/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/241101.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, November 1, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 220 Headlines ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Bogdan Files Suit in N.D. Illinois ACADIA HEALTHCARE: Kachrodia Files Suit Over Share Price Drop ADA S. MCKINLEY: Mendez Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages ADVANCE AUTO PARTS: Neblock Suit Transferred to D. Montana ALICE + OLIVIA: Demaio Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages AMCI ACQUISITION: Faces Delaware Securities Suit Over Merger Deal AMERICAN AIRLINES: Court Extends Time to File Class Cert Bid AMERICAN TIRE: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Kline Says AMERICAN WATER: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Halstead Says ANTHEM HEALTHCHOICE: Sued Over Inaccurate Provider Directory APPLE INC: Tribunal Certifies Class in App Developers Suit BEIERSDORF INC: Sahagun Sues Over Deceptive Eczema Cream Labels BEZEL INC: Espinal Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website BIO-LAB INC: Hand Sues Over Failure to Prevent Chemical Fire BIOGEN INC: Gray Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts BLAIN SUPPLY: Sends Unwanted Text Messages, Demaio Suit Says BLUE OAK NJ: Turner Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website BRUCE PACKING: Bryant Sues Over Contaminated Products CHESAPEAKE HOME: Thomas Files FLSA Suit in D. Delaware COLORADO TECHNICAL: Avedisian Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida CONTINUED.COM LLC: Discloses Personal Viewing Info, Lovett Says COPA AMERICA: Amended Class Suit Adds Plaintiffs, Defendants CORNELL UNIVERSITY: Supreme Court Will Review ERISA Class Action CUMBERLAND HEIGHTS: Richardson Files Suit in Tenn. Judicial Ct. DENTAL FIRST CARE: Greenberg Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida FITNESS PROJECT: Fontenot Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation GRAND FITNESS: Rodriguez Suit Alleges Unlawful Labor Practices HEMPED NYC: Competello Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind HOT TOPIC: Website Inaccessible to Visually-Impaired, Dalton Says HUMANA INC: Must Produce Required Information by Nov. 1 JI PROPERTIES: Misclassifies Laborers, Duggan Suit Says LIGHTRICKS US: Deadline for Settlement Claims Filing Set Dec. 23 MONEYGRAM PAYMENT: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Dickerson Says OREGON: Wyatt B. Appeals Judgment in Case Over Foster Care System QUEENSLAND: Police Officers Sue Over COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates SAN DIEGO, CA: Settlement Protects San Diegans Living in Vehicles SANDY SPRING: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Atlantic Union SAVE MART: Ex-Manager Files Class Action Suit Alleging Wage Theft SCHILLING CIDER: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Forrest Says SOULFLORA INC: Competello Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind STERLING BANCORP: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With EverBank SUMMIT PATHOLOGY: Alexander Sues Over Data Security Incident TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: DPPs' Sur-Reply Due Nov. 1 THOMSON REUTERS: Deadline for Settlement Claims Filing Set Dec. 6 TICKETMASTER LLC: Suit Transferred to D. Montana TORONTO-DOMINION BANK: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set Dec 23 TORONTO-DOMINION BANK: Faces Securities Class Suit in S.D.N.Y. TORONTO-DOMINION: Tiessen Sues Over Securities Laws Violation TRI-CITY HEALTHCARE: Pontius Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California UNIVERSAL STAINLESS: M&A Probes Proposed Merger With Aperam US UNIVERSAL UNDERWRITERS: Delara Sues Over Tax Law Violation VALVE CORPORATION: Hepler Sues Over Unfair Competition Laws VINEBROOK HOMES: Florence Alleges Unlawful Lease Agreements VISA INC: Yabla Sues Over Artificially Inflated Prices WALMART INC: Denny Sues Over False and Misleading Advertisements WESTCHESTER HARVESTING: Turner Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website WINSLOW TOWNSHIP: Rivera Files Suit in N.J. Super. Ct. YOUR HOME: Donahue Sues Over Unlawful Telemarketing Calls Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Int'l. Has $1.53BB Asbestos Liabilities ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Industries Has $46MM Reserves as of Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Co. Still Receives Exposure Claims ********* ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Bogdan Files Suit in N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Abbott Laboratories Employees Credit Union. The case is styled as Laura Bogdan, Marissa Foresta, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Abbott Laboratories Employees Credit Union, Case No. 1:24-cv-00687-ADC (N.D. Ill., Oct. 23, 2024). The nature of suit is state as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Abbott Laboratories -- https://www.alecu.org/ -- is an Employee's Credit Union, helping thousands of people make sensible decisions for their long term success.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jason Rathod, Esq. MIGLIACCIO AND RATHOD LLP 412 H. St. NE, Suite 302 Washington, DC 20002 Phone: (202) 470-3520 Email: jrathod@classlawdc.com ACADIA HEALTHCARE: Kachrodia Files Suit Over Share Price Drop ------------------------------------------------------------- ANURAG KACHRODIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ACADIA HEALTHCARE COMPANY, INC., DEBRA K. OSTEEN, CHRISTOPHER H. HUNTER, DAVID M. DUCKWORTH, and HEATHER DIXON, Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-01238 (M.D. Tenn., October 16, 2024) is a class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded Acadia Healthcare securities between February 28, 2020 and September 26, 2024 inclusive, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On February 28, 2020, the Company filed with the SEC its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2019. The complaint asserts that Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Acadia Healthcare's business model centered on holding vulnerable people against their will in its facilities, including in cases where it was not medically necessary to do so; (2) while in Acadia Healthcare facilities, many patients were subjected to abuse; (3) Acadia Healthcare deceived insurance providers into paying for patients to stay in its facilities when it was not medically necessary; and (4) as a result, Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. On this news, the price of Acadia Healthcare stock fell by $12.38 per share, or 16.36%, to close at $63.28 on September 27, 2024. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's common shares, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, the suit contends. Acadia Healthcare Company, Inc. is an American provider of for-profit behavioral healthcare services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul Kent Bramlett, Esq. Robert Preston Bramlett, Esq. BRAMLETT LAW OFFICES 40 Burton Hills Blvd., Suite 200 P.O. Box 150734 Nashville, TN 37215-0734 Telephone: (615) 248-2828 Facsimile: (866) 816-4116 E-mail: pknashlaw@aol.com - and - Phillip Kim, Esq. Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: philkim@rosenlegal.com lrosen@rosenlegal.com ADA S. MCKINLEY: Mendez Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------- Patricia Diana Mendez, Joseph Valle, Catherine McCarthy and Brian K. Turner, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. Ada S. McKinley Community Service Inc., And Nestor I. Flores, Jamal K. Malone, Valerie Mercer, Case No. 1:24-cv-10867 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 22, 2024), is brought to recover unpaid wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (hereinafter "FLSA"), the Illinois Minimum Wage Law (hereinafter "IMWL"), the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act (hereinafter "IWPCA"), the Chicago Minimum Wage Ordinance (hereinafter "CMWO"), Illinois' Chicago Paid Leave and Paid Sick and Safe Leave Ordinance (hereinafter "CPLPSSLO") and Chicago Paid Sick Leave Ordinance ("CPSLO"). The Plaintiffs and those employees that are similarly situated to the Individual Plaintiffs) that they, under both federal and state wage laws, are entitled to be paid for all hours worked and to receive minimum wage for all hours worked and/or receive time and half for all hours worked over 40 hours per week and to be paid at the proper rate of pay. The Plaintiffs' primary and foundational claims for overtime wages are based on Defendants odd and archaic payment of Plaintiffs (and FLSA collective) by "piece-rate" payment method. Defendants use and implementation of this pay policy fails to pay Plaintiffs (and FLSA collective) any overtime wages at an overtime rate of pay. The Plaintiffs also bring claims for failure to provide and credit Plaintiffs with paid time off, both for personal time (PTO) and sick leave (SL). The Plaintiffs make these claims pursuant to the Chicago Paid Leave and Paid Sick and Safe Leave Ordinance as well as its precursor Chicago Paid Sick Leave Ordinance (CPSLO), says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are all residents of the State of Illinois and non-exempt employees of corporate Defendant McKinley. McKinley is a not-for-profit business which does business in Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John C. Ireland, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF JOHN C. IRELAND 636 Spruce Street South Elgin ILL 60177 Phone: 630-464-9675 Facsimile 630-206-0889 Email: attorneyireland@gmail.com ADVANCE AUTO PARTS: Neblock Suit Transferred to D. Montana ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Terry Neblock, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Advance Auto Parts, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-00960 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana on Oct. 22, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00153-BMM to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Advance Auto Parts -- https://corp.advanceautoparts.com/ -- is a source for quality auto parts, advice and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott M. Tucker, Esq. Robert J. Kriner, Jr., Esq. CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP 2711 Centerville Road, Suite 201 Wilmington, DE 19808 Phone: (302) 656-2500 Email: scotttucker@chimicles.com rjk@chimicles.com The Defendants are represented by: Jason A. Cincilla, Esq. Wade A. Bredin, Esq. MANNING GROSS & MASSENBURG LLP 1007 N Orange Street, Suite 711 Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 657-2100 Email: jcincilla@mgmlaw.com wbredin@mgmlaw.com - and - William Bruce Larson, Jr., Esq. MANNING GROSS + MASSENBURG LLP 1007 North Orange Street, 10th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 657-2100 Email: wlarson@mgmlaw.com ALICE + OLIVIA: Demaio Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages ---------------------------------------------------------- DESIREE DEMAIO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALICE + OLIVIA, LLC, Defendant, Case No. CACE-24-014856 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial, Broward Cty., Oct. 16, 2024) is an action for injunctive and declaratory relief, and damages for Defendant's violations of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant made text message sales calls that promoted Alice + Olivia and violated the Caller ID Rules when it transmitted to the recipients' caller identification services a telephone number that was not capable of receiving telephone calls. The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated, further seeks injunctive relief to ensure Defendant complies with the Caller ID Rules when it makes Alice + Olivia Text Message Sales Calls. Alice + Olivia, LLC is an online clothing company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua A. Glickman, Esq. Shawn A. Heller, Esq. SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL 974 Howard Ave. Dunedin, FL 34698 Telephone: (202) 709-5744 Facsimile: (866) 893-0416 E-mail: josh@sjlawcollective.com shawn@sjlawcollective.com AMCI ACQUISITION: Faces Delaware Securities Suit Over Merger Deal ----------------------------------------------------------------- Advent Technologies Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 15, 2024, that on June 5, 2024, a purported shareholder filed a putative class action complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery alleging claims of breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment in connection with the Special Purpose Acquisition Company transaction against former officers and directors of AMCI Acquisition Corp. Advent Technologies Holdings, Inc. is an advanced materials and technology development company operating in the fuel cell, methanol and hydrogen technology space. On February 4, 2021, AMCI Acquisition Corp. consummated the business combination with Advent. AMERICAN AIRLINES: Court Extends Time to File Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Skylar Hartwig, v. American Airlines Incorporated, Case No. 2:23-cv-00696-SMB (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Susan Brnovich entered an order granting the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for extension of time to file motion for Rule 23 class certification. American Airlines is a major airline in the United States. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 21, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=H7lFo7 at no extra charge.[CC] AMERICAN TIRE: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Kline Says ------------------------------------------------------- MICHEAL KLINE, individually, and on behalf of a putative class of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN TIRE DISTRIBUTORS, INC, Defendant, Case No. 4:24-cv-00675-BP (W.D. Mo., October 16, 2024) arises from the Defendant's unlawful policies and practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant violated the FLSA by failing to pay Plaintiff and others similarly situated at the rate of one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for all time they worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. Specifically, the Defendant utilized an unlawful practice of deducting 30-minute meal periods from employees' time records for periods of time when they had not been completely relieved of duty and had actually been performing compensable work. Plaintiff Kline held the non-exempt, hourly position of driver for Defendant at its Kansas City Distribution Center location from approximately September 2013 until approximately May 2024. American Tire Distributors, Inc. distributes motor vehicle parts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: M. Katherine Paulus, Esq. Drew M. Russell, Esq. CORNERSTONE LAW FIRM 5821 NW 72nd Street Kansas City, MO 64151 Telephone: (816) 581-4040 Facsimile: (816) 741-8889 E-mail: m.paulus@cornerstonefirm.com d.russell@cornerstonefirm.com AMERICAN WATER: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Halstead Says ------------------------------------------------------------ LARRY HALSTEAD, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN WATER WORKS COMPANY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-09872 (D.N.J., October 17, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated individuals' sensitive personally identifiable information including, without limitation: names, email addresses, phone numbers, home addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, drivers' license information, bank account and other financial information, account information, and other personally identifying information. In its regulatory filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, American Water reported that on October 3, 2024, American Water "learned of unauthorized activity within its computer networks and systems" which it "determined to be the result of a cybersecurity incident." According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII –– and failed to even encrypt or redact this highly sensitive information. This unencrypted, unredacted PII was compromised due to Defendant's negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and its utter failure to protect its customers' sensitive data, says the suit. The Plaintiff and Class Members seek to remedy these harms and prevent any future data compromise on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated persons whose PII was compromised and stolen as a result of the Data Breach and who remain at risk due to Defendant's inadequate data security practices. American Water is a New Jersey-based water and wastewater utility company that provides essential water and wastewater services to more than 14 million people across 14 states.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq. Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWTIZ OSTROW P.A. 65 Overhill Road Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: grunfeld@kolawyers.com ostrow@kolawyers.com - and - James E. Cecchi, Esq. CARELLA BRYNE CECCHI BRODY AFNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 10175 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 E-mail: jcecchi@carellabryne.com ANTHEM HEALTHCHOICE: Sued Over Inaccurate Provider Directory ------------------------------------------------------------ Jane Doe on behalf of Baby Doe, a minor, and Patricia Cavallaro-Kearins, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. ANTHEM HEALTHCHOICE ASSURANCE, INC., d/b/a ANTHEM BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD, and d/b/a ANTHEM BLUE CROSS; and ANTHEM HP, LLC, d/b/a ANTHEM BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD HP, and d/b/a ANTHEM BLUE CROSS HP, Case No. 1:24-cv-08012 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 22, 2024), is brought against the Defendants who knowingly publishes an inaccurate provider directory; and it does so for several reasons. There is a mental health crisis in this country and in this state. It is afflicting men and women, children and adults, and people of all income levels and backgrounds. And it is exacerbated by health insurance companies, like the Defendant, that mislead people in need of qualified providers by publishing grossly inaccurate directories of doctors and therapists. These inaccurate directories--which purport to list qualified professionals who are supposedly in-network with Defendant but are not – are known as "ghost networks." The Defendant's publication of an inaccurate provider directory is not just an inconvenience for people searching for mental health providers; it is far more insidious and costly. By publishing an inaccurate provider directory where the vast majority of doctors listed--more than 80%--either don't exist, are listed with non-working telephone numbers, or are listed with inaccurate telephone numbers--making them virtually impossible to contact--or are not actually in network with Defendant, the Defendant did not just mislead people, but damaged them. These damages are not just financial but often contribute to exacerbating patients' mental health problems. The people using the Defendant's provider directory are often desperate for mental health care for themselves, for their children, and for their loved ones. And the inaccurate provider directory actually causes harm. Some patients, like the Plaintiffs, have had their treatment delayed. Many, like the Plaintiffs, have had to utilize out-of-network doctors and as a result have incurred thousands of dollars in mental health medical expenses. By publishing telephone numbers that are inaccurate, the Defendant sends patients on a wild goose chase searching for doctors covered by their plan. The time spent reaching wrong numbers or encountering non-working numbers is not just valuable time wasted, it is discouraging and contributes to patients abandoning their search for care. For people seeking mental health care for themselves or their children, this wild goose chase for in-network doctors is not small potatoes; it is a time-consuming, exhausting, frustrating experience that is detrimental to their mental health. The Plaintiffs--and other members of the proposed class--have suffered real injury and damages. The Plaintiffs have paid premiums for the Defendant's insurance plan for coverage that never existed or was grossly inadequate. The Defendant has failed to provide an adequate network of mental health providers who actually accept the Defendant's insurance or offer appropriate types of care. The Plaintiffs also suffered significant financial damage by having to pay thousands of dollars for out-of-network providers because there were no qualified in-network providers within a reasonable travel radius, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are members of the Standard Option Plan. Anthem is a health insurance company licensed to do business in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steve Cohen, Esq. POLLOCK COHEN LLP 111 Broadway, Suite 1804 New York, NY 10006 Phone: (212) 337-5361 Email: Scohen@PollockCohen.com - and - Jacob Gardener, Esq. WALDEN MACHT HARAN & WILLIAMS LLP 250 Vesey St., 27th Floor New York, NY 10281 Phone: (212) 335-2965 Email: jgardener@wmhwlaw.com APPLE INC: Tribunal Certifies Class in App Developers Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Fountain Court reports that Daniel Carall-Green and Victoria Green, led by Paul Stanley KC of Essex Court Chambers, and instructed by Geradin Partners, acted for Dr Sean Ennis in successfully obtaining an opt-out collective proceedings order in relation to Dr Ennis's case against Apple for exploiting app developers. As explained in the previous post here, Dr Ennis's case is that app developers have paid excessive and unfair prices in the form of Apple's commission on sales made via the App Store. At the certification stage, Apple argued that Dr Ennis's case was infected by conflicts of interest. Part of Dr Ennis's case on unfairness was that Apple imposed its commission on some but not all apps. Apple said that a necessary corollary of this was that, in the counterfactual, if Apple was not allowed to charge in the way it actually did, it would impose fees in respect of the apps that were currently free of the commission. On Apple's analysis, this meant that Dr Ennis's case was contrary to the interest of the developers who made such apps. The Tribunal disagreed, holding that the question of conflicts of interest had to be assessed by reference to the counterfactual that Dr Ennis had actually put forward (which did not involve any redistribution of fees) -- not to an alternative postulated by Apple. The Tribunal also clarified that a class representative's duty is not to pursue different claims on behalf of different class members according to their various different positions, but rather to prosecute the collective proceedings in a way that furthers the interests of the group as a whole. Apple also argued that Dr Ennis's class had different interests in the outcome of the case: some of them would be entitled to more damages, and others to less (or no damages at all); some of them would have passed on more of their losses, and others less; and some of them would be more vulnerable to certain substantive defence arguments (e.g. that the claims fell outside the Tribunal's subject-matter jurisdiction). Apple said that this also gave rise to conflicts of interest, and made the various class members' claims unsuitable for combination in collective proceedings. The Tribunal again disagreed, holding that it was important to avoid confusing differences between class members (which are to be expected) with conflicts of interest. Importantly, the Tribunal recognised that there will often be a distinction between the class representative's obligations before distribution and the corresponding obligations during distribution. Before distribution, the class representative will seek to maximise the amount of damages recovered on behalf of the class as a whole. By contrast, at the distribution stage, class members will effectively compete for distributions out of that amount (which has by that stage been fixed). However, that kind of competition among class members does not put the class representative in a position of conflict of interest any more than a trustee distributing assets of a discretionary trust to rival beneficiaries is in a position of conflict. [GN] BEIERSDORF INC: Sahagun Sues Over Deceptive Eczema Cream Labels --------------------------------------------------------------- JESSICA SAHAGUN and EGYPT WISHUM, on behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated, and the general public, Plaintiffs, v. BEIERSDORF, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 24STCV27094 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., October 16, 2024) arises from the Defendant's violations of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, the Unfair Competition Law, and False Advertising Law as well as causes of action for breach of express and implied warranties, negligent misrepresentation, intentional misrepresentation/fraud, and quasi-contract/unjust enrichment. The Defendant makes, distributes, sells, and markets "Eucerin Baby Eczema Relief Cream," a moisturizer product for eczema-prone skin. According to the complaint,the Defendant sells two separate eczema relief cream products: one regular product, and one advertised for babies. The Eczema Relief product marketed for babies is named "Baby" Eczema Relief, contains an image of a teddy bear, and is advertised as a "Pediatrician Recommended" brand. The comparable regular Eczema Relief product does not have the word "Baby" anywhere on the front label, does not contain any image of a teddy bear or otherwise, and does not advertise that it is a "pediatrician recommended brand." These representations lead reasonable consumers, including Plaintiffs, to believe that the Baby Eczema Relief product is more suitable for babies and the regular Eczema Relief product is more suitable for adults. Based on this reasonable belief, consumers are induced to purchase two separate products for each demographic and are induced to pay an unlawful premium. The truth, however, is that the Baby Eczema Relief product has the exact same formula and ingredients as the regular Eczema Relief product. The Defendant puts the same eczema relief cream into two different products with different labels. Consumers are being deceived and overcharged, alleges the suit. Beiersdorf, Inc. manufactures skin and beauty care products.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lilach H. Klein, Esq. Michael T. Houchin, Esq. Zachary M. Crosner, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, P.C. 9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (866) 276-7637 Facsimile: (310) 510-6429 BEZEL INC: Espinal Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------- Frangie Espinal, Individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. BEZEL INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-08068 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 23, 2024), is brought this civil rights action against the Defendant for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's interactive website, https://shop.getbezel.com, including all portions thereof or accessed thereon (collectively, the "Website" or "Defendant's Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services—all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen reading software to read website content using her computer. BEZEL INC., operates the Shop Get Bezel online retail store, as well as the Shop Get Bezel interactive Website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, N.Y. 10003-2461 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal jeffrey@gottlieb.legal dana@gottlieb.legal BIO-LAB INC: Hand Sues Over Failure to Prevent Chemical Fire ------------------------------------------------------------ Chasity Hand, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BIO-LAB, INC. and KIK CUSTOM PRODUCTS, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-04840-SEG (N.D. Ga., Oct. 23, 2024), is brought as a result of the Defendants' negligence and recklessness in their failure to prevent the chemical fire and subsequent toxic plume has caused and continues to cause harm to the Plaintiff and the Class. On September 29, 2024, at approximately 5:00 a.m., a massive chemical fire erupted on the roof of the Bio-Lab Chemical Facility located in Conyers, Georgia. The fire released a hazardous plume of toxic gas and other harmful substances, including bromine vapor, hydrochloric acid, hydrogen cyanide, hydrogen bromide, and phosgene gas throughout the area. Chlorine gas, particularly in its technical grade form, along with its byproducts such as hypochlorous acid and hypochlorite ions, is extremely toxic and corrosive. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") categorizes these substances as Toxicity Category I, signifying the highest level of acute toxicity in terms of oral, dermal, eye, and inhalation exposure. Exposure to chlorine gas can lead to a range of health issues, including bronchitis, asthma, lung swelling, headaches, heart disease, and meningitis. Acute exposure may result in severe respiratory problems and can even be fatal. As a result of Defendants' negligent, careless, reckless, and/or intentional conduct in connection with the September 29, 2024 chemical fire and resulting toxic chemical plume, Plaintiff Hand has suffered damages, including, but not limited to, financial distress as a result of the school closure, an increased risk of disease from exposure to and inhalation of toxic chemicals, contamination of her property by egregiously high and plainly dangerous levels of toxic chemicals dispersed by Defendants into the air and water, and the loss of use and enjoyment of her property and resulting inconvenience, disruption and emotional distress, says the complaint. The Plaintiff and her children live just over one mile from the Bio Lab Chemical Facility where the chemical fire erupted. KIK is one of North America's largest independent manufacturers of consumer products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: E. Adam Webb, Esq. G. Franklin Lemond, Jr., Esq. WEBB, KLASE & LEMOND, LLC 1900 The Exchange, S.E., Suite 480 Atlanta, GA 30339 Phone: (770) 444-9325 Facsimile: (770) 217-9950 Email: Adam@WebbLLC.com Franklin@WebbLLC.com - and - Joseph G. Sauder, Esq. Joseph B. Kenney, Esq. Juliette T. Mogenson, Esq. SAUDER SCHELKOPF 1109 Lancaster Avenue Berwyn, PA 19312 Phone: 888.711.9975 Email: jgs@sstriallawyers.com jbk@sstriallawyers.com jtm@sstriallawyers.com BIOGEN INC: Gray Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Thomas Allen Gray, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Biogen Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-01444 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Oct. 23, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-12691-IT to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Securities/Commodities for the Securities Exchange Act. Biogen -- https://www.biogen.com/ -- is a leading global biotechnology company that pioneers science and drives innovations for complex and devastating diseases.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Esq. Joseph Alexander Hood, II, Esq. Justin David D'Aloia, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 661-1100 Fax: (212) 661-8665 Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com jdaloia@pomlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Jessica L. Lewis, Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP One Front Street, Suite 3500 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (628) 235-1160 Email: jessica.lewis@wilmerhale.com BLAIN SUPPLY: Sends Unwanted Text Messages, Demaio Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------ DESIREE DEMAIO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BLAIN SUPPLY, INC., Defendant, Case No. CACE-24-014916 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial, Broward Cty., October 17, 2024) is an action for injunctive and declaratory relief, and damages for Defendant's violations of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant made text message sales calls to Plaintiff that promoted its products and violated the Caller ID Rules when it transmitted to the recipients' caller identification services a telephone number that was not capable of receiving telephone calls. Blain Supply, Inc., doing business as Blain's Farm & Fleet, is a regional chain of 45 retail stores in Wisconsin, Illinois, Iowa and Michigan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua A. Glickman, Esq. Shawn A. Heller, Esq. SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL 974 Howard Ave. Dunedin, FL 34698 Telephone: (202) 709-5744 Facsimile: (866) 893-0416 E-mail: josh@sjlawcollective.com shawn@sjlawcollective.com BLUE OAK NJ: Turner Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------- Tavon Turner, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. BLUE OAK NJ 1 LLC d/b/a BLUE OAK DISPENSARY, Case No. 1:24-cv-08013 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 22, 2024), is brought against Defendant for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate the Defendant's Website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to the Website, www.blueoaknj.com and therefore its denial of the goods and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Defendant's Website is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers; therefore, Defendant is in violation of the ADA. Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content while using the computer. BLUE OAK NJ 1 LLC d/b/a BLUE OAK DISPENSARY, is a New Jersey Limited Liability company that owns and maintains a physical dispensary and the associated Website, www.blueoaknj.com.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq. Bennitta L. Joseph, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 110 East 59th Street, Suite 2300 New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 227-5700 Fax: (212) 656-1889 Email: jon@norinsberglaw.com bennitta@employeejustice.com BRUCE PACKING: Bryant Sues Over Contaminated Products ----------------------------------------------------- Britton Bryant, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BRUCE PACKING COMPANY INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-05636 (E.D. Pa., Oct. 23, 2024), is brought on behalf others similarly situated who purchased various ready-to-eat foods that contained precooked meat and poultry products that were unfit for their intended use because they were contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes bacteria (the "Product"). The Product was formulated, designed, manufactured, advertised, and sold by the Defendant, or its agents, across the United States. Affected Products were shipped to establishments and distributors nationwide, including restaurants and other food institutions, and subsequently incorporated into salads, sandwiches, frozen meals and other pre-packaged foods sold at a variety of locations. A disease called "listeriosis" occurs when people eat food contaminated with L. monocytogenes. A person infected with listeriosis may experience symptoms within a few hours after eating the contaminated food. Many people infected with listeriosis do not seek medical treatment because their symptoms resolve before they can visit the doctor. On average, about 1,600 people are infected with listeria bacteria each year in the U.S. and about 260 die. The severity of listeriosis varies, but the disease can be fatal, especially among the elderly, people with weakened immune systems, or chronic diseases. Though not fatal, listeriosis can be extremely dangerous for pregnant women, causing serious complications with their pregnancy, including miscarriage, infection of the newborn, and stillbirth. Also, babies born with a listeriosis infection may develop severe health complications that require serious medical attention, lead to lifelong health problems, or result in death. The Plaintiff has been caused to purchase a defective product that is worthless, or worth less than the price paid because the Product was contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes (L. monocytogenes). This action seeks: refunds of the amount Plaintiff and Class Members paid for the Products; medical expenses for medical treatment provided in relation to listeriosis infections; lost wages for the period Plaintiff and Class Members were unable to work due to a listeriosis infection; and other damages as pled herein, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased the Marketside Caesar Salad with chicken and became ill following consumption of the Product. Bruce Packing Company Incorporated, doing business as, "BrucePac" is a domestic corporation, organized under the laws of the State of Oregon.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Phone: (803) 222-2222 Fax: (843) 494-5536 Email: stuart.guber@poulinwilley.com cmad@poulinwilley.com paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com CHESAPEAKE HOME: Thomas Files FLSA Suit in D. Delaware ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chesapeake Home Services, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Jasmine Thomas, and others similarly situated v. Chesapeake Home Services, LLC, Chesapeake Plumbing and Heating, Inc., Travis Martin, Kevin Bowman, Deb Chaney, Case No. 1:24-cv-01172-UNA (D. Del., Oct. 22, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Chesapeake Home Services -- https://chesapeakehomeservices.com/ -- provides plumbing & HVAC service and installation in the Ocean City, Maryland area as well as Coastal Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick Christopher Gallagher, Esq. JACOBS & CRUMPLAR, P.A. 10 Corporate Circle, Suite 301 New Castle, DE 19720 Phone: (302) 656-5445 Fax: (302) 656-5875 Email: pat@jcdelaw.com COLORADO TECHNICAL: Avedisian Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Colorado Technical University Inc. The case is styled as Virginia Avedisian, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Colorado Technical University Inc., Case No. 9:24-cv-81334-AHS (S.D. Fla., Oct. 23, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Colorado Technical University -- https://www.coloradotech.edu/ -- is a private for-profit university with its main campus in Colorado Springs, Colorado.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Faaris Kamal Uddin, Esq. Gerald Donald Lane, Jr., Esq. Zane Charles Hedaya, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1700 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (754) 444-7539 Email: faaris@jibraellaw.com gerald@jibraellaw.com zane@jibraellaw.com CONTINUED.COM LLC: Discloses Personal Viewing Info, Lovett Says --------------------------------------------------------------- VICTORIA LOVETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONTINUED.COM, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00590-DRC (S.D. Ohio, October 16, 2024) seeks redress for the Defendant's practices of knowingly disclosing Plaintiff's and its other customers' identities and their purchases of subscriptions to access prerecorded video content to Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly known as Facebook, Inc., in violation of the federal Video Privacy Protection Act. The complaint alleges that the Defendant has systematically transmitted (and continues to transmit today) Plaintiff and other customers' personally identifying video viewing information to Meta using a snippet of programming code called the "Meta Pixel," which Defendant chose to install and configure on its family of websites. The Defendant engages in this practice without asking for, let alone obtaining, customers' consent. Accordingly, on behalf of herself and the putative class members, the Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against Defendant for intentionally and unlawfully disclosing her and the Putative Class members' private viewing information to Meta. Continued.com, LLC operates and maintains a family of Websites, where it sells subscriptions to access prerecorded video content on various topics such as Speech Pathology, Audiology, and Occupational Therapy.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel J. O'Connor, Esq. O'CONNOR, HASELEY AND WILHELM, LLC 470 West Broad Street, Suite 15 Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 246-8840 E-mail: doconnor@goconnorlaw.com - and - Elliot O. Jackson, Esq. HEDIN LLP 1395 Brickell Ave., Suite 610 Miami, FL 33131-3302 Telephone: (305) 357-2107 Facsimile: (305) 200-8801 E-mail: ejackson@hedinllp.com COPA AMERICA: Amended Class Suit Adds Plaintiffs, Defendants ------------------------------------------------------------ Safid Deen of USA TODAY reports that in July, soccer fans denied entry to this summer's Copa America final due to an ugly security failure at Miami's Hard Rock Stadium filed a complaint seeking to be a class-action lawsuit. Wednesday, October 23, 2024, an amended version of the lawsuit was filed with four new plaintiffs and two new defendants. The lawsuit still seeks class action certification and damages for ticket sales, travel expenses, and "missing the experience of viewing this Copa America Final match in person." The July 14 game was a major event mobbed with people -- those who purchased tickets and others who attempted to rush the gates without tickets -- hoping to see Lionel Messi and Argentina win their second consecutive Copa America title 1-0 against Colombia. The class is not seeking damages for personal injuries. Lead plaintiff Das Nobel, who was the only plaintiff named in the original version of the complaint, is joined by Eduardo Martinez, Daniel Grande, William Pou and David Ziemek. They are represented by Varnell & Warwick, a law firm based in Tampa, Florida, which declined comment when reached by USA TODAY. Two parking lot operators -- County Line South Properties and Dolphin Center Properties -- have been added as defendants in the case. They join the operators of Hard Rock Stadium, soccer federations CONMEBOL and Concacaf, and BEST Crowd Management, Inc. The operators of Ticketmaster, the company used to distribute tickets, is not listed as a defendant in the lawsuit. USA TODAY has reached out to representatives for Hard Rock Stadium, Conmebol and Concacaf for comment on the amended lawsuit. People crowded closed security gates before the match as stadium officials and local law enforcement hoped to stop unruly fans entering without tickets. Some of those fans jumped stadium fences, and even entered through a vent under the stadium during the chaos. Stadium officials, in conjunction with CONMEBOL, Concacaf and law enforcement hoped to diffuse the emergency situation by letting everyone into the stadium shortly before the delayed start time. But after the mass entrance, the stadium gates remained closed to all, including ticket holders. The lawsuit also says Hard Rock Stadium failed to implement an adequate safety and security plan, failed to establish a perimeter or ticketed checkpoints, permitted parking and watch parties for fans outside the stadium, and failed to predict the scope and scale of people without tickets on stadium grounds. Ziemek, a new plaintiff in the case, traveled from Colorado to attend the final with his brother and father, in hopes to watch Messi play after missing him in action due to injury two previous times. He paid $1,650 for a ticket, only to watch the final at a nearly bar. The lawsuit said he "has not achieved his lifelong dream of seeing Messi play in person, and he likely never will." [GN] CORNELL UNIVERSITY: Supreme Court Will Review ERISA Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lynn Cavanaugh of ALM Benefits Pro reports that on Oct. 4, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review a ruling that dismissed a class action lawsuit on behalf of 28,000 Cornell University employees accusing the school's retirement plans of paying excessive recordkeeping fees. Filed in 2016, Cunningham v. Cornell University claims that Cornell and its fiduciaries breached their ERISA duties by: -- Offering certain investment products (CREF Stock Account, Money Market Account, TIAA Traditional Annuity) that were not in the best interest of participants. -- Failing to effectively monitor and control recordkeeping fees. -- Failing to effectively monitor and offer appropriate investment options. This lawsuit was one of several lawsuits that year, accusing colleges and universities of violating ERISA by failing to adequately monitor retirement plans, drop underperforming investments or limit fees, and not the first to reach the Supreme Court. Duke, Columbia, the University of Southern California and Washington University in St. Louis have paid as much as $13 million to settle ERISA cases in recent years, while denying wrongdoing The justices agreed to review a ruling by the New York-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that dismissed a class action on behalf of Cornell University employees accusing the school's retirement plans of paying excessive recordkeeping fees, among other claims. "We are pleased that the Supreme Court accepted the case, and that it will now review our position that summary judgment should not have been granted in this case," said Jerome Schlichter, a lawyer for the plaintiffs. "The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case to resolve a conflict among the federal courts of appeals regarding the pleading standard for an ERISA 'prohibited transaction' claim," said Schlichter, who is a pioneer in legal action against 401(k) and 403(b) plan sponsors on behalf of retirees and savers. "The Second Circuit in the Cornell University case ruled that the plaintiff has the burden of alleging that the defendant caused such a transaction, but also that the defendant will be unable to prove that the transaction qualifies for an 'exemption,' even though the exemptions are affirmative defenses," he said. "Other courts of appeals have not required a plaintiff to preemptively rebut a defense to state a claim. "The case is important because Congress intended that the prohibited transaction rules would supplement the general fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence. In other words, the prohibited transaction rules provide additional protection for plan participants to prevent misuse of their retirement assets. The Cornell decision will establish the requirements for plan participants to proceed with such a claim and may provide guidance regarding the standards for service provider contracts in retirement plans." Plaintiffs alleged that Cornell failed to adequately monitor the fees and investments of its 403(b) plan. "Although the lower courts found Cornell's investment-monitoring to be adequate, the trial court found that there was sufficient evidence that recordkeeping fees were imprudently monitored to proceed to trial," said Schlichter. "However, the court nevertheless dismissed the recordkeeping fee claim due to a lack of evidence that the imprudent monitoring had caused a financial loss," he said. "One reason that the prohibited transaction issue is important is that instead of requiring the plaintiff to prove a loss, the burden can be placed on the defendant to show that the fees are reasonable in order to avoid a prohibited transaction." [GN] CUMBERLAND HEIGHTS: Richardson Files Suit in Tenn. Judicial Ct. --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cumberland Heights Foundation, Inc. The case is styled as Spencer Richardson, individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cumberland Heights Foundation, Inc., Case No. 24-1258-I (Tenn. 20th Judicial Dist. Chancery Ct., Davidson Cty., Oct. 23, 2024). The case type is stated as "Damages/Torts." Cumberland Heights -- https://www.cumberlandheights.org/ -- was founded in 1966 as a residential treatment center to address the problems of alcoholism and drug addiction in adult males.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue Freedom Building, Ste. 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Phone: (615) 254-8801 Fax: (615) 250-3937 Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com DENTAL FIRST CARE: Greenberg Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dental First Care 2 PA. The case is styled as Charles Greenberg, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Dental First Care 2 PA, Case No. 0:24-cv-61977-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Oct. 22, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Dental First Care -- https://dentalfirst.care/ -- is the best dental office in Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew John Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com FITNESS PROJECT: Fontenot Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation ------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT FONTENOT, individually and for others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FITNESS PROJECT HOUSTON, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:24-cv-03981 (S.D. Tex., October 17, 2024) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid mínimum wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff properly recorded the hours he worked by clocking in and clocking out of Defendant's electronic time-keeping system, and Defendant's own records prove that Plaintiff was not paid minimum wage, in violation of the FLSA. After Plaintiff refused to perform additional tasks for which he would not be compensated, the Defendant retaliated against Plaintiff by terminating him on August 31, 2023, on the basis of a pretextual sexual harassment claim, says the suit. The Plaintiff was hired as a part-time certified personal trainer at Defendant's Kingwood, Texas location on September 14, 2020. Fitness Project Houston, LLC is a Texas-based personal training services provider.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Katherine T. Mize, Esq. Michael Meltser, Esq. MIZE MELTSER PLLC 717 Texas Avenue, Suite 1200 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 595-9675 Facsimile: (713) 595-9670 E-mail: katherine.mize@mizepc.com mike.meltser@mizepc.com GRAND FITNESS: Rodriguez Suit Alleges Unlawful Labor Practices -------------------------------------------------------------- GIOVANNI MANUEL RODRIGUEZ, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GRAND FITNESS MGMT, LLC, an unknown entity; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. STK-CV-U0E-2024-13790 (Cal. Super., San Joaquin Cty., October 17, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for California Labor Code violations and unfair business practices stemming from their failure to pay Plaintiff for all hours worked (minimum, straight time, and overtime wages), failure to provide meal periods, failure to authorize and permit rest periods, failure to timely pay final wages, failure to furnish accurate wage statements, and failure to indemnify employees for expenditures. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as an hourly-paid, non-exempt employee from approximately February 2023 to approximately September 2024. Grand Fitness Mgmt, LLC is a Planet Fitness franchisee operating within the state of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin F. Marquez, Esq. Arrash T. Fattahi, Esq. Arman A. Salehi, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 381-9988 Facsimile: (213) 381-9989 E-mail: justin.marquez@wilshirelawfirm.com arrash.fattahi@wilshirelawfirm.com arman.salehi@wilshirelawfirm.com HEMPED NYC: Competello Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind --------------------------------------------------------------- SUSAN COMPETELLO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HEMPED NYC LLC and HEMPED NYC ON ORCHARD LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-07877 (S.D.N.Y., October 17, 2024) is a civil action against Defendants for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate the Defendants' website, www.hempednyc.com, to be fully accessible to, and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State Civil Rights Law. The Plaintiff was injured when attempting to access Defendants' website around October 13, 2024, from her home in New York County, in an effort to search for and purchase Defendant's products and services. The access barriers that Plaintiff encountered have caused a denial of her full and equal access multiple times in the past, and now deter her on a regular basis from accessing the Defendants' website. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendants' corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Hemped NYC LLC operates the website that offers cannabis, beauty, wellness and dietary supplement products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq. Bennitta L. Joseph, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 110 East 59th Street, Suite 2300 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 227-5700 Facsimile: (212) 656-1889 E-mail: jon@norinsberglaw.com bennitta@employeejustice.com HOT TOPIC: Website Inaccessible to Visually-Impaired, Dalton Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Hot Topic, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 0:24-cv-03943 (D. Minn., October 17, 2024) arises because Defendant's website, www.hottopic.com, is not fully and equally accessible to Plaintiff and other people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges that she was injured when she attempted to access Defendant's website but encountered barriers that denied her full and equal access to Defendant's online goods, content, and services. Specifically, she found Defendant's website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like her full and equal access to important website content, says the Plaintiff. In addition to her claim under the ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring a change in Defendant's corporate policies to cause its online store to become, and remain, accessible to individuals with visual disabilities. Hot Topic, Inc. operates the website that offers counterculture-related clothing and accessories as well as licensed music, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com HUMANA INC: Must Produce Required Information by Nov. 1 ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID ELLIOT, v. HUMANA INC. Case No. 3:22-cv-00329-RGJ-CHL (W.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge Rebecca Grady Jennings entered an order overruling the Defendant's objection to the Magistrate Judge's order. -- The Defendant shall comply with the order as it related to production of CGX on or before Friday, Nov. 1, 2024. -- The Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the stay is denied as moot. In sum, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge's decision to grant the motion to compel discovery of CGX was not "clearly erroneous or contrary to law." The Court finds no basis under its "limited standard of review," Massey, to disturb any of the Magistrate Judge's legal conclusions as "contrary to law" or factual conclusions as "clearly erroneous." Nonetheless, out of an abundance of caution, the court will give Humana ten days to produce the information as set forth below. The Plaintiff sued Humana for allegedly violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff alleges Human contacted Plaintiff on his telephone numerous times despite not being a Humana customer. The Plaintiff seeks to certify his claims as a class action, alleging other individuals have been similarly affected by repetitive robocalls sent by Humana over a period of four years. Humana Inc. is a for-profit American health insurance company. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 22, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=N3cXGf at no extra charge.[CC] JI PROPERTIES: Misclassifies Laborers, Duggan Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------- MATTHEW DUGGAN, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JORDAN ILYES; JI PROPERTIES, LLC; ILYES HOLDINGS 1, LLC; ILYES HOLDINGS 2, LLC; ILYES HOLDINGS 3, LLC; ILYES HOLDINGS 4, LLC; ILYES HOLDINGS 5, LLC; ILYES HOLDINGS 6, LLC; ILYES HOLDINGS 7, LLC; ILYES HOLDINGS 8, LLC; ILYES HOLDINGS 9, LLC; ILYES HOLDINGS 10, LLC; and ILYES HOLDINGS A, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-01784-CCC (M.D. Pa., October 17, 2024) alleges that Defendants have systematically and willfully deprived Plaintiff and misclassified employees of overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants misclassify independent contractors and fail to pay Plaintiff and similarly situated employees mandated overtime wages at the rate of one-and-one-half times their regular rate of pay, taking into account non-discretionary bonuses, for all hours worked over 40 each work week. Plaintiff Duggan individually alleges that Defendant retaliated against him by terminating his employment because he made good faith complaints to Defendant about not being properly paid his overtime wages in violation of the FLSA. The Plaintiff began his employment with Defendants when he was hired as a laborer on August 12, 2021. The Plaintiff's job duties included installing, plumbing, draining, and performing electrical work for luxury apartments and other similar work as assigned by Defendants. JI Properties, LLC performs electrical work, plumbing, wiring, and general labor services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin Salvina, Esq. Faith Pensinger, Esq. MARZZACCO NIVEN & ASSOCIATES 945 East Park Drive, Suite 103 Harrisburg, PA 17111 Telephone: (717) 231-1640 Facsimile: (717) 231-1650 E-mail: bsalvina@klnivenlaw.com fpensinger@klnivenlaw.com LIGHTRICKS US: Deadline for Settlement Claims Filing Set Dec. 23 ---------------------------------------------------------------- The following statement is being issued by Kroll Settlement Administration regarding the Lightricks Biometric Data Settlement. Why have I received this Notice? A settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit against Lightricks, Ltd. and Lightricks US, Inc. ("Defendants") for alleged violations of Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act, 740 ILCS 14/1, et seq. ("BIPA"), by users of Lightricks mobile applications (Facetune, Photoleap, Videoleap, and LTX Studio) ("Lightricks Apps"). The lawsuit is called King v. Lightricks, LTD and Lightricks US, Inc. and is pending in the circuit court of the seventh judicial circuit, Sangamon County, Illinois. A Court has authorized this Notice because you have a right to know about the proposed settlement of this class-action lawsuit (the "Settlement"), and your options, before the Court decides whether to give "final approval" to the Settlement. This Notice summarizes the lawsuit, the proposed Settlement, and your legal rights. Who is included in the Settlement Class? The Settlement Class includes: All individuals in Illinois whose image or voice was analyzed by a Lightricks App at any time between September 30, 2017 and November 22, 2024 (the "Class Period"). What are the benefits of the Settlement? The Settlement provides for the establishment of a Settlement Fund in the amount of $4,485,000.00 (Four Million Four Hundred and Eighty-Five Thousand Dollars) to pay for: (i) all Settlement Payments to Settlement Class Members who submit Approved Claims, (ii) the Service Awards to the Class Representatives, (iii) the Fee Award, (iv) payment of Settlement Administrative Expenses, (v) any federal, state, and/or local Taxes of any kind (including any interest or penalties thereon) and any and all other fees, costs, or expenses. Each Settlement Class Member who timely files with the Settlement Administrator an Approved Claim will receive a settlement payment of up to $60.000 from the Settlement Fund. However, if the dollar value of Approved Claims exceeds the amount in the Settlement Fund available to satisfy those Approved Claims after payment of Service Awards, Fee Awards, Settlement Administration Expenses, and Taxes, then Settlement Payments to Claimants from the Settlement Fund shall be reduced on a pro-rata basis, such that the total available cash will satisfy all Approved Claims. If there is money remaining in the Settlement Fund after the payment of all Approved Claims, it will be returned to the Defendants. In order to receive a Settlement Payment, you must complete and submit a Claim Form by December 23, 2024. Claim Forms may be submitted online at www.LightricksBIPAsettlement.com or printed from the website and mailed to the Settlement Administrator. Claim Forms submitted by mail must be postmarked no later than December 23, 2024. How can I exclude myself from the Settlement Class? If you don't want to make a claim and you don't want to be legally bound by the Settlement, your letter requesting to be excluded must be submitted no later than November 22, 2024, or you will not be able to sue, or continue to sue, the Defendants about the claims and allegations in this case. Refer to the Settlement Website and the Class Notice for information and instructions on how to exclude yourself. How can I object? If you want to stay in the Settlement Class, but you want to object to the Settlement and/or to Class Counsel's request for Attorneys' Fees and Costs, your objection must be filed with the Court no later than November 22, 2024. Refer to the Settlement Website and the Class Notice for information and instructions on how to object. Do I have a lawyer in this case? Yes, the Court has appointed the law firms of PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE LLP, SIRI & GLIMSTAD, LLP, WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC, and DON BIVENS PLLC to represent the Class. These attorneys are called Class Counsel. You will not be charged for their services. If you want to be represented by another lawyer, you may hire one to appear in Court for you at your own expense. The Court's Final Approval Hearing. The Court has scheduled a Final Approval Hearing on January 6, 2025 at 10:30 a.m. via Zoom Video Conference (Meeting: 969 230 7334; Password: 889222). The hearing may be moved to a different date or time without additional notice, so it is a good idea to check www.LightricksBIPAsettlement.com for updates. At the Final Approval Hearing, the Parties will request that the Court consider whether the Settlement Class should be certified as a class pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2 for settlement and, if so, (i) consider any properly-filed objections; (ii) determine whether the Settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate, was entered into in good faith and without collusion, and should be approved, and shall provide findings in connection therewith; and (iii) enter the Final Approval Order, including final approval of the Class Action Settlement Agreement and Release, and a Fee Award. It is unknown how long these decisions will take. Where can I get more information? This Notice summarizes the proposed Settlement. More details are in the Class Action Settlement Agreement & Release, which you can obtain as follows: Visit: www.LightricksBIPAsettlement.com Mail: Lightricks Privacy Settlement c/o Kroll Settlement Administration LLC PO Box 225391 New York, NY 10150-5391 Phone: (833) 739-0737 [GN] MONEYGRAM PAYMENT: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Dickerson Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- LETIA DICKERSON, on behalf of herself and a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. MONEYGRAM PAYMENT SYSTEMS, INC. and MONEYGRAM INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-02604-B (N.D. Tex., October 16, 2024) seeks to remedy the harms caused by the Defendants to Plaintiff and all similarly situated individuals whose private information was accessed during a data breach. The Plaintiff is/was a customer of MoneyGram and used its money transfer and payment services on multiple occasions. She provided MoneyGram with confidential and sensitive personal identifying information as requested and required by Defendants for the provision of their services. The Defendants obtained and continue to maintain Plaintiff's PII and have a legal duty and obligation to protect that PII from unauthorized access and disclosure. On or about October 7, 2024, the Defendants provided a Cybersecurity Incident notification admitting that in late September of 2024, it experienced a data breach. As a result of the data breach, through which their PII was compromised, disclosed, and obtained by unauthorized third parties, Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered concrete damages and are now exposed to a heightened and imminent risk of fraud and identity theft for a period of years, if not decades, says the suit. MoneyGram Payment Systems, Inc. provides money transfer and payment services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: W. Mark Lanier, Esq. THE LANIER LAW FIRM, P.C. 10940 W. Sam Houston Pkwy N. Suite 100 Houston, TX 77064 Telephone: (713) 659-5200 Facsimile: (713) 659-2204 E-mail: mark.lanier@lanierlawfirm.com - and - Thomas E. Loeser, Esq. Karin B. Swope, Esq. Jacob Alhadeff, Esq. COTCHETT PITRE & MCCARTHY LLP 999 N. Northlake Way, Suite 215 Seattle, WA 98103 Telephone: (206) 802-1272 Facsimile: (650) 697-0577 E-mail: tloeser@cpmlegal.com.com kswope@cpmlegal.com jalhadeff@cpmlegal.com OREGON: Wyatt B. Appeals Judgment in Case Over Foster Care System ------------------------------------------------------------------ WYATT B. and NOAH F., by their next friend Michelle McAllister, et al. have appealed the judgment entered in their lawsuit entitled Wyatt B. and Noah F., by their next friend Michelle McAllister, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Kate Brown, Governor of Oregon in her official capacity, et al., Defendants, Case No. 6:19-cv-00556-AA, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. Plaintiffs brought this case based on some of the concerns raised by children and young adults with disabilities, queer/LGBTQIA2S+ children and young adults, and children and young adults aging out of foster care. Judge Ann Aiken, on August 17, 2022, defined the General Class as "All children for whom the Oregon Department of Human Services ("DHS") has or will have legal responsibility and who are or will be in the legal or physical custody of DHS." This lawsuit is about whether Defendants (including the Oregon Department of Human Services ("ODHS")) are providing the Class with the services and support required by law. Plaintiffs argued that Defendants' practices violate the legal rights of children in the Class. Defendants denied that they are violating the legal rights of children in the Class. The lawsuit asked the Court to require ODHS to make improvements. No individual class members will be paid any money as "damages." On May 10, 2024, the parties entered into a settlement agreement. The key terms of the Settlement Agreement provides that over the next ten years, Defendants have committed to the following: * Reduce abuse of children and young adults after they enter the foster care system. * Lower the number of children and young adults who come back into foster care. * Improve how quickly children and young adults get case plans after entering care. * Help children and young adults get medical and mental health assessments and referrals for other services or treatment faster. * Improve the quality of foster care placements and services for children and young adults. * Better communication with state courts, attorneys, children and young adults and their families when a child experiences abuse after entering care. Moreover, a child welfare expert will be approved by the Judge to ensure that Defendants do what they agreed to do. This expert is called the Neutral. The Court selected Kevin Ryan to serve as the Neutral. On June 27 2024, Judge Ann L. Aiken issued an opinion and order, which states that pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the Court finds that the definition of Child in Care excludes (1) children who have not been removed and their family is receiving services through Oregon DHS in-home (i.e., through ODHS Family Preservation) because while those children may be in ODHS's legal custody, they are not in ODHS's physical custody and so are not "in care"; and (2) children who have been removed, are in ODHS's legal custody, but are not in ODHS's physical custody because they are place in-home with a parent or legal guardian (i.e., on Trial Home Visit). A Final Fairness Hearing was held on Sept. 12, 2024 before Judge Aiken, and judgment was entered on Sept. 13, 2024. The appellate case is captioned Wyatt B., et al. v. Kotek, et al., Case No. 24-6384, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on October 18, 2024. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on October 23, 2024; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript Order was due on October 29, 2024; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript is due on November 29, 2024; -- Appellant's Appeal Opening Brief is due on January 7, 2025; and -- Appellee's Appeal Answering Brief is due on February 6, 2025. [BN] QUEENSLAND: Police Officers Sue Over COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates -------------------------------------------------------------- Laura Lavelle, writing for ABC News, reports that hundreds of former and current police officers and staff members have launched a class action lawsuit against the state government and the Queensland Police Service, over its COVID-19 vaccine mandates. The lawsuit, filed in the Supreme Court in Brisbane on Friday, October 25, is being funded by billionaire Clive Palmer. It comes after the Queensland Supreme Court ruled that COVID-19 mandates breached the human rights laws of some frontline workers. In his written decision in February, Justice Glenn Martin ruled the directives breached section 58 of the Human Rights Act, which stated that all public service employees must give proper consideration to human rights before making a decision, and that they must act and make decisions that are compatible with human rights. However, Justice Martin did not find mandatory COVID-19 vaccinations were contrary to the HRA, but that the directions were issued unlawfully. Mr Palmer had also confirmed he funded that legal action at the time, which he said cost between $2-3 million. It's not known how much supporting this lawsuit has cost the mining magnate. Solicitor, Justin Sibley, who is leading the class action, said the COVID vaccine mandates were "coercive," and limited officers' human rights. "What we're saying is that the coercive mandates were put in by the commissioner of police," Mr Sibley said. "Which created terrible duress and influence on the police officers and staff members, to try and coerce them into being vaccinated, and has caused damage to them as a result." He said there were three groups within the class action, spearheaded by three plaintiffs. One group complied with vaccine mandates, the second sought medical exemptions but were denied and were then vaccinated, and the third group did not get vaccinated and were suspended or terminated. Mr Sibley said some of those who did not get vaccinated went without pay for more than two years, and have suffered as a result. "What will be alleged in the class action is that Katarina Carroll not only failed to properly consider human rights, but she also unreasonably limited those humans rights," Mr Sibley said. Former specialist police officer and senior constable Luke Jones, 30, said he was suspended without pay from his job in Cairns in 2021, and was sacked earlier this year for refusing to be vaccinated. Mr Jones said he had lost more than $400,000 in wages and super, but the emotional toll had been the hardest. "The job role that I was in, it was going after some of the most notorious, dangerous people on the street and that's where I felt I could make the biggest impact," he said. "It was my dream job. I worked very hard for that and to have that stripped away from me, so suddenly out of nowhere, I struggled with identity after that for a long time, because I didn't know who I was or what I wanted to do." Responding to the news that the class action had been filed, Premier Steven Miles said the vaccine mandate was "incredibly important at the time." "It's what allowed us to reach the point where we could stop doing the lockdowns, when we could get the borders open," he said. "Obviously, those individuals have their own legal rights, and they're welcome to pursue them." In a statement the Queensland Police Service said it couldn't comment on current legal proceedings but said it recognised members who complied with the former commissioner's directions to "support the safety of the Queensland community". "The court was very clear that this finding did not mean the directions were invalid," the spokesperson said. "The court also found that, on a proper consideration of human rights, the requirement to be vaccinated was reasonable in the context of a global pandemic. "As such, the QPS maintains it was appropriate for those members of the service to be vaccinated. "Some employees who were suspended for non-compliance with the directions have returned to work following the revocation of their suspensions." [GN] SAN DIEGO, CA: Settlement Protects San Diegans Living in Vehicles ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dave Schwab, writing for SD News, reports that homeless advocates have secured a class-action settlement protecting San Diego residents relying on their vehicles as their only form of shelter from unjust enforcement and fines. The settlement, approved by U.S. District Court Judge Anthony Battaglia on Oct. 10, provides substantial relief and policy changes aimed at protecting the rights and dignity of unhoused individuals. The settlement includes ticket forgiveness, amendments to law enforcement training, expansion of safe parking programs, and accommodations for individuals with disabilities. Plaintiffs, composed of San Diegans living out of their vehicles, filed a class-action lawsuit in 2017 against the City challenging the constitutionality of the City's enforcement of the Vehicle Habitation Ordinance and the Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. The VHO prohibits those living in vehicles from entering most parts of the City, while the OVO penalizes individuals using their vehicles as their primary form of shelter for parking their vehicles in public lots between 2 and 6 a.m. Disability rights and homeless advocates praised the class-action settlement characterizing it as a legal landmark. "This result came after almost seven years of litigation and 1 ½ years of intensive negotiations," said disability rights attorney Ann E. Menasche. "Those in San Diego who have no choice but to shelter in their vehicles will no longer be penalized and treated as criminals under the VHO for merely using their vehicle for shelter. They will no longer receive tickets under the OVO for parking their RV, camper, or trailer between 2 and 6 a.m. when they have no other place reasonably available to them to park at night. And they will receive thousands of dollars in ticket forgiveness." "This settlement represents a pivotal moment in our seven-year fight for justice for San Diego's unhoused community," said Fish & Richardson attorney Madelyn McCormick. "We've successfully challenged the unfair enforcement of ordinances that disproportionately affect those who rely on their vehicles as their only form of housing. This settlement is more than just a routine case outcome. It's a step towards a more compassionate approach to helping, rather than penalizing, those impacted by the housing crisis." Andrew Sharp, director of communications for City Attorney Mara Elliott, noted the City Council approved the settlement agreement in January, while both sides submitted it to the court in February. He pointed out the City began holding public meetings on the settlement at least as far back as April. He added the plaintiff's main attorney, Ann Menasche, has been conducting settlement community information sessions since the spring. "This settlement is a positive step forward for the City," said Sharp. "It allows us to enforce the oversized vehicle and vehicle habitation parking bans as long as there is space available in a safe parking lot, providing neighbors with the level of neighborhood services they deserve. In addition, this measure will result in more unhoused individuals finding the support they need through the Safe Lot Program. Finally, this settlement envisions future clarity from the Supreme Court on the appropriate measures cities may take to provide a safe and healthy environment for all residents." Plaintiffs argued the City's enforcement of VHO and OVO ordinances disproportionately affected unhoused individuals, many of whom have no other viable housing options. The claimed enforcement led to significant hardships, including fines, vehicle impoundments, and ultimately, the devastating loss of the only form of shelter available to them. Disability Rights Advocates, Disability Rights California, Dreher Law Firm, Fish & Richardson, the Law Foundation of Silicon Valley, the Law Office of Ann E. Menasche, Manfred APC, and the National Homelessness Law Center all participated in representing the plaintiffs in the class-action settlement. KEY SETTLEMENT TERMS -- Class members will not be subjected to citation and arrest under the VHO for merely sheltering in their vehicles or using their vehicles for transportation. -- Ticket forgiveness will relieve class members of thousands of dollars in unpaid tickets, allowing them to avoid towing and to register their vehicles. -- The City will expand its Safe Parking Program. Each parking lot will have safe, accessible bathrooms, security, and/or personnel on-site. -- The City will not enforce the VHO or OVO by arrest, citation, or ticket when legal parking under the parking lot program is unavailable. -- The settlement provides $15,000 in damages to each of the nine remaining named plaintiffs and a $7,500 incentive award for each of the seven class representatives for their work advocating for the class. The Court will retain jurisdiction for three years to ensure enforcement of the settlement. [GN] SANDY SPRING: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Atlantic Union ------------------------------------------------------------------ Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating Sandy Spring Bancorp, Inc. (Nasdaq: SASR ), relating to a proposed merger with Atlantic Union Bankshares Corp. Under the terms of the agreement, all Sandy Spring shares will automatically be converted into the right to receive 0.900 Atlantic Union shares, and cash in lieu of fractional shares. Click here for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/sandy-spring-bancorp-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] SAVE MART: Ex-Manager Files Class Action Suit Alleging Wage Theft ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dominique Williams, writing for The Modesto Bee, reports that a former Save Mart manager has filed a class-action lawsuit against the company, alleging wage theft. The total value of unpaid wages is estimated in the millions. Joseph Christiansen, who worked at Save Mart for more than 20 years, alleges Save Mart Companies intentionally misclassified store managers and assistant managers as exempt from overtime, allowing the company to deny lawful compensation under California labor laws. In the complaint, Christiansen alleges he was regularly required to work extra hours per week performing nonmanagerial tasks, such as operating cash registers and stocking shelves, without proper compensation. The lawsuit accuses the company of multiple violations, including failing to provide minimum and overtime wages, denying meal and rest breaks and issuing inaccurate wage statements. The lawsuit also claims the amounts stolen from thousands of employees add up to millions of dollars each year. Christiansen claims that the company's unlawful practices worsened during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a news release, as Save Mart "made strategic decisions to put profits over its employees." The suit aims to recover unpaid wages and penalties, and to compel Save Mart to change its labor practices. The complaint further alleges that Save Mart has a history of settling wage theft claims while continuing the same unlawful practices, according to the release. The company is accused of using settlement agreements to avoid correcting labor violations, most notably in a 2020 settlement over unpaid wages for assistant managers. "We stand with Joseph Christiansen and the many current and former employees seeking justice, and we will vigorously pursue their rights to ensure that corporate practices align with California labor laws," said Andrew Levine, a founding partner at the Fairchild & Levine law firm. "Companies that continue to put profits before people who make them successful need to be held accountable when violating employee rights." Christiansen seeks to represent thousands of current and former Save Mart Companies employees, the release said. Save Mart Companies, headquartered in Modesto, operates 187 stores under the Save Mart, Lucky and FoodMaxx brands. Cutter Law, a firm based in Sacramento that protects consumer rights, and Fairchild & Levine, a firm specializing in the enforcement of California employment laws, are representing Christiansen. The case is currently pending in the Superior Court of California, Stanislaus County. Save Mart has not responded to a request for comment as of Thursday, October 24, evening. For more information or to inquire about joining the lawsuit, contact the attorneys representing the plaintiffs at cutterlaw.com/class-action-lawsuits/save-mart-wage-theft. [GN] SCHILLING CIDER: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Forrest Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- RAYMOND FORREST, Individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. SCHILLING CIDER, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-07283 (E.D.N.Y., October 17, 2024) is a civil rights action against Schilling Cider for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, http//:www.Schillingcider.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 New York City Human Rights Law. Plaintiff Forrest has made numerous attempts to complete a purchase on Schillingcider.com, most recently on September 28, 2024, October 2, 2024, and October 4, 2024, but was unable to do so independently because of the many access barriers on Defendant's website. These access barriers have caused website to be inaccessible to, and not independently usable by, blind and visually-impaired persons. Amongst other access barriers experienced, the Plaintiff was unable to make an online purchase of the Excelsior Crewneck and the Schilling Waffle Beanie. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Schilling Cider'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. Schilling Cider, LLC owns the website which operates Schilling Cider Houses that provide a wide variety of cider/hard cider beverages and merchandise, amongst the many other products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Telephone: (917) 373-9128 E-mail: ShakedLawGroup@gmail.com SOULFLORA INC: Competello Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ------------------------------------------------------------------ SUSAN COMPETELLO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SOULFLORA INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-07875 (S.D.N.Y., October 17, 2024) is a civil action against Defendant for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate the Defendant's website, www.soulflora.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State Civil Rights Law. The Plaintiff discovered Defendant's website around August 10, 2024, as a result of a glowing recommendation by a close friend who had been aware of her condition, and the potential benefits and uses of marijuana and related products. However, despite the website's apparent thoroughness and transparency, the Plaintiff encountered significant accessibility barriers that prevented her from fully utilizing its services, when she attempted to access the site by herself to discover crucial information regarding the presence of any contraindications therein. The Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. SoulFlora Inc. operates the website that serves as a cannabis dispensary in West Milford, New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq. Bennitta L. Joseph, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 110 East 59th Street, Suite 2300 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 227-5700 Facsimile: (212) 656-1889 E-mail: jon@norinsberglaw.com bennitta@employeejustice.com STERLING BANCORP: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With EverBank ---------------------------------------------------------------- Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating Sterling Bancorp, Inc. (Nasdaq: SBT), relating to a proposed merger with EverBank Financial Corp. Under the terms of the agreement, EverBank will acquire all outstanding shares of Sterling Bancorp in an all-cash transaction. Click here for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/sterling-bancorp-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] SUMMIT PATHOLOGY: Alexander Sues Over Data Security Incident ------------------------------------------------------------ Karen Alexander, individually and on behalf of her minor children, and all others similarly situated v. SUMMIT PATHOLOGY d/b/a SUMMIT PATHOLOGY LABORATORIES, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-02939-GPG (D. Colo., Oct. 23, 2024), is brought arising out of the recent data security incident and data breach that was perpetrated against Defendant Summit (the "Data Breach"), which held in its possession certain personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI") (collectively, "the Private Information") of Plaintiff(s) and other employees and patients of Defendant Summit, the putative class members ("Class"). The Data Breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect individuals' Private Information with which it was entrusted for either treatment or employment or both. The Defendant maintained the Private Information in a reckless manner. In particular, the Private Information was maintained on Defendant Summit's computer network in a condition vulnerable to cyberattacks. Upon information and belief, the mechanism of the Data Breach and potential for improper disclosure of Plaintiff(s)' and Class Members' Private Information was a known risk to Defendant. Thus, Defendant was on notice that failing to take steps necessary to secure the Private Information from those risks left that property in a dangerous condition. The Defendant disregarded the rights of Plaintiff(s) and Class Members by, inter alia, intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to take adequate and reasonable measures to ensure its data systems were protected against unauthorized intrusions; failing to disclose that it did not have adequately robust computer systems and security practices to safeguard Plaintiff(s)' and Class Members' Private Information; failing to take standard and reasonably available steps to prevent the Data Breach; and failing to provide Plaintiff(s) and Class Members with prompt and full notice of the Data Breach. The Plaintiff(s)' and Class Members' identities are now at risk because of Defendant's negligent conduct since the Private Information that Defendant Summit collected and maintained is now in the hands of data thieves. As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff(s) and Class Members have been exposed to a heightened and imminent risk of fraud and identity theft. Plaintiff(s) and Class Members must now and for years into the future closely monitor their financial accounts to guard against identity theft, says the complaint. The Plaintiff and the members of her family are current patients of Summit. The Defendant Summit, "is an independent pathology laboratory, owned by a practice of twenty-two board certified pathologists."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary E. Mason, Esq. Danielle Perry, Esq. Lisa A. White, Esq. MASON LLP 5335 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 640 Washington, DC 20015 Phone: (202) 429-2290 Email: gmason@masonllp.com dperry@masonllp.com lwhite@masonllp.com TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: DPPs' Sur-Reply Due Nov. 1 ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FWK Holdings LLC, et al., v. Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Ltd., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-11057 (D. Mass., Filed Jun 25, 2021), The Hon. Judge Myong J. Joun entered an order on DPPs' motion for class certification: -- Takeda's sur-reply is now due: Oct. 25, 2024 -- DPPs' sur-sur-reply is now due: Nov. 1, 2024 The nature of suit states antitrust litigation. Takeda is a Japanese multinational pharmaceutical company.[CC] THOMSON REUTERS: Deadline for Settlement Claims Filing Set Dec. 6 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Most Californians are now eligible for a class action settlement claim and could receive an estimated $19 to $48 dollars. A data privacy class action settlement for $27.5 million has been reached with Thomson Reuters, a media and data company, for its CLEAR platform. The law firms Gibbs Law Group LLP and Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC filed the lawsuit alleging that Thomson Reuters collected millions of California residents' personal and confidential information and then it sold access to it without their knowledge or consent. Anyone who has lived in California anytime since December 3, 2016 may qualify. Learn more and file a claim on the settlement website: https://clearprivacysettlement.com/ Case Background The class action lawsuit, originally filed in 2020, alleged that, through its CLEAR platform, Thomson Reuters sold access to California residents' data to government entities like ICE and police departments and to its wide-ranging corporate customers. Cat Brooks and Rasheed Shabazz, long-time Oakland residents and activists, represented the class as named plaintiffs. Settlement Information The Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on October 11, 2024. The settlement provides individuals who resided in California for any period of time since December 3, 2016, with the opportunity to submit claims for monetary relief, and mandates privacy-protective changes to Thomson Reuters' operation of CLEAR going forward. The Court will decide whether to finally approve the settlement on February 13, 2025. Class counsel Andre Mura of Gibbs Law Group says, "We look forward to delivering the robust settlement benefits to Californians." "The settlement accomplishes what I hoped for when I decided to bring this case," said Plaintiff Rasheed Shabazz. "It makes it easier for Californians to learn about CLEAR. It makes it easier for Californians to get their information out of CLEAR. And it requires Thomson Reuters to take steps to be protective of Californians' privacy while they operate CLEAR." Plaintiff Cat Brooks says, "This settlement will help other Californians learn about CLEAR and more easily remove their information from CLEAR and the sources that supply it." About Gibbs Law Group LLP Gibbs Law Group is California-based law firm and a nationwide leader in lawsuits seeking to holding companies accountable for misconduct. We represent individuals, whistleblowers, employees, and small businesses across the U.S. against the world's largest corporations. We have prosecuted some of the largest privacy cases throughout the country, and our attorneys have received numerous awards for their privacy and data breach work including "Cybersecurity & Privacy MVP," "Top Cybersecurity and Privacy Attorneys Under 40," and "Titans of the Plaintiffs Bar." About Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, a premier U.S. plaintiffs' law firm, with over 100 attorneys across eight offices, champions the causes of real people -- workers, consumers, small business owners, investors, and whistleblowers -- working to deliver corporate reforms and fair markets for the common good. Contacts PRESS INQUIRIES: CATHERINE CONROY PHONE: 510-350-9705 EMAIL: CRC@CLASSLAWGROUP.COM [GN] TICKETMASTER LLC: Suit Transferred to D. Montana ------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Jane Doe, as mother and next friend of Mary Doe, on behalf of herself and all others who are similarly situated v. Ticketmaster LLC, Live Nation Worldwide Inc., Case No. 5:24-cv-00980 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana on Oct. 23, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00169-BMM to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Breach of Contract. Ticketmaster Entertainment, LLC -- https://www.ticketmaster.com/ -- is an American ticket sales and distribution company based in Beverly Hills, California.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Eric J. Artrip, Esq. MASTANDO & ARTRIP LLC 301 Holmes Ave NE, Suite 100 Huntsville, AL 35801 Phone: (256) 532-2222 Fax: (256) 513-7489 Email: artrip@mastandoartrip.com - and - Robert Brent Irby, Esq. IRBY LAW LLC 2201 Arlington Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: (205) 936-8281 Email: brent@irbylaw.net TORONTO-DOMINION BANK: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set Dec 23 ------------------------------------------------------------------ WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of securities of The Toronto-Dominion Bank (NYSE: TD) between February 29, 2024 and October 9, 2024, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than December 23, 2024. SO WHAT: If you purchased TD 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 TD class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=30006 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 23, 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 complaint, defendants provided investors with material information concerning the scope of the issues surrounding TD's anti-money laundering ("AML") program employed to comply with the United States' Bank Secrecy Act ("BSA"), the ability for defendants to "fix" those issues, and the punitive and remedial compliance measures likely to be imposed upon TD through the resolution of these investigations. Defendants' statements included, among other things, confidence in TD's optimistic claims of updating and fixing the existing AML program, alleging a full understanding of the scope of the issues the program was facing, and setting aside specific provisional estimates as to the monetary impact of the punitive and compliance measures believed to be imposed. Defendants provided these overwhelmingly positive statements to investors while, at the same time, disseminating materially false and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse facts concerning the true state of TD's AML program; pertinently, TD concealed or otherwise minimized the significance of the failures of TD's AML program and made no indication that the imposition of an asset cap or other punitive or compliance measures would be imposed that would undermine TD's continued growth for the foreseeable future. Such statements absent these material facts caused shareholders to purchase TD's securities at artificially inflated prices. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. To join the TD class action, go https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=30006 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] TORONTO-DOMINION BANK: Faces Securities Class Suit in S.D.N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------------- Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a securities class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired The Toronto-Dominion Bank ("TD Bank" or the "Company") (NYSE: TD) securities between February 29, 2024 and October 9, 2024, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for the Company's investors under the federal securities laws. The Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse facts concerning the true state of TD Bank's anti-money laundering ("AML") program; pertinently, TD Bank concealed or otherwise minimized the significance of the failures of TD Bank's AML program and made no indication that the imposition of an asset cap or other punitive or compliance measures would be imposed that would undermine TD Bank's continued growth for the foreseeable future. The Complaint also alleges that, on October 10, 2024, TD Bank unveiled the resolutions reached from U.S. investigations, which included, in addition to the punitive payment of $3.09 billion, both an asset cap, preventing TD Bank's U.S. subsidiaries from exceeding a collective $434 billion, a reflection of TD Bank's assets as of September 30, 2024, and further subjects TD Bank to more stringent approval processes for its product, service, and market rollouts. Further, the U.S. Department of Justice, in their own corresponding release, highlighted the significance of TD Bank's failures as "the largest bank in U.S. history to plead guilty to Bank Secrecy Act program failures and the first U.S. bank in history to plead guilty to conspiracy to commit money laundering," the complaint alleges. On this news, TD Bank's stock price fell by more than 10%. Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of TD Bank should contact the Firm prior to the December 23, 2024 lead plaintiff motion deadline. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com. Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more information about the firm. [GN] TORONTO-DOMINION: Tiessen Sues Over Securities Laws Violation ------------------------------------------------------------- James Tiessen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE TORONTO-DOMINION BANK, BHARAT B. MASRANI, LEOVIGILDO SALOM, KELVIN VI LUAN TRAN, and RIAZ E. AHMED, Case No. 1:24-cv-08032 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 22, 2024), is brought as a federal securities class action on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired TD securities between February 29, 2024 to October 9, 2024, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws (the "Class"). The Defendants provided investors with material information concerning the scope of the issues surrounding TD's anti-money laundering ("AML") program employed to comply with the United States Bank Secrecy Act ("BSA"), the ability for Defendants to "fix" those issues, and the punitive and remedial compliance measures likely to be imposed upon TD through the resolution of these investigations. Defendants' statements included, among other things, confidence in the Company's optimistic claims of updating and fixing the existing AML program, alleging a full understanding of the scope of the issues the program was facing, and setting aside specific provisional estimates as to the monetary impact of the punitive and compliance measures believed to be imposed. The Defendants provided these overwhelmingly positive statements to investors while, at the same time, disseminating materially false and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse facts concerning the true state of TD's AML program; pertinently, TD concealed or otherwise minimized the significance of the failures of the Company's AML program and made no indication that the imposition of an asset cap or other punitive or compliance measures would be imposed that would undermine TD's continued growth for the foreseeable future. Such statements absent these material facts caused Plaintiff and other shareholders to purchase TD's securities at artificially inflated prices. On October 10, 2024, TD unveiled the resolutions reached from the United States investigations, which included, in addition to the punitive payment of $3.09 billion, both an asset cap, preventing TD's U.S. subsidiaries from exceeding a collective $434 billion, a reflection of the Company's assets as of September 30, 2024, and further subjects TD to more stringent approval processes for its product, service, and market rollouts. Further, the Department of Justice, in their own corresponding release, highlighted the significance of TD's failures as "the largest bank in U.S. history to plead guilty to Bank Secrecy Act program failures, and the first US bank in history to plead guilty to conspiracy to commit money laundering." The unveiling of the scope of the Company's AML failures surprised investors and analysts alike as they reacted immediately to the revelations. The price of TD's common stock declined dramatically. From a closing market price of $63.51 per share on October 9, 2024, TD's stock price fell to $59.44 per share on October 10, 2024, and further to $57.01 on October 11, 2024, a decline of more than 10% in the span of just two days, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased TD common stock at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period and was damaged upon the revelation of the Defendants' fraud. TD is an international bank, operating through four segments: Canadian Personal and Commercial Banking, U.S. Retail, Wealth Management and Insurance, and Wholesale Banking.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam M. Apton, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 Phone: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 Email: aapton@zlk.co TRI-CITY HEALTHCARE: Pontius Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tri-City Healthcare District. The case is styled as Rachel Pontius, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Tri-City Healthcare District doing business as: Tri-City Medical Center, Case No. 3:24-cv-01953-MMA-BLM (S.D. Cal., Oct. 22, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud for Class Action Fairness Act. Tri-City Medical Center -- https://www.tricitymed.org/ -- is a full-service, acute-care public hospital in Oceanside, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher M. Burke, Esq. Walter W. Noss, Esq. Yifan (Kate) Lv, Esq. KOREIN TILLERY P.C. 401 West A. Street, Suite 1430 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 625-5621 Email: Cburke@KoreinTillery.com wnoss@koreintillery.com UNIVERSAL STAINLESS: M&A Probes Proposed Merger With Aperam US -------------------------------------------------------------- Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating Universal Stainless & Alloy Products Inc. (Nasdaq: USAP), relating to its proposed merger with Aperam US Absolute LLC. Under the terms of the agreement, all USAP shares will be automatically converted into the right to receive $45.00 per share. 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] UNIVERSAL UNDERWRITERS: Delara Sues Over Tax Law Violation ---------------------------------------------------------- Sue Delara, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. UNIVERSAL UNDERWRITERS SERVICE CORPORATION, and ZURICH HOLDING COMPANY OF AMERICA, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-07410 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 23, 2024), is brought against the Defendants who have withheld and/or failed to return New York sales taxes to customers who cancelled their Service Contracts within 30 days of the date of sale of the contracts, in violation of New York tax law and in breach of their contractual duties under the Service Contracts. Several days after she purchased the Service Contract, Plaintiff cancelled the Service Contract pursuant to its terms. Pursuant to the Service Contract, the purchase price of $3,996 was returned to the financing lender for the vehicle, rather than to Plaintiff. The New York state sales tax that was paid for the Service Contract was not returned to either the lender or Plaintiff. The Plaintiff seeks for herself, and all those similarly situated, return of all New York state sales tax wrongfully withheld, as well as an additional 10% for each month that the sales tax was not returned after 30 days from when Plaintiff and the Class Members cancelled their Service Contracts, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased a new motor vehicle from Ford of Port Jeff, LLC, an automobile dealership located in Port Jefferson, Suffolk County, New York. Universal Underwriters Service Corporation is a corporation registered in and actively engaged in business in the State of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lewis J. Saul, Esq. Edward A. Coleman, Esq. LEWIS SAUL & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 29 Howard Street, 3rd Floor New York, NY 10013 Phone: (212) 376-8450 VALVE CORPORATION: Hepler Sues Over Unfair Competition Laws ----------------------------------------------------------- Connor Hepler and Aaron Lancaster, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. VALVE CORPORATION, Case No. 2:24-cv-01735 (W.D. Wash., Oct. 23, 2024), is brought against Valve Corporation under federal antitrust laws and state unfair competition laws, seeking public injunctive relief and damages. Due to Valve's controlling position, publishers have little choice but to list their games on the Steam Store if they hope to reach a sufficiently widespread audience. This leverage allows Valve, despite its limited role as a middleman, to extract a commission of 30% on every game sold. This massive commission is untethered to Valve's costs, and it is far higher than the rate that would prevail in a competitive market. As a result, publishers have a strong incentive to raise their game prices to stay profitable, which leads to higher prices for consumers. Valve has not acquired or maintained its monopoly over game distribution--and the ability to charge supracompetitive prices it affords--by running a more efficient or effective game store than its competitors. To the contrary, Valve has used its monopoly position to stifle competition, imposing anticompetitive restraints to ensure that cheaper, high-quality, consumer-friendly alternatives cannot get off the ground. Valve restrains competition through the Platform Most Favored Nation clause ("PMFN") that it imposes on any publisher hoping to sell its games on the Steam Store. Valve's PMFN forbids publishers from offering their games on any competing platform for a cheaper price, or with superior features, than it offers on the Steam Store. The predictable result of shutting down competition is that Valve has enjoyed, and continues to enjoy, monopoly profits at the expense of consumers. Due to the Steam Store's limited, middleman role in the market, it requires only a few dozen full-time Valve employees to operate. In fact, this unlawful tie has been so successful that it has allowed Valve to monopolize the In-Game Payment Processing Market as well. Given Valve's overwhelming market share in the PC Game Distribution Market, it has quickly come to be the sole viable option in the Payment Processing Market; as a result, Valve has used its PMFN and anticompetitive tactics to leverage monopoly power in two markets rather than one. The result is a supracompetitive "tax" on the PC gaming industry, which leads to higher prices for fewer and lower-quality games and payment processing options. Meanwhile, Valve's profits continue to grow, and consumers continue to pay the price. This lawsuit is brought by plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and a proposed class of consumers seeking to address Valve's abuse of its market power. The objective is to redress Valve's efforts to restrain trade, monopolize, and maintain its monopoly in the PC Game Distribution Market and In-Game Payment Processing Market. Valve's practices outlined here violate the Sherman Act, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs purchased PC Desktop Games through the Steam Store during this time. Valve Corporation is the largest distributor of PC games in the world. Incorporated in the State of Washington.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Corrie J. Yackulic, Esq. CORRIE YACKULIC LAW PLLC 110 Prefontaine Place S., Suite 304 Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: (206) 787-1915 Fax: (206) 299-9725 Email: corrie@cjylaw.com - and - Benjamin D. Brown, Esq. Brent W. Johnson, Esq. Robert W. Cobbs, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Ave. NW, Fifth Floor Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202) 408-4600 Email: bbrown@cohenmilstein.com bjohnson@cohenmilstein.com rcobbs@cohenmilstein.com - and - Christopher J. Bateman, Esq. Daniel Gifford, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 88 Pine St., 14th Floor New York, NY 10005 Phone: (212) 838-7797 Fax: (212) 838-7745 Email: cbateman@cohenmilstein.com dgifford@cohenmilstein.com VINEBROOK HOMES: Florence Alleges Unlawful Lease Agreements ----------------------------------------------------------- JOHNAY FLORENCE and URSULA JONES, for themselves and for all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. VINEBROOK HOMES TRUST, INC, VINEBROOK HOMES OPERATING PARTNERSHIP, L.P., and VINEBROOK HOMES, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-04079-ALM-CMV (S.D. Ohio, October 17, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of contract, unjust enrichment/quantum meruit, disgorgement pursuant to Ohio Revised Code, conversion, and injunctive and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendants breached their contractual duty of good faith and fair dealing to Plaintiffs and other similarly situated tenants by charging for, collecting and/or retaining property administration fees (PAF). By drafting and including the terms requiring payment of the PAFs and/or for recovery of attorney fees in the VBHLAs, the Defendants established mechanisms by which they came into possession of funds belonging to Plaintiffs and each putative class member unlawfully, says the suit. The Defendants own, manage and/or lease single family rentals in Ohio, Kentucky, Missouri, Indiana, Alabama, South Carolina, Kansas, Mississippi, Tennessee, Georgia, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Florida, Arkansas, North Carolina, and New Mexico.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James E. Nobile, Esq. Eric E. Willison, Esq. JENESQ 285 S. Liberty St., Suite 1D Powell, OH 43065 Telephone: (614) 300-2764 E-mail: jenobile@ntlegal.com eewillison@earthlink.net VISA INC: Yabla Sues Over Artificially Inflated Prices ------------------------------------------------------ Yabla, Inc., on behalf of itself and others similarly situated v. VISA, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-08045 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 22, 2024), is brought as an anticompetitive conduct which has artificially inflated the prices of debit network transaction fees that Plaintiff and the Class have been forced to pay during the class period. Visa has monopolized the United States general-purpose debit network markets by preventing the emergence of meaningful competition from multiple types of companies and charging Plaintiff and the other Class members artificially inflated prices for its debit products during the class period. Visa has engaged in a systemic, multi-pronged campaign of exclusionary conduct--deployed at each pressure point where its dominance might be threatened--that has continued to this day. Under its campaign, Visa has prevented actual and potential competitors, including well-known and well-resourced companies, from building or expanding innovative, cost-effective products and networks that would have increased competition in the relevant markets while decreasing Visa's control over those markets, as Visa itself has recognized. Under this campaign, Visa also has punished and threatened to punish businesses that have tried to use cheaper and superior alternative methods or networks to process debit transactions. Visa's anticompetitive conduct has substantially harmed competition in the domestic general-purpose debit network markets. Visa has accomplished this by blocking competitors, stifling innovation, and keeping prices at artificially high levels. American merchants and consumers, and the broader American economy, have paid the price. As Attorney General Merrick Garland stated in announcing the DOJ's new lawsuit against Visa, "Visa's unlawful conduct affects not just the price of one thing--but the price of nearly everything." The Plaintiff and the Class bring this action to end Visa's anticompetitive practices and recover all damages and obtain all other relief necessary and proper under federal antitrust law, says the complaint. The Plaintiff offers immersive computer-assisted language learning courses featuring interactive videos of various difficulty levels and formats. Visa owns and operates the largest debit network in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew Tripolitsiotis, Esq. BURNS CHAREST LLP 757 Third Ave, 20th Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: (469) 895-5269 Email: mtripolitsiotis@burnscharest.com - and - Christopher J. Cormier, Esq. Spencer Cox, Esq. Matt Strauser, Esq. Ian Baize, Esq. BURNS CHAREST LLP 4725 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20016 Phone: (202) 577-3977 Email: ccormier@burnscharest.com scox@burnscharest.com mstrauser@burnscharest.com ibaize@burnscharest.com - and - Warren T. Burns, Esq. BURNS CHAREST LLP 900 Jackson Street, Suite 500 Dallas, TX 75202 Phone: (469) 904-4550 Email: wburns@burnscharest.com WALMART INC: Denny Sues Over False and Misleading Advertisements ---------------------------------------------------------------- Shana Denny, individually and all others similarly situated v. WALMART INC., Case No. 6:24-cv-01906-CEM-LHP (M.D. Fla., Oct. 23, 2024), is brought against the Defendant Great Value Avocado Oil (the "Product"), with labels that prominently state that the Product is avocado oil which is false, misleading, and deceptive advertisements. The Defendant manufactures, markets, advertises, and distributes the Products throughout the United States. Defendant created and/or authorized the false, misleading, and deceptive advertisements, packaging, and labeling of its Products. The Plaintiff's most recent purchase was Defendant's WALMART Avocado Oil Products ("Avocado Oil" or "Products"), which were purchased at a WALMART Store for approximately $14.99 during the applicable time period. Prior to purchasing the Products, Plaintiff saw and read the packaging which is sold under the label WALMART "Avocado Oil". The Plaintiff reasonably believed that the product she purchased was comprised of Avocado Oil exclusively. The Plaintiff was not aware that the product contained a variety of other oils. Had Plaintiff known that the Products were not Avocado Oil exclusively she would not have purchased the Products. The Plaintiff would not have purchased the Products if she knew that the product was not purely avocado oil but was adulterated with a number of other oils. The Plaintiff would purchase the Product in the future; however, Plaintiff cannot now or in the future rely on the representations on the Product's labels because she cannot know whether the contents remain false, and she may reasonably, but incorrectly, assume the Products were improved, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased WALMART Avocado Oil Products ("Avocado Oil" or "Products") from a local WALMART Store. WALMART has labeled, advertised, distributed, and sold the Products for sale at its locations in Florida during the statute of limitations period under its private label brand.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William C. Wright, Esq. Kelly Mata, Esq. THE WRIGHT LAW OFFICE 515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 350 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone: (561) 514-0904 Email: willwright@wrightlawoffice.com kellymata@wrightlawoffice.com WESTCHESTER HARVESTING: Turner Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------------- Tavon Turner, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. WESTCHESTER HARVESTING COMPANY LLC d/b/a THE PURPLE OWL DISPENSARY, Case No. 1:24-cv-08056 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 23, 2024), is brought against Defendant for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate the Defendant's Website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to the Website, www.thepurpleowldispensary and therefore its denial of the goods and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Defendant's Website is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers; therefore, Defendant is in violation of the ADA. Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content while using the computer. WESTCHESTER HARVESTING COMPANY LLC d/b/a THE PURPLE OWL DISPENSARY, is a New York Limited Liability company that owns and maintains two physical dispensaries and the associated Website, www.thepurpleowldispensary.com.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq. Bennitta L. Joseph, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 110 East 59th Street, Suite 2300 New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 227-5700 Fax: (212) 656-1889 Email: jon@norinsberglaw.com bennitta@employeejustice.com WINSLOW TOWNSHIP: Rivera Files Suit in N.J. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Winslow Township, New Jersey, et al. The case is styled as Emily Rivera, (f/k/a EMILY SANTIAGO), on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Winslow Township, New Jersey, Camden County, New Jersey, Case No. L-003240-24 (N.J. Super. Ct., Camden Cty., Oct. 22, 2024). The case type is stated as "Civil Rights." Winslow Township -- https://www.winslowtownship.com/ -- is a township in Camden County, in the U.S. state of New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen P. DeNittis, Esq. Joseph A. Osefchen, Esq. Shane T. Prince, Esq. Michael A. Galpern, Esq. Geoffrey J. Smith, Esq. DENITTIS OSEFCHEN PRINCE, P.C. 525 Route 73 North, Suite 410 Marlton, NJ 08053 Phone: (856) 797-9951 YOUR HOME: Donahue Sues Over Unlawful Telemarketing Calls --------------------------------------------------------- David Donahue, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. YOUR HOME IMPROVEMENT COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 0:24-cv-04004 (D. Minn., Oct. 23, 2024), is brought alleging that the Defendant made prerecorded voice telemarketing calls to the Plaintiff and other putative class members without their consent in violation of Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("the TCPA"). Because prerecorded voice marketing campaigns generally place calls to hundreds of thousands or even millions of potential customers en masse, the Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of other persons who received illegal robocalls from or on behalf of the Defendant. A class action is the best means of obtaining redress for the Defendant's wide-scale illegal telemarketing and is consistent both with the private right of action afforded by the TCPA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is an individual residing in Nebraska and is a citizen of Nebraska. Your Home Improvement, LLC, is a Minnesota LLC and is located in this District.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Alex Phillips, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago IL, 60611 Phone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 Email: raina@straussborrelli.com sam@straussborrelli.com aphillips@straussborrelli.com - and - Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW PC 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (617) 485-0018 Fax: (508) 318-8100 Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Int'l. Has $1.53BB Asbestos Liabilities ------------------------------------------------------------------ Honeywell International Inc. is named in asbestos-related personal injury claims related to NARCO, which was sold in 1986, and the Bendix Friction Materials (Bendix) business, which was sold in 2014, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. As of September 30, 2024 and December 31, 2023, the Company has reported total asbestos-related liabilities of $1,532 million and $1,644 million, respectively. A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6iw0Xn ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Industries Has $46MM Reserves as of Sept. 30 ----------------------------------------------------------------- PPG Industries Inc., as of September 30, 2024 and December 31, 2023, has asbestos-related reserves totaled $46 million and $48 million, respectively, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. As of September 30, 2024, the Company was aware of certain asbestos-related claims pending against the Company and certain of its subsidiaries. The Company is defending these asbestos-related claims vigorously. The asbestos-related claims consist of claims against the Company alleging: exposure to asbestos or asbestos-containing products manufactured, sold or distributed by the Company or its subsidiaries ("Products Claims"); personal injury caused by asbestos on premises presently or formerly owned, leased or occupied by the Company ("Premises Claims"); and asbestos-related claims against a subsidiary the Company acquired in 2013 ("Subsidiary Claims"). The Company monitors and reviews the activity associated with its asbestos claims and evaluates, on a periodic basis, its estimated liability for such claims and all underlying assumptions to determine whether any adjustment to the reserves for these claims is required. Additionally, as a supplement to its periodic monitoring and review, the Company conducts discussions with counsel and engages valuation consultants to analyze its claims history and estimate the amount of the Company's potential liability for asbestos-related claims. A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ypL5ut ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Co. Still Receives Exposure Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- The Travelers Companies, Inc., has received and continues to receive claims for insurance arising under policies asserting alleged injuries and damages from asbestos-and environmental-related exposures that are the subject of related coverage litigation, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "Factors underlying these claim filings include continued intensive advertising by lawyers seeking asbestos claimants and the focus by plaintiffs on defendants, such as manufacturers of talcum powder, who were not traditionally sued and/or primary targets of asbestos litigation. Many defendants have also been subject to increased settlement demands, in part due to the bankruptcy of many traditional primary targets of asbestos litigation. Currently, in many jurisdictions, those who allege very serious injury and who can present credible medical evidence of their injuries are receiving priority trial settings in the courts, while those who have not shown any credible disease manifestation are having their hearing dates delayed or placed on an inactive docket. Prioritizing claims involving credible evidence of injuries, along with the focus on defendants who were not traditionally primary targets of asbestos litigation, contributes to the claims and claim adjustment expense payment patterns experienced by the Company. The Company's asbestos-related claims and claim adjustment expense experience also has been impacted by the unavailability of other insurance sources potentially available to policyholders, whether through exhaustion of policy limits or through the insolvency of other participating insurers. "Net asbestos paid loss and loss expenses in the first nine months of 2024 and 2023 were $201 million and $156 million, respectively. Net asbestos reserves were $1.42 billion and $1.43 billion at September 30, 2024 and 2023, respectively." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qmHwZg ********* 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 ***