/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/241025.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, October 25, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 215
Headlines
ACCREDO HEALTH: Pettit Sues Over Wage and Hour Law Violations
ALLIED PROPERTY: Oddi Seeks Leave to File Confidential Docs
AMERICAN WATER: Tlaib Sues Over Data Security Failures
AXS GROUP: Sawhney Sues Over Drip-Pricing of Tickets
BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON: Seeks to Amend First Amended Sched Order
BANKERS TRUST: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due April 18, 2025
BLACKLANE NORTH: Assina Seeks Limousine Drivers' Unpaid Wages
BROCKTON AREA: Faces A.M. Suit Over Unprotected Personal Data
CANADA: Blacks' Class Action Certification Hearing Starts Oct. 28
CASCADIA HEALTHCARE: Bid for Judicial Authorization Partly OK'd
CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Pethick Sues Over Savings Cards' Failure
CHARLOTTE TILBURY: Agrees to Settle Biometric Suit for $2.9-Mil.
CHARLOTTE, NC: Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling in Durham Suit
CHILDREN'S RESCUE: Oyebade Sues Over Unpaid Wages
CINEMA ENTERTAINMENT: Christopherson Appeals Privacy Suit Dismissal
CROCS INC: Valentine Bid to Certify Class Tossed
D&S WESTLAKE: Fails to Pay Overtime Premiums, Toomey Suit Claims
DENALI WATER: Faces Class Action Over Noxious Fumes and Odors
DIAL SILVERCREST: Ct. Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Crandall
DOMINO'S PIZZA: Banuelos Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Calif.
EARTH RATED: Actis Law Investigates Pet Waste Bags Class Action
EMIRATES AIRLINES: Court Extends Time to File Class Cert Bid
ENGAGESMART INC: Faces Securities Class Action Over Merger
EVO BRANDS: Faces Consumer Class Suit Over False Advertising
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Underpays Systems Administrators, Bartek Says
FULFILLMENT AMERICA: Salazar Bid for Class Certification OK'd
GATOS SILVER: Class Settlement in Bilinsky Suit Wins Final Approval
GATOS SILVER: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With First Majestic
GEORGIA: Secure Families Sues Over Unlawful Senate Bill 189
GITHUB INC: Doe Appeals Copyright Suit Ruling to 9th Cir.
GOBRANDS INC: Wurm Sues Over Breaches of FTSA's Caller ID Rules
GREEN MAN: Faces Zamora Suit Over Disclosure of Personal Info
GREEN VALLEY: Makes Direct Class Settlement Payment in Breach Suit
HAH GROUP: Fails to Secure Patients' Personal Info, Tavares Says
HEMISPHERE MEDIA: $15MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Dec. 13
HUSQVARNA PROFESSIONAL: Allen Sues Over Defective Grass Trimmers
J & T HARVESTING: Flores Sues Over Labor Law and Contract Breaches
J.R. SHORT: Vazquez Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
JOHNSON, TN: B.P. Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Classes
KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN: Roberson Class Certification Bid Tossed
KEYBANK NA: Settles Data Breach Class Action Suit for $6-Mil.
KLN ENTERPRISES: Trammell Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit
KROGER CO: Appeals Remand Order in Coburn Suit to 8th Circuit
LINAMAR STRUCTURES: Wright Sues Over Unlawful Pay Policy
LOS ANGELES, CA: Verdin et al. Allege FLSA Overtime Violations
MARK CUBAN: Must File Renewed Class Cert Response by Oct. 31
MDL 3114: Eight AT&T Data Breach Suits Transferred to N.D. Tex.
MDL 3122: Centralization of 29 Cooper IVF-Related Suits Denied
METHODE ELECTRONICS: Bids For Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set Oct. 25
MONASH IVF: Settles Faulty Genetic Testing Class Suit for $56-Mil.
MONEYGRAM PAYMENT: Failed to Protect Personal Info, Uribe Says
MULLEN AUTOMOTIVE: $7.25MM Class Settlement to be Heard on April 4
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Athletes May Be Eligible for Settlement
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Hughes Appeals Case Dismissal to 2nd Cir.
NEBRASKA: Filyaw Appeals Dismissal of Suit v. DHHS to 8th Cir.
NEW FORTRESS: Faces Class Suit Over Securities Law Violations
NONSTOP ADMINISTRATION: Settlement Class Gets Prov'l Certification
NORTH HIGHLAND: Class Settlement in Briggs Suit Gets Initial Nod
NORTH STAR: Bente Suit Seeks Conditional Cert. of Collective
OLD TOWN LAUNDRY: Vasquez Balks Helpers' Unpaid Wages
ONTRAK INC: Dick Appeals Securities Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit
PARAGON 28: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set November 29
PEAG LLC: Young Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users
PIZZECCO INC: Sidoa and Ramos Allege Labor Law Breaches
QUALTEK LLC: Torres Seeks Conditional Certification of Collective
RINGCENTRAL INC: Court Grants Summary Judgment in Privacy Suit
SAGE THERAPEUTICS: Faruqi & Faruqi Probes Securities Claims
SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CA: Miscalculates OT Wages, Rosell Suit Says
SCENTBIRD INC: Faces Schultz Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
SPIRE GLOBAL: Tagawa Balks at Misleading SEC Statements
TD BANK: Class Settlement in Amazing Suit Gets Final Nod
TD BANK: Class Settlement in Burns Suit Gets Final Nod
TUSKEGEE UNIVERSITY: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Young Says
TWITTER INC: Schobinger Bid for Class Certification Tossed
TWITTER INC: Schobinger Bid to Seal Class Cert Exhibits Nixed
UNITED STATES: Smoke and McIntyre Sue Over PEB's Unlawful Policy
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA: Alumna Sues Over Personal Data Leak
VERVE THERAPEUTICS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set October 28
VIREO SYSTEMS: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Senior Says
WALDEN UNIVERSITY: Court OKs $28.5M Deal in Discrimination Suit
WELLS FARGO: Faces New Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Breach
WILINE NETWORKS: W.A. Call Sues for Breach of Contract
WM TECHNOLOGY: Faces Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit
XIAO-I CORP: Bids for Lead Plaintiffs Deadline Set Dec. 16
ZUORA INC: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Silver Lake
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J to Pay $15MM in Baby Powder Cancer Case
*********
ACCREDO HEALTH: Pettit Sues Over Wage and Hour Law Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
REBECCA PETTIT, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff v. ACCREDO HEALTH GROUP INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 4:24-cv-01373 (E.D. Mo., October 15, 2024)
seeks to recover for Defendant's willful violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, Indiana Wage Payment Statute, and alleged
contractual obligations (or unjust enrichment if no contract is
found), and other appropriate rules, regulations, statutes, and
ordinances.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a patient care advocate
or a call center representative (CCR) from November 2023 to May
2024. Allegedly, the Defendant did not compensate Plaintiff, and
all other current and/or former CCRs, until they have clocked into
the timekeeping program only accessible on Defendant's computer.
The Plaintiff's boot-up and call ready work regularly takes up to
10 minutes per shift, or more if technical issues arise. However,
Defendant did not compensate Plaintiff for this time.
Headquartered in St. Louis, MO, Accredo Health Group Inc. is a
Delaware corporation that operates as a specialty pharmacy. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Trent B. Miracle, Esq.
FLINT COOPER COHN THOMPSON & MIRACLE
222 E. Park Street, Suite 500
Edwardsville, IL 62025
Telephone: (618) 288-4777
Facsimile: (618) 288-2864
E-mail: tmiracle@flintcooper.com
- and -
Jacob R. Rusch, Esq.
Zackary S. Kaylor, Esq.
JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800
Saint Paul, MN 55101
Telephone: (612) 436-1800
Facsimile: (612) 436-1801
E-mail: jrusch@johnsonbecker.com
zkaylor@johnsonbecker.com
ALLIED PROPERTY: Oddi Seeks Leave to File Confidential Docs
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL and GINA ODDI,
individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
individuals, v. ALLIED PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE CO., an Iowa
company, and NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE CO., an Ohio company, Case
No. 2:20-cv-09871-JAK-BFM (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court
to enter an order granting their application for leave from the
Court to file documents designated by Defendants as "Confidential"
pursuant to the Jan. 3, 2023 Stipulated Protective Order.
-- Material to Be Filed Under Seal
The Supplemental Declaration of Mark A. Ozzello in Support of
Motion for Class Certification contains various documents,
described infra, that were designated by Defendants as
"Confidential" pursuant to the Court's January 3, 2023
Stipulated
Protective Order.
The Confidential Materials are arguably "trade secrets,"
unauthorized disclosure of which would subject Plaintiffs and their
counsel to significant penalties. Pursuant to Local Rule
79-5.2.2(b)(i) Defendants shall file a declaration establishing
that the Confidential Materials are sealable.
Allied provides property and casualty insurance.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 16, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4PSIsS at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mark A. Ozzello, Esq.
Calvin A. Marshall, Esq.
THE OZZELLO PRACTICE, PC
400 Continental Blvd. 6th Floor
El Segundo, CA 90245
Telephone: (844) 774-2020
Facsimile: (844) 774-2020
E-mail: mark@ozzellolaw.com
cmarshall@ozzellolaw.com
- and -
John A. Marshall, Esq.
MARSHALL & ASSOCIATES
26565 West Agoura Road, Suite 215
Calabasas, CA 91302
Telephone (818) 617-9337 Ext. 2243
E-mail: John@marshallbusinesslaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Sonia R. Martin, Esq.
Mark L. Hanover, Esq.
Kristine M. Schanbacher, Esq.
Emily C. Eggmann, Esq.
Kelly R. Graf, Esq.
DENTONS US LLP
1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1300
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (415) 882-5000
E-mail: sonia.martin@dentons.com
mark.hanover@dentons.com
kristine.schanbacher@dentons.com
emily.eggmann@dentons.com
kelly.graf@dentons.com
AMERICAN WATER: Tlaib Sues Over Data Security Failures
------------------------------------------------------
MOHAMAD A. TLAIB, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN WATER WORKS COMPANY,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-09815 (D.N.J., October 15, 2024)
arises out of the recent data breach resulting from American
Water's failure to implement reasonable and industry standard data
security practices.
On October 7, 2024, America Water filed a Form 8-K with the
Securities and Exchange Commission wherein it announced the
discovery of and response to a cybersecurity incident. Accordingly,
the Plaintiff seeks relief in this action individually and on
behalf of a similarly situated class of individuals for negligence,
breach of implied contract, violations the Illinois Consumer Fraud
and Deceptive Business Practices Act, violations of the Illinois
Personal Information Protection Act, violations of the Illinois
Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and unjust enrichment.
American Water is a regulated water and wastewater utility company
headquartered in Camden, NJ. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Benjamin F. Johns, Esq.
Samantha E. Holbrook, Esq.
SHUB & JOHNS LLC
Four Tower Bridge
200 Barr Harbor Drive, Suite 400
Conshohocken, PA 19428
Telephone: (610) 477-8380
E-mail: bjohns@shublawyers.com
sholbrook@shublawyers.com
AXS GROUP: Sawhney Sues Over Drip-Pricing of Tickets
----------------------------------------------------
RAHUL SAWHNEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AXS GROUP LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:24-cv-08866 (C.D. Cal., October 15, 2024) accuses the Defendant
of violating the New York Arts & Cultural Affairs Law.
On October 2, 2024, the Plaintiff purchased a ticket to see an
October 11, 2024 Brett Young concert through Defendant's website,
AXS.com using the AXS Marketplace. However, the Plaintiff was
ambushed with hefty service charge at the final checkout screen
after clicking through the various screens required to make a
purchase. Moreover, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant is
engaged in drip-pricing to swindle substantial sums of money from
its customers.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks relief in this action
individually, and on behalf of all other ticket purchasers for
events in the state of New York for actual and/or statutory
damages, reasonable attorneys' costs and fees, and injunctive
relief under ACLA.
Headquartered in Los Angeles, CA, AXS Group LLC owns and operates
the AXS.com website and AXS mobile application, which is a platform
used to sell tickets to entertainment events taking place in the
state of New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stefan Bogdanovich, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
E-mail: sbogdanovich@bursor.com
- and -
Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com
BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON: Seeks to Amend First Amended Sched Order
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SERGIO MOGOLLON, et al.,
v. THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, Case No. 3:19-cv-03070-N-BV (N.D.
Tex.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order amending the
Court's first amended scheduling order, entered on March 27, 2024
(the "Scheduling Order"), and the Amendment thereto regarding class
certification deadlines entered by the Court on Sept. 18, 2024
WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing, the Parties respectfully request
that the Court enter the proposed order, which extends these class
certification deadlines.
BNY has conferred with Plaintiffs' counsel regarding an extension
of the deadlines set in the Amended Class Certification Deadline
Order. As a result, the Parties have agreed to the following
extensions to the briefing and submission schedule, which the
Parties respectfully request the Court to order:
a. BNY's response (which was previously to be served no later
than
Nov. 7, 2024) would now be served no later than Dec. 13,
2024;
b. Plaintiffs' reply (which was previously to be served no later
than Nov. 26, 2024) would now be served no later than Jan.
23,
2025; and
c. The new Submission Date would be Jan. 30, 2025.
This requested extension is not made for purposes of delay.
A proposed order granting this motion will be submitted herewith.
Bank of New York Mellon Corporation is an American international
financial services company.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Oct. 16, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=N2RvI2 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Eugene E. Stearns, Esq.
Jay B. Shapiro, Esq.
Joshua Munn, Esq.
Veronica L. de Zayas, Esq.
Ezra Greenberg, Esq.
STEARNS WEAVER MILLER WEISSLER
ALHADEFF & SITTERSON, P.A.
Museum Tower
150 W Flagler Street, Suite 2200
Miami, FL 33130
Telephone: (305) 789-3200
Facsimile: (305) 789-3395
E-mail: estearns@stearnsweaver.com
jshapiro@stearnsweaver.com
jmunn@stearnsweaver.com
vdezayas@stearnsweaver.com
egreenberg@stearnsweaver.com
- and -
Michael E. Criden, Esq.
Lindsey C. Grossman, Esq.
CRIDEN & LOVE, P.A.
7301 S.W. 57th Court, Suite515
South Miami, FL 33143
Telephone: (305) 357-3900
Facsimile: (305) 357-9050
E-mail: mcriden@cridenlove.com
lgrossman@cridenlove.com
- and -
James E. Cecchi, Esq.
CARELLA BYRNE CECCH
BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
5 Becker Farm Road
Roseland, NJ 07068
Telephone: (973) 994-1700
Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
- and -
Michael A. Hanzman, Esq.
BILZIN SUMBERG BAENA PRICE &
AXELROD LLP
1450 Brickell Avenue, Suite 2300
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 374-7580
E-mail: mhanzman@bilzin.co
The Defendant is represented by:
Thomas M. Farrell, Esq.
Jeffrey J. Chapman, Esq.
Melek J. Dunn, Esq.
Philip A. Goldstein, Esq.
MCGUIREWOODS LLP
845 Texas Avenue, 24th Floor
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone: (713) 571-9191
Facsimile: (713) 571-9652
E-mail: tfarrell@mcguirewoods.com
jchapman@mcguirewoods.com
mdunn@mcguirewoods.com
PaGoldstein@mcguirewoods.com
BANKERS TRUST: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due April 18, 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEPHANIE JONES, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated; v. BANKERS TRUST
COMPANY, Case No. 4:23-cv-00477-RGE-WPK (S.D. Iowa), the Hon. Judge
William Kelly entered an order as follows:
1. A Jury Trial shall begin on Aug. 17, 2026, at 9:00 AM before
United States District Judge Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger at the
United States 'Courthouse, Des Moines, Iowa. Trial is
estimated
to take 10 days.
2. A Final Pretrial Conference shall be held on July 8, 2026, at
9:00 AM at the United States Courthouse, Des Moines, Iowa,
before Judge Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger.
3. Initial Disclosures shall be made by Oct. 2, 2024.
4. Motions to add parties shall be filed by Nov. 20, 2024.
5. Motions for leave to amend pleadings shall be filed by Nov.
20,
2024.
6. Plaintiff shall designate expert witnesses and disclose their
written reports by April 18, 2025.
7. Defendant shall designate expert witnesses and disclose their
written reports by June 13, 2025.
8. Plaintiff shall designate rebuttal expert witnesses and
disclose
their written reports by July 11, 2025.
9. Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification shall be filed by
April 18, 2025.
10. The Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification shall be filed by June 13, 2025.
11. Plaintiff's Reply in Support of Motion for Class
Certification
shall be filed by July 11, 2025.
10. Discovery shall be completed by December 12, 2025.
11. Dispositive motions shall be filed by January 30, 2026.
Bankers Trust provides commercial and consumer banking services,
wealth management and investment management.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 16, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zvQy1P at no extra
charge.[CC]
BLACKLANE NORTH: Assina Seeks Limousine Drivers' Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
ABDERRAHIM ASSINA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BLACKLANE NORTH AMERICA INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:24-cv-12580 (D. Mass., October 9, 2024) is a class
action against the Defendant for alleged unlawful labor practices
in violation of the Massachusetts Wage Act.
According to the complaint, Blacklane misclassifies Plaintiff and
other Class Members as independent contractors even though they are
employees under Massachusetts law. By doing so, Blacklane has
unlawfully avoided paying hourly wages, overtime wages, business
expenses, and other benefits in violation Massachusetts law.
Blacklane has also violated Massachusetts law by withholding
gratuities from Plaintiff and other Class Members and by imposing
monetary penalties on Plaintiff and Class Members in the form of
unlawful deductions from their wages, says the suit.
The Plaintiff has worked as a limousine driver for Blacklane since
October 2015.
Blacklane is a transportation company that provides limousine
services across the United States, including in Massachusetts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
Harold Lichten, Esq.
Jeremy Abay, Esq.
Matthew Carrieri, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 994-5800
E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com
hlichten@llrlaw.com
jabay@llrlaw.com
mcarrieri@llrlaw.com
BROCKTON AREA: Faces A.M. Suit Over Unprotected Personal Data
-------------------------------------------------------------
A.M., individually and on behalf of R.M., a minor, and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BROCKTON AREA MULTI SERVICES,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-12581 (D. Mass., October 9, 2024)
is a class action arising from the Defendant's failure to exercise
reasonable care in securing and safeguarding Plaintiff and other
enrollees' sensitive personal data -- including names, dates of
birth, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, state
identification numbers, account numbers, diagnoses information,
treatment information, and health insurance information.
The Plaintiff brought this suit on behalf of clients whose
sensitive protected health information was stolen by cybercriminals
in a cyber-attack on BAMSI's computer systems that took place on or
around April 14, 2023, and which resulted in the access and
exfiltration of sensitive patient information.
As a result of the data breach and Defendant's failure to promptly
notify Plaintiff and Class Members of the incident, Plaintiff,
R.M., and Class Members have experienced and will experience
various types of misuse of their private information in the coming
months and years, including but not limited to, unauthorized credit
card charges, unauthorized access to email accounts, identity
theft, and other fraudulent use of their sensitive data, says the
suit.
Accordingly, Plaintiff A.M. asserts claims for negligence, breach
of contract, breach of implied contract, breach of fiduciary duty,
and declaratory and injunctive relief.
Brockton Area Multi Services, Inc. is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit
organization founded in Brockton, Massachusetts that provides a
wide array of services to children, adults, and families.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
Jason Rathod, Esq.
MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
412 H Street NE
Washington, D.C. 20002
Telephone: (202) 470-3520
E-mail: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com
jrathod@classlawdc.com
- and -
Richard E. Levine, Esq.
STANZLER LEVINE, LLC
37 Walnut Street, Suite 200
Wellesley, MA 02481
Telephone: (617) 482-3198
E-mail: rlevine@stanzlerlevine.com
CANADA: Blacks' Class Action Certification Hearing Starts Oct. 28
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PSCA Union reports that the next step in the Black Class Action, a
lawsuit aimed at addressing systemic anti-Black racism in the
federal public service, is the certification hearing. This begins
on October 28 in Toronto, Ontario, and runs for 8 days.
Led by the Black Class Action Secretariat, the lawsuit seeks
justice for Black employees who have faced discriminatory hiring
and promotion practices in government roles since 1970.
The hearing marks a critical step in determining whether the case
can proceed as a class action. Certification does not assess the
merits of the case (i.e. whether the plaintiffs will win or lose)
but ensures the lawsuit meets legal criteria to represent a group
of people collectively.
PSAC Union's ongoing support for the Black Class Action
PSAC continues to provide legal support to the Secretariat to help
strengthen the case, including access to our legal team and other
resources. Additionally, PSAC contributed $80,000 to support the
lawsuit, covering expert witness testimony, campaign video
production, and legal fees.
Now that the hearing has been scheduled, our union will provide an
additional $120,000 for legal resources and $70,000 for public
relations efforts, bringing the total contribution to $270,000.
This funding will help the Black Class Action mount a robust legal
case and keep the pressure on the government to implement long-term
solutions to permanently address systemic racism and discrimination
in the federal public service.
Despite PSAC's repeated calls to settle the lawsuit and confront
decades of anti-Black discrimination, the government has spent
millions fighting the case -- highlighting its hypocrisy in
claiming to tackle racism while denying justice to Black,
racialized, and Indigenous workers.
PSAC represents majority of plaintiffs
As Canada's largest federal public service union, PSAC is the
certified bargaining agent for the majority of the nearly 1,500
plaintiffs and remains committed to ensuring the lawsuit's success.
When Black workers win, workers from all marginalized groups will
benefit.
Winning the Black Class Action lawsuit will create opportunities
not only for Black workers but for racialized, Indigenous, and
underrepresented communities across the public service and the
country.
PSAC will have representatives at the certification hearing to
monitor developments during the hearing process. [GN]
CASCADIA HEALTHCARE: Bid for Judicial Authorization Partly OK'd
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KINDRA GREENE,
individually and for others similarly situated, v. CASCADIA
HEALTHCARE, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00253-BLW (D. Idaho), the Hon.
Judge B. Lynn Winmill entered an order that:
1. In accordance with this decision, the Plaintiff's request for
judicial authorization is granted in part.
2. The parties are directed to meet and confer within 21 days
regarding the form and manner of the notice.
Based on the pleadings and supporting declarations, and
importantly, given the underlying remedial purpose of the FLSA, the
Court finds that Greene has met the lenient burden to conditionally
certify a nationwide collective class of patientfacing roles.
Accordingly, the Court will limit notice to those employees with
patient-facing roles, however, it will not restrict notice only to
employees who work in Idaho.
Greene seeks to certify a collective class composed of all hourly,
non-exempt employees who work for or on behalf of Cascadia at any
Cascadia facility who (1) received an automatic meal period
deduction, (2) were subject to automatic time-rounding, or (3)
received shift differentials, on-call pay, or non-discretionary
bonuses at any time from May 18, 2020, through the present.
In her motion, Greene defines the putative class as:
"All hourly, non-exempt employees who work for, or on behalf of
Cascadia at any Cascadia facility who (i) received an automatic
Meal period deduction, (ii) were subject to automatic time-
rounding, and/or (iii) received shift differentials, on-call
pay,
and/or non-discretionary bonuses at any time from May 18, 2020
through the present (the "Putative Collective Members")."
The Complaint continues to define the "Putative Collectives" as:
"All hourly, non-exempt employees who work for, or on behalf of
Cascadia at any Cascadia facility who received an automatic
meal
period deduction at any time during the past 3 years ("Meal
Break
Collective Members” or “Meal Break Collective"); and All
hourly,
non-exempt employees who work for, or on behalf of Cascadia at
any
Cascadia facility who received shift differentials and/or
bonuses
at any time during the past 3 years ("Shift Diff Collective
Members" or "Shift Diff Collective")."
This matter arises out of Greene’s alleged employment with
Defendant Cascadia Healthcare LLC, in which she claims Cascadia
failed to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA).
Cascadia provides nursing and residential care services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 15, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sUsN61 at no extra
charge.[CC]
CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Pethick Sues Over Savings Cards' Failure
-----------------------------------------------------------
GABRIEL PETHICK, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHANGE HEALTHCARE INC. and CVS
PHARMACY, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-01227 (M.D. Tenn.,
October 15, 2024) arises from Defendants' failure to process
pharmaceutical savings cards issued by drug manufacturers,
pharmacies, insurance providers, non-profit organizations and
healthcare companies.
The Defendants attributed their failure to process Savings Cards to
a data breach that exploited a vulnerability in Change Healthcare's
software technology. The data breach occurred around February 21,
2024 and severely compromised Change Healthcare's systems, leading
to an extensive shutdown that directly impaired the Defendants'
capacity to effectively manage and process Savings Cards. As a
result of the disruption, many consumers were forced to pay full
price for medications they would typically purchase at a discounted
rate using Savings Cards, says the suit.
Headquartered in Nashville, TN, Change Healthcare provides payments
and revenue cycle management, connecting payers, providers, and
patients within the United States healthcare system. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jerry E. Martin, Esq.
Seth M. Hyatt, Esq.
BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, PLLC
200 31st Ave. N
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 244-2202
Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
E-mal: jmartin@barrettjohnston.com
shyatt@barrettjohnston.com
- and -
Chet B. Waldman, Esq.
Emer Burke, Esq.
WOLF POPPER
845 Third Ave.
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 759-4600
Facsimile: (212) 486-2093
E-mail: cwaldman@wolfpopper.com
eburke@wolfpopper.com
CHARLOTTE TILBURY: Agrees to Settle Biometric Suit for $2.9-Mil.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A proposed settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit
that claims Charlotte Tilbury Beauty Inc. ("Charlotte Tilbury
Beauty" or "Defendant") unlawfully collected, stored, and used
individuals' biometric facial geometry while they used a beauty
tech tool or other virtual try on tool on Charlotte Tilbury
Beauty's website or mobile application within the state of
Illinois.
The case is Halim v. Charlotte Tilbury Beauty Inc., et al., Case
No. 2022-CH-11832, pending in the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois, before the Honorable Sophia H. Hall. The proposed
Settlement is not an admission of wrongdoing by Charlotte Tilbury
Beauty, and Charlotte Tilbury Beauty denies it violated the law.
The Court has not made any determination that Charlotte Tilbury
Beauty has violated the law. Rather, to avoid the time and expense
of litigation, the parties have agreed to settle the lawsuit. That
Settlement has been preliminarily approved.
Am I a Member of the Settlement Class?
You are a member of the Settlement Class if you used a beauty tech
tool or any another virtual try on tool on the Charlotte Tilbury
Beauty website and/or mobile application, regardless as to the
manner in which such tools were accessed, including but not limited
to, "Charlotte's Virtual Try On," "Pro Skin Analysis," "Foundation
Shade Finder," "Complexion Edit," "Highlight Shade Finder," "How To
Apply," "Blush Finder," and "Skin Reader," in the state of Illinois
at any time between December 1, 2019 and August 31, 2023.
What Can I Get From the Proposed Settlement?
If you believe you are a member of the Settlement Class, you can
fill out a short claim form and potentially receive approximately
$700 to $1100 from a $2,925,000 Settlement Fund. The Settlement
Fund will also be used to pay Settlement Administration Expenses,
attorneys' fees, costs and expenses, Class Representative's
incentive award. Each Settlement Class Member who submits a timely,
valid Claim Form will receive an equal payment from the Settlement
Fund. The exact amount of the payment depends on certain factors to
be determined, including how many Settlement Class Members submit
valid Claim Forms. To receive a payment, you must submit a Claim
Form by January 2, 2025. You can file a Claim Form online at
www.IllinoisBeautySettlement.com, or visit the website and download
a Claim Form and submit it by email or mail. Visit the website
below or call for more information on filing your claim.
The Settlement also requires Defendant to provide prospective
relief, as explained in the detailed Notice and Settlement
Agreement at the website listed below.
What Are My Rights and Options?
File a claim. The only way to get money is to fill out a short
claim form by January 2, 2025. If the Court approves the
Settlement, you will be bound by all orders and judgments in the
case.
Do Nothing. You will get no money, but will be bound by all orders
and judgments in the case.
Exclude Yourself. If you do not want money from the Settlement and
want to keep your right to file your own lawsuit against Charlotte
Tilbury Beauty and the Released Parties for any of the issues or
claims in the case, you must exclude yourself from the Class by
December 18, 2024.
Object. You can also object to the Settlement, Class Counsel's
request for attorneys' fees and expenses, and the request for an
incentive award to the Class Representative if you disagree with
them by December 18, 2024. The Court has appointed lawyers from the
firms of Parasmo Lieberman Law and Schwartz Law PLLC to represent
you as "Class Counsel." You can hire your own lawyer, but you'll
need to pay your own legal fees.
The Court will hold a final hearing on the Settlement of this case
at 11:00 a.m. on February 26, 2025 in Courtroom 2403 of the Richard
J. Daley Center, 50 W. Washington St., Chicago, IL 60602 (or at
such other time or location as the Court may without further notice
direct). The hearing will be held remotely via Zoom videoconference
at the discretion of the Court. Details on how to attend remotely
will be posted at www.IllinoisBeautySettlement.com. You can go to
this hearing, but you do not have to. If you want, you can hire
your own attorney, at your own expense, to appear or speak for you
at the hearing. The Court will hear any objections, determine if
the Settlement is fair, and consider Class Counsels' request for
attorneys' fees of up to 33% of the Settlement Fund, plus
reimbursement of reasonable costs and expenses, and an incentive
award to the Class Representative in an amount up to $10,000. Any
money not awarded will stay in the Settlement Fund to pay Class
Members who file valid claims.
How Do I Get More Information?
This notice is only a summary. For information, including the Claim
Form, the Settlement other legal documents, visit
www.IllinoisBeautySettlement.com or contact the administrator at
1-844-530-2230. Please do not attempt to contact the Court, Judge
Hall, any Clerk of the Court, or Defendant about this Settlement
notice.
URL: www.IllinoisBeautySettlement.com [GN]
CHARLOTTE, NC: Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling in Durham Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
CITY OF CHARLOTTE is taking an appeal from a court order granting
plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and motion to certify class
in the lawsuit entitled Heather Nicole Durham, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. City of
Charlotte, Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-00638-RJC-SCR, in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of North Carolina.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
brought against the Defendant for alleged violation of the Driver's
Privacy Protection Act (DPPA).
On Dec. 1, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment
and motion to certify class. On the same day, the Defendant also
filed a motion for summary judgment.
On Sept. 24, 2024, the Court granted the Plaintiff's motion for
summary judgment and motion to certify class and denied the
Defendant's motion for summary judgment through an Order entered by
Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr.
The Court ruled that the Plaintiff has established the requirements
for class certification under Rule 23 for the class, as defined by
the Court, and subclass which consists of all members of the class
whose personal information was auto-populated onto a DMV-349.
Therefore, the Plaintiff's motion to certify class is granted, and
the class is certified. Moreover, because the Plaintiff has shown a
violation of DPPA as a matter of law, she, and those similarly
situated, are entitled to statutory damages. Accordingly, the
Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is granted.
The appellate case is captioned City of Charlotte v. Heather
Durham, Case No. 24-235, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fourth Circuit, filed on October 8, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiff-Respondent HEATHER NICOLE DURHAM, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Frederick L. Berry, Esq.
John F. Bloss, Esq.
HIGGINS BENJAMIN PLLC
301 North Elm Street
Greensboro, NC 27401
Telephone: (336) 273-1600
- and –
Andrew H. Brown, Esq.
BROWN, FAUCHER, PERALDO & BENSON, PLLC
822 North Elm Street
Greensboro, NC 27408
Telephone: (336) 478-6000
- and –
Ann C. Ochsner, Esq.
J. David Stradley, Esq.
WHITE & STRADLEY, LLP
3105 Charles B. Root Wynd
Raleigh, NC 27612
Telephone: (919) 844-0400
Defendant-Petitioner CITY OF CHARLOTTE is represented by:
Steven Andrew Bader, Esq.
CRANFILL SUMNER, LLP
5420 Wade Park Boulevard
Raleigh, NC 27607
Telephone: (919) 828-5100
- and –
Patrick Houghton Flanagan, Esq.
Stephanie Helen Webster, Esq.
CRANFILL SUMNER, LLP
P.O. Box 30787
Charlotte, NC 28230
Telephone: (704) 332-8300
CHILDREN'S RESCUE: Oyebade Sues Over Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------
VIRGINIA OYEBADE, on behalf of herself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs,
and the Class, Plaintiff v. THE CHILDREN’S RESCUE FUND, d/b/a
CHILDREN’S RESCUE, Case No. 1:24-cv-07820 (S.D.N.Y., October 15,
2024) arises from Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, the New York Earned Safe and
Sick Time Act, and the Family and Medical Leave Act.
In or around January 2021, Plaintiff Oyebade was hired by
Defendants to work as a case worker. Her employment with Defendants
terminated in or around December 31, 2023. Allegedly, the
Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff for all hours worked as
Defendants required her to work through her lunch breaks and
off-the-clock without any compensation. Accordingly, the Plaintiff
seeks to recover unpaid wages due to Defendants' policy of
time-shaving and time clock rounding. The Plaintiff also seeks all
applicable remedies under the law including compensatory damages,
punitive damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.
Headquartered in Bronx, NY, The Children's Rescue Fund is a
domestic not-for-profit corporation that operates shelter homes and
temporary accommodations as housing assistance for the homeless in
New York City. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Anne Seelig, Esq.
148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: (212) 465-1188
Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
CINEMA ENTERTAINMENT: Christopherson Appeals Privacy Suit Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------------------
GINA CHRISTOPHERSON is taking an appeal from a court order
dismissing her lawsuit entitled Gina Christopherson, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
Cinema Entertainment Corp., Defendant, Case No. 0:23-cv-03614-NEB,
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
brought against the Defendant over alleged violation of the Video
Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) by knowingly and intentionally
disclosing its consumers' personally identifiable information when
they purchase movie tickets and watch trailers on its website
www.cectheatres.com.
On Jan. 17, 2024, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint, which the Court granted through an Order entered by
Judge Nancy E. Brasel on Sept. 17, 2024.
The appellate case is captioned Gina Christopherson v. Cinema
Entertainment Corp., Case No. 24-3042, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on October 7, 2024.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appendix is due on November 26, 2024;
-- Appellant's Brief is due on November 26, 2024; and
-- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court issues
the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of appellant. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant GINA CHRISTOPHERSON, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Caroline Heicklen Brunkow, Esq.
Matthew D. Forsgren, Esq.
FORSGREN & FISHER
Capella Tower, Suite 1500
225 S. Sixth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 474-3343
(612) 474-3301
- and -
Scott Ferrier, Esq.
Ben Hutman, Esq.
SADIS & GOLDBERG
551 Fifth Avenue, 21st Floor
New York, NY 10176
Telephone: (914) 357-0731
Defendant-Appellee CINEMA ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION is represented
by:
Bonnie Keane DelGobbo, Esq.
Joel C. Griswold, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER
One N. Wacker Drive, Suite 3700
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 416-8185
(312) 416-6200
- and -
Alexander T. Mastellar, Esq.
RINKE & NOONAN
1015 W. St. Germain Street
P.O. Box 1497
Saint Cloud, MN 56302
Telephone: (320) 251-6700
CROCS INC: Valentine Bid to Certify Class Tossed
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARTHA VALENTINE, et al.,
v. CROCS, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-07463-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Trina Thompson entered an order:
-- denying the motion to certify class, and
-- denying the motion to strike testimony and opinions of
plaintiffs'
expert as moot.
Avino lacks standing because she did not suffer an injury-in-fact,
making Cornejo the sole representative of the entire class.
Although Plaintiffs have established numerosity, commonality, and
adequacy, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to establish
typicality as required by Rule 23(a).
Cornejo cannot establish typicality because she is subject to
unique defenses that threaten to become the focus of the
litigation. She is a repeat purchaser who knew of the shrinkage
defect. She also purchased her at-issue Product from a third-party
retailer.
The Plaintiffs bring this class action against the Defendant,
asserting (1) breach of implied warranty of merchantability; (2)
violation of the Unfair Competition Law ("UCL")); and (3)
deceptive, misleading, and/or fraudulent conduct under the
California Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA")), California False
Advertising Law ("FAL")), and the common law.
Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
Plaintiffs seek to certify the following classes:
Class:
"All persons who purchased, in the state of California, the
Products from Crocs and its authorized retailers from Nov. 22,
2018 to the present"; and
Direct Purchase Subclass:
"All Class Members who purchased the Products directly from
Crocs
(either online or in-person)."
On Nov. 23, 2022, Plaintiffs Martha Valentine, Ruby Cornejo, and
Tiffany Avino filed class action complaint against Defendant Crocs,
Inc.
On May 26, 2023, Plaintiffs filed their Amended Complaint after
Court’s ruling on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. E
Crocs is an American footwear company based in Broomfield,
Colorado, that manufactures and markets the Crocs brand of foam
footwear.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 16, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uYS1kA at no extra
charge.[CC]
D&S WESTLAKE: Fails to Pay Overtime Premiums, Toomey Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
SHAE TOOMEY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. D&S WESTLAKE ENTERPRISES LLC, SHINE
DEVELOPMENT INC., SULEIMA ALKUSARI & DARRELL SCHULTZ, Defendants,
Case No. 1:24-cv-1235 (W.D. Tex., October 15, 2024) seeks damages
against Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
According to the complaint, technicians including Plaintiff,
routinely work in excess of 40 hours per week and regularly in
excess of 55 hours per week. However, the Defendants did not pay
Plaintiff or any other similarly situated employees an overtime
premium for all hours worked over 40. In addition, the Defendants
also failed to make, keep, and preserve accurate records with
respect to technicians, including hours worked each workday and
total hours worked each workweek, says the suit.
D&S Westlake Enterprises LLC provides window cleaning, pressure
washing, gutter cleaning, landscape lighting, and holiday lighting
services in Westlake Hills, Tarrytown, Rollingwood, Central Austin,
and South Congress areas of Austin, TX. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Allison Sarah Hartry, Esq.
Lawrence Morales II, Esq.
THE MORALES FIRM, P.C.
6243 W. Interstate 10, Suite 132
San Antonio, TX 78201
Telephone: (210) 225-0811
Facsimile: (210) 225-0821
E-mail: lawrence@themoralesfirm.com
ahartry@themoralesfirm.com
DENALI WATER: Faces Class Action Over Noxious Fumes and Odors
-------------------------------------------------------------
Randal Seyler, writing for Northwest Arkansas Newspapers, reports
that a lawsuit filed Friday, October 18, 2024, in Crawford County
seeks to require Denali Water Solutions to cease operation at its
storage lagoon until its "noxious odors and harmful emissions" are
eliminated.
Trial lawyers Joey McCutchen, Stephen Napurano and Chip Sexton,
representing Bruce Spinas and RCB Management LLC, operators of
River City Bistro, filed a lawsuit in Crawford County Circuit Court
against Russellville-based Denali Water Solutions LLC for "the
creation of a noxious and harmful nuisance, trespass, and
negligence and the resultant economic loss that the noxious fumes
and odors have caused," according to a news release issued by the
attorneys.
Operations at the storage lagoon have resulted in strong odors
being experienced across Sebastian and Crawford counties over the
past few weeks.
The action also seeks injunctive relief requiring Denali to cease
all operations at the storage lagoon until the lagoon is properly
remediated to eliminate the noxious odors and harmful emissions
affecting Mr. Spinas and those similarly situated persons," the
release states.
The lawsuit is also seeking class action status on behalf other
persons and entities who are similarly situated, the release
states.
"Denali has been polluting the River Valley's environment for many
years. It's past time that they are held fully and fairly
accountable for their continued reckless actions. Their actions
have affected the quality of life for many in our River Valley,"
McCutchen said in the release.
Denali Water Solutions LLC and the company's organic waste product
has been the subject of legal actions inat least three states --
Missouri, Maryland and Alabama.
Most recently, two local environmental groups and a Missouri farmer
put the Missouri Department of Natural Resources and six companies,
including Denali Water Solutions, on notice Oct. 9 that they intend
to file a lawsuit under the federal Clean Water Act over the spread
of industrial organic byproducts as fertilizer.
The plaintiffs have given the Missouri Department of Natural
Resources until Dec. 12 to stop all future land application of the
processing waste throughout the state.
"If DNR fails to prohibit such land application, a lawsuit will be
filed in federal court seeking a permanent injunction stopping the
land application of PFAs-containing sludges," Ryan Mohr, an
attorney with Fox Smith LLP in St. Louis, stated in the release.
Earlier this year, the Missouri Legislature passed laws prohibiting
the operation of three sludge lagoons in Newton, McDonald and
Randolph counties. The two environmental groups behind that
legislation are also involved in the federal action -- Stop Land
Use Damaging Our Ground and Environment (SLUDGE) and Citizens of
Randolph County Against Pollution (CRAP). Joining the environmental
groups in the action is Craig Family Farms.
"We won a major battle in getting these lagoons closed, but the
fight is not over," stated Stephen Jeffery, an attorney with
Jeffery Law Group of Chesterfield, Mo., in a news release
announcing the potential federal lawsuit.
A Denali spokesperson denied the allegations made by Jeffrey Law
Group, calling them "unsubstantiated and sensational."
"Denali and our affiliates can confidently assert that all organic
residuals applied as fertilizer in the state of Missouri met, and
continue to meet, all EPA and MDNR regulations," Nancy St. Pierre,
Denali director of communications, stated via email Thursday,
October 18.
"Further, Denali acknowledges and affirms EPA and MDNR's continued
support for the practical, broadly beneficial, and well-established
practice of recycling organic residuals through land application as
nutrient-rich fertilizer," St. Pierre stated. "We remain committed
to the solutions we provide our communities, customers, and
partners, which are essential to keeping water clean, supporting
critical infrastructure, reducing the need for new landfill
capacity, building soil fertility, helping farmers become
resilient, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions." [GN]
DIAL SILVERCREST: Ct. Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Crandall
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Crandall, v. Dial
Silvercrest Corp., Case No. 1:24-cv-01288-JBM-JEH (C.D. Ill.), the
Hon. Judge Jonathan E. Hawley entered a standing order as follows:
-- Rule 16 scheduling conference
The Court will set a Rule 16 scheduling conference
approximately
30 days after the answer or other responsive pleading is
filed.
The conference will generally be conducted by telephone.
-- Discovery plan
The discovery plan shall be filed with the Court at least
three
calendar days before the Rule 16 scheduling conference.
-- Waiver of the Rule 16 scheduling conference
If the parties agree on all matters contained in the
discovery
plan, then the parties may waive the Rule 16 scheduling
conference. To do so, the parties shall indicate in the
discovery that the parties agree upon all maters contained
within the discovery plan, and they request that the Rule 16
scheduling conference be cancelled.
-- Failure of counsel to attend a scheduled telephone hearing
For the convenience of counsel, the Court conducts most
hearings
by telephone when possible. Counsel's failure to appear for a
telephone hearing will be treated as a failure of counsel to
appear for an in-person hearing.
-- Discovery disputes brought to the Court's attention after the
discovery deadline has already passed
The parties may not raise a discovery dispute with the Court
after the relevant discovery deadline has passed; all
discovery
disputes must be brought to the Court's attention before the
relevant discovery deadline passes. Any discovery disputes
raised with the Court after the expiration of the relevant
discovery deadline shall be deemed waived by the Court, even
if
the parties agreed to conduct discovery after the relevant
discovery deadline has passed. If the parties agree to
conduct
discovery after the expiration of a deadline set by the
Court,
they must still file a motion requesting that the Court move
that deadline as agreed by the parties in order to avoid any
subsequent discovery disputes being deemed waived.
-- Settlement conferences and mediation
The parties are encouraged to seek a settlement conference or
mediation with a magistrate judge. Where parties request a
settlement conference or mediation in a case referred to
Judge
Hawley, Judge Hawley will conduct said conference or
mediation.
Dial Silvercrest provides home health care and services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 16, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AJ6s9I at no extra
charge.[CC]
DOMINO'S PIZZA: Banuelos Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled BENJAMIN BANUELOS, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DOMINO'S PIZZA LLC, a
Michigan limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 24CV446082, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara,
to the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on October 9, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:24-cv-07085 to the
proceeding.
The Plaintiff's complaint contains nine causes of action alleging:
(a) failure to pay minimum and straight time wages; (b) failure to
pay overtime wages; (c) failure to provide meal periods; (d)
failure to authorize and permit rest periods; (e) failure to timely
pay final wages at termination; (f) failure to provide accurate
itemized wage statements; (g) failure to indemnify employees for
expenditures; (h) failure to produce requested employment records;
and (g) unfair business practices.
Domino's Pizza LLC is an American pizza restaurant chain.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Taylor Wemmer, Esq.
DLA PIPER LLP (US)
4365 Executive Drive, Suite 1100
San Diego, CA 92121-2133
Telephone: (858) 677-1400
Facsimile: (858) 677-1401
E-mail: taylor.wemmer@us.dlapiper.com
EARTH RATED: Actis Law Investigates Pet Waste Bags Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
ACTIS LAW GROUP is investigating a Canada-wide class action lawsuit
against the manufacturer, marketer and seller of the Earth Rated
pet waste bags on behalf of all Canadians individuals who purchased
Earth Rated's Certified Compostable Poop Bags, which were allegedly
falsely or misleadingly represented to be biodegradable and
compostable. To the contrary, the Earth Rated Compostable Bags are
not biodegradable or compostable.
The Federal Trade Commission in the United States published the
"Green Guides", which indicate that consumers often assume that
unqualified "compostable claims" mean a product will break down
safely and at the same rate as natural materials, like leaves and
grass clippings, in their home compost. When marketers specify that
a product only composts in commercial or municipal facilities,
consumers tend to believe such facilities are accessible in their
area. However, dog waste is usually not safe for home composting,
and very few facilities actually do accept it. As a result, the
compostable claims for these products are false and misleading.
A settlement agreement has been reached in the United States for
$825,000.00 whereby consumers that purchased these bags can receive
a monetary payment if they file a claim. In addition, the Earth
Rated Certified Compostable Poop Bags are no longer available for
purchase in the United States, though they remain available in
Canada.
If you or someone you know has bought Earth Rated Certified
Compostable Bags and you wish to receive more information on
potential compensation or to be kept advised of the status of the
Earth Rated Certified Compostable Bags Canadian Class Action
litigation or any resulting compensation resulting from this Class
Action lawsuit in Canada, Ontario or Quebec, please provide your
contact information to our law firm using the form below.
IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE CLASS ACTION OR TO SIMPLY
GET MORE INFORMATION, PLEASE COMPLETE THE FORM BELOW. Please note
that providing your information does not create any financial
obligation for you. There are no fees or costs associated with
joining this class action. Our law firm operates on a contingency
fee basis, meaning that we receive payment only if the class action
is successful. All information transmitted is confidential and
Actis Law Group will protect it against unauthorized use,
publication or disclosure. [GN]
EMIRATES AIRLINES: Court Extends Time to File Class Cert Bid
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FARAH, et al., v.
Emirates, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-05786 (S.D.N.Y., Filed July 6,
2021), the Hon. Judge Laura Taylor Swain entered an order granting
letter motion for extension of time to file.
-- The Plaintiffs' request for an extension of time to file
their
motion for class certification is granted.
-- The Plaintiffs must file their motion for class certification
by
January 17, 2025.
The suit alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act.[CC]
ENGAGESMART INC: Faces Securities Class Action Over Merger
----------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against EngageSmart, Inc. ("EngageSmart" or the "Company")
(NYSE:ESMT). 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 alleged violations of the federal
securities laws in connection with the January 2024 take-private
acquisition of the Company (the "Merger") by Vista Equity Partners
Management, LLC and its affiliates. Specifically, a complaint has
been filed alleging that the Merger was driven by and dominated by
controlling shareholder General Atlantic, L.P. and its affiliates
and assisted by conflicted financial and legal advisors retained by
the special committee purported established to evaluate the merger
and EngageSmart's board of directors. The complaint specifically
alleges that these conflicts wholly tainted the merger process,
resulting in a conflicted and unfair sales process that prevented
Class Members from making an informed vote on the Merger.
You have until December 9, 2024, to ask the Court to appoint you as
Lead Plaintiff for the class if you are a shareholder who (1)
purchased or otherwise acquired EngageSmart common stock between
October 23, 2023 and January 26, 2024, or (2) held EngageSmart
common stock as of the December 21, 2023 record date for the
Merger. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at
www.pomerantzlaw.com.
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]
EVO BRANDS: Faces Consumer Class Suit Over False Advertising
------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan Haynes & Nick Ramos, writing for Regulatory Oversight, report
that a consumer class action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York against EVO
Brands, LLC and PVG2, LLC, both doing business as Puff Bar. The
lawsuit alleges that Puff Bar violated state consumer protection
laws by engaging in deceptive marketing practices aimed at youth,
and by misleading consumers about the legality and safety of their
synthetic nicotine e-cigarettes.
In addition to the maze of regulatory requirements that govern the
tobacco and nicotine industry, companies must keep in mind that
state consumer protection laws provide powerful avenues for private
plaintiffs and state governments to challenge tobacco and nicotine
companies' sales and marketing efforts.
Summary of Allegations
-- Targeting Youth. The complaint alleges that Puff Bar
aggressively marketed its products to young people, despite it
being illegal to sell these products to individuals under the age
of 21 in all states. The marketing strategies include the use of
appealing flavors and advertisements that resonate with young
people.
-- Misleading Nicotine Content. Puff Bar labels its products with
"5% nicotine," which the complaint states is ambiguous and
misleading. Consumers are led to believe that the nicotine content
is low, whereas in reality, the nicotine levels are comparable to
two to three packs of traditional cigarettes.
-- Tobacco-Free Claims. The products are marketed as
"tobacco-free," which misleads consumers into thinking they are
safer than tobacco-derived nicotine products. The complaint asserts
that these products pose significant health risks similar to those
associated with tobacco.
-- Evading Regulations. Puff Bar has allegedly exploited
regulatory loopholes to continue selling its products. Initially,
it marketed its products as disposable to avoid FDA enforcement
against flavored vape cartridges. Later, Puff Bar switched to
synthetic nicotine to evade FDA jurisdiction over tobacco
products.
Legal Claims
-- Violation of New York General Business Law § 349. The
complaint claims that Puff Bar's deceptive marketing practices
violate New York's consumer protection laws, which prohibit
deceptive acts and practices.
-- Violation of New York General Business Law § 350. The
complaint also alleges false advertising under New York law,
arguing that Puff Bar's marketing is misleading in material
respects.
-- Violation of State Consumer Protection Statutes. The lawsuit
extends to violations of consumer protection laws in multiple
states, asserting that Puff Bar's practices are unfair, false,
misleading, and fraudulent.
-- Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability. The complaint
argues that Puff Bar breached the implied warranty by marketing its
products as "tobacco-free," misleading consumers about the safety
and health risks associated with the products.
Relief Sought
The plaintiffs seek various forms of relief, including:
-- Certification of the proposed class and subclass;
-- Monetary damages, including actual, statutory, compensatory,
and punitive damages;
-- Injunctive relief to prevent further misleading marketing
practices;
-- An order for Puff Bar to notify class members of the lawsuit;
and
-- Reimbursement of legal costs and expenses.
Why This Case Matters
The FDA prioritizes enforcement against companies marketing the
following types of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS)
without FDA premarket authorization:
-- Any flavored, cartridge-based ENDS (other than a tobacco- or
menthol-flavored ENDS);
-- All other ENDS for which the manufacturer has failed to take
(or is failing to take) adequate measures to prevent minors'
access; and
-- Any ENDS that is targeted to minors or whose marketing is
likely to promote use of ENDS by minors.
This class action lawsuit, however, serves as a reminder that
tobacco and nicotine product companies are also subject to
generally applicable state laws that provide an avenue for state
governments and private plaintiffs to seek monetary and injunctive
relief for alleged violations. This case is worth monitoring
because, if successful, it is possible that other private
plaintiffs or states adopt a similar legal strategy to halt the
sale of certain tobacco or nicotine products. [GN]
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Underpays Systems Administrators, Bartek Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
STUART BARTEK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FIDELITY NATIONAL FINANCIAL, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-01123-UNA (D. Del., October 9, 2024)
seeks to recover Plaintiff's unpaid overtime wages and other
damages owed by the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff Bartek and other employees
for Fidelity regularly worked in excess of 40 hours in a week but
did not receive proper overtime wages. Instead, Fidelity improperly
classified Bartek and the other underwriters as exempt employees
and paid them a salary with no overtime compensation. To add insult
to injury, before filing this lawsuit, Fidelity terminated Bartek
for raising concerns regarding his rights under the FLSA, says the
suit.
Plaintiff Bartek worked for Fidelity from August 2022 to July 2024
as system administrator.
Fidelity National Financial, Inc. provides title insurance, closing
and escrow services, and other title related services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Patrick C. Gallagher, Esq.
JACOBS & CRUMPLAR, P.A.
10 Corporate Circle, Suite 301
New Castle, DE 19720
Telephone: (302) 656-5445
Facsimile: (302) 656-5875
E-mail: pat@jcdelaw.com
- and -
Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
PARMET PC
2 Greenway Plaza, Suite 250
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 999-5200
E-mail: matt@parmet.law
FULFILLMENT AMERICA: Salazar Bid for Class Certification OK'd
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AURA SALAZAR, DAMARIS
VENTURA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
v. FULFILLMENT AMERICA, INC., JOHN BARRY SR., and JOHN BARRY JR.,
Case No. 1:23-cv-11625-LTS (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Leo Sorokin
entered an order allowing the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, appointment of class representatives and class
counsel.
Accordingly, the class is composed of:
"Workers who were laid off by Fulfillment America between Dec.
31,
2022, and Jan. 8, 2023, who suffered a loss of employment and/or
did not receive full wages owed at termination"
The Court does not foresee any substantial difficulties in managing
the class action; the class members can be easily identified
through discovery, the potential liability can be readily
calculated, and there is but one mass layoff to consider and
adjudicate.
The Court does not see any potential conflict of interest, nor does
it doubt that chosen counsel is sufficiently qualified and
experienced to conduct the litigation. For the reasons stated in
the plaintiffs’ brief, Doc. No. 29 at 10-12, adequacy is also
met.
The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and a
putative class alleging violations of the Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification Act of 1988 ("WARN Act"), and the
Massachusetts Payment of Wages Act ("Wage Act").
The Plaintiffs and others worked as hourly production workers at
Fulfillment America through a staffing agency called Job Done.
Around Dec. 21, 2022, Fulfillment America abruptly terminated its
contract with Job Done and consequently terminated the employment
of the plaintiffs and many others like them.
The plaintiffs and others received a text message on Dec. 31, 2022,
stating that their last day of work was Dec. 30, 2022. They did not
receive their final wages until approximately two weeks following
their end of employment.
Fulfillment America offers internet real-time order processing and
inventory management, e-mail order confirmation, on-line tracking,
and custom reporting services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 16, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SQouyJ at no extra
charge.[CC]
GATOS SILVER: Class Settlement in Bilinsky Suit Wins Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL BILINSKY,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
GATOS SILVER, INC., STEPHEN ORR, ROGER JOHNSON, PHILIP PYLE, JANICE
STAIRS, ALI ERFAN, IGOR GONZALES, KARL HANNEMAN, DAVID PEAT,
CHARLES HANSARD, and DANIEL MUÑIZ QUINTANILLA, Case No.
1:22-cv-00453-PAB-KAS (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge Philip Brimmer
entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for final approval
of the settlement and approval of the plan of allocation.
The Court further entered an order that:
-- Lead Counsel and WTO's Motion for Awards of Attorneys' Fees,
Litigation Expenses, and Reasonable Costs and Expenses to
Plaintiffs is granted.
-- Pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure,
and for the purposes of settlement only, the settlement class
is
certified as follows:
"All Persons and entities who, in domestic transactions or on
the
NYSE, purchased or otherwise acquired Gatos common stock
pursuant
or traceable to the 2020 Registration Statement or the 2021
Registration Statement, and were damaged thereby; all Persons
and
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Gatos common stock
listed on the NYSE, from Dec. 9, 2020 through Jan. 25, 2022,
both
inclusive, and were damaged thereby; all Persons and entities
who,
in domestic transactions, purchased or otherwise acquired
publicly
traded call options on Gatos common stock, from Dec. 9, 2020
through Jan. 25, 2022, both inclusive, and were damaged
thereby;
and/or all Persons and entities who, in domestic transactions,
sold publicly traded put options on Gatos common stock, from
Dec.
9, 2020 through Jan. 25, 2022, both inclusive, and were damaged
thereby."
Excluded from the Settlement Class are Defendants, the current
and
Class Period officers and directors of the Company, the members
of
the immediate families and the legal representatives,
affiliates,
heirs, successors-in-interest, or assigns of any such excluded
person, any entity in which such excluded persons have or had a
majority interest, and the Electrum Group, LLC; provided,
however,
that any "Investment Vehicle" shall not be excluded from the
Settlement Class.
-- Class counsel is awarded $5,880,000 from the settlement fund,
which represents twenty eight percent of the net settlement
fund.
-- Lead plaintiff Bard Betz is awarded a service award of $10,000
from the settlement fund.
-- Plaintiff Jude Sweidan is awarded a service award of $5,000
from
the settlement fund.
-- Class counsel shall be reimbursed $226,314 for litigation
expenses
from the settlement fund.
Gatos is a U.S.-based silver company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 15, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Pe0BPJ at no extra
charge.[CC]
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]
GEORGIA: Secure Families Sues Over Unlawful Senate Bill 189
-----------------------------------------------------------
Secure Families Initiative; and their members, Plaintiff v. BRAD
RAFFENSPERGER, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-04659-SDG (N.D.
Ga., October 15, 2024) is a class action challenging certain
provisions of Section 5 of Senate Bill 189, which modifies Official
Code of Georgia Annotated's Sections 21-2-230, by mandating certain
allegations be considered probable cause to sustain a voter
challenge.
According to the complaint, Senate Bill 189 removes the discretion
of county administrators to dismiss unfounded challenges by
dictating that county boards of registrars shall find probable
cause to sustain a voter challenge that a voter is not qualified to
be an elector, and thus should be removed from the voter rolls,
when the challenged voter has allegedly moved or is registered at a
nonresidential address.
The Plaintiff alleges that the challenged provision of Senate Bill
189 erects unreasonable and unjustified burdens on military and
overseas voters by subjecting them to unsubstantiated challenges.
Moreover, the Plaintiff further alleges that the provision violates
the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States
Constitution, Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act, and
Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Brad Raffensperger is the Secretary of State of Georgia, is the
State's chief election officer and is responsible for administering
and implementing Georgia's election laws and regulations and
ensuring Georgia's compliance with the NVRA. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Katherine L. D’Ambrosio, Esq.
Jennifer Virostko, Esq.
Ben Watson, Esq.
COUNCILL, GUNNEMANN & CHALLY LLC
75 14th Street, NE, Suite 2475
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone: (404) 407-5250
E-mail: kdambrosio@cgc-law.com
jvirostko@cgc-law.com
bwatson@cgc-law.com
- and -
Alice Huling, Esq.
Danielle Lang, Esq.
Valencia Richardson, Esq.
Daniel S. Lenz, Esq.
Rachel Appel, Esq.
Shilpa Jindia, Esq.
CAMPAIGN LEGAL CENTER
1101 14th St. NW, Ste. 400
Washington, D.C. 20005
Telephone: (202) 736-2200
Facsimile: (202) 736-2222
E-mail: ahuling@campaignlegalcenter.org
dlang@campaignlegalcenter.org
vrichardson@campaignlegalcenter.org
dlenz@campaignlegalcenter.org
rappel@campaignlegalcenter.org
sjindia@campaignlegalcenter.org
GITHUB INC: Doe Appeals Copyright Suit Ruling to 9th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------
J. DOE, 1, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order in the
lawsuit entitled J. Doe, 1, et al., individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Github, Inc., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 4:22-cv-06823, in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California.
The Plaintiffs brought this complaint against the Defendants for
violations of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the Lanham Act,
California's Unfair Competition law, California Consumer Privacy
Act, and for breach of contract regarding licenses, GitHub's
Privacy Statement, and GitHub's Terms of Service. The Plaintiffs
and the Class also bring this complaint against the Defendants for
their tortious interference in the Plaintiffs' contractual
relationships; for fraud; and for negligence regarding handling of
sensitive data.
On June 24, 2024, the Court granted in part and denied in part the
Defendants' motion to dismiss through an Order entered by Judge Jon
S. Tigar. The Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the Court's June
24 Order dismissing their Section 1202(b) claims.
On July 24, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to
appeal.
On Sept. 27, 2024, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion to
certify order for interlocutory appeal and motion to stay pending
appeal. The Court ruled that it is appropriate to certify the order
for interlocutory appeal. Moreover, the Court believes that
judicial economy will be best served by staying this case as the
Ninth Circuit's decision is likely to provide substantial guidance
that may materially alter the Court's decisions in the instant
case.
The appellate case is captioned Doe, et al. v. Github, Inc., et
al., Case No. 24-6136, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit, filed on October 8, 2024. [BN]
GOBRANDS INC: Wurm Sues Over Breaches of FTSA's Caller ID Rules
---------------------------------------------------------------
CHARMING WURM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GOBRANDS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
24-014760 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial, Broward Cty., October 15,
2024) seeks for injunctive and declaratory relief, and damages for
Defendant's violations of the Caller ID Rules of the Florida
Telephone Solicitation Act.
The Plaintiff brings this class action alleging that the Defendant
violated the FTSA by transmitting a phone number that was not
capable of receiving phone calls when it made Telephonic Sales
Calls by text message.
GoBrands, Inc. is a foreign corporation that provides online retail
and delivery services throughout the United States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua A. Glickman, Esq.
Shawn A. Heller, Esq.
SOCIAL JUSTICE COLLECTIVE, PL
974 Howard Ave.
Dunedin, FL 34698
Telephone: (202) 709-5744
Facsimile: (866) 893-0416
GREEN MAN: Faces Zamora Suit Over Disclosure of Personal Info
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gabriel Zamora, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Green Man Gaming Limited, Defendant, Case
No. 1:24-cv-07175 (E.D.N.Y., October 11, 2024) arises from the
Defendant's conduct of knowingly and intentionally disclosing
Plaintiff and other users' personally identifiable information --
including a record of every video game purchased by the user -- to
unauthorized third parties without first complying with the Video
Privacy Protection Act.
The Defendant, through its subsidiaries, owns and operates its
online platform and mobile application, including website
www.greenmangaming.com. The Defendant's website and applications
use first-party and third-party cookies, software development kits,
pixels, Facebook's Business Tools, including Advanced Matching and
Conversion API, and related tracking tools to purposely track,
record, and transmit its digital subscribers9 interactions with
Defendant's website.
According to the complaint, the Defendant knowingly installed and
used these tools, and it controlled which data was transmitted to
unrelated third parties. In conjunction with this, the Defendant
purposefully and specifically chose to: (1) track and record
consumers' viewed video media, (2) disclose that information to
Facebook alongside its digital subscribers' individual Facebook ID
and other persistent identifiers, and (3) did this without its
users' knowledge or consent via surreptitious technology.
The Plaintiff and consumers were harmed by Defendant's alleged
unlawful conduct, which deprived them of their right to privacy in
their own homes, and the disclosures at issue reveal highly
personal details regarding their unique video requests and viewing
habits.
Green Man Gaming Limited is a digital distribution platform whose
primary business is selling video games, which it offers to
millions of users through its website.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adrian Gucovschi, Esq.
Benjamin Rozenshteyn, Esq.
Nathaniel Haim Sari, Esq.
GUCOVSCHI ROZENSHTEYN, PLLC
140 Broadway, Fl 46
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 884-4230
E-mail: adrian@gr-firm.com
ben@gr-firm.com
nsari@gr-firm.com
GREEN VALLEY: Makes Direct Class Settlement Payment in Breach Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
La Grada reports that in May 2022, a massive data breach at Green
Valley Pecan Company, a pecan producer in Arizona, compromised the
data of thousands of its customers. The company notified those
affected by the security breach promptly, but that meant that their
data was already in the hands of bad actors.
Green Valley Pecan company suit
The plaintiffs of the lawsuit that was leveraged against the
company states that Green Valley Pecan Company did not do enough to
protect the data from a cyberattack and that their security
measures were insufficient to even at least lessen the impact of
the breach. This disregard for their client’s cybersecurity means
that the settlement for “ordinary” losses due to the data
breach is quite high, up to $400.
Not everyone will be able to get that much money, but for those who
were charged fees by their bank, had expenses related to phone use,
costs of travel, or even time lost dealing with the fallout,
compensation has been set at $15 an hour for three hours. You will
need to substantiate your claim with the appropriate evidence
before receiving any compensation.
But not everyone was just mildly inconvenienced, and the
compensation scale for the lawsuit reflects that. Some of the
affected individuals had to deal with serious issues, such as
identity theft or fraud and so their compensation reflects that.
For those who have had such serious problems due to the breach, the
compensation could go up to $4,000, although their claims would
also have to be substantiated and there are no guarantees that the
maximum payment would be awarded.
While Green Valley hasn’t admitted to any wrongdoing, they’ve
agreed to settle the matter by paying out a certain total amount,
though they haven’t disclosed the exact figure, just the tiered
compensation packages. On top of financial compensation, all
members of the lawsuit will also get two years of free credit
monitoring and identity theft protection.
If you are not planning to take part on the class action suit or
want to bring forth a claim yourself, you have until November 15,
2024, if you want to exclude yourself from the settlement or object
to it. For everyone else, the deadline to submit a claim is
December 16, 2024. To successfully be able to claim, you’ll need
to provide some proof of your breach-related expenses in order to
substantiate the claim. This could be bank statements, phone bills,
receipts for travel, or even invoices and credit reports showing
extra costs you incurred. The final hearing to approve the
settlement is scheduled for January 10, 2025.
The importance of class action suits when dealing with data
breaches
Class action suits like this one allow groups of people with
similar complaints against a company to join forces and take the
case to court together. Often, only a small group of people,
sometimes even just an individual, file the initial lawsuit, but if
it is approved as a class action suit, it can encompass a much
larger group of people. This helps cover legal expenses and makes
payouts more generous due to the mass of collective evidence
presented.
When companies being sued decide to settle, it usually means they
are trying to avoid a long and expensive legal battle, but it is
common for them to plead no contest to avoid future lawsuits that
might rely on the admission of fault. It is a way for companies to
move forward without admitting guilt, even while paying to settle
the case, and typically, class members who accept settlement
payments give up their right to take additional legal action on the
same issue. Agreements like these are fairly common in cases
involving things like pollution, discrimination, or false
advertising, where many people are affected by the same actions.
[GN]
HAH GROUP: Fails to Secure Patients' Personal Info, Tavares Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
JIMMY TAVARES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HAH GROUP HOLDING COMPANY, LLC D/B/A HELP AT
HOME, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-10146 (N.D. Ill., October 14,
2024) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to
properly secure and safeguard sensitive information of its
patients.
The Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal information
-- which they entrusted to Defendant on the mutual understanding
that Defendant would protect it against disclosure -- was targeted,
compromised and unlawfully accessed due to the data breach. The
private information compromised in the data breach was exfiltrated
by cyber criminals and remains in the hands of those
cyber-criminals who target Private Information for its value to
identity thieves, says the suit.
As a result of the data breach, the Plaintiff and Class Members
have been exposed to a heightened and imminent risk of fraud and
identity theft. The Plaintiff and Class Members must now and in the
future closely monitor their financial accounts to guard against
identity theft. Through this complaint, the Plaintiff seeks to
remedy these harms on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
individuals whose private information was accessed during the data
breach.
HAH Group Holding Company, LLC, d/b/a Help at Home, is a national
provider of home care for seniors and persons living with
disabilities.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
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
HEMISPHERE MEDIA: $15MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Dec. 13
---------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN RE HEMISPHERE MEDIA GROUP,
INC. STOCKHOLDERS LITIGATION
Consol. C.A. No. 2023-0555-JTL
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF STOCKHOLDER CLASS
ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, SETTLEMENT HEARING,
AND RIGHT TO APPEAR
TO: All record holders and beneficial owners of shares of
Hemisphere Media Group, Inc.'s ("Hemisphere") common stock (NASDAQ:
"HMTV") whose shares were exchanged for or who had the right to
receive in exchange $7.00 per share in cash at the closing of the
take-private transaction between Hemisphere and Searchlight on
September 13, 2022 (the "Closing"), including their heirs,
successors in interest, successors, transferees, and assigns (the
"Class").
PLEASE READ THIS SUMMARY NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE
AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Court"), that the
above-captioned stockholder class action (the "Action") is pending
in the Court.
YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Plaintiffs Robert Garfield, Carmel
Spamer, and Theodor Karl Schricker, Jr. (collectively,
"Plaintiffs"), individually and on behalf of the Class, have
reached a proposed settlement with defendants Searchlight Capital
Partners, L.P. ("Searchlight"), Eric Zinterhofer, Adam Reiss, Alan
J. Sokol, Peter M. Kern, Gato Investments, L.P. ("Gato"), and
Gemini Latin Holdings, LLC ("Gemini"), (collectively, "Defendants")
and Hemisphere for $15,000,000 in cash (the "Settlement"). The
terms of the Settlement are stated in the Revised Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement, Compromise, and Release among Plaintiffs,
Defendants and Hemisphere, dated September 11, 2024 (the
"Stipulation"), a copy of which is available at
https://www.HemisphereMediaHoldingsStockholderLitigation.com. If
approved by the Court, the Settlement will resolve all claims in
the Action as against Defendants.
A hearing (the "Settlement Hearing") will be held on December 13,
2024 at 11:00 a.m., before The Honorable J. Travis Laster, Vice
Chancellor, by Zoom Meeting:
https://us06web.zoom.us/j/81157368725, Meeting ID: 811 5736 8725,
Passcode: 7517829947, to, among other things: (i) certify the Class
and appoint Plaintiffs as Class representatives and Plaintiffs'
counsel as Class counsel for Settlement purposes; (ii) determine
whether the proposed Settlement on the terms and conditions
provided for in the Stipulation is fair, reasonable, and adequate
to the Class, and should be approved by the Court; (iii) determine
whether a Judgment, substantially in the form attached as Exhibit D
to the Stipulation, should be entered dismissing the Action with
prejudice as against Defendants; (iv) determine whether the
proposed Plan of Allocation of the Net Settlement Fund is fair and
reasonable, and should therefore be approved; (v) determine whether
the application by Plaintiffs' counsel for an award of attorneys'
fees and expenses should be approved; (vi) hear and rule on any
objections to the Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation,
and/or to the application by Plaintiffs' Counsel for an award of
attorneys' fees and expenses; and (vii) consider any other matters
that may properly be brought before the Court in connection with
the Settlement. Any updates regarding the Settlement Hearing,
including any changes to the date or time of the hearing or updates
regarding in-person or remote appearances at the hearing, will be
posted to the Settlement website,
https://www.HemisphereMediaHoldingsStockholderLitigation.com.
If you are a member of the Class, your rights will be affected by
the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be entitled to
share in the Net Settlement Fund. If you have not yet received the
Notice, you may obtain a copy of the Notice by contacting the
Settlement Administrator at Hemisphere Stockholder Litigation, c/o
A.B. Data, Ltd., P.O. Box 170500, Milwaukee, WI 53217 or call
877-411-4850. A copy of the Notice can also be downloaded from the
Settlement website,
https://www.HemisphereMediaHoldingsStockholderLitigation.com.
If the Settlement is approved by the Court and the Effective Date
occurs, the Net Settlement Fund will be distributed on a pro rata
basis to "Eligible Class Members" in accordance with the proposed
Plan of Allocation stated in the Notice or such other plan of
allocation as is approved by the Court. Under the proposed Plan of
Allocation, "Eligible Class Members" consist of all Class Members
who held or beneficially owned shares of Hemisphere common stock at
the Closing on September 13, 2022 and therefore received, or were
entitled to receive, the Transaction Consideration for their
"Eligible Shares." Pursuant to the proposed Plan of Allocation,
each Eligible Class Member will be eligible to receive a pro rata
payment from the Net Settlement Fund equal to the product of (i)
the number of Eligible Shares held by the Eligible Class Member and
(ii) the "Per-Share Recovery" for the Settlement, which will be
determined by dividing the total amount of the Net Settlement Fund
by the total number of Eligible Shares. As explained in further
detail in the Notice, pursuant to the Plan of Allocation, payments
from the Net Settlement Fund to Eligible Class Members will be made
in the same manner in which Eligible Class Members received the
Transaction Consideration. Eligible Class Members do not have to
submit a claim form to receive a payment from the Settlement.
Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Plaintiffs' counsel's application for an award
attorneys' fees and expenses in connection with the Settlement must
be filed with the Register in Chancery in the Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware and delivered to Plaintiffs' counsel and
Defendants' counsel such that they are received no later than
December 2, 2024, in accordance with the instructions set forth in
the Notice.
Please do not contact the Court or the Office of the Register in
Chancery regarding this notice. All questions about this notice,
the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the
Settlement should be directed to the Settlement Administrator or
Plaintiffs' counsel.
Requests for the Notice should be made to the Settlement
Administrator:
Hemisphere Stockholder Litigation
c/o A.B. Data, Ltd.
P.O. Box 170500
Milwaukee, WI 53217
Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, should be made to
Plaintiffs' counsel:
Kimberly A. Evans
BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1120
Wilmington, DE 19801
kim@blockleviton.com
Ned Weinberger
LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP
222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1510
Wilmington, DE 19801
nweinberger@labaton.com
Christine M. Mackintosh
GRANT & EISENHOFER, P.A.
123 Justison Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
cmackintosh@gelaw.com
Dated: October 21, 2024
BY ORDER OF THE COURT OF
CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
HUSQVARNA PROFESSIONAL: Allen Sues Over Defective Grass Trimmers
----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBIN ALLEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HUSQVARNA PROFESSIONAL PRODUCTS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-896 (D.N.C., October 9, 2024) is a
class action against the Defendant for violation of the New York
Deceptive Trade Practices Act, breach of implied warranty, and
unjust enrichment.
According to the complaint, Defendant Husqvarna sold some of the
most expensive gas-powered grass trimmers on the market. Recently,
however, the Defendant told consumers to "immediately stop using"
them because they are dangerous. There have been reports of fires
and at least one injury caused by a defect in these products. A
gas-powered grass trimmer that cannot be used is just a big,
worthless piece of metal junk. The Defendant will not give
customers their money back for these defective products. Instead,
the Defendant implemented a deficient recall that allows it to say
it is doing the right thing, when in fact the primary objective is
to protect its bottom line, says the suit.
Accordingly, Plaintiff is filing this class action lawsuit to seek
all available relief to consumers, to raise awareness that
Defendant's grass trimmers are a hazard.
Husqvarna Professional Products, Inc. produces outdoor power
products. The Company offers chainsaws, trimmers, and robotic and
ride-on lawn mowers for forest, park, and garden care.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Hunter Bryson, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS
GROSSMAN, PLLC
900 W. Morgan St.
Raleigh, NC 27603
Telephone: (919) 600-5000
Facsimile: (919) 600-5035
E-mail: hbryson@milberg.com
- and -
Joel D. Smith, Esq.
SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC
867 Boylston Street, 5th Floor, Ste. 1520
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 377-7404
E-mail: joel@skclassactions.com
- and -
Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq.
SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC
166 Geary Street, Ste. 1500-1507
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 839-7000
E-mail: yeremey@skclassactions.com
J & T HARVESTING: Flores Sues Over Labor Law and Contract Breaches
------------------------------------------------------------------
ARMANDO RUBIO FLORES, et al., individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. J & T HARVESTING LLC, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-02853 (D. Colo., October 15,
2024) asserts claims under the under the Fair Labor Standards Act,
the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, Colorado
Minimum Wage of Workers Act, as implemented by the Colorado Minimum
and Overtime Standards, the Colorado Wage Claim Act, and the
Colorado common law.
With no fixed-site agricultural operation of their own, prior to
the Fall of 2022, the Defendants procured contracts with operators
of various potato packing warehouses in the San Luis Valley of
Colorado, including Defendants MountainKing Potatoes, Inc., Farming
Technology, Inc., Farming Technology Corporation, Smokin-Spuds,
Inc., and Alpine Potato Company. Moreover, the Defendants seek the
benefits of an H-2A workforce to work in their packing sheds
without the costs of direct H-2A Program participation. The
Plaintiffs were admitted to the U.S. on a temporary basis with
visas pursuant to the H-2A Program, to perform agricultural labor
beginning in October 2022. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs now bring
claims against Defendants for, among other things, unpaid wages,
including minimum wages as required by the FLSA, promised wages
under the CWCA, and breach of their employment contracts.
J&T Harvesting, LLC facilitates the recruitment of workers for
potato packing warehouses in Colorado. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jenifer C. Rodriguez, Esq.
Deanna Tamborelli, Esq.
David Valleau, Esq.
Farm Workers Rights Division
COLORADO LEGAL SERVICES
1905 Sherman Street, Suite 400
Denver, CO 80203
Telephone: (303) 866-9366
E-mail: jrodriguez@colegalserv.org
dtamborelli@colegalserv.org
dvalleau@colegalserv.org
J.R. SHORT: Vazquez Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
DAVID VAZQUEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. J.R. SHORT MILLING COMPANY, an Illinois
corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-02236-CSB-EIL (C.D. Ill.,
October 15, 2024) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs, and other relief as
appropriate under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff worked for Defendant from approximately July 2021
through April 2024 as a non-exempt, hourly employee. Allegedly, the
Plaintiff and those similarly situated regularly worked in excess
of 40 hours a week, and were paid some overtime for those hours,
but at a rate that did not include Defendant's shift differentials
as required by the FLSA.
Headquartered in Kankakee, IL, Short Milling Company produces
extruded snack pellets. [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
E-mail: jyoung@sommerspc.com
- and -
Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
Kathryn E. Milz, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
One Towne Square, 17th Floor
Southfield, MI 48076
Telephone: (248) 355-0300
E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com
kmilz@sommerspc.com
- and -
Jonathan Melmed, Esq.
Meghan Higday, Esq.
MELMED LAW GROUP, P.C.
1801 Century Park East, Suite 850
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 824-3828
E-mail: jm@melmedlaw.com
mh@melmedlaw.com
JOHNSON, TN: B.P. Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Classes
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as B.P., et al., v. CITY OF
JOHNSON CITY, TENNESSEE, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-00071-TRM-JEM
(E.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order
certifying the following class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(b)(3):
"All women, including minors, who reported crimes of sexual
violence by any person to JCPD from Jan. 1, 2018 to Dec. 31,
2022
("Reporter-Survivor Class")."
The Plaintiffs also seek an order certifying the following issues
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(4) on behalf of
the following class:
"All individuals, including minors, who were sexually abused,
drugged, or trafficked by Sean Williams or Alvaro Fernando
Diaz-
Vargas ("Sex Trafficking Survivor Class")":
The case involves grave allegations of sex trafficking, the sexual
assaults of dozens of women and children, and perhaps most
disturbing, public corruption at the hands of the Johnson City
Police Department that enabled the perpetrator of these heinous
acts, Sean Williams, to terrorize his victims over the course of
years.
The Plaintiffs, three survivors of sexual violence, allege two
primary theories of liability against the City of Johnson City in
this putative class action.
Johnson City is in east Tennessee. It's known for outdoor
activities at Winged Deer Park, which offers boating and disc golf,
and Buffalo Mountain Park, with trails and sweeping views.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 16, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=o0ldUR at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Vanessa Baehr-Jones, Esq.
ADVOCATES FOR SURVIVORS OF ABUSE PC
4200 Park Boulevard No. 413
Oakland, CA 94602
Telephone: (510) 500-9634
E-mail: vanessa@advocatesforsurvivors.com
- and -
Julie C. Erickson, Esq.
Elizabeth A. Kramer, Esq.
Kevin M. Osborne, Esq.
ERICKSON KRAMER OSBORNE LLP
44 Tehama St.
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 635-0631
E-mail: julie@eko.law
elizabeth@eko.law
kevin@eko.law
- and -
Heather Moore Collins, Esq.
Ashley Shoemaker Walter, Esq.
HMC CIVIL RIGHTS LAW, PLLC
7000 Executive Center Dr., Suite 320
Brentwood, TN 37027
Telephone: (615) 724-1996
Facsimile: (615) 691-7019
E-mail: heather@hmccivilrights.com
ashley@hmccivilrights.com
KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN: Roberson Class Certification Bid Tossed
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RODERICK ROBERSON, et al.,
v. THE KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RAILWAY CO., Case No. 4:22-cv-00358-RK
(W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Roseann A. Ketchmark entered an order
denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
The Plaintiffs have not met their affirmative "burden of showing
that the class [or subclasses] should be certified and that the
requirements of Rule 23 are met." After a rigorous analysis, the
Court finds that the proposed class fails to satisfy Rule 23.
The case arises out of Kansas City Southern Railway Co.'s alleged
violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA").
The Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify the following class under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23:
"Current, future, and former KCS Train Engine & Yard ("TE&Y")
employees who have worked enough hours to be eligible for FMLA
leave who, at any time from three years preceding the
Complaint's
filing to the resolution of this action, took or attempted to
take
FMLA leave."
The Plaintiffs argue in the alternative that the Court should
certify two issue classes under Rule 23(c)(4).
The Plaintiffs define these classes as follows:
Issue 1: Whether KCS's methodology for calculating FMLA leave
comports with the statute.
Issue 2: Whether KCS's policy of failing to restore employees to
their prior position on the job boards when they return
from FMLA leave deprives class members of their right
to
"equivalent employment benefits, pay and other terms
and
conditions of employment," as guaranteed under the
FMLA.
Kansas City Southern Railway Company was an American Class I
railroad.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 16, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gcgC7C at no extra
charge.[CC]
KEYBANK NA: Settles Data Breach Class Action Suit for $6-Mil.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Overby-Seawell Company (OSC) and KeyBank have agreed to pay $6
million to settle a proposed class action lawsuit over a July 2022
data breach that compromised the private information of hundreds of
thousands of mortgage clients.
The deal, which received preliminary approval from the court on
June 13, 2024, covers anyone whose personal information was
impacted by the Overby-Seawell data security incident.
According to the official Overby-Seawell settlement website,
OverbySettlement.com, the deal includes about 620,815 people, many
of whom were residential mortgage clients of KeyBank and other
mortgage lenders that used OSC's tech services.
To fill out and file a Overby-Seawell settlement claim form, head
to this page. Claim forms must be submitted online or by mail by
October 21, 2024.
Class members who file a valid, timely claim can receive three
years of identity theft protection and credit monitoring services,
or a pro-rated cash payment.
In lieu of a cash payment, eligible individuals can also submit a
claim for reimbursement for up to $6,000 in documented,
out-of-pocket expenses fairly traceable to the breach, and $25 for
every hour spent dealing with the effects of the incident, with a
cap of $125.
Class members who were residents of California from May 26, 2022 to
October 21, 2024 can also submit a claim for an extra $100 cash
payment.
All payments to class members will be increased or decreased on a
pro rata basis.
Last year, Fulton Bank paid $750,000 to settle litigation filed on
behalf of customers who received notice that their information may
have been impacted in the OSC data breach. Fulton Bank settlement
participants can join the agreement outlined here, but any amount
they received from that initial payment will be subtracted from
what they get in the OSC settlement.
A final approval hearing for the Overby-Seawell data breach
settlement is scheduled for December 9, 2024. It is typically after
a class action settlement receives final approval from the court,
and any appeals or objections are resolved, that benefits begin to
go out to class members.
The initial class action lawsuit noted that OSC served as a vendor
to provide KeyBank with verification that its residential mortgage
clients were maintaining property insurance. According to the case,
unauthorized actors were able to gain access to OSC's network on
July 5, 2022 and steal consumers' sensitive information due to the
defendants' failure to implement adequate cybersecurity measures.
[GN]
KLN ENTERPRISES: Trammell Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARK TRAMMELL is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing his
lawsuit entitled Mark Trammell, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. KLN Enterprises, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-01884-H-JLB, in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of California.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
brought against the Defendant alleging that its Wiley Wallaby Very
Berry licorice products, which are manufactured, packaged, labeled,
advertised, distributed and sold by Defendant, are misbranded and
falsely advertised because they contain artificial flavoring.
On Dec. 21, 2023, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim, which Judge Marilyn L. Huff granted on
Apr. 22, 2024, with leave to amend.
On Apr. 24, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration
of the Apr. 22 Order, which the Court denied on May 20, 2024.
On May 22, 2024, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which
the Defendant moved to dismiss on June 14, 2024.
On Sept. 12, 2024, the Court granted the Defendant's motion to
dismiss the amended complaint without leave to amend. The Court
found that the Plaintiff's amended complaint contains no
allegations establishing that his legal remedies are inadequate.
Accordingly, to the extent the Plaintiff's claims seek equitable
relief, they are dismissed because he failed to state a claim for
equitable relief.
The appellate case is captioned Trammell v. KLN Enterprises, Inc.,
Case No. 24-6097, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit, filed on October 7, 2024.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on October 15,
2024;
-- Appellant's Appeal Opening Brief is due on November 20, 2024;
and
-- Appellee's Appeal Answering Brief is due on December 20,
2024. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant MARK TRAMMELL, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Charles C. Weller, Esq.
CHARLES C. WELLER, APC
11412 Corley Court
San Diego, CA 92126
Defendant-Appellee KLN ENTERPRISES, INC. is represented by:
Jaikaran Singh, Esq.
FOLEY & LARDNER, LLP
11988 El Camino Real, Suite 400
San Diego, CA 92130
KROGER CO: Appeals Remand Order in Coburn Suit to 8th Circuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
THE KROGER CO. is appealing a remand order in the lawsuit entitled
Bridget Coburn, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. The Kroger Co., Defendant, Case No.
4:23-cv-01399-HEA, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit,
which was removed from the Circuit Court of St. Louis County,
Missouri, to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri, is brought against the Defendant for breach
of express warranty and for violations of the Missouri's
Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA).
On Dec. 4, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case to
state court.
On Dec. 11, 2023, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the case
or, in the alternative, to stay the action.
On Dec. 29, 2023, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint.
On Sept. 26, 2024, Judge Henry Edward Autrey granted the
Plaintiff's motion to remand. The Court opined that it lacks
jurisdiction over this case under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332(d), and
remand must be granted because the Defendant has not shown by a
preponderance of evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds
the Class Action Fairness Act's (CAFA) jurisdictional minimum.
The appellate case is captioned Bridget Coburn v. The Kroger Co.,
Case No. 24-8010, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Eighth Circuit, filed on October 8, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiff-Respondent BRIDGET COBURN, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Daniel F. Harvath, Esq.
HARVATH LAW GROUP
75 W. Lockwood, Suite 1
Webster Groves, MO 63119
Telephone: (314) 550-3717
Defendant-Petitioner THE KROGER CO. is represented by:
Peter Bae, Esq.
Heather F. Canner, Esq.
Jacob M. Harper, Esq.
DAVIS & WRIGHT
865 Figueroa Street, S., Suite 2400
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 633-6800
LINAMAR STRUCTURES: Wright Sues Over Unlawful Pay Policy
--------------------------------------------------------
KENNEDY WRIGHT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LINAMAR STRUCTURES USA (MICHIGAN), INC., a
Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 4:24-cv-12721-SDK-APP
(E.D. Mich., October 15, 2024), accuses the Defendant of violating
the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from approximately August
5, 2021 through August 19, 2024. Throughout his employment with the
Defendant, the Plaintiff asserts that he regularly worked in excess
of 40 hours a week and was paid some overtime for those hours but
at a rate that does not include Defendant's non-discretionary
bonuses or other remuneration as required by the FLSA.
Headquartered in Southfied, MI, Linamar Structures USA manufactures
safety-critical components and systems. [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
E-mail: jyoung@sommerspc.com
- and -
Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
One Town Square, 17th Floor
Southfield, MI 48076
Telephone: (248) 355-0300
E-mail: 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
E-mail: jm@melmedlaw.com
lms@melmedlaw.com
LOS ANGELES, CA: Verdin et al. Allege FLSA Overtime Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE VERDIN, et al., Plaintiffs v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES; and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-08892 (C.D.
Cal., October 15, 2024) is a class action seeking recovery for
violations of Fair Labor Standards Act's overtime provisions as a
result of Defendant's actions in not timely compensating Plaintiffs
and Collective Action Members all of their overtime compensation.
The Plaintiffs worked in different divisional assignments
throughout the City of Los Angeles, but each Plaintiff qualified
for, and received, a biweekly Education Incentive. However,
Defendant City failed to include this Education Incentive into the
regular rate of compensation for Plaintiffs and Collective Action
Members when calculating overtime compensation, says the suit.
City of Los Angeles is a political subdivision of the State of
California. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David D. Deason, Esq.
Matthew F. Archbold, Esq.
DEASON & ARCHBOLD
17011 Beach Blvd., Suite 900
Huntington Beach, CA 92647
Telephone: (949) 794-9560
E-mail: David@yourlaborlawyers.com
Matthew@yourlaborlawyers.com
MARK CUBAN: Must File Renewed Class Cert Response by Oct. 31
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DOMINIK KARNAS, et al., on
behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated, v. MARK
CUBAN, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-22538-RKA (S.D. Fla.), the Hon.
Judge Roy Altman entered an order as follows:
1. The Defendants' Response to the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification and the Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of their
Motion for Class Certification are stricken.
2. The Defendants shall file a Renewed Response to the
Plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification by Oct. 31, 2024. The
Plaintiffs
shall file their Reply by Nov. 15, 2024.
3. This case shall remain closed.
Mark Cuban is an American businessman and television personality.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 16, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DNvjeU at no extra
charge.[CC]
MDL 3114: Eight AT&T Data Breach Suits Transferred to N.D. Tex.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, Acting Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, transfers six cases from the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, and one
each from the Middle District of Florida and Western District of
Texas, all to the Northern District of Texas and, with the consent
of that court, assigned to Judge Ada E. Brown for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings in "In re: AT&T Inc. Customer
Data Security Breach Litigation," MDL No. 3114.
These putative class actions present common factual questions with
the actions transferred to MDL No. 3114, concerning an alleged data
security breach announced by AT&T in March 2024 concerning the
personal information of over 70 million former and current AT&T
customers released on the dark web. Plaintiffs moved to vacate the
orders while defendants AT&T Inc. and AT&T Mobility LLC opposed the
motions and support transfer.
The panel concluded that the objections are unpersuasive and that
transfer will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses
and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. In
addition, the administrative fee claims in Case Nos. 1:24−22619,
1:24−22625, 1:24−22666 and 1:24−22682 are simultaneously
separated and remanded to the Southern District of Florida.
A full-text copy of the court's October 4, 2024 transfer order is
available at
https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3114-Transfer_Order-9-24.pdf
MDL 3122: Centralization of 29 Cooper IVF-Related Suits Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, Acting Chair of the U.S. Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation, denied centralization of 27 cases
from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, and one each from District of New Mexico and the
District of Oregon, to the Northern District of California under
"In re: The Cooper Companies, Inc., In Vitro Fertilization Global
Culture Media Products Liability Litigation," MDL No. 3122.
All actions arise from allegations that defendants manufactured and
sold deficient lots of embryo culture media that resulted in harm
to plaintiffs' embryos. Plaintiffs are individuals who underwent in
vitro fertilization and allege that each of their clinics used the
recalled media on their embryos, which damaged them or affected
their viability. They assert claims for strict liability,
negligence, failure to warn, and unjust enrichment. The actions
present several common issues of fact relating to how the culture
media was manufactured and tested, when defendants knew of the
defect, and how and when it was communicated to the public. The
actions, however, are pending in just three districts before four
judges. All Northern District of California actions already have
been related before the same judge, and almost all plaintiffs to
those actions are represented by two law firms.
The panel ruled that informal cooperation and coordination among
the parties and involved courts are adequate alternatives to
centralization that should work to minimize any duplication in
pretrial proceedings, hence, centralization is not necessary at
this time for the convenience of the parties and witnesses or to
further the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.
A full-text copy of the court's October 4 order is available at
https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3122-Order_Denying_Transfer-9-24.pdf
METHODE ELECTRONICS: Bids For Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set Oct. 25
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of common stock of Methode Electronics, Inc. (NYSE: MEI)
between June 23, 2022 and March 6, 2024, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period"), of the important October 25, 2024 lead plaintiff
deadline.
So what: If you purchased Methode common stock during the Class
Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any
out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.
What to do next: To join the Methode class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=21318 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com
for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has
already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you
must move the Court no later than October 25, 2024. A lead
plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class
members in directing the litigation.
Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any
meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually
litigate securities class actions, but are merely middlemen that
refer clients or partner with law firms that actually litigate the
cases. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents
investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in
securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation.
Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class
action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was
Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of
securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been
ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds
of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm
secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner
Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar.
Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and
Super Lawyers.
Details of the case: According to the lawsuit, during the Class
Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (1) Methode had lost highly skilled and
experienced employees during the COVID-19 pandemic necessary to
successfully complete Methode's transition from its historic low
mix, high volume production model to a high mix, low production
model at its Monterrey, Mexico facility; (2) Methode's attempts to
replace its General Motors ("GM") center console production with
more diversified, specialized products for a wider array of vehicle
manufacturers and Original Equipment Manufacturers ("OEMs"), in
particular in the electric vehicle ("EV") space, had been plagued
by production planning deficiencies, inventory shortages, vendor
and supplier problems, and, ultimately, botched execution of
Methode's strategic plans; (3) Methode's manufacturing systems at
its critical Monterrey facility suffered from a variety of
logistical defects, such as improper system coding, shipping
errors, erroneous delivery times, deficient quality control
systems, and failures to timely and efficiently procure necessary
raw materials; (4) Methode had fallen substantially behind on the
launch of new EV programs out of its Monterrey facility, preventing
Methode from timely receiving revenue from new EV program awards;
and (5) as a result of the foregoing, Methode was not on track to
achieve the 2023 diluted earnings per share ("EPS") guidance or the
3-year 6% organic sales compound annual growth rate ("CAGR")
represented to investors and such estimates lacked a reasonable
factual basis. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
To join the Methode class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=21318 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com
for information on the class action.
No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
case@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
MONASH IVF: Settles Faulty Genetic Testing Class Suit for $56-Mil.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff S. Korek of Gersowitz Libo & Korek, P.C., writing for Lawyer
Time, reports that Australian IVF company Monash IVF has reached a
$56 million settlement over claims that they destroyed embryos.
According to the class action lawsuit, over 700 patients at the
clinic lost embryos. The loss allegedly occurred due to faulty
genetic testing.
Roughly 35% of the embryos tested were identified as having
abnormalities. However, plaintiffs in the lawsuit allege that this
was inaccurate and the embryos could have resulted in viable
pregnancies.
Numerous other allegations were made in the class action lawsuit.
Plaintiffs alleged that a company operated by Monash secretly used
embryos that patients had instructed to be discarded.
For its part, Monash IVF has not admitted to any wrongdoing or
liability as part of the settlement.
Liability For IVF Negligence
Misconduct in the IVF industry is unfortunately much more common
than many people may realize. Part of the problem is that the IVF
industry lacks many of the regulations found in other medical
fields, especially in the United States. According to Vox, "There
are more than 450 fertility clinics across the country, and like
most aspects of US health care, the IVF industry is regulated by a
patchwork of federal and state rules as well as professional
self-governance, all with varying levels of penalties and
enforcement mechanisms." IVF clinics should take a number of
measures in order to prevent IVF misconduct.
-- IVF clinics should maintain rigorous documentation and
tracking of all biological materials.
-- IVF clinics must adhere to local and national regulatory
standards.
-- IVF clinics should ensure that all of their staff undergo
robust training on ethical, legal, and procedural guidelines.
IVF clinics form contracts with their patients. This requires them
to uphold certain standards and follow guidelines. They must do
everything within reason to preserve their patients embryos and
other biological samples. When an IVF company fails to meet
industry standards, including for proper freezing procedures,
equipment maintenance, and record keeping, this could form the
basis of a negligence claim. A number of entities could potentially
face liability for any instance of embryo loss during the IVF
process.
-- The companies that manufacture fertility equipment could be
held at fault. One of the main sources of embryo loss is faulty
embryo storage tanks.
-- The doctors and healthcare providers directly involved during
the IVF procedure may also bear some responsibility. IVF clinics
typically get numerous sources of help from outside agencies and
hospitals.
-- Laboratory technicians and embryologists could also be held at
fault. Human error is one of the main sources of IVF misconduct.
This often occurs due to faulty record-keeping by laboratory
technicians and embryologists.
It can be hard to know where to begin after any instance of embryo
loss. Many couples have likened this process to the death of their
own children. To make matters worse, these same companies will
often do everything in their power to deny responsibility for any
instance of IVF misconduct. This is why it is so important for
victims of IVF misconduct to seek legal advice as early as
possible. An IVF negligence attorney can examine the unique facts
of your case and let you know what your legal options are.
Getting Legal Help For IVF Misconduct
We at Gersowitz Libo & Korek, P.C. extend our best wishes to all of
the people impacted by embryo loss at Monash IVF. It is our hope
that this settlement will bring some measure of closure for all
impacted. Fertility clinics around the world need to understand
that there will be consequences for their misdeeds and negligence.
Have you or someone that you care about been impacted by IVF
negligence? You may have legal recourse. Our team of IVF negligence
attorneys is here to support you in any way that we can. We care
deeply that victims of misconduct get the support and justice that
they are entitled to under the law. Whether you just have legal
questions or need any type of assistance, we are here for you. You
can reach out to our office anytime at (516) 908-9792. [GN]
MONEYGRAM PAYMENT: Failed to Protect Personal Info, Uribe Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
ROY URIBE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MONEYGRAM PAYMENT SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 3:24-cv-02573-L (N.D. Tex., October 14, 2024) is a class
action complaint against the Defendant for its failure to properly
secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of
Plaintiff and other similarly situated customers.
According to the complaint, cybercriminals gained access to
Defendant MoneyGram's information systems, performed its
reconnaissance measures, and stole a trove of consumer data before
Defendant even noticed. Specifically, the infiltration occurred
between September 20 and September 22, 2024, but Defendant did not
discover the data breach until September 27, 2024.
Given that Defendant failed to identify the malicious activity
until it was already concluded, the Defendant likely lacks the
appropriate logging, monitoring, and alerting systems necessary to
enable it to identify such attacks. These tools are critical
components of any reasonable cybersecurity program and are expected
industry standards that Defendant had a duty to implement and
maintain, says the suit.
Moneygram Payment Systems, Inc. provides money transfer and payment
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joe Kendall, Esq.
KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC
3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825
Dallas, TX 75219
Telephone: (214) 744-3000
E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com
- and -
Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
COHEN & MALAD LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Telephone: (327) 636-6481
E-mail: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com
- and -
Samuel Strauss, Esq.
STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC
980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610
Chicago, IL 60611
Telephone: (872) 263-1100
E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com
MULLEN AUTOMOTIVE: $7.25MM Class Settlement to be Heard on April 4
------------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
IN RE MULLEN AUTOMOTIVE, INC.
SECURITIES LITIGATION
Case No. CV 22-3026-DMG (AGRx)
Honorable Dolly M. Gee
SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION,
CERTIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT CLASS, AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT;
(II) SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF
ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES
TO: All Persons that purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly
traded common stock of Mullen Automotive, Inc. or Net Element Inc.,
and/or purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded call options
on such stock, and/or wrote publicly traded put options on such
stock, during the period from June 15, 2020 to April 17, 2022, both
dates inclusive, and who suffered economic losses as a proximate
result of the alleged wrongdoing (the "Settlement Class"):
PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Central District of California, that the above-captioned
litigation (the "Action") has been certified as a class action on
behalf of the Settlement Class, except for certain Persons,
Excluded Entities, and others who are excluded from the Settlement
Class by definition as set forth in the full Notice of (I) Pendency
of Class Action, Certification of Settlement Class, and Proposed
Settlement; (II) Settlement Fairness Hearing; and (III) Motion for
an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation
Expenses (the "Notice").
YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Lead Plaintiff in the Action has reached
a proposed settlement of the Action for $7,250,000 in cash (the
"Settlement") that, if approved, will resolve all claims in the
Action.
A hearing will be held on Friday, April 4, 2025, at 10:00 a.m.,
before the Honorable Dolly M. Gee at the United States District
Court for the Central District of California, United States
Courthouse, Courtroom 8C, 350 West 1st Street, Los Angeles,
California 90012, to determine (i) whether the proposed Settlement
should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether
the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants,
and the Releases specified and described in the Stipulation and in
the Notice should be granted; (iii) whether the proposed Plan of
Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (iv)
whether Lead Counsel's Fee and Expense Application should be
approved.
If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be
affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be
entitled to share in the Settlement Fund. The Notice and Proof of
Claim and Release Form ("Claim Form") can be downloaded from the
website maintained by the Claims Administrator,
www.MullenSecuritiesSettlement.com. You may also obtain copies of
the Notice and Claim Form by contacting the Claims Administrator at
In re Mullen Automotive, Inc. Securities Litigation, c/o A.B. Data,
Ltd., P.O. Box 173036, Milwaukee, WI 53217, (877) 777-9307.
If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be
eligible to receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you
must submit a Claim Form online, or by first-class mail postmarked,
no later than February 6, 2025. If you are a Settlement Class
Member and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be
eligible to share in the distribution of the net proceeds of the
Settlement but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or
orders entered by the Court in the Action.
If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for
exclusion such that it is received by, or postmarked, no later than
February 6, 2025, in accordance with the instructions set forth in
the Notice. If you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement
Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by
the Court in the Action and you will not be eligible to share in
the proceeds of the Settlement.
Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Lead Counsel's Fee and Expense Application must be
delivered to the Claims Administrator, Lead Counsel, and
Defendants' Counsel such that they are received by, or postmarked
no later than, February 6, 2025, in accordance with the
instructions set forth in the Notice.
Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, Defendants, or
their counsel regarding this notice. All questions about this
notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate
in the Settlement should be directed to Lead Counsel or the Claims
Administrator.
Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form,
should be made to Lead Counsel:
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
Garth Spencer, Esq.
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
(310) 201-9150
settlements@glancylaw.com
Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to:
In re Mullen Automotive, Inc. Securities Litigation
c/o A.B. Data, Ltd.
P.O. Box 173036
Milwaukee, WI 53217
(877) 777-9307
www.MullenSecuritiesSettlement.com
By Order of the Court
All capitalized terms used in this Summary Notice that are not
otherwise defined herein have the meanings ascribed to them in the
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated August 14, 2024 (the
"Stipulation"), which is available at
www.MullenSecuritiesSettlement.com.
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Athletes May Be Eligible for Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Settlements have been reached in class-action lawsuits, In re
College Athlete NIL Litigation, Case No. 4:20-cv-3919 and Hubbard
v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, et al., Case No.
4:23-cv-01593, alleging the NCAA and Power Five Conferences broke
antitrust laws by agreeing not to provide benefits and compensation
to college athletes for their participation in college sports or
for the use of their names, images and likenesses (NIL), agreeing
to limit scholarships and scholarship amounts, and agreeing not to
provide college athletes academic achievement awards.
"NCAA college athletes have waited decades for this moment, and
their right to receive the full value of their hard work has
finally arrived," said Steve Berman, managing partner and
co-founder of Hagens Berman. "We are incredibly proud to be in the
final stages of historic change."
You may be included in one or both of the settlements and be
entitled to money or other benefits if (1) you competed on a
Division I athletic team and were declared initially eligible for
competition at any point from June 15, 2016 to Sept. 15, 2024,
and/or (2) you competed on a Division I athletic team any time
between April 1, 2019, and September 15, 2024, and you would have
qualified for an academic achievement award at your school, and/or
(3) you will compete as a Division I athlete beginning in Fall
2025.
Complete descriptions of the settlement classes are available at
www.collegeathletecompensation.com.
Payments under the settlements will be automatically made to:
-- Power Five FBS Football and Men's Division I Basketball
athletes who received a full grant-in-aid for broadcast NIL awards,
videogame NIL awards, athletic services awards, and awards for lost
third-party payments for NIL (if NIL deal information has been
provided to Plaintiffs by their school);
-- Power Five Women's Division I Basketball athletes who received
a full grant-in-aid for broadcast NIL awards, athletic services
awards, and awards for lost third-party payments for NIL (if NIL
deal information has been provided to Plaintiffs by their school);
and
-- Any Division I athlete who competed in the same sport prior to
and after July 1, 2021, and received NIL payments from a third
party after July 1, 2021, and information about those payments has
been provided to Plaintiffs by their school.
-- All Power Five athletes and Big East Basketball athletes who
competed on a team anytime during the 2019-2020, 2020-2021, or
2021-2022 academic years.
You must file a Claim Form to receive a settlement payment if:
You are a Division I athlete other than a Power Five Football or
Basketball player and you want to receive payments for
participation in college sports;
-- You are a Football or Basketball athlete not in the Power Five
and you want to receive payment for videogames;
-- You are a Division I athlete who competed in the same sport
prior to and after July 1, 2021, and received an NIL deal after
July 1, 2021 that has not been provided to Plaintiffs by your
school (check www.collegeathletecompensation.com to find out if
your deal was reported to Plaintiffs); or
-- You competed on a Division I athletic team that was not a
basketball team in the Big East or a team in the Power Five
Conferences anytime during the 2019-2020, 2020-2021, or 2021-2022
academic years and you would have qualified for an academic
achievement award at your school.
Review your estimated payment amount December 17, 2024 at
www.collegeathletecompensation.com and file a Claim Form if one is
required for you to receive all the money you qualify for. For more
information about whether a claim form is required, go to
www.collegeathletecompensation.com.
If you have not received information via email, check your school
email account or file a Claim Form online.
Claim Forms may be submitted online or printed and mailed to the
Settlement Administrator by January 31, 2025.
In addition, student-athletes who did, do, or will compete on a
Division I athletic team anytime between June 15, 2020 and the end
of the Injunctive Relief Settlement Term, which will end ten years
after the Settlement is approved, may benefit from changes to NCAA
and conference rules that will allow schools and conferences to
provide to athletes direct benefits and compensation for NIL and
participation in college sports, and additional benefits over and
above annual existing scholarships and all other benefits currently
permitted by NCAA rules, up to an aggregate yearly amount specified
in the Settlement. Complete details regarding these additional
benefits, and other changes that will be made to NCAA rules about
benefits and compensation, including NIL payments from third
parties, are provided in the Injunctive Relief Settlement,
available at www.collegeathletecompensation.com.
Winston's Co-Executive Chairman Jeffrey L. Kessler, who also
negotiated the class- action settlements that created the free
agency systems for athletes in the NFL and the NBA, said, "We're
pleased to take this next step towards finalizing this historic,
industry-changing settlement that will provide a fair system of
revenue sharing for the college athletes who generate
hundreds-of-millions-of-dollars for their schools. For far too
long, these athletes have been deprived of their economic rights in
an unjust system that will now, finally, be fundamentally reformed.
The new system will allow athletes to be fairly rewarded for their
contributions and college sports will continue to thrive." [GN]
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Hughes Appeals Case Dismissal to 2nd Cir.
------------------------------------------------------------
BRANDON HUGHES is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing
his lawsuit entitled Brandon Hughes, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. National Football
League, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-10743, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit,
which was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, is brought against the Defendant over alleged
violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA).
On Feb. 25, 2023, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which
the Defendant moved to dismiss on Mar. 2, 2023.
On Nov. 27, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint,
which the Defendant moved to dismiss on Dec. 18, 2023.
On Sept. 5, 2024, Judge Jennifer L. Rochon granted the Defendant's
motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) and denied under Rule
12(b)(1). The Plaintiff's request for a stay was denied.
The Court held that it lacks jurisdiction over any putative
class-action claims. Thus, having dismissed the Plaintiff's
individual VPPA claim, the Court dismisses the putative VPPA
class-action claim without prejudice.
The appellate case is captioned Hughes v. National Football League,
Case No. 24-2656, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit, filed on October 7, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant BRANDON HUGHES, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Michael L. Murphy, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW Suite 540
Washington, DC 20007
NEBRASKA: Filyaw Appeals Dismissal of Suit v. DHHS to 8th Cir.
--------------------------------------------------------------
GILLIAN FILYAW is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing
the lawsuit entitled Gillian Filyaw, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Steve Corsi, Chief
Executive Officer of the Nebraska Department of Health and Human
Services, in his official capacity, et al., Defendants, Case No.
4:24-cv-03108-BCB, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Nebraska.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
brought against the Defendants over alleged civil rights
violations.
On June 11, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify class.
On July 1, 2024, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint for failure to state a claim.
On July 29, 2024, the Plaintiff filed an unopposed motion for oral
argument.
On Sept. 9, 2024, the Court denied the Plaintiff's motion for oral
argument and granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss. Moreover,
the Plaintiff's motion to certify class was denied as moot.
The Court held that the Plaintiff neither alleges an ongoing
violation of federal law nor seeks relief properly characterized as
prospective. As a result, the Plaintiff's claim does not fall
within the Ex parte Young exception to sovereign immunity and the
Eleventh Amendment bars the Plaintiff's suit against Defendants.
The appellate case is captioned Gillian Filyaw v. Steve Corsi, et
al., Case No. 24-3041, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Eighth Circuit, filed on October 7, 2024.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appendix is due on November 18, 2024;
-- Appellant's Brief is due on November 18, 2024; and
-- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court issues
the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of appellant. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant GILLIAN FILYAW, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Kelsey Elizabeth Arends, Esq.
James A. Goddard, Esq.
Sarah K. Maresh, Esq.
Robert Edward McEwen, Esq.
NEBRASKA APPLESEED
P.O. Box 83613
Lincoln, NE 68501
Telephone: (402) 438-8853
Defendants-Appellees Steve Corsi, Chief Executive Officer of the
Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services, in his official
capacity, et al., are represented by:
Erik William Fern, Esq.
Jennifer A. Huxoll, Esq.
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE
2115 State Capitol
P.O. Box 98920
Lincoln, NE 68509
Telephone: (402) 471-2682
NEW FORTRESS: Faces Class Suit Over Securities Law Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, a nationally recognized law
firm, notifies investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against New Fortress Energy Inc. ("New Fortress" or "the Company")
(NASDAQ:NFE) and certain of its officers.
Class Definition
This lawsuit seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws on behalf of all
persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired New
Fortress securities between February 29, 2024, and August 8, 2024,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to
join this case by visiting the firm's site: bgandg.com/NFE.
Case Details
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) defendants created the false impression that they
possessed reliable information pertaining to New Fortress'
projected revenue outlook and anticipated growth while also
minimizing risk regarding New Fortress' plan to have its Fast LNG
("FLNG") projects fully operational and increase business growth
globally; and (2) New Fortress' FLNG projects failed to meet New
Fortress' publicly stated progress, specifically that its FLNG 1
project would be in service by March 2024.
The Complaint further alleges that on August 9, 2024, New Fortress
announced second quarter 2024 financial results, revealing adjusted
EBITDA of $120 million, which was well below New Fortress'
expectation of $275 million. According to the complaint, New
Fortress attributed disappointing results and lowered guidance to
delays placing New Fortress' FLNG 1 project into service, which
cost New Fortress $150 million per quarter in lost operating
margin. The New Fortress class action lawsuit alleges that on this
news, the price of New Fortress stock fell more than 23%.
What's Next?
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint, you can visit the firm's site:
bgandg.com/NFE or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his
Client Relations Manager, Nathan Miller, of Bronstein, Gewirtz &
Grossman, LLC at 332-239-2660. If you suffered a loss in New
Fortress you have until November 18, 2024, to request that the
Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff.
There is No Cost to You
We represent investors in class actions on a contingency fee basis.
That means we will ask the court to reimburse us for out-of-pocket
expenses and attorneys' fees, usually a percentage of the total
recovery, only if we are successful.
Why Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a nationally recognized firm
that represents investors in securities fraud class actions and
shareholder derivative suits. Our firm has recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for investors nationwide.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.
Contact
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
Peretz Bronstein or Nathan Miller
332-239-2660 | info@bgandg.com [GN]
NONSTOP ADMINISTRATION: Settlement Class Gets Prov'l Certification
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN PRUTSMAN, AMIRA
MARTZ, SIMCHA RINGEL, NAIOMI MARDEN, ALANA BALAGOT, CORINNE WARREN,
SUNNY LAI, AND DAVID KLEIN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, V. NONSTOP ADMINISTRATION AND INSURANCE
SERVICES, INC.; INCLUSIVE, Case No. 3:23-cv-01131-RFL (N.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Rita Lin entered an order provisionally certifying
the following Settlement Class for purposes of settlement only:
"All individuals within the United States of America whose
PHI/PII
was exposed to unauthorized third parties as a result of the
data
breach discovered by Defendant on or about Dec. 22, 2022."
The Court determines that for settlement purposes the proposed
Settlement Class meets all the requirements of Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3):
-- John Prutsman, Amira Martz, Simcha Ringel, Naiomi Marden, Alana
Balagot, Corrine Warren, Sunny Lai, and David Klein are
designated
and appointed as the Settlement Class Representatives.
-- Gary M. Klinger of Milberg Goleman Bryson Phillips Grossman,
PLLC
and Scott E. Cole of Cole & Van Note, previously designated as
Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel, are designated as Class Counsel
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g). The Court
finds
that Mr. Klinger and Mr. Cole are experienced and will
adequately
protect the interests of the Settlement Class.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 15, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TjrBCt at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Scott Edward Cole, Esq.
Laura Van Note Esq.
COLE & VAN NOTE
555 12th Street, Suite 2100
Oakland, CA 94607
Telephone: (510) 891-9800
Facsimile: (510) 891-7030
E-mail: sec@colevannote.com
lvn@colevannote.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
NORTH HIGHLAND: Class Settlement in Briggs Suit Gets Initial Nod
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL BRIGGS,
individually and on behalf of all others similar situated, v. THE
NORTH HIGHLAND COMPANY, Case No. 1:22-cv-03640-SCJ (N.D. Ga.), the
Hon. Judge Steve Jones entered an order granting motion for
preliminary approval of class action settlement.
For settlement purposes only and pursuant to Fed. Civ. R. 23 the
Court conditionally certifies the Settlement Class in this matter
defined as follows:
"All current and former North Highland employees and their
dependents and beneficiaries residing in the United States whose
Personal Information was potentially compromised in the Data
Incident affecting North Highland on or about May 26, 2022 to
June
6, 2022, including all such persons who received notice of the
breach."
Excluded from the Settlement Class is any judge presiding over
the
Litigation and their first-degree relatives, judicial staff and
persons who timely and validly request exclusion from the
Settlement Class.
Michael Briggs is designated and appointed as the Class
Representative.
The Court finds that the following counsel is experienced and
adequate counsel and is hereby provisionally designated as
Settlement Class Counsel: Matthew R. Wilson of Meyer Wilson Co.,
LPA; and Raina C. Borrelli of Straus Borrelli, PLLC.
North Highland is a worldwide management consulting firm.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 15, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vgjWh4 at no extra
charge.[CC]
NORTH STAR: Bente Suit Seeks Conditional Cert. of Collective
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIC BENTE, TAMARA
HARRISON, and RONALD GORDON, individually and on behalf of all
persons similarly situated, v. NORTH STAR INSURANCE ADVISORS, LLC
and TONY HAKIM, Case No. 4:23-cv-01102-NCC (E.D. Mo.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order conditionally certifying
an FLSA collective, and facilitation of sending of written notices
to:
"all current and former Insurance Agents who received leads
from
North Star to sell insurance products and who received a 1099
from
either North Star or an insurance company contracted with
North Star between [three years and 192 days prior to the
Court's
Order granting Conditional Certification], and the present (the
"FLSA Collective")."
North Star is a final expense telesales insurance agency.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 16, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TgcTWT at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Camille Fundora Rodriguez, Esq.
Olivia Lanctot, Esq.
Alexandra K. Piazza, Esq.
Mariyam Hussain, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 875-3000
Facsimile: (215) 875-4620
E-mail: crodriguez@bm.net
olanctot@bm.net
apiazza@bm.net
mhussain@bm.net
- and -
Cody Reinberg, Esq.
HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP
7382 Pershing Ave., 1W
St. Louis, MO 63130
Telephone: (314) 391-9557
Facsimile: (314) 391-9557
E-mail: CReinberg@hkm.com
OLD TOWN LAUNDRY: Vasquez Balks Helpers' Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
RENE VAZQUEZ, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. OLD TOWN LAUNDRY SERVICES, INC. and INDIRA MARTINEZ,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-07752 (S.D.N.Y., October
11, 2024) arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful labor
practices in violation of the provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, recently amended by the Wage
Theft Prevention Act, and other relevant provisions of Title 12 of
New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations.
The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and those
other similarly situated individuals, for federal and state claims
relating to unpaid minimum wages, overtime wages, unpaid
spread-of-hours wages, failure to provide written notice of wage
rates and maintain accurate records resulting in an injury in
fact.
Plaintiff Vazquez was employed by the Defendants from approximately
April 2022 until September 20, 2024. During this time, he primarily
served as a helper, assisting in unloading and working alongside
his female co-workers to empty bags and separate sheets.
Old Town Laundry Services, Inc. is engaged in the laundry
business.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lina Stillman, Esq.
STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C.
42 Broadway, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 203-2417
ONTRAK INC: Dick Appeals Securities Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
IBINABO DICK is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing the
lawsuit entitled Michael Farhar, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Ontrak, Inc., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-01987-FLA-E, in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
filed this class action on behalf of persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired Ontrak securities between November
5, 2020, and February 26, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period")
against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
On Aug. 23, 2021, the Plaintiff filed a consolidated first amended
complaint, which the Defendants moved to dismiss on Sept. 13,
2021.
On Mar. 29, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint,
which the Defendants moved to dismiss on May 15, 2023.
On Mar. 5, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a third amended complaint,
which the Defendants moved to dismiss on Mar. 19, 2024.
On Sept. 3, 2024, Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha granted the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's third amended
complaint without leave to amend.
Lead Plaintiff Ibinabo Dick appealed. The appellate case is
captioned Dick, et al. v. Ontrak, Inc., et al., Case No. 24-6124,
in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed
on October 8, 2024.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on October 15,
2024;
-- Appellant's Appeal Opening Brief is due on November 20, 2024;
and
-- Appellee's Appeal Answering Brief is due on December 20,
2024. [BN]
PARAGON 28: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set November 29
------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman Provides Notice of New Securities Class Action
Against Paragon 28 (FNA) And Its Senior Executives: New Complaint
Extends Alleged Fraudulent Period From May 5, 2023-September 20,
2024, Inclusive
Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Remains November 29, 2024
Hagens Berman announces that the firm and additional counsel have
filed a new class action lawsuit against Paragon 28, Inc. (NYSE:
FNA) and certain of its senior executives.
The new complaint extends the alleged fraudulent period in the
pending litigation against Paragon 28, contending that Paragon 28's
stock was artificially inflated by Defendants' alleged fraud from
May 5, 2023 through Sept. 20, 2024, inclusive ("Extended Class
Period").
Lead plaintiff motions for the Paragon 28 class action litigation
must still be filed with the Court no later than November 29, 2024.
Hagens Berman therefore urges investors who suffered substantial
losses on purchases of Paragon 28 securities during the Extended
Class Period and who wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Paragon
28 litigation to submit your losses now.
Extended Alleged Class Period: May 5, 2023-Sept. 20, 2024
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Nov. 29, 2024
Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/FNA
Contact the Firm Now: FNA@hbsslaw.com
Telephone: (844) 916-0895
New Paragon 28 (FNA) Securities Fraud Class Action Alleging
Extended Class Period:
The new class action, filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Colorado, and captioned Tiedt v. Paragon 28, Inc.,
et al.,Case No. 1:24-cv-02898, seeks to recover damages caused by
Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue
remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials.
The new class action is related to pending securities class action
litigation against Paragon 28 in the District of Colorado,
Ellington v. Paragon 28, Inc., 1:24-cv-02712 (PAB/TPO), which
alleges a class period of May 5, 2023 through Aug. 8, 2024,
inclusive.
The new class action, however, alleges a broader class period, as
the new case is brought on behalf of all investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired Paragon 28 securities during the Extended Class
Period -- between May 5, 2023 and Sept. 20, 2024, inclusive.
If you are a shareholder who purchased Paragon 28 shares during the
Extended Class Period, you have until November 29, 2024, to ask the
Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class in the Paragon
28 litigation. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained here. Click
here to discuss your legal rights with Hagens Berman.
CASE ALLEGATIONS: The new Paragon 28 class action lawsuit alleges
that defendants throughout the Extended Class Period made
materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Complaint alleges
Defendants misrepresented and concealed that Paragon: (a)
understated its Adjusted EBITDA losses; (b) overstated its net
inventories; (c) understated required provisions for excess and
obsolete inventory; (d) understated its cost of goods sold; (e)
overstated gross profit; (f) understated operating loss; (g)
understated net loss; (h) lacked adequate disclosure controls and
procedures and internal control over financial reporting; (i) would
be required to restate its financial statements to conform with
generally accepted accounting principles; and (j) as a result of
the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis
The truth began to emerge on April 4, 2024, when Paragon issued a
press release announcing that Defendant Deitsch resigned, and the
Company's Audit Committee Chair (Kristina Wright) stepped in as
interim CFO effective April 3, 2024. This news sent the price of
Paragon shares down $1.86 (-15%) that day.
Then, after the market closed on August 8, 2024, Paragon announced
that it had made errors in its financial statements and that its
internal controls were inadequate. The company admitted to
overstating its inventory and understating its cost of goods sold,
which led to overstated profits. This news sent the price of
Paragon shares down $1.67 (-20%) on August 9, 2024.
Finally, after the market closed on September 20, 2024, Paragon
disclosed the abrupt departure of Defendant Erik Mickelson, the
Company's Chief Accounting Officer. This news sent the price of
Paragon shares down $0.30 (-4.3%) on September 23, 2024.
THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased or acquired
Paragon 28 securities during the Class Period to seek appointment
as lead plaintiff of the Paragon 28class action lawsuit. A lead
plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial
interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also
typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts
on behalf of all other class members in directing the Paragon
28class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of
its choice to litigate the Paragon 28 class action lawsuit. An
investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not
dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff of the Paragon 28 class
action lawsuit. Lead plaintiff motions for the pending Paragon 28
class action litigation must be filed with the Court no later than
November 29, 2024.
If you'd like more information and answers to frequently asked
questions about the Paragon 28 case and our investigation, read
more »
Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding
Paragon 28 should consider their options to help in the
investigation or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program.
Under the new program, whistleblowers who provide original
information may receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any
successful recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call
Reed Kathrein at 844-916-0895 or email FNA@hbsslaw.com.
About Hagens Berman
Hagens Berman is a global plaintiffs' rights complex litigation
firm focusing on corporate accountability. The firm is home to a
robust practice and represents investors as well as whistleblowers,
workers, consumers and others in cases achieving real results for
those harmed by corporate negligence and other wrongdoings. Hagens
Berman's team has secured more than $2.9 billion in this area of
law. More about the firm and its successes can be found at
hbsslaw.com. Follow the firm for updates and news at
@ClassActionLaw. [GN]
PEAG LLC: Young Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users
----------------------------------------------------------
LESHAWN YOUNG, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PEAG, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-07717
(S.D.N.Y., October 10, 2024) is a civil rights action against the
Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and
operate its interactive website, https://jlab.com, to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind
or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New
York City Human Rights Law.
During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on
September 8, 2024, in an attempt to purchase Go Pop True Wireless
Earbuds from Defendant and to view the information on the website,
the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied
Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person
and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the
public and made available to the public. The Plaintiff was unable
to locate pricing and was not able to add the items to the cart due
to broken links, pictures without alternate attributes and other
barriers on Defendant's Website, says the suit.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
its website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.
PEAG, LLC operates the website that provides goods and services
including information about the Company's headphones, earbuds,
gaming gear and office accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
PIZZECCO INC: Sidoa and Ramos Allege Labor Law Breaches
-------------------------------------------------------
JUVENTINO RAMOS SIDOA and JIMMY RONNIE RAMOS, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PIZZECCO
INC. d/b/a PIZZERIA G, JULIAN GIANNUZZI and ROBERT GUERCIO, as
individuals, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-07226 (E.D.N.Y., October
15, 2024) seeks to recover damages for egregious violations of Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
Allegedly, the Defendants did not pay Plaintiff time and a half for
hours worked over 40. Among other things, the Defendants failed to
post notices of the minimum wage and overtime wage requirements in
a conspicuous place at the location of their employment as required
by the FLSA and NYLL.
Pizzecco Inc. owns and operates a pizza restaurant located at 191
7th St, Garden City, NY. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Telephone: (718) 263-9591
Facsimile: (718) 263-9598
QUALTEK LLC: Torres Seeks Conditional Certification of Collective
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FELIX TORREZ, Individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. QUALTEK LLC, Case
No. 2:24-cv-01740-WB (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order conditionally certifying and authorizing notice to
be sent to the following FLSA collective:
"All hourly, non-exempt QualTek Telecom Employees at any time
during the last three years. ("Putative Class Members").
Qualtek provides communication infrastructure construction
services.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 16, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EWxUBO at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
Richard M. Schreiber, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
rschreiber@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
- and -
Joshua P. Geist, Esq.
GOODRICH & GEIST, P.C.
3634 California Ave.
Pittsburgh, PA 15212
Telephone: (412) 766-1455
Facsimile: (412)766-0300
E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.com
- and -
William C (Clif) Alexander, Esq.
Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
101 N Shoreline Blvd., Suite 610
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
Telephone: (361) 452-1279
E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
austin@a2xlaw.com
RINGCENTRAL INC: Court Grants Summary Judgment in Privacy Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kat Black, writing for The Recorder, reports that a Mateo Superior
Court Judge Jeffrey R. Finigan granted summary judgment to
RingCentral in a privacy class action that accused the company of
wiretapping.
RingCentral is a voice over internet protocol provider that allows
users to make phone calls and send text messages using the
internet, not traditional phone lines.
The court ruled that RingCentral qualified for the same exemptions
afforded to telephone companies and public utilities under
California law.
A California state court granted summary judgment to RingCentral, a
voice over internet protocol company, in a privacy class action
alleging that it intercepted and recorded phone calls without the
plaintiffs' consent.
San Mateo Superior Court Judge Jeffrey R. Finigan issued the ruling
on Oct. 11, which concluded that the same exemptions accorded to
telephone companies under California's wiretapping statutes applied
to RingCentral and other VoIP providers. The minute order of the
judge's decision was filed this week.
RingCentral was represented by a team at Orrick, Herrington &
Sutcliffe, including partners Aravind Swaminathan and Jacob Heath,
associates Jesse Beringer, Sarah Meehan and Dan Alleva and former
firm of counsel Nicole Tadano.
RingCentral, a cloud-based communications platform that provides
subscribers with call recording and text messaging services, was
founded in 1999 and is based in Belmont, California. VoIP is a
technology that allows users to make phone calls using an internet
connection instead of traditional phone lines. RingCentral enables
subscribers to record, store and retrieve phone calls and text
messages.
Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian & Ho filed the original claim in 2020
on behalf of lead plaintiff Meena Reuben and any state resident who
exchanged text messages with a RingCentral customer or whose phone
calls to a RingCentral customer were recorded from July 2019 to the
present.
The plaintiffs brought the case under California's Invasion of
Privacy Act, alleging violations of California Penal Code Sec. 631
and California Penal Code Sec. 632.7, which prohibit wiretapping
and recording communications, respectively, without the parties'
permission. Under CIPA, plaintiffs can recover statutory damages of
up to $5,000 per violation. A first amended complaint was filed in
September 2021.
The defense counsel argued in a motion for summary judgment, which
was filed in February, that RingCentral qualifies for provisions
under CIPA -- Secs. 631(b)(1) and 632.7(b)(1) -- that exempt both
public utilities and telephone companies "engaged in the business
of providing communications services and facilities" from liability
if the "acts otherwise prohibited are for the purpose of
construction, maintenance, conduct or operation of the services and
facilities."
The minute order identified three issues advanced by the class
action: whether RingCentral qualified for the CIPA exemptions;
whether RingCentral could be considered a third-party
"eavesdropper" under CIPA; and whether text messages counted as
"communications" under Sec. 632.7.
The court solidified that VoIP providers and their services are
protected by the same statute exemptions as telephone companies and
public utilities and that call recording qualified as a "service"
essential to their function.
It ruled that the company was not liable for its subscribers'
actions because it cannot access subscribers' stored phone calls or
text messages without the subscribers' consent, meaning that, since
RingCentral is merely the provider of such services and does not
intercept or record communications for its own benefit, it
effectively does not qualify as a "third-party" eavesdropper under
CIPA. It noted that RingCentral issues an advisory to its customers
informing them of their responsibility for obtaining consent from
call or text recipients before recording their communications.
"Plaintiff describes RingCentral's service as 'recording
communications without consent,'" Finigan wrote. "That is not
accurate. RingCentral offers 'call recording.' Call recording is
not prohibited by the statutes. Call recording 'without the consent
of all parties' is prohibited."
It also found that RingCentral's texting services fell within CIPA
exemptions, though it disagreed with the defense counsel's
assertion that Sec. 632.7 "does not apply to text messages."
RingCentral's counsel at Orrick declined to comment at this time.
RingCentral and the plaintiff's counsel at Goldstein Borgen did not
immediately respond to requests for comment. [GN]
SAGE THERAPEUTICS: Faruqi & Faruqi Probes Securities Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, is
investigating potential claims against Sage Therapeutics, Inc.
("Sage" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: SAGE) and reminds investors of
the October 28, 2024 deadline to seek the role of lead plaintiff in
a federal securities class action that has been filed against the
Company.
Faruqi & Faruqi is a leading national securities law firm with
offices in New York, Pennsylvania, California and Georgia. The firm
has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors since
its founding in 1995.
As detailed below, the Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class
Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) zuranolone was less effective
in treating MDD than Defendants had led investors to believe; (ii)
accordingly, the FDA was unlikely to approve the Zuranolone NDA for
the treatment of MDD in its present form, and zuranolone's clinical
results for MDD, as well as its overall regulatory and commercial
prospects, were overstated; (iii) SAGE-718 was less effective in
treating MCI due to PD than Defendants had led investors to
believe; (iv) accordingly, SAGE-718's clinical, regulatory, and
commercial prospects as a treatment for MCI due to PD were
overstated; (v) SAGE-324 was less effective in treating ET than
Defendants had led investors to believe; (vi) accordingly,
SAGE-324's clinical, regulatory, and commercial prospects as a
treatment for ET were overstated; and (vii) as a result of all the
foregoing, the Company's public statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.
The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the largest
financial interest in the relief sought by the class who is
adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees the
litigation on behalf of the putative class. Any member of the
putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member. Your ability to share in any
recovery is not affected by the decision to serve as a lead
plaintiff or not.
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information
regarding Sage's conduct to contact the firm, including
whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others.
To learn more about the Sage Therapeutics class action, go to
www.faruqilaw.com/SAGE or call Faruqi & Faruqi partner Josh Wilson
directly at 877-247-4292 or 212-983-9330 (Ext. 1310). [GN]
SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CA: Miscalculates OT Wages, Rosell Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICIA ROSSELL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO; and DOES 1 through
100, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-01872-L-DDL (S.D. Cal., October
15, 2024), seeks to recover of unpaid overtime wages and other
compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff and all similarly situated individuals are or were
non-exempt employees of Defendants. Allegedly, Defendants' failed
to include the health and welfare benefit premium payments in the
calculation of the Plaintiff's and all similarly situated
individuals' regular rate of pay when making overtime payments, in
violation of the FLSA. By failing to include all forms of
compensation as required by the FLSA in the regular rate of pay
used to calculate the overtime rate, the Defendants did not pay
Plaintiff and all similarly situated individuals at the rate of one
and one-half times the regular rate of pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 per workweek as required by the FLSA, says the suit.
County of San Diego is a political subdivision of the State of
California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Paul K. Haines, Esq.
Fletcher W. Schmidt, Esq.
Matthew K. Moen, Esq.
HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
2155 Campus Drive, Suite 180
El Segundo, CA 90245
Facsimile: (424) 292-2355
E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
fschmidt@haineslawgroup.com
mmoen@haineslawgroup.com
SCENTBIRD INC: Faces Schultz Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD SCHULTZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. Scentbird, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-10096 (N.D. Ill., October 14, 2024) is a civil rights
action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website, https://scentbird.com, to be
fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans
with Disabilities Act.
Plaintiff Schultz has made an attempt to complete a purchase on
Scentbird.com. On August 2, 2024, he was looking for a new cologne,
and while searching online for stores that offer a wide range of
perfumes and colognes, he discovered the Defendant's website.
During navigation, the Plaintiff encountered numerous accessibility
issues, such as adjacent links that had the same link text and led
to the same destinations. After choosing his desired product, the
"Judith Ripka Diamond Dreams" perfume, and adding it to the cart,
the dialog that appeared did not receive focus, nor did the Cart
button dialog. On the Checkout page, the card fields were not
properly labeled, and the Plaintiff could not understand what
information he needed to provide to successfully complete the
purchase. These access barriers have caused the website to be
inaccessible to, and not independently usable by, blind and
visually-impaired persons, says the suit.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Scentbird's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website
will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired
consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to
compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful
discrimination.
Scentbird, Inc. operates the website that sells beauty products and
fragrances.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Paul Camarena, Esq.
PAUL CAMARENA, ESQ.
1016 W. Jackson, No. 32
Chicago, IL 60607
Telephone: (312) 493-7494
E-mail: northandsedgwicklaw@gmail.com
SPIRE GLOBAL: Tagawa Balks at Misleading SEC Statements
-------------------------------------------------------
KOHEI TAGAWA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SPIRE GLOBAL, INC., PETER PLATZER, THOMAS
KRYWE, and LEONARDO BASOLA, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-01808
(E.D. Va., October 14, 2024) is a class action on behalf of the
Plaintiff and all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise
acquired Spire Global securities between May 11, 2022 and August
27, 2024, inclusive, pursuing claims against the Defendants under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made false and
misleading statements and failed to disclose to investors that,
since Spire's quarter ended March 31, 2022, the Company: (1) filed
financial statements that were not prepared in conformity with
generally accepted accounting principles including, without
limitation, principles applicable to proper revenue recognition;
(2) filed Sarbanes-Oxley certifications falsely claiming that: (a)
Spire's financial statements did not contain untrue statements of
material facts or omitted to state material facts necessary to make
the statements made, and (b) had disclosure controls and procedures
and internal control over financial reporting that did not provide
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of its financial
reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external
purposes; (3) faced the likelihood of having to restate its
financial statements to remove certain previously recorded
pre-space mission activity revenue from the period in which
pre-space mission activities were performed under certain
contracts, and instead, record that revenue over the period in
which data is delivered; and (4) that, as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, says the suit.
Spire Global is a provider of satellite data, analytics and
services. The Company operates a proprietary constellation of
multi-purpose nanosatellites and provides subscription access to
its data for a range of commercial applications such as shipping
vessel monitoring, aviation guidance, and weather forecasting.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Wayne G. Travell, Esq.
Allison P. Klena, Esq.
HIRSCHLER FLEISCHER, PC
1676 International Drive, Suite 1350
Tysons, VA 22102
Telephone: (703) 584-8903
Facsimile: (703) 584-8901
- and -
Lucas E. Gilmore, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 300
Berkeley, CA 94710
Telephone: (510) 725-3000
Facsimile: (510) 725-3001
E-mail: reed@hbsslaw.com
lucasghbsslaw.com
TD BANK: Class Settlement in Amazing Suit Gets Final Nod
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMAZING FISHSTORE LLC
d/b/a KRMS FARMS and WILDER MEDIA CT, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, v. TD BANK, N.A., Case No.
1:22-cv-00958-KMW-AMD (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Karen Williams
entered an order grating final approval of class settlement.
-- The Court approves Class Counsel requests for attorney's fees
of
$9,66,500.00, expenses of $58,422.50 and service awards of
$5,000
to each of the class representatives.
TD Bank, N.A. is an American national bank and the United States
subsidiary of the multinational TD Bank Group.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 15, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cruE66 at no extra
charge.[CC]
TD BANK: Class Settlement in Burns Suit Gets Final Nod
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KYLE BURNS, RUBY HAYES,
JASMINE NORVILLE, and LISA RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, v. TD BANK, N.A., Case No.
1:21-cv-18194-KMW-AMD (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Karen Williams
entered an order grating final approval of class settlement.
-- The Court approves Class Counsel requests for attorney's fees
of
$9,66,500.00, expenses of $58,422.50 and service awards of
$5,000
to each of the class representatives.
TD Bank, N.A. is an American national bank and the United States
subsidiary of the multinational TD Bank Group.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 15, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Sy8bWK at no extra
charge.[CC]
TUSKEGEE UNIVERSITY: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Young Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
LESHAWN YOUNG, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TUSKEGEE UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-07718 (S.D.N.Y., October 10, 2024) is a civil rights action
against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its interactive website,
https://tuskegee.edu, to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in
violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act and The Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
During Plaintiff's visits to the website, including on September 8,
2024 and the last occurring on September 13, 2024, in an attempt to
purchase the Tuskegee University Women's Puddle Pants from
Defendant and to view the information on the website, the Plaintiff
encountered multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff a
shopping and recreational experience similar to that of a sighted
person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered
to the public and made available to the public. By failing to make
its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen
reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired
individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and
services, says the suit.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
its website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.
Tuskegee University is a private, historically black land-grant
university in Tuskegee, Alabama.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
TWITTER INC: Schobinger Bid for Class Certification Tossed
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK SCHOBINGER, v.
TWITTER, INC., et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-03007-VC (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria entered an order:
-- denying the motion for class certification; and
-- denying Twitter's administrative motion for leave to file a
sur-
reply.
A case management conference is set for Oct. 25, 2024, to set a
schedule for summary judgment and trial.
At his deposition, Schobinger offered a convoluted explanation for
how he could possibly have believed he was entitled to the bonus
while simultaneously advocating that the company not pay it.
Mark Schobinger was the Senior Director of Compensation for Twitter
during the 2022– 23 time period, when Twitter was being acquired
by Elon Musk. Schobinger was a member of a pool of employees who
were eligible for an annual bonus payable in early 2023.
Twitter provides online social networking and microblogging
service.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 16, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QgZ5dU at no extra
charge.[CC]
TWITTER INC: Schobinger Bid to Seal Class Cert Exhibits Nixed
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Schobinger v. Twitter,
Inc., et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-03007 (N.D. Cal., Filed June 20,
2023), the Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria entered an order denying
Schobinger's motion to seal exhibits submitted in support of the
motion for class certification, but Schobinger may file within 7
days a renewed motion with proposed redactions to the exhibits for
which it submitted a statement in support of sealing.
-- Twitter's motion to seal exhibits submitted in support of its
opposition is granted.
-- The motion to seal exhibits submitted in support of
Schobinger's
reply is denied because no statement in support of sealing them
was filed and because those exhibits do not appear to contain
any
financial figures of the kind that would be appropriate to
seal.
The nature of suit states Diversity-Other Contract.
Twitter was an American social media company based in San
Francisco, California, which operated and was named for its
flagship social media network prior to its rebrand as X.[CC]
UNITED STATES: Smoke and McIntyre Sue Over PEB's Unlawful Policy
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kyle A. Smoke and Jennifer M. McIntyre, Plaintiffs, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated v. CHRISTINE WORMUTH, in
her official capacity as United States Secretary of the Army,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-02919 (D.D.C., October 15, 2024)
challenges the United States Army Physical Evaluation Board's
unlawful policy that denies soldiers the "combat-related" finding
to which they are entitled to under Section 104 of the U.S. Code
Title 26 when they are medically retired for certain combat-related
injuries.
According to the complaint, the Army Physical Evaluation Board
refuses to find that injuries presumptively caused by exposure to
military burn pits -- an instrumentality of war (IOW) used by the
military in post-9/11 military operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and
Southwest Asia -- are combat-related. This refusal has harmed
Plaintiffs and those similarly situated, because had their injuries
properly been classified as caused by an IOW, their disability
retirement pay would be tax free. Despite the military having
mandated the use of open-air burn pits in these post-9/11 military
operations, the Army PEB continues to refuse to recognize burn pits
as an IOW.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs seek a court order requiring the Army
to conclude that an unfitting disability did result from a
combat-related injury under Section 104 of the U.S. Code Title 26
whenever that disability is one that is presumptively granted
Department of Veterans Affairs service connection under the Promise
to Address Comprehensive Toxics Act due to exposure to burn pits
while assigned to a duty station in Bahrain, Iraq, Kuwait, Oman,
Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, or the United Arab Emirates on or
after August 2, 1990; or while assigned to a duty station in
Afghanistan, Djibouti, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen,
Uzbekistan on or after September 11, 2001.
Christine Wormuth is the Secretary of the Department of the Army,
which is a branch of the Department of Defense. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Daniel J. Hay, Esq.
C.K. Kevin Park, Esq.
Susan K. Whaley, Esq.
Sidley Austin LLP
1501 K Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 736-8000
Facsimile: (202) 736-8711
E-mail: dhay@sidley.com
ck.park@sidley.com
susan.whaley@sidley.com
- and -
Elizabeth M. Chiarello, Esq.
Emily M. Wexler, Esq.
Mark C. Priebe, Esq.
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
One South Dearborn
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 853-7000
Facsimile: (312) 853-7036
E-mail: echiarello@sidley.com
ewexler@sidley.com
mpriebe@sidley.com
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA: Alumna Sues Over Personal Data Leak
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dolce Coury, writing for The Georgetown Voice, reports that Mary
Margaret Cleary (CAS '14), a current professor at the University of
Virginia School of Law, filed a class action lawsuit against
Georgetown University on Oct. 18, citing negligence after a data
leak compromised the sensitive personal information of current and
former students. The lawsuit alleges Georgetown failed to properly
secure and store personally identifiable information, including
Social Security numbers and Tax ID numbers.
Neither Cleary's attorneys or Georgetown University have responded
to the Voice‘s requests for comment.
Georgetown University's data management system, Ellucian,
experienced a data leak between 8:00 a.m. on Wednesday, Oct. 16,
and 8:30 a.m. on Thursday, Oct. 17, during which sensitive
information was accessible to users within the university network,
according to an email from Chief Information Officer Doug Little.
The data included that of current students and alumni dating back
to 1990.
In a university-wide email, Little wrote that 29 recent or current
students might have gained access to unauthorized data, potentially
compromising the information of both current students and alumni.
The university has reached out to those involved, instructing them
to delete any obtained data.
The lawsuit seeks damages, including monetary and punitive, and
demands the establishment of a fund to provide financial assistance
for those affected. Cleary is also calling for Georgetown to
enhance its data security protocols, conduct annual security
audits, and offer credit monitoring services to all that had their
PII compromised. Additionally, the suit requests that individuals
be promptly notified of any future data breaches.
The lawsuit accuses Georgetown on five counts: negligence for
failing to use PII protective measures, negligence per se by
violating the Federal Trade Commission Act, breach of implied
contract between Georgetown students and the university,
Georgetown's unjust enrichment from monetary benefit in the form of
PII, and declaratory and injunctive relief by requiring Georgetown
to employ PII protective measures that follow law and industry
standards.
Under the count of negligence, Cleary is suing Georgetown for 13
failures, including "failure to employ systems and educate
employees to protect against unauthorized disclosure," "failure to
comply with industry standards for software and server security,"
and "failure to properly update its systems when conducting
scheduled maintenance."
The legal complaint centers on the risks posed to those whose PII
was exposed, noting that the data breach makes individuals
vulnerable to identity theft and fraud. Compromised data includes
names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, and physical
addresses.
"The exfiltrated PII, therefore, remains in the hands of
unauthorized individuals who accessed the PII and can exploit the
PII of the Plaintiff and the Class Members," the lawsuit reads.
In the lawsuit, Cleary alleges she's experienced "anxiety and
stress" since the breach because of an "increased risk of financial
fraud, identity theft, fraud and other types of monetary harm as a
result of the stolen information."
"Plaintiff and Class Members are entitled to damages, including
actual, compensatory, punitive, and nominal damages suffered
because of the Data Breach in an amount to be proven at trial," the
lawsuit states. [GN]
VERVE THERAPEUTICS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set October 28
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Verve Therapeutics, Inc. ("Verve" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ:VERV). 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 Verve and certain of its officers
and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other unlawful
business practices.
You have until October 28, 2024, to ask the Court to appoint you as
Lead Plaintiff for the class if you are a shareholder who purchased
or otherwise acquired Verve securities during the Class Period. A
copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.
On April 2, 2024, Verve Therapeutics issued a press release
entitled "Verve Therapeutics Announces Updates on its PCSK9
Program." The press release disclosed that the Company was halting
enrollment in the Heart-1 clinical trial of VERVE-101 as a
treatment for patients with heterozygous familial
hypercholesterolemia (HeFH). Verve cited an adverse event in an
individual who had been dosed at 0.45 mg/kg of VERVE-101, stating
that "at potentially therapeutic dose levels of VERVE-101, we have
observed certain asymptomatic laboratory abnormalities, which we
believe are attributable to the [lipid nanoparticle] delivery
system."
On this news, Verve's stock price fell $4.47 per share, or 34.95%,
to close at $8.32 per share on April 2, 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]
VIREO SYSTEMS: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Senior Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
MILAGROS SENIOR, on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VIREO SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:24-cv-07792 (S.D.N.Y., October 14, 2024) is a civil
rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website,
https://con-cret.com, to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York
State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.
During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on
August 5, 2024, in an attempt to purchase Creatine Gummies 60-Count
from Defendant and to view the information on the Website, the
Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied
Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person
and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the
public and made available to the public. The Plaintiff was unable
to locate pricing and was not able to add the items to the cart due
to broken links, pictures without alternate attributes and other
barriers on Defendant’s website, says the suit.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually
impaired consumers.
Vireo Systems, Inc. operates the website that sells fitness and
nutrition supplements.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
WALDEN UNIVERSITY: Court OKs $28.5M Deal in Discrimination Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Unglesbee, writing for Higher Ed Dive, reports that a federal
court on Thursday, October 17, 2024, approved a $28.5 million
settlement between Walden University and students who accused the
for-profit institution of misleading them about the cost of its
doctorate of business administration program.
In a class-action lawsuit, filed in 2022, plaintiffs alleged that
Walden implemented "a concerted constellation of tactics to target,
deceive, and exploit Black and female DBA students" and
"deliberately hid the true cost" of the program by downplaying how
many credits it required.
"My experience at Walden highlights the urgent need for reforms
within for-profit educational institutions to better protect
students from financial exploitation and to uphold academic
integrity," Tareion Fluker, one of the plaintiffs, said in a
statement.
Dive Insight:
The case against Walden centered on the capstone phase of the
university's business doctorate, which plaintiffs described as
predatory, alleging that it intentionally dragged on while costs to
students piled up.
"After luring students to the DBA program with the false promise
that they could swiftly earn a graduate degree, Walden kept (and
continues to keep) students trapped in the capstone phase by
arbitrarily requiring them to complete additional credits at a cost
of close to $1,000 each," the original complaint against Walden
alleged.
The capstone consists of a research and writing project students
finished after their classwork. According to the complaint, the
project approval process typically delayed students' progress
through their capstone phase.
For example, faculty serving as committee members, according to
plaintiffs, sometimes rejected work on minor issues or gave vague
feedback -- both of which could restart the process. Those delays
added time and money beyond what the university advertised would be
necessary to complete
Specifically, enrollment advisers told plaintiffs that 60 credits
would be needed to finish their degree, even though students in the
doctorate of business administration program took on average 94
credits to complete, according to the complaint. That could
translate into as much as $34,300 in added costs per graduate.
In all, Walden collectively overcharged roughly 830 Black and
female students by more than $28.5 million, plaintiffs alleged.
Plaintiffs alleged the program targeted Black student prospects in
its marketing and thereby discriminated against them.
According to the complaint, Walden devoted nearly all of its local
advertising budget to areas with higher-than-average Black
populations, including the Baltimore, Washington, D.C. and Atlanta
markets. Additionally, plaintiffs said the university targeted in
its recruiting nontraditional student groups that were
disproportionately Black and female, such as those that were
employed while pursuing their doctorates, students with children
and students over age 30.
"Walden's enrollment of large numbers of Black and female students
would be laudable if Walden were offering a legitimate,
non-predatory educational program," the complaint argued. "Instead,
however, Walden is targeting Black and female students with a
predatory program designed to hoodwink students and saddle them
with onerous student debt."
Along with the monetary award, Walden agreed in the settlement to
make changes to its program, including expanding disclosures around
tuition, fees and time to degree completion, as well as eliminating
a layer of review in its capstone process.
Adtalem Global Education acquired Walden in 2021, in a deal that
drew scrutiny from higher education advocacy groups. According to
the for-profit operator's most recent financials, Walden saw its
fourth-straight quarter of enrollment growth, with total headcounts
up 11.3% year over year in the period ending June 30. [GN]
WELLS FARGO: Faces New Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Emem, writing for The Daily Hodl, reports that Wells Fargo is
facing a new class action lawsuit over the bank's alleged failure
to properly secure customers' personally identifiable information.
The lawsuit, filed by lead plaintiff Tamra Bacon, alleges Wells
Fargo has suffered a "preventable hack" that has exposed thousands
of customers' data.
Wells Fargo confirmed a breach last month, stating an insider at
the bank accessed and used customers' information to perpetrate
fraud between May of 2022 and March of 2023.
In letter sent to customers posted on the Office of the Vermont
Attorney General's website, Wells Fargo says the stolen data
includes names, addresses, dates of birth, phone numbers, email
addresses, social security numbers, driver's license numbers, bank
account numbers, credit/debit card numbers, brokerage account
numbers and loan/line of credit numbers.
Bacon says the incident has placed her in financial turmoil.
"The Data Breach has caused Plaintiff Tamra to suffer fear,
anxiety, and stress, which has been compounded by the fact that
Defendant has still not fully informed her of key details about the
Data Breach's occurrence.
As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff Tamra anticipates
spending considerable time and money on an ongoing basis to try to
mitigate and address harms caused by the Data Breach.
As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff Tamra is at a present
risk and will continue to be at increased risk of identity theft
and fraud for years to come."
Wells Fargo has not publicly commented on the breach, which Bacon
claims was due to lax security at America's third-largest bank.
"Representative Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendant responsible for
the harms it caused and will continue to cause Representative
Plaintiff and, at least, thousands of other similarly situated
persons in the preventable hack purportedly discovered by Defendant
on or around July 2024, in which unauthorized actors accessed
Defendant's inadequately protected network servers and accessed
highly sensitive PII that was being kept unprotected."
The complaint says there are currently more than 100 class members
involved.
Bacon says class members are entitled to "injunctive and other
equitable relief" as their data was compromised and in some cases
used to commit fraud. [GN]
WILINE NETWORKS: W.A. Call Sues for Breach of Contract
------------------------------------------------------
W.A. CALL MFG. CO., INC., a California corporation; LISA DIAZ d/b/a
LEGACY DANCE ACADEMY; ALILANG LLC, a California limited liability
company; and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. WILINE NETWORKS INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through
10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 4:24-cv-07141 (N.D. Cal.,
October 11, 2024) is a putative class action lawsuit against the
Defendant for breach of contract and unfair business practices,
including the deliberate concealment of critical contract terms in
violation of the California Unfair Competition Law.
This is a putative class action lawsuit against the Defendant for
breach of contract and unfair business practices, including the
deliberate concealment of critical contract terms. The Defendant
has been and continues to engage in a systematic and pervasive
scheme to overbill its customers by surreptitiously increasing
rates in amounts in excess of the agreed upon contract rate, not
providing notice of increases pursuant to Defendant's contracts
with its customers, and increasing its customers' rates more
frequently than is permitted by the contracts. Additionally, the
Defendant perpetrated an unlawful "automatic renewal" scheme to
keep its customers locked into contracts by concealing the
automatic renewal terms from Plaintiffs, says the suit.
WiLine Networks Inc. provides broadband Internet and telephony
services throughout the State of California.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael A. Mazzocone, Esq.
MICHAEL A. MAZZOCONE, ATTORNEY AT LAW
601 Montgomery Street, Suite 850
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 399-0800
Facsimile: (415) 399-0900
E-mail: michael@mazzlaw.com
- and -
Rob Hennig, Esq.
Sam Brown, Esq.
HENNIG KRAMER LLP
3600 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1908
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (213) 310-8301
Facsimile: (213) 310-8302
E-mail: rob@employmentattorneyla.com
sam@employmentattorneyla.com
WM TECHNOLOGY: Faces Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------
A shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against WM
Technology, Inc. ("WM Technology" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: MAPS)
f/k/a Silver Spike Acquisition Corp. The lawsuit alleges that
throughout the Class Period WM Technology's monthly average user
metrics ("MAUs") were inflated, causing them to be false and/or
misleading.
If you bought shares of WM Technology between May 25, 2021, and
September 24, 2024, and you suffered a significant loss on that
investment, you are encouraged to discuss your legal rights by
contacting Corey D. Holzer, Esq. at cholzer@holzerlaw.com, by
toll-free telephone at (888) 508-6832 or you may visit the firm's
website at www.holzerlaw.com/case/wm-technology/ 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]
XIAO-I CORP: Bids for Lead Plaintiffs Deadline Set Dec. 16
----------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces
that it has filed a class action on behalf of purchasers of Xiao-I
Corporation (NASDAQ: AIXI): (i) American depository shares ("ADSs")
pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering Documents issued in
connection with the Company's initial public offering conducted on
or about March 9, 2023 (the "IPO" or "Offering"); and/or (ii)
securities between March 9, 2023 and July 12, 2024 (the "Class
Period"). A class action has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
December 16, 2024.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Xiao-I American depository shares
pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering Documents issued in
connection with the Company's initial public offering or securities
during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without
payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency
fee arrangement.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Xiao-I class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=25023 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com
for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has
already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you
must move the Court no later than December 16, 2024. A lead
plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class
members in directing the litigation.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or
any meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, the Offering
Documents and defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) 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, which imposes certain registration requirements on
Chinese residents that contribute domestic assets or interests to
offshore companies, including Xiao-I's inability to use Offering
proceeds for intended business purposes; (2) Xiao-I failed to
comply with the U.S.'s Generally Accepted Accounting Principles
("GAAP") in preparing its financial statements; (3) defendants
overstated Xiao-I's efforts to remediate material weaknesses in
Xiao-I's financial controls; (4) Xiao-I was forced to incur
significant research and development ("R&D") expenses to
effectively compete in the AI industry; (5) Xiao-I downplayed the
significant negative impact that such expenses would have on
Xiao-I's business and financial results; (6) accordingly, Xiao-I
overstated its AI capabilities, R&D resources, and overall ability
to compete in the AI market; (7) as a result of all the foregoing,
there was a substantial likelihood that Xiao-I would fail to comply
with NASDAQ's listing requirements, including, inter alia, that its
ADSs maintain a minimum closing bid price of $1.00 per share, (the
"Minimum Bid Price Requirement"); and (8) as a result, the Offering
Documents and defendants' public statements throughout the Class
Period were materially false and/or misleading and failed to state
information required to be stated therein. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.
To join the Xiao-I class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=25023 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com
for information on the class action.
No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
case@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
ZUORA INC: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Silver Lake
------------------------------------------------------------
Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"),
headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is
investigating Zuora Inc. (NYSE: ZUO), relating to its proposed
merger with Silver Lake Group, L.C.C. Under the terms of the
agreement, all ZUO shares will be automatically converted into the
right to receive $10.00 in cash per share.
Click link for more information
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/zuora-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 the above listed company 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]
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J to Pay $15MM in Baby Powder Cancer Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Brendan Pierson, writing for Reuters.com, reports that a Jury
ordered Johnson & Johnson (JNJ.N) to pay $15 million to a
Connecticut man who alleges that he developed mesothelioma, a rare
form of cancer, as a result of using the company's talc powder for
decades.
Plaintiff Evan Plotkin sued the company in 2021 soon after his
diagnosis, saying he was sickened by inhaling J&J's baby powder.
The jury in Fairfield County, Connecticut Superior Court also found
that the company should pay additional punitive damages, which will
be determined later by the judge overseeing the case.
"Evan Plotkin and his trial team are thrilled that a jury once
again decided to hold Johnson & Johnson accountable for their
marketing and sale of a baby powder product that they knew
contained asbestos," said Ben Braly, a lawyer for Plotkin.
Erik Haas, J&J's worldwide vice president of litigation, said in a
statement that the company would appeal "erroneous" rulings by the
trial judge that kept the jury from hearing critical facts about
the case.
"Those facts show that the verdict is irreconcilable with the
decades of independent scientific evaluations confirming talc is
safe, does not contain asbestos and does not cause cancer," Haas
said.
The verdict comes as J&J seeks to resolve claims by more than
62,000 people who say that they got ovarian and other gynecological
cancers from talc through a nearly $9 billion settlement in
bankruptcy.
The bankruptcy deal, which faces legal challenges from some
plaintiffs' lawyers, has put the lawsuits over gynecological
cancers on hold, but does not affect the much smaller number of
mesothelioma claims like Plotkin's. The company has previously
settled some of those claims but has not proposed a nationwide
settlement.
Plaintiffs in all of the lawsuits say that J&J's talc products,
like its once iconic baby powder, were tainted with asbestos, a
carcinogen known to cause mesothelioma and other cancers.
*********
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 ***