/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/241216.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, December 16, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 251 Headlines ADAMS RESOURCES: M&A Probes Merger With Tres Energy Affiliate AEHR TEST: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set February 3 AEHR TEST: Faces Shareholder Class Suit Over Misleading Statements APPLE INC: Appeals Court Dismisses iCloud Storage Class Action APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over iCloud CSAM Technology Failure ARCADIA BIOSCIENCES: M&A Probes Merger With Roosevelt Resources ARCH RESOURCES: M&A Probes Proposed Merger With Consol Energy ASP ISOTOPES: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set February 3 ASP ISOTOPES: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit AUTOMATION PERSONNEL: Settles Data Breach Class Suit for $1.375MM BAYER INC: Benzene Class Action Dismissed Over Lack of Standing BAYER INC: Judge Dismisses Essure Class Action Lawsuit BLACKSTONE INC:KRS Breach of Contract Suit Stayed CAITLYN JENNER: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set January 17 CANADA: Court Certifies Class Action Over Abuse by Military Priest CAPSTONE LOGISTICS: Montes Suit Removed to E.D. California CARRIAGE SERVICES: Faces Suit Over Failure to Pay Compensation CDK GLOBAL: Auto Dealers' Claims Filing Deadline Set January 9 COOPERSURGICAL INC: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Class Action Suit CORRECTIONAL SERVICE: Court Certifies Inmate Privacy Class Action CROSSFIRST BANKSHARES: M&A Probes Proposed Merger With First Busey DARRELL P. WHEELER: Baptist Sues Over False Arrest DATAMAXX APPLIED: Berg Sues Over Failure to Secure PHI & PII DISCOVERY DIGITAL: Discloses Video Info to 3rd Party, Robles Says DMC GLOBAL: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit in D. Colo. ELEKTA INC: Settles Data Breach Class Action Suit for $8.9-Mil. EXXONMOBIL CORP: Ford Cty. Alleges Public Nuisance of Plastic Waste FARM BUREAU: Sales Tax Class Settlement Gets Preliminary Approval FIVE9 INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Securities Violations FORT LAUDERDALE, FL: Pays $1.9M Settlement for Protester's Injuries FOX FACTORY HOLDING: Faces Securities Suit in Georgia FUBOTV INC: Faces Beasley Class Suit in New York FUBOTV INC: Faces Burdette Class Suit in Illinois FUBOTV INC: Faces Perez Class Suit in Florida HERITAGE INSURANCE: Faces Suit Over Hurricane Insurance Fraud HUMACYTE INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set January 17 INDIANA UNIVERSITY: Team Physician Ruled Competent in Class Suit INOTIV INC: Discovery in Leasure Securities Class Suit Ongoing INOTIV INC: Settlement Deal in PAGA Suit for Court Approval JEFF SANDY: Court Approves Settlement Deal in Rose Class Suit JEFFERSON HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Privacy Violations KALEIDA HEALTH: Must File Class Cert Response by March 11, 2025 KIRKLAND'S INC: Continues to Defend Miles Class Suit in California KIRKLAND'S INC: Continues to Defend Sicard Class Suit in New York KYVERNA THERAPEUTICS: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit LANCASTER GENERAL: Class Cert Bid Rescheduled to Jan. 30, 2025 LASERSHIP INC: West Class Cert Response Extended to Jan. 22, 2025 LIGHT & WONDER: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims MANITEX INTERNATIONAL: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Tadano MARQETA INC: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims MARSHALL & MELHORN: Settles Data Breach Class Suit for $800,000 MARY MAHONEY'S: Bids to Dismiss Mislabeling Class Action Lawsuit MCGRAW-HILL EDUCATION: Class Certification Order Entered MDL 3014: Settlement Class Gets Certification MEDIACOM COMMUNICATION: Sued Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation MLC NOMINEES: Settles NAB MySuper Class Action for $64.25-Mil. MONSANTO COMPANY: Ledet Suit Transferred to N.D. California MOVE INC: Bandy Suit Removed to C.D. California MY CREDIT UNION: Fiorito Files Suit in Minn. 4th Judicial Ct. NATERA INC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Davis Extended to May 8, 2025 NATHAN SAMUEL: Scheduling Conference Set for Feb. 3, 2025 NATIONAL AMUSEMENTS: Settles Data Breach Class Action Lawsuit NATIONAL INSPECTION: Class Cert Filing in Thurlow Due Dec. 19, 2025 NATIONAL INSPECTION: Thurlow Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification NESTLE HEALTHCARE: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to March 10, 2025 NESTLE USA: Class Status Conference Rescheduled to Jan. 21, 2025 NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Court Recommends Denial of Class Cert Bid NEW YORK, NY: Class Certification Filing Due Jan. 17, 2025 NISSAN OF NORTH AMERICA: Settlement in Beaver Gets Initial OK NRMA INSURANCE: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Pricing Policies NURTURE INC: Plaintiffs Class Cert Reply Extended to March 7, 2025 NVIDIA CORP: Tobias Bid for Initial OK of Settlement Terminated NVIDIA CORP: Tobias Suit Seeks Prelim. Approval of Class Settlement OMNI FAMILY: Snelson FDCPA Suit Removed to E.D. California ONEPOINT PATIENT: Cobb Sues Over Failure to Secure Information PARAMOUNT GLOBAL: Faces Class Action Suit Over WARN Act Violation PENSKE LOGISTICS: Milam's Bid to Consolidate Denied PENSKE LOGISTICS: Nelson's Bid to Consolidate Tossed PORSCHE AG: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Tycan Batteries PRESTIGE CARE: Class Action Settlement in Brim Gets Initial Nod PROVIDENCE ST. JOSEPH: Fails to Disclose Wage Scale, Spencer Claims QUALITY CARRIERS: Underpays Delivery Drivers, Smith Suit Says QUEBEC MAJOR: Superior Court Authorizes Abuse Class-Action Suit QUICK BOX: Tan Seeks Final Approval of Class Settlement R1 RCM: Parties Must File Joint Status Report in Locke Class Suit RAUL LABRADOR: Plaintiffs' Bid for Preliminary Injunction Granted REAGAN GOLD GROUP: Hoffman Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Washington RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE: Court Certifies Settlement Class REGENCE BLUESHIELD: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Cert Bid REGENCE BLUESHIELD: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert by May 30, 2025 RELX PLC: Expert Witness Exchange Due April 20, 2026 RENEWABLE ENERGY: Scheduling Order Entered in Rohde Class Suit RENTOKIL INITIAL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set Jan. 17 SAFEWAY INC: Sends Unwanted Telemarketing Texts, Sapan Alleges SAGE THERAPEUTICS: Pension Funds Appointed as Lead Plaintiffs SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Fact Discovery in Delahoy Due Sept. 8, 2025 SAN BERNARDINO, CA: Standing Order Entered in Benitez Class Suit SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Class Cert Bid Filing Modified to May 6, 2025 SANYO FOODS: Shin's Class Certification Bid Denied w/o Prejudice SARA CODY: Seeks Class Decertification in UNIFYSCC Lawsuit SENTINELONE INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit SERVICE MANAGEMENT: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due Feb. 6, 2026 SET FORTH: Baca Sues Over Failure to Safeguard Information SIEMENS MOBILITY: Must File Class Cert Opposition by Jan. 17, 2025 SIGNATURE LANDSCAPE: Class Cert. Filing Due May 6, 2025 SPACE COAST: Court Dismisses Leyva Suit with Prejudice SPRINKLR INC: Continues to Defend Boshart Securities Class Suit STANWELL CORP: Court Dismisses Competition Class Action Suit SUMMIT MATERIALS: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Quikrete SURFACE PROS: Class Pretrial Conference in Masons Due Jan. 8, 2025 SYMBOTIC INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set Feb. 3 SYMBOTIC INC: Continues to Defend Decker Class Suit in Mass. SYMBOTIC INC: Continues to Defend Fox Class Suit in Mass. T-MOBILE US: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Misleading Pricing TASKUS INC: Bid to File Class Supplemental Briefs OK'd TECH NETWORK: De La Rosa Files FLSA Suit in E.D. New York TEGRIA HOLDINGS: Rule 23 Class Gets Final Certification TELEPERFORMANCE SE: Warren "ADRs" Suit Seeks to Certify Class TPUSA INC: Faces Roy Suit Over Unpaid OT for Call Center Employees TRANSPORT CANADA: Faces Class Action Over Well Water Contamination TRUE WORLD: Byrd Sues Over Failure to Use Up To-Date Security TTEC SERVICES: Alvarez Seeks Conditional Status of Action UNISYS CORP: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims UNIVERSITY OF OREGON: Class Cert Bid Filing Due June 12, 2025 UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Court Seals Class Docs VARSITY BRANDS: Court Certifies Three Classes in Jones Lawsuit VENEZUELA: Faces Creditor Class Suit After Missing Bond Payments WARNER BROS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set January 24 WHOLE FOODS: Safari Seeks to Certify Class WHOLE FOODS: Safari Seeks to File Class Cert Docs Under Seal WILLIAM HEINEMANN: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Products [*] US Tech Giants Face First UK Class Action Over AI Data ********* ADAMS RESOURCES: M&A Probes Merger With Tres Energy Affiliate ------------------------------------------------------------- Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating: -- Adams Resources & Energy, Inc. (NYSE: AE), relating to the proposed merger with an affiliate of Tres Energy LLC. Under the terms of the agreement, Adams stockholders will receive $38.00 per share in cash for each share of Adams common stock they own. Click here for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/adams-resources-energy-inc-ae/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Evergreen Corporation (Nasdaq: EVGR), relating to its proposed merger with Forekast Limited. Under the terms of the agreement, Forekast shares will automatically be converted into the right to receive a number of Evergreen shares. Click here for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/evergreen-corporation/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Cross Country Healthcare, Inc. (NASDAQ: CCRN), relating to the proposed merger with Aya Healthcare. Under the terms of the agreement, shares of Cross Country will be converted into the right to receive $18.61 in cash. Click here for more https://monteverdelaw.com/case/cross-country-healthcare-inc-ccrn/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- BurTech Acquisition Corp. (NASDAQ: BRKH), relating to the proposed merger with Blaize, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, shares of BurTech Acquisition will be exchanged for shares of Blaize. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for December 23, 2024. Click here for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/burtech-acquisition-corp-brkh/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . . and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common stock in any of the above listed companies and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 United States of America jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com Tel: (212) 971-1341 Attorney Advertising. (C) 2024 Monteverde & Associates PC. The law firm responsible for this advertisement is Monteverde & Associates PC (www.monteverdelaw.com). Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. [GN] AEHR TEST: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set February 3 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 Aehr Test Systems (NASDAQ: AEHR) between January 9, 2024 and March 24, 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 February 3, 2025. SO WHAT: If you purchased Aehr 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 Aehr class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=31986 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for more information. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than February 3, 2025. 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 achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company at the time. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, during the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) contrary to prior representations to investors, Aehr was continuing to experience substantial delays in customer orders; (2) the foregoing issue was likely to have a material negative impact on Aehr's revenue growth; (3) accordingly, Aehr's business and/or financial prospects were overstated; and (4) as a result, Aehr's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. To join the Aehr class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=31986 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. Advertisement - Scroll to Continue Follow us for updates on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm, on Twitter: https://twitter.com/rosen_firm or on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/rosenlawfirm/. 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] AEHR TEST: Faces Shareholder Class Suit Over Misleading Statements ------------------------------------------------------------------ A shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against Aehr Test Systems, Inc. ("Aehr" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: AEHR). The lawsuit alleges that Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse facts about Aehr's business, operations, and prospects, including allegations that: (i) contrary to prior representations to investors, Aehr was continuing to experience substantial delays in customer orders; (ii) the foregoing issue was likely to have a material negative impact on the Company's revenue growth; and (iii) accordingly, the Company's business and/or financial prospects were overstated. If you bought shares of Aehr between January 9, 2024, and March 24, 2024, and you suffered a significant loss on that investment, you are encouraged to discuss your legal rights by contacting Corey D. Holzer, Esq. at cholzer@holzerlaw.com, by toll-free telephone at (888) 508-6832 or you may visit the firm's website at www.holzerlaw.com/case/aehr-test-systems/ to learn more. The deadline to ask the court to be appointed lead plaintiff in the case is February 3, 2025. Holzer & Holzer, LLC, an ISS top rated securities litigation law firm for 2021, 2022, and 2023, dedicates its practice to vigorous representation of shareholders and investors in litigation nationwide, including shareholder class action and derivative litigation. Since its founding in 2000, Holzer & Holzer attorneys have played critical roles in recovering hundreds of millions of dollars for shareholders victimized by fraud and other corporate misconduct. More information about the firm is available through its website, www.holzerlaw.com, and upon request from the firm. Holzer & Holzer, LLC has paid for the dissemination of this promotional communication, and Corey Holzer is the attorney responsible for its content.  CONTACT: Corey Holzer, Esq. (888) 508-6832 (toll-free) cholzer@holzerlaw.com [GN] APPLE INC: Appeals Court Dismisses iCloud Storage Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Chance Miller, writing for 9TO5MAC, reports that a multi-year attempt to establish a class action lawsuit against Apple over iCloud storage has officially been dismissed. In a new court filing this week, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit tossed out the lawsuit and said the plaintiffs failed to make their case. In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs made multiple allegations about iCloud and Apple's upgrade tactics. They alleged that Apple tries to trick the public into thinking they must pay for iCloud storage. The plaintiffs also accused Apple of unfair competition practices, breach of contract, fraud, and more. The primary allegation was that Apple "deceives customers into paying for its iCloud data storage service by falsely representing that it is possible for users to reduce their storage and remain within iCloud's free 5 GB storage plan." In a new court filing this week, spotted by Law360, the Ninth Circuit rebuffed those claims. A district court dismissed the lawsuit in May 2022, and the plaintiffs then appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In the filing this week, the appeals court ruled that the district court "correctly dismissed" the case. From this week's filing: Plaintiffs also failed to plead an actionable misrepresentation. By the allegations of the third amended complaint, Apple made no representations that it would assist consumers in managing their data to stay under the 5 GB limit for free iCloud storage. While Apple did represent that users could reduce their iCloud storage, plaintiffs have failed to allege facts showing that it is "virtually impossible" for them to reduce their storage. As for the plaintiffs' attempts to argue breach of contract: The district court correctly dismissed the breach of contract claim. Plaintiffs argue that Apple's Terms & Conditions and an Apple email warning users that they are approaching the free 5 GB limit contain enforceable promises that users can reduce their data storage below 5 GB to avoid paying for iCloud, or to downgrade to the free plan from a paid tier. But the statements plaintiffs point to contain no enforceable promises and instead are merely informational. And even if these statements constituted enforceable promises, plaintiffs have not alleged facts showing that these promises were breached. As discussed above, plaintiffs have not adequately alleged that it is impossible to reduce data and to downgrade to the free 5 GB plan. The plaintiffs in the case were "granted three opportunities to amend" their case to address the shortcomings called out by the district court. The court then dismissed the case as it became "clear that the complaint could not be saved by amendment." Apple, however, is still battling a separate class action lawsuit over iCloud's 5GB free tier and other restrictions related to iPhone backup. That case is being led by the Hagens Berman law firm, which is the same law firm behind many different class action lawsuits against Apple. Most notably, the firm handled the $560 million class action Apple Books price-fixing lawsuit against Apple. [GN] APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over iCloud CSAM Technology Failure ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jack Purcher, writing for Patently Apple, reports that a New York Times report filed December 8, states that Apple is embroiled in a class action lawsuit for failing to properly find and delete child sexual abuse (CSA M) material from iCloud. An anonymous 27-year-old woman filed the lawsuit in the Northern District Court of California on December 7, and there is a possibility that 2,680 potential victims will join the lawsuit later. If Apple is found liable in the trial, the total damages could exceed $1.2 billion (approximately 1.7 trillion won) considering additional lawsuits from potential victims. The woman who filed the lawsuit stated that she was sexually abused by a relative when she was young, and that the perpetrator shared the victim's photos with others. The photos were also stored in Apple's iCloud and shared with many people, and she complained that she suffered trauma because law enforcement notified her of the fact whenever the people involved were indicted for possession of child abuse photos. The victims claim that the damages expanded when Apple abandoned the function it developed to automatically find and monitor child sexual abuse material on iPhones and other devices. In fact, Apple developed a related function, but gave up introducing the function in 2021 due to controversy over privacy violations. Those who filed this lawsuit claim, "If Apple had introduced the CSAM technology announced in 2021, the victims' child sexual abuse videos and images would have been detected and removed," and "Apple's failure to do so is causing ongoing damage." [GN] ARCADIA BIOSCIENCES: M&A Probes Merger With Roosevelt Resources --------------------------------------------------------------- Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm") headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating Arcadia Biosciences, Inc. (NASDAQ: RKDA), relating to the proposed merger with Roosevelt Resources LP. Under the terms of the agreement, Roosevelt and Arcadia shareholders are expected to own approximately 90% and 10%, respectively, of the outstanding shares of Arcadia. Click here for more https://monteverdelaw.com/case/arcadia-biosciences-inc-rkda/. 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 Attorney Advertising. (C) 2024 Monteverde & Associates PC. The law firm responsible for this advertisement is Monteverde & Associates PC (www.monteverdelaw.com). Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. [GN] ARCH RESOURCES: M&A Probes Proposed Merger With Consol Energy ------------------------------------------------------------- Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), has recovered millions of dollars for shareholders and is recognized as a Top 50 Firm by ISS Securities Class Action Services Report. We are headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City and are investigating: -- Arch Resources, Inc. (NYSE: ARCH), relating to its proposed merger with Consol Energy, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, all Arch Resources common stock will be automatically converted into the right to receive 1.326 shares of Consol Energy stock. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for January 9, 2025. Click here for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/arch-resources-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- 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. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for January 15, 2025. Click here for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/universal-stainless-alloy-products-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Cyclo Therapeutics, Inc. (Nasdaq: CYTH), relating to its proposed merger with Rafael Holdings, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, Cyclo common stock will automatically be converted into the right to receive shares of Rafael common stock. Click here for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/cyclo-therapeutics-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- BurTech Acquisition Corp. (NASDAQ: BRKH), relating to the proposed merger with Blaize, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, shares of BurTech Acquisition will be exchanged for shares of Blaize. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for December 23, 2024. Click here for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/burtech-acquisition-corp-brkh/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . . and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common stock in any of the above listed companies and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 United States of America jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com Tel: (212) 971-1341 Attorney Advertising. (C) 2024 Monteverde & Associates PC. The law firm responsible for this advertisement is Monteverde & Associates PC (www.monteverdelaw.com). Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. [GN] ASP ISOTOPES: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set February 3 ------------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the upcoming February 3, 2025 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired ASP Isotopes Inc. ("ASP Isotopes" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: ASPI) securities between October 30, 2024 and November 26, 2024, inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you suffered a loss on your ASP Isotopes investments or would like to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact information at www.glancylaw.com/cases/ASP-Isotopes-Inc/. You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights. On November 26, 2024, Fuzzy Panda Research published a report which alleged that ASP Isotopes is "using old, disregarded laser enrichment technology to masquerade as a new, cutting-edge Uranium enrichment." The report quoted a former employee of Klydon (the company ASP Isotopes purchased its "proprietary" technology from) as stating scientists "did not think it would work on Uranium." The report revealed a series of experts interviewed stated the Company's reported cost estimates and timeline for building its HALEU uranium facilities was misleading to the point of being "delusional." The report further alleged the Company had significantly overstated the significance of its agreement with TerraPower, which was only a "non-binding" memorandum of understanding entered into to "put pressure on [TerraPower's] real suppliers." The report quoted a former TerraPower executive as stating that ASP Isotopes was "missing the manufacturing; They are missing the processes as well; They still have to develop the HALEU . . . the most important part." Finally, the report revealed that the Company's subsidiary, Quantum Leap Energy, which operates its nuclear fuels segment and to which the Company assigned the TerraPower memoranda of understanding, was completely absent from its registered South African address. The report revealed there were "zero signs" of their presence and "security guards and neighboring business about them all told us they had never heard of the companies." On this news, the Company's stock price fell $1.80 or 23.53%, to close at $5.85 per share on November 26, 2024, on unusually heavy trading volume. The stock continued to fall on the subsequent trading date, falling $0.83 or 14.19%, to close at $5.02 per share on November 27, 2024, on unusually heavy trading volume. The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) the Company overstated the potential effectiveness of its enrichment technology; (2) the Company overstated the development potential of its high assay low-enriched uranium facility; (3) the Company overstated the Company's nuclear fuels operating segment results; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. If you purchased or otherwise acquired ASP Isotopes securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than February 3, 2025 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit, please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. Contacts Charles Linehan, Esq. Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles (310) 201-9150 or (888) 773-9224 shareholders@glancylaw.com www.glancylaw.com [GN] ASP ISOTOPES: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), announces that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Corredor v. ASP Isotopes Inc., et al., Case No. 24-cv-09253, on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired ASP Isotopes Inc. ("ASP Isotopes" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: ASPI) securities between October 30, 2024 and November 26, 2024, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The Plaintiff pursues claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). Investors are hereby notified that they have 60 days from the date of this notice to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this action. If you suffered a loss on your ASP Isotopes investments or would like to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact information at www.glancylaw.com/cases/ASP-Isotopes-Inc/. You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights. On November 26, 2024, Fuzzy Panda Research published a report which alleged that ASP Isotopes is "using old, disregarded laser enrichment technology to masquerade as a new, cutting-edge Uranium enrichment." The report quoted a former employee of Klydon (the company ASP Isotopes purchased its "proprietary" technology from) as stating scientists "did not think it would work on Uranium." The report revealed a series of experts interviewed stated the Company's reported cost estimates and timeline for building its HALEU uranium facilities was misleading to the point of being "delusional." The report further alleged the Company had significantly overstated the significance of its agreement with TerraPower, which was only a "non-binding" memorandum of understanding entered into to "put pressure on [TerraPower's] real suppliers." The report quoted a former TerraPower executives as stating that ASP Isotopes was "missing the manufacturing; They are missing the processes as well; They still have to develop the HALEU. . . the most important part." Finally, the report revealed that the Company's subsidiary, Quantum Leap Energy, which operates its nuclear fuels segment and to which the Company assigned the TerraPower memoranda of understanding, was completely absent from its registered South African address. The report revealed there were "zero signs" of their presence and "security guards and neighboring business about them all told us they had never heard of the companies." On this news, the Company's stock price fell $1.80 or 23.53%, to close at $5.85 per share on November 26, 2024, on unusually heavy trading volume. The stock continued to fall on the subsequent trading date, falling $0.83 or 14.19%, to close at $5.02 per share on November 27, 2024, on unusually heavy trading volume. The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) the Company overstated the potential effectiveness of its enrichment technology; (2) the Company overstated the development potential of its high assay low-enriched uranium facility; (3) the Company overstated the Company's nuclear fuels operating segment results; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. Follow us for updates on LinkedIn, Twitter, or Facebook. If you purchased or otherwise acquired ASP Isotopes securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than 60 days from the date of this notice to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. Contacts Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles Charles H. Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 www.glancylaw.com shareholders@glancylaw.com [GN] AUTOMATION PERSONNEL: Settles Data Breach Class Suit for $1.375MM ----------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Automation Personnel Services agreed to a $1.375 million class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims that a 2020 data breach compromised its database of employee and job applicant information. The Automation Personnel Services settlement benefits individuals whose personal information was potentially compromised in the November 2020 data breach. According to the data breach class action lawsuit, Automation Personnel Services failed to implement adequate cybersecurity measures to protect its employees and job applicants from a cyberattack. The APS data breach allegedly compromised sensitive information, such as Social Security numbers and bank account information. Automation Personnel Services is a staffing agency that connects job seekers with employers. The company hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay $1.375 million to resolve these data breach allegations. Under the terms of the Automation Personnel Services settlement, class members can receive up to $5,000 in reimbursement for out-of-pocket losses related to the data breach, such as bank fees, credit monitoring expenses and fraudulent charges. Under this reimbursement cap, class members who experienced lost time as a result of the APS data breach can receive up to four hours of lost time compensation at a rate of $20 per hour. All class members are eligible to receive one year of free credit monitoring through Identity Theft Guard Solutions. The deadline for exclusion and objection was Nov. 25, 2024. The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for Feb. 6, 2025. The claim form deadline is Dec. 24, 2024. Who's Eligible Individuals whose personal information was potentially compromised in a November 2020 data breach Automation Personnel Services announced in March 2021 Potential Award $5,000 Proof of Purchase Documentation of out-of-pocket losses, such as receipts, bills or bank statements Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 12/24/2024 Case Name Madkin v. Automation Personnel Services Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-01177-AMM, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama Final Hearing 02/06/2025 Settlement Website APSSettlement.com Claims Administrator APS Settlement Administrator 1650 Arch St., Ste. 2210 Philadelphia, PA19103 Class Counsel Anthony Mastando Eric J Artrip MASTANDO & ARTRIP LLC Richard P Rouco QUINN CONNOR WEAVER DAVIES & ROUCO LLP Defense Counsel Claudia McCarron MULLEN COUGHLIN LLC [GN] BAYER INC: Benzene Class Action Dismissed Over Lack of Standing --------------------------------------------------------------- Riley Brennan, writing for Law.com, reports that a federal judge in Pennsylvania threw out a proposed benzene class action over a lack of standing after concluding the plaintiff failed to assure the court that the products she purchased were contaminated. In December 5 decision, U.S. District Judge John M. Gallagher of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted Lake Consumer Products Inc.'s motion to dismiss plaintiff Lorisa Pineda's class action suit over allegations the company's coal tar shampoo products she purchased contained benzene, an alleged human carcinogen. In Pineda v. Lake Consumer Products, the court concluded Pineda's claims regarding the presence of benzene in the defendants' products weren't particularized enough to survive the motion to dismiss. The ruling follows a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit decision last month reviving a benzene class action against Bayer, after the circuit court found the plaintiffs plausibly alleged that the products in question were worth less than they would have been if they were not contaminated. "While plaintiff can sufficiently allege a cognizable injury, she fails to allege this injury with the particularity needed to withstand defendant’s motion. Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that test results show the presence of benzene in several of defendant’s products, but she fails to offer any connection between the test results and the products that she alleges that she purchased," Gallagher said. "Because plaintiff lacks standing, defendant’s motion to dismiss will be granted." Pineda brought claims for breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, fraud, negligent misrepresentation and omission, violation of consumer protection law, negligence, and unjust enrichment against Lake Consumer Products. She claimed to have purchased "at least one or more" products from the defendant. Pineda alleged that testing of the defendants' coal tar shampoo products revealed "dangerously high" levels of benzene. Despite concluding Pineda could establish she suffered a cognizable injury, the court found her complaint's claims regarding the testing of the products were missing sufficient details to support her claims. According to the court, Pineda based her allegation of particularity on the theory of representative testing, but failed to overcome the "low hurdles" necessary to establish that the products she purchased were contaminated. In assessing the point of particularity, the court looked to paragraph 21 of Pineda's complaint, where she alleged that testing of Lake Consumer's coal tar shampoo products revealed that they contained between 5.64 ppm and 10.30 ppm of benzene. According to the court, Pineda defined her reference to coal tar shampoo products to include several of the defendant’s products under the brand MG217. However, Gallagher concluded her allegations regarding the testing of the products weren't specific enough to assure the court "above the speculative level" that the products she purchased were contaminated. "Plaintiff’s complaint is incredibly vague as to the details surrounding the testing. She does not specify whether each, a combination of, just one, or some of the three of defendant’s products is included in this alleged test result. Plaintiff similarly does not allege when these tested products were acquired and whether the date of purchase could give rise to a reasonable inference that Plaintiff’s products were similarly contaminated," Gallagher said. "Likewise, nothing in the complaint indicates that the contamination was so widespread that the Court can make a reasonable inference that plaintiff purchased contaminated products. The frequency in which the benzene was allegedly found in the testing samples is also not mentioned." "None of this is mentioned to suggest that each of these characteristics would be necessary to establish the requisite particularity. However, plaintiff’s complaint, as it currently stands, does not provide the requisite nexus between the alleged contamination and the particular products plaintiff purchased -- even with the admittedly lenient standard from which representative testing can be used to fulfill this requirement," Gallagher said. Pineda's attorney, Conlee Schell Whiteley of Kanner & Whiteley, in New Orleans, and Lake Consumer Products' attorney, Jordan Factor of Allen Vellone Wolf Helfrich & Factor, in Denver, did not immediately respond to requests for comment. [GN] BAYER INC: Judge Dismisses Essure Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------ Kristian Silva, writing for ABC News, reports that a group of more than 1,400 women have lost a class action lawsuit against Bayer, with a judge ruling they failed to prove the female contraceptive device Essure led to major health problems. Australian women had began signing up the class action in 2018, complaining of crippling pain, heavy bleeding. Some required a hysterectomy. What's next? The judgement is set to be formalised in coming days, with an appeal possible next year. More than 1,400 women have lost a class action lawsuit against pharmaceutical giant Bayer, with a Victorian judge rejecting their claims that a female contraceptive device caused major health problems. On Tuesday, December 10, Justice Andrew Keogh ruled the allegations made by the group were "far from compelling", and failed to prove that the Essure implants led to adverse effects like heavy bleeding and serious, ongoing pain. Essure was a permanent contraceptive system, which worked by inserting flexible, metal coils into a woman's fallopian tubes. It was designed to cause scarring and block the tubes. The product was commercially available in Australia from about 2001 to 2017. Justice Keogh's judgement was a definitive win for Bayer, which was defending the case. The judge knocked back claims that Essure was defective, a product of poor quality and that its manufacturers were negligent in its design. "I've largely accepted the defendant's submissions," he said. "Chronic pelvic pain and abnormal uterine bleeding commonly affect women of reproductive age. There is a broad range of potential causes of both disorders." About 20 of the women involved in the case, including Tanya Davidson, were in court to see the decision handed down. "Before insertion, I had no issues whatsoever. And post insertion, it all started … how do you say that the evidence isn't there?" Ms Davidson said outside court. Ms Davidson urged other women seeking contraception options never to have anything inserted into their bodies and to conduct their research. "I did something for myself, and it backfired," she said. Another woman, who identified herself as Nina, held back tears as she angrily denounced the court's ruling. "We've been injured by this device, and the pharmaceutical companies should be held responsible," she said. "We're very appalled and disgusted with this." Justice Keogh's judgement is set to be formalised in the coming days, with an appeal possible next year. "If there's another day to fight we'll be here to fight it," Ms Davidson said. Australian women began signing up to the class action, run by law firm Slater and Gordon, in 2018. Women who spoke to the ABC complained of crippling pain and heavy bleeding caused by the devices. Some suffered allergies to nickel in the coil, while others required a hysterectomy -- or removal of the uterus -- to rid themselves of the implant. Mediation between the parties failed, sending the case to a 12-week Supreme Court trial last year. The class action was spearheaded by Patrice Turner, a now-38-year-old who had the Essure devices inserted in 2013. Ms Turner said she suffered "severe, sharp and stabbing pain in the pelvis and lower abdomen" and bleeding, which led to her undergoing a hysterectomy five years later. "We are profoundly grateful for the courage of lead plaintiff Patrice Turner in giving evidence in this proceeding on behalf of the group," Slater and Gordon said in a statement. "We want to thank the 1,400 women who stood with Patrice in bringing the class action. We will now carefully review Justice Keogh's judgement." In 2018, Bayer refused to release its Australian sales figures, with the ABC estimating it to be more than 3,000 between 2005 and 2017. In a statement, Bayer said it stood by the product, which was supported by "an extensive body of research" including 10 clinical trials and 150 studies involving more than 280,000 women. "Bayer welcomes today's decision by the Court as it is in line with the science-based profile of the safety and efficacy of Essure, a permanent contraceptive device for women," the company said. "The health and wellbeing of women who rely on our products is our greatest priority. Women who currently have Essure may continue to confidently rely on the device. If a woman with Essure has questions or concerns about the device, then we encourage her to speak to her healthcare professional." The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) issued a "hazard alert" for the product in 2017, although the manufacturer said it was being withdrawn from the Australian market for commercial reasons. Bayer was sued by women who had experienced similar complaints while using the product in the United States, and agreed to a $US1.6 billion settlement. However that settlement had no impact on the Australian case. "This decision to settle in the US reflects factors unique to the American mass tort legal system, including the high costs of US litigation, and did not include any admission of wrongdoing or liability by Bayer," the company said. [GN] BLACKSTONE INC:KRS Breach of Contract Suit Stayed ------------------------------------------------- Blackstone, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2024, that in August 2021, a group of Kentucky Retirement System (KRS) members filed an action in Franklin County Circuit Court against the Blackstone. In July 2024, the court stayed the action pending resolution of the writ of prohibition. Plaintiffs alleged various breaches of fiduciary duty and other violations of Kentucky state law in connection with KRS's investment in three hedge funds of funds, including a fund managed by Blackstone Alternative Asset Management L.P. In July 2022, most defendants moved to dismiss, which the court denied in May 2024. These defendants subsequently filed appeals in the Court of Appeals, including a cross-appeal filed by Blackstone, which is currently pending. In July 2024, Blackstone and the other fund managerss filed a petition for a writ of prohibition, which is also pending. In July 2024, the court stayed the action pending resolution of the writ of prohibition. Blackstone Inc., is an alternative asset manager based in New York. CAITLYN JENNER: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set January 17 --------------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of the cryptocurrency "$JENNER" on the Solana and/or Ethereum blockchains between May 26, 2024 and the present, inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important January 17, 2025 lead plaintiff deadline. SO WHAT: If you purchased $JENNER 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 $JENNER class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=31137 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for more information. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than January 17, 2025. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions, but are merely middlemen that refer clients or partner with law firms that actually litigate cases. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company at the time. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, Defendant Caitlyn Jenner offered and sold $JENNER by means of written and oral communications which contained materially false and misleading statements, and omitted material facts necessary to make the statements not misleading, including but not limited to the following: (1) misrepresentations regarding the potential profitability, functionality, and value of $JENNER; (2) failing to disclose the risks associated with investing in $JENNER, including regulatory risks and potential lack of liquidity; (3) misleading statements about the project's financial health, business prospects, and future growth opportunities; (4) Jenner's and other insiders' own holdings and financial interests in the enterprise; and (5) false and misleading statements about getting $JENNER listed on centralized cryptocurrency exchanges ("CEXs"). When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. To join the $JENNER class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=31137 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] CANADA: Court Certifies Class Action Over Abuse by Military Priest ------------------------------------------------------------------ Wallis Snowdon of CBC Edmonton reports that a class-action lawsuit attempting to hold the federal government responsible for sexual abuse suffered by children at the hands of a military priest at an Edmonton army base has been certified in the Alberta courts. The case alleges that the federal government allowed a Canadian Armed Forces chaplain, Capt. Angus McRae, to sexually abuse children who were living on armed forces bases with their families. McRae, who died in 2011, served at bases across Canada before he was convicted of sexual crimes against children. The representative plaintiff, Bobby Bees of Vancouver, wants to hold the federal government accountable for failing to stop the abuse, the dark memories of which torment him daily. "I went through so much hell," said Bees, 52, in an interview with CBC. "My entire childhood after that was just torn apart." The $60-million claim seeks to hold the government liable for McRae's misconduct, alleging that the Armed Forces knew or ought to have known about the abuse. Bees's legal team, Calgary-based Napoli Shkolnik, is encouraging other victims of McRae to come forward. 'Torment and depression' In a written ruling issued last week, Justice Robert Neufeld of the Court of King's Bench of Alberta, granted the case class-action status. The case can proceed on behalf of any of McRae's child victims, the Calgary judge ruled. "It encourages victims who would otherwise remain hidden to seek access to justice, as they would not be alone in their pursuit," Neufeld wrote of his decision to certify the case. "Bees has, for many years, pursued access to justice in respect of his claim of sexual abuse as a child. He appears to have suffered many years of torment and depression." Bees said the certification is welcome news but bittersweet. Bees said he will never feel closure. A childhood marked by a web of lies that left Bees feeling shame and at fault for the abuse. Bees said he was failed by the adults in his life who were meant to keep him safe, and by the military justice system. "I'm hoping that this case can show the trauma that, not only myself, but others went through -- especially in a military environment -- can have detrimental toxic mental effects that last a lifetime." According to the case, Bees -- who grew up on military bases across Canada -- was victimized during his time at Canadian Forces Base Namao more than four decades ago. The case alleges that the misconduct spanned from 1978 to 1980, when Bees was between the ages of 7 to 9. According to the statement of claim filed in 2021, Bees was subjected to numerous cases of mental, physical and sexual abuse by McRae and one of his altar boys, identified in the court record as P.S. McRae had been an officer in the Canadian Armed Forces in 1973 and subsequently joined the military chaplaincy. The altar boy, who had also been victimized by the chaplain, acted as an "agent" for the priest, abusing Bees repeatedly under McRae's supervision, the case alleges. Bees attests that he was repeatedly taken to the base chapel where he was drugged and sexually abused by the boy, in the presence of McRae. Bees remembers being fed a sickly sweet liquid, possibly grape juice, that left his memory spotty. The case also alleges that McRae ensured Bees was regularly babysat by the older boy, exposing him to further instances of sexual abuse. According to the claim, the abuse suffered by McRae's victims included private and public degradation, physical assaults and forced confinements. "McRae used this position of power, granted to him by the defendant, Canada, to abuse hundreds of children mentally, physically and sexually," his statement of claim says. A confession Bees's allegations against the altar boy led the military police to open an investigation into McRae's misconduct which ultimately resulted in a confession from the priest. According to Neufeld decision, in June 1980, McRae admitted to having sexually abused "several minors" over the preceding "couple of years" at an ecclesiastical court, convened by a Catholic diocese. He was punished with the imposition of mandatory counselling, followed by five years of residency at a monastery or similar institution. In July 1980, McRae was subject to a court martial and eventually booted out of the military. In 2008, the altar boy, P.S., brought a civil action against McRae which was later settled out of court. Transcripts from 1980 court martial proceedings, released in 2020, show the military knew McRae had other victims and knew of previous sexual allegations against the priest. 'Without detection' After being removed from military service and moving away from Alberta, he was later convicted of molesting two young boys in Ontario. "He admitted to having sexually abused several children during his 'couple of years' at the base, was court-martialled and was separately charged and sentenced to penitence by the Catholic Church," Justice Neufeld wrote. "These facts and circumstances all beg the question of how the late Father McRae came to be given the opportunity to minister to children at CFB bases in Canada, and to sexually abuse children for at least a couple of years without detection." The federal Crown, named as defendant in the case, had opposed certification of the action, taking issue with the framing of the allegations. According to the court record, lawyers for the Crown argued that the claim had failed to prove that the government could be held liable for the assaults allegedly committed by the altar boy. The government also argued that the claim did not support the allegation that children at CFB Namao were under government custody and supervision and that Canada had acted as de facto parents for the children. Lawyers for the government have not responded to requests for comment on the case. The position held by Father McRae was part "ecclesiastical, and part military," Neufeld wrote, and victims should have their day in court. "He had the power of a priest, and the rank of captain," the judge wrote. "Alleged victims should be given the opportunity to show that Canada was negligent in the hiring and supervision of its employee." 'The ultimate respite' Bees has long been haunted by what he endured. He plans to seek a medically-assisted death in the near future. In his decision, Neufeld acknowledged Bees's ongoing torment and desire to die as "the ultimate respite from his lifelong depression." "One can only hope that access to justice, however this action is resolved, will lead or assist Mr. Bees to find a different path." Bees was part of the campaign to expand the availability of medical assistance in dying to people with severe mental health issues and wrote to a special joint committee about his desire to die. He said he had no choice in the matter of his sexual abuse or how it was dealt with and begged the government to give him the choice over how his life would end. It's something he still wants, to escape the daily pain he endures and the guilt he can't seem to shake for what happened to him. "You can never get rid of it," he said. "Those memories, they are still with me." [GN] CAPSTONE LOGISTICS: Montes Suit Removed to E.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Adriana Montes, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated individuals v. CAPSTONE LOGISTICS, LLC, WINCO FOODS, LLC, AND DOES 1 TO 50, Case No. 24CV-05385 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Merced, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on Dec. 5, 2024, and assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-01485-SAB. The Plaintiff bases her claims on alleged violations of the California Labor Code. Specifically, Plaintiff claims that Defendants allegedly violated the Labor Code by: failing to pay Plaintiff and other putative class members all wages, including minimum and overtime wages; failing to provide Plaintiff and other putative class members meal periods; failing to provide Plaintiff and other putative class members rest periods; failing to provide Plaintiff and other putative class members recovery periods; failing to produce wage statements; failing to produce personnel records; failing to produce signed records; failing to implement heat prevention and maintain legal temperature controls; failing to provide Plaintiff and other putative class members accurate itemized wage statement; failing to pay Plaintiff and other putative class members waiting time penalties; failing to reimburse Plaintiff and other putative class members for necessary business expenditures; for violating California's quota laws; and for violating California Business and Professions Code Section.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Esq. Jennifer A. Riley, Esq. DUANE MORRIS LLP 190 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3700 Chicago, IL 60603-3433 Phone: +1 312 499 6700 Fax: +1 312 499 6701 Email: gmaatman@duanemorris.com jariley@duanemorris.com - and - Nick Baltaxe, Esq. Derrick Fong-Stempel, Esq. Meriel Kim, Esq. DUANE MORRIS LLP 865 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3100 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5450 Phone: +1 213 689 7400 Fax: +1 213 403 6511 Email: nbaltaxe@duanemorris.com dfongstempel@duanemorris.com mkim@duanemorris.com CARRIAGE SERVICES: Faces Suit Over Failure to Pay Compensation -------------------------------------------------------------- Carriage Services, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2024, that on July 29, 2024, a wage and hour class action (Case No. 2024-CU-OE-028098) was filed against the company and several of its subsidiaries. The plaintiff, a former employee, seeks monetary damages on behalf of herself and other similarly situated current and former non-exempt employees as the putative class for the alleged failure to pay legally mandated compensation and reimbursement expenses. Carriage Services, Inc. is a funeral and cemetery services provider based in Texas. CDK GLOBAL: Auto Dealers' Claims Filing Deadline Set January 9 -------------------------------------------------------------- Fox Rothschild LLP, in an article for JD Supra, reports that U.S. auto dealers have until Jan. 9, 2025 to submit a claim in the recent $129.5 million class action lawsuit settled by CDK Global, LLC (CDK) and The Reynolds and Reynolds Company (Reynolds). The deadline to object to the fee and expense application and/or allocation and distribution plan is Dec. 12, 2024. In the lawsuit, In re Dealer Management Systems Antitrust Litigation, a group of U.S. automotive dealerships accused CDK and Reynolds of violating federal and state antitrust and consumer protection laws. They said CDK and Reynolds restrained trade and eliminated competition within the marketplace by overcharging Reynolds for dealer management systems (DMS) services and data integration services (DIS). The court previously approved a $29.5 million class action settlement with Reynolds in 2019 and a $100 million class action settlement with CDK in August 2024. Under the latest settlement, members of the affected classes can receive a cash payment that corresponds to the number of months a class member (as defined below) paid for the services of CDK or Reynolds, as applicable. Automotive dealership groups that operate out of multiple locations can submit a claim and receive payments for each of their locations. An automotive dealership that used DMS and DIS from both CDK and Reynolds during the relevant period can be a member of both settlement classes. To qualify as a member of either class, an automotive dealership must fall into either of the below categories: -- CDK Class Member -- "All persons and entities located in the United States engaged in the business of the retail sale of automobiles who purchased DMS from CDK and/or Reynolds, or any predecessor, successor, subsidiary, joint venture or affiliate, during the period from September 1, 2013 through August 15, 2024." -- Reynolds Class Member -- "All persons and entities located in the United States engaged in the business of the retail sale of automobiles who purchased DMSs from CDK and/or Reynolds, or any predecessor, successor, subsidiary, joint venture, or affiliate, during the period from January 1, 2015, through October 23, 2018." Further, an otherwise eligible class member must not have opted out of the relevant settlement class(es). If an automotive dealership elected to be excluded from the settlement class(es), then the automotive dealership may not benefit from the respective settlement. By that same token, automotive dealerships who are not Reynolds class members or who excluded themselves from the Reynolds settlement are still eligible to be a CDK class member. If a class member wishes to receive a portion of the settlement proceeds, the class member must submit a valid claim form by Jan. 9, 2025, through the settlement website: DMS Antitrust Settlement -- Home. If an automotive dealership is both a CDK class member and Reynolds class member, only one claim form must be submitted per dealership physical location. For example, a single dealership group with three separate physical locations, all of which purchased and used DMS during the applicable Reynolds and/or CDK class member periods must submit three separate claim forms, one per location. However, a single dealership group that sells automobiles from multiple original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) at the same physical location must only submit one claim form per physical location. If a valid claim form is not submitted by Jan. 9, 2025, a class member will not receive any portion of the settlement but will be bound by the court’s judgment as to the lawsuit. Class members should also be cognizant that any settlement funds will not be distributed until the court grants final approval of 1) the CDK settlement, 2) the fee and expense application, 3) allocation and distribution plan of the settlement funds, and 4) any and all objections or appeals must be resolved. The confirmation hearing is currently scheduled for Feb. 25, 2025. [GN] COOPERSURGICAL INC: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Class Action Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Emily Cousins, writing for Connecticut Law Tribune, reports that the class action against CooperSurgical, which alleged the Connecticut company was responsible for mass embryo loss due to a defective product used during the in vitro fertilization process, survived a motion to dismiss in the Northern District of California. The ruling was a win for the California members of the proposed class. U.S. District Judge Jon S. Tigar deferred ruling on the claims of non-California plaintiffs due to a jurisdictional challenge by the defendants, CooperSurgical Inc. and The Cooper Companies Inc. At the same time, individual couples have brought separate lawsuits with the same allegations across the country in state and federal court. In just the Northern District of California, at least 39 cases are pending before Tigar. The plaintiffs attorneys expect there are hundreds more affected who could benefit from the class action. The defendants moved to dismiss and strike the class action complaint. CooperSurgical claimed that the plaintiffs cannot recover emotional distress damages because the embryos won't be considered property under state law. However, a federal judge upheld a $15 million jury verdict for three women whose eggs and embryos were destroyed in a cryogenic tank at Pacific Fertility Center in San Francisco. The firm representing the plaintiffs in the class action, Girard Sharp, was one of the firms that worked to achieve the verdict in the 2021 Pacific Fertility Center case. "We have pretty deep experience in IVF cases," Adam Polk of Girard Sharp said. "Our firm tried the only case ever to go to verdict arising out of the loss of eggs or embryos . . . I think that is going to have implications not just for this case, but for cases around the country." Tigar agreed, and concluded that under common law the destruction of a human embryo would fall under an exception to allow emotional distress damages. The court further ruled that the plaintiffs had brought a "plausible theory of liability," and that any potential negligence by the fertility clinic for using the recalled product would "not necessarily absolve CooperSurgical of all liability." Under the motion to strike, the defendants argued that the plaintiffs' claims are too individually unique to fit into a class. "This is not an exceptional case that warrants class claims being stricken at this stage," the court held. Both motions were denied. Jenny Covington of Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough did not respond to a request for comment. "This order means we get to proceed with litigation and start preparing our case for class certification and trial," Polk said. "These are important cases to bring. There's a lot of emotion, time and effort that is wrapped up in IVF, and the losses are traumatic for our clients. To get a ruling like this is a good step." Multiple firms are working on individual cases and class action, such as the Clarkson Law Firm and Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, and the cases in the Northern District of California are proceeding in parallel. But Polk said that it has not been difficult working with the other firms. "It's a relatively small community," Polk said. "I think everybody is able to work together, and the common ground is the clients who suffered these really significant losses. We're not at cross-purposes. We are pulling in the same direction trying to get justice for our clients." [GN] CORRECTIONAL SERVICE: Court Certifies Inmate Privacy Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Angelica Dino, writing for Canadian Lawyer, reports that the Federal Court has certified a class action lawsuit against the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) following allegations of unauthorized interceptions of inmate communications, including solicitor-client privileged exchanges. The case consolidated claims from affected inmates and non-inmates regarding systemic breaches of privacy within CSC facilities. The lawsuit centred on CSC's interception of inmate communications conducted through telephone systems, mail, and in-person or video visits. The plaintiffs argued that CSC violated s. 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which protects against unreasonable searches or seizures, and s. 17 and 18 of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, which address liability for unauthorized interception of private communications. The plaintiffs alleged that CSC monitored privileged legal conversations, opened legal mail, and intercepted faxes without proper authorization, undermining confidentiality rights. These claims are supported by internal audits revealing significant non-compliance with CSC regulations and national policies. Court filings showed that CSC’s Inmate Telephone System (ITS) and related communication systems were improperly configured, leading to unauthorized recordings. In one instance, privileged legal faxes were intercepted and retained in case files, despite being marked as confidential. Audits conducted in 1999 and 2021 documented procedural deficiencies, including improper authorization processes, lack of training for staff, and failures to notify inmates about intercepted communications. The Federal Court found that the plaintiffs satisfied the legal requirements for certifying a class action. It concluded that the claims raise common legal and factual questions, such as whether CSC's actions breached privacy rights under the Charter and statutory provisions. The court also noted that addressing these issues collectively through a class action would promote judicial efficiency and improve access to justice, particularly for inmates, who are considered a vulnerable population. The lawsuit categorized claims into four groups based on the nature of the alleged violations. These include interceptions authorized under s. 94 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (CCRA), unauthorized recordings caused by system misconfigurations, improper handling of mail, and the interception of faxes. Each claim involves both inmates and non-inmates, such as family members and legal counsel, whose communications were allegedly monitored. The court’s decision to certify the class action followed an agreement reached between the parties on key procedural issues. Under the terms of the agreement, the case will now proceed to address the substantive allegations, including whether CSC's actions constituted unreasonable searches and whether the plaintiffs are entitled to damages. [GN] CROSSFIRST BANKSHARES: M&A Probes Proposed Merger With First Busey ------------------------------------------------------------------ Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating: -- Crossfirst Bankshares, Inc. (Nasdaq: CFB ), relating to its proposed merger with First Busey Corporation. Under the terms of the agreement, Crossfirst common stock will automatically be converted into the right to receive 0.6675 shares of Busey common stock. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for December 20, 2024. Click link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/crossfirst-bankshares-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Aerovate Therapeutics, Inc. (Nasdaq: AVTE ), relating to a proposed merger with Jade Biosciences. Under the terms of the agreement, pre-merger Aerovate stockholders are expected to own approximately 1.6% of the combined company, while pre-merger Jade stockholders are expected to own approximately 98.4% of the combined entity. Click link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/aerovate-therapeutics-inc-avte/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Liberty Broadband Corporation (NASDAQ: LBRDA, LBRDK, LBRDP ), relating to the proposed merger with Charter Communications, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, Liberty Broadband common stockholders will receive 0.236 of a share of Charter common stock per share of Liberty Broadband common stock they own. Click link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/liberty-broadband-corporation-lbrda-lbrdk-lbrdp/ . It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- EMCORE Corporation (NASDAQ: EMKR ), relating to its proposed merger with Velocity One Holdings, LP. Under the terms of the agreement, EMCORE stockholders will receive $3.10 per share of EMCORE common stock they own. Click link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/emcore-corporation-emkr/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . . and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common stock in any of the above listed companies and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 United States of America jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com Tel: (212) 971-1341 Attorney Advertising. (C) 2024 Monteverde & Associates PC. The law firm responsible for this advertisement is Monteverde & Associates PC ( www.monteverdelaw.com ). Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. [GN] DARRELL P. WHEELER: Baptist Sues Over False Arrest -------------------------------------------------- Ezra Baptist, Juliet Pearce, Margaret Lewis, Jamie Sanin, Carolyn Lechusza Aquallo, and Chelsea Villalba, on their own and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals who suffered excessive force during their unlawful arrests, and MICHELLE RIDDELL, on her own and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals unlawfully arrested v. DARRELL P. WHEELER in his individual capacity, SHERIFF JUAN FIGUEROA, in his individual capacity, OLIVIA BACHOR and THOMAS BRUSCA, as representatives of a defendant class of New York State Police Officers who violated plaintiffs' rights as set forth herein and who are sued in their individual capacities, DEPUTY SHERIFF HARDER, as a representative of a defendant class of members of the Ulster County Sheriff's Office who violated plaintiffs' rights as set forth herein and who are sued in their individual capacities, PO YUKOVICH, Shield No. 16, as a representative of the class of members of the New Paltz State University Police who violated plaintiffs' rights as set forth herein and are sued in their individual capacities, Case No. 1:24-cv-01478-AMN-TWD (N.D.N.Y., Dec. 5, 2024), is brought stemming from a concerted effort by several law enforcement agencies to suppress and then publicly misrepresent plaintiffs' peaceful demonstration at a public university. Following the tradition of nonviolent campus speech and expression, students and others gathered to protest the atrocities committed by the Israeli government with the active military support of the United States. Thereafter, defendants stormed the nonviolent assembly with the intent of disallowing plaintiffs from continuing their peaceful demonstration, falsely arrested those involved and brutalized many of the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs were unlawfully arrested and subjected to excessive force as part of a coordinated effort to suppress the Plaintiff class members. DARRELL P. WHEELER is the President Of SUNY New Paltz and violated Plaintiffs' rights as set forth herein by ordering the forceful removal of students and others engaging in nonviolent protest on the campus.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael H. Sussman, Esq. SUSSMAN & GOLDMAN 1 Railroad Avenue, 3rd Floor. P.O. Box 1005 Goshen, NY, 10924 Phone: (845)-294-3991 DATAMAXX APPLIED: Berg Sues Over Failure to Secure PHI & PII ------------------------------------------------------------ James Berg, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v. DATAMAXX APPLIED TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Case No. 4:24-cv-00490-WS-MAF (N.D. Fla., Dec. 5, 2024), is brought against the Defendant for failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' protected health information ("PHI") and personally identifiable information ("PII") stored within Defendant's information network. Datamaxx breached its duty to protect the sensitive PHI/PII entrusted to it, and failed to abide by its own Privacy Policy (as discussed infra). As such, Plaintiff brings this Class action on behalf of himself and the approximately 62,000 other consumers whose PHI/PII was accessed and exposed to unauthorized third parties during a data breach of Defendant's system on December 1, 2023, which Datamaxx announced on or about November 25, 2024 (the "Data Breach"). Indeed, Datamaxx did not inform Plaintiff of the Data Breach until November 25, 2024, even though it became aware of the data breach on December 1, 2023. Based on the public statements of Datamaxx to date, a wide variety of PHI/PII was implicated in the breach, including but not limited to, names, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers and medical information. As a direct and proximate result of Datamaxx's inadequate data security, and its breach of its duty to handle PHI/PII with reasonable care, Plaintiff's PHI/PII has been accessed by hackers, posted on the dark web, and exposed to an untold number of unauthorized individuals, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was notified of the Data Breach and of the impact to his PHI/PII via letter from Datamaxx. Datamaxx is a provider of communications, data access, information sharing and enterprise intelligence to law enforcement, criminal justice, public safety and security industries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 201 Alhabra Circle, Suite 1100 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Phone: 786-206-9057 Email: mweekes@milberg.com - and - Marc H. Edelson, Esq. Liberato P. Verderame, Esq. EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP 411 S. State Street, Suite N-300 Newtown, PA 18940 Phone: (215) 867-2399 Email: elechtzin@edelson-law.com lverderame@edelson-law.com DISCOVERY DIGITAL: Discloses Video Info to 3rd Party, Robles Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- VALORIE ROBLES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DISCOVERY DIGITAL VENTURES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-09327 (S.D.N.Y., December 6, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Video Privacy Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant has disclosed to third parties, including Facebook and TikTok, the personally identifiable information (PII) and video information of its apps and website users without consent. The Defendant embedded within its website business tools, including called Facebook Pixel and TikTok Pixel to collect users' data. That pixel tracked the Plaintiff's and the Class members' video viewing history while on the website and reported their viewing history to Facebook and TikTok. As a result, the Defendant violated the Plaintiff's and the Class members' statutorily protected privacy rights, says the suit. Discovery Digital Ventures, LLC, is a mass media factual television conglomerate company headquartered in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adrian Gucovschi, Esq. Benjamin Rozenshteyn, Esq. Nathaniel Haim Sari, Esq. GUCOVSCHI ROZENSHTEYN, PLLC 140 Broadway, FL 46 New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 884-4230 Facsimile: (212) 884-4230 Email: adrian@gr-firm.com ben@gr-firm.com nsari@gr-firm.com DMC GLOBAL: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit in D. Colo. ------------------------------------------------------------- Johnson Fistel, LLP announces that its Denver, Colorado office has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of all purchasers of DMC Global Inc. (NASDAQ: BOOM) securities during the period between May 3, 2024 and November 4, 2024, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The action was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado and is captioned Garson v. DMC Global Inc., Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-03387. The lawsuit charges DMC Global and certain of its top executive officers with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. HOW TO JOIN: The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act permits any investor who is a member of the class described above to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the litigation. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Lead plaintiff motions for the DMC Global class action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than 60 days from the date of this notice. If you wish to seek appointment as lead plaintiff or determine if you can participate in this action, please click or paste the following web address into your browser: https://www.johnsonfistel.com/investigations/dmc-global or contact Jim Baker at jimb@johnsonfistel.com or (619) 814-4471. CASE ALLEGATIONS: DMC Global is a diversified industrial company headquartered in Broomfield, Colorado. The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements and failed to disclose the following adverse facts about DMC Global's business, operations, and prospects which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them: (i) the goodwill associated with the company's principal business segment, Acadia Products, was overstated due to the adverse events and circumstances affecting that reporting segment; (ii) DMC Global's materially inadequate internal systems and processes were adversely affecting its operations; (iii) the company's inadequate systems and processes prevented it from ensuring reasonably accurate guidance and that its public disclosures were timely, accurate, and complete; (iv) as a result, defendants misrepresented DMC Global's operations and financial results; and/or (v) as a result, the company's public statements were materially false, misleading, or lacked a reasonable basis when made. ABOUT JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP: Johnson Fistel, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm with offices in California, New York, Georgia, and Colorado. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder derivative and securities class action lawsuits. For more information about the firm and its attorneys, please visit http://www.johnsonfistel.com. Attorney advertising. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices. Johnson Fistel, LLP has paid for the dissemination of this promotional communication, and Frank J. Johnson is the attorney responsible for its content. CONTACT: Johnson Fistel, LLP 501 W. Broadway, Suite 800, San Diego, CA 92101 James Baker, Investor Relations or Frank J. Johnson, Esq., (619) 814-4471 jimb@johnsonfistel.com or fjohnson@johnsonfistel.com [GN] ELEKTA INC: Settles Data Breach Class Action Suit for $8.9-Mil. --------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Elekta Inc. and Northwestern Memorial Healthcare agreed to pay $8.9 million to resolve claims they failed to prevent a 2021 data breach that compromised sensitive patient information, including genetic data. The Elekta and Northwestern Memorial Healthcare settlement benefits individuals whose sensitive information was accessed or potentially compromised in the April 2021 data breach and who received a data breach notification letter that month. The Northwestern Memorial Healthcare and Elekta settlement also includes a subclass of class members from Illinois who can recover additional relief under Illinois' Genetic Information Privacy Act. The Elekta and Northwestern Memorial Healthcare data breach reportedly compromised the sensitive information of 3.1 million individuals, including 1.4 million patients of Northwestern Memorial Healthcare. According to the class action lawsuit, Elekta should have implemented reasonable cybersecurity to protect patient data, such as names, birth dates, Social Security numbers, health insurance information, medical treatment data and genetic information. Elekta is a medical technology company that specializes in cancer care and brain disorder treatment. Northwestern Memorial Healthcare is a network of hospitals and outpatient facilities in Chicago. Elekta and Northwestern Memorial Healthcare have not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to the $8.9 million class action settlement to resolve the allegations. Under the terms of the settlement, class members can receive cash reimbursement payments and pro rata cash payments. The Northwestern Memorial Healthcare and Elekta settlement offers claimants up to $5,000 in reimbursement for documented out-of-pocket losses related to the data breach, such as bank fees, credit costs, fraud damages and postage costs. To recover these damages, class members must provide documentation, such as bank statements, receipts, tax documents, financial documents and more. Class members can also file a claim for pro rata payments of up to $1,000. GIPA subclass members can receive an additional pro rata payment of up to $1,000. Although both types of pro rata payments are capped at $1,000 per the settlement agreement, actual payments may be lower depending on the number of claims filed and the settlement funds available. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Nov. 26, 2024. The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for Jan. 6, 2025. The claim form deadline is Dec. 26, 2024. Who's Eligible Individuals who received a data breach notification letter informing them their information was compromised or potentially compromised in a 2021 Elekta and Northwestern Memorial Healthcare data breach Potential Award $6,000 Proof of Purchase Documentation of losses, such as bank statements, credit reports, invoices, bills, receipts and other third-party documentation Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 12/26/2024 Case Name Tracy v. Elekta Inc., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-02851-SDG, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia Final Hearing 01/06/2025 Settlement Website ElektaDataSettlement.com Claims Administrator Elekta Data Settlement Administrator P.O. Box 1429 Baton Rouge, LA 70821 info@ElektaDataSettlement.com (844) 377-6369 Class Counsel Bryan L Bleichner CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA Terence R Coates MARKOVITS STOCK & DEMARCO LLC Defense Counsel Michael Hartman SVP REGIONAL GENERAL COUNSEL Julia K Lynch NMH GENERAL COUNSEL [GN] EXXONMOBIL CORP: Ford Cty. Alleges Public Nuisance of Plastic Waste ------------------------------------------------------------------- Shawn Loging, writing for KWCH, reports that a western Kansas county is challenging the plastic industry. Ford County has filed a class action lawsuit saying petrochemical companies like ExxonMobil along with trade and industry groups, have been deceptive about the ability to recycle plastics and call it, "a public nuisance of plastic waste." According to the Center for Climate Integrity, the recycling rate in this country has never exceeded or reached 10 percent, with the current rate at about 5-6 percent for plastic. "Recycling plastic is neither technically nor economically viable, petrochemical companies have engaged in fraudulent marketing and public education campaigns designed to mislead the public about the viability of plastic recycling as a solution to plastic waste," reads the county's lawsuit. The lawsuit cites reports, like one released this year by the Center for Climate Integrity, which investigates the fossil fuel industry. Staff attorney Chelsea Linsley co-authored the report and she said there's growing public awareness around what she says is the industry's deception on plastic waste. "This campaign that the industry has been running for decades to tell the public plastic is recyclable and it's on you to recycle your plastic," said Linsley. "Communities are now pushing back and saying no, it's not on us, it's on you. You lied to us and you need to be held accountable." Linsley said production is growing exponentially but recycling is not addressing plastic waste, "all of this plastic has to go somewhere." Linsley said while one thing the industry advocates for is called advanced recycling, it is still far from being able to achieve the goals promised or scale to what's needed. ExxonMobil issued a response to the lawsuit, stating: "This lawsuit does nothing to advance solutions to plastic waste and pollution. Instead of filing lawsuits, we invite governments, big and small, to work with us on solutions that recognize the value of plastics and improve recycling rates, which are much too low. ExxonMobil is transparent and meticulous in our product claims, and we have been We continue to make sizable investments to help keep plastics out of landfills and expect to have more than one billion pounds of advanced recycling capacity globally by 2027. To date, we've processed more than 70 million pounds of plastic waste into usable raw materials, addressing plastic waste that can't be easily recycled by traditional methods and might otherwise have to be burned or buried. Ross Eisenberg, president of America's Plastic Makers® regarded the Class Action Complaint from Ford County: "The complaint filed by Ford County, Kansas, is littered with claims that are inaccurate, misleading and out of date. The filing pulls text straight from activist action plans and cites extremist groups such as Greenpeace and Beyond Plastics as sources. This is a distraction from the significant innovations and investments plastic makers are making to improve recycling and help prevent pollution, such as design, collection and recycling infrastructure. It would be far more helpful to its citizens and the environment if Ford County invested more in its own recycling infrastructure instead of bringing a misguided lawsuit. ACC looks forward to refuting these meritless allegations and plans to vigorously oppose the claims." [GN] FARM BUREAU: Sales Tax Class Settlement Gets Preliminary Approval ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lori Pilger, writing for News-Press Now, reports that a Lancaster County judge has given preliminary approval of a class-action settlement in a lawsuit by a Lincoln woman who said her insurance company should have to cover sales tax on a vehicle that's been totaled. Last year, Shelly Burklund sued Farm Bureau Property & Casualty Insurance Company on behalf of herself and others similarly situated who suffered damages due to Farm Bureau's refusal to pay ACV (Actual Cash Value) Sales Tax and Regulatory Fees for total-loss vehicles. On Jan. 19, 2020, Burklund's 2011 Acura RDX sustained damage in a crash, prompting her to file a claim with her insurance company. Farm Bureau determined the cost to repair the damage exceeded the value of the vehicle and deemed it a total loss, making the company contractually obligated to pay the actual cash value of the totaled car. But Farm Bureau removed $951 in sales tax from the adjusted value of $13,118 when making the payment to Burklund. Her attorney, Shane Mecham, alleged that was a breach of its contract. "To put insureds back into their pre-loss position after a total loss, defendant is required to pay the full ACV of the vehicle prior to the loss," he wrote in the complaint. Mecham said that includes sales tax and all regulatory fees imposed by the State of Nebraska, like registration, title and license plate fees because it all needed to be replaced. In September, Lancaster County District Judge Kevin McManaman certified Burklund's lawsuit as a class-action, allowing her to seek money for others in a similar position. Burklund and Farm Bureau since have entered into a settlement agreement. On a joint motion, McManaman gave preliminary approval of the settlement agreement, which would obligate Farm Bureau to create a settlement fund to pay class members up to $4.2 million collectively, and up to another $1.26 million in attorneys' fees. Nebraska class members who submit a valid claim are to be paid the sales tax value of their total-loss vehicle, including state and local sales tax, and regulatory fees. Notices will be sent out to all settlement class members, and a website will be set up with information about the settlement. Class counsel believe "that the settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate," according to December 4, order. [GN] FIVE9 INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Securities Violations ------------------------------------------------------------- On Dec. 4, 2024, leading securities law firm Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP ("BFA") filed a class action lawsuit for violations of the federal securities laws against Five9, Inc. (NASDAQ:FIVN) and certain of the Company's senior executives. The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of investors in Five9 securities, including call options, between June 4, 2024 through the close of trading on August 8, 2024, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California and is captioned Lucid Alternative Fund, LP v. Five9, Inc., et al., No. 24-cv-8725. What is the Lawsuit About? Five9 provides cloud-based contact center software enabling its clients to manage multi-channel customer interactions through its Virtual Contact Center platform. The complaint alleges that Five9 misrepresented the purported strength of the Company's net new business bookings and visibility into its installed customer base. During the Class Period, Five9 stated its "net new business" experienced "very strong bookings momentum," was "knocking down some of the largest enterprise brands," and was "strong irrespective of the macro" environment. Five9 also touted its visibility into its installed customers base, representing that the Company had "enough information in terms of our existing customers that are going live" such that Five9 would experience a positive inflection in its dollar based retention rate ("DBRR") in the second half of the year. These statements were materially false and misleading. In truth, Five9's net new business was not "strong irrespective of the macro" and was, in fact, hampered by macroeconomic issues such as constrained and scrutinized customer budgets. What's more, Five9 was in the midst of a challenging bookings quarter due, in part, to sales execution and efficiency issues, and the Company was not seeing "very strong bookings momentum." And Five9 did not have "enough information in terms of [its] existing customers that are going live" such that the Company's statements that it would see a positive inflection in its DBRR lacked a reasonable basis. On August 8, 2024, Five9 released its second quarter 2024 financial results. The Company cut its annual revenue guidance and stated that it was "no longer assuming" a DBRR inflection in the second half of the year. The Company revealed it "had a challenging bookings quarter" due to "constrained and scrutinized" customer budgets and was taking remedial action to address sales execution issues. On this news, the price of Five9 stock declined over 26%, from $42.47 per share on August 8, 2024 to $31.22 per share on August 9, 2024. What are my Rights? Not later than February 3, 2025, which is the first business day after 60 days from the date of the publication of this notice, any member of the purported class may move the Court to serve as Lead Plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain a member of the proposed class. The ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent on serving as Lead Plaintiff. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact Ross Shikowitz of BFA Law at 212-789-3619, or via email at ross@bfalaw.com. About Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP is a leading international law firm representing plaintiffs in securities class actions and shareholder litigation. It was named among the Top 5 plaintiff law firms by ISS SCAS in 2023 and its attorneys have been named Titans of the Plaintiffs' Bar by Law360 and SuperLawyers by Thompson Reuters. Among its recent notable successes, BFA recovered over $900 million in value from Tesla, Inc.'s Board of Directors (pending court approval), as well as $420 million from Teva Pharmaceutical Ind. Ltd. [GN] FORT LAUDERDALE, FL: Pays $1.9M Settlement for Protester's Injuries ------------------------------------------------------------------- Mason Lawlor, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that as a federal class action for First Amendment violations during the 2020 George Floyd protests is pending, a Florida woman has been awarded nearly $2 million for what her counsel described as "unconscionable" brutality used by the City of Fort Lauderdale Police Department that nearly left her blind. In a settlement announced by Miami-based law firm Kuehne Davis Law on Dec. 3, the City of Fort Lauderdale will pay $1.97 million to LaToya Ratlieff for her life-impacting injuries resulting from rubber bullets and tear gas fired by police officers upon her and other peaceful protesters after Floyd's death. Ratlieff was struck in the face by a rubber bullet during a May 31, 2020, demonstration at the Florida-Atlantic University parking garage, organized in response to Floyd's death at the hands of police in Minneapolis. The impact left Ratlieff with a broken right eye socket and nerve damage, along with migraines and mental trauma, according to her complaint. As part of the settlement, the Fort Lauderdale Police Department will also be required to implement corrective policies to meet the standards of the National Tactical Officers Association and the International Association of Chiefs of Police. "For four and a half years, I've made clear that changes must be made within the Fort Lauderdale Police Department," Ratlieff said in a press release. "As part of this federal settlement, FLPD finally agreed to adopt new and stringent policies that will ensure no other innocent, peaceful, and law-abiding citizen goes through what I went through. "While the financial settlement is important for the city to know that it cannot sweep these injustices under the rug, the corrective requirements will make sure that what happened to me must never happen to anyone else," she added. Ratlieff separately litigated her personal injury claims, while others are pursuing a class action for police's allegedly excessive force during the gathering. Kuehne Davis is also representing these individuals who challenge the police department's use of force during the protest. [GN] FOX FACTORY HOLDING: Faces Securities Suit in Georgia ----------------------------------------------------- Fox Factory Holding Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2024, that on February 20, 2024, a complaint alleging violations of federal securities laws and seeking certification as a class action was filed against the company and certain of its current and former officers in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia in Atlanta. On August 16, 2024, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint that purports to seek damages on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased the company's common stock between May 6, 2021 and November 2, 2023. The amended complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act and alleges that the company and certain current and former officers made material misstatements and omissions to investors regarding demand for its products and its inventory levels. The amended complaint generally seeks money damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and other costs. On October 15, 2024, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Per the court's scheduling order, the plaintiff file his opposition on December 13, 2024, and defendants will reply by January 13, 2025. Fox Factory Holding Corp. is a manufacturing company based in Georgia. FUBOTV INC: Faces Beasley Class Suit in New York ------------------------------------------------ FuboTV Inc., disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2024, that the company has been named as defendant in putative class action complaint, "Beasley v. fuboTV, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-00711" (S.D.N.Y), bringing claims under the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA,) alleging the company shared subscribers' personally identifiable information to third party advertisers and through the Meta Pixel and Google Analytics without consent. FuboTV Inc. is a streaming platform based in New York. FUBOTV INC: Faces Burdette Class Suit in Illinois ------------------------------------------------- FuboTV Inc., disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2024, that the company has been named as defendant in putative class action complaint, captioned "Burdette v fuboTV, Inc.," No. 1:23-cv-10351 (N.D. Ill.) bringing claims under the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA,) alleging the company shared subscribers' personally identifiable information to third party advertisers and through the Meta Pixel and Google Analytics without consent. FuboTV Inc. is a streaming platform based in New York. FUBOTV INC: Faces Perez Class Suit in Florida --------------------------------------------- FuboTV Inc., disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2024, that the company has been named as defendant in putative class action complaint, "Perez, et al., v. fuboTV, Inc., No. 0:23-cv-61961 (S.D. Fla.)," bringing claims under the Video Privacy Protection Act alleging the company shared subscribers' personally identifiable information to third party advertisers and through the Meta Pixel and Google Analytics without consent. FuboTV Inc. is a streaming platform based in New York. HERITAGE INSURANCE: Faces Suit Over Hurricane Insurance Fraud ------------------------------------------------------------- Chris Cifatte, writing for Wink News, reports that a North Port family is battling against Heritage Insurance over the damage Hurricane Ian did to their home. Their story was featured on Sixty Minutes in September. The Rapkins are suing and just made a big move in court. They also have big news about their home. The Rapkins' attorney just filed paperwork in court this week, seeking to turn their lawsuit against Heritage into a class action against the insurer. They believe dozens of other Floridians could also be victims of what they claim is fraud. In the meantime, the damaged home at the center of it all has been sold. "I'm absolutely furious," said Jeff Rapkins. Money may not buy happiness, but the lack of it can certainly bring anger. "They've derailed my life. I thought at 55 years old, I could start to slow down a little bit," Rapkins said. But Ian had other ideas for Jeff and his wife, but it got worse after the storm passed. "I said, 'It's raining inside my house.' My wife would look at her phone in the morning and start crying because the weather called for rain," Jeff said. The Rapkins went on WINK News and 60 Minutes to tell everyone how their insurance company, Heritage Property and Casualty, knocked their claim down to almost nothing, leaving them with a leaking roof. "How much did your field adjuster say you should have gotten?" asked WINK News anchor Chris Cifatte. "It was in the general vicinity of $230,000," Rapkins said. "And then how much approximately did Heritage offer you?" Cifatte asked. "They didn't offer. They just sent an explanation letter, and the estimate that was supposedly from my adjuster, who was their adjuster, by the way, for $15,000," Rapkins said. Rapkins continued, "And meanwhile, our house is turning into this moldy, mushy pile of gunk that is unlivable, and we were all getting sick; we had to move out. We went after my daughter got out of the hospital. I said, 'We have to get out of here.'" The Rapkins just sold the house for land value to get out from under the mortgage. They cleared $19,000. Now, they are rebuilding their lives and trying to help other victims with the class action lawsuit. "It's so that everybody gets relief, not just me," Rapkins said. He knows, like so many of you, that home can buy happiness if everyone values it properly. "All the Christmases there, we learned how to make jam there. My kids grew up in that house, and a house is more than the sum of its parts; it hurts to to be even thinking about it," Rapkins said. A judge would need to approve opening the case to a class action. We heard from Heritage Friday afternoon. They called this a "head-scratcher" because they say they offered the Rapkins $372,000 a couple of months ago to pay the claim fully. The Rapkins said two years after Ian, it was too late, and there were too many conditions attached. [GN] HUMACYTE INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set January 17 ------------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP notifies investors in Humacyte, Inc. ("Humacyte, Inc." or the "Company") (NASDAQ: HUMA) of a class action securities lawsuit. CLASS DEFINITION: The lawsuit seeks to recover losses on behalf of Humacyte, Inc. investors who were adversely affected by alleged securities fraud between May 10, 2024 and October 17, 2024. Follow the link below to get more information and be contacted by a member of our team: https://zlk.com/pslra-1/humacyte-inc-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=114935&wire=4 HUMA investors may also contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. via email at jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500. CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that defendants made false statements and/or concealed that: (1) the Company's Durham, North Carolina facility failed to comply with good manufacturing practices, including quality assurance and microbial testing; (2) the FDA's review of the biologics license application would be delayed while Humacyte remediated these deficiencies; and (3) as a result, there was a substantial risk to FDA approval of acellular tissue engineered vessel for vascular trauma; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. WHAT'S NEXT? If you suffered a loss in Humacyte, Inc. during the relevant time frame, you have until January 17, 2025 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. NO COST TO YOU: If you are a class member, you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out-of-pocket costs or fees. There is no cost or obligation to participate. WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Over the past 20 years, the team at Levi & Korsinsky has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders and built a track record of winning high-stakes cases. Our firm has extensive expertise representing investors in complex securities litigation and a team of over 70 employees to serve our clients. For seven years in a row, Levi & Korsinsky has ranked in ISS Securities Class Action Services' Top 50 Report as one of the top securities litigation firms in the United States. CONTACT: Levi & Korsinsky, LLP Joseph E. Levi, Esq. Ed Korsinsky, Esq. 33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 jlevi@levikorsinsky.com Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 www.zlk.com [GN] INDIANA UNIVERSITY: Team Physician Ruled Competent in Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mateo Fuentes-Rohwer, writing for Indiana Daily Student, reports that a judge ruled Tuesday, December 3, that former Indiana men's basketball team physician Brad Bomba Sr. is competent to provide a deposition in a class action lawsuit filed against Indiana University. Bomba was accused of sexual misconduct by former Indiana player Haris Mujezinovic in a complaint publicly released by IU on Sept. 11. On Oct. 15, Mujezinovic and former player Charlie Miller filed a class action lawsuit against IU, alleging the university "systemically mishandled" the players' complaints of sexual misconduct from Bomba. Mujezinovic played for Indiana from 1995-97, overlapping with Miller who played from 1994-98. Initially, the plaintiffs in the case intended to serve a subpoena for Bomba's deposition, while also calling for an expedited discovery due to his "quickly declining health." The motion was originally agreed upon, but a few weeks later, Joseph Bomba, Brad Bomba Sr.'s son and guardian, filed a motion to quash the subpoena. Bomba's counsel cited Bomba's incompetency to provide a deposition. Specifically, the counsel argued his "capacity to recall is severely impaired; he is unable to distinguish between truth and fiction; and he is incapable of asserting his Fifth Amendment rights." The plaintiffs responded that Bomba's competency is irrelevant to the subpoena, there is no good reason to grant Bomba a protective order and the subpoena is a reasonable request that does not cause Bomba any prejudice. Ultimately, the court ruled to deny Joseph Bomba's motion to quash the subpoena, stating Brad Bomba Sr.'s testimony would be beneficial to both the plaintiff and defense. The court cited Bomba's ability to determine a truth from a lie and his lack of stress or anxiety during the hearing as two key factors into the decision.[GN] INOTIV INC: Discovery in Leasure Securities Class Suit Ongoing -------------------------------------------------------------- Inotiv Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending October 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 4, 2024, that discovery is ongoing for the Leasure securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District for the Northern District of Indiana. On June 23, 2022, a putative securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, naming the Company and Robert W. Leasure and Beth A. Taylor as defendants, captioned Grobler v. Inotiv, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:22-cv-00045 (N.D. Ind.). The complaint alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, based on alleged false and misleading statements and material omissions regarding the Company’s acquisition of Envigo RMS and its regulatory compliance. On September 12, 2022, Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement System was appointed by the Court as lead plaintiff. Thereafter, on November 14, 2022, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint against the same defendants, in addition to John E. Sagartz and Carmen Wilbourn, that asserted the same claims along with a claim under Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act. On November 23, 2022, the lead plaintiff filed a further amended complaint against the aforementioned defendants asserting the same claims as the amended complaint and further alleging that false and misleading statements and material omissions were made concerning the Company's non-human primate business. The purported class in the operative complaint includes all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between September 21, 2021 and November 16, 2022, and the complaint seeks an unspecified amount of monetary damages, interest, fees and expenses of attorneys and experts, and other relief. On January 27, 2023, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. That motion was fully briefed by April 28, 2023. On March 29, 2024, the Court issued a decision denying, in part, Defendants' motion to dismiss. The case is now in discovery. While the Company cannot predict the outcome of this matter, the Company believes the class action to be without merit and plans to vigorously defend itself. Inotiv provides nonclinical and analytical drug discovery and development services, research models and related products and services. INOTIV INC: Settlement Deal in PAGA Suit for Court Approval ----------------------------------------------------------- Inotiv Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending October 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 4, 2024, that the settlement definitive agreement in a PAGA class suit is subject to the approval of the Superior Court of California, Alameda County. Envigo RMS, LLC is a defendant in a purported class action and a related action under California’s Private Attorney General Act of 2004 ("PAGA") brought by Jacob Greenwell, a former non-exempt employee of Envigo RMS, on June 25, 2021 in the Superior Court of California, Alameda County. The complaints allege that Envigo RMS violated certain wage and hour requirements under the California Labor Code. PAGA authorizes private attorneys to bring claims on behalf of the State of California and aggrieved employees for violations of California's wage and hour laws. The class action complaint seeks certification of a class of similarly situated employees and the award of actual, consequential and incidental losses and damages for the alleged violations. The PAGA complaint seeks civil penalties pursuant to the California Labor Code and attorney's fees. On June 2, 2023, Envigo RMS and the plaintiff signed a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") that sets forth the parties' intent to settle these matters for $795 which includes attorneys' fees. The MOU provides that the parties will negotiate and enter into a definitive settlement agreement, which will be subject to court approval. The MOU contains no admission of liability or wrongdoing by Envigo RMS. The MOU provides that, if the settlement is approved by the court, the settlement amount would be paid in four quarterly installments, with the first one to be funded after the court's final approval of the settlement, and the following ones in the three subsequent quarters. The parties are in the process of finalizing the long-form settlement agreement. While the timeline for final court approval is not yet determined, the Company took a reserve equal to the proposed settlement amount, which is included in accrued expenses and other current liabilities. Inotiv provides nonclinical and analytical drug discovery and development services, research models and related products and services. JEFF SANDY: Court Approves Settlement Deal in Rose Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL D. ROSE, et al., v. JEFF S. SANDY, et al., Case No. 5:22-cv-00405 (S.D.W. Va.), the Hon. Judge Frank Volk entered an order granting the Joint Motion for Final Approval and in the exercise of its discretion: (a) Finds (1) that the totals of the aggregated liquidated claims and the State of West Virginia's liability insurance coverage available for satisfying them under Pittsburgh Elevator Company v. West Virginia Board of Regents, 310 S.E.2d 675 (W. Va. 1983), set definitely at their maximums, demonstrate the inadequacy of the State's insurance coverage to pay all claims; (2) that the whole of the State's insurance policy limits should be devoted to pay the overwhelming claims; and (3) that Class Members identified by a common theory of recovery may be treated equitably among themselves. (b) Approves the Settlement Agreement as fair, reasonable, and adequate, and directs the Parties to consummate the Settlement in accordance with this Settlement Agreement; (c) Certifies for purposes of this Settlement only under the provisions of Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(l)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a Class as specified herein to include all persons who have been incarcerated at the Southern Regional Jail for a period greater than two (2) days during the Class Period; (d) Appoints Michael D. Rose, Robert C. Church, Sr., Nicole Henry, Edward L. Harmon, William Bohn, Bryan Stafford in his capacity as Executory of the Estate of Thomas Fleenor Jr., and Tonya Persinger. as Class Representatives for Settlement purposes; (e) Appoints Stephen P. New and Emilee B. Wooldridge and the law firms of Stephen New & Associates, Amanda J. Taylor and the law firm of Taylor, Hinkle & Taylor, Timothy P. Lupardus and the Lupardus Law Office, Robert Dunlap and Robert P. Dunlap and Associates PLLC, and Zachary Kyle Whitten and Whitten Law Office as Class Counsel for settlement purposes; A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 5, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=V1w8E3 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Stephen P. New, Esq. Amanda J. Taylor, Esq. Russell A. Williams, Esq. STEPHEN NEW & ASSOCIATES 430 Harper Park Drive Beckley, WV 25801 Telephone: (304) 250-6017 Facsimile: (304) 250-6012 E-mail: steve@newtaylorlaw.com russell@newtaylor.com - and - Timothy Lupardus, Esq. THE LUPARDUS LAW OFFICE 275 Bearhole Road Pineville, WV 24874 Telephone: (304) 732-0250 E-mail: office@luparduslaw.com - and - Zachary Whitten, Esq. THE WHITTEN LAW OFFICE Pineville, WV 24874 E-mail: zwhittenlaw@gmail.com - and - Robert Dunlap, Esq. ROBERT DUNLAP & ASSOCIATES 208 Main Street Beckley, WV 25801 Telephone: (304) 255-4762 E-mail: robertdunlapesq@gmail.com The Defendants are represented by: Michael D. Mullins, Esq. Larry J. Rector, Esq. Amy M. Smith, Esq. Peter J. Raupp, Esq. STEPTOE & JOHNSON PLLC Chase Tower, 17th Floor Charleston, WV 25326-1588 Telephone: (304) 353-8000 Facsimile: (304) 933-8704 E-mail: michael.mullins@steptoe-johnson.com Counsel for Michael Francis Chip E. Williams, Esq. Jared C. Underwood, Esq. PULLIN FOWLER FLANAGAN BROWN & POE 252 George Street Beckley, WV 25801 Telephone: (304) 254-9300 E-mail: cwilliams@pffwv.com Guardian Ad Litem Michael R. Whitt, Esq. 3558 Jefferson St. N. Ste. 5 PMB 157 Lewisburg, WV 24901 Telephone: (304) 645-4640 E-mail: mywvlawyer@gmail.com JEFFERSON HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Privacy Violations ------------------------------------------------------------ Ryan Genova, writing for Glenside Local, reports that Jefferson Health is facing a federal class action lawsuit which alleges that the hospital violated a Philadelphia man's privacy rights by enabling Facebook to track confidential health information and match it to social media profiles, The Philadelphia Inquirer reported December 10. According to the story, Robert Stewart, who filed the suit with his wife, Nancy, used the hospital's online patient portal to discuss ways to manage his diabetes with his doctors and then noticed that his Facebook feed was flooded with ads for Ozempic and other medications. The lawsuit states that Jefferson patients were tracked on the health system's homepage, as well as within a password-protected portal where doctors and patients communicate directly. Jefferson denied using Facebook's third-party tracking technology, Meta Pixel, on its patient portals in the document below. Redeemer Health, which owns and operates Holy Redeemer Hospital in the Meadowbrook section of Abington and a branch in Huntingdon Valley, has "faced similar accusations in lawsuits testing patient protection laws that were written before the age of social media networks and mobile apps," The Inquirer said. From the article: The cases could offer a rare look into health systems' interactions with now-ubiquitous third-party tracking, which lets businesses learn about their customers' interests to better target advertising. Retailers use tracking to get insight on what types of clothes and shoes their customers like best, and media companies use it to tailor news feeds to topics of interest to their readers. But in health care, the practice has been controversial because people's medical information is protected by HIPAA, a federal privacy law that prohibits doctors, hospitals, and insurers from sharing personal details about patients without their permission. In the Jefferson case, the concern about trackers embedded within the secure portal is especially worrisome, Stewart's lawyers said, because patients logging in expect the same level of privacy as inside a doctor's office. They declined to make Stewart and another patient named in the lawsuit available for interviews. As courts grapple with the legal issues surrounding third-party tracking, many hospital systems nationally have moved away from the practice." [GN] KALEIDA HEALTH: Must File Class Cert Response by March 11, 2025 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cleary, et al., v. Kaleida Health, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00026 (W.D.N.Y., Filed Jan. 7, 2022), the Hon. Judge Lawrence J. Vilardo entered a status conference order as follows: -- The depositions of the named plaintiffs shall be completed on or before Feb. 12, 2025. -- The Defendants' response to plaintiffs' motion for class certification shall be filed on or before March 11, 2025. -- The plaintiffs' reply, if any, shall be filed on or before April 7, 2025. The suit alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Kaleida, founded in 1998, is a not-for-profit healthcare network that manages five hospitals in the Buffalo–Niagara Falls metropolitan area.[CC] KIRKLAND'S INC: Continues to Defend Miles Class Suit in California ------------------------------------------------------------------ Kirkland's Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 19, 2024, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Miles class suit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The Company was named as a defendant in a class action filed in May 2018 in the Superior Court of California, Miles v. Kirkland's Stores, Inc. The case has been removed to United States District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint alleges, on behalf of Miles and all other hourly Kirkland's employees in California, various wage and hour violations and seeks unpaid wages, statutory and civil penalties, monetary damages and injunctive relief. Kirkland's denies the material allegations in the complaint and believes that its employment policies are generally compliant with California law. On March 22, 2022, the District Court denied the plaintiff's motion to certify in its entirety, and on January 8, 2024, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's denial of certification as to the subclasses related to the security bag check but reversed the District Court as to the rest break claim. The Ninth Circuit did not address the issue of whether there is liability for the rest break claim. On June 7, 2024, the District Court certified a subclass relating to the rest break claim and has scheduled a trial on the rest break liability issue for July 2025. The Company continues to believe the case is without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against the allegations. Kirkland's, Inc. is a specialty retailer of home décor and furnishings in the United States operating 329 stores in 35 states as of May 4, 2024, as well as an e-commerce website, www.kirklands.com, under the Kirkland's Home brand. KIRKLAND'S INC: Continues to Defend Sicard Class Suit in New York ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kirkland's Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 19, 2024, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Sicard class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Company was named as a defendant in a putative class action filed in August 2022 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Sicard v. Kirkland's Stores, Inc. The complaint alleges, on behalf of Sicard and all other hourly store employees based in New York, that Kirkland's violated New York Labor Law Section 191 by failing to pay him and the putative class members their wages within seven calendar days after the end of the week in which those wages were earned, rather paying wages on a bi-weekly basis. Plaintiff claims the putative class is entitled to recover from the Company the amount of their untimely paid wages as liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. The Company believes the case is without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against the allegations. Kirkland's, Inc. is a specialty retailer of home décor and furnishings in the United States operating 329 stores in 35 states as of May 4, 2024, as well as an e-commerce website, www.kirklands.com, under the Kirkland's Home brand. KYVERNA THERAPEUTICS: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------- Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP ("Scott+Scott"), an international shareholder and consumer rights litigation firm, has filed a securities Class Action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against Kyverna Therapeutics, Inc. ("Kyverna" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: KYTX), certain directors and officers, and the underwriters of Kyverna's February 8, 2024 initial public offering ("IPO"), alleging violations of §§11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act (15 U.S.C. §§77k, 77l(a)(2), and 77o). The Class Action filed by Scott+Scott is captioned: Rondini v. Kyverna Therapeutics, Inc., et al, Case No. 3:24-cv-8869 (N.D. Cal.). Kyverna is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on developing cell therapies for patients suffering from autoimmune diseases. The Company's lead product candidate is KYV-101. According to the Complaint, the registration statement and prospectus used to effectuate the Company's IPO misstated and/or omitted facts concerning the results of the Company's ongoing evaluation of KYV-101 in clinical trials. Specifically, the Company touted patient "improvement" in certain indicators while failing to disclose adverse data regarding one of Kyverna's trials, which adverse data was known to the Company at the time of the IPO. As a result, investors purchased Kyverna shares at artificially inflated prices. As these true facts emerged after the Offering, the Company's shares fell sharply, severely harming investors. By the commencement of this action, Kyverna's shares traded as low as $3.92 per share, a decline of more than 82% from the Offering Price. Lead Plaintiff Deadline TheLead Plaintiff deadline in this action is February 7, 2025. Any member of the proposed Class may seek to serve as Lead Plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain a member of the proposed Class. What You Can Do If you purchased Kyverna common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's IPO, or if you have questions about this notice or your legal rights, you are encouraged to contact attorney Nicholas Bruno at (888) 398-9312or nbruno@scott-scott.com. About Scott+Scott Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major securities, antitrust, and consumer rights actions throughout the United States. The firm represents pension funds, foundations, individuals, and other entities worldwide with offices in New York, London, Amsterdam, Connecticut, California, Virginia, and Ohio. This may be considered Attorney Advertising. Nicholas S. Bruno, Esq. Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP 230 Park Avenue, 24th Floor New York, NY 10169 (888) 398-9312 nbruno@scott-scott.com [GN] LANCASTER GENERAL: Class Cert Bid Rescheduled to Jan. 30, 2025 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ST. LUKE'S HEALTH NETWORK, INC. d/b/a ST. LUKE'S UNIVERITY HEALTH NETWORK, et al., v. LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL, et al., Case No. 5:18-cv-02157-JLS (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Jeffrey Schmehl entered an order that the oral argument on Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, previously scheduled for Dec. 11, 2024 at 10:30 a.m. is rescheduled to Jan. 30, 2025, at 11:00 a.m. in the courtroom of the undersigned at The Gateway Building, 201 Penn Street, 5th Floor, Reading, Pennsylvania 19601. Lancaster is a regional hospital located in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 5, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RoaaFT at no extra charge.[CC] LASERSHIP INC: West Class Cert Response Extended to Jan. 22, 2025 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Daniel West, v. Lasership, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-05382-LTS-SLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Sarah Cave entered an order granting extension of briefing deadlines regarding Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification: -- The deadline for Defendant to file a response to Plaintiffs' second motion to certify class is extended up to and including Jan. 22, 2025. -- The deadline for Plaintiffs to file a reply is extended up to and including Feb. 10, 2025. Lasership operates as a courier services. The Company offers pickup, delivery of letters, small packages, and documents. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 6, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=t9gPAS at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Charles Andrewscavage, Esq. SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY 30 West Monroe Street, Suite 1600 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 255-7167 E-mail: candrewscavage@scopelitis.com LIGHT & WONDER: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Light & Wonder, Inc. (NASDAQ: LNW) resulting from allegations that Light & Wonder may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. SO WHAT: If you purchased Light & Wonder securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=29678 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On September 24, 2024, the Las Vegas Review-Journal published an article entitled "Slot manufacturer scores major win against Las Vegas-based rival." It stated that "Aristocrat Technologies Inc.'s request for a preliminary injunction in its trade-secret and copyright infringement lawsuit against Light & Wonder" had been granted, and that the "order prohibits [Light & Wonder] from the ‘continued or planned sale, leasing, or other commercialization of Dragon Train,' which Aristocrat claims uses intellectual property developed for its Dragon Link and Lightning Link games." On this news, Light & Wonder common stock fell 19.49% on September 24, 2024. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company at the time. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] MANITEX INTERNATIONAL: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Tadano ------------------------------------------------------------------- Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), has recovered millions of dollars for shareholders and is recognized as a Top 50 Firm by ISS Securities Class Action Services Report. We are headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City and are investigating: -- Manitex International, Inc. (Nasdaq: MNTX), relating to its proposed merger with Tadano Ltd. Under the terms of the agreement, Manitex International shares will automatically be converted into the right to receive $5.80 in cash per share. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for December 20, 2024. Click here for more https://monteverdelaw.com/case/manitex-international-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Nabors Industries Ltd. (NYSE: NBR), relating to its proposed merger with Parker Wellbore Co. Under the terms of the agreement, Nabors will acquire Parker Wellbore’s issued and outstanding common shares in exchange for 4.8 million shares of Nabors common stock, subject to a share price collar. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for January 17, 2025. Click here for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/nabors-industries-ltd-nbr/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- The Duckhorn Portfolio, Inc. (NYSE: NAPA), relating to its proposed merger with Butterfly Equity. Under the terms of the agreement, all Duckhorn Portfolio common stock will be automatically converted into the right to receive $11.10 in cash per share. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for December 23, 2024. Click here for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/duckhorn-portfolio-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Profire Energy, Inc. (NASDAQ: PFIE), relating to a proposed merger with First CECO Environmental Corp. Under the terms of the agreement, a subsidiary of CECO will commence a tender offer to acquire all issued and outstanding shares of Profire common stock at a price of $2.55 per share. ACT NOW. The Tender Offer expires on December 31, 2024. Click here for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/profire-energy-inc-pfie/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . . and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common stock in any of the above listed companies and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 United States of America jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com Tel: (212) 971-1341 Attorney Advertising. (C) 2024 Monteverde & Associates PC. The law firm responsible for this advertisement is Monteverde & Associates PC (www.monteverdelaw.com). Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. [GN] MARQETA INC: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Marqeta, Inc. (NASDAQ: MQ) resulting from allegations that Marqeta may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. So What: If you purchased Marqeta securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. What to do next: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=32001 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. What is this about: On November 4, 2024, Marqeta, Inc. issued a press release entitled "Marqeta Reports Third Quarter 2024 Financial Results." In addition to reporting its third quarter results, Marqeta announced lower fourth quarter guidance which reflected "several changes that became apparent over the last few months with regards to the heightened scrutiny of the banking environment and specific customer program changes." On this news, the price of Marqeta stock fell $2.53 per share, or 42.5%, to close at $3.42 per share on November 5, 2024. Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company at the time. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contacts 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] MARSHALL & MELHORN: Settles Data Breach Class Suit for $800,000 --------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Marshall & Melhorn LLC agreed to an $800,000 class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims surrounding a data breach that occurred August-September 2021. The Marshall & Melhorn settlement benefits individuals whose personal information may have been compromised in the company's data breach and who received a mailed data breach notification informing them of the incident. The Marshall & Melhorn data breach reportedly compromised sensitive information, such as names, Social Security numbers and financial data. Plaintiffs in the data breach class action lawsuit claim Marshall & Melhorn failed to protect consumer data and caused its customers to suffer damages, such as identity theft and fraud. Marshall & Melhorn is a full-service law firm that serves clients in business, education estate planning, intellectual property law and other areas. Marshall & Melhorn hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay $800,000 to resolve the data breach class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the Marshall & Melhorn settlement, class members can receive a pro rata cash payment. These payments are estimated to be $70 but may be adjusted based on the number of claims filed and other factors. In addition to a pro rata payment, class members can receive up to $5,000 in reimbursement for documented out-of-pocket expenses resulting from the Marshall & Melhorn data breach. These expenses include unreimbursed losses relating to fraud or identity theft, professional fees, costs associated with freezing or unfreezing credit, credit monitoring costs and more. The deadline for exclusion and objection was Nov. 21, 2024. The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for Jan. 13, 2025. The claim form deadline is Dec. 23, 2024. Who's Eligible Individuals whose personal information may have been compromised in the Marshall & Melhorn data breach August-September 2021 and who received a data breach notification Potential Award $5,070+ Proof of Purchase Statements, receipts, bills, invoices, tax documents, financial letters and other documentation of data breach-related expenses. Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 12/23/2024 Case Name In re: Marshall & Melhorn LLC Data Breach Litigation, Case No. 3:23-cv-01181, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio Final Hearing 01/13/2025 Settlement Website MarshallMelhornDataSettlement.com Claims Administrator Marshall & Melhorn Settlement Administrator P.O. Box 25229 Santa Ana, CA 92799 info@MarshallMelhornDataSettlement.com (888) 226-9511 Class Counsel Terence R Coates Dylan J Gould MARKOVITS STOCK & DEMARCO LLC Philip J Krzeski CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE David K Lietz MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC Defense Counsel Jonathan L Schwartz FREEMAN MATHAIS & GARY LLP [GN] MARY MAHONEY'S: Bids to Dismiss Mislabeling Class Action Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Anita Lee, writing for SunHerald, reports that a proposed class-action lawsuit filed against Mary Mahoney's Old French House restaurant and Quality Poultry & Seafood is a 'manufactured attempt' to cash in on the criminal case against two seafood institutions in Biloxi, the companies say. Mary Mahoney's and Quality have both filed motions to dismiss the case. Todd McCain of Alabama filed the lawsuit after the federal government charged Mahoney's, its co-owner Anthony "Tony" Cvitanovich and Quality, a wholesaler and retailer, with conspiring to mislabel imported seafood as Gulf fresh. Mahoney's and Cvitanovich pleaded guilty in their felony case and have been sentenced. Quality sales manager Todd Rosetti, son of owner Clell Rosetti, and business manager James "Jim" Gunkel each pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges of mislabeling seafood. Quality and its managers are scheduled to be sentenced at 9:30 a.m. Wednesday, December 4, in U.S. District Court. Judge Sul Ozerden is presiding over the criminal cases. Civil case against Mahoney's, Quality The individuals who pleaded guilty in the criminal cases are also named parties in the proposed class-action lawsuit being heard by Judge Taylor B. McNeel. In the civil case, McCain seeks to represent all customers deceived during the time the criminal case covers, from at least 2012 to November 2019, when federal investigators raided Mahoney's and the restaurant stopped mislabeling seafood dishes. McCain accuses Mahoney's, Quality and its associates of violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act, a federal law that went into effect in 1970 to fight organized crime. McCain says that he and thousands of others should be compensated because they overpaid for frozen seafood billed as Gulf fresh. Quality and Mary Mahoney's "generated significant proceeds for itself and its co-conspirators, all while financially defrauding thousands of trusting customers and blatantly disregarding their health and safety by exposing them to potentially hazardous and toxic fish species they unknowingly ingested," McCain's RICO statement in the case says. Quality notes, in a memorandum asking for dismissal, that McCain points to a potential hazard without showing any actual injury from consumption of foreign fish. Class-action status is not a given. McCain's attorneys -- two from law firms in the Jackson suburb of Ridgeland and one from Mobile -- must prove to Judge McNeel that McCain is representative of a class of people who were injured and satisfy other legal requirements. Will a class-action lawsuit work? Mahoney's sentencing hearing demonstrated how difficult it would be to identify injured diners. Mahoney's was ordered to forfeit $1.35 million. But the federal government did not ask for restitution because identifying the victims and the amount each was owed would have been too unweildy and time-consuming, prosecutors and the judge agreed. Quality says in its motion to dismiss the case, "At best, (McCain) alleges a hypothetical wholly speculative potential injury to his wallet, as opposed to an actual concrete and particularized injury." McCain says in his lawsuit that he ate at Mahoney's three times while the restaurant was serving mislabeled fish: in 2013, 2016 and 2018. "Of course, should this litigation proceed, plaintiff (McCain) would bear the burden to prove that he in fact consumed 'foreign fish' -- a nearly insurmountable hurdle absent the ability to forensically test the fish he alleges having consumed almost a decade ago," Mahoney's motion to dismiss the lawsuit says. But the case should never reach the point of establishing proof, attorneys for Mahoney's and Quality argue. McCain waited too long to file his lawsuit. They say the statute of limitations for filing a lawsuit has expired. McCain claims that he could not have known about the mislabeled fish until the federal government announced its case against Mahoney's in May 2024 or against Quality in August 2024. Mahoney's argues the USDA raid of Mahoney's was publicized in November 2019, when the Sun Herald reported on it and the restaurant subsequently issued a news release saying it was "in conjunction with an investigation of mislabeled fish." After the recent sentencing hearing for Mahoney's and Cvitanovich, family members told the Sun Herald that the mislabeling involved two dishes on the Mahoney's menu: stuffed snapper and snapper Bienville. The restaurant was using imported fish in place of snapper caught in the Gulf. Mahoney's continued to serve the popular dishes, rebranding them as Queen Ixolib (Biloxi spelled backward) and Seafood Bienville. The hearing also established that Mahoney's was not the only Quality customer billing foreign fish as Gulf seafood. However, no other restaurants were named or charged. [GN] MCGRAW-HILL EDUCATION: Class Certification Order Entered -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Flynn, et al v. McGraw Hill LLC. Case No. 1:21-cv-01141-LGS-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lorna Schofield entered an order that the case remains referred to MJ Moses for the completion of discovery. -- When and if Plaintiffs are prepared to move for class certification, or when and if Defendant is prepared to move for summary judgment, the moving party shall file a pre-motion letter and the adverse party shall respond, all as provided in the Court's Individual Rules. -- The Court will convene a conference to discuss the motion(s) and a briefing schedule. -- Any letter concerning class certification shall clarify under what subsection of Rule 23(b) Plaintiffs seek to proceed, and how any notice and opting out of the class would affect Plaintiffs' proposed schedule for Defendants' summary judgment motion; i.e., Plaintiffs' letter shall explain whether they seek for class members to be bound by the summary judgment decision. McGraw-Hill Education publishes educational materials. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 5, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2Ppgkw at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 3014: Settlement Class Gets Certification ---------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re: PHILIPS RECALLED CPAP, BI-LEVEL PAP, AND MECHANICAL VENTILATOR PRODUCTS LITIGATION MDL 3014, Case No. 2:21-mc-01230-JFC (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Joy Flowers Conti entered an order that consistent with the MDL Court's findings and rulings at the October 30, 2024, final fairness hearing, the MDL Court finds that: (1) all the requirements for class certification for purposes of Settlement have been met; (2) there was appropriate notice of the Settlement of the Medical Monitoring Claims; and (3) the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. The class certified for settlement purposes is defined as follows: Settlement Class or Settlement Class Members shall include all individuals in the United States, including its Territories(American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands), and the District of Columbia, including United States citizens, United States residents, and United States military, diplomatic personnel and employees living or stationed overseas, who have used a Recalled Device. Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (a) Defendants and their officers, directors, and employees; and (b) the MDL Court, Settlement Mediator, and Special Masters assigned to the MDL. A copy of the Court's opinion dated Dec. 5, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CFEcP9 at no extra charge.[CC] MEDIACOM COMMUNICATION: Sued Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation -------------------------------------------------------------- Lucas Brinkmeyer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MEDIACOM COMMUNICATION CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, Case No. 7:24-cv-09236 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 3, 2024), is brought to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs, and other relief as appropriate under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and common law. The Plaintiff provided services to Defendant by making and answering phone calls to and from service employees working in the field. He usually worked 40 hours or more each week and was most recently paid $21.00 per hour. The Defendant violated the FLSA and common law by systematically failing to compensate its SRs for work tasks completed before and after their scheduled shifts when they were not logged into Defendant's timekeeping system. This policy resulted in SRs not being paid for all overtime hours worked, overtime gap time when associated with unpaid overtime, and in non-overtime workweeks for regular hours. More specifically, Defendant failed to compensate SRs for the substantial time they spent performing essential work tasks prior to clocking in before each shift; the time they had to return early from their meal-periods to log back in; and after clocking out of Defendant' timekeeping system at the end of each shift. The Plaintiff seeks a declaration that his rights, and the rights of the putative Collective and Class members, were violated, a judgment awarding his unpaid back wages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs to make him and the putative Collective and Class whole for damages suffered, and any other remedies to which they may be entitled, and to help ensure Defendant will not subject future workers to the same illegal conduct in the future, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly Dispatch Operator from January 2, 2013 through March 29, 2024. The Defendant is a large American cable and internet provider.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas Conlon, Esq. BROWN, LLC 111 Town Square Place, Suite 400 Jersey City, NJ 07310 Phone: (877) 561-0000 Fax: (855) 582-5297 Email: nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com - and - Jason J. Thompson, Esq. Paulina R. Kennedy, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, Michigan 48076 Phone: 248-355-0300 Email: jthompson@sommerspc.com pkennedy@sommerspc.com MLC NOMINEES: Settles NAB MySuper Class Action for $64.25-Mil. -------------------------------------------------------------- Investment Magazine reports that former NAB trustees (NULIS Nominees and MLC Nominees) have reached an agreement with the plaintiffs of the MySuper class action commenced by Maurice Blackburn to settle for a total of $64.25 million. The class action was announced to the ASX by Insignia Financial who acquired the trustees from National Australia Bank in May 2021. While they are no longer part of the NAB group of companies following completion of the acquisition, the bank remains liable for the costs associated with both class actions, including the agreed settlement amount less any related tax benefit obtained by Insignia. The settlement, which is subject to court approval, will be made without any admission of liability or wrongdoing by the trustees. The class action was filed in January 2020 and relates to historical issues regarding the timing of transfers in 2016 and 2017 of accrued default amounts to a MySuper product. [GN] MONSANTO COMPANY: Ledet Suit Transferred to N.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Marcel Ledet, individually, and others similarly situated v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 2:24-cv-02666 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Dec. 3, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-08668-VC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for Product Liability. The Monsanto Company -- https://www.monsanto.com/ -- was an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation founded in 1901 and headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher S. Mann, Esq. BROUSSARD INJURY LAWYERS 321 Veterans Memorial Blvd., Suite 205 Metairie, LA 70005 Phone: (504) 264-5559 Email: cmann@broussardfirm.com - and - Aaron James Broussard, Esq. BROUSSARD INJURY LAWYERS 1301 Common Street Lake Charles, LA 70601 Phone: (337) 439-2450 Fax: (337) 439-3450 Email: aaron@broussard-hart.com The Defendant is represented by: Shaun P McFall, Esq. Aaron M. Steeg, Esq. BARRASSO, USDIN, KUPPERMAN, FREEMAN & SARVER, LLC LL&E Tower 909 Poydras St., Suite 2350 New Orleans, LA 70112 Phone: (504) 589-9700 Email: smcfall@barrassousdin.com asteeg@barrassousdin.com MOVE INC: Bandy Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------- The case styled as James Bandy; Juan Carlos Carrera; Bryan Castro; Michael Echternkamp; Kamesha Sylvester Hamilton; Maria Hardy; Nidia Sanchez; and Cliff Woodhall; each individually and on behalf of all other similarly-situated v. MOVE, INC.; MOVE SALES, INC.; NEWS CORPORATION; NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS; OPCITY ACQUISITION, LLC; OPCITY, INC. and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV21494 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Dec. 5, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-10492. The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants sell lead generation services to licensed real estate agents across the United States that connect those real estate agents with potential home buyers. The Plaintiffs allege that the leads for potential home buyers sold to real estate agents included false and illegitimate leads. Based on those allegations, Plaintiffs assert seven causes of action against Defendants for: Fraud (Fraudulent Inducement to Enter a Contract); Breach of Oral Contract; Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; Fraud (Misrepresentation); Conversion; Violation of the California Civil Legal Remedies Act (Notice Only); and Unfair Business Practices.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: David R. Singer, Esq. Kate T. Spelman, Esq. Lauren M. Greene, Esq. JENNER & BLOCK LLP 515 South Flower Street, Suite 3300 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2246 Phone: (213) 239-5100 Facsimile: (213) 239-5199 Email: dsinger@jenner.com kspelman@jenner.com lgreene@jenner.com MY CREDIT UNION: Fiorito Files Suit in Minn. 4th Judicial Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against My Credit Union. The case is styled as Michael Fiorito, and all others similarly situated v. My Credit Union/RBCU, Jane Doe #1, Case No. 27-CV-24-18302 (Minn. 4th Judicial Ct., Hennepin Cty., Dec. 5, 2024). The case type is stated as "FCRA/Personal Injury/Defamation/Violations of State Law/Class Action." My Credit Union -- https://www.mymncu.org/ -- offer Home Equity loans to consolidate debt, make home improvements or whatever the need may be.[BN] NATERA INC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Davis Extended to May 8, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Davis v. Natera, Inc. (RE NATERA PRENATAL TESTING LITIGATION), Case No. 4:22-cv-00985-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jon Tigar entered a class certification order as follows: Event Current Proposed Deadline Deadline Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Jan. 8, 2025 May 8, 2025 Certification and Class Certification Expert Disclosures Completion of Discovery re: Feb. 26, 2025 June 26, 2025 Plaintiffs' Class Certification Experts Defendant's Opposition to Class Apr. 9, 2024 Aug. 11, 2025 Certification and Class Certification Expert Disclosures Plaintiffs' Class Certification May 21, 2024 Sept. 22, 2025 Reply Natera is a clinical genetic testing company. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 5, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=52rW9t at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Max S. Roberts, Esq. Julian C. Diamond, Esq. L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: mroberts@bursor.com ltfisher@bursor.comc jdiamond@bursor.com - and - Dena C. Sharp, Esq. Kyle P. Quackenbush, Esq. Mikaela M. Bock, Esq. GIRARD SHARP LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 981-4800 E-mail: dsharp@girardsharp.com kquackenbush@girardsharp.com mbock@girardsharp.com The Defendant is represented by: Terence N. Hawley, Esq. Emily F. Lynch, Esq. Mariah K. Fairley, Esq. REED SMITH LLP 101 Second Street, Suite 1800 San Francisco, CA 94105-3659 Telephone: (415) 543-8700 Facsimile: (415) 391-8269 E-mail: thawley@reedsmith.com elynch@reedsmith.com mfairley@reedsmith.com NATHAN SAMUEL: Scheduling Conference Set for Feb. 3, 2025 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., v. NATHAN SAMUEL YOUNG, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-09654-MCS-JPR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Mark Scarsi entered an order setting scheduling conference: Date: February 3, 2025 Time: 10:00 AM Courtroom: 7C -- Joint Rule 26(f) Report The Joint Rule 26(f) Report must be filed by 14 days before the Scheduling Conference. The Report shall be drafted by plaintiff (unless the parties agree otherwise) but shall be submitted and Signe d jointly. -- Notice to be Provided by Counsel The Plaintiff's counsel or, if plaintiff is appearing pro se, defendant's counsel, shall provide this Order to any parties who first appear after the date of this Order and to parties who are known to exist but have not yet entered appearances. Aetna is an American managed health care company that sells traditional and consumer directed health care insurance and related services. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 2, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SEozLW at no extra charge.[CC] NATIONAL AMUSEMENTS: Settles Data Breach Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- Troutman Pepper reports that New York Attorney General (AG) Letitia James and global movie theater operator National Amusements, Inc. (National) settled a lawsuit stemming from a 2022 data breach reported by National, which affected 82,128 National employees. As part of its settlement, National agreed to pay $250,000 in penalties to the state and to "improve existing cybersecurity infrastructure to prevent future data breaches." In its investigation, the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) determined that National "failed to implement strong data security, which left it vulnerable to a data breach" and "delayed telling affected employees of the breach for more than a year." The information exposed by the breach included individuals' names, dates of birth, social security numbers, passport numbers, financial account numbers, driver's license numbers, and health insurance account numbers. In addition to the regulatory investigation, class action lawsuits have been initiated against National in the Eastern District of Massachusetts. Plaintiffs have filed claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and invasion of privacy. Any dispositive rulings in the action are still pending. Takeaways The National settlement highlights the importance of an effective and thoughtful incident response strategy. The objective of an incident response should be to not only resolve the underlying cause of the security incident from a technical perspective, but to craft a narrative that demonstrates a company's commitment to conducting a timely and reasonable investigation into the incident. This narrative is often shaped in the early stages of a response, starting with how quickly a company was able to react and what information was shared, if any, and with whom. This can be challenging, as investigations, especially of National's magnitude, can take time to complete. Organizations must balance the need, or desire, to share information quickly with concerns regarding the accuracy and completeness of information shared. Therefore, in the early stages of a response, it can be beneficial to establish communication channels with relevant parties, such as impacted groups and/or regulators, to demonstrate the company's commitment to transparency and cooperation. This proactive approach can help shape a positive narrative about the organization's response and may dispel false narratives or speculation often fueled by the unknown. While there is no one-size-fits-all approach to incident response, a consumer-friendly strategy will certainly resonate well with both individual consumers and regulators. [GN] NATIONAL INSPECTION: Class Cert Filing in Thurlow Due Dec. 19, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRYE THURLOW, v. NATIONAL INSPECTION SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-01135-CCW (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand entered an order that compliance with the provisions of Local Rule 16.1.B shall occur as follows: 1. The parties shall exchange initial disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1) on or before Dec. 19, 2024. 2. The parties shall file any motion to add new parties on or before Dec. 19, 2024. The parties shall file any motion to amend the pleadings on or before Dec. 19, 2024. 3. The parties have elected mediation as their preferred form of Alternative Dispute Resolution. A mediation session before Christopher Michalski will take place on or before Mar. 28, 2025. 4. The briefing schedule for conditional certification of the FLSA collective is as follows: a. Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of the FLSA collective, supporting brief, and appendix of supporting evidence shall be filed on or before Dec. 19, 2025. b. Defendant's brief in opposition and appendix of supporting evidence shall be filed on or before Jan. 2, 2025. c. No party shall file a reply brief absent leave of Court. 5. Discovery shall proceed in phases. The parties shall complete the first phase of discovery, related to Plaintiff's proposed motion for class certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, on or before May 2, 2025. 6. Plaintiff's omnibus motion for final certification of the FLSA collective and for Rule 23 class certification, if any, shall be filed on or before May 23, 2025. National Inspection Services is a full service Nondestructive Testing (NDT) company. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 5, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Hz7uEX at no extra charge.[CC] NATIONAL INSPECTION: Thurlow Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRYE THURLOW, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated, v. NATIONAL INSPECTION SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-01135-CCW (W.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting Thurlow's motion for Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) conditional certification and issuance of court-authorized notice: "All current and former hourly, non-exempt employees who National Inspection Services, LLC paid according to its shift rate pay scheme and/or per diem pay scheme at any time from Aug. 7, 2021 through the present." Thurlow readily meets his lenient evidentiary burden at this stage to conditionally certify this case as a collective action under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), the result of which is merely sending notice to inform the recipients of their rights under the FLSA. To facilitate the remedial purposes of the FLSA’s collective action provisions, Thurlow respectfully requests the Court expeditiously grant this Motion and (1) conditionally certify the proposed collective of employees; (2) order NIS to produce a complete and up-to-date list of the names, job titles, last-known mailing addresses, phone numbers, email addresses, dates of employment, and locations worked for the Putative Collective Members within 14 days of the Court's order in a computer-readable electronic format, such as Microsoft Excel spreadsheet; (3) authorize a 60-day notice period for Putative Collective Members to join the case if they so choose; (4) approve the notice and consent forms attached to his supporting memorandum as Exhibit A; (5) authorize Plaintiff's Counsel to send notice to Putative Collective Members via mail, email, and text message; and (6) authorize Plaintiff's Counsel to contact Putative Collective Members by telephone if their mailed or emailed notice and consent forms are returned as undeliverable. National Inspection provides Advanced Ultrasonic testing services to the Midstream oil and Gas Industry. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 6, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oAFDPb at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. William M. Hogg, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100; Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com whogg@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788; Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com - and - Joshua P. Geist, Esq. William F. Goodrich, Esq. GOODRICH & GEIST P.C. 3634 California Ave. Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Telephone: (412) 766-1455 Facsimile: (412) 766-0300 E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.com bill@goodrichandgeist.com NESTLE HEALTHCARE: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to March 10, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Horti, et al., v. Nestle Healthcare Nutrition, Inc. (Nestle Boost Nutritional Drink Litigation), Case No. 3:21-cv-09812-JSC (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order extending the class certification briefing schedule as follows: Deadline For Previous Date Proposed Date Motion for Class Certification: Jan. 9, 2025 Mar. 10, 2025 Opposition to Motion for Class Feb. 20, 2025 Apr. 21, 2025 Certification: Reply in Support of Class Mar. 13, 2025 May 12, 2025 Certification: Hearing on Motion for Class Apr. 3, 2025 Apr. 5. 2025 Certification: at 10:00 a.m. at 10:00 a.m The Plaintiffs will be unfairly prejudiced by the current schedule due to the upcoming holidays and counsels' and retained experts' planned vacations. Moreover, Plaintiffs have been attempting to complete discovery but have been delayed for various reasons. Thus far, Plaintiffs have produced witnesses and taken other third-parties’ discovery in a way that fosters efficient litigation and have done so in a timely manner. Id. However, the parties agreed to an early mediation that occurred on November 7, 2024, but was unsuccessful. Currently, the only other deadline in the case is a Case Management Conference set for December 12, 2024. Id. Therefore, the proposed 60-day extension will not affect the case schedule. No trial date has been set. Nestle provides a wide range of vitamins, minerals and supplements. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 3, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RjRZud at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Trenton R. Kashima, Esq. Alex Straus, Esq. Nick Suciu III, Esq. J. Hunter Bryson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 402 West Broadway, Suite 1760 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 810-7047 E-mail: tkashima@milberg.com astraus@milberg.com nsuciu@milberg.com hbryson@milberg.com - and - Laurence D. King, Esq. Matthew B. George, Esq. Blair E. Reed, Esq. Clarissa Olivares, Esq. Joel B. Strauss, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1560 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 772-4700 Facsimile: (415) 772-4707 E-mail: lking@kaplanfox.com mgeorge@kaplanfox.com breed@kaplanfox.com colivares@kaplanfox.com jstrauss@kaplanfox.com - and - Michael D. Braun, Esq. KUZYK LAW, LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Ste. 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: 213-401-4100 E-mail: mdb@kuzykclassactions.com - and - Ross B. Rothenberg, Esq. THE ROTHENBERG LAW FIRM LLP 450 7th Avenue, 44th Floor New York, NY 10123 Telephone: (212) 563-0100 E-mail: ross@injurylawyer.com NESTLE USA: Class Status Conference Rescheduled to Jan. 21, 2025 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Walker v. Nestle USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-00723 (S.D. Cal., Filed April 19, 2019), the Hon. Judge M. James Lorenz entered an order that in light of Defendant's pending Petition for Permission to Appeal the Court's class certification order, the Court reschedules the status conference set for Dec. 6, 2024 to Jan. 21,2025 at 9:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Butcher. -- Counsel must jointly phone the undersigned's Chambers at (619) 446-3704. -- If the Ninth Circuit rules on the pending Petition prior to Jan. 21, 2025, the parties must contact the undersigned's Chambers within three business days of that order. The nature of suit states Statutory Actions. Nestle USA produces and distributes nutritious food and beverage products. The Company offers bakery, chocolates, confectionery, snacks, and coffee.[CC] NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Court Recommends Denial of Class Cert Bid -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CASEY E. HALL-LANDERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. NEW YORK UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:20-cv-03250-GBD-SLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Sarah Cave recommends that the class motion be denied. On the present record, we find that Hall-Landers has met the Rule 23(a) prerequisites but has not satisfied predominance and superiority under Rule 23(b)(3), so we recommend denying the Class Motion. Because we recommend denying the Class Motion, we do not recommend appointing class counsel or a class representative. If the District Court disagrees, however, and ultimately certifies the Proposed Class, we recommend, for substantially the same reasons we discussed under typicality and adequacy, appointing Bursor & Fisher, P.A. as class counsel and Hall-Landers as class representative. The COVID-19 virus set off this dispute, one of many in which a university student wants their tuition money back. After Defendant New York University ("NYU") continued to collect and keep most of its students’ tuition when it moved to solely online classes for part of the Spring 2020 semester, Plaintiff Casey E. Hall-Landers seeks to hold NYU liable on theories of breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and money had and received. After some discovery and a trip to the Second Circuit and back, Hall-Landers now moves for class certification and appointments of class representative and class counsel. NYU vigorously opposes its own student's attempt to certify a class of undergraduates who seek a refund of tuition. Because Hall-Landers fails to establish predominance and superiority under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), we respectfully recommend that the Class Motion be denied. New York University is a private institution that was founded in 1831. A copy of the Court's report and recommendation dated Dec. 6, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SRCf0H at no extra charge.[CC] NEW YORK, NY: Class Certification Filing Due Jan. 17, 2025 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAYMOND LEWIS and AARON ORTEGA, on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-09460-DLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Denise Cote entered an order that any motion for class certification shall be served Jan. 17, 2025. -- Opposition is due Feb. 7, 2025 -- Any reply is due Feb. 21, 2025 New York City comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River meets the Atlantic Ocean. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 5, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7lbk30 at no extra charge.[CC] NISSAN OF NORTH AMERICA: Settlement in Beaver Gets Initial OK ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TRAVIS BEAVER, LUZ PINEDA, and SUSANNE HANES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. NISSAN OF NORTH AMERICA, INC, Case No. 3:22-cv-00785 (M.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Eli Richardson entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement: -- The Court preliminarily certifies the Settlement Class, for settlement purposes only, consisting of two sub-classes. Subclass A shall be comprised of current and former owners and lessees of 2015-2018 model year Nissan Murano vehicles equipped with a continuously variable transmission (“CVT”) who purchased or leased the Class Vehicles in the United States or its territories including Puerto Rico. Subclass B shall be comprised of current and former owners and lessees of 2016-2018 model year Nissan Maxima vehicles equipped with a CVT who purchased or leased the Class Vehicles in the United States or its Territories. Collectively, the current and former owners and lessees of Subclass A and Subclass B vehicles shall be referred to as the "Settlement Class," and the vehicles of which they are comprised shall be referred to as the "Class Vehicles." The definition of Class Vehicles does not include hybrid electric vehicles. Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (1) NNA, any entity or division in which NNA has a controlling interest, its/their legal representatives, officers, directors, assigns and successors; (2) any judge to whom this case is assigned and the judge's clerks and any member of the judge’s immediate family, and any judge of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals; and (3) government purchasers and lessees. -- The Court appoints the following individuals as representatives of the Settlement Class: Travis Beaver, Luz Pineda, Susanne Hanes, and Carl Kirksey. -- The Court appoints the following attorneys as Co-Lead Class Counsel: Melissa S. Weiner of Pearson Warshaw, LLP, Natalie Finkelman Bennett of Miller Shah, Cody R. Padgett of Capstone Law APC, Lawrence Deutsch of Berger Montague, Norberto Cisneros of Maddox & Cisneros, LLP, Mark Greenstone of Greenstone Law APC, and J. Gerard Stranch IV of Stranch, Jennings & Garvey, PLLC. The Court finds that Co-Lead Class Counsel have demonstrable experience litigating, certifying, and settling class actions, and will adequately represent the Settlement Class Nissan North designs, develops, and manufactures Nissan vehicles. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 5, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ne9hNU at no extra charge.[CC] NRMA INSURANCE: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Pricing Policies ---------------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Wood, writing for Insurance Business, reports that Slater and Gordon has filed a class against NRMA Insurance. The law firm's media release said the statement of claim filed in the Supreme Court of Victoria is "on behalf of millions of customers" and concerns the pricing of the insurer's home and contents policies. The release said the policies were issued by Insurance Australia Limited (IAL) as part of a campaign called "Get Your insurance Back." In response, Insurance Australia Group (IAG), the parent company, issued a release this morning stating "IAL will defend these proceedings." Allegations concern loyalty discounts "We're alleging that millions of Australians paid premiums year-on-year for NRMA home insurance on the promise that they were getting a discount," said Ben Hardwick (pictured above), Slater and Gordon's class actions practice group leader. However, Hardwick said because of a pricing algorithm used by the insurer, long-term customers were unknowingly paying extra in the form of higher base premiums. "The reality is that they are likely to have received cheaper insurance from these brands had their loyalty not been a factor in their renewal calculations," he said. The law firm alleges this conduct "may amount to misleading and deceptive conduct and unconscionable conduct, in breach of the ASIC Act." The firm's release cites what it calls a case study where an alleged NRMA customer since 1989 saw an increase of nearly 60% in his premium. When he checked under a different name, the same policy, he said, was up to $4000 cheaper. "IAL and IMA maintain they have delivered on loyalty offers" The IAG release said this class action follows the class action by the same law firm in May 2024, which IAL and IMA are also defending. That action also relates to loyalty offers for NRMA Insurance home, contents and home and contents insurance policies. "IAL and IMA maintain they have delivered on loyalty offers made to customers and do not agree that they have misled customers about the extent of the discounts they would receive," said the insurer's release. [GN] NURTURE INC: Plaintiffs Class Cert Reply Extended to March 7, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELISSA SANCHEZ and BEVERLY CASSEL, on behalf of themselves, the general public and those similarly situated, v. NURTURE, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 5:21-cv-08566-EJD (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending the briefing deadlines on Defendant's motion for class certification and corresponding hearing as follows: Event Current Date Extended Date Deadline for Defendant to file Dec. 20, 2024 Jan. 10, 2025 its opposition to the motion for class certification and any expert report(s) in support thereof: Deadline for Plaintiffs to file Feb. 7, 2025 Mar. 7, 2025 their reply in support of the motion for class certification: Hearing on Plaintiffs' motion for Mar. 13, 2025 Apr. 10, 2025 class certification: A copy of the Parties' motion dated Dec. 6, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OMeV7r at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Hayley Reynolds, Esq. Seth A. Safier, Esq. GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP 100 Pine St 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 639-9090 The Defendant is represented by: Angela C. Agrusa, Esq. Shannon E. Dudic, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 2000 Avenue of the Stars Suite 400 North Tower Los Angeles, CA 90067-4704 Telephone: (310) 595-3000 Facsimile: (310) 595-3300 E-mail: angela.agrusa@us.dlapiper.com shannon.dudic@us.dlapiper.com NVIDIA CORP: Tobias Bid for Initial OK of Settlement Terminated --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Tobias, et al., v. NVIDIA Corporation, et al., Case No. 4:20-cv-06081 (N.D. Cal., Filed Aug. 28, 2020), Hon. Judge Jon S. Tigar entered an order terminating as moot the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. The suit alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Nvidia is an American multinational corporation and technology company headquartered in Santa Clara, California.[CC] NVIDIA CORP: Tobias Suit Seeks Prelim. Approval of Class Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CRISTINA TOBIAS, ANTHONY BRIGGS, ANN MACDONALD and DAVID CALDER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. NVIDIA CORPORATION, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF NVIDIA CORPORATION, THE NVIDIA CORPORATION 401(K) PLAN BENEFITS COMMITTEE, and JOHN DOES 1-30., Case No. 4:20-cv-06081-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order that: (1) preliminarily approves the Settlement Agreement between the Defendants and the Plaintiffs; (2) preliminarily certifies the proposed Settlement Class; (3) approves the proposed notice plan; and (4) sets a final approval hearing at least 90 calendar days after the entry of a preliminary approval order. The proposed Settlement Class is defined as follows: "All persons, except Defendants and their immediate family members, who were participants in or beneficiaries of the Plan who participated in the Plan, at any time between Aug. 28, 2014 through the date of the Preliminary Approval Order." The Class excludes NVIDIA Corporation, the Board of Directors of NVIDIA Corporation, the NVIDIA Corporation 401(k) Plan Benefits Committee. The Plaintiffs propose the following schedule associated with the Notice Plan and Final Approval Hearing: Event Reference to Proposed Preliminary Deadline Approval Order Preliminary approval hearing: If the Court deems necessary, on Jan. 9, 2025 at 2:00 p.m. or another date convenient for the Court Settlement Administrator to ¶ 7 Within 35 days set up settlement website: of entry of Preliminary Approval Order Send Settlement Notice to ¶ 7 Within 35 days Class Members: of entry of Preliminary Approval Order Final approval motion and ¶ 8 35 days before applications for attorneys' Objection fees, expenses, and case deadline contribution awards: Nvidia Corporation is an American multinational corporation and technology company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 3, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sh7ANR at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq. James A. Wells, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C. 312 Old Lancaster Road Merion Station, PA 19066 Telephone: (610) 890-0200 Facsimile: (717) 233-4103 E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com jayw@capozziadler.com - and - Daniel L. Germain, Esq. ROSMAN & GERMAIN LLP 5959 Topanga Canyon Boulevard, Suite 360 Woodland Hills, CA 91367-7503 Telephone: (818) 788-0877 Facsimile: (818) 788-0885 E-mail: germain@lalawyer.com - and - Peter A. Muhic, Esq. MUHIC LAW LLC 923 Haddonfield Road, Suite 300 Cherry Hill, NJ 08002 Telephone: (856) 324-8252 Facsimile: (717) 233-4103 E-mail: peter@muhiclaw.com OMNI FAMILY: Snelson FDCPA Suit Removed to E.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case is styled as Lois Snelson, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Omni Family Health, Case No. BCV-24-103706 was removed from the Superior Court Kern County, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on Dec. 4, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-01480-JLT-CDB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Omni Family Health -- https://omnifamilyhealth.org/ -- is a growing network providing primary and preventative healthcare located throughout Kern, Kings, Tulare, and Fresno counties.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory Haroutunian, Esq. M. Anderson Berry, Esq. ARNOLD LAW FIRM 865 Howe Avenue Sacramento, CA 95825 Phone: (916) 777-7777 Email: gharoutunian@justice4you.com aberry@justice4you.com The Defendant is represented by: Ronald I. Raether, Esq. TROUTMAN PEPPER 100 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 1500 Irvine, CA 92614 Phone: (949) 622-2722 Fax: (949) 622-2739 Email: ron.raether@troutman.com ONEPOINT PATIENT: Cobb Sues Over Failure to Secure Information -------------------------------------------------------------- Shannon Cobb, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. OnePoint Patient Care, Case No. 2:24-cv-03406-ROS (D. Ariz., Dec. 3, 2024), is brought against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive information of its clients' patients. The Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal information--which they entrusted to Defendant on the mutual understanding that Defendant would protect it against disclosure--was targeted, compromised and unlawfully accessed due to the Data Breach. OnePoint collected and maintained certain personally identifiable information and protected health information of Plaintiff and the putative Class Members, who are (or were) patients at Defendant's clients. The Private Information compromised in the Data Breach included Plaintiff's and Class Members' full names, addresses, residence information, and Social Security numbers, ("personally identifiable information" or "PII") and medical information, which is protected health information ("PHI", and collectively with PII, "Private Information") as defined by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA"). The Private Information compromised in the Data Breach was exfiltrated by cyber-criminals and remains in the hands of those cyber-criminals who target Private Information for its value to identity thieves. The Plaintiff's and Class Members' identities are now at risk because of Defendant's negligent conduct because the Private Information that Defendant collected and maintained has been accessed and acquired by data thieves. As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff and Class Members have been exposed to a heightened and imminent risk of fraud and identity theft. Plaintiff and Class Members must now and in the future closely monitor their financial accounts to guard against identity theft, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a patient at the Defendant's clients. The Defendant is a hospice-dedicated pharmacy that provides healthcare and pharmaceutical services to its clients.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Cristina Perez Hesano, Esq. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7508 N. 59th Avenue Glendale, AZ 85301 Phone: (602) 730-7100 Fax: (602) 794-6956 Email: cperez@perezlawgroup.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Email: gklinger@milberg.com PARAMOUNT GLOBAL: Faces Class Action Suit Over WARN Act Violation ----------------------------------------------------------------- Gregory Sirico, writing for Best Lawyers, reports that Paramount Global violated New York's Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act when the multinational conglomerate laid off 300 employees in September without the proper notice required by state law, a former employee has alleged in a class action lawsuit against the entertainment company. The pending class action lawsuit, Hagins v. Paramount Global et al., filed in New York's Southern District Court on Oct. 3, accuses the company of failing to provide lawful notice to their former employees. After a stint of layoffs in early September -- one phase of an expansive effort to cut 15% of the company's U.S.-based workforce in exchange for a prospective $500 million in cost savings -- over 300 employees lost their jobs in less than a week without receiving any advanced notice. According to provisions under the WARN Act, a labor law designed to protect workers, their families and communities, employers with 100 or more employees must provide 90-day written notice before executing planned closings or mass layoffs. Under the federal version of the act, U.S. companies with 100 employees or more must provide layoff notice if it affects more than 500 individuals. In some states, guidelines for employers are becoming increasingly more stringent. In California, any company with a workforce of 75 or more employees is mandated to provide notice within 30 days if the layoffs affect 50 or more workers. In New York, written notice is required if the layoffs in question impact a third of the workforce or at least 250 employees at a single site, as is the case with Paramount. This pending litigation calls attention to the need for major corporations and their industry counterparts to adhere to labor laws intended to prioritize worker stability over financial success." In a report released by Paramount, an additional 349 employees are due to face termination from the company between Dec. 23 and Dec. 31, 2024, raising the number of impacted workers to nearly 1,000. Per the report, layoffs are far from over despite the pending litigation, with a set end date of Feb. 14. The Department of Labor enacted the WARN Act in June 2023, requiring all businesses covered by the legislation to provide their workers with an early warning in order to secure future employment. Under that provision, the lawsuit seeks "relief sought herein on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated." Julian Hagins, a former full-time remote employee at Paramount who prompted the litigation in question, is also seeking summary judgment for himself and his co-workers, forcing his former employer to provide 60 days' worth of "unpaid wages, salary, commissions, bonuses, accrued holiday pay, accrued vacation pay, pension, 401(k) and healthcare contributions and other benefits." A Paramount representative recently said the claims against the company "are not grounded in any fact," stating that all company employees entitled to Federal or State WARN Act notices before being laid off received them. The legal action Paramount Global currently faces stresses the necessity of federal and state legislation, such as the WARN Act, in defending workers in a post-COVID employment era where nothing is guaranteed. This pending litigation calls attention to the need for major corporations and their industry counterparts to adhere to labor laws intended to prioritize worker stability over financial success. The employment suit comes during a takeover transition in studio ownership, valued at $8 billion. It will likely delay the ongoing regulatory approvals necessary to quickly wrap up the already arduous process. [GN] PENSKE LOGISTICS: Milam's Bid to Consolidate Denied --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES MILAM, v. PENSKE LOGISTICS LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-01944-DJC-CSK (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Daniel Calabretta entered an order denying the Plaintiff Milam's motion to consolidate. -- Defendant's motion to dismiss or stay is granted in part and denied in part as follows: a. Defendant's motion to dismiss is denied; and b. Defendant's motion to stay is granted. -- Milam v. Penske, 2:24-cv-01944-DJC-CSK is stayed pending the resolution of Nelson v. Penske, 2:23-cv-02756-DJC-CSK. -- Within 21 days of the Court entering a dispositive order in the Nelson action, the parties shall file a Joint Status Report in the Milam action. The CMAX factors weigh clearly in favor of staying the Milam action. First, the damage that results from granting a stay are minimal to non-existent. Second, if a stay were not imposed, Defendant would be forced to simultaneously litigate two distinct actions brought on extremely similar claims. This duplicate litigation would cause clear hardship for Defendant. Third, the orderly course of justice is in favor of granting a stay. Second, if a stay were not imposed, Defendant would be forced to simultaneously litigate two distinct actions brought on extremely similar claims. This duplicate litigation would cause clear hardship for Defendant. Third, the orderly course of justice is in favor of granting a stay. Permitting near-identical actions to proceed would be a wasteful use of the parties' and the Court’s time and resources. As analyzed above, the alternative options of dismissal and consolidation both present potential complications to the orderly course of justice. By comparison, staying the Milam action has the benefits of simplifying and streamlining this course of litigation without the downside of dismissing potential claims without an opportunity to fully litigate their merits. The CMAX factors thus favor a stay of the Milam action while the Nelson action is pending. The Court will stay the Milam case until the Nelson action reaches a final resolution. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Milam action will be denied as will Plaintiff Milam's Motion to Consolidate the Milam and Nelson actions. Plaintiff James Milam initiated the Milam action against Defendant on January 26, 2024, in the District Court for the Northern District of California. The allegations in that complaint cover most of the same allegations in the Nelson FAC, including that Defendant Penske's employees were required to perform work "off-the-clock" for which they were not compensated, did not receive full meal and rest breaks, received inaccurate wage statements based on the above, were not paid money owed on termination. Penske Logistics provides logistic management solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 2, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ahXcBL at no extra charge.[CC] PENSKE LOGISTICS: Nelson's Bid to Consolidate Tossed ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TERRY NELSON, v. PENSKE LOGISTICS LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-02756-DJC-CSK (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Daniel Calabretta entered an order denying the Plaintiff Milam's motion to consolidate. -- Defendant's motion to dismiss or stay is granted in part and denied in part as follows: a. Defendant's motion to dismiss is denied; and b. Defendant's motion to stay is granted. -- Milam v. Penske, 2:24-cv-01944-DJC-CSK is stayed pending the resolution of Nelson v. Penske, 2:23-cv-02756-DJC-CSK. -- Within 21 days of the Court entering a dispositive order in the Nelson action, the parties shall file a Joint Status Report in the Milam action. The CMAX factors weigh clearly in favor of staying the Milam action. First, the damage that results from granting a stay are minimal to non-existent. Second, if a stay were not imposed, Defendant would be forced to simultaneously litigate two distinct actions brought on extremely similar claims. This duplicate litigation would cause clear hardship for Defendant. Third, the orderly course of justice is in favor of granting a stay. Second, if a stay were not imposed, Defendant would be forced to simultaneously litigate two distinct actions brought on extremely similar claims. This duplicate litigation would cause clear hardship for Defendant. Third, the orderly course of justice is in favor of granting a stay. Permitting near-identical actions to proceed would be a wasteful use of the parties' and the Court’s time and resources. As analyzed above, the alternative options of dismissal and consolidation both present potential complications to the orderly course of justice. By comparison, staying the Milam action has the benefits of simplifying and streamlining this course of litigation without the downside of dismissing potential claims without an opportunity to fully litigate their merits. The CMAX factors thus favor a stay of the Milam action while the Nelson action is pending. The Court will stay the Milam case until the Nelson action reaches a final resolution. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Milam action will be denied as will Plaintiff Milam's Motion to Consolidate the Milam and Nelson actions. The Plaintiff Terry Nelson filed a class action complaint against Defendant Penske on Nov. 27, 2023. The current operative complaint is the First Amended Complaint ("FAC') filed on January 22, 2024. In the FAC, Plaintiff Nelson claims that Defendant Penske had required workers at its to work "off-the-clock" before their shifts, failed to reimburse employees for the purchase of steel-toed boots, failed to accurately calculate regular rates of pay by omitting bonuses in the calculation of regular rate of pay, failed to prove proper meal and rest breaks based on the implementation of computerized systems, failed to accurate wage statements based on the above, did pay money owed on termination of employment, and did not comply with California quota laws. Penske Logistics provides logistic management solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 2, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=leIo6g at no extra charge.[CC] PORSCHE AG: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Tycan Batteries ----------------------------------------------------------- Brad Anderson, writing for CarScoops, reports that the lawsuit claims that Porsche should replace all defective battery packs. -- It also asserts that the automaker has known about battery faults since at least February 2020. -- In early 2025, Porsche will install an on-board diagnostic system to detect battery anomalies. Two months after Porsche issued a widespread recall of 2020-2024 Taycan models across the United States for a battery defect, a class action lawsuit has been filed against the automaker and is seeking a jury trial in relation to the battery fault. The lawsuit, filed by Gibbs Law Group, names plaintiff Miodrag Kukrika and alleges Porsche has failed to disclose or adequately repair a "dangerous and widespread" defect in the EV's battery pack. The law group are seeking to represent a class of owners and lessees of impacted Taycan models and claims Porsche has known about the issue since at least February 2020 after a vehicle fire at a home in Florida. [GN] PRESTIGE CARE: Class Action Settlement in Brim Gets Initial Nod --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brim, et al., v. Prestige Care Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-05133-BHS (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Benjamin Settle entered an order granting the plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement and notice plan: 1. For settlement purposes only and pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e), the Court certifies, solely for purposes of effectuating the proposed Settlement, a Settlement Class in this matter defined as follows: "All individuals impacted to whom Prestige Care sent notice of the Data Incident. The Settlement Class includes approximately 45,000 people." The Settlement Class specifically excludes: (i) all Persons who timely and validly request exclusion from the Class; (ii) the Judge assigned to evaluate the fairness of this settlement (including any members of the Court’s staff assigned to this case); (iii) Defendant's officers and directors, and (iv) any other Person found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be guilty under criminal law of initiating, causing, aiding or abetting the criminal activity occurrence of the Data Incident or who pleads nolo contendere to any such charge. 2. Class Representatives and Settlement Class Counsel: Donna Brim, Kimberly Perry, and Janet Turner Lamonica are hereby provisionally designated and appointed as the Class Representatives. The Court provisionally finds that the Class Representatives are similarly situated to absent Settlement Class Members and therefore typical of the Settlement Class and that they will be adequate Class Representatives. The Court further finds that Kaleigh N. Boyd of Tousley Brain Stephens PLLC is experienced and adequate counsel and are hereby provisionally designated as Settlement Class Counsel. 3. Preliminary Settlement Approval. The Court hereby preliminarily approves the Settlement, as embodied in the Settlement Agreement, as being fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Settlement Class, subject to further consideration at the Final Approval Hearing to be conducted as described below. For the purposes of preliminary approval, the Court finds the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. 4. Final Approval Hearing. A Final Approval Hearing shall be held at 3:00 p.m. on April 21, 2025. Prestige Care offers independent living communities, assisted living, memory care, home health, as well as rehabilitation and post-acute care. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 2, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=U5tm9Z at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kaleigh N. Boyd, Esq. TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC 1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700 Seattle, WA 98101-3147 Telephone: (206) 682-5600 Facsimile: (206) 682-2992 E-mail: kboyd@tousley.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBER COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 227 W. Monroe St., Ste. 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com - and - Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq. Philip Krzeski, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-7300 Facsimile: (612) 336-2940 E-mail: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com - and - Danielle L. Perry, Esq. MASON LLP 5335 Wisconsin Ave., NW, Ste. 650 Washington, DC 20015 Telephone: (202) 429-2290 E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com PROVIDENCE ST. JOSEPH: Fails to Disclose Wage Scale, Spencer Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------- SHANNON SPENCER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PROVIDENCE ST. JOSEPH HEALTH FOUNDATION, a Washington nonprofit corporation doing business as PROVIDENCE; and DOES 1-20, Defendants, Case No. 24-2-28211-4 SEA (Wash. Super., King Cty., December 6, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to disclose in each posting for each job opening the wage scale or salary range and a general description of all of the benefits and other compensation to be offered to the hired applicant in violation of the Revised Code of Washington. The Plaintiff applied to work for Providence at its location in Seattle, Washington. Providence St. Joseph Health Foundation, doing business as Providence, is a nonprofit corporation based in King County, Washington. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy W. Emery, Esq. Patrick B. Reddy, Esq. Paul Cipriani, Esq. EMERY REDDY, PLLC 600 Stewart Street, Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 442-9106 Facsimile: (206) 441-9711 Email: emeryt@emeryreddy.com reddyp@emeryreddy.com paul@emeryreddy.com QUALITY CARRIERS: Underpays Delivery Drivers, Smith Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------- WINSTON SMITH, DUANE NELSON, JEROME JONES, and FRED DEAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. QUALITY CARRIERS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 8:24-cv-02815 (M.D. Fla., December 6, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay proper minimum wages in violation of the New Jersey Wage Payment law and the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendant as delivery drivers at any time between 2021 and 2024. Quality Carriers Inc. is a trucking company headquartered in Tampa, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jason L. Gunter, Esq. Conor P. Foley, Esq. GUNTERFIRM 2165 W. First St., #104 Fort Myers, FL 33901 Telephone: (239) 334-7017 Email: Jason@GunterFirm.com Conor@GunterFirm.com - and - Ravi Sattiraju, Esq. SATTIRAJU & THARNEY, LLP 50 Millstone Road Building 300, Suite 202 East Windsor, NJ 08520 Telephone: (609) 469-2110 Facsimile: (609) 228-5649 Email: rsattiraju@s-tlawfirm.com - and - Harold L. Lichten, Esq. Olena Savytska, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston St., Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994 5800 Email: hlichten@llrlaw.com osavytska@llrlaw.com QUEBEC MAJOR: Superior Court Authorizes Abuse Class-Action Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- CNW Group, in an article for Yahoo Finance, informs that the Superior Court of Quebec has authorized the filing of a class action on behalf of all victims of abuse suffered while they were minors playing in the QMJHL, regardless of whether the abuse was committed by another player, a coach, or any other person involved in the league. The class action seeks monetary compensation for the harm suffered by the victims, in addition to $15 million in punitive and exemplary damages. You don't have to do anything at this stage if you want to benefit from this class action. If you don't do anything, you will be bound by any judgment rendered in the class action or any settlement, should one be reached. If you wish to exclude yourself from this class action, such that you will not benefit from a favourable judgment and/or settlement, if any, you must notify the Clerk of the Superior Court of the District of Quebec, before March 7, 2025 at 11:59 p.m., in accordance with Article 580 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Class members are invited to contact the group's lawyers for more information on the class action and to find out about their rights. Communications are free, confidential, and protected by professional secrecy: Mtre. David Stolow, dstolow@kklex.com Mtre. Robert Kugler, rkugler@kklex.com Mtre. Claudia Giroux, cgiroux@kklex.com Kugler Kandestin, S.E.N.C.R.L. 1 Place Ville-Marie, Suite 1170 Montreal, Quebec, H3B 2A7 Tel. (514) 878-2861/ Toll-free: 1-844-999-2861 Fax: (514) 875-8424 www.kklex.com The Court has authorized the use of pseudonyms to identify Class members (other than the Plaintiff, who has chosen to disclose his name) in connection with the proceedings, exhibits or any other document filed with the Court, in order to preserve their anonymity. Please be advised that this is an abbreviated notice authorized by the Court. Class members are encouraged to consult the full notice, which contains additional information, on Class counsel's website: www.kklex.com (under the "Class Actions" "Ongoing Cases" tab). ATTENTION: This notice does not concern the action brought by Daniel Carcillo, Garett Taylor and Stephen Quirk against the CHL, the QMJHL, the Ontario Hockey League, the Western Hockey League and their teams (file CV-20-00642705-00CP) (the "Carcillo Case") concerning the systemic abuse suffered by players playing in these leagues. This notice has been authorized by the Honourable Jacques G. Bouchard, Judge of the Superior Court of Quebec. [GN] QUICK BOX: Tan Seeks Final Approval of Class Settlement ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEANNE TAN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. QUICK BOX, LLC, et al, Case No. 3:20-cv-01082-LL-DDL (S.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting final approval of class action settlement: The Plaintiff and the Quick Box Defendants have agreed to a Class Settlement to resolve the putative Class's claims against those Defendants in exchange for $5.5 million, which has been granted preliminary approval. This settlement came after a lengthy litigation period of more than three years, an Early Neutral Evaluation (ENE), and two separate mediations. The settlement offers relief to the Class that amounts to almost the entirety of the actual damages. It does so in a simple, straightforward settlement which focuses on obtaining monetary relief for Class members. And the settlement makes clear that claims against the La Pura Defendants and the Konnektive Defendants are not being waived, such that not only is the Class guaranteed this substantial recovery against what they lost, but they will have the opportunity to recover even more should Plaintiff’s counsel be successful in pursuing claims against those other Defendants. This settlement eliminates the risk that the Class would receive nothing after long, protracted litigation—and it simplifies any jury trial against the remaining non-settling parties. The reaction to the settlement has thus far been favorable—while the deadline has not passed for objections or exclusions, to date, no class members have objected or requested exclusion. QuickBox is a trusted third-party fulfillment partner of D2C and B2B brands. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 2, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oq26LU at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Kneupper, Esq. A. Cyclone Covey, Esq. A. Lorraine Weekes, Esq. KNEUPPER & COVEY, PC 17011 Beach Blvd., Suite 900 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Telephone: (512) 420-8407 E-mail: kevin@kneuppercovey.com cyclone@kneuppercovey.com lorraine@kneuppercovey.com R1 RCM: Parties Must File Joint Status Report in Locke Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Locke v. R1 RCM, INC., et al., Case No. 6:23-cv-01904 (D. Or., Filed Dec. 18, 2023), the Hon. Judge Mustafa T. Kasubhai entered an order that by Dec. 13, 2024, the parties are ordered to file a Joint Status Report describing: (1) The feasibility of extracting data from McKenzie-Willamette Hospital for 2022 and 2023, (2) The costs to Defendant R1 for extracting the data, (3) The search terms and relevant data points the parties agree to apply, (4) The methodology Defendant R1 will use to assemble the composed data and deliver to Plaintiff, and (5) A revised deadline for completion of class certification discovery. The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). R1 RCM is an American 'revenue cycle management' company servicing hospitals, health systems and physician groups across the United States.[CC] RAUL LABRADOR: Plaintiffs' Bid for Preliminary Injunction Granted ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as COLE ROBINSON, et al., v. RAUL LABRADOR, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-00306-DCN (D. Idaho), the Hon. Judge David Nye entered an order that: 1. Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction is granted. 2. The Court enjoins enforcement of Idaho Code section 18-8901's prohibition on the use of state funds for purposes of providing hormone therapy as against the class for the next 90 days. The Court has the authority to issue a second preliminary injunction under the PLRA if Plaintiffs show that such relief is still warranted. Plaintiffs have made the requisite showing that a preliminary injunction is appropriate in this case. This injunction also complies with the needs-narrowness-intrusiveness requirement of the PLRA. Accordingly, the Court orders a second preliminary injunction against enforcement of the Act as described herein. This preliminary injunction satisfies the needs-narrowness-intrusiveness requirement of the PLRA and can properly be issued. All four factors that must be weighed in granting a preliminary injunction—a serious question going to the merits, a likelihood of irreparable harm, the balance of equities, and the public interest—all weigh in favor of granting a preliminary injunction. Therefore, the Court will grant a second preliminary injunction in this case. The Plaintiffs Katie Heredia and Rose Mills are challenging Idaho Code section 18-8901 (the "Act"), which took effect on July 1, 2024. Heredia and Mills are two transgender women who are currently incarcerated in facilities administered by the Idaho Department of Corrections ("IDOC"). Both Heredia and Mills have been diagnosed with Gender Dysphoria and have been prescribed regular hormone-altering medications as a form of treatment. They bring this claim as a putative class action on behalf of "all incarcerated persons in the custody of IDOC who are, or will be diagnosed with gender dysphoria, and are receiving, or would receive, hormone therapy proscribed by the Act." A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 2, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oDp0He at no extra charge.[CC] REAGAN GOLD GROUP: Hoffman Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Reagan Gold Group LLC. The case is styled as Mark Hoffman, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Reagan Gold Group LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-06003-TMC (W.D. Wash., Dec. 5, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. The Reagan Gold Group -- https://reagangoldgroup.com/ -- is a privately-held company based in Los Angeles that helps clients diversify their portfolio by acquiring physical gold and silver coins.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Ave., Ste. 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: (872) 263-1100 Fax: (872) 263-1109 Email: sam@straussborrelli.com RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE: Court Certifies Settlement Class --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BERNADETTE HIGHTOWER, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated, v. RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-01683-RSM (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Ricardo Martinez entered a final approval order and judgment as follows: -- The Court affirms its determinations in the Preliminary Approval Order certifying, for the purposes of the Settlement only, the Action as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of the Settlement Class consisting of: "all individuals who were sent notification by Defendant that their personal information was or may have been compromised in the Data Incident." Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (1) the judges presiding over this Action, and members of their direct families; (2) Defendant, its subsidiaries, parent companies, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which Defendant or its parents have a controlling interest and their current or former officers, directors, and employees; and (3) Settlement Class Members who submit a valid a Request for Exclusion prior to the Opt-Out Deadline. Receivables Performance provides financial and accounts receivables management services. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 6, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=En0zKo at no extra charge.[CC] REGENCE BLUESHIELD: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Cert Bid ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as E.S., by and through her parents, R.S. and J.S., and JODI STERNOFF, both on their own behalf, and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, v. REGENCE BLUESHIELD; and CAMBIA HEALTH SOLUTIONS, INC., f/k/a THE REGENCE GROUP, Case No. 2:17-cv-01609-RAJ (W.D. Wash.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order, pursuant to LCR 7(d)(1) and LCR 10(g), extending the deadline for Plaintiffs to file their Motion for Class Certification to May 30, 2025. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Dec. 5, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9AVv69 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Eleanor Hamburger, Esq. Richard E. Spoonemore, Esq. Daniel S Gross, Esq. SIRIANNI YOUTZ SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER 3101 Western Avenue Ste. 350 Seattle, WA 98121 Telephone: (206) 223-0303 Facsimile: (206) 223-0246 E-mail: ehamburger@sylaw.com rspoonemore@sylaw.com daniel@sylaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Maren R. Norton, Esq. Brad S. Daniels, Esq. Stephen H. Galloway, Esq. STOEL RIVES LLP 600 University Street, Suite 3600 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 624-0900 Facsimile: (206) 386-7500 E-mail: maren.norton@stoel.com brad.daniels@stoel.com stephen.galloway@stoel.com REGENCE BLUESHIELD: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert by May 30, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as E.S. et al., v. Regence BlueShield, et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-01609 (W.D. Wash., Filed Oct. 30, 2017), the Hon. Judge Richard A. Jones entered an order granting stipulated motion for extension of time for plaintiffs' motion for class certification. -- The Plaintiffs shall file a motion for class certification by May 30, 2025. The nature of suit states Civil Rights. [CC] RELX PLC: Expert Witness Exchange Due April 20, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MEGAN TRAMA, et al., v. RELX PLC, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-03174-DSF-E (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dale Fischer entered a class certification order as follows: -- Parties Cut-off: Dec. 12, 2026 -- Discovery Cut−Off: April 13, 2026 -- Expert Witness Exchange Deadline: Initial: April 20, 2026 Rebuttal: May 25, 2026 Cut−off: July 20, 2026 -- Motion Hearing Cut−off: Aug. 3, 2026 -- ADR Cut−off: Aug. 17, 2026 -- Trial Documents (Set One): Sept. 21, 2026 -- Trial Documents (Set Two): Sept. 28, 2026 -- Final Pre-Trial Conference: Oct. 12, 2026 -- Trial Date: Nov. 9, 2026 RELX is a provider of information-based analytics and decision tools for professional and business customers. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 4, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cu6dkM at no extra charge.[CC] RENEWABLE ENERGY: Scheduling Order Entered in Rohde Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN ROHDE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. RENEWABLE ENERGY SYSTEMS LIMITED, a foreign company, and RENEWABLE ENERGY SYSTEMS AMERICAS INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 1:24-cv-01789-GPG-TPO (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge Timothy O'Hara entered a scheduling order for phase I as follows: -- Deadline for Joinder of Parties and Feb. 13, 2025 Amendment of Pleadings: -- Discovery Cut-off: Sept. 5, 2025. -- Dispositive Motion Deadline: Oct. 21, 2025 The Plaintiff anticipates filing his motion seeking class certification within 35 days of the close of discovery, by Oct. 10, 2025. The Defendants allegedly violated the Plaintiff's rights, and the rights of hundreds of other RES Americas employees ("Class Members") under the Colorado Wage Act ("CWA") by failing to pay them wages and compensation that they earned during the 2022-2023 fiscal year, specifically the RES Americas Business Unit ("BU") performance bonus. The Plaintiff was employed by RES Americas as its Chief Executive Officer from Sept. 8, 2021, to March 11, 2024. The Plaintiff was terminated for legitimate business reasons, not for challenging unfair wage practices, and has been paid all wages and compensation due to him. Renewable Energy provides various renewable energy services. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 6, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ExDZDa at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam M. Harrison, Esq. Cynthia J. Sánchez, Esq. HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP 518 17th Street, Suite 1100 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (720) 255-0370 E-mail: aharrison@hkm.com csanchez@hkm.com The Defendants are represented by: Ashley W. Jordaan, Esq. Shawna Ruetz, Esq. HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP 1801 Wewatta Street, Suite 1000 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 749-7200 Facsimile: (3030 749-7272 E-mail: Ashley.Jordaan@huschblackwell.com Shawna.Ruetz@huschblackwell.com RENTOKIL INITIAL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set Jan. 17 -------------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the upcoming January 27, 2025 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Rentokil Initial plc ("Rentokil" or the "Company") (NYSE: RTO) American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") between December 1, 2023 and September 10, 2024, inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you suffered a loss on your Rentokil investments or would like to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact information at www.glancylaw.com/cases/Rentokil-Initial-plc/. You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights. On April 18, 2024, Rentokil released its first quarter 2024 financial results, disclosing that organic revenue growth in North America increased by only 1.5% year-over-year, below prior guidance of 2% for the first quarter. On this news, Rentokil's stock price fell $2.64, or 9.3%, to close at $25.61 per ADS on April 18, 2024, thereby injuring investors. Then, on September 11, 2024, Rentokil issued an unscheduled "Trading Update," disclosing that it now expected only 1% North America organic revenue growth for the second half of 2024, explaining that "the trading performance in July and August was lower than anticipated," and that "there has also been some modest disruption to organic growth from branch integration." The Company further stated that the issues were "a manifestation of execution challenges." On this news, Rentokil's stock price fell $6.65, or 21%, to close at $24.95 per ADS on September 11, 2024, thereby injuring investors further. The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) Rentokil experienced levels of disruption in the early pilots of the Terminix integration; (2) Rentokil experienced significant, ongoing, self-inflicted execution challenges integrating Terminix; (3) the disruption and execution challenges imperiled Rentokil's integration plan for Terminix; (4) Rentokil and Terminix were still two separate businesses that were not yet integrated; (5) Rentokil's failure to integrate Terminix negatively impacted the Company's business and operations, particularly organic revenue growth in North America; and (6) as a result, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Rentokil ADSs during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than January 27, 2025 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit, please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. Contacts Charles Linehan, Esq. Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles (310) 201-9150 or (888) 773-9224 shareholders@glancylaw.com www.glancylaw.com [GN] SAFEWAY INC: Sends Unwanted Telemarketing Texts, Sapan Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- JONATHAN SAPAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SAFEWAY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-08804-SK (N.D. Cal., December 6, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The case arises from the Defendant's practice of sending telemarketing text messages to residential phone numbers on the federal Do Not Call Registry without prior consent. As a result of the Defendant's misconduct, the privacy of the Plaintiff and similarly situated residents has been invaded. Safeway, Inc. is a supermarket chain headquartered in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher J. Reichman, Esq. PRATO & REICHMAN, APC 3675 Ruffin Road, Suite 220 San Diego, CA 92123 Telephone: (619) 683-7971 Email: chrisr@prato-reichman.com justinp@prato-reichman.com SAGE THERAPEUTICS: Pension Funds Appointed as Lead Plaintiffs ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DARREN KORVER, v. SAGE THERAPEUTICS, INC., et al. (re Sage Therapeutics, Inc. Securities Litigation), Case No. 1:24-cv-06511-LGS (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lorna Schofield entered an order that: -- the Pension Funds are appointed as lead plaintiffs, and Robbins Geller and AF&T are appointed co-lead counsel. -- By Dec. 6, 2024, Plaintiff shall file a letter (1) seeking leave to file an Amended Complaint and proposing a date by which to do so or (2) stating that he does not seek to do so. -- The Clerk of Court is directed to (1) amend the caption to read "In re Sage Therapeutics, Inc. Securities Litigation," (2) remove Darren Korver as a party on the docket, (3) designate both Steamfitters Local 449 Pension & Retirement Security Funds and Trust of the Retirement System of the UPR as "Lead Plaintiff" on the docket and (4) close the motions at Dkts. 8, 10, 13 and 17. Nothing suggests that the Pension Funds have any conflict of interest with the proposed class, are subject to a unique defense or suffer any other infirmity that would impair its ability to represent the class. The Pension Funds is therefore entitled to the presumption that it is the most adequate lead plaintiff. The Pension Funds are a cohesive group that may serve as a lead plaintiff. No evidence or opposition has been offered that rebuts the presumption in favor of the Pension Funds' appointment. The Pension Funds are appointed as lead plaintiff. This action was originally commenced by Darren Korver, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, against Sage and certain of its officers, alleging violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under section 10(b), 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5. Sage, a biopharmaceutical company, develops and commercializes brain health medicines. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 2, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LGkdhN at no extra charge.[CC] SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Fact Discovery in Delahoy Due Sept. 8, 2025 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARILYN DELAHOY, MARY DUNAHOE, FRANK TASTINGER, TERRY TIGHE, JOANNE MICHANOWICZ, ERIC BOSCH, and CHRIS KUGLER on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-04132-CCC-CLW (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Cathy Waldor entered an order that the next event in the case will be a Status Conference on Jan. 15, 2025. The Court further entered an order that the matter will proceed as follows: -- Fact discovery is to remain open through Sept. 8, 2025. All fact witness depositions must be completed by the close of fact discovery. No discovery is to be issued or engaged in beyond that date, except upon application and for good cause shown. -- Any motion to add new parties, whether by amended or third-party complaint, must be electronically filed no later than Oct. 8, 2025. -- Any motion to amend pleadings must be electronically filed no later than Oct. 8, 2025. -- The parties shall exchange disclosures pursuant to Rule 26 no later than Jan. 10, 2025. Samsung manufactures electronic products. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 4, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HYTTnK at no extra charge.[CC] SAN BERNARDINO, CA: Standing Order Entered in Benitez Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIYANA NICOLE BENITEZ, v. COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, et al., Case No. 5:24-cv-01876-JGB-SHK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jesus Bernal entered a standing order as follows: -- Plaintiff(s) shall immediately serve this Order on all parties along with the Summons and Complaint. -- If this case came to the Court by noticed removal, the removing Defendant(s) shall serve this Order on all other parties. -- The Court and litigants bear joint responsibility for the progress of litigation in the Federal Courts. -- The Plaintiff shall serve the Complaint promptly in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and file the proofs of service pursuant to L.R. 5−3.1. San Bernardino is a county located in the southern portion of the U.S. state of California, and is located within the Inland Empire area. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 2, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2MHNIj at no extra charge.[CC] SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Class Cert Bid Filing Modified to May 6, 2025 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as J.T., ET AL., v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, ET AL., Case No. 3:23-cv-06524-LJC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Lisa Cisneros entered an order modifying case management schedule as follows: Deadline to join parties and amend pleadings: March 11, 2025 Class certification expert disclosures: April 7, 2025 Class certification rebuttal expert disclosures: April 21, 2025 Last day to file motion for class certification: May 6, 2025 Class certification hearing: June 10, 2025 San Francisco, officially the City and County of San Francisco, is a commercial, financial, and cultural center within Northern California. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 4, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3mJCxY at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Rachel Lederman, Esq. Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, PARTNERSHIP FOR CIVIL JUSTICE FUND 1720 Broadway, Suite 430 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 508-4955 E-mail: rachel.lederman@justiceonline.org mvh@justiceonline.org - and - Gabriela M. Lopez, Esq. THE COMMUNITY LAW OFFICE 1720 Broadway, Suite 430 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 952-0597 E-mail: gabriela@oaklandclo.com - and - Bobbie Stein, Esq. 503 Dolores St., Suite 201 San Francisco, CA 94110 Telephone: (415) 255-0301 E-mail: Bstein8692@gmail.com The Defendants are represented by: David Chiu, Esq. CITY ATTORNEY - and - Jennifer E. Choi, Esq. Chief Trial Deputy - and - Sabrina M. Berdux, Esq. Margaret S. Schroeder, Esq. Zuzana S. Ikels, Esq. DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEYS SANYO FOODS: Shin's Class Certification Bid Denied w/o Prejudice ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sue Shin v. Sanyo Foods Corp. of America et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-10485-SVW-MRW (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Stephen Wilson entered an order denying without prejudice the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. -- The Plaintiff is granted 14 days to amend her motion for class certification. -- If that amended motion fails to correct the deficiencies identified in this order, the Plaintiff motion for class certification will be dismissed with prejudice. The Plaintiff fails to satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(b)(3) for at least two reasons. First, the Plaintiff does not provide sufficient evidence to establish that damages are capable of measurement on a classwide basis. Because the Plaintiff's failure to satisfy to Rule 23(b)(3) is fatal to her proposed class, the Court need not determine whether the class satisfies Rule 23(a). The Plaintiff moved to certify the following class and subclass: -- Nationwide class "All U.S. Citizens who purchased the SAPPORO ICHIBAN Products in their respective state of citizenship for personal and household use and not for resale during the Class Period." -- California Sub-Class "All California Citizens who purchased the SAPPORO ICHIBAN Products in California for personal and household use and not for resale during the Class Period." The Plaintiff defined the "Class Period" as November 2019 until the date notice is disseminated to the class. Sanyo offers chicken, beef, shrimp, miso, shio, yakisoba, and cup noodles. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 6, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=i4RAEB at no extra charge.[CC] SARA CODY: Seeks Class Decertification in UNIFYSCC Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as UNIFYSCC, et al., v. SARA H. CODY, et al., Case No. 5:22-cv-01019-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the Defendants, will move the Court on March 13, 2025, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 for class decertification. The Defendants bring this motion to decertify the class, to clarify the impact of such decertification on the pending motions for summary judgment, and to dismiss UnifySCC from this matter, as discussed at the Oct. 25, 2024, hearing on the cross-motions for summary judgment. The Court certified the following class, which Plaintiffs had proposed and defined: "All individuals who: 1) work or worked for the County and/or were subject to its vaccine policies and orders, including the Risk Tier System; 2) were forced by the County to choose between taking the vaccine to maintain their jobs and/or their employment-related benefits or being placed on unpaid leave; 3) were classified as working in high risk jobs pursuant to the County's Risk Tier System; and 4) received a religious exemption from the County (the "Class") between Aug. 5, 2021, and Sept. 27, 2022." The case involves a certified class of 463 County employees who received religious exemptions to the County's Aug. 5, 2021, vaccination policy, and who worked in high-risk job. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Dec. 4, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UtOXT5 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Tony Lopresti, Esq. Bryan K. Anderson, Esq. Nathan A. Greenblatt, Esq. OFFICE OF THE COUNTY COUNSEL 70 West Hedding Street, East Wing, Ninth Floor San Jose, CA 95110-1770 Telephone: (408) 299-5900 Facsimile: (408) 292-7240 E-mail: Bryan.Anderson@cco.sccgov.org Nathan.Greenblatt@cco.sccgov.org SENTINELONE INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sentinelone Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending October 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 4, 2024, that the Company continues to defend itself from a consolidated securities class suit in the Northern District of California. On June 6, 2023, a securities class action was filed against the company, its Chief Executive Officer and its former Chief Financial Officer, in the Northern District of California, captioned Johansson v. SentinelOne, Inc., Case No. 4:23-cv-02786. The suit is brought on behalf of an alleged class of stockholders who purchased or acquired shares of the Company's Class A common stock between June 1, 2022 and June 1, 2023. The complaint alleged that defendants made false or misleading statements about its business, operations and prospects, including its annual recurring revenues and internal controls, and purports to assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (Exchange Act). A substantially similar suit was filed on June 16, 2023 in the same court against the same defendants asserting the same claims, captioned Nyren v. SentinelOne, Inc., Case No. 4:23-cv-02982. On October 4, 2023, the court issued an order consolidating both cases under the caption In re SentinelOne, Inc. Securities Litigation Case No. 4:23-cv-02786 and appointing a lead plaintiff. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. On July 2, 2024, the District Court granted defendants' motion, dismissing the consolidated complaint with leave for plaintiff to amend the complaint. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on August 1, 2024. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on September 16, 2024. The Company believes the case is without merit and defendants intend to defend the suit vigorously. SentinelOne, Inc. is a cybersecurity provider that delivers an artificial intelligence-powered platform to enable autonomous cybersecurity defense. SERVICE MANAGEMENT: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due Feb. 6, 2026 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Flores Larios, v. Service Management Systems, Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-05838-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Trina Thompson entered a case management and scheduling order: 1. Trial Date: June 14, 2027 2. Final Pretrial Conference: May 13, 2027 3. Dispositive Motions: Last day to file dispositive Dec. 17, 2026 motions: Last day to be heard: Feb. 16, 2027 4. Fact Discovery Cut-Off: Aug. 6, 2026 5. Expert Discovery Cut-Off: Nov. 5, 2026 6. Class Certification: Motion due by: Feb. 6, 2026 Opposition due by: March 6, 2026 Reply due by: April 3, 2026 Motion hearing due by: May 5, 2026 Service Management specializes in housekeeping and building maintenance services. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 4, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vYUhvQ at no extra charge.[CC] SET FORTH: Baca Sues Over Failure to Safeguard Information ---------------------------------------------------------- Renne Baca, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. SET FORTH, INC. Case No. 1:24-cv-12497 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 5, 2024), is brought against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive information of its clients' customers. The Defendant store a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information ("PII") about their current and former consumers. As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff and approximately 1,500,000 Class Members suffered concrete injuries. The Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of himself, and all others harmed by Defendants' misconduct. The exposure of one's PII to cybercriminals is a bell that cannot be unrung. Before this data breach, their current and former consumers' private information was exactly that--private. Not anymore. Now, their private information is forever exposed and unsecure, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a Data Breach victim, having received a breach notice. The Defendant "provide cloud-based customer relationship management (CRM) solutions powered by the Set Forth platform."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 227 West Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Email: gklinger@milberg.com - and - Kelly Hyman, Esq. THE HYMAN LAW FIRM, P.A. 515 North Flager Drive, Suite 350 West Palm Beach, Fl, 33401 Phone: (561) 538 - 9050 Email: kellyhyman@thehymanlawfirm.com SIEMENS MOBILITY: Must File Class Cert Opposition by Jan. 17, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Khamkoth Keopadubsy, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Siemens Mobility, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-01412-KJM-CKD (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered an order granting the Joint Stipulation to Extend Discovery Cut-Off and to Set Class Certification Briefing Schedule: 1. The discovery cut-off deadline of Dec. 7, 2024, be extended by six (6) months following the Court's ruling on the Motion for Class Certification; 2. All related pretrial dates be extended consistent with the new discovery cut-off date and the Court's Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order; 3. Defendant shall have up to and including Jan. 17, 2025, to file its Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification; and 4. Plaintiffs shall have up to and including Feb. 14, 2025, to file their Reply brief. Siemens is a provider of sustainable and efficient transport solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 4, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=izAMoM at no extra charge.[CC] SIGNATURE LANDSCAPE: Class Cert. Filing Due May 6, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROGELIO GARCIA VALDEZ and MARBELLA GOMEZ on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. SIGNATURE LANDSCAPE, LLC (Kansas Limited Liability Corporation), Case No. 2:22-cv-02276-TC-ADM (D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge Angel Mitchell entered an amended phase II scheduling order as follows: Event Deadline/Setting Plaintiff expe1is disclosed: Feb. 3, 2025 Defendant experts disclosed: Mar. 5, 2025 All discove1y completed: April 8, 2025 Motion for Rule 23 class certification: May 6, 2025 Motion to dece1iify the conditionally Certified FLSA class: May 6, 2025 Proposed pretrial order due: May 13, 2025 Pretrial conference: May 27, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. Potentially dispositive motions (e.g., summary judgment): July 1, 2025 Motions challenging admissibility of expert testimony: July 1, 2025 Trial: June 9, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. The case is a conditionally certified collective and putative class action brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and Missouri and Kansas state law. Signature Landscape provides full-service landscape maintenance for commercial, multi-family, industrial & municipal properties. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 5, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MERBzM at no extra charge.[CC] SPACE COAST: Court Dismisses Leyva Suit with Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jose Rendon Leyva, v. Space Coast Credit Union, Case No. 2:24-cv-14168-DMM (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Donald Middlebrooks entered an order that the Plaintiff Leyva's claims are dismissed with prejudice. -- The claims of all other putative class members are dismissed without prejudice. -- The clerk of court shall close this case. -- All pending motions are denied as moot. The court congratulates the Parties on their amicable resolution of this matter and notes that pursuant to Anago Franchising, Inc. v. Shaz, LLC, 677 F.3d 1272 (11th Cir.2012), the Parties' Stipulation is self-executing and no order of the Court is required to dismiss Defendants. Space Coast Credit Union operates as a financial cooperative. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 4, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HwZmyU at no extra charge.[CC] SPRINKLR INC: Continues to Defend Boshart Securities Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Sprinklr Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending October 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 4, 2024, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Boshart securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On August 13, 2024, a putative securities class action (the "Action") was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Boshart v. Sprinklr, Inc. et al, Case No. 1:24-cv-06132, naming the Company and certain of its officers as defendants. The plaintiff purports to bring suit on behalf of those who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities between March 29, 2023 and June 5, 2024 (the "Class Period"). The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, for alleged false and misleading statements during the putative Class Period about the Company's business, operations and management, and primarily seeks compensatory damages for all affected members of the putative class. On November 22, 2024, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff for the putative class, changed the case title to In re Sprinklr, Inc. Securities Litigation, and directed the lead plaintiff to inform the Court by December 3, 2024 whether he seeks leave to file a superseding amended complaint and if so by what date he proposes to do so. The Company intends to vigorously defend this lawsuit. Sprinklr is an American software company that develops a software as a service (SaaS) customer experience management (CXM) platform. STANWELL CORP: Court Dismisses Competition Class Action Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Aaron Kelly, writing for ABC Capricornia, reports that a competition class action against power companies Stanwell and CS Energy has been dismissed. In Australia's largest energy class action, the companies were accused of driving up prices illegally. What's next? Justice Sarah Derrington told the court Stanwell and CS Energy did not take advantage of their market power. Two Queensland government-owned electricity generators did not manipulate the market to maximise company profits, the Federal Court has ruled. In Australia's largest energy class action, Stanwell Corporation and CS Energy limited were accused of driving up prices illegally. The class action was initiated by Ronnie and Nick Adamson from the Stillwater Pastoral Company, on behalf of more than 47,000 customers who paid for electricity in Queensland between January 2015 and January 2021. Law firm Piper Alderman led the class action, which was heard in the Federal Court in Brisbane and sought to recover compensation for customers. It was alleged the electricity giants controlled about 70 per cent of the state's energy market and that they abused that dominance. It alleged Stanwell and CS Energy manipulated the bidding system in the National Energy Market (NEM) by bidding late in the settlement process to artificially create scarcity of supply and spike energy prices. Both companies rejected the allegations of manipulation. Justice Sarah Derrington dismissed the class action case on Wednesday, December 4. In her judgement, Justice Derrington said Stanwell and CS Energy did not take advantage of their market power. She found the power companies' conduct was legitimate "profit maximisation behaviour". "During the conduct period under section 46 (2a) did they together have a substantial degree of power in the market? No," Justice Derrington said. "Did they engage in short-notice bidding? No." Generators reject claims Stanwell said it operated within the rules, adding that the NEM was one of the most scrutinised and regulated competitive markets in Australia. "Stanwell is run on behalf of all Queenslanders to support a reliable and competitive wholesale electricity market," a spokesperson said in a statement. "We believe that this class action reflected a fundamental misunderstanding of the Australian electricity market. "We are pleased that the Federal Court has today rejected the allegations of misconduct that have been wrongly levied against Stanwell by the international litigation funders and their representatives behind this misconceived action." CS Energy also welcomed the Federal Court's judgement. "CS Energy is committed to complying with all market rules and regulations and has dedicated substantial resources to ensuring we meet our obligations," a spokesperson said in a statement. "Our bidding activity is regulated under the National Electricity Law and the National Electricity Rules by the Australian Energy Regulator." "The applicant has indicated that it may seek to appeal this decision. As a result, we will not be making any further comment regarding the case at this time." [GN] SUMMIT MATERIALS: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Quikrete ---------------------------------------------------------------- Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), has recovered millions of dollars for shareholders and is recognized as a Top 50 Firm by ISS Securities Class Action Services Report. We are headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City and are investigating: -- Summit Materials, Inc. (NYSE: SUM ), relating to the proposed merger with Quikrete Holdings. Under the terms of the agreement, Summit Materials shareholders will receive $52.50 per share in cash for each share of common stock that they own. Click here for more https://monteverdelaw.com/case/summit-materials-inc-sum/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Entero Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: ENTO ), relating to the proposed merger with Journey Therapeutics, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, the shareholders of Journey will acquire 99% of the equity of Entero. Click here for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/entero-therapeutics-inc-ento/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- AlloVir, Inc. (NASDAQ: ALVR ), relating to its proposed merger with Kalaris Therapeutics. Under the terms of the agreement, AlloVir will acquire 100% of the outstanding equity interest of Kalaris. Upon completion of the Merger, pre-Merger AlloVir stockholders are expected to own approximately 25.05% of the combined company and pre-Merger Kalaris stockholders are expected to own approximately 74.95% of the combined company. Click here for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/allovir-inc-alvr/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Staffing 360 Solutions, Inc. (Nasdaq: STAF ), relating to a proposed merger with Atlantic International Corp. Under the terms of the agreement, Staffing 360 shareholders will receive 1.202 Atlantic shares for each Staffing 360 share. Atlantic and Staffing 360 shareholders will own approximately 90% and 10%, respectively, of the combined company. Click here for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/staffing-360-solutions-inc-staf/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . . and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common stock in any of the above listed companies and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 United States of America jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com Tel: (212) 971-1341 Attorney Advertising. (C) 2024 Monteverde & Associates PC. The law firm responsible for this advertisement is Monteverde & Associates PC ( www.monteverdelaw.com ). Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. [GN] SURFACE PROS: Class Pretrial Conference in Masons Due Jan. 8, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cement Masons, Plasterers and Shophands Service Corporation, v. Surface Pros LLC et al., Case No. 0:24-cv-03827-JRT-ECW (D. Minn.), the Hon. Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright entered an order setting a pretrial conference on Jan. 8, 2025 at 9:00 a.m., before United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright, via telephone. -- If any party does not have counsel of record listed in this case, the Plaintiff's counsel bears the responsibility to (1) immediately notify those parties and counsel of this conference, and (2) inform those parties and counsel of the requirements set forth in this notice. -- Failure of any party or counsel to comply with any part of this Notice may result in the postponement of the pretrial conference, the imposition of an appropriate sanction on the party or attorney who failed to comply, or both. Surface Pros is a women-owned commercial floor coating company. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 2, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wz4oDK at no extra charge.[CC] SYMBOTIC INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set Feb. 3 --------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the upcoming February 3, 2025 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Symbotic Inc. ("Symbotic" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: SYM) securities between February 8, 2024, and November 26, 2024, inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you suffered a loss on your Symbotic investments or would like to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact information at www.glancylaw.com/cases/Symbotic-Inc-1/. You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights. On November 18, 2024, Symbotic disclosed that it had "determined that it will be required to restate its previously issued unaudited interim financial statements for the first, second and third quarters of fiscal year 2024." The Company explained the restatement was being made in connection with certain expenses which "resulted in the acceleration of the recognition of cost of revenue." Then, on November 27, 2024, Symbotic disclosed that it would be unable to timely file its annual financial report for fiscal year 2024 due to "an error related to system revenue recognition and the impacts of that error on internal controls over financial reporting." On this news, Symbotic's stock price fell $13.14, or 35.8%, to close at $24.00 per share on November 27, 2024, thereby injuring investors. The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) the Company had ineffective internal controls; (2) the company had improperly accelerated its recognition of revenue; and (3) as a result, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Symbotic securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than February 3, 2025 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit, please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. Contacts Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles Charles Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224 shareholders@glancylaw.com www.glancylaw.com [GN] SYMBOTIC INC: Continues to Defend Decker Class Suit in Mass. ------------------------------------------------------------ Symbotic Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending October 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 4, 2024, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Decker class suit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. On December 3, 2024, a putative class action captioned Decker v. Symbotic Inc. et al., Case No. 24-cv-12976 was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts by an alleged purchaser of the Company's common stock. The complaint asserts claims for violations of federal securities laws against the Company and three of its officers on the grounds that the Company made false and/or misleading statements related to its revenue recognition and the effectiveness of its disclosure controls and procedures. Based on these allegations, the plaintiff brings claims seeking unspecified damages, attorneys' fees, expert fees, and other costs and relief on behalf of himself and a putative class of persons who purchased the Company's stock between February 8, 2024 and November 26, 2024. The Company intends to vigorously defend the case. SYM develops, implements, and operates end-to-end supply chain automation technology in the United States and Canada.[BN] SYMBOTIC INC: Continues to Defend Fox Class Suit in Mass. --------------------------------------------------------- Symbotic Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending October 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 4, 2024, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Fox class suit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. On August 14, 2024, a putative class action captioned Fox v. Symbotic Inc. et al., Case No. 24-cv-12090 was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts by an alleged holder of the Company's common stock. The complaint asserts claims for violations of federal securities laws against the Company and two of its officers on the grounds that, among other things, it made false and/or misleading statements related to its expected earnings for the third quarter of fiscal year 2024. Based on these allegations, the plaintiff brings claims seeking unspecified damages, attorneys' fees, expert fees, and other costs and relief on behalf of herself and a putative class of persons who purchased its stock between May 6, 2024 and July 29, 2024. On September 11, 2024, the court entered a stipulation staying its deadline to respond to the complaint until after a lead plaintiff has been appointed pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. On October 15, 2024, four alleged shareholders filed motions seeking to be appointed as lead plaintiff. As of November 7, 2024, one alleged shareholder has withdrawn her motion for appointment as lead plaintiff, and two others have filed papers stating that they do not oppose the competing motion of the movant who claimed the largest losses, Dr. Seshagiri Rao Kalapala, and his selection of Levi & Korsinsky, LLP as lead counsel. As of December 3, 2024, the court has not yet ruled on the pending lead plaintiff motions. The Company intends to vigorously defend the case. SYM develops, implements, and operates end-to-end supply chain automation technology in the United States and Canada.[BN] T-MOBILE US: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Misleading Pricing --------------------------------------------------------------- Ezza Ijaz, writing for WCCTech, reports that T-Mobile has seen immense pressure this year and ended up being sporadically involved in controversy. Whether it is about a cell tower the company is trying to build, its shady sales tactics, or major breaches that took place due to negligence on the company's end, the telecommunication service provider has had a tough time sustaining its long-built reputation. Now, the company is said to be facing another lawsuit where a customer claims the company deceptively charged the user and did not fully disclose the carrier charges. Consumers filed a lawsuit against T-Mobile for misleading pricing practices T-Mobile lands itself in hot waters and is now facing a class action that is pursued by 23 plaintiffs against the company for its deceptive pricing practices. According to the lawsuit, the carrier's Regulatory Programs and Telco Recovery Fee (RPTR Fee) is misleading because there is a lack of transparency on the type of fee being charged. The plaintiffs argue that the fee is presented by the company as a mandatory charge when, in fact, it is a price increase presented as a government-imposed charge due to its misleading naming. This misrepresentation has stirred a debate where the company is being blamed for engaging in deceptive billing practices that violate consumer protection laws. The accusation emphasizes how the charges are to boost T-Mobile's revenues but are presented as taxes and government-required amounts on bills when, in fact, the fee is purely discretionary. T-Mobile, in its defense, pointed out that on the website, the RPTR Fee is specifically mentioned as operational costs that are expenses related to network infrastructure and not government-mandated charges. T-Mobile then mentioned other companies engaging in the same practice, such as Verizon, under its Administrative and Telco Recovery Charge, which also caused legal trouble. The plaintiffs in T-Mobile's case did try for arbitration, but apparently, the company did not opt for it. The lawsuit also highlights how the telecommunication service provider adjusted the fee without any notice to its consumers. The class action is seeking not only financial compensation for the affected customers but also to cover jury trials and other legal fees. The development of the case would be interesting given that T-Mobile's terms and conditions require consumers to waive their right to participate in a class action lawsuit and a jury trial. If any disputes emerge, they are resolved through mandatory arbitration. Nonetheless, it is yet to be seen how the court would respond and deem this case fair. [GN] TASKUS INC: Bid to File Class Supplemental Briefs OK'd ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lozada v. TaskUs, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-01479-JPC-GS (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge John Cronan entered an order granting the parties' request to file supplemental briefs and to supplement the record regarding the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. -- The Court will consider the supplemental materials provided by the parties to the extent relevant to resolving the motion for class certification. -- The Defendants' request to stay discovery and to file an early summary judgment motion is denied without prejudice, and the Court will enter a summary judgment briefing schedule at the close of discovery if appropriate. TaskUs is an outsourcing company that handles content moderation, customer experience, artificial intelligence, operations and risk & response services. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 5, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GjSkTq at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Jonathan K. Youngwood, Esq. SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP 425 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 455-2000 E-mail: jyoungwood@stblaw.com TECH NETWORK: De La Rosa Files FLSA Suit in E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tech Network, Inc. The case is styled as Natanael De La Rosa, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Tech Network, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-08356 (N.D. Okla., Dec. 5, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Tech Network -- https://www.technetworkinc.com/ -- is a leading telecom labor provider, offers skilled technicians for residential, commercial, and construction projects.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert John Valli, Jr., Esq. VALLI KANE & VAGNINI, LLP 600 Old Country Road, Suite 519 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 203-7180 Fax: (516) 706-0248 Email: rvalli@vkvlawyers.com TEGRIA HOLDINGS: Rule 23 Class Gets Final Certification ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICARDO CHERY, et al., v. TEGRIA HOLDINGS LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-00612-MLP (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Michelle Peterson entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' approval motion and fees motion as follows: (1) The following Rule 23 class, which was preliminarily certified, is finally certified for settlement purposes: "All individuals who were employed and paid by Defendant to provide software training to hospital workers in the United States at any time during the Relevant Time Period (defined as Apr. 3, 2020, through Mar. 31, 2023)." (2) The Court confirms the appointment of Plaintiffs Ricardo Chery, Marcus McFarland, and Jasmine Siggers to represent the Rule 23 settlement class. (3) The Court confirms the appointment of Harold L. Lichten of Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C., and Michael C. Subit of Frank Freed Subit & Thomas LLP as class counsel, and Simpluris as settlement administrator. (4) The Court finds that adequate notice was provided to the class. (5) The Court approves the Settlement Agreement as fair, reasonable, and adequate. (6) The Court approves the FLSA portion of the Settlement Agreement on behalf of all opt-in members as a reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute. (7) The Court approves class counsel's request for $375,000 in Attorney's fees and $11,300 in costs. (8) The Court approves service awards for Plaintiffs of $5,000 each. (9) Settlement funds shall be distributed in accordance with the Settlement Agreement. (10) The Court directs that this action be dismissed without prejudice as of the date of this final approval Order, to be converted to a dismissal with prejudice 30 days after the conclusion of the check-cashing period and in full and final discharge of Plaintiffs' released claims, eligible settlement class members' released claims, and participating settlement collective members' released claims. In accordance with the Settlement Agreement, class counsel shall file notice with the Court within 30 days after the check-cashing period. Having considered the relevant factors and the representations of the parties, the Court finds that the Settlement Agreement is a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute over FLSA coverage. The Court approves the FLSA collective action portion of the Settlement Agreement. Tegria "is a healthcare consulting and technology company that provides training and support to hospitals as they implement new software to perform electronic record keeping." A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 6, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cEIRrs at no extra charge.[CC] TELEPERFORMANCE SE: Warren "ADRs" Suit Seeks to Certify Class ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CITY OF WARREN GENERAL EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, on Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, v. TELEPERFORMANCE SE, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-24580-CMA (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court, pursuant to Rule 23(a), (b)(3), and (g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to enter an Order: (1) certifying a class consisting of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Teleperformance SE American Depositary Receipts ("ADRs") between Feb. 20, 2020 and Aug. 3, 2022, inclusive, and who were damaged thereby ("Class"); (2) appointing Plaintiffs as Class Representatives; and (3) appointing Lead Counsel Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as Class Counsel. The Plaintiffs seek certification of this action as a class action on behalf of a proposed Class consisting of: "All persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Teleperformance SE American Depositary Receipts ("ADRs") between Feb.20, 2020, and Aug. 3, 2022, inclusive, and were damaged thereby. This is a federal securities class action against Teleperformance and certain of its senior executives. The Complaint alleges that between Feb. 20, 2020, and Aug. 3, 2022, the Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. sections 78j(b) and 78t(a), by making false and misleading statements and omissions regarding the working conditions of Teleperformance content moderators. Teleperformance SE is a French multinational business process outsourcing company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 5, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=88yBMj at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen E. Astley, Esq. Sabrina E. Tirabassi, Esq. Luke Goveas, Esq. Alex Kaplan, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 225 NE Mizner Boulevard, Suite 720 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 750-3000 Facsimile: (561) 750-3364 E-mail: sastley@rgrdlaw.com stirabassi@rgrdlaw.com lgoveas@rgrdlaw.com akaplan@rgrdlaw.com - and - Thomas C. Michaud, Esq. VANOVERBEKE, MICHAUD & TIMMONY, P.C. 79 Alfred Street Detroit, MI 48201 Telephone: (313) 578-1200 Facsimile: (313) 578-1201 E-mail: tmichaud@vmtlaw.com TPUSA INC: Faces Roy Suit Over Unpaid OT for Call Center Employees ------------------------------------------------------------------ BENJAMIN ROY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TPUSA, INC., and SENTURE, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-00908-DAK (D. Utah, December 6, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Kentucky Wage and Hour Act. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a call center employee. TPUSA, Inc. is an outsourced customer relationship management services provider in Utah. Senture, LLC is a commercial organization, headquartered in Utah. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lauren Braddy, Esq. Carter Hastings, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 101 N. Shoreline, Blvd., Suite 610 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 Email: lauren@a2xlaw.com carter@a2xlaw.com - and - Andrew W. Stavros, Esq. STAVROS LAW P.C. 8915 South 700 East, Suite 202 Sandy, UT 84070 Telephone: (801) 758-7604 Facsimile: (801) 893-3573 Email: andy@stavroslaw.com TRANSPORT CANADA: Faces Class Action Over Well Water Contamination ------------------------------------------------------------------ Elizabeth Whitten of CBC News reports that for the last eight months, a Newfoundland family has been drinking bottled water after being informed the water from their well was contaminated with a toxic chemical. In December 2024, the family is now leading a proposed class-action lawsuit taking aim at the federal government. According to a statement filed by McInnes Cooper partner J. Alex Templeton last week with the Federal Court, the problem stretches from the early 1980s all the way to 2004, when firefighting training at St. John's International Airport used a foam that contained a toxic substances called perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl (PFAS). After training was discontinued, the lawsuit alleges Transport Canada's clean up didn't go far enough, and dozens of homes in southeast Torbay now have contaminated wells. Eddie Sheerr, a meteorologist with NTV News, is the lead plaintiff alongside his wife. Sheerr said the threat to his family's well-being has been weighing on his mind for months. "What's this going do to my wife's health? My health? My kids' health down the line? Is it safe to bathe in? Is it safe to, you know, brush our teeth with? If we've got to wash our food, is it safe for that?" Sheerr told Radio-Canada. He also fears it could damage his property's value. Since the spring, the Sheerrs have been drinking bottled water provided by Transport Canada. That began soon after they got the test results that their well was above the 30 nanograms per litre of PFAS permitted under Health Canada guidelines. The class action lawsuit has not been certified and the allegations have not been tested in court. In an emailed statement to CBC News, Transport Canada said Wednesday, December 4, it's aware of the proposed lawsuit but will not comment on the matter since it's before the courts. Transport Canada said it will continue to work with local health authorities and support potentially affected residents and communities. Threat of chemicals According to the statement of claim, there are extensive health risks to PFAS exposure. They can include testicular cancer, kidney cancer, liver damage, autoimmune and endocrine disorders, preeclampsia, ulcerative colitis, thyroid disease and others. "In my mind, it's extremely serious," said Sheerr. "We moved into this house in 2017. In the time since we've moved in here, we've made it a home and we have two girls." Sheerr said he has researched the dangers the chemical poses to humans and said that once its ingested, it accumulates in the body. "These chemicals are forever," said Sheerr. Questions for Transport Canada In January, according to the statement of claim, Transport Canada started collecting water samples from wells in the impacted area, which included the Sheerrs' home. At the time, residents were told it was a precautionary measure, "as Health Canada was in the process of developing a new PFAS objective for drinking water." The statement says Transport Canada did not disclose to the plaintiffs and the other participants of its knowledge of the presence and extent of PFAS detected in the groundwater in the monitoring wells between the contaminated site and the impacted area. Transport Canada later held a meeting on Sept. 12, when residents were informed about the contamination. "As a result of Transport Canada's actions and inaction, the plaintiffs and the proposed class members have suffered, and continue to suffer, interference with their use and enjoyment of their properties within the impacted area, diminution of value and marketability of their properties, as well as inconvenience, discomfort and distress," the statement of claim reads. However, Sheerr says he doesn't know how long Transport Canada knew about the problem. "It's an area they've been monitoring for years going back to, I think, the early 2000s. They tried to clean up the firefighting training area inside the bounds of the airport, which again, is their property," said Sheerr. While they might have cleaned it up, he says they didn't remove it from the ground. "It's 2024 now. I would say, you know, for at least 20 years they've known this could be a potential issue," Sheerr said. The lawsuit alleges the federal government didn't properly clean up the site and also failed to warn residents about the presence of PFAS and health risks. On Nov. 28, St. John's East MP Joanne Thompson issued a statement, telling Torbay residents that water testing would start "immediately." "Following the testing, Torbay residents will be the first in the country to receive free in-home treatment systems to deal with any (PFAS) that are of concern," Thompson's statement reads. Sheerr says he isn't satisfied with that. "To me, it seems a bit disconnected," he said, adding that while he believed Thompson is doing her best to advocate for residents, he has been dealing with the issue for months. Lawyer urges Transport Canada to act Templeton said the presence of PFAS in water wells is causing a lot of distress. "I'm hearing lots of stories of people with sleepless nights. It's really impacting their ability to deal with their homes," he said. He said the focus of the class-action lawsuit is the possible impact to owned property. Transport Canada has not filed a response in court. Since filing the class action, Templeton says he hasn't heard from Transport Canada, but pointed to a disparity around who is provided bottled water. For example, a household with a well that has tested for 30 nanograms per litre is supplied with free water, but a neighbour with less than that isn't getting the same deal. He wants Transport Canada to tell residents in the impacted area to stop drinking the water and to supply them all with bottled water. "And make the commitment that they will go and conduct testing on each of these drinking water wells so that they can start to understand exactly the extent to the nature of the problem." [GN] TRUE WORLD: Byrd Sues Over Failure to Use Up To-Date Security ------------------------------------------------------------- Patrick Byrd, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. TRUE WORLD HOLDINGS, LLC d/b/a TRUE WORLD GROUP, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-10927 (D.N.J., Dec. 5, 2024), is brought as a result of the Defendant's failure to properly use up to-date security practices to prevent the Data Breach. On August 23, 2024, True World became aware that it had lost control over its computer network and the highly sensitive personal information stored on the computer network in a data breach by cybercriminals ("Data Breach"). On information and belief, the Data Breach has impacted at least 8,532 individuals, including Defendant's current and former employees. On August 23, 2024, Defendant learned cybercriminals gained unauthorized access to current and former employees' personally identifiable information ("PII"), including but not limited to their names, Social Security numbers, and dates of birth. On November 1, 2024--more than two months after the Data Breach was discovered--Defendant finally began notifying Plaintiff and Class Members about the Data Breach ("Breach Notice"). Cybercriminals were able to breach Defendant's systems because Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity, failed to adequately monitor its agents, contractors, vendors, and suppliers in handling and securing the PII of Plaintiff, and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class's PII--rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals. The Defendant's failure to timely report the Data Breach made the victims vulnerable to identity theft without any warnings to monitor their financial accounts or credit reports to prevent unauthorized use of their PII. The Defendant knew or should have known that each victim of the Data Breach deserved prompt and efficient notice of the Data Breach and assistance in mitigating the effects of PII misuse. In failing to adequately protect current and former employees' information, adequately notify them about the breach, and obfuscating the nature of the breach, Defendant violated state law and harmed a staggering number of employees, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a former employee of Defendant and is a Data Breach victim. True World is a "one of the nation's leading, diversified seafood products companies" and employs over 1,000 individuals.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick Howard, Esq. SALTZ MONGELUZZI & BENDESKY, P.C. 8000 Sagemore Drive, Suite 8303 Marlton, NJ 08053 Phone: (215) 575-3895 Email: phoward@smbb.com - and - Raina C. Borrelli, 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 TTEC SERVICES: Alvarez Seeks Conditional Status of Action ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LOREN ALVAREZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. TTEC SERVICES CORPORATION, Case No. 1:24-cv-02847-SBP (D. Colo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: (1) conditionally certificating this case as a collective action and (2) mandating dissemination of notice to all putative Plaintiffs comprising the FLSA Collective defined as: "All persons who have been employed by Defendant (or any predecessor entity, including but not limited to TTEC@Home LLC) as a remote worker in any non-exempt position, and worked more than 40 hours in at least one workweek, within three years prior to this action's filing (the "Relevant Period") and who were subject to Defendant's Unreimbursed Tool Policy." The Plaintiff filed this putative collective and class action on Oct. 15, 2024 pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the Virginia Overtime Wage Act ("VOWA") to recover unpaid overtime compensation for herself and others similarly situated. The Plaintiff worked for TTEC (including its predecessor) from June 2020 to March 21, 2024. The Plaintiff's was initially a Customer Service Representative, and later a Back Office Claims Representative. TTEC is in the business of operating remote call centers. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 6, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Rr0AYX at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zev H. Antell, Esq. BUTLER CURWOOD, PLC 140 Virginia Street, Suite 302 Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 648-4848 Facsimile: (804) 237-1413 E-mail: zev@butlercurwood.com - and - Timothy Lawrence Coffield, Esq. COFFIELD PLC 106-F Melbourne Park Circle Charlottesville, VA 22901 Telephone: (434) 218-3133 Facsimile: (434) 321-1636 E-mail: tc@coffieldlaw.com UNISYS CORP: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims --------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Unisys Corporation (NYSE: UIS) resulting from allegations that Unisys may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. SO WHAT: If you purchased Unisys securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=9648 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On October 22, 2024, the Securities and Exchange Commission announced that it had charged four companies, including Unisys, with "making materially misleading disclosures regarding cybersecurity risks and intrusions." Further, the SEC also charged Unisys with disclosure controls and procedures violations. On this news, Unisys stock fell 8.6% on October 22, 2024. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company at the time. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] UNIVERSITY OF OREGON: Class Cert Bid Filing Due June 12, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Schroeder, et al., v. University of Oregon, Case No. 6:23-cv-01806 (D. Or., Filed Dec. 1, 2023), the Hon. Judge Michael J. Mcshane entered an order granting joint motion for extension time. -- The Court adopts the deadlines proposed Jan. 31, 2025 in the Joint Motion. Defendants' reply briefs in support of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, and Partial Motion for Summary Judgment are due: -- The Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification June 12, 2025 is due: -- The Defendant's response to the Motion for July 11, 2025 Class Certification is due: -- The Plaintiff's reply to the Motion for Aug. 11, 2025 Class Certification is due: The nature of suit states Discrimination Based on Sex or Blindness. The University of Oregon is a public research university in Eugene, Oregon, United States.[CC] UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Court Seals Class Docs ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as IOLA FAVELL, SUE ZARNOWSKI, MARIAH CUMMINGS, and AHMAD MURTADA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, Case No. 2:23-cv-00846-GW-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge George Wu entered an order granting the application that the following documents and portions of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification shall be sealed, as indicated below: Brief Deposition Description of Bates Designating Exhibit Exhibit Document Number Party Number Number 6 12/21/2021 2U- USC_FAV_ USC USC Services 000024998 Agreement 8 4/4/2014 USC_FAV_ USC Second 000024990 Agreement to 2U-USC Services Agreement 9 USC's Revised USC_FAV_ USC Responses and 000095912 Objections to Plaintiffs' Second Set of Interrogatories University of Southern California is a private institution that was founded in 1880. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 3, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Gvxa2E at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Anna C. Haac, Esq. Shilpa Sadhasvisam, Esq. Annick M. Persinger, Esq. Sabita J. Soneji, Esq. David McGee, Esq. Emily Feder Cooper, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 2000 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W., Suite 1010 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 973-0900 Facsimile: (202) 973-0950 E-mail: ahaac@tzlegal.com ssadhasivam@tzlegal.com apersinger@tzlegal.com ssoneji@tzlegal.com dmcgee@tzlegal.com ecooper@tzlegal.com - and - Eric Rothschild, Esq. Tyler Ritchie, Esq. Chris Bryant, Esq. Madeline Wiseman, Esq. NATIONAL STUDENT LEGAL DEFENSE NETWORK 1701 Rhode Island Avenue Northwest Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 734-7495 E-mail: eric@defendstudents.org tyler@defendstudents.org chris@defendstudents.org madeline@defendstudents.org VARSITY BRANDS: Court Certifies Three Classes in Jones Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JESSICA JONES, et al., v. VARSITY BRANDS, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-02892-SHL-tmp (W.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Sheryl Lipman entered an order certifying the following Classes for settlement purposes only: a. State Law Damages Class: "All natural persons and entities in Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin, that indirectly paid Varsity or any Varsity subsidiary or affiliate, from Dec. 10, 2016, through March 31, 2024, for: (a) registration, entrance, or other fees and expenses associated with participation in one or more Varsity Cheer Competitions; (b) Varsity Cheer Apparel; (c) Varsity Cheer Camp Fees; or (d) accommodations at one or more Varsity Cheer Competitions." b. Injunctive Relief Class: "All natural persons and entities in the United States that indirectly paid Varsity or any Varsity subsidiary or affiliate, from Dec. 10, 2016, through March 31, 2024, for: (a) registration, entrance, or other fees and expenses associated with participation in one or more Varsity Cheer Competitions, including registration fees to USASF; (b) Varsity Cheer Apparel; (c) Varsity Cheer Camp Fees; or (d) accommodations at one or more Varsity Cheer Competitions, including registration fees to USASF. c. Excluded from the Settlement Classes are Defendants, their parent companies, subsidiaries and affiliates, officers, executives, and employees, Defendants' attorneys in this case, federal government entities and instrumentalities, states or their subdivisions, and all judges and jurors assigned to this case. The Plaintiffs and conditionally appointed class representatives Jessica Jones, Christina Lorenzen, and Amy Coulson are approved as representatives of the Classes. The Individual Purchaser Plaintiffs' Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees, for Reimbursement of Expenses, and for Service Awards for the Class Representatives is granted. Varsity is a prominent host of competitive cheerleading competitions and camps. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 6, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=175cZD at no extra charge.[CC] VENEZUELA: Faces Creditor Class Suit After Missing Bond Payments ---------------------------------------------------------------- Alyssa Aquino, writing for Law.com, reports that a creditor filed a proposed class action in the Manhattan federal court to force Venezuela to make good on $1.5 billion worth of defaulted government bonds. Counseled by Duane Morris, Sabine Zahn argued the Latin American country breached the terms of the bonds when it stopped making the semiannual 9.375% interest payments and failed to repay the principal when the loans matured. The bonds "were duly issued by the [Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela] and are valid and unconditional obligations," according to the complaint filed on Thursday, December 5. The bonds, according to the complaint, were issued in 2004 under an agreement between Venezuela, its national bank, the Banco Central de Venezuela and NY Mellon Global Corporate Trust. The bonds were initially scheduled to mature in January 2034, but creditors accelerated the maturation date to December 2018, after Venezuela -- roiled by hyperinflation -- stopped paying interest on external debts. Holding a $10,000 interest in the bonds, Zahn brought the breach of contract suit on behalf of a proposed class of creditors who hold interests in the 2004 loans as of December 5. Representatives for Zahn and Venezuela's Ministry of Finance and Economy didn't respond to requests for comment. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, one of the many forums that holders of Venezuelan securities have turned to following the crash of the country's economy. In 2021, U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres entered a default judgment against Venezuela for missing payments on $1.2 billion in bonds held by entities managed by Pharo Management. Another dispute saw the court's U.S. District Judge Katherine Polk Failla upholding the validity of Venezuelan bonds that were backed by PDVSA, Venezuela's state-owned oil company. The Second Circuit later vacated Failla's ruling. The mounting litigation has also ensnared Citgo, PDVSA's U.S. refiner that is widely considered Venezuela's "foreign crown jewel," with the Delaware federal court overseeing the auction of Citgo's parent company to satisfy Venezuela's debts. [GN] WARNER BROS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set January 24 ------------------------------------------------------------ If you suffered a loss on your Warner Bros. Discovery, Inc. (NASDAQ:WBD) investment and want to learn about a potential recovery under the federal securities laws, follow the link below for more information: https://zlk.com/pslra-1/warner-bros-discovery-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=115198&wire=1 or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. via email at jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or call (212) 363-7500 to speak to our team of experienced shareholder advocates. THE LAWSUIT: A class action securities lawsuit was filed against Warner Bros. Discovery, Inc. that seeks to recover losses of shareholders who were adversely affected by alleged securities fraud between February 23, 2024 and August 7, 2024. CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that defendants made false statements and/or concealed that: (i) WBD's sports rights negotiations with the NBA were causing, or were likely to cause, the Company to significantly reevaluate its business and goodwill; (ii) WBD's goodwill in its Networks segment had significantly deteriorated as a result of the difference between its market capitalization and book value, continued softness in certain U.S. advertising markets, and uncertainty related to affiliate and sports rights renewals, including with the NBA; (iii) the foregoing significantly increased the likelihood of WBD incurring billions of dollars in goodwill impairment charges; (iv) accordingly, defendants had overstated WBD's overall business and financial prospects; and (v) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. WHAT'S NEXT? If you suffered a loss in Warner Bros. Discovery stock during the relevant time frame - even if you still hold your shares - go to https://zlk.com/pslra-1/warner-bros-discovery-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=115198&wire=1 to learn about your rights to seek a recovery. There is no cost or obligation to participate. WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Over the past 20 years, Levi & Korsinsky LLP has established itself as a nationally-recognized securities litigation firm that has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders and built a track record of winning high-stakes cases. The firm has extensive expertise representing investors in complex securities litigation and a team of over 70 employees to serve our clients. For seven years in a row, Levi & Korsinsky has ranked in ISS Securities Class Action Services' Top 50 Report as one of the top securities litigation firms in the United States. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Levi & Korsinsky, LLP Joseph E. Levi, Esq. Ed Korsinsky, Esq. 33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 jlevi@levikorsinsky.com Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 https://zlk.com/ [GN] WHOLE FOODS: Safari Seeks to Certify Class ------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SARA SAFARI, et al., on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, v. WHOLE FOODS MARKET SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation, et al., Case No. 8:22-cv-01562-JWH-KES (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on April 8, 2025, will move the Court, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3), for an order certifying the following class: "All persons who purchased any beef product from Whole Foods in California from Aug. 23, 2018 to the present (the "Class Period")." The Class is limited to individuals who purchased Whole Foods beef products in stores or online. The proposed Class excludes any individuals who purchased Whole Foods meat products only secondarily from non-retailers (e.g., from a friend). In addition, excluded from the proposed Class are Defendants, their employees, officers, directors, legal representatives, heirs, successors, parents, and wholly or partly owned subsidiaries or affiliated companies; Class counsel and their employees; and the judicial officers and their immediate family members and associated court staff assigned to this case. The Plaintiffs will also move the Court to appoint them as Class Representatives and to appoint Elsner Law & Policy, LLC, Grime Law LLP, and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as Co-Lead Class Counsel. Certification is proper because Plaintiffs' claims and supporting evidence readily meet Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3) requirements, the lawsuit says. The Plaintiffs allege that Whole Foods misled beef product purchasers. The Plaintiffs are two consumers who trusted the Whole Foods brand and relied upon the "No Antibiotics, Ever" marketing when they purchased Whole Foods beef products in California within the proposed Class Period. Whole Foods retails organic and natural foods. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 6, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=coif0f at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Aelish M. Baig, Esq. Taeva C. Shefler, Esq. Alaina L. Gilchrist, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP Post Montgomery Center One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 288-4545 Facsimile: (415) 288-4534 E-mail: aelishb@rgrdlaw.com tshefler@rgrdlaw.com agilchrist@rgrdlaw.com - and - Dylan D. Grimes, Esq. Paige M. Tomaselli, Esq. GRIME LAW LLP 730 Arizona Avenue Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 747-5095 E-mail ptomaselli@grimelaw.com dgrimes@grimelaw.com - and - Gretchen Elsner, Esq. ELSNER LAW & POLICY, LLC 314 South Guadalupe Street, Suite 123 Santa Fe, NM 87501 Telephone: (505) 303-0980 E-mail: gretchen@elsnerlaw.org WHOLE FOODS: Safari Seeks to File Class Cert Docs Under Seal ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as SARA SAFARI, et al., on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, v. WHOLE FOODS MARKET SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation, et al., Case No. 8:22-cv-01562-JWH-KES (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their application to file under seal and redact certain portions of Plaintiffs' motion to certify class, appoint class representative, and appoint class counsel and accompanying documents that have been classified as "Confidential." The application is supported by the Declaration of Taeva C. Shefler. The Plaintiffs have reviewed and complied with L.R. 79-5.2.2(a). The Plaintiffs must file the accompanying documents under seal because they reference or quote information that "shall be maintained under seal" pursuant to Defendants' designation as CONFIDENTIAL under the Protective Order. Pursuant to L.R. 79-5.2.2(a), the Shefler Declaration identifies the documents containing the purportedly CONFIDENTIAL information. The sealed documents will be submitted conditionally under seal with this Application. Whole Foods retails organic and natural foods. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 6, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pkxxvC at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Aelish M. Baig, Esq. Taeva C. Shefler, Esq. Alaina L. Gilchrist, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP Post Montgomery Center One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 288-4545 Facsimile: (415) 288-4534 E-mail: aelishb@rgrdlaw.com tshefler@rgrdlaw.com agilchrist@rgrdlaw.com - and - Dylan D. Grimes, Esq. Paige M. Tomaselli, Esq. GRIME LAW LLP 730 Arizona Avenue Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 747-5095 E-mail ptomaselli@grimelaw.com dgrimes@grimelaw.com - and - Gretchen Elsner, Esq. ELSNER LAW & POLICY, LLC 314 South Guadalupe Street, Suite 123 Santa Fe, NM 87501 Telephone: (505) 303-0980 E-mail: gretchen@elsnerlaw.org WILLIAM HEINEMANN: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Products ------------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Peak, writing for APM Reports, reports that twenty-five state legislatures and countless school boards have acted over the past two years to move schools away from the discredited approach to teaching reading investigated in the APM Reports podcast Sold a Story. Now, two mothers in Massachusetts are taking the issue to court. Karrie Conley and Michele Hudak filed a lawsuit Wednesday, December 4, alleging that the educational publisher Heinemann and three of its best-selling authors promoted "deceptive" and "defective" products that made it harder for their children to learn to read. The suit, filed in Suffolk County Superior Court, seeks class-action status on behalf of schoolchildren in Massachusetts who were taught to read with Heinemann products. The lawsuit alleges that the defendants falsely marketed their literacy products as "research-backed" and "data-based," failed to "warn" consumers that the products lacked sufficient phonics instruction and continued to sell those products even when they should have known they were inadequate. It claims that Heinemann and its authors "denigrated phonics at worst and paid mere lip service to phonics at best." The mothers want the defendants to pay back all the money that families such as theirs spent on tutoring, plus punitive damages. They also want the defendants to provide Massachusetts schools that used the allegedly defective literacy products with a reading curriculum "that reflects and incorporates the science of reading," free of charge. The defendants include Heinemann's parent company, HMH, formerly known as Houghton Mifflin Harcourt; authors Lucy Calkins, Irene Fountas and Gay Su Pinnell; and several related organizations, including the board of trustees of Teachers College, Columbia University, where Calkins founded a teacher training institute in 1981. Such lawsuits can take years to resolve, as attorneys argue over whether a class action is appropriate, and if so, who should be part of it. But the sheer number of potential plaintiffs could make the amount of money at stake staggering. The case could also break new legal ground. Stuart Rossman, who oversaw litigation at the National Consumer Law Center for 25 years, said he wasn't aware of any previous class-action lawsuits over literacy curricula. Timothy Shanahan, a retired professor who's studied the history of reading instruction, concurred, saying he couldn't think of anything like it dating back to at least the 1970s. One of the attorneys behind the case, Benjamin Elga, said he listened to Sold a Story and immediately saw "an injustice that cried out for redress." "I wish I had been educated about this issue 20 years ago and had been able to pitch in then," said Elga, the executive director at Justice Catalyst Law, a New York nonprofit that files public-interest litigation. In an interview, Elga said he views Massachusetts as an attractive venue for the case because of its strong consumer protection laws. Massachusetts also takes a largely hands-off approach to how schools teach reading, resisting a national trend toward legislating curricula. In a recent survey conducted by the state Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, 24 of the 155 school districts that identified an early elementary literacy curriculum reported using a Heinemann program. Nancy Duggan, the executive director of Decoding Dyslexia-MA, has been pushing for a lawsuit like this for years. Many parents in her group had initiated special-education cases against their school districts, but those actions were often resolved in settlements that included non-disclosure agreements. Duggan wanted a court case out in the open. "If you have thousands of special education decisions and they're all a secret, it's like the tree that fell in the forest nobody hears. Nobody knows the trees have been falling for decades," Duggan told APM Reports. "A product-liability case reaches beyond the secrecy of parents doing this over and over -- every one of those falling trees -- spending their own money, spending their own time, fighting for their kids." In August, Duggan encouraged followers of her group's Facebook page to share their stories with Justice Catalyst Law. Both mothers had joined the group after their children had fallen years behind in school. "When there is an injustice going on, I'm not the type of person that can sit back," Conley said in an interview. "The injustice is going to continue. I don't want that. We need change." [GN] [*] US Tech Giants Face First UK Class Action Over AI Data ---------------------------------------------------------- Manchester-based Barings Law is aiming to sign up Brits to the legal claim for a myriad of data misuses, including collecting extensive information about users' voices, demographics, time spent on apps, personal details such as email addresses, contents of emails and more. The legal firm claims to have been investigating the issue for almost two years and insists that a large array of data is being stored and shared to develop large language models. The firm has now launched a national marketing campaign targeting anyone with a Microsoft or Google account or those who have used their services, potentially tens of millions of Brits. These platforms include but are not limited to YouTube, Gmail, Gmail messages, Google Docs, browsing history, map searches, docs, LinkedIn, OneDrive, Outlook, Microsoft 365, Xbox and more. Data Protection authorities across Europe have beenn quick to stamp out this data grab. In September, LinkedIn caved into pressure over its AI scheme following an intervention from the UK's Information Commissioner's Office. The company joined Meta, X, and Google to either suspend or scrap their programmes on the back of claims they have been using user data without consent. Privacy organisation NOYB, backed by Austrian lawyer Max Schrems, has also lodged complaints about ChatGPT pioneer OpenAI, claiming it is in breach of GDPR. Barings Law plans to issue court proceedings at the beginning of 2025. The cyber security specialist firm has extensive experience in high-profile data breach cases, including the Capita cyber-attack, and it recently settled a high-profile data protection claim. Barings Law head of data breach Adnan Malik said the team are well prepared to take on the mammoth tech companies. He explained: "This case is the Everest of data collection, but we are ready to fight for the right of secure privacy for Microsoft and Google users throughout the UK. We are shocked and disgusted to learn about the level of data that has been and continues to be collected. "Both companies are collecting data such as the sports teams you follow, the programming languages you prefer, the stocks you track, your local weather or traffic, the route you take to work and what your voice sounds like. Malik emphasised that the development of AI must not come at the cost of privacy. He added: "Individuals have the right to know what data of theirs is being stored and what it is being used for. They also have the right to opt out of their behaviours, voice, likeness, habits and knowledge being used to train AI -- for the profit of tech giants. "As technologies continue to develop, individual data has become the most valuable commodity in the world. We know that it's illegal to steal commodities like money, gold, oil. As a society we cannot accept that it's acceptable to steal the commodity of personal data." OpenAI, the company behind ChatGPT, and Microsoft are already facing a $3bn class action in the US, over so-called "data scraping". Malik concluded: "If you are shocked, upset, appalled, or annoyed that your data is being used without your knowledge and consent, my message to you is simple -- do something about it by joining the fight. Let's take the future of our data and AI into our own hands." [GN] ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2024. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***