droits des travailleuses et travailleurs domestiques et agricoles Lead Plaintiff Byron Alfredo Acevedo Tobar, a farm worker from Guatemala Court Decision Date September 13, 2024 Main Claims Closed work permits violate rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Class Eligibility Foreign workers issued closed work permits after April 17, 1982 Key Issues Exploitation, abuse, lack of job mobility On September 13, 2024, Justice Silvana Conte ruled that there is an arguable case that employer-specific work permits may violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The lawsuit could have broad implications, not just for Quebec, but for temporary foreign workers across Canada. Impact on Quebec Immigration The Quebec immigration system has always operated somewhat independently within the larger framework of Canadian immigration. However, this lawsuit underscores the growing concerns about the treatment of foreign workers in Quebec. In 2023, the United Nations Special Rapporteur raised similar alarms, describing the Temporary Foreign Worker Program as fostering "contemporary forms of slavery." Issues such as wage theft, lack of healthcare access, and exploitative working conditions were highlighted as critical problems under the program. The class action has garnered strong support from major labor unions in Quebec, including the Confédération des Syndicats nationaux (CSN) and the Quebec Federation of Labour. These unions have long fought for the rights of foreign workers, arguing that closed work permits create a dangerous imbalance of power. Workers often live in fear of losing their legal status and being deported if they speak out against abusive employers. The Future of Closed Work Permits in Canada As the lawsuit moves forward, the Quebec court's rulings could shape the future of the Temporary Foreign Worker Program in Canada. If successful, this class action could result in substantial changes, offering temporary workers more freedom and protection. While the lawsuit focuses on Quebec, its outcomes could impact policies across the country, potentially shifting how Canada handles its labor needs and protects the rights of its foreign workers. The case has also sparked national discussions about the vulnerabilities of foreign workers and the need to reform the closed work permit system. As the legal proceedings unfold, there's growing hope that the case will lead to lasting improvements for foreign workers, who have long faced hardships under the current system. [GN] CANNA LIFE: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Igartua Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- JUAN IGARTUA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CANNA LIFE NY INC. d/b/a HII, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-07159 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 20, 2024) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, www.hiinyc.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. Canna Life NY Inc. d/b/a HII operates as a weed dispensary in Brooklyn, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq. Bennitta L. Joseph, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 110 East 59th Street, Suite 2300 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 227-5700 Facsimile: (212) 656-1889 Email: jon@norinsberglaw.com bennitta@employeejustice.com CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG HOSPITAL: Underwood Sues Over Data Breach --------------------------------------------------------------- PRISCILLA UNDERWOOD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG HOSPITAL AUTHORITY (d/b/a ATRIUM HEALTH), Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-858 (D.N.C., Sept. 23, 2024) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons who entrusted Atrium Health with sensitive personally identifiable information and protected health information that was impacted in a data breach. On April 29, 2024, Atrium Health discovered that an unauthorized third party gained access to its IT network. This suit arises from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard private information that was entrusted to it, and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. The Defendant failed to take precautions designed to keep its patients' private information secure, such as training personnel to detect and prevent phishing attempts, encrypting the information, or deleting the information when it is no longer needed, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of a Nationwide Class of similarly situated individuals against Defendant for: negligence; negligence per se; unjust enrichment, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and invasion of confidence. She seeks to remedy these harms and prevent any future data compromise on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated persons whose personal data was compromised and stolen as a result of the Data Breach and who remain at risk due to Defendant's inadequate data security practices. Atrium Health is a healthcare provider that operates 40 hospitals, 7 freestanding emergency departments, over 30 urgent care centers, and more than 1,400 care locations North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Wilkerson, Esq. THE VAN WINKLE LAW FIRM 11 North Market Street Telephone: (828) 258-2991 E-mail: dwilkerson@vwlawfirm.com - and - Courtney E. Maccarone, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: cmaccarone@zlk.com COINBASE GLOBAL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set Nov. 12 ------------------------------------------------------------- Robbins LLP reminds investors that a shareholder filed a class action on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Coinbase Global, Inc. (NASDAQ: COIN) securities between April 14, 2021 and July 25, 2024. The Company purports to provide a trusted platform that serves as a compliant gateway to the onchain economy and enables customers to engage in a wide variety of activities, including discovering, trading, staking, storing, spending, earning, and using their crypto assets in both proprietary and third-party product experiences enabled by access to decentralized applications. For more information, submit a form, email attorney Aaron Dumas, Jr., or give us a call at (800) 350-6003. The Allegations: Robbins LLP is Investigating Allegations that Coinbase Global, Inc. (COIN) Misled Investors Regarding its Engagement with High-Risk Customers According to the complaint, during the class period, defendants failed to disclose that: (1) in 2020, after investigation, the United Kingdom's Financial Conduct Authority ("FCA") had deemed efforts by the Company's British unit, CB Payments Limited ("CBPL"), to prevent criminals from using its platform, to be inadequate; (2) as a result, the FCA reached an agreement with CBPL, which put requirements in place that were designed to prevent high risk customers from using CBPL's platform; (3) CBPL then breached that agreement, which resulted in 13,416 high risk individuals receiving services; (4) the foregoing resulted in an undisclosed heightened regulatory risk; and (5) as a result, Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. On July 25, 2024, the FCA published a press release entitled "FCA takes first enforcement action against firm enabling cryptoasset trading," which stated that "CB Payments Limited (CBPL) has been fined £3,503,546 by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) for repeatedly breaching a requirement that prevented the firm from offering services to high-risk customers." The same day, Reuters published an article entitled "Coinbase UK unit fined for breaching financial crime requirements." On this news, the price of Coinbase's common stock fell by $13.52 per share, or 5.52%, to close at $231.52 on July 25, 2024. What Now: You may be eligible to participate in the class action against Coinbase Global, Inc. Shareholders who want to serve as lead plaintiff for the class must submit their application to the court by November 12, 2024. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. You do not have to participate in the case to be eligible for a recovery. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay no fees or expenses. About Robbins LLP: Some law firms issuing releases about this matter do not actually litigate securities class actions; Robbins LLP does. A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, the attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been dedicated to helping shareholders recover losses, improve corporate governance structures, and hold company executives accountable for their wrongdoing since 2002. Since our inception, we have obtained over $1 billion for shareholders. Attorney Advertising. Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact: Aaron Dumas, Jr. Robbins LLP 5060 Shoreham Pl., Ste. 300 San Diego, CA 92122 adumas@robbinsllp.com (800) 350-6003 www.robbinsllp.com [GN] DMC SINAI GRACE: Sued for Sexually Abusing, Videotaping Patients ---------------------------------------------------------------- Victor Williams and Dane Kelly, writing for Click on Detroit, report that multiple class action lawsuits have been filed against Dr. Oumair Aejaz, who has been accused of sexually abusing and videotaping numerous patients without their consent over several years. Victims were videotaped at several hospitals and even a swim school. The investigation into Aejaz began when his wife tipped off authorities on in August. A search warrant recovered six computers, four cell phones and 15 hard drives. One hard drive reportedly contained over 13,000 videos Aejaz recorded over the last six years. He was charged with one count of child sexually abusive activity, one count of using a computer to create or reproduce child sexually abusive material, two counts of capturing/recording children under the age of 18 while nude, two counts of capturing/recording two women over the age of 18 while nude and four counts of using a computer to commit a crime. His bond has been set at $2 million. The attorneys filing the suit said dozens of women have already contacted them and they just want to get them the justice they deserve. "We encourage our clients and all patients -- and it's not just women, it's children, it's men, it's women that believe they may have been videotaped or had uncomfortable interactions with him -- to reach out to law enforcement and begin that process as far as verification goes," said attorney Parker Stinar. Two class action lawsuits have been filed against Aejaz, DMC Sinai Grace and Henry Ford Macomb, surrounding the investigation that uncovered a large number of patients who were being sexually abused and videotaped against their will. "Unfortunately, for these brief women that have come forward, these survivors or individuals that are former patients, they now have to sit around today and perhaps for the rest of their lives, wondering of these videos or photos we're taking with them while we're done with them," Stinar said. "Were they sold? Were they distributed? Were they live streamed in otherwise?" The suits filed by Stinar Gould Grieco & Hensley said medical institutions must protect patients from something like this happening. Instead, they believe the hospitals gave the doctor a platform to abuse and exploit. "The hospitals granted him privileges and allowed him to see these patients, and unfortunately, continue with his conduct of abuse videotaping and photographing patients," Stinar said. "We believe, in my understanding from the sheriff's department, that perhaps he saw patients that he wasn't even assigned to, that the number of it could be in the hundreds -- if not thousands -- during that six-year period of time." These attorneys behind the suit are now pleading with people to come forward if they believed if they believe they were victimized. "We look forward to hearing from more survivors," Stinar said. "We celebrate and respect their bravery and will protect your confidentiality." The attorneys promise to keep everything confidential for the people who do come forward. The Oakland County Sheriff's Office set up an email for people who believe they could be victims. It can be reached here. [GN] DO & CO NEW YORK: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Rosado Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- JORDAN JULIO REINOSO ROSADO; CARMEN ELI CONTRERAS RANGEL; YANINA LORENA FRANCIS CRUZ; and JOSE RONALDO BRAVO SOLIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DO & CO NEW YORK CATERING, INC.; GNVC ENTERPRISES CORP.; NLLS MAINTENANCE CORP.; GLADYS GARCIA; and VALERIA CARRERA, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-06719 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 24, 2024) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as food preparers. DO & Co New York Catering Inc operates as a restaurant. The Company offers luxury food, salads, fruits, sandwiches, desserts, and ice creams including event, airline catering, and lounges. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. Helen F. Dalton & Associates, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 DUFFY'S HR INC: Shaw Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct. ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Duffy's HR, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Tracy Shaw, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated v. Duffy's HR, Inc., Duffy's Holdings, Inc., Case No. CACE24013956 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., Sept. 27, 2024). Duffy Group, Inc. -- https://duffygroup.com/ -- is a premier executive recruitment firm known for delivering the highest quality services to our clients while ensuring value for their recruiting dollars.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Miller, Esq. USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS-JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC 1800 SE 10th Ave, Suite 205 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Phone: (954) 871-0050 Email: Michael@usaemploymentlawyers.com DUSTY RUSSELL: Morgan Files Suit in S.D. Indiana ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dusty Russell, et al. The case is styled as Michael W. Morgan, on behalf of all of those prisoners similarly situated v. DUSTY RUSSELL, Correctional Major, Wabash Valley Correctional Facility, in his individual capacity; FRANK VANIHEL, KAREN FISCHER, JEFFREY STUPPY, MADISON PASSMORE a/k/a MADISON GILBERT, CARLA COAKLEY, NINA HUMMELL, CHRISTINA REAGLE, in their individual capacities; INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION; Case No. 2:24-cv-00457-JPH-MG (S.D. Ind., Sept. 27, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Petitions - Prison Condition for Prisoner Civil Rights. Dusty Russell is the correctional major in Wabash Valley Correctional Facility.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. DYLA LLC: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Young Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------- LESHAWN YOUNG, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DYLA LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-07199 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 23, 2024) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://sturdrinks.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. 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 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal ENGAGESMART INC: Altshares Sues Over Material Misstatements ----------------------------------------------------------- Altshares Event-Driven ETF and The Arbitrage Fund, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. ENGAGESMART, INC., ROBERT P. BENNETT, DEBORAH A. DUNNAM, MATTHEW G. HAMILTON, CASSANDRA HUDSON, DAVID MANGUM, PRESTON MCKENZIE, RAPH OSNOSS, DIEGO RODRIGUEZ, PAUL G. STAMAS, SCOTT SEMEL, GENERAL ATLANTIC, L.P. and VISTA EQUITY PARTNERS MANAGEMENT, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-01083-UNA (D. Del., Sept. 27, 2024), is brought arising from a pattern of material misstatements and omissions of material facts that concealed the hopelessly conflicted and tainted sales process that led to EngageSmart's January 2024 take-private Merger with Vista, which was motivated not by what was best for Unaffiliated Stockholders but by controlling shareholder General Atlantic's desire to monetize part of its five-year investment in EngageSmart while maintaining its control position or, at the very least, to roll over some of its equity to maintain an upside benefit in the Company going forward, in violation of an "equal treatment" provision in the Company charter. Among other things, in order to convince Unaffiliated Stockholders to vote in favor of the Merger, on December 19, 2023, Defendants either filed, caused to be filed and/or made representations in the Definitive Proxy Statement Pursuant to Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for the Merger (the "Proxy") on a Schedule 14A with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC"), which stated that the Merger was "advisable, fair to, and in the best interests of EngageSmart and the Unaffiliated Stockholders" and represented "the best value that EngageSmart could reasonably obtain from Vista for the shares of EngageSmart Common Stock." In truth, however, the Merger was driven by and dominated by controlling shareholder General Atlantic and assisted by conflicted financial and legal advisors retained by the Special Committee and Board. These conflicts wholly tainted the merger process and underscored the need for complete transparency in the Proxy to allow EngageSmart's Unaffiliated Stockholders to adequately test whether the Merger maximized value, or whether Unaffiliated Stockholders were better off voting against the Merger and retaining their shares in the stand-alone Company and/or waiting for a better deal. The Defendants' material misstatements and omissions of material facts that concealed the hopelessly conflicted and unfair sales process and prevented Class Members from making an informed vote on the Merger began from the moment the Merger was announced, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs held and were beneficial owners of EngageSmart common stock as of the Record Date for the Merger and were entitled to vote on the Merger. EngageSmart, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Braintree, Massachusetts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Vincent R. Cappucci ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCI LLP 230 Park Avenue, 3rd Floor New York, NY 10169 Phone: (212) 894-7200 Facsimile: (212) 894-7272 Email: vcappucci@entwistle-law.com - and - Brian E. Farnan, Esq. Michael J. Farnan, Esq. FARNAN LLP 919 North Market Street, 12th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 777-0300 Facsimile: (302) 777-0301 Email: bfarnan@farnanlaw.com mfarnan@farnanlaw.com FACEAPP INC: Judge Rules Agreement Arbitration Clause "Sufficient" ------------------------------------------------------------------ Scott Holland, writing for Madison -- St. Clair Record, reports that a federal judge has ruled a user agreement arbitration clause is sufficient to pause a class action accusing FaceApp of violating a state biometric privacy law. Chelsea Purchase originally filed suit in August 2023 against FaceApp, which makes photo editing software for smartphones. Purchase, a St. Clair County resident, is represented by the Belleville firm Cueto Law. Purchase alleged FaceApp violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act's written notice and informed written consent provisions. She proposed a class of all people living in Illinois who "had their biometric identifiers collected, captured, received or otherwise obtained by FaceApp." In an opinion filed Sept. 12, U.S. District Judge Stephen McGlynn granted FaceApp's motion to compel arbitration. That ruling came a few weeks after the company withdrew its motion to dismiss. Although FaceApp argued Purchase signed a written agreement that included an arbitration provision, she countered by raising factual disputes, including that FaceApp published three terms of use agreements in 2017, 2019 and 2023 and hasn't made pleadings which apply to her litigation. She also said the terms were a "browsewrap" and not a "clickwrap" agreement, meaning she never provided mutual assent. Other arguments included the presence of ambiguities that preclude arbitration and that even if such a clause existed, her claims would still be outside the contractual scope. McGlynn rejected the primary argument, noting "Illinois courts allow parties to agree to authorize one party to modify a contract unilaterally," then pointed to language in all three versions of the agreement in which FaceApp asserts its right to change terms at its discretion. He further noted FaceApp said users couldn't launch its application or continue to use the service without an affirmative click of the start button, a process that advised continued use constituted an agreement to use terms and a privacy policy. Purchase insisted she never clicked on anything, but that her use of FaceApp involved only a browsewrap agreement, which McGlynn defined as one where "the website owner is attempting to bind users to terms and conditions without the user taking any specific action to manifest their assent; a user can continue to use the website or its services without visiting the page hosting the browsewrap agreement or even knowing that such a web page exists." However, McGlynn said courts also recognize a third type of online agreement. Known as a hybridwrap, the process involves software or websites that don't display the full agreement but do provide a link to any applicable terms and inform "the user that by taking a certain action, such as signing up for an account, he is assenting to the agreement." FaceApp's software, McGlynn continued, clearly stated that continued use constituted assent. For iPhone and Android users, the hyperlink to the contractual language it bold, on iPhones it also is underlined. On both platforms "the click button to start was also conspicuously blue, it was right above the hyperlinks," McGlynn wrote. McGlynn rejected Purchase's arguments about potential ambiguities and said FaceApp successfully showed Purchase and similarly situated users entered into a written agreement that contained an arbitration provision. He further rejected Purchase's claims that her allegations fall outside the scope of that provision noting the contract language itself states decisions about what is subject to arbitration belong to an arbitrator, not a judge. Purchase didn't address FaceApp's assertions that she refused to arbitrate, but McGlynn said "her actions convey refusal." He agreed to stay her lawsuit pending a decision from the arbitrator and directed the parties to file an arbitration status report by April 1. Cueto Law did not respond to a request for comment. Neither did Daniel Roeser, of Goodwin Law, who represented FaceApp. [GN] FIDELITY LIFE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Robertson Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- ERIN ROBERTSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FIDELITY LIFE ASSOCIATION, A MUTUAL LEGAL RESERVE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00439-ART-CSD (D. Nev., Sept. 25, 2024) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls. Fidelity Life Association operates as an insurance company. The Company offers life insurance products and services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: 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 Email: gustavo@kazlg.com mona@kazlg.com FIREWORKS SOFTWARE: Adamek Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII ------------------------------------------------------------- Tara Adamek, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FIREWORKS SOFTWARE, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-05185-NIQA (E.D. Pa., Sept. 27, 2024), is brought for damages with respect to the Defendant for its failure to exercise reasonable care in securing and safeguarding users' sensitive information--including full names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, and alien registration numbers, collectively known as personally identifiable information ("PII" or "Private Information"). This class action is brought on behalf of individual's who received a notice letter from Fireworks Software and had their sensitive PII accessed by unauthorized parties because of a lapse in network security in or around June of 2024 (the "Data Breach"). The Data Breach affected thousands of customers. Furthermore, the Data Breach could have been prevented had Fireworks Software implemented adequate data security protocols, practices, and procedures. It failed to do so. Fireworks Software reported to Plaintiff that the information compromised in the Data Breach included her PII, but such notification did not occur until September 17, 2024--nearly three months after her Private Information was first accessed. The Plaintiff suffered actual injury in the form of damages to and diminution in the value of her PII—a form of intangible property that she entrusted to Defendant that was compromised in and as a result of the Data Breach. The Plaintiff also suffered lost time, annoyance, interference, and inconvenience as a result of the Data Breach and has anxiety and increased concerns for the loss of privacy, as well as anxiety over the impact of cybercriminals accessing, using, and selling her PII. The Plaintiff has suffered imminent and impending injury arising from the substantially increased risk of fraud, identity theft, and misuse resulting from her PII, in combination with her name, being placed in the hands of unauthorized third parties/criminals. As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff and other members of the "Class" will continue to experience and/or are at an imminent and substantial risk of experiencing various types of misuse of their PII, including but not limited to, spam calls and emails, unauthorized credit card charges, unauthorized access to email accounts, and other fraudulent use of their PII, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a student of Rowan College. The Defendant is a Pennsylvania corporation, primarily engaged in the business of providing customer relationship management software.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary F. Lynch, Esq. Patrick D. Donathen, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Phone: (412) 322-9243 Email: gary@lcllp.com patrick@lcllp.com - and - Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. Jason S. Rathod, Esq. MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP 412 H Street NE Washington, DC 20002 Phone: (202) 470-3520 Fax: (202) 800-2730 Email: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com jrathod@classlawdc.com GOLDEN YEARS: Dell Files FLSA Suit in M.D. Tennessee ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Golden Years, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Kevin Dell, individually, and on behalf of himself and other similarly situated current and former employees v. Golden Years, LLC, Typhanee Fitzgerald, Case No. 3:24-cv-01173 (M.D. Tenn., Sept. 27, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Golden Years, LLC is a home health care service in Brentwood, Tennessee.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. John Joseph Leatherwood, IV, Esq. Joshua Dixon Autry, Esq. JACKSON SHIELDS YEISER HOLT OWEN & BRYANT (MEMPHIS) 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Phone: (901) 754-8001 Fax: (901) 759-1745 Email: gjackson@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com jleatherwood@jsyc.com jautry@jsyc.com HUMANA INC: Must Produce End of Day Reports by Oct. 8 ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID ELLIOT, v. HUMANA INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-00329-RGJ-CHL (W.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge Colin Lindsay entered an order as follows: (1) Plaintiff's motion to compel is granted. (2) Defendant shall produce the End of Day reports for the period of four years prior to the filing of this action on or before Oct. 8, 2024. The Court finds that discovery of all End of Day reports for a period of four years prior to the filing of this action is appropriate. In this action, the Plaintiff is seeking relief for Defendant's alleged violations of 47 U.S.C. section 227(b), 47 C.F.R. section 64.1200(a), 47 C.F.R. section 64.1200(d), and 47 C.F.R. section 64.1200(a)(7). The Plaintiff is also seeking to certify this action as a Class Action based on his allegations that numerous other individuals have been affected by repetitive robocalls sent by Defendant over a period of four years. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant makes prerecorded calls to people with cell phones who are not Humana customers, and that such telemarketing calls do not provide an opt-out mechanism. Humana is a for-profit American health insurance company. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 25, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=h0Gu1p at no extra charge.[CC] HYATT CORP: Stipulation on Continuation of Trial Tossed ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BLANCA E. BELLOSO, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. HYATT CORPORATION., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100 inclusive, Case No. 8:23-cv-02178-DOC-JDE (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge David Carter entered an order denying the Parties' joint stipulation briefing schedule and continuation of trial and trial-related deadlines. Hyatt is a global hospitality company. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 25, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kRUiFi at no extra charge.[CC] INCA CHICKEN: Martinez Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Arminda Florindan Martinez and Guillermo Tapia Jimenez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. INCA CHICKEN INC., INCA ROTISSERIE CHICKEN INC. and INCA ROASTER CORP., PHILIP CHA and THERESA CHA, as individuals, Case No. 1:24-cv-06862 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 27, 2024), is brought to recover damages for the Defendants' egregious violations of state and federal wage and hour laws, the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Laws arising out of the Defendants failure to pay overtime wages. Although Plaintiffs worked approximately 40 hours or more hours per week during the relevant statutory period, the Defendants did not pay Plaintiffs time and a half for hours worked over 40, a blatant violation of the overtime provisions contained in the FLSA and NYLL. The Defendants willfully failed to post notices of the minimum wage and overtime wage requirements in a conspicuous place at the location of their employment as required by the FLSA and NYLL, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants. INCA CHICKEN INC., is a New York domestic business corporation organized under the laws of New York.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Phone: 718-263-9591 JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Pelvic Mesh Class Suit Victims Await Payouts --------------------------------------------------------------- Anne Connolly and Ninah Kopel of ABC Investigations report that women in pelvic mesh class action still waiting for payouts more than a year after $300 million settlement. In short: More than 10,000 Australian women registered for the class action launched by law firm Shine against medical device giant Johnson and Johnson. Federal Court Judge Michael Lee approved the $300 million settlement in March last year, but said he was "troubled" by it. What's next? The administrators of the settlement fund say eligibility and compensation assessments will not be completed for some time. Thousands of Australian women who won a landmark class action settlement more than a year ago over damage done by pelvic mesh have still not received any compensation. On top of the delay, the women are also expected to lose close to $80 million of the $300 million settlement due to legal costs and liabilities. The ABC has spoken to dozens of members of the class action who believe that Shine Justice, the publicly listed law firm that ran the legal case, put its financial interests and its shareholders ahead of them. "I think we've all been misled right from the beginning," group member Michelle Clark said. Tracey Singleton, who administers a Facebook group for mesh-affected women, said the delays and costs had added to women's pain. Many of them can no longer work, have had multiple surgeries and are in chronic pain. "We have women that are palliative and bedridden," she said. "They deserve so much more than a pathetic, minor amount of money." The case highlights the problems with the class action system in Australia, where exorbitant lawyers' fees and costs can significantly erode the compensation left for group members. Barrister Peter Cashman, who has run many of Australia's most famous class actions, says the costs in these cases need to be scrutinised. "In the class action context, the legal costs are very substantial, and therefore they can significantly erode the settlement value," he said. Mesh felt like 'barbed wire' Polypropylene mesh entered the Australian market in the late 1990s and its use was marketed as a superior procedure for women suffering pelvic organ prolapse and incontinence after childbirth. It was later found that the mesh shrank and eroded into tissue, protruded into organs and caused chronic pain. In 2012, "no win, no fee" law firm Shine started a class action against one of the manufacturers, medical technology giant Johnson and Johnson. Shine ambassador and US advocate Erin Brockovich, whose legal fight for a community with contaminated water inspired a Hollywood film, promoted the class action. Eventually, more than 10,000 Australian women registered, including Newcastle woman Trish Sara. In 2008, Ms Sara had two surgeries with mesh and immediately encountered problems. "It really felt like barbed wire when I was walking," she said. "When my husband was still alive at that time, and when we were intimate, he was cut. It was horrible." Ms Sara went back to her surgeon to attempt to fix the problem, but she was horrified to learn that during the surgery, more mesh was implanted. "There was a Johnson and Johnson rep in the theatre and another doctor who was employed by Johnson and Johnson," she said. "I didn't know that they were going to be there, and I certainly didn't know they were going to use the … mesh again." Ms Sara has had a dozen surgeries to try to remove the mesh but still lives with chronic pain and autoimmune diseases. She says she has used all her super and is now on a disability pension and the NDIS, with carers helping her to shower and dress. In 2019, Shine won its case against Johnson and Johnson in the Federal Court. Shine's three lead plaintiffs -- who brought the claim on behalf of all the group members -- were awarded compensation ranging from $500,000 to more than $1 million each. The group members expected they would be awarded similar amounts but, instead of going through a court process to have damages awarded, Shine urged the group members to accept a settlement of $300 million. "The majority of the public believe that we have been compensated and that couldn't be further from the truth," Ms Sara said. Like the other group members, she does not know how much she'll receive but she has been told she is eligible for an interim payment of $4,000. It is expected lawyers for the administrators will then assess her condition for further compensation. "It's not even three weeks' wages and then, if we're in after, we're put into categories like cattle to receive some compensation by 2027," Ms Sara said. "Some of us may not be here by then." It is believed that some women might receive nothing more after the $4,000 payment if they are assessed as having minor complications. Other women will receive nothing if the administrators of the fund believe there is not sufficient evidence to prove their cases. Shine's 'moral hazard' Despite questions about the adequacy of the settlement, Justice Michael Lee approved it in March last year, finding "the proposed settlement sum is within the range of fair and reasonable outcomes, albeit at the lowest end of that scale". "But I am troubled by this settlement," he said. Justice Lee refused Shine's proposal to take $100 million from the women's settlement in costs. He was sharply critical of some of the costs, including a claim for $32 million for interest Shine owed on a loan it had taken out to fund the class action. The loan was with Western Funds Management, which was charging Shine 20 per cent interest. "The firm could have met those expenses out of its own pocket, but it chose to make a commercial judgement to finance it through somebody else," barrister Peter Cashman said. "So, therefore, that interest continued to accrue and was getting bigger and bigger." At the same time that Shine was borrowing millions of dollars, the company was paying out millions of dollars in dividends to shareholders. Shine's principal, Simon Morrison, owns a quarter of Shine's shares. The ABC asked Shine for a comment about shareholder dividends, but it did not respond. Justice Lee was critical of Shine's failure to see it had a conflict of interest in the case. The judge pointed out that Shine had tried to claim the interest -- which then stood at $14 million -- as a cost in 2020 after it had successfully sued Johnson and Johnson, but the court had rejected it. He questioned whether Shine wanted to settle because it might be the only way it could recoup those interest costs. Justice Lee said the situation could constitute a "moral hazard", saying there was "a real incentive for a publicly listed company to settle litigation rather than running it through to a conclusion because the only way [it] can make a profit and secure a return to shareholders is by settling, rather than running the litigation". In response to the ABC's questions, Shine said it could have sought payment from Johnson and Johnson if it had taken the women's cases to court but "following that process would have increased costs which would have potentially reduced the amount in group member's pockets or seen some group members receive nothing". Shine said it "made informed decisions to deliver justice for group members, rather than litigating for another decade or more". Costs of almost $80 million to come out of settlement Even a year after the settlement, the women are still in the dark about how many of them are eligible, how much they will receive, and when. Jan Sadler, the former Shine lawyer who left the firm and then became one of the administrators of the settlement fund, said the administrators were "undertaking both eligibility and compensation assessments however this process will not be completed for some time yet". Ms Sadler could not say what the minimum or maximum payment would be, saying: "The damage entitlements will vary considerably amongst group members depending upon the extent of compensable loss suffered by each individual." She also would not confirm the amount in the settlement fund because "the advice of our cyber experts is that a fund such as this and our group members would be the ideal target for scammers". Using court documents and correspondence, the ABC has calculated that close to $80 million will be deducted from the $300 million settlement in costs and liabilities including: $36 million in costs which has gone to law firm Shine $17 million which law firms JGA Sadler, Slater and Gordon and accounting firm BDO can also take for administering the fund $26 million is expected to go to paying back third parties such as Medicare, the NDIS, Centrelink and private health insurers as required by law in compensation cases Ms Sadler said the administrators expected costs to third parties to be "significantly less than $26 million". Shine Lawyers said, despite the costs, the settlement should be approaching $300 million because it was accruing interest of about $1 million a month. Shine defended its costs and handling of the class action, saying, "This has been one of the longest running medical device class actions in Australian history," and that Johnson and Johnson fought at every juncture, including making appeals. In the end, Shine received close to $78 million in costs -- $38 million from the settlement and $39 million paid directly by Johnson and Johnson. The costs summary which Shine submitted to the Federal Court for approval in June 2020 shows that one of Shine's senior counsel was charging $17,000 a day. His fees alone equalled more than $3.5 million. Under "miscellaneous", Shine claimed almost $2 million. Shine also charged almost $6 million for "group member attendances". The ABC asked Shine to tell us how this figure was calculated after many of the group members complained about the lack of communication with Shine during the legal process. Shine said all of its costs "were subject to detailed scrutiny by the costs referee appointed by Justice Lee, and the only costs paid to Shine were those approved by the court". Barrister Peter Cashman, who represented a failed candidate in the settlement administration tender, said high hourly rates had led to an inflation in the cost of legal services. "Often there's a considerable amount of what I would describe as over-servicing, which inflates the costs which are normally recoverable without question," he said. "So, I think there's a need to sort of step back and have a micro look at the economics of the way in which legal practice is structured and the way in which they charge because the costs are prohibitive." 'We're the losers' Class action member Serena Brejcha told the ABC she was deeply disappointed with the whole process. "Shine Lawyers won, and Johnson and Johnson won, and the three lead applicants as well," she said. "10,000, 15,000 other women that are group members -- we're the losers." Ms Brejcha and almost 200 group members made a formal complaint to the Legal Services Commission of NSW in February this year about Shine's conflicts of interest and the way it handled the case. It was referred to the Law Society of NSW which closed the complaint, saying the "issues have already been addressed through the Federal Court and concerns a commercial dispute -- not a disciplinary conduct matter". "How can lawyers get away with what they did to us?" Ms Brejcha said. "I'm trying to right their wrongs by advocating for women who can't do it themselves, because it's just abhorrent what they did." Group member Tracey Singleton, said members were disillusioned with the class action process. "It's long-winded, broken and, quite honestly, I have little faith in any of it," she said. "The only people getting rich are big pharma and legal firms. The women that are deserving it, the actual victims of this, are being nothing short of ripped off." [GN] L&G CLEAN SERVICES: Alvarez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Hugo Alvarez, Jemberly Chocooj, and other similarly situated individuals v. L&G Clean Services Corp, and Lucas Verissimo, individually, Case No. 0:24-cv-61801-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Sept. 27, 2024), is brought to recover monetary damages for unpaid regular and overtime wages under United States laws pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("the Act"). The Plaintiffs on behalf of all other current and former employees similarly situated to Plaintiffs ("the asserted class") and who worked more than 40 hours during one or more weeks on or after February 2024, (the "material time") without being adequately compensated. The Plaintiffs always worked more than 40 hours weekly. However, Defendants did not pay them overtime hours, as required by law. Furthermore, Defendants failed to pay them their regular wages in a timely manner. During their employment with Defendants, Plaintiffs did not receive their regular wages for their entire period of employment, or six weeks. Plaintiffs stayed working because Defendants promised to fix the problem soon. Plaintiffs did not clock in and out, but Defendants could track the hours worked by Plaintiffs and was in complete control of their schedule and route. Therefore, Defendants willfully failed to pay Plaintiffs overtime wages, at the rate of time and a half their regular rate, for every hour that they worked in excess of 40, in violation of the Act, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs had duties as janitorial employees cleaning commercial kitchens. L&G Clean Services is a janitorial company providing cleaning services to commercial accounts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Phone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com MAISON SOLUTIONS: Court Stays Ilsan Suit ---------------------------------------- Maison Solutions Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 20, 2024, that on or about April 17, 2024, the parties agreed to stay "Ilsan Kim v. Maison Solutions Inc., et. al," Index No. 150024/2024. On January 2, 2024, the company and its executive officers and directors, as well as Joseph Stone Capital LLC, and AC Sunshine Securities LLC, the underwriters in the company's initial public offering, were named in a class action complaint filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York alleging violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. As relief, the plaintiffs are seeking, among other things, compensatory damages. Maison Solutions Inc. is a retail company that operates grocery stores and is based in Monterey Park, CA. MARS HILL: Website Inaccessible to Visually-Impaired, Bishop Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- CEDRIC BISHOP, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MARS HILL UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-07225 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 24, 2024) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://www.mhu.edu, 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 and The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibiting discrimination against the blind. During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on June 14, 2024, in an attempt to purchase a Premium Decal from Defendant and to view the information on the website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff a shopping and recreational experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. The complaint is also brought over Plaintiff's New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law claims. 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. Mars Hill University operates the website that sells online retail goods like college and team merchandise such as T-shirts, sweat shirts, hats and other apparel.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal MDL 2873: 4 Suits Transferred to D.S.C. --------------------------------------- In the multi-district product liability litigation captioned "In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation," MDL No. 2873, Matthew F. Kennelly, Acting Chair of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transfers two cases from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama and one each from the Southern District of New York and the Western District of Wisconsin, all to the District of South Carolina and, with the consent of that court, assigned them to Judge Richard M. Gergel for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. MDL No. 2873 involves allegations that aqueous film-forming foams (AFFFs) products used at airports, military bases, or certain industrial locations caused the release of perfluorooctane sulfonate and/or perfluorooctanoic acid (types of PFAS) into local groundwater and contaminated drinking water supplies. The actions in the MDL share factual questions concerning the use and storage of AFFFs; the toxicity of PFAS and the effects of these substances on human health; and these substances' chemical properties and propensity to migrate in groundwater supplies. Defendant 3M Company moved to transfer two actions pending in the Northern District of Alabama to the District of South Carolina for inclusion in MDL No. 2873, while plaintiffs in the Alabama actions opposed this motion. Defendants Tyco Fire Products LP and Chemguard, Inc., opposed the motion to vacate and are joined by the City of Wausau plaintiff. Moreover, plaintiffs and 20 insurer defendants moved to vacate the panel's order that conditionally transferred the Southern District of New York Lloyd's action to MDL No. 2873. Defendant BASF Corporation opposed this motion. Plaintiffs in the two Alabama actions allege they suffered personal injury caused by the discharge of per- or polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) from manufacturing facilities in Decatur, Alabama, operated by defendants 3M, Toray Fluorofibers (America), Inc., and Daikin America, Inc. Plaintiffs disclaim any liability for injuries attributable to the manufacture, use, or disposal of PFAS-containing AFFFs. "When we initially centralized this litigation, we excluded four actions alleging similar PFAS contamination of the Tennessee River from the same manufacturing facilities" the panel pointed out. "However, at our last hearing session, we transferred four Alabama actions that likewise involved personal injury claims stemming from the alleged discharge of PFAS into the Tennessee River by defendants' manufacturing facilities in Decatur, Alabama. Plaintiffs' arguments against transfer here are substantially identical to those we rejected in the June 2024 Order, and our analysis in that order applies equally here. Accordingly, transfer of the two Alabama actions is appropriate." Turning to the Western District of Wisconsin City of Wausau action, the panel ruled that the June 2024 Order is similarly on point. "In that order, we transferred another action (Bouvet) that involved both claims against AFFF manufacturers as well as "direct action" claims against those manufacturers' insurers. We held that the AFFF claims against the manufacturers in Bouvet shared common factual questions with the thousands of actions pending in the MDL." According to the panel, the Southern District of New York Lloyd's action stands in a different position than City of Wausau. Lloyd's does not involve direct action claims, but rather is a more straightforward coverage action brought by insurers seeking a declaration that they do not have coverage obligations with respect to BASF's AFFF liabilities. Even so, transfer of Lloyd's is warranted, ruled the panel. The four actions share common questions of fact with the AFFF actions in the MDL and will benefit from inclusion in the centralized proceedings, the panel opined. Transfer will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation, it added. A full-text copy of the court's August 1, 2024 order is available at https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-2873-Transfer_Order-7-24.pdf MDL 3031: Consumer IPPs Seek to Certify Class in Antitrust Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit Re: Cattle and Beef Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 0:22-md-03031-JRT-JFD (D. Minn.), the Consumer Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs (Consumer IPPs) move the Court for an order granting certification of the following class under Rule 23(b)(3): "All persons and entities who indirectly purchased for personal consumption one or more of the following beef products in the Repealer Jurisdictions1 between Aug. 1, 2014 to Dec. 31, 2019: beef from Defendants (whether fresh or frozen) made from chuck, loin, rib or round primal cuts. For this lawsuit, beef excludes any product that is marketed as USDA Prime, organic, No Antibiotics Ever ("NAE"), antibiotic free, 100% grass-fed, kosher, halal, certified humane, Wagyu, "American-Style Kobe Beef," as well as any products that are ground, marinated, seasoned, flavored, breaded, or cooked." IPPs will also move this Court for an order: -- appointing the following Named Plaintiffs as class representatives: Andrew Cohen (Arizona); Marcelo Lopez (California); Stacey Troupe (California); William Gee (District of Columbia); Lisa Melegari (Florida); Eric Gauchat (Illinois); Sharon Killmon (Iowa); Harold M. Nyanjom (Kansas); Mark Sperry (Maine); Karen Carter (Massachusetts); John Shupe (Michigan); Charlie Morgan (Minnesota); Sharon Dawson-Green (Missouri); Brent Rasmussen (Montana); David Renz (Nebraska); Kenneth Peterson (Nevada); Martin Jarmulowicz (New Hampshire); Kent Winchester (New Mexico); Brenda King (New York); Robert Trepper (North Carolina); Michelle Oversen (North Dakota); Dan Campbell (Oregon); Lindsey Lemoi (Rhode Island); Craig Margulies (South Dakota); Jacquelyn Watson (Tennessee); Cindy Abernathy (Utah); Leigh Tiller (West Virginia); and Jason Falbo (Wisconsin); and -- appointing the following law firms to act as co-lead class counsel under Rule 23(g) for the Consumer IPP class: Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP and Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept. 25, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hi8CFO at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Shana E. Scarlett, Esq. Rio S. Pierce, Esq. Abby R. Wolf, Esq. Steve W. Berman, Esq. Breanna Van Engelen, Esq. Elaine T. Byszewski, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 300 Berkeley, CA 94710 Telephone: (510) 725-3000 Facsimile: (510) 725-3001 E-mail: shanas@hbsslaw.com riop@hbsslaw.com abbyw@hbsslaw.com steve@hbsslaw.com breannav@hbsslaw.com elaine@hbsslaw.com - and - Brian D. Clark, Esq. W. Joseph Bruckner, Esq. Arielle S. Wagner, Esq. Simeon A. Morbey, Esq. Kyle Pozan, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P. 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 Facsimile: (612) 339-0981 E-mail: bdclark@locklaw.com wjbruckner@locklaw.com aswagner@locklaw.com samorbey@locklaw.com kjpozan@locklaw.com MDL 3031: Hyatt Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Antitrust Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit Re: Cattle and Beef Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 0:22-md-03031-JRT-JFD (D. Minn.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: (1) Certifying this case as a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), (b)(2) and (b)(3); (2) Designating Plaintiffs David Hyatt d/b/a Hyatt Farms, Terry Faul d/b/a Faul Land Improvements, and Expense Reduction Services, Inc. ("ERS"), as the Class Representatives and the law firms of PAUL LLP, GUERRA LLP, and TURNER & ASSOCIATES, P.A. as Class Counsel; and (3) For such further relief as this Court deems equitable and just. The Plaintiffs request that the Court enter an Order certifying the Class, as defined above, or using any definition or subclasses that this Court deems appropriate, designating Plaintiffs David Hyatt d/b/a Hyatt Farms, Terry Faul d/b/a Faul Land Improvements, and Expense Reduction Services, Inc. ("ERS"), as the Class Representatives and the law firms of PAUL LLP, GUERRA LLP, and TURNER & ASSOCIATES, P.A. as Class Counsel for the Indirect Seller Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs assert claims for injunctive relief under the Clayton Act based on violations of the Sherman Act, and for violations of the Packers and Stockyards Act, 7 U.S.C. sections 181–229. The Plaintiffs seek to represent a class defined as follows: "All natural persons and entities in the United States that sold Feeder Cattle to a Feedlot or Finishing Operation that in turn sold that cattle to one or more of the Defendants during the Class Period." The Class consists of approximately 450,000, and thus easily meets the "numerosity" requirement of Rule 23(a)(1). Certification of the Nationwide Injunctive Relief Class is proper under Rule 23(b)(2) because Defendants' conspiracy, cartel behavior, and anticompetitive conduct applies generally to the market for feeder cattle and thus applies generally to the Class. Certification of the Nationwide Damages Class is proper under Rule 23(b)(3) because the common issues of whether Defendants violated the Packers and Stockyards Act and the Clayton Act predominate over any individual issues. The Plaintiffs and putative class members are cattle ranchers in the United States that sold Feeder Cattle to a Feedlot or Finishing Operation that in turn sold that cattle to one or more of the Defendants during the Class Period. The actions in this MDL are individual direct purchaser actions alleging a price fixing conspiracy among leading American beef producers. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept. 25, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https:A//urlcurt.com/u?l=QkAJXe at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Francisco "Frank" Guerra IV, Esq. Alicia O'Neill, Esq. Michael Montaño, Esq. GUERRA LLP 875 E. Ashby Place, Suite 1200 San Antonio, TX 78212 Telephone: (210) 447-0500 Facsimile: (210) 447-0501 E-mail: fguerra@guerrallp.com aoneill@guerrallp.com mmontano@guerrallp.com - and - Richard M. Paul III, Esq. Ashlea G. Schwarz, Esq. David W. Bodenheimer, Esq. PAUL LLP 601 Walnut Street, Suite 300 Kansas City, MO 64106 Telephone: (816) 984-8100 E-mail: Rick@PaulLLP.com Ashlea@PaulLLP.com - and - David@PaulLLP.com, Esq. Clyde Talbot "Tab" Turner, Esq. TURNER & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 4705 Somers Avenue North Little Rock, AR 72116 Telephone: (501) 791-2277 E-mail: tab@tturner.com MDL 3096: Andersen v. Perry Johnson Transferred to E.D.N.Y. ----------------------------------------------------------- In the multi-district action captioned "In re: Perry Johnson & Associates Medical Transcription Data Security Breach Litigation," MDL No. 3096, Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, Acting Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, transfers "Andersen V. Perry Johnson & Associates, Inc., et al.," C.A. No. 1:24−00277 (M.D.N.C.) to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, and with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Rachel P. Kovner for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. The Plaintiff in the Andersen action, who is proceeding pro se, moved to vacate the court's order that conditionally transferred her case to the Eastern District of New York for inclusion in MDL No. 3096. Defendants Perry Johnson & Associates, Inc. (PJ&A), Northwell Health, Inc., Michael J. Dowling, Joseph M. Schulman, John Kane, Greg Radinsky, Kimberly White, and Eric Sandhusen opposed the motion. The actions in the MDL arise from allegations of a 2023 data security breach of a portion of Perry Johnson's computer network. The Plaintiff in the Andersen action argues that her case involves unique factual questions arising from an involuntary admission to a Northwell Health medical facility in 2011, which has been the subject of litigation since that time. In addition to these unique allegations, Plaintiff also alleges that her protected health information (PHI) and personal identifying information (PII) were compromised by the same 2023 data security breach of PJ&A's computer network that lies at the heart of the MDL. The data breach claims form the core of plaintiff's complaint--in fact, every cause of action asserted in the complaint centers on the data breach. "That Andersen involves unique facts, legal theories, and even defendants does not weigh significantly against transfer," rules the panel. "Plaintiff's arguments that she would be prejudiced by transfer likewise are unpersuasive." Thus, plaintiff's arguments that her claims do not fit within the classes asserted in the MDL and that class counsel in the MDL cannot fairly and adequately represent her and similar plaintiffs are not relevant in this context, the panel opines. "As we stated in our initial transfer order, centralization of these data breach actions offers "substantial opportunities to streamline pretrial proceedings, reduce duplicative discovery, and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary." A full-text copy of the court's August 1, 2024 Transfer Order is available at https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3096-Transfer_Order-1-24.pdf MERCER COUNTY, PA: Oct. 4 Deadline to File Class Cert Reply Sought ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOYELLE CAMPBELL and CLAYTON BOYD, individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated, v. THE COUNTY OF MERCER, Case No. 2:23-cv-00099-CB-KT (W.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order allowing the Plaintiffs to file their Reply by October 4, 2024. 1. The Plaintiffs filed a motion and brief for class certification on Aug. 2, 2024. 2. The Defendant filed their response on Sept. 13, 2024. 3. Plaintiffs' reply is due Sept. 27, 2024. 4. Due to Plaintiffs' counsel's schedule, Plaintiffs' counsel requires an additional week, until Oct. 4, 2024, in which to file their Reply. 5. Counsel for the Defendant does not object to this request. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept. 25, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=g8AWR9 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: D. Aaron Rihn, Esq. ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 707 Grant Street, Suite 125 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 281-7229 E-mail: arihn@peircelaw.com MICHIGAN: Babcock Must File Class Cert. Bid by Nov. 2 ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Babcock, et al., v. Michigan, State of, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-12951 (E.D. Mich., Filed Dec. 6, 2022), the Hon. Judge Jonathan JC Grey entered an order that the plaintiffs must file a motion to certify class on or before Nov. 1, 2024. The suit alleges violation of the American with Disabilities Act (ADA). Michigan is a state in the Great Lakes region of the Upper Midwest region of the United States. It borders Wisconsin to the southwest in the Upper Peninsula, and Indiana and Ohio to the south.[CC] MONDELEZ INT'L: California Wheat Thins Purchaser Class Certified ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID WALLENSTEIN, et al., v. MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-06033-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria entered an order granting Wallenstein's motion to certify a class of California Wheat Thins purchasers from Oct. 13, 2018, to present. Both claims -- violation of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act and breach of express warranty -- satisfy the requirements for a damages class. Accordingly, Wallenstein produced convincing evidence that a majority of consumers would consider the "100% Whole Grain" representation as a reason for purchasing Wheat Thins and that the representation impacted the price that consumers were willing to pay. So a reasonable consumer could decide that the representation was material to their purchasing decision. And the defendants have not offered anything meaningful to counter the inference of class-wide reliance. Mondelez is an American multinational confectionery, food, holding, beverage and snack food company. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 25, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kzlJxl at no extra charge.[CC] MOUNTAIN VIEW: Class Settlement in Lewis Suit Gets Initial Nod -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as APRIL LEWIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MOUNTAIN VIEW HOSPITAL, LLC d/b/a MOUNTAIN VIEW HOSPITAL, Case No. 3:24-cv-00175 (M.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Aleta Trauger entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement: For settlement purposes only and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) and (e), the Court certifies, solely for purposes of effectuating the proposed Settlement, a Settlement Class in this matter defined as follows: "All persons in the United States who were sent notice that their Private Information was potentially impacted as a result of the Data Incident that occurred in May 2023 and was discovered by Mountain View on or around May 29, 2023." The Settlement Class includes approximately 444,000 people. The Settlement Class specifically excludes: (1) Mountain View Hospital, LLC and Idaho Falls Community Hospital and their officers and directors; (2) all Persons who submit a timely and valid Request for Exclusion from the Settlement Class; (3) the Court; and (4) any 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 Data Incident, or who pleads nolo contendere to any such charge." Mountain View offers emergency care and cardiology services, as well as labor and delivery, bone and joint, spine care and behavioral health programs. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 25, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zXmKPm at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. Andrew E. Mize, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com gwells@stranchlaw.com amize@stranchlaw.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. COHEN & MALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 E-mail: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com MURDER MYSTERY: Degroot Sues Over Unpaid Compensations ------------------------------------------------------ Kristin Degroot, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MURDER MYSTERY COMPANY INC., and AMERICAN IMMERSION THEATER, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-01016 (W.D. Mich., Sept. 27, 2024), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") as a result of the Defendants failure to pay minimum wages for all hours worked or overtime premium wages for hours worked over 40 in a week. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants wrongfully classify their employees as independent contractors and have failed to pay DeGroot and other Performers minimum wages for all hours worked or overtime premium wages for hours worked over 40 in a week. The Defendants' classification of Plaintiffs as independent contractors was wrongful, as Plaintiffs actually were employees, and as a result, Plaintiffs were deprived of compensation in violation of the minimum wage and overtime protections of the FLSA and the NYLL. The Plaintiff and other Performers, both in New York and elsewhere across the country, regularly worked over 40 hours in a week and were not paid minimum wage or overtime premium wages for hours they worked over 40 in a week. The Defendants wrongly classified Performers in New York as independent contractors. The Defendants also wrongly classified Performers in most (but not all) other states as independent contractors, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a Performer in New York City. The Defendants operate a national immersive entertainment business that provides entertainment services for private parties, corporate events, birthdays, or other special occasions, as well as public dinner theater shows, where guests participate in a live-action performance, such as a murder mystery or other themed scenario.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Meagan M. Rafferty, Esq. HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS, LLP 153 Main St, Suite 201 New Paltz, NY 12561 Phone: 212-439-4765 Email: mrafferty@hkm.com Web: www.hkm.com - and - Rachhana T. Srey, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 4700 IDS Center 80 South Eighth St Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: 612-256-3239 Email: srey@hka.com Web: www.nka.com NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Fact, Expert Discovery Due Jan. 3, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ABDUL SHABAZZ, v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC d/b/a RIGHTPATH SERVICING, Case No. 5:24-cv-00498-JMG (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge John Gallagher entered a scheduling order as follows: 1. A status conference with counsel is scheduled for Nov. 7, 2024, at 10:30 a.m. Plaintiff's counsel shall provide the Court and opposing counsel with conference bridge details (such as a telephone number and access code) no later than Oct. 28, 2024. The parties should be prepared to discuss the status of discovery, settlement discussions, if any, and the dates the parties have jointly set aside for depositions. 2. All fact and expert discovery shall be completed no later than Jan. 3, 2025. 3. Affirmative expert reports, if any, are due by Sept. 13, 2024. 4. Rebuttal expert reports, if any, are due by Oct. 18, 2024. 5. Expert depositions, if any, shall be concluded no later than Jan. 3, 2025. 6. Any party expecting to offer opinion testimony from lay witnesses pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 701 with respect to the issues of liability and damages shall, at the time required for submission of information and/or reports for expert witnesses on liability and damages set forth in the preceding paragraph, serve opposing parties with concise details and/or documents covering the lay opinions of the Rule 701 witnesses, including the identity of each witness offering the expert opinion, the substance and the basis for each opinion. 7. Motions for summary judgment, Daubert motions, and motions for class certification if any, shall be filed by Feb. 7, 2025. Responses shall be filed no later than March 7, 2025. Motions and responses shall be filed in the form prescribed in Judge Gallagher's Policies and Procedures. Nationstar is a home loan servicer headquartered based in Dallas, Texas, area. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 25, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xaqeFt at no extra charge.[CC] NELNET SERVICING: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Oct. 3, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMANDA STEVENS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. NELNET SERVICING, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-00280 (S.D.W. Va.), the Hon. Judge Robert Chambers entered a scheduling order as follows: 1. Motions to join other parties or to amend Nov. 7, 2024 the pleadings shall be filed by: 2. Plaintiff's motion for class certification Oct. 3, 2025 shall be filed no later than: 3. The parties shall complete all April 25, 2025 pre-certification discovery requests by: 4. The parties shall take all pre-certification June 9, 2025 discovery depositions by: Nelnet provides education services. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 25, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GA6avF at no extra charge.[CC] NEW YORK, NY: Plaintiffs' Fraud Claim Dismissed w/o Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sara Coombs-Moreno, et al., v. The City of New York, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-02234-EK-LB (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Eric Komitee entered an order dismissing Plaintiffs' claims with the exception of Ms. Bryan's Title VII and NYCHRL claims against the City and the Department of Education -- The Plaintiffs' fraud claim is dismissed without prejudice. -- All other claims are dismissed with prejudice. -- Finally, plaintiffs' motion for sanctions and motion to vacate the denial of preliminary injunctive relief are denied. -- The motion to strike the Fourth Amended Complaint and all other pending motions related to the Fourth Amended Complaint and the motion to dismiss are denied as moot. The plaintiffs in this case are current and former employees of several New York City agencies. During the COVID-19 pandemic, they refused (for religious, medical, or philosophical reasons) to be vaccinated. Many (but not all) of them suffered employment-related consequences as a result. They brought this action in response, arguing that the City's vaccine mandate violated various federal constitutional and statutory provisions. In their first cause of action, plaintiffs assert that the City's policy of conditioning employment on vaccination violated their rights under the Occupational Safety and Health Act ("OSHA"). New York City comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River meets the Atlantic Ocean. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 25, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mjqw1R at no extra charge.[CC] NIKE INC: Share Data Without Consent, Jurdi Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------- LILLIAN JURDI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NIKE, INC.; DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-08093 (C.D. Cal., Sept. 20, 2024) alleges that the Defendants did not obtain Class Members' express or implied consent to be subjected to data sharing with TikTok for the purposes of fingerprinting and de-anonymization. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendants uses a trap and trace process on its Website by deploying the TikTok Software on its Website, because the software is designed to capture the phone number, email, routing, addressing and other signaling information of website visitors. As such, the TikTok Software is designed precisely to identify the source of the incoming electronic and wire communications to the Website. The Defendant did not obtain consent from Plaintiff or any of the class members before using trap and trace technology to identify users of its Website, says the suit. Nike, Inc. designs, develops, and markets athletic footwear, apparel, equipment, and accessory products for men, women, and children. The Company sells its products to retail stores, through its own stores, subsidiaries, and distributors. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Tauler, Esq. Narain Kumar, Esq. TAULER SMITH LLP 626 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 550 Los Angeles, California 90017 Tel: (213) 927-9270 Email: robert@taulersmith.com nkumar@taulersmith.com NYC CANNABIS: Wheatley Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------- Hannibal Wheatley, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. NEW YORK CITY CANNABIS EXCHANGE CORP. d/b/a NYCCE, Case No. 1:24-cv-07346 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 27, 2024), is brought against Defendant for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate the Defendant's Website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to the Website, www.nycce.co and therefore its denial of the goods and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Defendant's Website is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers; therefore, Defendant is in violation of the ADA. 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, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content while using the computer. New York City Cannabis Exchange Corp. d/b/a NYCCE is a New York corporation that owns and maintains the Website, www.nycce.co.[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 Phone: (212) 227-5700 Fax: (212) 656-1889 Email: jon@norinsberglaw.com bennitta@employeejustice.com OHIO: Disability Rights Ohio Sue Over Disabled Students' Rights --------------------------------------------------------------- The Highland County Press reports that the civil rights advocate Disability Rights Ohio (DRO) took another step in its continued fight to enforce the rights of parents and students with disabilities at Warren County Educational Service Center (WCESC). Following attempts to submit a state complaint and two levels of administrative appeals with the Ohio Department of Education and Workforce (DEW), DRO was informed that an administrative process against DEW could not be pursued. Consequentially, DRO, along with Co-counsel Michael J. Boyle of the Columbus law firm of Meyer Wilson Co., LPA., has asked the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio to intervene in order to ensure that vulnerable students with disabilities at WCESC receive an appropriate education. The federal lawsuit, case: 2:24-cv-03966, is the latest move in a years-long effort by DRO to safeguard the rights of students with disabilities at WCESC. In 2022, DRO filed a systemic state complaint with DEW against WCESC and the school districts that send their students there. DEW found numerous alleged violations of special education law and ordered corrective action plans and compensatory education hours be awarded to affected students. "However, months after the release of these findings, DRO discovered that DEW overturned its original judgment and corrective action following significant pressure from WCESC and a few school districts," explained DRO Executive Director Kerstin Sjoberg. "Unfortunately, DEW failed to advise DRO or the students' families of the change. This secretive process [allegedly] violated DEW's own policies and deprived families of due process and students of necessary compensatory education services." After learning of DEW's actions, DRO pursued an administrative due process hearing on behalf of those families unhappy that the state complaint findings were changed. In spite of following DEW's stated policy of pursuing an administrative due process hearing, DRO and the families were told they could not use the administrative process against DEW to seek justice in this case. "In spite of finding that DEW has [allegedly] mismanaged this process and violated its own policies, the hearing officers at both levels of the administrative appeal process would not allow these families to seek recourse against DEW for the wrongs they have endured," Sjoberg noted. "DRO is hopeful that a federal judge will review our complaint and find that parents of students with disabilities are entitled to remedies when the state department of education violates its own policies in a way that deprives families of their rights and students of meaningful services." More information on the class action suit filed by DRO can be accessed at www.disabilityrightsohio.org. If you are a family that has a student with disabilities you believe has been impacted by this ongoing issue, please call DRO at 800-282-9181. About Disability Rights Ohio: Disability Rights Ohio is the federally and state designated Protection and Advocacy System and Client Assistance Program for the state of Ohio. The mission of Disability Rights Ohio is to advocate for an equitable Ohio for people with disabilities. Disability Rights Ohio provides legal advocacy and rights protection to a wide range of people with disabilities. Find more information at www.disabilityrightsohio.org. [GN] PEOPLES AUTO: Removes Soto Class Suit to N.D. Ill. -------------------------------------------------- The Defendant in the case of RAMON SOTO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PEOPLES AUTO PARKING COMPANY, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Circuit Court of the State of Illinois, County of Cook (Case No. 2024 CH 07897) to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on September 24, 2024. The clerk of court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-08837. Peoples Auto Parking Company provides parking lot solutions. The Company provides parking facilities for auditorium theatre, university, and college. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Adam C. Carter, Esq. Jeffrey S. Barger, Esq. ESP KREUZER CORES LLP 400 South County Farm Road Suite 200 Wheaton, Illinois 60187 Telephone: (630) 871-1002 Email: acarter@ekclawfirm.com jbarger@ekclawfirm.com PEOPLES AUTO: Soto Privacy Suit Removed to N.D. Ill. ---------------------------------------------------- The case styled RAMON SOTO, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. PEOPLES AUTO PARKING COMPANY, an Illinois Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2024 CH 07897, was removed from the Illinois Circuit Court of Cook County, Chancery Division, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on September 24, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-08826 to the proceeding. According to the allegations in the complaint, the Plaintiff brought the privacy class action lawsuit based on alleged violation of the Drivers Protection Privacy Act. Peoples Auto Parking Company provides parking lot solutions.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Adam C. Carter, Esq. Jeffrey S. Barger, Esq. ESP KREUZER CORES LLP 400 South County Farm Road Suite 200 Wheaton, IL 60187 Telephone: (630) 871-1002 E-mail: acarter@ekclawfirm.com jbarger@ekclawfirm.com PLURALSIGHT INC: $20MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Feb. 4 ------------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, NORTHERN DIVISION INDIANA PUBLIC RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Plaintiffs, v. PLURALSIGHT, INC., et al., Defendants SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND PLAN OF ALLOCATION; (II) SETTLEMENT HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND LITIGATION EXPENSES Case No. 1:19-cv-00128 District Judge David Barlow Magistrate Judge Daphne A. Oberg TO: All persons who purchased or acquired Pluralsight, Inc. ("Pluralsight") Class A common stock, from January 16, 2019 to July 31, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and were damaged thereby (the "Class"). PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY, AS YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah (the "Court"), that the above-captioned securities class action (the "Action") is pending in the Court. YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Lead Plaintiffs in the Action have reached a proposed settlement of the Action for $20,000,000 in cash (the "Settlement"), that, if approved, will resolve all claims in the Action. A hearing will be held on February 4, 2025 at 10:30 a.m., before the Honorable David Barlow either in person at the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Orrin G. Hatch U.S. Courthouse, Courtroom 8.100, 351 South West Temple, Salt Lake City, UT 84101, or by telephone or videoconference, to determine (i) whether the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants, and the Releases specified and described in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated May 1, 2024 (and in the Notice) should be granted; (iii) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (iv) whether Lead Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses should be approved. If you are a member of the Class, your rights will be affected by the pending Action and the Settiement, and you may be entitled to a payment from the Settlement. If you have not yet received the Notice and Proof of Claim and Release Form ("Claim Form"), you may obtain copies of these documents by contacting the Claims Administrator at Pluralsight Securities Litigation, c/o Strategic Claims Services, 600 N. Jackson Street, Suite 205, Media, PA 19063; calling toll-free (866) 274-4004; or emailing info@strategicclaims.net. Copies of the Notice and Claim Form can also be downloaded from the Settlement website, www.pluralsightsecuritieslitigation.com. If you are a member of the Class, in order to be eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement, you must submit a Claim Form to the Claims Administrator postmarked (or submitted online) no later than December 21, 2024. If you are a Class Member and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action. If you are a member of the Class and wish to exclude yourself from the Class, you must submit a request for exclusion such that it is received no later than January 14, 2025, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you properly exclude yourself from the Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action and you will not be eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement. Excluding yourself is the only option that may allow you to be part of any other current or future lawsuit against Defendants or any of the other Released. Defendants' Parties concerning the claims being resolved by the Settlement. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and litigation expenses, must be filed with the Court and delivered to Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they are received no later than January 14, 2025, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, Defendants, or thelr counsel regarding this notice. All questions about this notice, the proposed Settiement, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to the Claims Administrator or Lead Counsel. Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to: Pluralsight Securities Litigation c/o Strategic Claims Services 600 N. Jackson Street, Suite 205, Media, PA 19063 Toll-free: (866) 274-4004, info@strategicclaims.net www.pluralsightsecuritieslitigation.com Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form, should be made to Lead Counsel: Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC Attn: Carol V. Gilden 190 S. LaSalle St., Suite 1705, Chicago, IL 60603 . Tel.: (312) 357-0370, Email: cgiiden@cohenmilstein.com By Order of the Court PRODIGAL COMPANY: Fiorito Files FLSA Suit in D. Minnesota --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Prodigal Company. The case is styled as Michael Fiorito, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Prodigal Company, Case No. 0:24-cv-03757-PJS-TNL (D. Minn., Sept. 27, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Prodigal Company -- https://prodigalcompany.com/ -- has been growing businesses through tailored messaging that resonates with the audience and builds brand awareness.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Kirigin Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Alexandro (Alex) Kirigin & Lauren R. Kirigin, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. PROGRESSIVE DIRECT INSURANCE COMPANY, PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, AND PROGRESSIVE MAX INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 24-2-19197-6 SEA was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of King, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on Sept. 27, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-01545. The crux of Plaintiffs' Complaint is that that Progressive wrongfully understated the total loss value of electric vehicles due to Progressive using advertised sale prices of comparable vehicles and those advertised prices included the Used Clean Vehicle Tax Credit, for which Plaintiffs allegedly did not qualify. The Plaintiffs allege that the resultant reduction in the sale price of comparable vehicles is an improper deduction under Washington law.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Beth E. Terrell, Esq. Blythe H. Chandler, Esq. 936 North 34th Street, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98103 Phone: (206) 816-6603 Facsimile: (206) 319-5450 Email: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com bchandler@terrellmarshall.com The Defendants are represented by: Logan F. Peppin, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 999 Third Avenue, Suite 3900 Seattle, WA 98104-4076 Phone: 206.332.1380 Fax: 206.624.7317 Email: lpeppin@bakerlaw.com PROPARK LLC: Miller Sues Over Unauthorized Personal Info Access --------------------------------------------------------------- WALTER MILLER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PROPARK, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-01526 (D. Conn., Sept. 24, 2024) arises out of the data breach wherein an unauthorized actor accessed Propark's computer systems and that Propark discovered on January 15, 2024. The Plaintiff brings this complaint against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information that it collected and maintained as part of its employment relationship with Plaintiff and Class Members, who are 20,425 current and former employees of Defendant. The data breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect individuals' PII, says the complaint. The Plaintiff further believes his PII, and that of proposed Class Members, was subsequently sold on the dark web following the data breach, as that is the modus operandi of cybercriminals that commit cyber-attacks of this type. Moreover, following the Data Breach, the Plaintiff experienced fraudulent misuse of their compromised information that would support this well-founded belief, the suit alleges. Propark, LLC is a mobility services and parking management company that operates throughout the United States at more than 1,000 locations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Oren Faircloth, Esq. Tyler J. Bean, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (646) 357-1732 E-mail: ofaircloth@sirillp.com tbean@sirillp.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. Kenneth Grunfeld, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Law Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 332-4200 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com grunfeld@kolawyers.com PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Seeks to Seal Specific Exhibits ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as VALERIE TORRES and RHONDA HYMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL, INC., ACTIVEPROSPECT, INC., and ASSURANCE IQ, LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-07465-CRB (N.D. Cal.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order sealing specific exhibits to the Declaration of Kelly M. Klaus filed in support of the Defendants' concurrently filed Opposition to Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The The Defendants seek to seal certain documents and portions of deposition transcripts that contain either non-public, competitively sensitive information or personal information that the named Plaintiffs voluntarily provided in an insurance Webform to Prudential and/or Assurance, and that these Defendants maintain in confidence. This Administrative Motion is based on this Notice of Motion and Motion, the attached brief, and the accompanying Declaration of Kelly M. Klaus in support of this Administrative Motion In sum, Defendants believe there are compelling reasons to maintain the documents and deposition testimony under seal. Prudential offers a variety of products and services, including life insurance, mutual funds, annuities, pension, and retirement related services. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Sept. 25, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XwjOZM at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Kelly M. Klaus, Esq. Jonathan H. Blavin, Esq. Virginia Grace Davis, Esq. Laura D. Smolowe, Esq. Sidney Eisner, Esq. MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 560 Mission Street, Twenty-Seventh Floor San Francisco, CA 94105-2907 Telephone: (415) 512-4000 Facsimile: (415) 512-4077 E-mail: kelly.klaus@mto.com jonathan.blavin@mto.com grace.davisfisher@mto.com laura.smolowe@mto.com sidney.eisner@mto.com QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Court Dismisses ERISA-Related Suit ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit RE QUEST DIAGNOSTICS ERISA LITIGATION, Case No. 2:20-cv-07936-JXN-LDW (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Julien Xavier Neals entered an order: -- granting the Defendants' motion for summary judgment; -- dismissing with prejudice the Plaintiffs' consolidated complaint; -- denying as moot Plaintiffs' motion for class certification; -- denying as moot Defendants' motion to exclude the opinions and testimony of Martin Dirks; and -- denying as moot the Plaintiffs' motion to exclude the opinions and testimony of Jonathan Reuter. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 25, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Po6Qss at no extra charge.[CC] RACK ROOM: Faces Smith Suit Over Data Privacy Violations -------------------------------------------------------- DEMETRIUS SMITH; ROBIN SAVAGE; and MAIA WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. RACK ROOM SHOES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-06709 (N.D. Cal., Sept. 24, 2024) alleges violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant aids, employs, agrees with, and conspires with third parties -- including Meta Platforms, Inc. ("Facebook" or "Meta") and Attentive Mobile, Inc. ("Attentive") -- to eavesdrop on communications sent and received by Plaintiffs and Class members, including communications that contain their personally identifiable information. By assisting third parties with intercepting communications that it promised to keep confidential, Defendant violates California law, says the suit. Rack Room Shoes Inc. markets shoes for men, women, and kids. The Company retails athletic, casual, dress, boots, slippers, sandals, and handbags. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael G. Freedman, Esq. THE FREEDMAN FIRM PC 1801 Century Park East, Ste. 450 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 285-2210 Email: michael@thefreedmanfirm.com - and - Brian Levin, Esq. LEVIN LAW, P.A. 2665 S. Bayshore Dr., Ph. 2B Miami, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 402-9050 Email: brian@levinlawpa.com - and - Michael A. Pineiro, Esq. Brandon S. Floch, Esq. Christopher R. Reilly, Esq. MARCUS NEIMAN RASHBAUM & PINEIRO LLP 2 South Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2530 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 400-4260 Email: mpineiro@mnrlawfirm.com bfloch@mnrlawfirm.com creilly@mnrlawfirm.com RAFAEL HOLDINGS:M&A Probes Proposed Merger With Cyclo Therapeutics ------------------------------------------------------------------ Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm") has recovered money for shareholders and is recognized as a Top 50 Firm in the 2018-2022 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report. We are headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City and are investigating: -- Rafael Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: RFL), relating to its proposed merger with Cyclo Therapeutics, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, Cyclo common stock will automatically be converted into the right to receive shares of Rafael common stock. Click link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/rafael-holdings-inc-2/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Southport Acquisition Corporation (OTC: PORT), relating to its proposed merger with Angel Studios, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, Angel Studios shares will automatically be converted into the right to receive Southport shares. Click link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/southport-acquisition-corporation/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Manitex International, Inc. (Nasdaq: MNTX), relating to its proposed merger with Tadano Ltd. Under the terms of the agreement, Manitex International shares will automatically be converted into the right to receive $5.80 in cash per share. Click link for more https://monteverdelaw.com/case/manitex-international-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders. . . and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common stock in 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] ROBLOX CORP: Parties Seeks June 30, 2025 Class Cert Bid Filing -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RACHELLE COLVIN, individually and as next friend of minor Plaintiff, G.D., DANIELLE SASS, individually and as next friend of minor plaintiff, L.C., DAVID L. GENTRY, individually and as next friend of minor plaintiff, L.G., OSMANY RODRIGUEZ, individually, and as next friend of minor plaintiff, O.R., JOSHUA R. MUNSON, individually and as next friend of minor plaintiffs D.C., J.M., T.T., and R.T, and LAVINA GANN, individually and as next friend of minor plaintiff, S.J., and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ROBLOX CORPORATION, SATOZUKI LIMITED B.V., STUDS ENTERTAINMENT LTD., and RBLXWILD ENTERTAINMENT LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-04146-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter a case scheduling order as follows: Pretrial Event Current Date Proposed Date Plaintiffs to file amended N/A Within 3 days complaint to conform to Court's after the Court motion to dismiss order, and approves joint that removes the Colvin, Munson, stipulation to and Rodriguez Parent and Minor amend case Plaintiffs and add in two new schedule California named plaintiffs Disclosure of Class Oct. 31, 2024 Jan. 31, 2025 Certification Experts & Expert Reports Close of Class Certification March 23, 2025 June 23, 2025 Expert Discovery Motion for Class Certification March 31, 2025 June 30, 2025 Opposition to Motion for Class April 30, 2025 July 30, 2025 Certification Reply to Class Certification May 21, 2025 Aug. 21, 2025 Motion for Class Certification June 5, 2025 Sept. 4, 2025 Hearing Case Management Statement June 20, 2025 Sept. 22, 2025 On Sept. 19, 2024, the Court granted in part and denied in part Roblox's motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. Roblox is an American video game developer. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Sept. 25, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2w4Oi4 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James Bilsborrow, Esq. Aaron Freedman, Esq. WEITZ & LUXENBERG, PC 700 Broadway New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 558-5500 E-mail: jbilsborrow@weitzlux.com afreedman@weitzlux.com The Defendants are represented by: Tiana Demas, Esq. Kevin T. Carlson, Esq. COOLEY LLP 110 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 4200 Chicago, IL 60606-1511 Telephone: (312) 881-6500 Facsimile: (312) 881-6598 E-mail: tdemas@cooley.com ktcarlson@cooley.com SAVAGE ENTERPRISES: Nguyen Suit Removed to E.D. Ark. ---------------------------------------------------- The case styled as DIANE NGUYEN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. CHRISTOPHER G. WHEELER; SAVAGE ENTERPRISES; PUR ISO LABS, LLC; KUNAL MANMEET, LLC, d/b/a VAPOR PLANET; MARIN ANALYTICS LLC, and JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 60CV-23-1690, was removed from the Circuit Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas on Sept. 24, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:24-cv-00815-LPR to the proceeding. The Plaintiff files this suit to vindicate the federal laws prohibiting the cultivation and sale of D9 cannabis and their rights under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and Drug dealer liability Act, and the Magnuson-Moss Act. The Plaintiff seeks redress under RICO, which requires those who engage in racketeering activity -- including the commercial production of illegal D9 products -- to pay those they injure treble damages, costs, and attorneys' fees. She also seeks an injunction under Arkansas State law directing the cannabis operations defrauding Plaintiff and the Class to stop violating the federal drug laws. Savage Enterprises operates a facility that produces the D8 vape pens.[BN] Defendant Savage Enterprises is represented by: J. Andrew Vines, Esq. DOBSON & VINES, PLLC P.O. Box 251763 Little Rock, AR 72225 Telephone: (501) 490-9906 Facsimile: (501) 712-4538 E-mail: avines@dobsonvines.com SEGUNDO INC: Lopez Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Dalia Maritza Lopez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SEGUNDO INC. d/b/a STOP 1 DELI GROCERY and SEGUNDO PERALTA and ANNY RAMONA GOMEZ PERALTA, as individuals, Case No. 2:24-cv-06850 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 27, 2024), is brought to recover damages for the Defendants' egregious violations of state and federal wage and hour laws, the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Laws arising out of the Defendants failure to pay overtime wages. Although Plaintiff worked approximately 53 hours or more hours per week from September 2018 until December 2018; approximately 54 hours or more hours per week from January 2019 until December 2020; approximately 48 hours or more hours per week from January 2021 until December 2022; and approximately 56 hours or more hours per week from January 2023 until September 2023, Defendants did not pay Plaintiff time and a half for hours worked over 40, a blatant violation of the overtime provisions contained in the FLSA and NYLL. The Defendants willfully failed to post notices of the minimum wage and overtime wage requirements in a conspicuous place at the location of their employment as required by the FLSA and NYLL, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a cook, cleaner, and host. SEGUNDO INC. d/b/a STOP 1 DELI GROCERY, is a New York domestic business corporation organized under the laws of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Phone: 718-263-9591 SIBANYE STILLWATER: Employees Sue Over Data Breach -------------------------------------------------- MTN News reports that a group of current and former Sibanye Stillwater Mining employees are seeking a class-action lawsuit against the company over a data breach this summer that affected more than 7,000 employees. Billings attorney John Heenan, who is representing the workers, claimed in the lawsuit that the company failed to protect employees' personally identifiable information, which included names, contact information, passport numbers, Social Security numbers, tax ID numbers, birth certificates, financial information and medical information. According to the complaint, which was filed Sept. 20 in Yellowstone County District Court, the South Africa-based Sibanye Stillwater was struck by the ransomware attack in mid-June 2024, but the breach wasn't discovered until July 8. The company confirmed the data breach on Aug. 19, according to a letter filed with regulators. The exposure of employees' personal data leaves them vulnerable to identity theft or fraud, particularly if the data is sold illegally on the dark web, Heenan argued in the suit. The complaint names three plaintiffs: former employee Shawn Crane of Gallatin County, employee Daniel Vogl of Stillwater County and employee Skylar Marchand of Yellowstone County. If a judge agrees to a class-action suit, the company could be responsible for damages suffered by the more than 7,000 workers affected by the breach. The lawsuit comes at a difficult time for Sibanye Stillwater, which announced last month it's planning to lay off 700 Montana workers this fall. The company blamed the plummeting price of palladium, which is Stillwater's primary output, as the reasons for the cutback. Sibanye Stillwater operates two mines in Montana at Nye and near Big Timber. The company also operates a smelter in Columbus. [GN] SIEGFRIED'S BASEMENT: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Pontillo Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- JASON PONTILLO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SIEGFRIED'S BASEMENT, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-09448 (D.N.J., Sept. 25, 2024) is an action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive information of its customers. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, on or around July 17, 2024, SBI became aware that it had lost control over its computer network and the highly sensitive personal information stored on the computer network in a data breach by cybercriminals. On information and belief, the Data Breach has impacted current and former employees, employee beneficiaries, customers, and vendors of the Defendant. Cybercriminals were able to breach Defendant's systems because Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity, failed to adequately monitor its agents, contractors, vendors, and suppliers in handling and securing the personally identifiable information of Plaintiff, and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class's PII—rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals. The Plaintiff and the Class are victims of the Defendant's negligence and inadequate cyber security measures. Specifically, the Plaintiff and members of the proposed Class trusted Defendant with their PII. But Defendant betrayed that trust and failed to properly use up-to-date security practices to prevent the Data Breach, says the suit. Siegfried's Basement, LLC is a of custom fabrication and logistics solutions for the commercial, retail, hospitality, and luxury brand industries. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick Howard, Esq. SALTZ MONGELUZZI & BENDESKY, P.C. 8000 Sagemore Drive, Suite 8303 Marlton, NJ 08053 Telephone: (215) 575-3895 Email: phoward@smbb.com - and - Raina Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 Email: raina@straussborrelli.com SLEEP NUMBER: Evans Sues Over Deceptive Sale Practices ------------------------------------------------------ JUNE EVANS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SLEEP NUMBER CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-01136-SAB (E.D. Cal., Sept. 24, 2024) alleges violation of the California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California's False Advertising Law and California's Unfair Competition Law. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, in an effort to give off the appearance of a bargain, the Defendant intentionally misleads consumers as to the quality and value of its mattresses available in its brick-and-mortar and online stores (the "Products" or the "Mattresses") through its deceptive sales tactics. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's false and misleading sales practices, Plaintiff and members of the Class, were induced into purchasing the Products under the false premise that they were of a higher grade, quality, or value than they actually were, says the suit. Sleep Number Corporation designs, manufactures, and markets a line of air bed mattresses. The Company provides a variety of beds, bedding, pillows, mattress pads and layers, sheets, duvets, bed skirts, bases, furniture, bed accessories, and kids blankets. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Luke Sironski-White, Esq. Joshua R. Wilner, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 Email: ltfisher@bursor.com lsironski@bursor.com jwilner@bursor.com - and - Greg Sinderbrand, Esq. SINDERBRAND LAW GROUP, P.C. 2829 Townsgate Road, Suite 100 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Telephone: (818) 370-3912 Email: greg@sinderbrandlaw.com SMASHBURGER MASTER: Wilkins Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Andrew Wilkins, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Smashburger Master, LLC, Case No. 24-03251-TT was removed from the Chester County Court of Common Pleas, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Sept. 27, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-05184 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Civil Rights Act. Smashburger IP Holder LLC -- https://smashburger.com/ -- doing business as Smashburger and stylized as SmasHBURGER, is an American fast-casual hamburger restaurant chain founded in Denver, Colorado.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Zemel, Esq. ZEMEL LAW LLC 660 Broadway Paterson, NJ 07514 Phone: (862) 227-3106 Fax: (973) 525-2552 Email: dz@zemellawllc.com The Defendant is represented by: Erica A. Shikunov, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 1601 Cherry Street, Suite 1350 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Phone: (267) 319-7802 Email: Erica.Shikunov@JacksonLewis.com SPACE COAST: Bid to Extend Time to File Class Cert Tossed as Moot ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Leyva v. Space Coast Credit Union, Case No. 2:24-cv-14168 (S.D. Fla., Filed May 29, 2024), the Hon. Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks entered an order denying as moot motion for extension of time. -- The motion for class certification was timely filed therefore the request for an extension is moot. The nature of suit states Civil Rights. Space Coast serves as credit union in Florida.[CC] STEBAR FOOD: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Orozco Alleges ------------------------------------------------------ JORGE OROZCO; ANTONIO BAUTISTA; and MARIO VILLANUEVA JUAREZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. STEBAR FOOD CORP. (D/B/A WALNUT BUS STOP); and GERASIMOS THOMATOS (AKA MIKE), Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-07196 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 23, 2024) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as waiters. Stebar Food Corp. owns and operates an American restaurant, located at Bronx, NY 10454, under the name "Walnut Bus Stop". [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Catalina Sojo, Esq. CSM LEGAL, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 STRIPE INC: Hossain Files Motion to Compel Production of Documents ------------------------------------------------------------------ Muzakkir Hossain and Shakhawat Hassan, the plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit against Stripe, Inc. (Case No. 3:24-mc-80240), asked the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to grant their motion to compel production of documents from Stripe, Inc. pursuant to a subpoena duces tecum. The motion is pending before Judge Katherine Polk Failla. Stripe, Inc. is an Irish-American multinational financial services and software as a service company dual-headquartered in South San Francisco, California, United States and Dublin, Ireland. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Boulevard, 9th Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 Email: ltfisher@bursor.com SUSHI UKAI: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Uravac Alleges ----------------------------------------------------- JOSE GUEVARA-URAVAC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUSHI UKAI, INC.; and HONG WEN DONG a/k/a HONG WU DONG, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-08728 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 20, 2024) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Uravac was employed by the Defendant as a kitchen helper. Sushi Ukai, Inc. owns and operates restaurants in La Grange, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon A. Thomas, Esq. Law Offices of Brandan A Thomas 1 Glenlake Parkway, N.E., Suite 650 Atlanta, GA, 30328 Telephone: (678) 862-9344 Email: brandon@overtimelaimslawyer.com SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Carlson Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID CARLSON, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. SWIFT TRANSPORTATION CO. OF ARIZONA, LLC; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 3:23-cv-05722-RJB (W.D. Wash.), the Plaintiff will move the Court for an order: -- certifying this case as a class action under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23, for the following class: "All current or former Washington residents who worked for the Defendant as drivers paid on a per mile basis at any time beginning three (3) years prior to the filing of the Complaint through the date notice is mailed to the Class"; -- appointing Plaintiff's counsel, Joshua H. Haffner and Trevor Weinberg of Haffner Law PC, to serve as counsel to the class, and -- authorizing notice to the class of the pending action and its members' right to opt-out under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23(d)(2). The Defendant's records show Plaintiff Carlson regularly worked overtime hours for which he was not paid. Swift is a nationwide trucking company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 25, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=K8E4Rc at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua H. Haffner, Esq. Trevor Weinberg, Esq. HAFFNER LAW PC 15260 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1520 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (213) 514-5681 Facsimile: (213) 514-5682 E-mail: jhh@haffnerlawyers.com tw@haffnerlawyers.com TAPESTRY INC: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Randolph Says ------------------------------------------------------------- ERIKA RANDOLPH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TAPESTRY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-08893 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 25, 2024) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://katespadeoutlet.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. Tapestry, Inc. designs and markets clothes and accessories. The Company offers handbags, leather goods, footwear, fragrance, jewelry, outer wear, ready-to-wear, scarves, sunwear, travel accessories, and watches. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul Camarena, Esq. 1016 W. Jackson, No. 32 Chicago, IL 60607 Telephone: (312) 493-7494 Email: northandsedgwicklaw@gmail.com TARGET CORP: Bid to Dismiss Boyd Class Action Tossed ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Pearlie Boyd, Alberto Camacho, Dieisha Hodges, Monic Serrano, Sienna Guerrero-Brown, Stephanie Puckett, Genna Unley, Connie Wilson, Cami McEvers, Laurie Cahill, Harmony Deflorio, Joslyn Sanders, Marsha Solmssen, and Jessica Brodiski individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Target Corp., Case No. 0:23-cv-02668-KMM-DJF (D. Minn.), the Hon. Judge Katherine Menendez entered an order that: 1. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is denied; and 2. Defendant's Motion to Strike is denied. The Court concludes that the question of whether these Plaintiffs will ultimately be entitled to injunctive relief is premature. In general, the Court expects Plaintiffs to appropriately narrow their theories of liability and requests for relief in this case based on the evidence that is developed. And should discovery provide facts further supporting the argument that Plaintiffs cannot show a likelihood of future harm, nothing prevents Target from seeking summary judgment on the MDPTA claim at the appropriate time. This is a consumer-fraud action brought against Defendant by a group of 14 named plaintiffs on behalf of a putative nationwide class. The Plaintiffs allege that Target has deliberately misled consumers by labeling certain products in its stores as being "Target Clean," when such products are in fact "unclean." Target is a national retailer headquartered in Minnesota. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 25, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XEf1OG at no extra charge.[CC] TD BANK: Burns Seeks Final OK of Class Action Settlement --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KYLE BURNS, RUBY HAYES, JASMINE NORVILLE, and LISA RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. TD BANK, N.A., Case No. 1:21-cv-18194-KMW-AMD (D.N.J.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting motion for final approval of class action settlement. The Court previously granted preliminary approval of the Settlement reached by the parties and also approved the proposed notice program. Notice has been disseminated to the potential members of the Settlement Class as directed by the Court. By this motion, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court conduct a final review of the Settlement, and approve the Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate. Pursuant to the Settlement, TD has agreed to provide $32,225,000.00 as compensation to the APSN Class. This includes a $21,975,000.00 Settlement Payment Amount1 in cash, which includes all monetary disbursements incurred in connection with the Settlement Agreement, including but not limited to (a) all monetary payments to the Settlement Class; (b) all Administrative Costs; (c) all attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses awarded by the Court to Class Counsel; and (d) all Service Awards awarded by the Court to the Class Representatives. The Plaintiffs seek approval of the following nationwide class, for settlement purposes only: "All holders of a TD Bank personal checking account who, from June 27, 2019 to and including Sept. 30, 2022, incurred one or more overdraft fees for a debit card transaction that was authorized at a time when the account's available balance was positive, but later paid by the Bank when the account's available balance was insufficient to cover the transaction ("APSN Class")." Excluded from the Settlement Class are TD; all Settlement Class members who exclude themselves from the Settlement, and all judges assigned to this litigation. TD Bank is an American national bank and the United States subsidiary of the multinational TD Bank Group. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept. 25, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XdOMMC at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Richard M. Golomb, Esq. GOLOMB LEGAL P.C. One Logan Square 130 N. 18th Street, 16th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 985-9177 E-mail: rgolomb@golomblegal.com - and - E. Adam Webb, Esq. WEBB, KLASE & LEMOND, LLC 1900 The Exchange, S.E., Suite 480 Atlanta, GA 30339 Telephone: (770) 444-9325 E-mail: Adam@WebbLLC.com - and - Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq. Sophia Goren Gold, Esq. KALIELGOLD PLLC 1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 350-4783 E-mail: jkaliel@kalielgold.com sgold@kalielgold.com - and - Joseph I. Marchese, Esq. Julian C. Diamond, Esq. Matthew A. Girardi, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 E-mail: jmarchese@bursor.com jdiamond@bursor.com mgirardi@bursor.com TD BANK: Fishstore Seeks Final Approval of Class Action Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMAZING FISHSTORE LLC d/b/a KRMS FARMS and WILDER MEDIA CT, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. TD BANK, N.A., Case No. 1:22-cv-00958-KMW-AMD (D.N.J.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting motion for final approval of class action settlement. Because the case has settled, no manageability issues will arise. Sullivan, 667 F.3d at 306. Certification of the Settlement Classes will allow for efficient resolution of claims that would likely not be brought owing to prohibitive legal expenses, while at the same time preserving scarce judicial resources. Without the class action vehicle, the class would have no reasonable remedy, and Defendant would be permitted to retain the alleged improper fees. Accordingly, a class action is the best available method for the efficient adjudication of this litigation. The Court previously granted preliminary approval of the Settlement reached by the parties and also approved the proposed notice program. See ECF No. 94. Notice has been disseminated to the potential members of the Settlement Classes as directed by the Court. By this motion, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court conduct a final review of the Settlement, and approve the Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate. Pursuant to the Settlement, TD has agreed to provide $15,500,000.00 as compensation to the Settlement Classes. This includes a $10,500,000.00 Settlement Payment Amount1 in cash, which includes all monetary disbursements incurred in connection with the Settlement Agreement, including but not limited to: (a) all monetary payments to the Settlement Classes; (b) all Administrative Costs; (c) all attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses awarded by the Court to Class Counsel; and (d) all Service Awards awarded by the Court to the Class Representatives. The Plaintiffs seek approval of the following nationwide classes, for settlement purposes only: "All holders of a TD Bank business checking account, who from Feb. 23, 2016 to and including September 30, 2022, incurred one or more overdraft fees for a debit card transaction that was authorized at a time when the account's available balance was positive, but later paid by the Bank when the account's available balance was insufficient to cover the transaction ("APSN Fee Class");" and "All holders of a TD Bank business checking account, who from Feb. 23, 2016 to and including Sept. 30, 2022, incurred more than one overdraft fee or NSF fee on a debit transaction that was returned unpaid by the Bank due to insufficient funds and subsequently re-submitted by a merchant or other third party for payment and returned unpaid or paid into overdraft ("Retry Fee Class")." Excluded from the Settlement Classes are TD; all Settlement Class members who exclude themselves from the Settlement, and all judges assigned to this litigation. TD Bank is an American national bank and the United States subsidiary of the multinational TD Bank Group. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept. 25, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fAIi5G at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Richard M. Golomb, Esq. GOLOMB LEGAL P.C. One Logan Square 130 N. 18th Street, 16th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 985-9177 E-mail: rgolomb@golomblegal.com - and - E. Adam Webb, Esq. WEBB, KLASE & LEMOND, LLC 1900 The Exchange, S.E., Suite 480 Atlanta, GA 30339 Telephone: (770) 444-9325 E-mail: Adam@WebbLLC.com - and - Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq. Sophia Goren Gold, Esq. KALIELGOLD PLLC 1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 350-4783 E-mail: jkaliel@kalielgold.com sgold@kalielgold.com - and - Joseph I. Marchese, Esq. Julian C. Diamond, Esq. Matthew A. Girardi, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 E-mail: jmarchese@bursor.com jdiamond@bursor.com mgirardi@bursor.com THERAPYMATCH INC: Faces Suit Over Data Privacy Violations --------------------------------------------------------- A.G., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THERAPYMATCH, INC. d/b/a HEADWAY, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-08776 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 23, 2024) alleges violation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. According to the complaint, unbeknownst to the Plaintiff and members of the putative class, the Defendant aided, employed, agreed, and conspired with LinkedIn to intercept these sensitive and confidential communications, including information concerning the medical conditions for which they were seeking therapy. Defendant failed to receive consent for these interceptions. By failing to receive the requisite consent, Defendant breached its duty of confidentiality and aided LinkedIn in unlawfully intercepting the Plaintiff's personally identifiable information and protected health information. Such acts are an egregious violation of Plaintiff's right to privacy, says the suit. Therapymatch, Inc., doing business as Headway, develops healthcare software. The Company offers platform that helps therapists accept insurance and helps patients find those therapists. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alec M. Leslie, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 Email: aleslie@bursor.com - and - Stephen A. Beck, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 2100 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 330-5512 Facsimile: (305) 676-9006 Email: swestcot@bursor.com sbeck@bursor.com UNITED STATES: Must File Class Cert Opposition by Nov. 6 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DOE et al., v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-09105-MEF-LDW (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Michael Farbiarz entered an order extending the Defendants deadline to file their opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and appointment of class counsel until Nov. 6, 2024. United States Department of Homeland Security is the U.S. federal executive department responsible for public security, roughly comparable to the interior or home ministries of other countries. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 25, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aYfzGS at no extra charge.[CC] WELLLIFE NETWORK: Wilson Balks at Unprotected Personal Info ----------------------------------------------------------- DENISE WILSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WELLLIFE NETWORK INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-06687 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 23, 2024) is an action arising from Defendant's failure to secure the personal identifiable information and protected health information of Plaintiff and the members of the proposed Class. On September 7, 2023, WellLife discovered that an unauthorized party had obtained Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information from WellLife's computer systems. Plaintiff and Class Members would not have provided their valuable PII and sensitive PHI WellLife had they known that WellLife would make their private information Internet-accessible, not encrypt personal and sensitive data elements, and not delete the Private Information it no longer had reason to maintain. Through this lawsuit, the Plaintiff seeks to hold WellLife responsible for the injuries it inflicted on Plaintiff and Class Members due to its impermissibly inadequate data security measures, and to seek injunctive relief to ensure the implementation of security measures to protect the Private Information that remains in WellLife's possession. WellLife provides a variety of personalized behavioral healthcare services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven Sukert, Esq. 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: sukert@kolawyers.com ostrow@kolawyers.com WILLIAMS-SONOMA INC: Shares Data Without Consent, Heiting Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- ANNE HEITING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WILLIAMS-SONOMA, INC.; DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-08098 (C.D. Cal., Sept. 20, 2024) alleges that the Defendants did not obtain Class Members' express or implied consent to be subjected to data sharing with TikTok for the purposes of fingerprinting and de-anonymization. According to the complaint, the Defendants uses a trap and trace process on its Website by deploying the TikTok Software on its Website, because the software is designed to capture the phone number, email, routing, addressing and other signaling information of website visitors. As such, the TikTok Software is designed precisely to identify the source of the incoming electronic and wire communications to the Website. The Defendant did not obtain consent from Plaintiff or any of the class members before using trap and trace technology to identify users of its Website, the suit asserts. Williams-Sonoma, Inc. is a retailer offering kitchenware and furniture. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Tauler, Esq. Matthew J. Smith, Esq. TAULER SMITH LLP 626 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 550 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Tel: (213) 927-9270 Email: robert@taulersmith.com matthew@taulersmith.com XEROX HOLDINGS: $2.2MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Oct. 29 -------------------------------------------------------------- SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF NEW YORK MIAMI FIREFIGHTERS' RELIEF & PENSION FUND and STEVEN J. REYNOLDS, derivatively on behalf of XEROX. : HOLDINGS CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. CARL. ICAHN, HIGH RIVER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, ICAHN CAPITAL LP, KEITH COZZA, GIOVANNI VISENTIN, JONATHAN CHRISTODORO, JOSEPH ESCHEVARRIA, NICHOLAS GRAZIANO, CHERYL GORDON KRONGARD, and ANDREW SCOTT LETIER, Defendants, and XEROX HOLDINGS CORPORATION, Nominal Defendant. Index No. 657447/2019 Part61 Justice Nancy M. Bannon SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF DERIVATIVE ACTION TO: ALL RECORD SHAREHOLDERS AND BENEFICIAL OWNERS OF THE COMMON STOCK OF Xerox Holdings Corporation ("XEROX" OR THE "COMPANY") AS OF MAY 6, 2024 ("XEROX SHAREHOLDERS") PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AS IT CONTAINS IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR RIGHTS. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to the July 24, 2024 Order Scheduling Hearing for Final Approval of Settlement and Providing for Notice entered in the above-captioned shareholder derivative action, that a Stipulation of Settlement dated May 6, 2024 (the "Stipulation" or "Settlement") has been entered to resolve certain shareholder derivative claims pending on behalf of nominal defendant Xerox. In the above-captioned actions (the "Actions"), plaintiffs Miami Firefighters' Relief & Pension Fund and Steven J. Reynolds (together, "Plaintiffs") allege claims, purportedly, on behalf of Xerox, against defendants Carl C. Icahn, High River Limited Partnership, and Icahn Capital LP (collectively, the "Icahn Defendants") for breaching fiduciary duties to Xerox, for breaching a confidentiality agreement with Xerox, and for unjust enrichment. More specifically, Plaintiffs allege that the Icahn Defendants purchased HP Inc. ("HP") common stock ("HP stock") based on alleged material, nonpublic information indicating that Xerox planned to attempt to acquire HP. In connection with and conditioned upon the settlement of the Action becoming "Final" (as defined in the Stipulation), Xerox has agreed to implement and maintain certain Corporate Governance Improvements (as defined in the Stipulation), which are detailed in the Stipulation. In addition to the Corporate Governance improvements, the Stipulation provides that the Icahn Defendants will pay or cause to be paid $2.2 million to Xerox. On October 29, 2024, at 11:30 a.m., the Court will hold a hearing (the "Final Approval Hearing") in the Action. The purpose of the Final Approval Hearing is to determine: (i) whether the terms of the Settlement are fair, reasonable, and adequate and should be approved; (ii) whether a final judgment should be entered; (iii) the amount of fees and expenses that Plaintiffs' counsel will receive, and (iv) such other matters as may be necessary or proper under the circumstances. If the Settlement receives Final Approval, and all of its conditions are met, the Action will be dismissed with prejudice and the Released Claims (as defined in the Stipulation) will be fully, finally, and forever released. PLEASE READ THIS SUMMARY NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. IF YOU ARE A XEROX SHAREHOLDER YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THE ACTION. This is a Summary notice only. For additional information about the claims asserted in the Action and the terms of the proposed Settlement, please refer to the Stipulation and the full-length Notice ("Notice"), both of which are available at Xerox's Investor Relations website: http://investors.xerox.com/settlement-information. If you have any questions about matters in this Summary Notice you may contact in writing or by telephone Plaintiffs' counsel as follows: | Jeffrey S. Abraham Michael J. Klein ABRAHAM, FRUCHTER & TWERSKY,LLP 450 Seventh Ave, 38th Floor, New York, New York 10123 If you are a Xerox shareholder, and if the Court approves the Settlement, you will be bound by the Order and Final Judgment of the Court granting Final Approval to the Settlement, and shall be deemed to have waived the right to object (including the right to appeal) and forever shall be barred, in this proceeding or in any other proceeding, from raising such objection. Any objections to the Settlement must be filed and served, in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Notice, such that they are received no later than October 8, 2024. As stated above, the Notice may be found at Xerox's Investor Relations website: http://investors,.xerox.com/settlement-information. PLEASE DO NOT CALL, WRITE, OR OTHERWISE DIRECT QUESTIONS TO EITHER THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE. DATED: July 24, 2024 By Order of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County YODLEE INC: Bid to Strike Olsen's Testimony Denied in Clark Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DARIUS CLARK, et al., v. YODLEE, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-05991-SK (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sallie Kim entered an order: -- denying Plaintiffs' motion for sanctions, and -- denying Yodlee's motion to strike Olsen's testimony and report as moot. Because there is no evidence that Yodlee obtained Rollier, Szeto, or Cottrell's transactional data, they would not be typical representatives for a class seeking to enjoin Yodlee on this data either. The Court, thus, denies Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs filed this purported class action against Yodlee, Inc. to contest how Yodlee accesses and treats the personal financial data belonging to Plaintiffs and purported class members. Yodlee is a web application software company that provides consumer-permissioned data aggregation, consolidating information from multiple accounts by using open banking APIs. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 25, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UAuvaA at no extra charge.[CC] YOUNG CONSULTING: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Turner Says ------------------------------------------------------------ JAMIE TURNER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. YOUNG CONSULTING, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-04267-TWT (N.D. Ga., Sept. 23, 2024) is a class action against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive information of its clients' customers, including Plaintiff. The Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal information -- which they entrusted to Defendant on the mutual understanding that Defendant would protect it against disclosure -- was targeted, compromised and unlawfully accessed due to the data breach. The personally identifiable information compromised in the data breach included Plaintiff's and Class Members' full names, dates of birth, insurance claims information, and Social Security numbers. According to the complaint, the data breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect consumers' PII from a foreseeable and preventable cyber-attack. The Plaintiff's and Class Members' identities are now at risk because of Defendant's negligent conduct because the PII that Defendant collected and maintained has been accessed and acquired by data thieves. Through this complaint, the Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms on behalf of herself and all similarly situated individuals whose PII was accessed during the data breach. Young Consulting, LLC is a company that offers software solutions for the marketing, underwriting and administering of medical stop loss insurance for carriers, brokers and third party administrators.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shireen Hormozdi, Esq. HORMOZDI LAW FIRM, LLC 1770 Indian Trail Lilburn Road, Suite 350 Norcross, GA 30093 Telephone: (678) 395-7795 Facsimile: (866) 929-2434 E-mail: shireen@norcrosslawfirm.com www.norcrosslawfirm.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com ZANDER GROUP: Class Cert Bid Filing in Jones Amended to Oct. 28 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM H. "CHIP" JONES, II, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. ZANDER GROUP HOLDINGS, INC., et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00687 (M.D. Tenn.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order amending the deadline for the Plaintiff to file a motion for class certification currently set in this matter from Sept. 27, 2024, to Oct. 28, 2024. The Parties request that the class certification response and reply periods remain as set forth in the Initial Case Management Order, at 28 days and 14 days, respectively (i.e., November 18, 2024, and December 2, 2024). Such an amendment would have no bearing on the other remaining deadlines currently set in the Initial Case Management Order, which are as follows: -- Deadline for Plaintiff to identify and Nov. 14, 2024 disclose all expert witnesses and expert reports: -- Deadline for the Parties to complete Dec. 13, 2024 all written discovery, depose all fact witnesses, and file all motions related to fact discovery: -- Deadline for Defendants to identify Dec. 20, 2024 and disclose all expert witnesses and expert reports: -- Deadline for the Parties to depose all Jan. 31, 2025 expert witnesses: -- Deadline for the Parties to file Feb. 28, 2025 dispositive motions. -- Trial date: Aug. 26, 2025 The original deadline for Plaintiff to file a motion for class certification was June 28, 2024. On June 21, 2024, the Court granted the Parties' Joint Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order, extending the deadline for Plaintiff to file a motion for class certification by 30 days to July 29, 2024, then an additional 30 days to Aug. 28, 2024, and then an additional 30 days to Sept. 27, 2024. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Sept. 25, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mWEAII at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seamus T. Kelly, Esq. David J. Goldman, Esq. MUSIC CITY LAW, PLLC 1033 Demonbreun Street, Suite 300 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 200-0682 E-mail: seamus@musiccityfirm.com david@musiccityfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Lars C. Golumbic, Esq. Sarah M. Adams, Esq. Shaun A. Gates, Esq. Lawrence A. Brett, Esq. GROOM LAW GROUP, CHARTERED 1701 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Ste. 1200 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 861-6615 Facsimile: (202) 659-4503 E-mail: lgolumbic@groom.com sadams@groom.com sgates@groom.com - and - Mark E. Stamelos, Esq. FORDHARRISON LLP 150 Third Ave South, Suite 2010 Nashville, TN 37201 Telephone: (615) 574-6700 Facsimile: (615) 574-6701 E-mail: mstamelos@fordharrison.com [*] New Westminster, BC to Join Suit Over "Sue Big Oil" Campaign ---------------------------------------------------------------- Theresa McManus, writing for New Westminster Record, reports that a longtime environmentalist is urging New Westminster council to "be courageous" and sign on to the Sue Big Oil class action lawsuit. Coun. Tasha Henderson is proposing that council ask staff to report back on the opportunity and cost for New Westminster to join the Sue Big Oil class action lawsuit and to present potential cost and staff resource needs as part of the city's draft 2025 operating budget. Her motion also recommends that the city assess the cost of joining the class action lawsuit through the climate action decision-making framework to determine the appropriate funding source. Henderson's motion states that more than 20 local governments in the United States and around the world, including nine local governments in B.C., have filed lawsuits to recover a share of their climate costs (e.g. for loss and damage, adaptation, and climate preparedness) from fossil fuel companies, and Canadian legal experts recommend that Canadian local governments do the same. The motion is currently in the "notice of motion" stage, which means it will be discussed at next council meeting, which is on Oct. 7. Longtime New West resident Andrew Murray, a member of the Council of Canadians and part of the Frack Free BC coalition, appeared at council's Sept. 23 meeting to express support for the motion. He's urging the City of New Westminster to join the class action lawsuit that will sue the oil industry for damages. "We would be joining our neighbours, Burnaby and Port Moody, and about half a dozen other cities in this province that have also stepped up and recognized the need for this type of action," he said. Murray said analysis shows this issue will play out in a way that's similar to cases involving the tobacco and pharmaceutical industries, "when they were exposed for selling products that killed people." He said it is going to be a long, drawn-out process, but signing on to the class action lawsuit is a critical first step to get the process moving. Although the coalition of cities will be going up against "the most powerful industry on this planet," Murray believes the cities will have a strong case against the oil industry. "And the reason I feel that way is because the most damning evidence out there is the science of the oil industries themselves," he told council. "Their own scientists, as far back as the 1970s, were telling them, ‘If you put this much carbon into the atmosphere, you will dramatically alter the weather.' And living here in B.C., the last seven, eight years, we've been on the forefront of that changing weather." According to Murray, when cities "take this bold step forward" individual oil companies will have to divulge at their annual general meetings that they are being sued. "One thing that shareholders don't like is to see a company that they invest in being taken into court, and that creates risk that makes shareholders very nervous," he said. "Those shareholders, as a ripple effect, will probably demand these companies take dramatic measures to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions as a first step." Murray, who has been advocating for environmental initiatives since the mid-1990s, said today's children need a sustainable future. "By joining this class action lawsuit, you take that critical first step," he said. "We have to ask ourselves -- we got off lucky this summer -- how many towns are we going to sit and watch burn to the ground? How many hundreds of people will lose their homes? . . . Be courageous: Vote yes for this motion." Coun. Ruby Campbell who recently attended a concert by folk singer Billy Bragg, quoted lyrics from his song, King Tide and the Sunny Day Flood: wouldn't it be wonderful if we could save the world and all simply by collecting up tin cans and empty bottles? "Well, we can't," she said. "So, I appreciate you coming here today, and I look forward to debating this motion." $1 per citizen Coun. Daniel Fontaine questioned if the class action lawsuit would proceed "without municipal tax dollars being put toward paying the legal fees" if New Westminster does not participate. "To my knowledge, the lawsuit is looking to attract cities that will add up to 500,000 people in population; that is sort of the benchmark," Murray replied. "We (New West) have 70,000, Burnaby has 250,000. So, it's not far. Unfortunately, Vancouver took a U-turn on this, which is pretty sad to see. But yeah, there's a threshold that needs to be reached, and I'm very comfortable that it will be reached." Murray said the class action lawsuit will still proceed, but "it would be a shame" if New Westminster was not part of that. "We are talking about $1 per citizen in this city," he said. "That's the initial cost of becoming part of this class action lawsuit." The preamble to Henderson's motion states that: the City of New Westminster manages, maintains, and prepares municipal infrastructure to protect our residents from future heat waves, wildfires, flooding, and other climate impacts, thereby safeguarding the health and safety of our residents and their property and as a result faces massive costs due to climate change, which are expected to increase. It said it is "unacceptable" that local governments and taxpayers bear the full extent of these climate costs whilst multinational fossil fuel companies take no financial responsibility for the harm caused by their products. [GN] Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dynarex Corp. Recalls Baby Powder Due to Asbestos ------------------------------------------------------------------ Tamara Walker, writing for Asbury Park Press.com, reports that Montvale-based Dynarex Corporation issued a recall on 62 cases of its baby powder due to asbestos contamination, according to the FDA. Asbestos is a naturally occurring mineral that is often found near talc and is an ingredient in many cosmetic products. The product was sent to distributors in 12 states, including New Jersey, and sold online at Amazon.com, on or after March 11, 2024. Consumers who purchased the product with item number 4875, Batch Number B 051, are urged to discontinue use immediately and return it for a full refund. The baby powder is packaged in 14 oz. plastic bottles, 24 bottles to a case, with an expiration date of 2026/12/28. The recall was the outcome of routine check by the FDA. The company has halted all production of the product and continues to investigate the contamination. There has been no illnesses reported to date. ASBESTOS UPDATE: H.B. Fuller Still Defends Exposure Lawsuits ------------------------------------------------------------ H.B. Fuller Company has been named as a defendant in lawsuits in which plaintiffs have alleged injury due to products containing asbestos manufactured more than 35 years ago, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "The plaintiffs generally bring these lawsuits against multiple defendants and seek damages (both actual and punitive) in very large amounts. In many cases, plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that they have suffered any compensable injuries or that the injuries suffered were the result of exposure to products manufactured by us. We are typically dismissed as a defendant in such cases without payment. If the plaintiff presents evidence indicating that compensable injury occurred as a result of exposure to our products, the case is generally settled for an amount that reflects the seriousness of the injury, the length, intensity and character of exposure to products containing asbestos, the number and solvency of other defendants in the case, and the jurisdiction in which the case has been brought. "A significant portion of the defense costs and settlements in asbestos-related litigation is paid by third parties, including indemnification pursuant to the provisions of a 1976 agreement under which we acquired a business from a third party. Currently, this third party is defending and paying settlement amounts, under a reservation of rights, in most of the asbestos cases tendered to the third party. "In addition to the indemnification arrangements with third parties, we have insurance policies that generally provide coverage for asbestos liabilities, including defense costs. Historically, insurers have paid a significant portion of our defense costs and settlements in asbestos-related litigation. However, certain of our insurers are insolvent. We have entered into cost-sharing agreements with our insurers that provide for the allocation of defense costs and settlements and judgments in asbestos-related lawsuits. These agreements require, among other things, that we fund a share of settlements and judgments allocable to years in which the responsible insurer is insolvent." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TByPAA ********* 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 ***