/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/241024.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, October 24, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 214 Headlines 808 LEX: Must Oppose Class Certification Bid by Dec. 2 AFFORDABLE SOLAR: Parties Must Confer Class Cert Deadlines AFLAC INC: Smith Class Action Dismissed AMAZON INC: Seeks Dismissal of Prime Video Ad Tier Class Action APPLE INC: Court Directs Parties to File Supplemental Briefing AT&T INC: Powell Suit Transferred to D. Montana AURORA CANNABIS: $8M Class-Action Settlement Gets Initial Nod B & B ENTERTAINMENT: Scalone Slams Unpaid Wages, Tip Theft BANK OF AMERICA: Becerra Suit Transferred to W.D. North Carolina BANK OF AMERICA: Safron Capital Sues Over Cash Sweep Program BAYER CORP: Newman Can File Portions of Reply Under Seal BESTWAY (USA): Armstrong Files Suit in D. Arizona BRANCH MESSENGER: Faulkner Suit Transferred to W.D. Tennessee CAMPBELL SOUP: Imposes Illegal Tobacco Surcharges, Spencer Claims CAPITALJ INC: Fernandez Suit Transferred to W.D. Tennessee CF MEDICAL: Popescu Sues Over Failure to Secure Personal Info CNU ONLINE HOLDINGS: Stanley Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida CONSTAR FINANCIAL: Roller Balks at Unauthorized Data Access COTERIE BABY: Faces Saedi Suit Over Presence of PFAS in Diapers DELINEA INC: Counsel Must File Stipulation for Dismissal DH INSURANCE GROUP: Boyd Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida DOMINOIDS INC: Faces Mendoza Wage-and-Hour Suit in Calif. DRIL-QUIP: Pension Fund-Related Suit Dismissed EAST RIVER MEDICAL: Settles Data Breach Class Suit for $1.85-Mil. EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES: Faces Class Suit Over Securities Fraud EQUITY RESIDENTIAL: Faces Class Action Over MDR Rooftop Shooting EVOLVE BANK & TRUST: Dubray Suit Transferred to W.D. Tennessee EVOLVE BANK & TRUST: Page Suit Transferred to W.D. Tennessee EVOLVE BANK & TRUST: Ritchey Suit Transferred to W.D. Tennessee EVOLVE BANK & TRUST: Vojta Suit Transferred to W.D. Tennessee EVOLVE BANK: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Liang Suit Alleges EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Seeks Leave to File Docs Under Seal FIDELITY INVESTMENTS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Little Says FIFTH THIRD BANK: Santen Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota FIRST TECH: DACA Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Approval GATOS SILVER: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With First Majestic GRYPHON HEALTHCARE: Fails to Secure Clients' Info, Johnson Says GRYPHON HEALTHCARE: Parker Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Info HARRIS TEETER: Cereal Bars' Natural Label "False," Zwilling Says HAYWARD HOLDINGS: Court Dismisses Putative Class Action Lawsuit HOOTCH LLC: Competello Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind INDIANA UNIVERSITY: Sued Over Tacit Acceptance of Sexual Abuse INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Seeks to Seal Objection to Class Cert Reply KELLANOVA: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Mars Inc. KINGSTON HEALTHCARE: Saunders Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime KOHL'S CORP: Court Dismisses Putative Securities Class Action LENOVO GROUP: Court Vacates Class Cert Hearing Set for Nov. 1 LULING BAR-B-QUE: Withholds Employees' Tips, Morrison Alleges MAC COSMETICS: Court OK's Discretionary Stay of Byrd Suit MDL 3123: Transfer of 4 TCPA Suits to W.D. Tex. Denied MICHAEL GROFF: Class Certification Bids Due Feb. 28, 2025 NATIONAL BASKETBALL: 2nd Cir. Revives Video Streaming Class Suit NEBULA GENOMICS: Fails to Protect Genetic Data, Portillo Says NEW YORK, NY: Class Settlement in Pierre Suit Gets Final Nod OTHER SIDE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Robles Alleges PHARMACARE US: Parties Must Designate Merits Experts by Oct. 30 PHILLY POPS: Class Suit Seeks Damages for Cancelled Concert Tickets PLANET 51 LLC: Robles Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Nunez Sues Over Customers' Compromised Info PROFESSIONAL FINANCE: Settlement Deal in Rodriguez Gets Initial OK RENOVARO BIOSCIENCES: Settlement Reached in Chow Securities Suit REVOLVE GROUP: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Miller Alleges ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Guest Sues Over Hidden Camera in Bathrooms SAN DIEGO, CA: Class Settlement in Bloom Suit Gets Final Nod SKIN THEORY: Court Enters Standing Order in Schirmacher Class Suit SOL DE JANEIRO: Faces Miller Suit Over Website's Access Barriers ST. THOMAS PSYCHIATRIC: Court Certifies PST Class Action Lawsuit STATE FARM: Settles Suit Over Vehicles' Total Loss Claims for $2MM SUNFAR CONTRACTING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Menjivar Alleges TAC MANUFACTURING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Levine Alleges TARGET CORP: Genesee Cty. Gains From $15-M Opioid Suit Settlement TEXAS PRIDE: Underpays Waste Disposal Drivers, Veira Suit Claims TICKETMASTER LLC: Carranza Suit Transferred to D. Montana TICKETMASTER LLC: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Pomeroy Says TICKETMASTER LLC: Smith Suit Transferred to D. Montana TILRAY BRANDS: Court Dismisses Kasilingam Securities Suit TWITTER INC: Judge Denies Class Certification in Bonuses' Suit UNITED PARCEL: Malone Must Serve Additional Discovery Requests UNITED PARCEL: Savage Sues Over Share Price Drop UPSTART HOLDINGS: Crain Allowed Leave to File Sur-Reply VERVE LAST MILE: Johnson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. WARD TRANSPORT: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Mikolaitis Alleges WAYNE COUNTY, MI: Excessively Detains Inmates, West-Campeau Claims WELL-FOAM INC: Meraz Suit Seeks Flowback Operators' Unpaid Overtime WM TECHNOLOGY: Artificially Inflated Stock Price, Ishak Claims WM TECHNOLOGY: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims XIAO-I CORP: Faces Securities Class Suit Over False Information [*] QCTH-Blais Files Settlement Plan of Arrangement in Tobacco Suit ********* 808 LEX: Must Oppose Class Certification Bid by Dec. 2 ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Tenezaca, et al., v. 808 Lex Restaurant, LLC et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-08545-JGLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge entered an order granting Defendants' application for an extension of time to oppose the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. -- Defendants' opposition to the motion for class certification due Dec. 2, 2024. -- Plaintiffs' reply due Dec. 9, 2024. -- Further extensions are unlikely absent extraordinary circumstances. On Sept. 30, 2024, we filed our notices of appearance to appear on behalf of Defendants in this matter. To date, we have been working with Plaintiffs' counsel to explore ways to potentially resolve the matter. The parties have agreed to mediate this matter on November 19 with a private mediator. This is Defendants' first time requesting an extension to oppose Plaintiffs’ motion and Plaintiffs consent. The extension will not affect any other dates and currently, the parties do not have any scheduled appearances before the Court. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 16, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hwcbT3 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Brian Pete, Esq. LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP 77 Water Street, Suite 2100 New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 232-1363 E-mail: Brian. Pete@lewisbrisbois.com AFFORDABLE SOLAR: Parties Must Confer Class Cert Deadlines ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Summey v. Affordable Solar Roof & Air, LLC, Case No. 6:24-cv-01861 (M.D. Fla., Filed Oct. 16, 2024), the Hon. Judge Paul G. Byron entered an order directing the parties to confer regarding deadlines pertinent to a motion for class certification and advise the Court of agreeable deadlines in their case management report. -- The deadlines should include a deadline for (1) disclosure of expert reports - class action, plaintiff and defendant; (2) discovery - class action; (3) motion for class certification; (4) response to motion for class certification; and (5) reply to motion for class certification. The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.[CC] AFLAC INC: Smith Class Action Dismissed --------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEWART SMITH, individually and on Behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AFLAC, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-00679-TJS (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Timothy Savage entered an order dismissing smith case. Accordingly, the Plaintiff having failed to file his motion for class certification, to advise the Court that he was withdrawing a motion for class certification, and to appear at the hearing scheduled for October 15, 2024, it is ORDERED that the case is dismissed. Aflac is an American insurance company. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 16, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=08aOpR at no extra charge.[CC] AMAZON INC: Seeks Dismissal of Prime Video Ad Tier Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Joseph Finder, writing for Lawyer Monthly, reports that Amazon is currently seeking to dismiss a class action lawsuit that alleges the company misled Prime subscribers by introducing an additional fee for ad-free streaming of movies and TV shows. The technology giant argues that its terms of service allow it to "add or remove Prime membership benefits" at its discretion. This legal move comes in response to claims that the recent changes to the Prime Video service constitute deceptive practices. Amazon's Defense Against the Lawsuit In its motion to dismiss, Amazon emphasizes that it has consistently informed customers that Prime benefits may change over time. The company asserts, "Amazon never promised -- to Prime members or anyone else -- that Prime Video would be always, or entirely, ad-free." This statement reinforces Amazon's position that it has not misled customers regarding the availability of ad-free streaming options. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) views Amazon Prime as a key element of the company's dominance in the retail market. By providing various benefits, including access to Prime Video, Amazon effectively retains users within its marketplace. The FTC has noted that while the streaming service may not be a highly profitable segment on its own, it plays a crucial role in contributing to Amazon's overall lucrative ecosystem. Transition to Ad-Supported Streaming In the past year, Amazon made its advertising tier the default option for its over 100 million Prime subscribers, transforming the service into a significant player in the streaming ad market. As a result, users must pay an additional fee of $2.99 per month for an ad-free viewing experience. This decision led to the class action lawsuit from annual subscribers, who claim that the introduction of the fee breaches their contract and violates state consumer protection laws. Amazon references a federal judge's ruling from a similar case in July, which dismissed a class action alleging misleading Prime benefit claims related to a concealed delivery fee on certain Whole Foods purchases. The judge found that the plaintiffs had relied on advertisements promoting "free" and "rapid" delivery. Amazon argues that even if it marketed Prime Video as ad-free, it retains the right to modify or eliminate that feature at any time without breaching the contract. Legal and Consumer Protection Implications The proposed class action seeks a minimum of $5 million and aims to prevent Amazon MGM Studios from continuing misleading practices against users who subscribed to Prime before December 28, 2023. The lawsuit includes claims of breach of contract, false advertising, and unfair competition, along with alleged violations of consumer protection laws in California and Washington. Amazon has faced increased scrutiny from lawmakers in recent years. In 2023, the FTC filed a lawsuit against the company, accusing it of misleading consumers into subscribing to Prime while making it difficult to cancel their subscriptions. The FTC claimed that Amazon employed a "manipulative" interface that deceives users into enrolling in automatically renewing subscriptions, particularly those who intended to subscribe solely for the more affordable Prime Video. Additionally, in 2020, Amazon was sued for unfair competition and false advertising concerning its policy of reserving the right to terminate access to content purchased through Prime Video. A federal judge dismissed this proposed class action in 2022, ruling in favor of Amazon, based on the argument that its terms of use clearly inform users that purchased movies and TV shows may become unavailable due to licensing restrictions. Conclusion As Amazon seeks to dismiss the class action lawsuit over Prime Video's advertising tier, the outcome may have significant implications for its Prime membership and overall business practices. With ongoing scrutiny from regulators and consumers alike, Amazon's ability to navigate these legal challenges will be critical as it continues to evolve its streaming services and maintain its competitive edge in the marketplace. [GN] APPLE INC: Court Directs Parties to File Supplemental Briefing -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRIS SMITH, et al., v. APPLE, INC., Case No. 4:21-cv-09527-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Haywood Gilliam, Jr. entered an order directing the parties to file supplemental briefing. Accordingly, the Court directs the parties to file supplemental briefing that addresses both points described above, and to submit the opt-out threshold provision for in camera review. Counsel shall file a statement of five pages or less by October 22, 2024. First, the Court's guidelines for submitting class action settlements for preliminary approval require such motions to state "the class recovery under the settlement (including details about and the value of injunctive relief), the potential class recovery if plaintiffs had fully prevailed on each of their claims, claim by claim, and a justification of the discount applied to the claims." The Plaintiffs' motion does meet this requirement because it does not include an estimate of the potential class recovery at trial. Instead, it generally asserts that trial "carried considerable risk of a lesser recovery or none at all," without assessing how the settlement compares to the reasonably likely result at trial. Apple designs, manufactures, and markets smartphones, personal computers, tablets, wearables and accessories. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 15, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gRCYpQ at no extra charge.[CC] AT&T INC: Powell Suit Transferred to D. Montana ----------------------------------------------- The case styled as Tina Powell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AT&T Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-01948 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana on Oct. 16, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00162-BMM to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Contract. AT&T Inc. -- https://www.att.com/ -- an abbreviation for its former name, the American Telephone and Telegraph Company, is an American multinational telecommunications holding company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Warren T. Burns, Esq. Daniel H. Charest, Esq. Hannah M. Crowe, Esq. BURNS CHAREST LLP 900 Jackson Street, Suite 500 Dallas, TX 75202 Phone: (469) 904-4551 Fax: (469) 444-5002 Email: wburns@burnscharest.com dcharest@burnscharest.com hcrowe@burnscharest.com - and - Korey A. Nelson, Esq. BURNS CHAREST LLP 365 Canal Street, Suite 1170 New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 Phone: (504) 799-2845 Email: knelson@burnscharest.com - and - Monica Miller, Esq. Charles J. LaDuca, Esq. Brendan Thompson, Esq. Alex Warren, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 4725 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20016 Phone: (202) 789-3960 Email: monica@cuneolaw.com charles@cuneolaw.com brendant@cuneolaw.com awarren@cuneolaw.com - and - Don Barrett, Esq. BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A. 404 Court Square North Lexington, MS 39095 Phone: (662) 834-9168 Email: donbarrettpa@gmail.com - and - William M. Audet, Esq. Ling Y. Kuang, Esq. AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP 711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94102 Phone: (415) 568-2555 Email: waudet@audetlaw.com lkuang@audetlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: C. Shawn Cleveland, Esq. Tamara D. Baggett, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 2850 N Harwood Street, Suite 1100 Dallas, TX 75201 Phone: (214) 210-1210 Fax: (214) 210-1201 Email: scleveland@bakerlaw.com tbaggett@bakerlaw.com AURORA CANNABIS: $8M Class-Action Settlement Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------- Adam Jackson, writing for Green Market Report, reports that the suit accused Aurora of engaging in a $21.7 million "round-trip sale" to artificially juice its numbers. A federal judge granted preliminary approval to an $8.05 million settlement between Aurora Cannabis Inc. (NASDAQ: ACB) and investors who accused the company of misleading them through an boomerang deal to inflate its revenue, Law360 reported. U.S. Magistrate Judge James B. Clark III gave the initial nod to the proposed settlement on Oct. 10, setting the stage for a final approval hearing on Jan. 28, 2025, according to court documents filed last week in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The settlement would resolve allegations that Aurora engaged in a $21.7 million "round-trip sale" with Radient Technologies Inc., a Canadian extract maker it had a financial stake in, to artificially boost its revenue and meet positive EBITDA projections. Lead plaintiffs Doug Daulton, Francisco Quintana, Donald S. Parrish and Quang Ma filed the class action lawsuit in 2019, accusing Aurora of violating U.S. securities laws. The case has progressed through multiple amended complaints and motions to dismiss over the past four years. "The settlement is a very good result for the settlement class, particularly when viewed in light of the procedural history of the case and the risks of proceeding through further litigation," the plaintiffs' attorneys wrote in the court filing. The settlement would cover investors who purchased Aurora's common stock on the New York Stock Exchange between Oct. 23, 2018, and Feb. 28, 2020. According to the court documents, the plaintiffs allege that Aurora's omissions caused its stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during this period. They claim investors suffered economic harm when the truth about the company's practices was "revealed through a series of corrective disclosures." Aurora has consistently denied any wrongdoing. The proposed settlement was reached after extensive arm's-length negotiations, including a full-day mediation session in March, the court filing noted. If granted final approval, the $8.05 million fund would be distributed to eligible class members after deducting court-approved fees and expenses. Plaintiffs' lawyers said they would seek fees up to 25% of the settlement amount and $150,000 in expenses. The settlement comes as the firm tries to situate itself overseas amid oversupply and other issues in the North American cannabis market. Aurora recently posted better-than-expected revenue of C$83.4 million, up 12% over the year, and positive free cash flow of C$6.5 million. The company's been focused on its medical cannabis division, which accounted for 57% of total net revenue. [GN] B & B ENTERTAINMENT: Scalone Slams Unpaid Wages, Tip Theft ---------------------------------------------------------- RITA SCALONE and FREANNA TUCKER, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated entertainers, Plaintiffs v. B & B ENTERTAINMENT, LLC d/b/a PLAYHOUSE GENTLEMEN'S CLUB, a Florida Limited Liability Company and ANDREW BEHN, individually Defendants, Case No. 0:24-cv-61895-AHS (S.D. Fla., October 11, 2024) is brought against the Defendants pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Florida Minimum Wage Act, and the Florida Constitution. The complaint alleges that the Defendants violated the minimum wage, tip retention and record keeping requirements of the federal and state laws. The Plaintiffs and FLSA Class Members are all current and former exotic dancers who worked at Playhouse Gentlemen's Club. They seek unpaid wages, including "kick-backs," unlawfully seized tips, liquidated damages and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. The claims under the FLSA are brought individually and as a collective action on behalf of similarly situated employees. B & B Entertainment, LLC d/b/a Playhouse Gentlemen's Club owns and operates the adult entertainment club.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Carlos V. Leach, Esq. THE LEACH FIRM, P.A. 1560 N. Orange Ave., Suite 600 Winter Park, FL 32789 Telephone: (407) 574-4999 Facsimile: (833) 813-7513 E-mail: cleach@theleachfirm.com - and - Mutepe Akemon, Esq. THE RICHARDS LAW GROUP, LLC P.O. Box 360295 Decatur, GA 30036 Telephone: (404) 289-6816 Facsimile: (404) 795-0727 E-mail: mutepe.akemon@richardslegal.com BANK OF AMERICA: Becerra Suit Transferred to W.D. North Carolina ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Esmeralda Becerra, individually and as representative of a class of participants and beneficiaries and on behalf of Bank of America 401K Plan v. Bank of America Corporation, Bank of America Corporation Corporate Benefits Committee, Does 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 5:24-cv-01697 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina on Oct. 17, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-00921-MOC-DCK to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as E.R.I.S.A. for Labor. The Bank of America Corporation -- https://www.bankofamerica.com/ -- is an American multinational investment bank and financial services holding company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua H. Haffner, Esq. Alfredo Torrijos, Esq. Vahan Mikayelyan, Esq. HAFFNER LAW PC 15260 Ventura Blvd., Ste 1520 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Phone: (213) 514-5681 Fax: (213) 514-5682 The Defendant is represented by: Jennifer B Zargarof, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS AND BOCKIUS LLP 300 South Grand Avenue 22nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132 Phone: (213) 612-2500 Fax: (213) 612-2501 BANK OF AMERICA: Safron Capital Sues Over Cash Sweep Program ------------------------------------------------------------ SAFRON CAPITAL CORP., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION and MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-07743 (S.D.N.Y., October 11, 2024) is a class action seeking to recover damages over Defendants' unlawful conduct related to the Merrill Lynch Cash Sweep Program, which transferred idle customer cash into interest-bearing "cash sweep" accounts. The Plaintiff and the Class members were customers of Merrill whose funds were transferred to cash sweep accounts under the Sweep Program. Under the Sweep Program, Merrill swept customers' idle cash deposits into separate accounts that were highly lucrative for Defendants and their affiliate banks but paid unreasonably low, below-market interest rates to customers. As such, the Defendants used the Sweep Program to generate massive revenue for themselves at the expense of their customers, says the suit. According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially misleading statements to customers about the Sweep Program and failed to disclose that Defendants established and used the Sweep Program to enrich themselves by paying unreasonably low interest rates to customers in order to increase Defendants' financial benefits from the Sweep Program. The Defendants violated federal law including the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, and breaches of their fiduciary duties and contractual obligations to customers. Bank of America Corporation is a financial services company that conducts business throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen R. Astley, Esq. Andrew T. Rees, Esq. Rene A. Gonzalez, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 225 NE Mizner Boulevard, Suite 720 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 750-3000 - and - Jack G. Fruchter, Esq. ABRAHAM FRUCHTER & TWERSKY LLP 450 7th Ave 38th Floor New York, NY 10123 Telephone: (212) 279-5050 BAYER CORP: Newman Can File Portions of Reply Under Seal -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Newman v. Bayer Corporation et al., Case No. 7:22-cv-07087-KMK-AEK (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Karas entered an order permitting the Plaintiff to file under seal the portions of the Plaintiffs reply in support of class certification that relies on or mentions documents that have been previously filed under seal. Bayer is a German chemical and pharmaceutical company. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 15, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XWtkPC at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Max S. Roberts, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER P.A. 1330 Ave. of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7408 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: mroberts@bursor.com BESTWAY (USA): Armstrong Files Suit in D. Arizona ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bestway (USA) Incorporated. The case is styled as Franca Armstrong, Mandy Islam, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bestway (USA) Incorporated, Case No. 2:24-cv-02812-DMF (D. Ariz., Oct. 17, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Bestway -- https://bestwayusa.com/ -- manufactures a wide range of inflatable outdoor and recreational products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aleksander Litvinov, Esq. Joel Dashiell Smith, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEY PC 867 Boylston St., 5th Fl., Ste. 1520 Boston, MA 02116 Phone: (617) 377-7404 Email: joel@skclassactions.com - and - Amy Wilkins Hoffman, Esq. HOFFMAN LEGAL LLC 99 E. Virginia Ave., Ste. 220 Phoenix, AZ 85004 Phone: (623) 565-8851 Email: ahoffman@hoffmanlegalaz.com - and - Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEY PC 166 Geary St., Ste. 1500-1507 San Francisco, CA 94108 Phone: (415) 839-7000 Fax: (888) 407-2700 Email: yeremey@skclassactions.com BRANCH MESSENGER: Faulkner Suit Transferred to W.D. Tennessee ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Teresa Faulkner, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons v. Branch Messenger Inc., Case No. 4:24-cv-00651 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee on Oct. 17, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-02785 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Contract. Branch Messenger, Inc. -- https://www.branchapp.com/ -- is a mobile-first technology that provides financial and scheduling flexibility to hourly employees.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph Henry (Hank) Bates, III, Esq. Randall Keith Pulliam, Esq. CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC One Allied Drive, Suite 1400 Little Rock, AR 72202 Phone: (501) 312-8500 Fax: (501) 312-8505 Email: hbates@cbplaw.com rpulliam@cbplaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Amisha R. Patel, Esq. ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 2100 Pennsylvania Ave, NW Washington, DC 20037 Phone: (202) 339-8457 Email: apatel@orrick.com - and - Aravind Swaminathan, Esq. ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 401 Union Street, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 839-4300 Email: aswaminathan@orrick.com - and - Daniel W. Van Horn, Esq. BUTLER SNOW LLP Crescent Center 6075 Poplar Avenue, 5th Floor Memphis, TN 38119 Phone: (901) 680-7331 Fax: (901) 680-7201 Email: danny.vanhorn@butlersnow.com - and - Andrew B. Schrack, Esq. BUTLER SNOW LLP 6075 Poplar Ave., Suite 500 Memphis, TN 38119 Phone: (901) 680-7353 Email: andrew.schrack@butlersnow.com CAMPBELL SOUP: Imposes Illegal Tobacco Surcharges, Spencer Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- JAMAR SPENCER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CAMPBELL SOUP COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-09882 (D.N.J., October 17, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and breach of fiduciary duty. The case arises from the Defendant's practice of charging a tobacco surcharge that unjustly forces certain employees to pay higher premiums for their health insurance. The Campbell Soup Company Health and Welfare Benefit Plan does not provide the required reasonable alternative standard, and even if it did, it has failed to adequately notify employees about the availability of such an alternative in all its Plan communications. Consequently, the Defendant's tobacco surcharge violates ERISA's anti-discrimination provisions by imposing additional costs on employees who use tobacco products without meeting the legal requirements for a bona fide wellness program. As a result of the imposition of the unlawful and discriminatory tobacco surcharge, Campbell Soup enriched itself at the expense of the Plan, resulting in it receiving a windfall, says the suit. Campbell Soup Company is a producer and marketer of canned soups and other food and beverage products headquartered in Camden, New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David J. DiSabato, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP Oren Faircloth 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 Email: ddisabato@sirillp.com CAPITALJ INC: Fernandez Suit Transferred to W.D. Tennessee ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Andrew Fernandez, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons v. CapitalJ Inc., Evolve Bank & Trust, Case No. 4:24-cv-00656 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee on Oct. 17, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-02780-SHL-cgc to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Contract. Capitalj, Inc. doing business as Juno -- https://juno.finance/ -- is a privately-held crypto digital banking firm.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph Henry (Hank) Bates, III, Esq. Randall Keith Pulliam, Esq. CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC One Allied Drive, Suite 1400 Little Rock, AR 72202 Phone: (501) 312-8500 Fax: (501) 312-8505 Email: hbates@cbplaw.com rpulliam@cbplaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Daniel W. Van Horn, Esq. BUTLER SNOW LLP Crescent Center 6075 Poplar Avenue, 5th Floor Memphis, TN 38119 Phone: (901) 680-7331 Fax: (901) 680-7201 Email: danny.vanhorn@butlersnow.com - and - Andrew B. Schrack, Esq. BUTLER SNOW LLP 6075 Poplar Ave., Suite 500 Memphis, TN 38119 Phone: (901) 680-7353 Email: andrew.schrack@butlersnow.com CF MEDICAL: Popescu Sues Over Failure to Secure Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------- DOINA POPESCU, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CF MEDICAL, LLC, d/b/a CAPIO, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-05443 (E.D. Pa., October 10, 2024) is a class action against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated individuals' sensitive personally identifiable information, including their names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, and private health information. According to the complaint, Financial Business and Consumer Solutions, Inc. (FBCS) received Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII/PHI from its clients, which is used to collect debts on behalf of its clients. One of FBCS's clients is Defendant CF Medical. By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the PII/PHI of Plaintiff and Class Members, the Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that information from unauthorized access and intrusion. On or about April 26, 2024, FBCS announced that certain systems in its network had been subject to unauthorized access between February 14 and February 26, 2024, and the unauthorized actor had the ability to view or acquire certain information on the FBCS network during the period of access. The Defendant failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII/PHI -- and failed to even encrypt or redact this highly sensitive information. This unencrypted, unredacted PII/PHI was compromised due to Defendant's negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and its utter failure to protect its customers' sensitive data, says the suit. The Plaintiff and Class Members seek 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. CF Medical, LLC is a debt purchasing company that goes by the trade name Capio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew W. Ferich, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650 Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 E-mail: aferich@ahdootwolfson.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com - and - Charles E. Schaffer, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN, LLP 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 592-1500 E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com - and - John A. Yanchunis, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 North Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 E-mail: JYanchunis@forthepeople.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 CNU ONLINE HOLDINGS: Stanley Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against CNU Online Holdings, LLC. The case is styled as Tvories Stanley, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. CNU Online Holdings, LLC, Case No. 9:24-cv-81282-MD (S.D. Fla., Oct. 16, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. CNU Online Holdings, LLC operates as a holding company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, offers provides financial services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Avi Robert Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 31 Samana Drive Miami, FL 33133 Phone: (305) 469-5881 Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com - and - Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN PA 400 NW 26th Street Miami, FL 33127 Phone: (305) 469-5881 Email: rachel@kaufmanpa.com CONSTAR FINANCIAL: Roller Balks at Unauthorized Data Access ----------------------------------------------------------- Pennie Roller, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Constar Financial Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-02740-DJH (D. Ariz., October 10, 2024) is a class action arising from the recent targeted ransomware attack and data breach on Defendant's network that resulted in unauthorized access and acquisition of Plaintiff and other consumers' highly sensitive data. According to the complaint, up to and through July 2024, the Defendant obtained the personally identifiable information of Plaintiff and Class Members and stored that PII, unencrypted, in an Internet-accessible environment on Defendant's network, from which unauthorized actors used an extraction tool to retrieve sensitive PII belonging to Plaintiff and Class Members. As a result of the data breach, Class Members suffered ascertainable losses in the form of the failure to receive agreed-upon compensation, benefit of their bargain, out-of-pocket expenses, and the value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the attack, emotional distress, and the present risk of imminent harm caused by the compromise of their sensitive personal information, including their financial information and social security numbers. The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of those similarly situated to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII that Defendant collected and maintained. Constar Financial Services, LLC is a business process outsourcing company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lincoln Combs, Esq. O'STEEN & HARRISON, PLC 300 W. Clarendon Ave., Suite 400 Phoenix, AZ 85013-3424 Telephone: (602) 252-8888 Facsimile: (602) 274-1209 E-mail: lcombs@vanosteen.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com gwells@stranchlaw.com COTERIE BABY: Faces Saedi Suit Over Presence of PFAS in Diapers --------------------------------------------------------------- ROZ SAEDI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COTERIE BABY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 655502/2024 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty., October 17, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for breach of express warranty, unjust enrichment, and violations of Consumer Protection Statutes, the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, the California False Advertising Law, and the California Unfair Competition Law. The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and misleading labeling, advertising, and marketing of its diapers. The Defendant advertised and labeled its products as free from harmful chemicals. However, independent testing confirmed the existence of multiple per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) chemicals in Coterie diapers. Had the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers known that the diapers contain PFAS, they would not have purchased or have paid less for them. Coterie Baby, Inc. is a manufacturer of baby products based in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric S. Dwoskin, Esq. DWOSKIN WASDIN LLP 433 Plaza Real, Suite 275 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 849-8060 Email: edwoskin@dwowas.com DELINEA INC: Counsel Must File Stipulation for Dismissal -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDWARD J. KOELLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. DELINEA, INC., Case No. 4:24-cv-00394-HEA (E.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Henry Edward Autrey entered an order denying as moot the Defendant's motion for summary judgment and to deny class certification. The Court further entered an order that counsel shall file, within 45 days of the date of this order, a stipulation for dismissal, a motion for leave to voluntarily dismiss, or a proposed consent judgment. Failure to comply timely with this order will result in the dismissal of this action with prejudice. Delinea specializes in the provision of Privileged Access Management (PAM) solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 15, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=A5qrNt at no extra charge.[CC] DH INSURANCE GROUP: Boyd Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against DH Insurance Group, LLC. The case is styled as Edward Boyd, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. DH Insurance Group, LLC, Case No. 9:24-cv-81293-MD (S.D. Fla., Oct. 16, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. DH Insurance Group -- https://www.dhinsurancegroup.com/ -- is a medical insurance company that focuses on providing insurance options for those who are 65 years and above.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Avi Robert Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 31 Samana Drive Miami, FL 33133 Phone: (305) 469-5881 Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com - and - Rachel E Kaufman KAUFMAN PA 400 NW 26th Street Miami, FL 33127 Phone: (305) 469-5881 Email: rachel@kaufmanpa.com DOMINOIDS INC: Faces Mendoza Wage-and-Hour Suit in Calif. --------------------------------------------------------- JUAN M. MIRAMONTES MENDOZA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DOMINOIDS, INC. T/A DOMINO'S PIZZA and DOES 1 to 50, Defendants, Case No. 24SMCV05110 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., October 17, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of California Labor Code and California's Business and Professions Code including failure to pay overtime, failure to pay minimum wages, meal period violations, rest break violations, failure to pay vested vacation benefits, sick and covid period/benefits violations, failure to maintain & produce employee records, unreimbursed business expenses, release of claims for wage violations, reporting time violations, untimely payment of wages, wage statements violations, failure to pay regular rate of pay, failure to pay owed tips, and unfair business practices. Mr. Mendoza has been employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt hourly wage employee from in or about October 2020 through the present. Dominoids, Inc., trading as Domino's Pizza, is a restaurant owner and operator doing business in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zorik Mooradian, Esq. Andrina G. Hanson, Esq. Nanor C. Kamberian, Esq. MOORADIAN LAW, APC 24007 Ventura Blvd., Suite 210 Calabasas, CA 91302 Telephone: (818) 487-1998 Facsimile: (888) 783-1030 Email: zorik@mooradianlaw.com andrina@mooradianlaw.com nanor@mooradianlaw.com DRIL-QUIP: Pension Fund-Related Suit Dismissed ---------------------------------------------- Innovex International, Inc. (formerly Dril-Quip, Inc.) disclosed in its Form 8-K for October 8, 2024, that on May 21, 2024, the Delaware Court of Chancery entered a stipulated Order dismissing a March 21, 2024 putative class action complaint captioned "Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Fund v. Dril-Quip, Inc., et al.," C.A. No. 2024-0284-LWW as moot and retaining jurisdiction to determine Plaintiff's counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses. The Steamfitters Complaint alleges that members of the company's Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing, in connection with the proposed merger with Innovex Downhole Solutions Inc., to enter into a stockholders agreement with Amberjack Capital Partners requiring Amberjack to vote in favor of the Board of Director's nominees at the company's 2025 annual meeting of stockholders and prohibiting certain transfers from Amberjack directly to activist stockholders not through public market sales. The Steamfitters Complaint further alleges that Innovex and Amberjack aided and abetted the directors' alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. The complaint seeks an order certifying a class of the company's stockholders, finding that the directors breached their fiduciary duties and that Innovex and Amberjack aided and abetted the directors' breaches of fiduciary duties, enjoining enforcement of the challenged provisions of the stockholders agreement, and awarding the plaintiff its reasonable attorneys' and experts' witness fees and other costs. Dril-Quip, Inc., develops technologies for the energy industry based in Texas. EAST RIVER MEDICAL: Settles Data Breach Class Suit for $1.85-Mil. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Marty Stempniak, writing for Radiology Business, reports that a New York radiology group must pay $1.85 million to settle a class action lawsuit filed following a cybersecurity incident. East River Medical Imaging PC experienced the data breach sometime between August and September 2023. The attack potentially impacted over 533,000 individuals, with leaked information including names, contact and insurance info, exam details and Social Security numbers. Attorneys representing the affected patients filed suit in December. After nearly a year, the case is set to close, with a court hearing slated for Oct. 22 to grant final approval of the seven-figure settlement. Plaintiff attorney Benjamin F. Johns estimated that about 20,000 individuals have now filed claims seeking a share of the payout. "We're very pleased with the settlement and we think the results of the notice-plan and the high participation evidenced from that confirm this is a very good settlement," Johns, a co-founding partner with Conshohocken, Pennsylvania-based Shub & Johns LLC, told Radiology Business. "We look forward to presenting it to the court for final approval next week." East River Medical Imaging did not immediately respond to a request for comment Wednesday, October 16. Founded in 1970, the practice employs about 10 radiologists operates three locations in the Upper East Side, Lenox Hill and Sutton Place areas of Manhattan, and has a fourth in Westchester County. Shub & Johns attorneys filed the first class-action suit against East River on Dec. 5 in the Supreme Court of New York. On Feb. 5, the court issued an order appointing Johns as one of two interim co-lead plaintiffs' counsel, according to a recap published by the law firm. Attorneys later filed a consolidated complaint on March 26. A judge granted preliminary approval for the settlement on April 16. Affected individuals have until Oct. 22 to file a claim, with class members able to collect a maximum of $7,500, according to a website set up to facilitate the settlement. Johns said he believes the lawsuit provides a case study for what to do if facing such cyberattack. "It's important to remind medical practices that they are a frequent target for these data breaches. So, it's all the more important that this sensitive data they're tasked with protecting is adequately safeguarded," he said by phone. "In this case, credit to the defendant. They recognized that this was a problem and did the right thing by coming to the settlement table and reaching a deal we think is fair for our clients." [GN] EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES: Faces Class Suit Over Securities Fraud ------------------------------------------------------------ Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Edwards Lifesciences Corporation ("Edwards" or the "Company") (NYSE:EW). Such investors are advised to contact Danielle Peyton at newaction@pomlaw.com or 646-581-9980, (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. The class action concerns whether Edwards and certain of its officers and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other unlawful business practices. You have until December 13, 2024, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class if you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired Edwards securities during the Class Period. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. On July 24, 2024, Edwards unveiled below-expectation financial results for the second quarter of fiscal 2024. Among other items, Edwards significantly lowered its revenue guidance for the Company's Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement ("TAVR") platform for the full fiscal year 2024. The Company attributed the TAVR setback to the "continued growth and expansion of structural heart therapies . . . [which] put pressure on hospital workflows." On this news, Edwards' stock price fell $27.25 per share, or 31.34%, to close at $59.70 per share on July 25, 2024. Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later, Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered billions of dollars in damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomlaw.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN] EQUITY RESIDENTIAL: Faces Class Action Over MDR Rooftop Shooting ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jamie Paige, writing for Westside Current, reports that residents of the Pearl Apartments in Marina del Rey have filed a class-action lawsuit against Equity Residential, its security contractor Protection America, tenant Victoryloc Nguyen, and several other entities, following a violent incident involving Nguyen, who allegedly fired hundreds of rounds of ammunition from the rooftop of the complex in April 2023. The complaint alleges negligence, breach of contract, and failure to protect residents from foreseeable harm, among other claims. The law firm Geragos & Geragos, also representing the Menendez brothers, is handling the lawsuit on behalf of the more than 50 plaintiffs. The lawsuit claims that Equity Residential and its contracted security firm failed to act despite clear warnings of Nguyen's escalating behavior. "For four hours, on April 13 and 14, Nguyen, dressed in tactical gear, fired AR-15 rifles and a pistol from various points around the Pearl Apartments, including its rooftop, terrorizing residents and the neighboring Marina 41 complex, also owned by Equity. No fatalities were reported, but plaintiffs say the attack caused significant psychological trauma," the lawsuit states. The plaintiffs allege that Nguyen's behavior was foreseeable and preventable. According to the lawsuit, residents had previously alerted property management and security personnel about Nguyen's violent outbursts and threats, yet no action was taken. The complaint details how management and security allegedly failed to evict Nguyen, coordinate with law enforcement, or install adequate safety measures despite numerous reports of his behavior, which allegedly included a prior assault at the apartment complex pool. "We lived in constant fear," said Elizabeth Amos, one of the plaintiffs. "We reported the threats, we asked for help, but nothing changed. It was only a matter of time before something catastrophic happened." The lawsuit also includes claims for assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, false imprisonment, and breach of contract. It alleges that the defendants' failure to take action directly contributed to the chaos and severe emotional distress experienced by the residents during the incident. Nguyen, who has since been taken into custody, reportedly stockpiled weapons over the course of several months. Plaintiffs allege that his increasingly erratic behavior, including incidents of violent conduct in common areas, was a clear indication of the potential for harm. In their complaint, residents allege that management's failure to evict Nguyen or to provide proper security measures directly led to the traumatic incident. The complaint also alleges that the property management failed to recruit and train adequate security, and did not provide law enforcement with the tools needed to enter the complex during the attack. On the night of the attack, although officers arrived promptly, they were unable to gain access to the complex due to the lack of provided keys or a clear access plan. The plaintiffs allege that these failures exacerbated the terror experienced by residents, who were unable to escape their apartments during the four-hour siege. The lawsuit also highlights that, despite multiple incidents of theft and vandalism reported at the Pearl Apartments over the years, Equity allegedly declined offers from local law enforcement to patrol the premises, as had been done at other nearby apartment complexes. This refusal, the plaintiffs allege, left the community vulnerable. Further details in the lawsuit indicate that Nguyen had made numerous threatening statements in the months leading up to the attack, including claims that he wanted to be "the Pearl's drug dealer" and threats of violence towards tenants. Despite these alarming behaviors, plaintiffs allege that Equity Residential did not evict Nguyen or alert authorities in a manner that could have prevented the eventual shooting. The lawsuit details the experiences of several residents during the attack, including Anil and Ulku Neshlian Alpogunc, who reside on the third floor of Pearl's S building in a unit overlooking the pool. The couple allege that they were at home during the attack and, once they realized that Nguyen's gunfire was not fireworks, turned off their lights and huddled on the floor before crawling to the bedroom. Mr. Alpogunc later crawled into another room to retrieve his phone and armed himself with a small fruit-slicing knife. Both said they were in shock, and Mrs. Alpogunc was shaking, unable to be consoled as they waited in their dark bathroom, fearing the shooter was coming door to door. Hours into the shooting, law enforcement knocked on their door and asked how to get onto the roof, further terrifying the couple as they realized the shooter had not yet been apprehended. The Alpoguncs allege they were severely traumatized by the attack, suffering from post-traumatic stress, anxiety, and feelings of isolation. They remain startled by loud noises and are reminded daily of the traumatic events. Mrs. Alpogunc is currently receiving therapy for her emotional injuries, and the couple is considering relocating due to the constant stress of being reminded of the incident. Another couple, Jeff Rubin and Elizabeth Amos, allege that they feared for their lives as Nguyen rampaged throughout the complex. Nguyen allegedly shot through their roof during the attack, leading to rain leaking through the bullet holes and flooding their apartment, forcing them to relocate. Both suffer from severe emotional injuries, including post-traumatic stress disorder. The lawsuit also describes the experiences of Katherine Antonucci, who resides on the bottom floor of Building R at the Pearl. Minutes into the attack, Ms. Antonucci began receiving frantic text messages from friends and fellow tenants. Moments later, she heard gunshots outside her door. Terrified and alone, she lay flat on her kitchen floor, fearing for her life. Despite her attempts to contact her family, she could not reach them. Ms. Antonucci alleges that she now suffers from severe emotional injuries, including post-traumatic stress disorder, and continues to feel hopeless despite seeking treatment. Other tenants, including Michael Broussard, George Carpenter, Gregory P. Cohen, Valerie Rose Curiel, Brian Crance, and several others, similarly allege that they endured hours of terror as Nguyen fired hundreds of rounds around the complex. Many describe believing they were witnessing a massacre, fearing for their lives, and now suffering from severe post-traumatic stress and anxiety as a result. Gregory P. Cohen, a 71-year-old resident, alleges that he initially thought the gunfire was fireworks but quickly realized it was not. He barricaded his door with furniture and hid in his bathtub, fearing the bullets would reach him. Since that night, Cohen claims he has suffered from severe PTSD, nightmares, and insomnia, along with physical symptoms such as tension in his back and neck, and persistent headaches. The plaintiffs are seeking compensatory and punitive damages, claiming that they continue to suffer severe emotional and psychological effects as a result of the attack. We reached out to Equity Residential and Protection America for comment, but neither responded to our request regarding the pending litigation. [GN] EVOLVE BANK & TRUST: Dubray Suit Transferred to W.D. Tennessee -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jackson Dubray, Jasmine Mack doing business as: J. Mack Enterprises, William Britton, Trae Santiago, Terrance Pruitt, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Evolve Bank & Trust, Case No. 4:24-cv-00642 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee on Oct. 17, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-02784-SHL-cgc to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Declaratory Judgement. Evolve Bank & Trust -- https://www.getevolved.com/ -- is a best-in-class technology-focused financial services organization and Banking-as-a-Service ("BaaS") provider.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph Henry (Hank) Bates, III, Esq. Randall Keith Pulliam, Esq. CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC One Allied Drive, Suite 1400 Little Rock, AR 72202 Phone: (501) 312-8500 Fax: (501) 312-8505 Email: hbates@cbplaw.com rpulliam@cbplaw.com - and - Liberato P. Verderame, Esq. Marc H. Edelson, Esq. EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP 411 South State Street, Suite N-300 Newtown, PA 18940 Phone: (215) 867-2399 Fax: (267) 685-0676 Email: lverderame@edelson-law.com medelson@edelson-law.com The Defendant is represented by: Amisha R. Patel, Esq. ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 2100 Pennsylvania Ave, NW Washington, DC 20037 Phone: (202) 339-8457 Email: apatel@orrick.com - and - Aravind Swaminathan, Esq. ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 401 Union Street, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 839-4300 Email: aswaminathan@orrick.com - and - Daniel W. Van Horn, Esq. BUTLER SNOW LLP Crescent Center 6075 Poplar Avenue, 5th Floor Memphis, TN 38119 Phone: (901) 680-7331 Fax: (901) 680-7201 Email: danny.vanhorn@butlersnow.com - and - Andrew B. Schrack, Esq. BUTLER SNOW LLP 6075 Poplar Ave., Suite 500 Memphis, TN 38119 Phone: (901) 680-7353 Email: andrew.schrack@butlersnow.com EVOLVE BANK & TRUST: Page Suit Transferred to W.D. Tennessee ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Ryan Page, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons v. Evolve Bank & Trust, Case No. 2:24-cv-00143 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee on Oct. 17, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-02782-SHL-cgc to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Contract. Evolve Bank & Trust -- https://www.getevolved.com/ -- is a best-in-class technology-focused financial services organization and Banking-as-a-Service ("BaaS") provider.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christopher D. Jennings, Esq. JENNINGS PLLC 500 President Clinton, Suite 110 Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: (501) 247-6267 - and - Sophia Goren Gold, Esq. KALIELGOLD PLLC 490 43rd Street, Ste. 122 Oakland, CA 94609 Phone: (202) 350-4783 Email: sgold@kalielgold.com The Defendant is represented by: Daniel W. Van Horn, Esq. BUTLER SNOW LLP Crescent Center 6075 Poplar Avenue, 5th Floor Memphis, TN 38119 Phone: (901) 680-7331 Fax: (901) 680-7201 Email: danny.vanhorn@butlersnow.com - and - Andrew B. Schrack, Esq. BUTLER SNOW LLP 6075 Poplar Ave., Suite 500 Memphis, TN 38119 Phone: (901) 680-7353 Email: andrew.schrack@butlersnow.com EVOLVE BANK & TRUST: Ritchey Suit Transferred to W.D. Tennessee --------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Julie Ritchey, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Evolve Bank & Trust, Case No. 4:24-cv-00806 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee on Oct. 17, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-02787-SHL-cgc to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Contract. Evolve Bank & Trust -- https://www.getevolved.com/ -- is a best-in-class technology-focused financial services organization and Banking-as-a-Service ("BaaS") provider.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Henry (Hank) Bates, III, Esq. Randall Keith Pulliam, Esq. CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC One Allied Drive, Suite 1400 Little Rock, AR 72202 Phone: (501) 312-8500 Fax: (501) 312-8505 Email: hbates@cbplaw.com rpulliam@cbplaw.com - and - Joshua Neuman, Esq. POGUST GOODHEAD LLC 161 Washington Street, Suite 250 Conshohocken, PA 19428 Phone: (610) 941-4204 - and - Nada Djordjevic, Esq. SHAW GUSSIS FISHMAN GLANTZ WOLFSON & TOWBIN LLC 321 N. Clark St., Suite 800 Chicago, IL 60654 The Defendant is represented by: Daniel W. Van Horn, Esq. BUTLER SNOW LLP Crescent Center 6075 Poplar Avenue, 5th Floor Memphis, TN 38119 Phone: (901) 680-7331 Fax: (901) 680-7201 Email: danny.vanhorn@butlersnow.com - and - Andrew B. Schrack, Esq. BUTLER SNOW LLP 6075 Poplar Ave., Suite 500 Memphis, TN 38119 Phone: (901) 680-7353 Email: andrew.schrack@butlersnow.com EVOLVE BANK & TRUST: Vojta Suit Transferred to W.D. Tennessee ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Charles Vojta, Alisha Mitchell, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Evolve Bank & Trust, Case No. 3:24-cv-00136 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee on Oct. 17, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-02779-SHL-cgc to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Declaratory Judgement. Evolve Bank & Trust -- https://www.getevolved.com/ -- is a best-in-class technology-focused financial services organization and Banking-as-a-Service ("BaaS") provider.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip Daniel Holland, Esq. Robert Clay Ellis, II, Esq. Scott E. Poynter, Esq. Poynter Law Group 4924 Kavanaugh Boulevard Little Rock, AR 72207 Phone: (501) 353-1606 Email: daniel@poynterlawgroup.com clay@poynterlawgroup.com scott@poynterlawgroup.com - and - Scout Sanders Snowden, Esq. Arkansas Supreme Court Justice Building 625 Marshall Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: (501) 682-6858 Email: scout.snowden@arcourts.gov The Defendant is represented by: Daniel W. Van Horn, Esq. BUTLER SNOW LLP Crescent Center 6075 Poplar Avenue, 5th Floor Memphis, TN 38119 Phone: (901) 680-7331 Fax: (901) 680-7201 Email: danny.vanhorn@butlersnow.com - and - Andrew B. Schrack, Esq. BUTLER SNOW LLP 6075 Poplar Ave., Suite 500 Memphis, TN 38119 Phone: (901) 680-7353 Email: andrew.schrack@butlersnow.com EVOLVE BANK: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Liang Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- JEN LIANG; and MASON MALDONADO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. EVOLVE BANK AND TRUST, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-10311 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 15, 2024) is an action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive information of its customers. According to the complaint, the Data Breach was a direct result of the Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect consumers' personally identifiable information or "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. Evolve Bank & Trust as a bank. The Bank accepts deposits, makes loans, and provides mortgage solutions, card facilities, and online banking services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason S. Rathod, Esq. Migliaccio & Rathod LLP 412 H Street NE Washington, DC 20002 Telephone: (202) 470-3520 Facsimile: (202) 800-2730 Email: jrathod@classlawdc.com EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Seeks Leave to File Docs Under Seal --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIA PENA, Successor in Interest to JOSE PENA, Individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated consumers, v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 8:22-cv-01115-SSS-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting Experian's application for leave to file under seal and enter the proposed sealing order, filed concurrently herewith. Under Local Rule 79-5.2.2(a), Experian seeks an order permitting it to file under seal: -- Portions of Exhibits 2, 3, 4, and 5 to the Declaration of Ryan D. Ball in Support of Experian’s Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification ("Ball Declaration"); -- Portions of the Declaration of Dan Smith in Support of Experian's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification ("Smith Declaration"); -- Portions of Experian's Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of its Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification; -- Portions of Experian's Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of its Motion to Exclude or Limit the Opinions or Testimony of Plaintiff’s Expert Evan Hendricks; and -- Portions of Experian's Reply in Support of its Motion to Exclude or Limit the Opinions or Testimony of Plaintiff’s Expert Evan Hendricks. Experian makes this request based on the sensitive and confidential nature of this information. Experian met and conferred with Plaintiff Maria Pena ("Plaintiff") between May 30, 2024 and June 3, 2024. Plaintiff indicated that she takes no position on Experian’s application to seal. Experian seeks to file under seal the redacted portions of the Proposed Sealed Materials, all of which contain, cite, or reference Experian’s sensitive and proprietary information relating to Experian’s confidential business strategies and operations, as well as confidential financial information relating to Experian’s sales and billing records. Experian operates as an information services company. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Oct. 15, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Nzvunn at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Erin L. Burke, Esq. Ryan D. Ball, Esq. TJ Herron, Esq. Ashley E. Sarkozi, Esq. JONES DAY 3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 800 Irvine, CA 92612 Telephone: (949) 851-3939 Facsimile: (949) 553-7539 E-mail: eburke@jonesday.com rball@jonesday.com therron@jonesday.com asarkozi@jonesday.com FIDELITY INVESTMENTS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Little Says --------------------------------------------------------------- PEGGIE LITTLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FIDELITY INVESTMENTS a/k/a FIDELITY MANAGEMENT & RESEARCH (FMR), Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-12625 (D. Mass., Oct. 15, 2024) is an action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive information of its customers. According to the complaint, the Data Breach was a direct result of the Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect consumers' personally identifiable information or "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. Fidelity Investment Company operates as an asset management firm. The Company offers fund management and security trading services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christina Xenides, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 1005 Congress Avenue, Suite 925-C36 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 265-5622 Email: cxenides@sirillp.com - and - A. Brooke Murphy, Esq. MURPHY LAW FIRM 4116 Will Rogers Pkwy, Suite 700 Oklahoma City, OK 73108 Telephone: (405) 389-4989 Email: abm@murphylegalfirm.com FIFTH THIRD BANK: Santen Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as John Van Santen, Caroline Van Santen, and all others similarly situated v. Dividend Solar Finance, LLC now known as Dividend, a Division of Fifth Third Bank, National Association, Modern Concepts Construction LLC, Modern Concepts Solar and Roofing Inc., Mcsolar Capital Group LLC, Raman Danny Chopra, Case No. 3:24-cv-00969 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on Oct. 17, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:24-cv-03921-KMM-DTS to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Truth in Lending. Fifth Third Bank -- https://www.53.com/content/fifth-third/en.html -- the principal subsidiary of Fifth Third Bancorp, is a bank holding company headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Bryant Dunivan, Jr., Esq. THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ATTORNEY, PA 5668 Fishhawk Crossing Blvd., Suite 333 Lithia, FL 33547 Phone: (813) 252-0239 Email: bryant@theconsumerprotectionattorney.com The Defendants are represented by: Brandon Todd Holmes, Esq. DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP 201 N Franklin St Ste 3050 Tampa, FL 33602-5816 Phone: (813) 543-9848 Fax: (813) 543-9849 Email: brandon.holmes@dinsmore.com - and - Alan H. Abes, Esq. Ross A. Wilson, Esq. DINSMORE & SHOHL, LLP 255 East Fifth Street, Suite 1900 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Phone: (513) 977-8149 Email: alan.abes@dinsmore.com ross.wilson@dinsmore.com FIRST TECH: DACA Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------ A federal judge has granted preliminary approval of a class-action settlement between First Tech Credit Union and recipients of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and other immigrants who were denied full consideration for credit because of their immigration status. MALDEF (Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund) represents DACA recipients and other immigrants who comprise the settlement class. "Preliminary approval is a critical step toward recourse for those harmed by discriminatory policies," said Thomas A. Saenz, MALDEF president and General Counsel. "Of course, such discrimination also has deleterious effects throughout the economy, so we are also pleased that the policy will change as part of this agreement." As part of the agreement, approved on Oct. 8, 2024, First Tech has agreed to create a settlement fund of $81,500 to compensate the class of immigrants affected by the challenged practice. As part of the agreement, First Tech will change its policy. The settlement is one of several MALDEF has reached with financial institutions that deny services to DACA recipients and other immigrants based on their status rather than credit-worthiness. The settlement provides that California class members receive $3,000, while national class members will receive $500 each. First Tech must also pay attorney's fees and other costs. "DACA recipients have been historically denied equal participation in consumer markets simply because of their immigration status," said Eduardo Casas, MALDEF attorney. "Policy changes like those included in this settlement can be life-changing by making vehicle purchases, homeownership, and the pursuit of higher education accessible to DACA recipients through financing. We hope that other lenders will follow suit." MALDEF filed the suit in 2023 on behalf of Ismael Rodriguez Perez, a recipient of DACA. Perez was initially approved for a Home Equity Line of Credit (HELOC), but later learned he was denied the loan because he was not a permanent resident. Attorneys argued that First Tech's policy was a violation of federal and state civil rights law, according to the lawsuit filed in federal court. "This agreement gave me a sense of justice and relief," said Perez. "It makes me wonder, however, how many people have been discriminated against without recourse. I am really happy and proud that this can be a great first step to stop discrimination against DACA recipients and inspires us to stand up for ourselves more. As a DACA recipient and STEM professional, I also hope that this can continue to raise awareness regarding DACA in the community and progress more toward equality." The suit challenged First Tech's denial of a loan to Perez as a violation of Section 1981 of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1866 and of California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, which prohibit discrimination in certain consumer matters. The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. First Tech Federal Credit Union is an Oregon-based member-owned credit union that manages $17 billion in assets. It serves nearly 650,000 members. [GN] GATOS SILVER: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With First Majestic ------------------------------------------------------------------ Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating: -- Gatos Silver, Inc. (NYSE: GATO), relating to its proposed merger with First Majestic Silver Corp. Under the terms of the agreement, GATO stock will automatically be converted into the right to receive 2.55 shares of First Majestic common stock. Click link for more information: https://monteverdelaw.com/case/gatos-silver-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- First Majestic Silver Corp. (NYSE: AG), relating to its proposed merger with Gatos Silver, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, Gatos Silver stock will automatically be converted into the right to receive 2.55 shares of First Majestic common stock. Click link for more information: https://monteverdelaw.com/case/first-majestic-silver-corp/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Yotta Acquisition Corporation (NYSE: YOTA), relating to its proposed merger with DRIVEiT Financial Auto Group, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, DRIVEiT securityholders are expected to own approximately 78.4% of the combined company. Click link for more information: https://monteverdelaw.com/case/yotta-acquisition-corporation/. 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] GRYPHON HEALTHCARE: Fails to Secure Clients' Info, Johnson Says --------------------------------------------------------------- AARON JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GRYPHON HEALTHCARE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:24-cv-03994 (S.D. Tex., October 17, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of third party beneficiary contract, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) and protected health information (PHI) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach discovered on or around August 13, 2024. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. Gryphon Healthcare, LLC is a medical-billing services provider, with its headquarters in Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq. EKSM, LLP 1105 Milford Street Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (888) 350-3931 Facsimile: (888) 276-3455 Email: lmontgomery@eksm.com GRYPHON HEALTHCARE: Parker Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Info ---------------------------------------------------------------- ASHTON PARKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GRYPHON HEALTHCARE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:24-cv-03982 (S.D. Tex., October 17, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, unjust enrichment, and breach of third-party beneficiary contract. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach discovered on or around August 13, 2024. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Gryphon Healthcare, LLC is a medical-billing services provider, with its headquarters in Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick Yarborough, Esq. FOSTER YARBOROUGH PLLC 917 Franklin Street, Suite 220 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 331-5254 Facsimile: (713) 513-5202 Email: patrick@fosteryarborough.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 Email: cmaccarone@zlk.com HARRIS TEETER: Cereal Bars' Natural Label "False," Zwilling Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- ELLEN ZWILLING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HARRIS TEETER LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00917 (W.D.N.C., October 17, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act and unjust enrichment and breach of express warranty under North Carolina law. The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of Cereal Bars. The Defendant advertised and labeled the products as "Naturally Flavored With Other Natural Flavors." In reality, the products contain an ingredient known as malic acid which is used as a flavoring in the products. As a result of the Defendant's misrepresentations, the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers suffered damages. Harris Teeter LLC is a supermarket chain based in Matthews, North Carolina. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Inez de Ondarza Simmons, Esq. DE ONDARZA SIMMONS PLLC 4030 Wake Forest Road, Suite 319 Raleigh, NC 27609 Telephone: (984) 837-0361 Facsimile: (919) 277-1727 Email: Inez@DeOndarzaSimmons.com - and - Charles C. Weller, Esq. CHARLES C. WELLER, APC 11412 Corley Court San Diego, CA 92126 Telephone: (858) 414-7465 Email: legal@cweller.com HAYWARD HOLDINGS: Court Dismisses Putative Class Action Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- JDSupra reports that on October 2, 2024, Judge William J. Martini of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed a putative class action against a pool equipment company (the "Company"), its private equity majority shareholders, an investment advisor for one of the private equity firms, and two of the Company's senior executives (the "Individual Defendants") alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5. City of Southfield Fire & Police Ret. Sys. v. Hayward Holdings, Inc., No. 2:23-CV-04146 (WJM) (D.N.J. Oct. 2, 2024). The Court dismissed the complaint because it did not plead with specificity which portions of the Company's or Individual Defendants' statements were actionable, why they were actionable, or whether the Individual Defendants acted with the required state of mind. The Company designs and manufactures pool products such as pumps, heaters, and filters. The Company was acquired by a private equity fund in 2017. The fund introduced a new management team (including the Individual Defendants) and conducted an initial public offering in March 2021. The majority of the Company's sales are generated by distributions through "channels" such as specialty distributors that in turn sell to pool builders, retailers, and servicers. Plaintiff alleged that demand for the Company's products surged at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. Plaintiff further alleged that distributors placed double orders and "loaded up" on inventory in 2021 to avoid logistics and supply chain challenges. According to plaintiff, demand dropped significantly beginning in mid-2021. The Company, however, was contractually obligated to continue purchasing raw materials and continued to manufacture at a high rate in excess of demand, allegedly resulting in over $100 million of excess inventory. The Plaintiff alleged that defendants knew about these issues but minimized and concealed them in the Company's prospectus filed in connection with the IPO and in quarterly earnings calls and press releases while selling shares at inflated prices. In evaluating plaintiff's claims, the Court first stated that the PSLRA requires a securities fraud complaint to specify each statement that allegedly was misleading and the reasons why and that plaintiff must "state with particularity facts giving rise to a strong inference that the defendant acted with the required state of mind." Plaintiff's complaint failed to meet these requirements for several reasons. First, the Court dismissed the complaint without prejudice because plaintiff failed to allege which statements were false and why. Specifically, the Court observed that the complaint included "lengthy block quotes that are at places highlighted with bold and italics," which were then followed by the same or substantially similar conclusory allegations that the statements were misleading because they did not disclose that the market was saturated and demand was declining. These allegations, however, left the Court and defendants to speculate which portions of the block quotes were being challenged and why. The Court held that "[i]dentifying [p]laintiff's claims should not be conjecture" and that it "should not be forced 'to play connect-the-dots in order to identify the facts and trends upon which plaintiffs base their claim.'" Second, the Court also dismissed the complaint without prejudice for failure to sufficiently allege scienter because it relied on impermissible group pleading, "attribut[ing] misstatements to all [d]efendants without showing each [d]efendant's involvement in those misstatements." Third, the Court dismissed the claims against the private equity shareholders with prejudice because plaintiffs could not allege that either defendant "made" the allegedly misleading statement. In reaching this conclusion and dismissing these claims with prejudice, the Court rejected plaintiff's argument that the statements were attributable to private equity firms because (i) the Individual Defendants who signed the relevant SEC filings were affiliated with these defendant entities, holding that they signed the SEC filings in their capacity as board members of the Company and not in their roles with the other defendants, and (ii) neither the private equity firm nor the investment advisor had ultimate authority over the alleged misstatements or SEC filings. Finally, the Court dismissed with prejudice the claims against the investment advisor for one of the private equity firms on the additional ground that it is a registered investment advisor that does not, and never has, owned any Company stock. The Court rejected arguments that the investment advisor and private equity firm should be treated as a single entity. [GN] HOOTCH LLC: Competello Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind --------------------------------------------------------------- SUSAN COMPETELLO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE HOOTCH LLC d/b/a SWEETLIFE NYC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-07876 (S.D.N.Y., October 17, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State Civil Rights Law, and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.sweetlife.nyc, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not limited to: broken/empty links, contrast errors, suspicious alternative text, and skipped heading levels, says the suit. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. The Hootch LLC, doing business as Sweetlife NYC, is a company that sells online goods and services, doing business in 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 INDIANA UNIVERSITY: Sued Over Tacit Acceptance of Sexual Abuse -------------------------------------------------------------- HARIS MUJEZINOVIC; and CHARLIE MILLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE TRUSTEES OF INDIANA UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-01827-SEB-MG (S.D. Ind., Oct. 15, 2024) alleges that the Defendant failed to take effective preventive measures and allowed repeated harm to students, including the Plaintiffs, endorsing and perpetuating a culture of deliberate indifference and tacit acceptance of the Defendant's former team physician, Dr. Bradford Bomba, Sr.'s sexual misconduct. According to the Plaintiffs in the complaint, despite the Defendant's knowledge of the pervasive, and repeated sexual assaults, the Defendant systemically mishandled and turned a blind eye to the Defendant's Hoosier men's basketball players' complaints of Dr. Bradford Bomba, Sr.'s sexual misconduct, contrary to federal regulations. Despite its knowledge of these routine sexual assaults, the Defendant's failure to take effective preventative measures allowed this sexually abusive behavior to persist, caused harm to students, and perpetuated a policy of deliberate indifference to and tacit acceptance of Dr. Bomba's sexual misconduct, says the suit. Indiana University is an educational institution. The University offers undergraduate, graduate, and continuing education for students. Indiana University offers serves students in the State of Indiana. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kathleen A. DeLaney, Esq. Matthew R. Gutwein, Esq. Alexander J. Pantos, Esq. DELANEY & DELANEY LLC 3646 Washington Blvd. Indianapolis, IN 46205 Telephone: (317) 920-0400 INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Seeks to Seal Objection to Class Cert Reply ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LARKIN COMMUNITY HOSPITAL v. Intuitive Surgical Inc. (RE: DA VINCI SURGICAL ROBOT ANTITRUST LITIGATION), Case No. 3:21-cv-03825-AMO (N.D. Cal.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting the Defendant's interim sealing motion with respect to Intuitive's objection pursuant to Local Rule 7-3(d) to certain class certification reply evidence. Consistent with the Sealing Procedures Order, Intuitive will notify any affected third parties and, within 14 days after the conclusion of all briefing of the underlying Class Certification Motion (including any associated filings), file an omnibus sealing motion attaching (a) support for any documents or portions of documents that a Party or third party seeks to maintain under seal; and (b) a proposed order with a chart listing all documents a Party or third party seeks to maintain under seal and the support for each request. See Sealing Procedures Order at 2. Intuitive develops, manufactures, and markets robotic products designed to improve clinical outcomes of patients through minimally invasive surgery. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Oct. 15, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=k2jHK9 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Allen Ruby, Esq. ALLEN RUBY, ATTORNEY AT LAW 15559 Union Ave. 138 Los Gatos, CA 95032 Telephone: (408) 477-9690 E-mail: allen@allenruby.com - and - Joshua Hill, Esq. Kenneth A. Gallo, Esq. Paul D. Brachman, Esq. William B. Michael, Esq. Crystal L. Parker, Esq. Daniel A. Crane, Esq. PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP 2001 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-1047 Telephone: (202) 223-7300 Facsimile: (202) 204-7420 E-mail: kgallo@paulweiss.com pbrachman@paulweiss.com wmichael@paulweiss.com cparker@paulweiss.com dcrane@paulweiss.com jhill@paulweiss.com - and - Kathryn E. Cahoy, Esq. Sonya E. Winner, Esq. Andrew Lazerow, Esq. Ashley E. Bass, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP 3000 El Camino Real 5 Palo Alto Square, 10th Floor Palo Alto, CA 94306-2112 Telephone: (650) 632-4700 Facsimile: (650) 632-4800 E-mail: kcahoy@cov.com swinner@cov.com alazerow@cov.com abass@cov.com KELLANOVA: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Mars Inc. ---------------------------------------------------------- Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating: -- Kellanova (NYSE: K), relating to its proposed merger with Mars, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, Kellanova common stock will be automatically converted into the right to receive $83.50 in cash per share. NOW IS YOUR CHANCE TO ACT. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for November 1, 2024. Click link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/kellanova/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Affinity Bancshares, Inc. (Nasdaq: AFBI), relating to its proposed merger with Atlanta Postal Credit Union ("APCU"). Under the terms of the agreement, APCU will pay Affinity an aggregate amount estimated to provide Affinity with sufficient cash to pay Affinity shareholders approximately $22.40 - $22.60 per share. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for November 4, 2024. Click link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/affinity-bancshares-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- ARC Document Solutions, Inc. (NYSE: ARC), relating to its proposed merger with TechPrint Holdings, LLC. Under the terms of the agreement, ARC shareholders are expected to receive $3.40 in cash per share they own. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for November 21, 2024. Click link for more information: https://monteverdelaw.com/case/arc-document-solutions-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] KINGSTON HEALTHCARE: Saunders Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- AMY SAUNDERS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Named Plaintiff v. KINGSTON HEALTHCARE, INC. and KINGSTON HEALTHCARE COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-01777-JGC (N.D. Ohio, October 11, 2024) is a collective and class action complaint brought by the Plaintiff to challenge the policies and practices of Defendants that violate the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act, and to recover unpaid wages and other damages from Defendants. The complaint alleges that Defendants shortchanged their non-exempt employees and failed to pay overtime compensation through unlawful practices that do not pay all overtime hours worked at one and one-half times their regular hourly rates for hours more than 40 hours per workweek. During her 12-year employment, Named Plaintiff worked in various hourly, non-exempt positions, including as a State Tested Nursing Assistant, dietary aide, and environmental services aide. Kingston Healthcare, Inc. offers independent living, assisted living, memory care, short-term stays, long-term and short-term skilled nursing, and rehabilitation services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel I. Bryant, Esq. BRYANT LEGAL, LLC 4400 N. High St., Suite 310 Columbus, OH 43214 Telephone: (614) 704-0546 Facsimile: (614) 573-9826 E-mail: dbryant@bryantlegalllc.com - and - Esther E. Bryant, Esq. BRYANT LEGAL, LLC 3450 W Central Ave., Suite 370 Toledo, OH 43606 Telephone: (419) 824-4439 Facsimile: (419) 932-6719 E-mail: Mbryant@bryantlegalllc.com Ebryant@bryantlegalllc.com - and - Joseph F. Scott, Esq. Ryan A. Winters, Esq. SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC 50 Public Square, Suite 1900 Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 912-2221 Facsimile: (440) 846-1625 E-mail: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com - and - Kevin M. McDermott, II, Esq. SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC 11925 Pearl Rd., Suite 310 Strongsville, OH 44136 Telephone: (216) 912-2221 Facsimile: (440) 846-1625 E-mail: kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com KOHL'S CORP: Court Dismisses Putative Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- AO Shearman, in an article with mondaq, reports that on September 30, 2024, Judge Lynn Adelman of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin granted a motion to dismiss a putative securities class action asserting claims under Sections 10(b), 14(a), and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") and Rules 10b-5 and 14a-9, against a retail department store chain (the "Company") and certain of its officers and board members ("Individual Defendants" and, collectively, "Defendants"). Thomas Frame v. Kohl's Corp., No. 22-CV-1016 (E.D. Wis. Sept. 30, 2024). Plaintiff alleged that Defendants made materially misleading statements and omissions in order to stave off a hostile takeover by an activist investment firm. The Court held that plaintiff failed to identify a single actionable misstatement or omission and, therefore, dismissed the action without prejudice. In January 2022, an activist investor in the Company allegedly proposed a slate of directors to compete for election against the Company's sitting board of directors at the shareholder meeting in approximately April 2022. If elected, these nominees allegedly promised to curb the Company's executive compensation packages. Plaintiff alleged that, in order to defeat the proposal, Defendants: (1) falsely attributed the Company's financial success in 2021 to Defendants' "strategic plan" when Defendants knew that unrelated macroeconomic factors -- namely the return to in-person shopping following administration of the COVID-19 vaccine and increased retail spending from the issuance of stimulus checks -- were real reason for this trend; (2) made false statements about the potential sale of the Company; and (3) misled investors and the public to believe that the Company's Q1 2022 financial results were positive. Defendants moved to dismiss primarily on the basis that plaintiff failed to plausibly allege falsity. The Court agreed. The Court first addressed plaintiff's claim that Defendants allegedly misattributed the Company's financial success in 2021 to Defendants' strategic plan. The Court found it to be significant that plaintiff primarily relied on allegations about the Company's performance during the subsequent year, including the Company's poor financial results and the Company's purported mismanagement of supply-chain issues in Q1 2022 to demonstrate the strategic plan did not contribute to the success achieved in 2021. The Court concluded that it could not plausibly infer that Defendants' statements about the strategic plan were false when made in 2021 based on these retrospective allegations; these allegations indicated only that the statements were incorrect in hindsight, which, the Court held, is insufficient to state a claim under the Exchange Act. In the alternative, the Court also held that plaintiff failed to allege scienter because all of Defendants' statements about the strategic plan preceded the activist investor's nomination of director candidates. Furthermore, the Court concluded that plaintiff failed to allege loss causation because the complaint did not identify any corrective disclosure. The Court next turned to plaintiff's claim that Defendants made false and misleading statements regarding the potential sale of the Company. In support of this variant of plaintiff's claims, plaintiff alleged that several news outlets reported on January 20 and 21, 2022, that the Company had received several bids, revealing that Defendants' denial of a potential sale of the Company in a January 18, 2022 press release was false. But the Court found that none of the complaint's factual content or the news articles, themselves, supported an inference that the Company received the reported bids before its January 18, 2022 press release and, thus, that the press release was false when published. Furthermore, plaintiff alleged that Defendants falsely stated that they had rejected a bid for sale in February 2022 because it undervalued the Company's potential for future growth and cash flow generation, when, in reality, the rejected bids allegedly exceeded the Company's value. However, the Court concluded that Defendants' statements about the Company's valuation and potential for growth were inactionable statements of opinion. Finally, the Court addressed plaintiff's claim that Defendants' misled investors and the public that the Company's Q1 2022 results were positive, when they were later revealed by quarterly reporting to be disappointing. In particular, plaintiff averred that Defendants had an obligation to make ongoing disclosures throughout the quarter because Defendants had painted a rosy picture of the Company's financial performance throughout 2021. Hence, plaintiff asserted that Defendants' silence amounted to an actionable omission. The Court refused to endorse this theory, finding Defendants had no obligation to provide updates on a financial quarter in progress, before the quarter end. Furthermore, the Court determined that Defendants' statements throughout Q1 2022 about the Company's "bright future" and "ability" to combat general macroeconomic challenges constituted mere corporate puffery and, therefore, could not form the basis of an Exchange Act violation. Finding that plaintiff failed to allege a predicate violation, the Court dismissed plaintiff's Section 20(a) claims. The dismissal was without prejudice and the Court granted plaintiff leave to amend. Thomas Frame v. Kohl's Corp. [GN] LENOVO GROUP: Court Vacates Class Cert Hearing Set for Nov. 1 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK HERMANSON, et al., v. LENOVO GROUP LIMITED, et al., Case No. 4:23-cv-05890-JSW (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jeffrey White entered an order granting Defendants' motion to stay. -- The Court vacates the hearing set for Nov. 1, 2024. -- The Court will not repeat the background of this or the related litigation, which is set forth in its previous Order granting, in part, and denying, in part, Lenovo's first motion to stay. -- As the Court previously concluded, the plaintiffs in Axelrod and Chen challenge the allegedly misleading manner, in which Lenovo advertises the prices of products on its website. Lenovo develops, manufactures, and distributes intelligent devices. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 15, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=owNia2 at no extra charge.[CC] LULING BAR-B-QUE: Withholds Employees' Tips, Morrison Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTY MORRISON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LULING BAR-B-QUE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-01248 (W.D. Tex., October 17, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for withholding employees' tips in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant from approximately March 2020 to on or about August 7, 2024. She worked primarily as a line server and meat cutter but would also work as a cashier at the end of the line. She also worked as a steam table service staff. Luling Bar-B-Que, LLC is a restaurant owner and operator located in Luling, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq. Melinda Arbuckle, Esq. WAGE AND HOUR FIRM 5050 Quorum Drive, Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75254 Telephone: (214) 489-7653 Facsimile: (469) 319-0317 Email: rprieto@wageandhourfirm.com marbuckle@wageandhourfirm.com MAC COSMETICS: Court OK's Discretionary Stay of Byrd Suit --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as EBONY BYRD, v. M.A.C. COSMETICS INC., et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-01639-AMO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin entered an order granting the Defendant's motion for discretionary stay. The Order assumes familiarity with the facts and claims of this case as well as those of Ignacio Maciel et al. v. M.A.C. Cosmetics, Inc., Case No. 3:23-CV-3718-AMO ("Maciel"). The motion is fully briefed and suitable for decision without oral argument. Accordingly, the hearing set for Oct. 21, 2024, is vacated. Having read the parties' papers and carefully considered their arguments and the relevant legal authority, and good cause appearing, the Court grants M.A.C.'s motion for a discretionary stay for the following reasons. While M.A.C. primarily argues for this case to be dismissed or stayed pursuant to the firstto-file rule, it remains an open question in this Circuit whether the rule applies to actions within the same district, as is the case here. That issue need not be resolved as the relevant factors support granting a discretionary stay based on the Court's inherent authority. It is appropriate to issue a discretionary stay here. Byrd and Maciel involve nearly-identical putative classes, the same defendant, and significantly similar facts and claims. However, the cases are at considerably different stages. In Maciel, discovery is closed, and class certification briefing is set to conclude within several months. In contrast, discovery has not yet begun in Byrd. There is thus no obvious damage from staying Byrd pending further proceedings in Maciel, and doing so is likely to simplify the issues and questions of law and promote judicial economy. MAC offers makeup, primers, skin care products, brushes, and fragrances. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 15, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OWLU03 at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 3123: Transfer of 4 TCPA Suits to W.D. Tex. Denied ------------------------------------------------------ Nathaniel M. Gorton, Acting Chair of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation denied the move by defendants Range View Management, LLC, Better Debt Solutions LLC, Lendvia LLC, and Better Tax Relief, LLC to transfer two cases from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas and one each from Central District of California and the Northern District of Texas, to the Western District of Texas for centralized litigation in "In re: Range View Management, LLC, et al., Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) Litigation," MDL No. 3123. These actions share some common factual questions relating to allegations that defendants violated the TCPA by placing telemarketing calls to plaintiffs' cellular telephones using a pre-recorded and/or artificial voice, without the plaintiffs' consent. Plaintiffs further allege that defendants violated the TCPA because their cellular telephone numbers were listed on the national "Do Not Call" Registry. According to the panel, these factual issues, while common, appear to be relatively straightforward, and discovery is unlikely to be unusually burdensome or time-consuming. In contrast, the amount of individualized discovery into such matters as the numbers of calls each plaintiff received, the process and documentation involved in obtaining or revoking of consent, and the timing and circumstances thereof may be significant. Where only a minimal number of actions are involved, the proponent of centralization bears a heavier burden to demonstrate that centralization is appropriate, the panel notes. "Defendants have not met that burden here. Not only are the common factual issues presented by these actions not complex, but the limited number of involved parties and the pendency of actions in only four districts, three of which are adjacent, suggest that alternatives to centralization, such as informal coordination, are practicable," the panel rules. A full-text copy of the court's October 4 order is available at https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3123-Order_Denying_Transfer-9-24.pdf MICHAEL GROFF: Class Certification Bids Due Feb. 28, 2025 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL E. GUMPRECHT, LLC, v. GROFF, et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-01210-JAG (D.P.R.), the Hon. Judge Jay Garcia-Gregory entered a case management order as follows: Event Deadline Conclusion of Discovery: Jan. 31, 2025 Filing of Dispositive Motions or Class Feb. 28, 2025 Certification Motions: Joint Proposed Pretrial Order: Apr. 21,2025 Pretrial/Settlement Conference: May 1, 2025 at 1:30pm Jury Trial May 12, 2025 at 10am A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 15, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VQAWZM at no extra charge.[CC] NATIONAL BASKETBALL: 2nd Cir. Revives Video Streaming Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- D. Darrell Hill, writing for WestLaw Today, reports that a subscriber to the NBA's online newsletter has persuaded a federal appeals court to reinstate his class-action lawsuit alleging that the association unlawfully shared subscribers' video streaming data with Facebook. Salazar v. National Basketball Association, No. 23-1147, (2d Cir. Oct. 15, 2024). In a matter of first impression, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Oct. 15 said the Video Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C.A. Sec. 2710 -- which bars a "video tape service provider" from knowingly sharing customers' personally identifying information without consent -- is not limited to audiovisual content. The panel reversed a lower court ruling that tossed Michael Salazar's lawsuit, saying it erred in determining that was he not a "consumer" who garnered protection under the VPPA in subscribing to the online newsletter. "Congress deployed broad language in defining the term 'consumer,' showing it did not intend for the VPPA to gather dust next to our VHS tapes," according to the panel. In his September 2022 lawsuit, Salazar said he signed up for an email newsletter at NBA.com. To register, he provided his email and IP address, among other details. The larger website contains archived videos of NBA games and other content, which can be accessed by subscribers and nonsubscribers alike. Salazar claimed that the site is equipped with Facebook's tracking pixel -- code that tracks visitor activity for marketing purposes. When NBA.com subscribers watch videos on the site, Facebook receives information about them, including their identities and the media content they accessed, the complaint said. Salazar said he never agreed to share his personal viewing information with Facebook and alleged that the NBA's unauthorized disclosure violated the VPPA. U.S. District Judge Jennifer L. Rochon of the Southern District of New York bounced the suit in August 2023, saying Salazar failed to show that he was a "protected consumer" under the act. According to the judge, the VPPA safeguards video service subscribers from having providers disclose their viewing habits. Salazar "alleged that he was a 'subscriber to newsletters, not a subscriber to audio visual materials,'" the judge said. Salazar appealed. 'No dinosaur statute,' panel says The 2nd Circuit reversed, rebutting the audiovisual content limitation the District Court had imposed. Considering the statute's text and legislative history, the term "consumer" encompasses a "renter, purchaser or subscriber of any of the provider's 'goods or services' -- audiovisual or not," the panel said. It rejected the NBA's contention that Salazar is still not a "subscriber" under the statute because he did not pay for any of its goods or services. In addition to "subscriber," the statute's definition of consumer includes the terms "purchaser" and "renter," the panel said. "Subscriber" would be rendered superfluous if people needed to spend money to fall within the statute's reach, according to the panel. Moreover, Salazar traded personal information, including his email and IP addresses, to gain access to the newsletter, the panel said. That information "increased the NBA's potential to urge Salazar to visit NBA.com and watch videos on it, making the NBA's relationship with him distinct from its relationship with casual NBA.com video-watchers who had not signed up for the newsletter," the panel said. "The VPPA is no dinosaur statute," the panel said. "Our modern means of consuming content may be different, but the VPPA's privacy protections remain as robust today as they were in 1988." Joshua I. Hammack of Bailey & Glasser LLP represented Salazar. Matthew X. Etchemendy of Vinson & Elkins LLP represented the association. [GN] NEBULA GENOMICS: Fails to Protect Genetic Data, Portillo Says ------------------------------------------------------------- ANTOINETTE PORTILLO, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. NEBULA GENOMICS, INC., a Delaware Corporation, META PLATFORMS, INC., a Delaware Corporation, MICROSOFT CORPORATION, a Washington Corporation, and GOOGLE LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-09894 (N.D. Ill., October 10, 2024) arises from Nebula's practice of disclosing Plaintiff and other customers' genetic information to third parties without first obtaining consent in violation of the Illinois Genetic Information Privacy Act. To use Nebula's services, customers like Plaintiff must first visit Nebula's website, nebula.org, and order a DNA test or, if they have already taken a DNA test (from Nebula or any other genetics testing service), create an account and upload their DNA test results. By doing so, Nebula allows its customers to make discoveries and insights about their ancestry, health, fitness, and much more. According to the complaint, unbeknownst to its customers, Nebula shares their highly sensitive and personal genetic test results with third parties, entirely without the customer's consent. As a result, the third parties to whom Plaintiff's genetic information has been disclosed -- specifically Defendants Meta Platforms, Inc., Microsoft Corporation, and Google, LLC -- have gained specific knowledge of Plaintiff's and Class Members' genetic makeup, including their genetic predisposition to medical conditions, disease, ethnicity, and physical characteristics. Nebula is a for-profit corporation which owns and operates a platform for DNA testing and analysis, Nebula.org.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jon Loevy, Esq. Michael I. Kanovitz, Esq. Thomas M. Hanson, Esq. LOEVY & LOEVY 311 N. Aberdeen St., 3rd Floor Chicago, IL 60607 Telephone: (312) 243-5900 E-mail: jon@loevy.com mike@loevy.com hanson@loevy.com NEW YORK, NY: Class Settlement in Pierre Suit Gets Final Nod ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as BURBRAN PIERRE, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, TD BANK N.A., DUANE READE INC., B & H PHOTO VIDEO PRO AUDIO LLC, BLOOMBERG L.P., TRIHOP 14TH STREET LLC, DOES NOS. 1-10, SILVERSEAL CORPORATION d/b/a/ S.E.A.L. SECURITY LLC, and GARDAWORLD SECURITY CORPORATION d/b/a GARDAWORLD, Case No. 1:20-cv-05116-ALC-VF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Andrew Carter, Jr. entered an order granting final approval of the settlement, class certification, award of attorneys' fees and expenses, and a service award. -- The Court grants Plaintiffs' motion for final approval. -- Pursuant to FRCP 23, the Court certifies, for settlement purposes only, a Class consisting of: "All current and former New York City Police Officers, Sergeants, Lieutenants, and Detectives ("Officers") who provided services at any TD Bank location in New York State at any time from July 3, 2014 through Sept. 22, 2023 through the Paid Detail Program." -- The Court appoints Plaintiff Burbran Pierre to represent the Class, finding that Plaintiff meets all the requirements for class certification under FRCP 23(a) and (b)(3). -- The Plaintiff undertook risks to serve his fellow Officers and he expended significant time and effort in the prosecution of the claims and securing the Settlement on behalf of the Class. -- The Court finds that a service payment of $10,000 to Plaintiff is reasonable. -- The Court appoints Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP as Class Counsel, finding that they meet all the requirements under the FRCP 23(g). -- The Court grants Class Counsel's requested fees of $2,976,728.80 and reimbursement of litigation expenses of $11,232.49. New York City comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River meets the Atlantic Ocean. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 15, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wJNlBY at no extra charge.[CC] OTHER SIDE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Robles Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- PRIMITIVO ROBLES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE OTHER SIDE DISPENSARY LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-07729 (S.D.N.Y., October 11, 2024) is a civil action against Defendant for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate the Defendant's website, www.tosdispensary.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State Civil Rights Law. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has been denied the full use and enjoyment of the facilities, goods and services offered to the general public, on Defendant's website in Bronx County. These access barriers that Plaintiff encountered have caused a denial of his full and equal access multiple times in the past, and now deter him on a regular basis from accessing the Defendant's website and/or physical dispensary in the future, says the suit. The Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The Other Side Dispensary LLC, is a New Jersey corporation that owns and maintains the recreational cannabis dispensary located in Jersey City, New Jersey, and owns and maintains the website.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq. Bennitta L. Joseph, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 110 East 59th Street, Suite 2300 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 227-5700 Facsimile: (212) 656-1889 E-mail: jon@norinsberglaw.com bennitta@employeejustice.com PHARMACARE US: Parties Must Designate Merits Experts by Oct. 30 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MONTIQUENO CORBETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, et al., v. PHARMACARE U.S., INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-00137-JES-AHG (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered an order resolving the opposed joint motion and granting in part the plaintiffs' request for continuance as follows: -- The parties shall designate their respective merits experts in writing by Oct. 30, 2024. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(A), the parties must identify any person who may be used at trial to present evidence pursuant to Rules 702, 703 or 705 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. This requirement is not limited to retained experts. The parties shall designate any merits rebuttal experts in writing by Nov. 27, 2024. -- By Oct. 30, 2024, each party shall comply with the disclosure provisions in Rule 26(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. -- Any party shall supplement its disclosure regarding contradictory or rebuttal evidence under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(D) and 26(e) by Nov. 27, 2024. -- All merits expert discovery shall be completed by all parties by Dec. 18, 2024. The parties shall comply with the same procedures set forth in the paragraph governing fact discovery. -- All pretrial motions must be filed by Jan. 7, 2025. Counsel for the moving party must obtain a motion hearing date from the law clerk of the judge who will hear the motion. -- All other dates and pretrial instructions set forth in the Court's Scheduling Order dated April 18, 2024 -- including the March 5, 2025, Mandatory Settlement Conference,1 and the May 7, 2025, final pretrial conference -- will remain unchanged. Pharmcare is a provider of long-term care pharmacy services. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 15, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6pEIGb at no extra charge.[CC] PHILLY POPS: Class Suit Seeks Damages for Cancelled Concert Tickets ------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Dobrin, writing for The Philadelphia Inquirer, reports that a Philly Pops ticket buyer on Wednesday, October 16, filed a proposed class-action suit seeking restitution for herself and other patrons who bought tickets for Philly Pops concerts that were scheduled but never happened. The Philly Pops, Philadelphia Orchestra, Kimmel Center, Ticket Philadelphia, and its leaders were named in the suit filed in U.S. District Court asking for various kinds of damages. Tickets to concerts that were effectively canceled "were rendered worthless," the suit says, resulting in audience members losing "at least $1.1 million as a direct and proximate result of defendants' wrongful acts alleged herein." The suit alleges that the concert cancellations were "due to a poorly planned conspiracy to force the Philly Pops out of business for the benefit of the Philadelphia Orchestra." Former Pops president Frank Giordano, named in the suit, said he had not seen it and had no comment. He said that while the Philly Pops' parent, Encore Series Inc., still existed as a corporate entity, there was nothing left of the organization. "There are no assets, no employees, no office. There's nothing." [GN] PLANET 51 LLC: Robles Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users ---------------------------------------------------------------- PRIMITIVO ROBLES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PLANET 51 LLC d/b/a NICKLZ, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-07730 (S.D.N.Y., October 11, 2024) is a civil action against Defendant for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.nicklzny.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State Civil Rights Law. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has been denied the full use and enjoyment of the facilities, goods and services offered to the general public, on Defendant's website in Bronx County. These access barriers that Plaintiff encountered have caused a denial of his full and equal access multiple times in the past, and now deter him on a regular basis from accessing the Defendant's website and/or physical dispensary in the future, says the suit. The Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Planet 51 LLC, d/b/a NICKLZ, is a New York limited liability company that operates the website serving as a recreational cannabis dispensary.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq. Bennitta L. Joseph, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 110 East 59th Street, Suite 2300 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 227-5700 Facsimile: (212) 656-1889 E-mail: jon@norinsberglaw.com bennitta@employeejustice.com PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Nunez Sues Over Customers' Compromised Info ---------------------------------------------------------------- ROSALEE NUNEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:24-cv-00369-RGE-WPK (S.D. Iowa, October 17, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy/intrusion upon seclusion, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within the network systems of its affiliate following a data breach between October 29, 2023, and November 2, 2023. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. Principal Financial Group, Inc. is an American global financial investment management and insurance company based in Des Moines, Iowa. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Barton Goplerud, Esq. Brian O. Marty, Esq. 5015 Grand Ridge Drive, Suite 100 West Des Moines, IA 50265 Telephone: (515) 223-4567 Facsimile: (515) 223-8887 Email: goplerud@sagwlaw.com marty@sagwlaw.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT One West Law Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 332-4200 Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com - and - Gary Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Facsimile: (866) 522-0049 Email: gklinger@milberg.com PROFESSIONAL FINANCE: Settlement Deal in Rodriguez Gets Initial OK ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARITZA RODRIGUEZ, et al., behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. PROFESSIONAL FINANCE COMPANY, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-01679-RMR-STV (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement: 1. The Court preliminarily certifies a settlement class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) consisting of: "All persons whose personally identifiable information was identified as included in the Data Breach and to whom notice of the Data Breach was sent." 2. The Court preliminary certifies, solely for settlement purposes, the following Subclasses: "All individuals who fall within the definition of the "Class" whose Social Security Numbers were potentially accessed or implicated in the Data Breach (the "SSN Subclass")." "All individuals who fall within the definition of the "Class" whose Social Security Numbers were not potentially accessed or implicated in the Data Breach (the "Non-SSN Subclass"). 3. The Plaintiffs Maritza Rodriguez, Jerry Blake, Natalie Willingham, Christopher Schroeder, Ryan McGarrigle, and Marko Skrabo are preliminarily approved as the Class Representatives. 4. Jean S. Martin of Morgan & Morgan, Terence R. Coates of Markovits, Stock & DeMarco, LLC, and Joseph M. Lyon of the Lyon Firm are preliminarily approved as Class Counsel. 5. Kroll Settlement Administration LLC is preliminarily approved as the Settlement Administrator. 6. The parties shall contact the Court's chambers to set a date for the fairness hearing within 7 days of the entry of this Order. The case arises from a data security incident experienced by the Defendant on Feb. 26, 2022 (the "Data Security Incident") that involved the unauthorized access of files containing the personal identifying information (PII) and protected health information (PHI) of approximately 2,000,000 individuals. Professional Finance operates as a debt management company. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 15, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0prLgY at no extra charge.[CC] RENOVARO BIOSCIENCES: Settlement Reached in Chow Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Renovaro Biosciences Inc. (formerly Enochian BioSciences Inc.) disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 10, 2024, that a mediation was held on September 17, 2024, and the parties have come to an agreement in principle to settle a securities class action complaint filed by purported stockholders of the company in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on July 26, 2022, against the company and certain of the company's current and former officers and directors. The case is captioned "Chow v. Enochian Biosciences Inc.," No. 22-cv-05147. The complaints allege, among other things, that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, by making false and misleading statements and omissions of material fact in connection with the company's relationship with Serhat Gümrükcü, an alleged murderer and co-founder of Enochian BioSciences, and its commercial prospects. The complaints seek unspecified damages, interest, fees, and costs. On October 22, 2023, the court appointed a lead plaintiff in the Chow Action. The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on December 15, 2023. The company has filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on March 15, 2024. The court denied the company's motion to dismiss on June 28, 2024. Renovaro Biosciences Inc. is a biotechnology company developing advanced allogeneic cell and gene therapies to promote stronger immune system responses potentially for long-term or life-long cancer remission in some of the deadliest cancers, and potentially to treat or cure serious infectious diseases such as Human Immunodeficiency Virus and Hepatitis B virus infection. REVOLVE GROUP: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Miller Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- KIMBERLY MILLER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. REVOLVE GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00987 (W.D.N.Y., October 17, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York State Human Rights Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://revolve.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not limited to: lack of alternative text (alt-text) or a text equivalent, empty links that contain no text, redundant links, and linked images missing alt-text. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Revolve Group, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services, doing business in New York. [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 ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Guest Sues Over Hidden Camera in Bathrooms ----------------------------------------------------------- Nathan Diller of USA TODAY reports that a Royal Caribbean International passenger is suing the company and a former crew member after the employee allegedly hid a camera in her cabin bathroom. The class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of the guest -- identified as Jane Doe -- and "all other similarly situated passengers," in the Southern District of Florida on Tuesday, October 15. Arvin Joseph Mirasol, a former stateroom attendant, captured images of the guest "while undressed and engaging in private activities" during a February cruise on the line's Symphony of the Seas ship, according to the filing. Mirasol was sentenced to 30 years in federal prison in August for filming guests, including children, with hidden cameras while they were naked. He still faces video voyeurism charges in Florida. "Upon information and belief, Mirasol transmitted and/or uploaded images of the Plaintiff while undressed and engaging in private activities, to third parties and/or to the world wide web, including, but not limited to, the dark web, without Plaintiff's prior knowledge or consent," the complaint filed this week states. The passenger has suffered extreme emotional distress as a result, which has caused physical symptoms including insomnia, physical pain and dizziness. The lawsuit also alleges that Royal Caribbean "knew or should have known sexual assaults were reasonably foreseeable considering the prevalence of sexual assaults aboard RCCL's cruise ships," pointing to a hidden camera incident on another ship in the fleet. In that instance, a passenger on the line's Harmony of the Seas vessel was arrested last year for allegedly filming people, including children, in a public bathroom without their knowledge. Allegations of sexual assault on cruise ships rose to 131 in 2023, up from 87 the year before and 101 in 2019, before the industry shut down due to COVID-19. The lawsuit alleges that the company failed to provide sufficient security, training or supervision to prevent sexual assaults of that kind, and did not warn guests about such crimes. The cruise line also allegedly did not notify individual class plaintiffs who stayed in cabins serviced by Mirasol between Dec. 1, 2023 and Feb. 26, 2024. There may be up to 960 impacted passengers, according to the complaint. "If you're a company that's looking out for the best interest of your passengers, and aren't acting in your own financial interests, then you would certainly be telling all these people that they could be potential victims, right?" said Jason Margulies, an attorney with Lipcon, Margulies & Winkleman, P.A. representing the plaintiff. "I mean, that's the humane thing to do." "The safety and privacy of our guests is our highest priority, and we have zero tolerance for this behavior," Royal Caribbean told USA TODAY in an emailed statement. "We immediately reported this case to law enforcement and terminated the crew member. As this is pending litigation, we are unable to comment further at this time." The suit seeks unspecified damages -- including punitive damages -- and a jury trial. [GN] SAN DIEGO, CA: Class Settlement in Bloom Suit Gets Final Nod ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL BLOOM, STEPHEN CHATZKY, TONY DIAZ, VALERIE GRISCHY, PENNY HELMS, BENJAMIN HERNANDEZ, DOUG HIGGINS, SUZONNE KEITH, GERALD STARK, ANNA STARK, and DAVID WILSON, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. CITY OF SAN DIEGO, Case No. 3:17-cv-02324-AJB-DEB (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Anthony Battaglia entered an order granting Plaintiffs' motions for final approval of the Settlement and for attorneys' fees: 1. The claims of Plaintiffs and Class Members are released as against the Defendant consistent with Paragraph 12 of the Settlement Agreement. 2. The City pay $15,000 in monetary damages to each of the nine current Named Plaintiffs, and $7,500 to each of the seven Class Representatives within 30 days of this Order. 3. Without affecting the finality of this Final Approval Order, the Court retains jurisdiction over implementation of the settlement for a period of three years, with enforcement delegated to Magistrate Judge Butcher. 4. This action be dismissed with prejudice, with each side to bear its own costs and attorneys' fees except as provided by the Settlement Agreement and the Court's Orders. 5. This document constitutes a final judgment and separate document for purposes of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58(a). 6. The Clerk of Court is ordered to close this case. San Diego is a city on the Pacific coast of California known for its beaches, parks and warm climate. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 15, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2V51VM at no extra charge.[CC] SKIN THEORY: Court Enters Standing Order in Schirmacher Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as TOM SCHIRMACHER, v. SKIN THEORY AESTHETICS INC., et al. Case No. 2:24-cv-08742-FLA-JC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando Aenlle-Rocha entered an standing order as follows: -- Service of the Complaint The Plaintiff shall promptly serve the complaint in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and file the proofs of service pursuant to Local Rule 5-3.1. -- Removed Actions All documents filed in state court, including documents appended to the complaint, answers, and motions, must be re-filed in this court as a supplement to the notice of removal. -- Motions for Class Certification Notwithstanding Local Rule 23-3, the deadline for the filing of a motion for class certification will be set pursuant to the parties' stipulation during the Scheduling Conference or in a Scheduling Order. No request for relief from Local Rule 23-3 is necessary. -- Summary Judgment Motions No party may file more than one motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 regardless of whether such motion is denominated a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication, without leave of court. Skin Theory is a highly specialized spa founded on the concepts of intelligent, research-based, safe, effective skincare and services. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 15, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=prYt7N at no extra charge.[CC] SOL DE JANEIRO: Faces Miller Suit Over Website's Access Barriers ---------------------------------------------------------------- KIMBERLY MILLER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SOL DE JANEIRO USA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00988 (W.D.N.Y., October 17, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York State Human Rights Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://soldejaneiro.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not limited to: lack of alternative text (alt-text) or a text equivalent, empty links that contain no text, redundant links, and linked images missing alt-text. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Sol De Janeiro USA, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services, doing business in New York. [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 ST. THOMAS PSYCHIATRIC: Court Certifies PST Class Action Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Yahoo!Finance reports that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has certified a class action against the government of Ontario on behalf of patients in the Psychosocial Treatment Program (referenced as unit PST, 2C, P2C, PST or PSTU) on the forensic unit at St. Thomas Psychiatric Hospital between 1976 and 1992, their estates, and family members with derivative claims for damages under s. 61 of the Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3. St. Thomas Psychiatric Hospital, which was located in St. Thomas, Ontario, was a psychiatric facility operated by the government of Ontario. The Plaintiffs allege that the Class Members were subjected to an experimental, punitive, and abusive patient-run Program with no medical merit. It is alleged that this Program, which was run by the government of Ontario, was contrary to prevailing medical and ethical standards, exposed the Class Members to psychological, physical, and sexual abuse, and caused the Class Members harm. The Court has not made any determination yet on the merits of these allegations. The Defendant, the government of Ontario, denies these allegations. The action seeks, among other things, damages for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty, as well as damages suffered by family members of individuals who were patients of the Psychosocial Treatment Program or its successor PST Program. If you attended the Psychosocial Treatment Program between 1976 and 1992, your rights are affected by this action. If you wish to remain in the action, you do not need to take any further action. If you remain in the action, you may potentially participate in a future settlement or you may choose to advance your individual claim if that is required. If you wish to exclude yourself from the action and preserve your right to advance your own individual claim subject to any applicable limitation periods, you must deliver a signed Opt Out Form by e-mail, regular mail or courier to the Court-appointed class action notice administrator at: St. Thomas Psychiatric Hospital Forensic Unit Class Action Dewar Communications Inc. 9 Prince Arthur Avenue Toronto, ON M5R 1B2 StThomasclassaction@dewarcom.com To learn more about your rights, to discuss your claim and whether you should opt-out or to obtain an Opt Out Form, contact Class Counsel or visit their website at: https://www.rochongenova.com/current-class-action-cases/st-thomas-psychiatric-hospital/ Class Counsel Rochon Genova LLP Barristers -- Avocats 900-121 Richmond St. W. Tel: (416) 363-1867 1-800-462-3864 contact@rochongenova.com [GN] STATE FARM: Settles Suit Over Vehicles' Total Loss Claims for $2MM ------------------------------------------------------------------ Lurah Lowery, writing for Repairer Driven News, reports that State Farm has agreed to pay nearly $1.5 million to a class of Washington state policyholders who allegedly weren't paid for the diminished value of their vehicles following at least $1,000 in damage. A class action lawsuit was filed in 2018 by Anousack Sanith who was rear-ended in a hit-and-run collision in 2017, according to the complaint. In addition to what State Farm will pay the class, it will also pay attorney's fees of $627,360 plus $13,000 for "costs" and a $10,000 service award to Sanith, according to the final settlement agreement. The vehicle was a 2017 Toyota Tacoma SR5, which had 8,278 miles at the time of the accident but State Farm didn't pay Sanith for the diminished value of his vehicle even though damages were extensive, adding up to more than $17,700. Repairs of the vehicle included frame/unibody repairs, body work, and painting, according to the complaint. The class, at the time the lawsuit was filed, included 830 State Farm policyholders in the state of Washington who filed a underinsured motorist (UIM) claim for vehicle damages, and: -- "The repair estimates on the vehicle (including any supplements) totaled at least $1,000; -- "The vehicle was no more than six years old (model year plus five years) and had less than 90,000 miles on it at the time of the accident; and -- "The vehicle suffered structural (frame) damage and/or deformed sheet metal and/or required body or paint work." "These policies, identical to the policy sold to Plaintiff, offered to pay for legally recoverable losses and damage to insured vehicles under the UIM PD Coverage," the suit states. "The policies promise as follows: 'We will pay compensatory damages for property damage an insured is legally entitled to recover from the owner or driver of an underinsured motor vehicle.' "There is no exclusionary or limiting language limiting the coverage obligation listed above . . . It is long established that the compensatory damages one can recover from an at-fault driver in this state includes what the law refers to as 'diminished value.'" The complaint notes that, according to WPI 30.12, "compensatory damages" are "the reasonable value of necessary repairs to any property that was damaged plus the difference between the fair cash market value of the property immediately before the occurrence and its fair cash market value after it is repaired." Like others in the proposed class, Sanith's claim was classified and adjusted by State Farm under UIM property damage (UIM PD) coverage and he was charged the UIM PD deductible on his claim. "As it does on every case with UIM PD exposure, State Farm F&C conducted an investigation, determining that the other party was at fault and that the at-fault party was uninsured (or could not be identified), triggering UIM PD coverage," the complaint states. "As a result of the damage it sustained in the accident, plaintiff's vehicle was worth less after it was repaired than it was before the accident. Since the areas of and the fact of repaired damage are detectable, knowledgeable buyers know that after the accident the vehicle lacks the attributes of an undamaged vehicle, and the vehicle is worth less (it has "diminished value") as a result of the accident. . . " Sanith requested that his truck be declared a total loss "due to the severity of damage compared to the vehicle's pre-loss value," the complaint says. "In a telephone conversation, a representative of State Farm F&C told plaintiff that he could present a claim for the resulting loss in value once his vehicle had been repaired," the suit states. Sanith then hired an appraiser and licensed public adjuster to appraise his truck for a loss in value claim, which State Farm denied. A letter from State Farm to Sanith, according to the complaint, states, "We believe that the documentation which has been provided to date does not substantiate that the value of your vehicle has been reduced due to the damage sustained from the auto accident . . . The repairs paid were performed according to professional repair specifications. There is no evidence the repair work was below repair industry standards." Sanith was told to contact the shop that completed the repairs if he had an issue with them, the complaint states. An order preliminarily approving the settlement agreement was given on May 10, 2024. The final approval order was filed Sept. 27. "The complaint filed in this action alleges generally that, in breach of the policies, defendant improperly failed to pay the plaintiff and settlement class members . . . for diminished value with respect to uninsured and underinsured motorist property damage coverage claims," wrote Judge Bryan Chushcoff, in the final approval order. "Defendant denies liability and maintains that it paid the full and appropriate amounts owed, as part of its regular claim-handling process." As a result of the agreed-upon settlement, the action was dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend. Those who properly submit claim forms by Nov. 12 will be included in the class, according to a class member notice. [GN] SUNFAR CONTRACTING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Menjivar Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- RAMON ROSA GUARDADO MENJIVAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUNFAR CONTRACTING CORP.; and NELYI REYES, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-07216 (Oct. 15, 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 Menjivar was employed by the Defendant as a construction helper. Sunfar Contracting Corp. operates as a home improvement contractor. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented byL Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 TAC MANUFACTURING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Levine Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ ERIC LEVINE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TAC MANUFACTURING, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-01077-HYJ-SJB (W.D. Mich., Oct. 15, 2024) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Levine was employed by the Defendant as a staff. TAC Manufacturing, Inc. manufactures auto parts and accessories. The Company produces motor vehicle parts and accessories which includes multi-function switches, shift lever, steering locks, key set, and seat belt products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. 141 E. Michigan Avenue, Suite 600 Kalamazoo, MI 49007 Telephone: (269) 250-7500 Email: jyoung@sommerspc.com - and - Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Town Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 Email: kstoops@sommerspc.com - and - Jonathan Melmed, Esq. Laura Supanich, Esq. MELMED LAW GROUP, P.C. 1801 Century Park East, Suite 850 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 824-3828 Email: jm@melmedlaw.com lms@melmedlaw.com TARGET CORP: Genesee Cty. Gains From $15-M Opioid Suit Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- Joanne Beck, writing for The Batavian, reports that Matt Landers wasn't quite ready to go on record with an official comment about a nearly $15 million settlement of two opioid-related lawsuits, but both cases will mean some money for Genesee County, he said. Landers was hesitant to count those proverbial chickens before finding out exactly how much the county would be receiving as part of a national class action lawsuit against each, the national Big Box retailer Target and Henry Schein, a worldwide distributor of medical and dental supplies, including vaccines, pharmaceuticals, financial services and equipment. During Ways & Means Committee meeting, county Attorney Mark Boylan briefed the group that both cases had been settled and that the county would receive a portion of the $900,000 settlement from Henry Schein and $14 million from Target. "So this was part of the class action suit. I think every county in New York State is involved, as well as municipalities, towns, and villages," Boylan told The Batavian, answering about a potential timeline for payment. "I would expect all the agreements have to be executed by all the municipalities before those wheels start to turn and checks are issued, so I would say probably in the next six or eight months." Genesee County is one of 62 counties in New York State likely to be sharing in that pot of $14,900,000. The lawsuit alleged several causes of action against distribution defendants Target and Henry Schein based on claims that each company contributed to the opioid epidemic by failing to comply with their obligations under the Federal Controlled Substances Act and the New York Controlled Substance Act in order to implement adequate measures to prevent diversion of the prescription opioids that they distributed to pharmacies, all of which contributed to a public health crisis in the County of Genesee. [GN] TEXAS PRIDE: Underpays Waste Disposal Drivers, Veira Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- KIRK VEIRA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TEXAS PRIDE DISPOSAL SOLUTIONS, LLC and KEVIN ATKINSON, Defendants, Case No. 4:24-cv-03990 (S.D. Tex., October 17, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff worked as a waste disposal driver at Defendants' facility in Houston, Texas since October 17, 2021. Texas Pride Disposal Solutions, LLC is a waste collection services provider in Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. Lauren E. Braddy, Esq. Carter T. Hastings, Esq. 101 N. Shoreline Blvd., Suite 610 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 Email: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com lauren@a2xlaw.com carter@a2xlaw.com TICKETMASTER LLC: Carranza Suit Transferred to D. Montana --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Iran Carranza, an individually, and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals v. Ticketmaster LLC, A-Z Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 2:24-cv-06863 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana on Oct. 17, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00147-BMM to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Ticketmaster Entertainment, LLC -- https://www.ticketmaster.com/ -- is an American ticket sales and distribution company based in Beverly Hills, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kaveh Sam Elihu, Esq. Saima Ali, Esq. EMPLOYEE JUSTICE LEGAL GROUP, PC 1001 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 382-2222 Fax: (213) 382-2230 Email: kelihu@ejlglaw.com sali@ejlglaw.com TICKETMASTER LLC: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Pomeroy Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL POMEROY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TICKETMASTER, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-08809 (C.D. Cal., October 11, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and similarly situated customers' personally identifiable information, including, but not limited to full names, addresses, email addresses, phone numbers and credit card details. According to the complaint, the Defendant revealed in a June 28, 2024 notification to the Maine Attorney General that a hacker gained unauthorized access to Defendant's cloud database, owned and operated by Snowflake, Inc., information on April 2, 2024. The Defendant did not discover the data breach until May 23, 2024, nearly seven weeks later, and did not notify Plaintiff or Class Members until July 17, 2024, another almost two months after the data breach was discovered. The complaint alleges that the data breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable data protection procedures, including vendor management, necessary to protect consumers' PII from a foreseeable and preventable risk of unauthorized disclosure. Through this complaint, the Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms individually, and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals whose PII was accessed during the data breach. The Plaintiff and Class Members have a continuing interest in ensuring that their personal information is kept confidential and protected from disclosure, and they should be entitled to injunctive and other equitable relief. Ticketmaster, LLC is one of the largest ticket sales and distribution companies in the world. Ticketmaster operates a digital ticketing platform that requires customers to provide their PII prior to purchase.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kiley Grombacher, Esq. BRADLEY/GROMBACHER, LLP 31365 Oak Crest Drive, Suite 240 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Telephone: (805) 270-7100 Facsimile: (805) 270-7589 E-mail: kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com TICKETMASTER LLC: Smith Suit Transferred to D. Montana ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Alisa Smith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ticketmaster LLC, Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., Snowflake Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-07446 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana on Oct. 17, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00149-BMM to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Contract. Ticketmaster Entertainment, LLC -- https://www.ticketmaster.com/ -- is an American ticket sales and distribution company based in Beverly Hills, California.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq. Adrian John Buonanoce, Esq. PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP 15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Phone: (818) 788-8300 Fax: (818) 788-8104 Email: dwarshaw@pwfirm.com abuonanoce@pwfirm.com - and - Steven M. Nathan, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 33 Whitehall Street, Ste 14th Floor New York, NY 10004 Phone: (646) 357-1100 Fax: (212) 202-4322 Email: snathan@hausfeld.com The Defendants are represented by: Stephen A. Broome, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART AND SULLIVAN LLP 865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 443-3000 Fax: (213) 443-3100 Email: stephenbroome@quinnemanuel.com TILRAY BRANDS: Court Dismisses Kasilingam Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Tilray Brands, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended August 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 10, 2024, that on September 30, 2024, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York entered an Opinion & Order granting the defendants' motion to dismiss a Third Amended Complaint in a May 4, 2020 lawsuit filed by Ganesh Kasilingam against Tilray Brands, Inc., Brendan Kennedy and Mark Castaneda, on behalf of himself and a putative class, seeking to recover damages for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. the Kasilingam litigation with prejudice. The complaint alleges that Tilray and the individual defendants overstated the anticipated advantages of the company's revenue sharing agreement with Authentic Brands Group (ABG), announced on January 15, 2019, and that the plaintiff suffered losses when Tilray's stock price dropped after Tilray recognized an impairment with respect to the ABG deal on March 2, 2020. On August 6, 2020, the court entered an order appointing Saul Kassin as Lead Plaintiff and The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. as Lead Counsel. Lead Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on October 5, 2020, which asserts the same Sections 10(b) and 20(a) claims against the same defendants on largely the same theory, and includes new allegations that Tilray's reported inventory, cost of sales, and gross margins in its financial reports during the class period were false and misleading because Tilray improperly recorded unsellable "trim" as inventory and understated the cost of sales for its products. On September 27, 2021, the U.S. District court entered an Opinion and Order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint in the Kasilingam litigation. On December 3, 2021, the lead plaintiff filed a second amended complaint alleging similar claims against Tilray and Brendan Kennedy. The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on February 2, 2022. On September 28, 2022, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. On October 12, 2022, the company filed a motion for reconsideration and/or interlocutory appeal of this court decision. On August 21, 2023, the U.S. District Court granted Tilray's motion for reconsideration and dismissed a second amended complaint with leave to amend one final time. On September 27, 2023, plaintiff filed a third amended complaint. Tilray Brands, Inc. is a global cannabis-lifestyle and consumer packaged goods company based in Ontario. TWITTER INC: Judge Denies Class Certification in Bonuses' Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Matt Simons, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that a former Twitter executive explicitly advised the company not to pay bonuses it promised staff members -- the same bonuses he is now suing his former employers to receive. "It would be impossible for him to get on the witness stand and adequately represent the interests of Twitter employees who claim the company wrongfully withheld the bonus," wrote Wednesday U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria in his 3-page order denying class status to the employees of Twitter, now known as X, in their case for tens of millions of dollars in bonuses they say weren't paid out while the company was being acquired by Elon Musk. The move marks a reversal of fortune for the plaintiff, Mark Schobinger, who previously convinced the judge to agree Twitter's denial of the bonuses had violated a contract in a separate ruling last year. Schobinger, the former senior director of compensation for Twitter, filed suit against the social media company on behalf of himself and other current and former Twitter employees last June. Schobinger, who is based in Texas, claims that employees were not paid a portion of their 2022 bonuses when they were due in the first quarter of 2023, despite repeated promises from senior executives at the company, including Ned Segal, the former chief financial officer of the company. This bonus was to be paid to employees who stayed with the company until the first quarter of 2023. According to Schobinger, these promises were made both before and after Elon Musk acquired the social media platform in October 2022. Schobinger also said employees considered these promises when deciding whether or not they wanted to leave their jobs with the social media company and that he turned down opportunities from other companies at the time because of the promised bonus. However, it was revealed during discovery that in November 2022 -- several months after Twitter made the promises Schobinger supposedly relied on -- he sent a message to Twitter's head of people experience recommending that the company not pay the bonus. Three months later, he sent a white paper to other Twitter executives on the subject, saying that not paying a bonus would be a prudent move for the company. There is even evidence that he told Musk directly during a meeting that Twitter should not pay the bonus. "He might fit nicely into this case as a defendant, but he cannot possibly fit as a named plaintiff," wrote Chhabria in his decision. The judge also criticized Schobinger's recent explanation, highlighting the absurdity of how he could have thought he was entitled to the bonus while also telling the company not to pay it. However, the judge conceded that the truth of the deposition was beside the point. "Because even if he is telling the truth, his conduct makes him the worst possible candidate to serve as a litigation representative for the other Twitter employees who didn’t get a bonus," wrote Chhabria. The Obama-appointed judge also denied a request from Schobinger's lawyer, Shannon Liss-Riordan of Boston's Lichten & Liss-Riordan, to substitute a different plaintiff to represent the class of Twitter employees, calling her unfit to represent them. "Most importantly, the fact that Schobinger’s lawyer thought it was a good idea to file a motion for class certification in the face of this evidence (as opposed to dropping the case or seeking to substitute another plaintiff immediately upon discovering it) shows that she is totally unqualified to serve as class counsel," wrote Chhabria. Chhabria said the fact that a large number of proposed class members had signed arbitration agreements with class action waivers also guided his decision to deny the motion. "We are very disappointed that a federal judge ignored evidence regarding our client’s claim, relied solely on Twitter’s one-sided attack on him, and then put into a court ruling a false allegation against our client," Liss-Riordan told Courthouse News. Twitter has previously asserted an unclean hands defense in this case. The unclean hands defense relies on a legal doctrine in California that prevents a plaintiff from receiving relief if they acted unfairly or with deceit concerning the matter in question. The doctrine is based on the principle that no one should benefit from their own wrongdoing. A case management conference is set for later this month to set a schedule for summary judgment and trial. Lawyers for both X and Schobinger did not immediately respond to request for comments. X has been entangled in several suits since Musk's 2022, including a suit accusing Musk of manipulating Twitter stock and another over unpaid leases for its facilities. [GN] UNITED PARCEL: Malone Must Serve Additional Discovery Requests -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL MALONE, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-03643-JDW (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Joshua Wolson entered an order as follows: 1. On or before Oct. 21, 2024, United Parcel shall serve amended disclosures, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, and amended responses to Plaintiff Michael Malone's existing discovery requests 2. On or before Nov. 1, 2024, Mr. Malone shall serve any additional discovery requests. 3. Any objections to Mr. Malone's additional discovery requests are due by Nov. 15, 2024. 4. On or before Dec. 6, 2024, UPS shall respond to Mr. Malone's additional discovery requests and make an initial production of documents. 5. On or before Dec. 13, 2024, the Parties shall submit a joint letter to my Chambers via email, setting forth: (a) any disputes regarding ESI, and (b) the Parties' respective positions as to those disputes. 6. UPS's document production shall be substantially complete by Jan. 24, 2025. 7. Any motions to amend the pleadings are due by Jan. 31, 2025. 8. The additional fact discovery period shall close on March 28, 2025. 9. Mr. Malone's renewed class certification motion, if any, is due by April 18, 2025. 10. Mr. Malone's fee petition, as contemplated in my prior Order, is due by May 30, 2025. United Parcel delivers packages and documents. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 15, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=C7MbMl at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED PARCEL: Savage Sues Over Share Price Drop ------------------------------------------------ LESLEY SAVAGE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., CAROL B. TOME, BRIAN O. NEWMAN, and NANDO CESARONE, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-04591-SDG (N.D. Ga., October 10, 2024) is a federal securities class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired UPS securities between January 30, 2024 to July 22, 2024, inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants provided overwhelmingly positive statements to investors while, at the same time, disseminating materially false and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse facts concerning the true state of UPS' growth; notably, that it was not truly equipped to handle a surge in volume in lower-profit services without seeing a significant decline in their operating margins. Such statements absent these material facts caused Plaintiff and other shareholders to purchase UPS' securities at artificially inflated prices, says the suit. The truth emerged on July 23, 2024 when UPS announced its financial results for the second quarter of fiscal 2024, provided lower-than-expected guidance for the third quarter, and reduced its margin guidance for the full fiscal year 2024. The Company attributed its results and lowered guidance on the shift in "U.S. volume mix both in terms of product and customer segmentation . . . toward value products." Investors and analysts reacted immediately to UPS' revelation. The price of UPS' common stock declined dramatically. From a closing market price of $145.18 per share on July 22, 2024, UPS' stock price fell to $127.68 per share on July 23, 2024, a decline of $17.50 per share, or about 12.05% in the span of just a single day, the suit further asserts. United Parcel Service, Inc. is a multinational parcel delivery and supply chain management solutions company operating in more than 200 countries and territories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Corey D. Holzer, Esq. Marshall P. Dees, Esq. HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC 211 Perimeter Center Parkway, Suite 1010 Atlanta, GA 30346 Telephone: (770) 392-0090 Facsimile: (770) 392-0029 E-mail: cholzer@holzerlaw.com mdees@holzerlaw.com - and - Adam M. Apton, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: aapton@zlk.com UPSTART HOLDINGS: Crain Allowed Leave to File Sur-Reply -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Crain v. Upstart Holdings, Inc. et al. (RE: UPSTART HOLDINGS, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION), Case No. 2:22-cv-02935-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Elizabeth Preston Deavers entered an order: -- granting the Plaintiff's motion for leave to file sur-reply, and -- denying the motion to compel. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have shown that good cause exists to grant their motion for leave to file sur-reply and that the Defendants will not be prejudiced. The Defendants have failed to meet their burden of establishing that the two deposition transcripts and exhibits are relevant. Defendants only provide a conclusory statement that their requests are relevant and citations to two non-binding cases. This alone is insufficient to allow the Court to make a relevancy determination. Further, the Defendants' "potential inconsistencies" argument is wholly unpersuasive. Defendants base their argument on the defendants' statements in Conn's and ignore Universal's reply in that case, in which Universal represented that it does not have monitory agreements with any law firm. The Defendants also ignore counsel for Universal's repeated representations and Universal's deposition testimony that Universal does not have monitoring agreements with Motley Rice or other Plaintiffs' counsel. Accordingly, the Defendants' motion to compel Universal's amended response to Document Request No. 15 is denied. Upstart operates a cloud-based artificial intelligence (AI) lending platform in the United States. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Oct. 15, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WD8TGK at no extra charge.[CC] VERVE LAST MILE: Johnson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Verve Last Mile LLC, et al. The case is styled as Kevin Johnson, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Verve Last Mile LLC, Donald Victor Jimenez, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2024-0013838 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Oct. 17, 2024). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Verve Last Mile LLC transports general freight, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Larry W. Lee, Esq. DIVERSITY LAW GROUP 515 S Figueroa St., Ste. 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071-3316 Phone: 213-488-6555 Fax: 213-488-6554 Email: lwlee@diversitylaw.com WARD TRANSPORT: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Mikolaitis Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- PATRICK MIKOLAITIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WARD TRANSPORT & LOGISTICS CORP., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-01751-CCC (M.D. Pa., Oct. 15, 2024) is an action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive information of its customers. According to the complaint, the Data Breach was a direct result of the Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect consumers' personally identifiable information or "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. Ward Transport & Logistics Corp. provides transportation and logistics services. The Company offers trucking transportation, freight safety and consolidation, warehousing, inventory management, brokerage, and supply chain management services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Liberato P. Verderame, Esq. Marc H. Edelson, Esq. EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP 411 S. State Street, Suite N300 Newtown, PA 18940 Telephone: (215) 867-2399 Email: medelson@edelson-law.com lverderame@edelson-law.com WAYNE COUNTY, MI: Excessively Detains Inmates, West-Campeau Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ LIAM WEST-CAMPEAU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROBERT DUNLAP, sued in his individual capacity based on actions taken under color of law, and JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-5, sued in their individual capacity based on actions taken under color of law, RAPHAEL WASHINGTON, in his official capacity as Wayne County Sheriff, and WAYNE COUNTY, MICHIGAN, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-12751-MAG-DRG (E.D. Mich., October 17, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for wrongful deprivation of liberty through over-detention/excessive custody in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case arises from the Defendants' over-detention and excessive custody of the Plaintiff and similarly situated inmates in the Wayne County Criminal Justice Center despite a release order from the court. Moreover, the Defendants maintained official decisions, policies, customs, and practices which caused and were the moving force behind the detention of the Plaintiff and the Class for unreasonable periods after the reasons for their detention had ended. As a result of this constitutional violation, the Plaintiff and all similarly situated persons have suffered and will continue to suffer damages, says the suit. Wayne County is the most populous county in the U.S. state of Michigan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Megan A. Bonanni, Esq. Kevin M. Carlson, Esq. PITT, MCGEHEE, PALMER, BONANNI & RIVERS, P.C. 117 West Fourth Street, Suite 200 Royal Oak, MI 48067 Telephone: (248) 398-9800 Email: mbonanni@pittlawpc.com kcarlson@pittlawpc.com - and - Dean Elliott, Esq. DEAN ELLIOTT, PLC 201 E. 4th Street Royal Oak, MI 48067 Telephone: (248) 251-0001 Email: dean@deanelliottplc.com WELL-FOAM INC: Meraz Suit Seeks Flowback Operators' Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------------- LUIS A. MERAZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WELL-FOAM, INC., Defendant, Case No. 7:24-cv-00264 (W.D. Tex., October 17, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Mr. Meraz was employed by the Defendant as a flowback operator from approximately April of 2019 to September 2024. Well-Foam, Inc. is an oil field equipment supplier in West Odessa, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Melissa Moore, Esq. Curt Hesse, Esq. MOORE & ASSOCIATES Lyric Centre 440 Louisiana Street, Suite 1110 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 222-6775 Facsimile: (713) 222-6739 Email: melissa@mooreandassociates.net curt@mooreandassociates.net WM TECHNOLOGY: Artificially Inflated Stock Price, Ishak Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- SERET ISHAK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WM TECHNOLOGY, INC. f/k/a SILVER SPIKE ACQUISITION CORP., CHRISTOPHER BEALS, ARDEN LEE, DOUGLAS FRANCIS, SUSAN ECHERD, MARY HOITT, SCOTT GORDON, WILLIAM HEALY, and GREGORY M. GENTILE, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-08959 (C.D. Cal., October 17, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding WM Technology's financial condition in order to trade WM Technology securities at artificially inflated prices between May 25, 2021, and September 24, 2024. Specifically, the Defendants disseminated materially false and misleading statements about the company's financial reports by allowing a key financial metric to be manipulated. When the truth emerged, the price of WM Technology common stock fell by 1.9 percent to close at $0.92 on September 25, 2024. As a result of the Defendants' fraudulent statements and omissions, the Plaintiff and similarly situated investors have sustained significant damages, says the suit. WM Technology, Inc., formerly known as Silver Spike Acquisition Corp., is an online cannabis marketplace operator based in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 785-2610 Facsimile: (213) 226-4684 Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com WM TECHNOLOGY: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues to investigate potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of WM Technology, Inc. (NASDAQ: MAPS) resulting from allegations that WM Technology may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. SO WHAT: If you purchased WM Technology securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=29177 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On September 25, 2024, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") issued a litigation release in which it announced it had "charged public company WM Technology, Inc. (Nasdaq: MAPS), its former CEO, Christopher Beals, and its former CFO, Arden Lee, for making negligent misrepresentations in WM Technology's public reporting of a self-described key operating metric, the "monthly active users," or "MAU," for WM Technology's online cannabis marketplace." The same announcement noted the SEC had "also instituted a related settled administrative proceeding against WM Technology" and "WM Technology also agreed to pay a civil penalty of $1,500,000." On this news, WM Technology's stock fell 1.9% on September 25, 2024. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] XIAO-I CORP: Faces Securities Class Suit Over False Information --------------------------------------------------------------- A shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against Xiao-I Corporation ("Xiao-I" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: AIXI). The lawsuit alleges that Xiao-I's Offering Documents were negligently prepared and that Defendants' statements throughout the Class Period were materially false and misleading and/or omitted material information about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, including allegations that: (i) Defendants had downplayed the true scope and severity of risks that Xiao-I faced due to certain of its Chinese shareholders' non-compliance with Circular 37 Registration, including the Company's inability to use Offering proceeds for intended business purposes; (ii) Xiao-I failed to comply with GAAP in preparing its financial statements; (iii) Defendants overstated Xiao-I's efforts to remediate material weaknesses in the Company's financial controls; (iv) Xiao-I was forced to incur significant R&D expenses to effectively compete in the AI industry; (v) Xiao-I downplayed the significant negative impact that such expenses would have on the Company's business and financial results; (vi) accordingly, Xiao-I overstated its AI capabilities, R&D resources, and overall ability to compete in the AI market; and (vii) as a result of all the foregoing, there was a substantial likelihood that Xiao-I would fail to comply with the NASDAQ's Minimum Bid Price Requirement. If you bought shares of Xiao-I between March 9, 2023 and July 12, 2024, and you suffered a significant loss on that investment, you are encouraged to discuss your legal rights by contacting Corey D. Holzer, Esq. at cholzer@holzerlaw.com, by toll-free telephone at (888) 508-6832 or you may visit the firm's website at www.holzerlaw.com/case/xiao-i/ to learn more. The deadline to ask the court to be appointed lead plaintiff in the case is December 16, 2024. Holzer & Holzer, LLC, an ISS top rated securities litigation law firm for 2021, 2022, and 2023, dedicates its practice to vigorous representation of shareholders and investors in litigation nationwide, including shareholder class action and derivative litigation. Since its founding in 2000, Holzer & Holzer attorneys have played critical roles in recovering hundreds of millions of dollars for shareholders victimized by fraud and other corporate misconduct. More information about the firm is available through its website, www.holzerlaw.com, and upon request from the firm. Holzer & Holzer, LLC has paid for the dissemination of this promotional communication, and Corey Holzer is the attorney responsible for its content.  CONTACT: Corey Holzer, Esq. (888) 508-6832 (toll-free) cholzer@holzerlaw.com [GN] [*] QCTH-Blais Files Settlement Plan of Arrangement in Tobacco Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Yahoo!Finance reports that the Quebec Council on Tobacco and Health (QCTH) announces the filing of a proposed plan of arrangement for the Tobacco Companies under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA). More than 25 years after a class action was filed against the three (3) major Canadian tobacco manufacturers for the harm they caused, and almost 10 years after a historic victory for Quebec's 100,000 smoking victims, the plan will, if approved, enable the distribution of substantial financial compensation to victims and their heirs and heirs' heirs. Substantial amounts to benefit victims The plan, which has just been filed, must still be voted on by creditors on December 12th, and approved by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice at a hearing to be held in Toronto at the start of 2025 before they can be implemented. Under the terms of the plan, the Tobacco companies will pay $4.250 billion (the "Quebec Settlement Amount") to settle the claims of Quebec's QCTH-Blais class action victims. Subject to availability, depending in particular on the number of claims filed, these Quebec victims (and, where applicable, their heirs) will be entitled to financial compensation of up to $100,000 each, based on the principal amount awarded to them in judgments handed down in Quebec. Moreover, on the basis of the principles recognized when the appeal of the QCTH-Blais class action was won, the tobacco companies will pay $2.521 billion to Canadian and Canadian territories victims diagnosed with lung cancer, throat cancer or COPD between March 8th, 2015 and March 8th, 2019, with compensation of up to $60,000 each. This is a remarkable and historic achievement on behalf of Quebec victims, although it has taken many years to reach this result due to the countless and unprecedented challenges faced by the group's lawyers throughout the Quebec litigation and CCAA proceedings. Following approval of the plan, a notice will be prepared and widely distributed to explain to victims how to receive their compensation. A foundation to fight tobacco-related diseases Furthermore, an amount of $1 billion, with a contribution of $131 million from the Letourneau class action settlement in Quebec will be donated to a charitable foundation that will be created to provide indirect benefits to Canadians by funding projects, programs and initiatives with a rational link to tobacco-related diseases. $24 billion for the provinces and territories The plan would also put an end to legal proceedings initiated by provinces and territories against any tobacco companies and their foreign parent companies in order to recover healthcare costs related to tobacco use. The plan also stipulates for the provinces and territories to receive over $24 billion over time, including approximately $6 billion upon implementation of the plan. The plan of arrangement is the result of extraordinary efforts, highly complex negotiations and consultation among the stakeholders involved, and was achieved through the tireless initiative and determination of the court-appointed mediator, the Honourable Warren Winkler, and the active participation of the monitors. The first settlement of this kind worldwide If approved by creditors and the CCAA court, the plan will result in direct compensation for victims of tobacco on a collective basis, for the first time worldwide. This historic realization is the result of the victims patience, the exemplary dedication of various stakeholders, such as the Quebec Council on Tobacco and Health (QCTH), the judicial competence and the unprecedented and unwavering commitment of the lawyers. This plan represents the last stage in the historic legal battle waged by the Quebec Council on Tobacco and Health (QCTH), the tobacco victims and their lawyers against the companies that have lied and hid the dangers and harmful effects of cigarettes. Press conference in Montreal on October 18, 2024 at 10 a.m. E.D.T. The Quebec Council on Tobacco and Health (QCTH) invites media representatives to a press conference to present and discuss the plan. The event will be attended by Ms. Blais, defendant in the class action, as well as CQTS lawyers and spokespersons. [GN] ********* 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 ***