/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/241220.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, December 20, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 255
Headlines
4E BRANDS: Indiana Residents Class Certified in Callantine Suit
A&A SERVICES: Schrieo Suit Removed to S.D. California
AARON'S LLC: Court Grants Bid to Compel Arbitration in Rubio Suit
ADDSHOPPERS INC: Wins Bid to Dismiss Ingrao, et al. Lawsuit
AGA SERVICE: Isaacson Appeals Final Approval of Elgindy Suit Deal
AIRBNB INC: B.C. Supreme Court Certifies License Class-Action
ALIBABA GROUP: $433.5MM Class Settlement to be Heard on March 27
AMAZON.COM INC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Brown Due Jan. 21, 2025
AMAZON.COM INC: Class Cert Filing in De Coster Due Jan. 21, 2025
AMAZON.COM INC: Class Cert Filing in Frame-Wilson Due Jan. 21, 2025
AMAZON.COM INC: Prime Members Sue Over Secret Zip Code Exclusion
AMAZON.COM, INC: Loses Bid to Dismiss Ramos, et al Class Suit
AMERICAN BANKERS: Loses Bid to Dismiss Dahl Breach of Contract Suit
AMERICAN HEALTH: Arinatwe Must File Class Cert Bid by March 7, 2025
AMERICAN HONDA: Bissell Sues Over Vehicles' Defective Engines
AMERIFLIGHT LLC: Bid for Leave to Amend in Fredericks Suit Granted
APPLIED THERAPEUTICS: Levi Probes Securities Fraud Violations
BANK OF AMERICA: Settles Repossession Class Action for $3.25-Mil.
BHP GROUP: Faces Sexual Harassment Class Action Lawsuit
BOCKMON & WOODY: Hardin Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Calif.
BOTH INC: Dail Suit Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Reply
BOYLAND AUTO: Court Dismisses Armstrong Suit Without Prejudice
BRIAN CASEY: Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification Denied
BRIGHT DATA: Court Narrows Claims in X Corp. Lawsuit
BRIGHT HEALTH: Van Appeals Marquez Suit Dismissal to 2nd Circuit
BROOKFIELD PROPERTIES: Propst Files Suit in D.C. Super. Ct.
BYERS INDUSTRIAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Clausell Alleges
CAL DEL: Class Settlement in Orin Suit Obtains Final Court Approval
CALIFORNIA: Quevedo Suit Removed from Sup. Ct. to C.D. Cal.
CANADA: Court Refuses to Certify Cadet Program Class Action
CASSAVA SCIENCES: Faces Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit
CAVENDISH FARMS: Lit'l Alleges Frozen Potato Products Price-Fixing
CENGAGE LEARNING: Bernstein Class Settlement Gets Prelim. Court OK
CHARLES SCHWAB: Atachbarian Sues Over Unreasonable Interest Rates
CLEARLINK INSURANCE: Plaintiff Can File Second Amended Complaint
CLEVELAND COUNTY, NC: Brown Lawsuit Dismissed Without Prejudice
CUSTOMERS BANCORP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set January 31
DENTSPLY SIRONA: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set January 27
DOHA NYC INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Carrillo Alleges
DOLLARAMA INC: Judge OKs $2.6-Million Deal in False Price Suit
DUNKIN' BRANDS: Faces Antitrust Class Action Over Refresher Drinks
EDWARD BEINER: Wilson Sues Over Website Inaccessibility
ENTERPRISE BANCORP: M&A Investigates Merger With Independent Bank
EQUAL EXCHANGE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Wilson Says
EVERYTHING KITCHENS: Wilson Sues Over Website's ADA Non-Compliance
EVOLUTION MINING: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
EYEBUYDIRECT INC: Faces Ramos Suit Over Deceptive Free Shipping
FARMASI US: Faces Guerra Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
FHIA LLC: M.D. Florida Refuses to Dismiss Kennedy TCPA Class Suit
FIFTH THIRD: Class Cert Bid in Howards Due Jan. 30, 2025
FIFTH THIRD: Court Narrows Claims in Milles Lawsuit
FILMSUPPLY LLC: Trimboli Suit Transferred to Texas District Court
FINDLAY'S TALL: Freeland Files 2nd Cir. Appeal in Labor Suit
FRANCOIS LAMARRE: Court Approves $10.5-Mil. Class Settlement
FULTON COUNTY, GA: Sues Sheriff Labat to Fix Inhumane Conditions
FUTURE MOTION: Hedges Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
GASTON COUNTY: Motion to Dismiss Bolch, et al Suit Denied as Moot
GOODRX HOLDINGS: Agrees to $25-Million Privacy Class Settlement
GOODYEAR TIRE: Class Cert Bid Filing Continued to June 3, 2025
GREENBRIER INT'L: Court Tosses Bell Suit Over Cinnamon Product
GUAM: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Inhumane Conditions
HASBRO INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set January 13
HCND INC: Duan and Sun Sue Over Unlawful Labor Practices
KALEIDA HEALTH: Bids to Compel in Cleary Suit Granted in Part
KANNACT INC: Settles Data Breach Class Action for $700,000
KATE SOMERVILLE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Murphy Says
KAYE-SMITH ENTERPRISES: Settles Data Breach Class Action Lawsuit
LIBERTY FIRST: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Walker Alleges
LUXOTTICA US: Court Grants in Part Duke's Bid for Reconsideration
MARQETA INC: Wai Sues Over Alleged Drop in Share Price
MEDICAL MANAGEMENT: Wolfing Suit Remanded to State Court
MEMPHIS, TN: Janet Doe Suit Over SAKs Remanded to Trial Court
MEMPHIS, TN: Trial Court's Class Certification Order Vacated
META PLATFORMS: Settles Quebec Class Action Lawsuit For $9-Mil.
MILLENNIA TAX: Court Grants Class Certification in McCoy Suit
MONEYLION INC: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Gen Digital
MORGAN STANLEY: Appeals Denied Reconsideration Bid in Shafer Suit
NATIONAL DEBT: Cavalier Alleges Unlawful Personal Info Disclosure
NATIONAL HOCKEY: WAIPU, et al. Suit Against CHL Defendants Tossed
NCH HEALTHCARE: Plaintiff Can File Reply in Support of Class Cert.
NETFLIX INC: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Securities Class Lawsuit
NETFLIX INC: Court Tosses Pirani Securities Lawsuit
NORDIC NATURALS: Court Issues Discovery Order in Caldwell Lawsuit
NUCOR CORP: Agrees to Settle 2023 Data Breach Class Action Lawsuit
NVIDIA CORP: Supreme Court Allows Investor Class Action to Proceed
OBI SEAFOODS: Settles Underpayment Class Action for $2.1 Million
OMNI FAMILY: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Cubit Alleges
OMNI FAMILY: Fails to Protect Personal, Health Info, Cubit Says
PALADIN ENERGY: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims
PALMCO ADMINISTRATION: Court Addresses Discovery Disputes in Nock
PARKMOBILE LLC: Settles Data Security Class Action for $32.8-Mil.
PORT OF SEATTLE: Loses Bid to Dismiss Codoni, et al. Lawsuit
PRGX GLOBAL: Settles 2022 Data Breach Class Action for $675,000
PROTECTIVE LIFE: Court Stays Allen Suit Pending Ruling in Moriarty
RAPID FINANCIAL: Watkins Suit Settlement Gets Prelim. Court Nod
RARE HOSPITALITY: Fails to Pay Server's Minimum Wages Under FLSA
REAL PAGE: Faces Class Action Suit Over Rent Fixing
RENAL ADVANTAGE: Dela Pena Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Calif.
RON HIBACHI: Court Approves $500K Class Settlement in Chen Suit
SABA UNIVERSITY: Court Decertifies Class in Ortiz Lawsuit
SAFELITE SOLUTIONS: Correa Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Calif.
SAG-AFTRA HEALTH: Members Sue Over Health Plan Data Breach
SCHWAN'S CONSUMER: Thompson Seeks to Modify Briefing Schedule
SEBASTIAN'S PIZZERIA: Seeks Conditional Certification of Collective
SHARI'S MANAGEMENT: Former Employees File Suit Over Sudden Layoffs
SKATIE LLC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Crumwell Suit Says
SPORTS RESEARCH: Settlement in Capaci Suit Gets Final Court Nod
SRP FEDERAL: Chimicles Probes Potential Data Breach Class Action
STAKE CENTER: Bid to Extend Time Referred to Magistrate Judge
SUN COMMUNITIES: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
SUNDANCE HOLDINGS: Loses Bid to Dismiss Arnstein, et al. Lawsuit
SUNNOVA ENERGY: Court Refuses to Remand Almadani Suit
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Court Certifies Overtime Pay Class Action
SYNTA TECHNOLOGY: Agrees to Settle Market Monopoly Suit for $32MM
THOMSON REUTERS: Claims Filing Deadline Extended to December 27
TMC THE METALS CO: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set January 7
TORONTO-DOMINION BANK: Dec. 21 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
TOYOTA MOTOR: Daley et al. Sue Over Alleged Engine Defect
TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Transmission Defects
UNITEDHEALTHCARE GROUP: Settles ERISA Class Action for $69MM
USHEALTH ADVISORS: Loses Bid to Dismiss Kraemer's TCPA Lawsuit
VISA INC: Griffith Alleges Debit Network Market Monopoly
VISION SERVICE: Faces Patients' Privacy Class Action Lawsuit
WESTERN ASSET: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims
WEXFORD HEALTH: Class Cert Bid Filing in Spurlock Due Feb. 6, 2025
WHALECO INC: Bid to Compel Arbitration Granted in Part
WHITEFISH, MT: Settlement in Weinberg Suit Gets Final Court Nod
WILBUR CURTIS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Benitez Claims
WONDERFUL COMPANY: Court Narrows Claims in Hernandez, et al. Suit
WORLDWIDE FLIGHT: Davenport & Palacios Suit Removed to C.D. Calif.
YOGI DONUT: Property Inaccessible to Disabled People, Cheli Says
ZERIFY INC: Settlement Approval Hearing Set for March 20
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: GMS Inc. Still Defends Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scotts Miracle-Gro Defends Exposure Lawsuits
*********
4E BRANDS: Indiana Residents Class Certified in Callantine Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Damon R. Leichty of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Indiana, South Bend Division, grants the Plaintiff's
motion to certify class in the lawsuit captioned MELODY CALLANTINE,
on behalf of herself, her minor children K.C. and L.C., and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 4E BRANDS NORTH AMERICA,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-00801-DRL-SJF (N.D. Ind.).
Plaintiff Melody Callantine asks the Court to certify a class for
claims under the Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act (IDCSA)
against 4e Brands North America, LLC. She alleges that 4e committed
a deceptive act when it sold her and others harmful,
methanol-containing hand sanitizer it represented as safe,
effective, and containing ethyl alcohol. 4e opposes class
certification.
According to the pleadings, 4e is a Texas corporation that
distributed hand sanitizer in Indiana labeled and sold under the
brand name Blumen. Its labels made various claims, including that
the active ingredient was 70 percent ethyl alcohol. Ms. Callantine
purchased Blumen hand sanitizer in Indiana in July 2020, test
results showed it contained methanol, and she and her two children
sustained injuries from the product consistent with methanol
poisoning. She claims the FDA tested some Blumen hand sanitizer
products that same month, discovered methanol, imposed an import
ban, and recommended a recall. 4e voluntarily recalled certain
Blumen hand sanitizer products that month.
According to a 4e investigation report, this methanol contamination
arose after 4e faced an ethanol supply shortage at the beginning of
the COVID-19 pandemic in April 2020 and solicited ethanol from new
suppliers. The report says 4e tested for ethanol in the new supply
batches using a method that didn't distinguish between ethanol and
methanol. This resulted in methanol contaminated hand sanitizer
being distributed in Indiana to customers.
In August 2020, Ms. Callantine filed a lawsuit on behalf of
herself, her minor children, and all others similarly situated
against 4e in St. Joseph Superior Court in Indiana. The lawsuit
brought claims under the Indiana Products Liability Act and IDCSA.
4e promptly removed on diversity jurisdiction under the Class
Action Fairness Act (CAFA).
In February 2022, 4e filed for bankruptcy in Texas; that July, Ms.
Callantine filed an unopposed proof of claim on behalf of herself
and others similarly situated, and that October the bankruptcy
court confirmed the company's disclosure statement and liquidation
plan.
Ms. Callantine moved for class certification of the IDCSA claims on
March 15, 2024. The IDCSA punishes certain deceptive statements
from suppliers of consumer products, including statements
describing a product's characteristics or quality that the supplier
knows or should know are false.
Ms. Callantine's IDCSA class action asserts that 4e violated the
IDCSA by representing in writing that its hand sanitizer (1)
contained only ethyl alcohol as its active ingredient, (2)
contained 70 percent ethyl alcohol, (3) contained no methanol, and
(4) killed 99.99 percent of germs.
To support her motion, Ms. Callantine offers certain documents.
These include a report from a putative expert in human factors and
ergonomics concluding 4e's hand sanitizer was labeled such that
customers assumed it was safe; excerpts from a 4e internal report
detailing the supply, testing, and control issues that led to the
methanol contamination; and an internal 4e email identifying
noncompliant product lots. She also files an affidavit explaining
her hand sanitizer purchase, health impacts on her and her family,
and testing performed on the product to confirm that it contained
methanol.
On May 10, 2024, 4e filed its response opposing class
certification. Ms. Callantine filed a reply on June 14, 2024. She
also filed a motion to seal certain sensitive information in her
briefs and exhibits.
Ms. Callantine defines the putative class as all Indiana residents
who, within two years of filing this action, purchased any type of
Blumen hand sanitizer placed into the stream of commerce by 4e
Brands or its affiliates or related companies that contained
methanol as an active ingredient. She requests that she be
appointed class representative and that her attorneys be appointed
class counsel. 4e argues that she fails to satisfy the Rule 23
requirements for class certification.
Judge Leichty finds that (a) the proposed class is ascertainable
and not a "fail-safe" class; (b) the proposed class is sufficiently
numerous under Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;
(c) there are questions of law or fact common to the proposed class
under Rule 23(a); (d) D. Ms. Callantine's claims are typical of the
proposed class under Rule 23(a); (e) Ms. Callantine will fairly and
adequately protect the proposed class's interests; (f) the proposed
class also meets the Rule 23(b)(3) requirements; and (g) the
proposed class counsel satisfies Rule 23(g).
The Court finds Ms. Callantine has satisfied all the requirements
of Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3). Accordingly, the Court grants the
motion and certifies the following class for count 4 claims under
the Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act: all Indiana residents
who, within two years of Aug. 11, 2020, purchased any type of
Blumen hand sanitizer placed into the stream of commerce by 4e
Brands or its affiliates or related companies that contained
methanol as an active ingredient.
The Court also designates Ms. Callantine as the class
representative, appoints her counsel as class counsel, and grants
her motion to seal. The Court orders the parties to confer
concerning appropriate notice to the class and a trial plan and to
file the proposed notice and trial plan (with any separate
objections) by Dec. 20, 2024.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3zckna42 from PacerMonitor.com.
A&A SERVICES: Schrieo Suit Removed to S.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Sean Schrieo, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. A&A SERVICES, LLC DBA SAV- RX, a
Nebraska limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. 24CU002623N was removed from the Superior Court
of California, County of San Diego, to the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California on Dec. 11, 2024, and
assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-02301-TWR-BLM.
The Plaintiff asserts three causes of action on behalf of himself
and that putative class: violation of the California
Confidentiality of Medical Information Act ("CMIA"); 2) violation
of the California Consumer Privacy Act ("CCPA"); and violation of
the California Unfair Competition Law ("UCL").[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Charles Whitman, Esq.
QUARLES & BRADY LLP
101 West Broadway, Ninth Floor
San Diego, CA 92101-8285
Phone: 619-237-5200
Fax: 619-615-0700
Email: Charles.Whitman@quarles.com
AARON'S LLC: Court Grants Bid to Compel Arbitration in Rubio Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Kirk E. Sherriff of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California grants the Defendant's motion to compel
arbitration in the lawsuit titled ANGEL RUBIO, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AARON'S LLC, a
Georgia limited liability company; QUINTIN LAKE, an individual; and
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
1:24-cv-00526-KES-BAM (E.D. Cal.).
Aaron's leases and sells furniture, electronics, appliances, and
computers throughout the United States, including in California.
Plaintiff Angel Rubio worked for Aaron's as a non-exempt hourly
employee from July 2023 until he filed this class action lawsuit.
According to Aaron's Human Resources Onboarding Operations Manager
Marsha Brown, who oversees the onboarding process, Aaron's
disseminates many of its employment agreements and policies
electronically to new employees. Aaron's uses an electronic system
to confirm and track when applicants or employees electronically
acknowledge its policies and procedures. Aaron's uses a system
called Dayforce.
When applying for a position with Aaron's, a prospective employee
must provide a personal email address. After Aaron's hires an
applicant, Aaron's creates a username and initial Dayforce password
for the new hire and sends the new hire an email with this
information along with a link to a website. When the new hire
clicks on the link, he or she is prompted to enter the username and
initial Dayforce password and then is prompted, and required, to
create a user-selected password.
New hires are not otherwise able to access the Dayforce system from
this website; they can access the Dayforce system only in an
Aaron's store from a store computer. New hires are not able to log
into Dayforce at the store until they have created a user-selected
password using the process described. Aaron's employees are
prohibited from sharing their account information and passwords or
using the account information and passwords of other employees.
New hires log into Dayforce from a store computer using their
unique username and password. Once in the Dayforce system, the
employee clicks a link stating, "Getting Started." The link opens a
page with several tab headings, including a tab entitled "Your
Onboarding Forms." The employee clicks that tab to complete all the
necessary forms associated with starting the position. The
onboarding forms include several boxes, each stating "Please click
here to complete your [Onboarding Form]." The employee must scroll
down to review and complete each onboarding form listed on the
page. One of these forms is the Arbitration Agreement
Acknowledgment.
The Arbitration Agreement Acknowledgment page says, "Please read
and acknowledge with your esignature," followed by a box that
states "Start." As noted, new hires may opt out of the arbitration
agreement within 30 days of receiving the agreement.
Below this text, there is a link to a PDF version of the agreement
to arbitrate. By clicking on the link, the employee can view the
full agreement to arbitrate and download or print the agreement.
There is also a box to check to accept and acknowledge the
agreement, a box for entering the date, and a link to start the
signing process for the agreement. When the employee checks the box
to accept and acknowledge the agreement, a DocuSign window appears
stating "Please read the Electronic Record and Signature
Disclosure," and providing a link to the disclosure.
The employee is next prompted to "start" the signing process for
the arbitration agreement. A button labeled "Finish" appears, and
when the employee presses "Finish," DocuSign applies a unique
electronic "Envelope ID" to the transaction. Dayforce saves copies
of the employee's acknowledgment, including the DocuSign Envelope
ID, to the Dayforce system.
On July 5, 2023, Rubio electronically signed the Arbitration
Agreement Acknowledgment. He acknowledged that, by signing with his
e-signature, he had read, and was knowingly and voluntarily
signing, Aaron's arbitration agreement. As noted, the
acknowledgement also included Rubio's agreement that, if he did not
wish to be subject to the arbitration agreement, he was required to
opt out by notifying the Company in writing, using the Company's
designated opt out form (i.e., the Aaron's Arbitration Agreement
Election Form) accessible through the Aaron's Arbitration Agreement
link, within thirty (30) days.
The arbitration agreement also contained information concerning the
opt out provision in a separate bolded section, entitled "Right to
Opt-Out." The opt-out section provides a clickable link to access
the opt out form.
The arbitration agreement provides that an employee is bound by its
terms unless the employee timely opts out of the agreement. The
agreement remained available on the Dayforce system for the
employee to later review, download, or print at any time.
Mr. Rubio filed this action in the Fresno County Superior Court
against Defendants Aaron's, Quintin Lake, and Does 1 through 100 on
Feb. 23, 2024. Aaron's removed the action to this Court on May 2,
2024. The complaint alleges various violations of the Labor Code
and Business & Professions Code: failure to pay overtime wages
(Claim One); failure to pay minimum wages (Claim Two); failure to
provide meal periods (Claim Three); failure to provide rest periods
(Claim Four); waiting time penalties (Claim Five); wage statement
violations (Claim Six); failure to timely pay wages (Claim Seven);
failure to indemnify (Claim Eight); failure to pay interest on
deposits (Claim Nine); violation of Labor Code Section 227.3 (Claim
Ten); and unfair competition (Claim Eleven).
On July 29, 2024, Aaron's moved to compel arbitration and to stay
the action pending the completion of arbitration.
Aaron's maintains that Rubio signed a valid agreement to arbitrate
all disputes related to his employment, and that the agreement
mandates individual arbitration and forecloses lawsuits by class
action. Rubio disputes that there is a valid arbitration agreement
and further asserts that any arbitration agreement is unenforceable
because it is procedurally and substantively unconscionable.
The parties agree that California law governs the issue of the
validity of the arbitration agreement. Rubio contends that Aaron's
fails to adequately establish that the parties entered into the
arbitration agreement. He argues that Aaron's declarant, Marsha
Brown, does not have personal knowledge of Rubio's alleged
execution of the arbitration agreement.
Judge Sherriff finds that Rubio's arguments concerning whether he
entered into the arbitration agreement are unpersuasive. Judge
Sherriff explains that Aaron's properly authenticated Rubio's
electronic signature on the arbitration agreement and has shown by
a preponderance of the evidence that Rubio entered into the
agreement. Accordingly, Judge Sherriff holds that Aaron's has
established that Rubio entered into the arbitration agreement.
Mr. Rubio also contends that the arbitration agreement is
unconscionable and should not be enforced.
As the arbitration agreement is not procedurally unconscionable,
the Court need not address the issue of substantive
unconscionability.
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed, the Court grants the
Defendant's motion to compel arbitration. This action is stayed
pending arbitration proceedings.
Within fourteen (14) days of the issuance of the arbitrator's
decision, the Court directs the parties to notify it that
arbitration proceedings have concluded.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yke5vxkm from PacerMonitor.com.
ADDSHOPPERS INC: Wins Bid to Dismiss Ingrao, et al. Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Joel H. Slomsky of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania will grant the defendants' motion
to dismiss the case captioned as AMELIA INGRAO AND ELISABETH
PACANA, Plaintiffs, v. ADDSHOPPERS, INC., NUTRISYSTEM, INC., AND
VIVINT, INC., Defendant, CIVIL ACTION NO. 24-1022 (E.D. Pa.).
This case arises out of Defendant AddShoppers, Inc.'s alleged
surreptitious tracking of Plaintiff Amelia Ingrao's and Plaintiff
Elisabeth Pacana's internet browsing activity. Plaintiffs allege
Defendant AddShoppers, through its partnerships with retailers such
as Defendant Nutrisystem, Inc. and Defendant Vivint, Inc.,
impermissibly tracked Plaintiffs' internet browsing activity and
compiled their personal information into consumer profiles. Through
these profiles, AddShoppers allegedly linked Plaintiffs' online
browsing activity with their personal information, such as their
email addresses, in order to send Plaintiffs targeted ads based on
their browsing activity.
Plaintiffs filed a Complaint against Defendant AddShoppers,
Defendant Nutrisystem, and Defendant Vivint, alleging claims under
the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control
Act(Counts I, II, and III), the California Invasion of Privacy Act
(Count IV) and California's Computer Access and Data Fraud Act
(Count V).
Specifically, in Count I, Plaintiff Ingrao alleges a WESCA claim
against Defendant Nutrisystem. Similarly, Plaintiff Pacana brings
WESCA claims against Defendant AddShoppers and Defendant Vivint in
Counts II and III, respectively. In Count IV, Plaintiff Ingrao
alleges a CIPA claim against Defendant Nutrisystem. Finally, in
Count V, Plaintiff Ingrao brings a CDAFA claim against Defendants
AddShoppers and Nutrisystem. In response, Defendants each filed
Motions to Dismiss the Complaint.
Defendant Vivint argues dismissal is proper under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) because Plaintiffs lack Article III
standing. Defendant AddShoppers submits dismissal is warranted
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) because the Court
lacks personal jurisdiction over it. And each of the three
Defendants argues for dismissal because Plaintiffs fail to state a
claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
Defendants' Motions to Dismiss will be granted for the following
reasons:
First, Plaintiffs fail to allege sufficient harm to establish
Article III standing. Plaintiffs argue Defendants' action of
collecting their internet browsing activity and personal email
addresses is sufficient to establish harm because it is analogous
to the capture of sensitive personal information protected by
common law privacy torts. But this Court joins other courts,
including courts in the Third Circuit, that have held that a
person's internet browsing activity and email address is not
sufficiently sensitive information to support the concrete injury
requirement for Article III standing.
Second, the Court does not have personal jurisdiction over
Defendant AddShoppers because AddShoppers' actions satisfy neither
the Calder "effects" test nor the traditional test for specific
jurisdiction.
Finally, because Plaintiffs fail to plead both that Defendants
intercepted their communications in Pennsylvania, and that
Defendants intercepted the contents of their communications, they
fail to state a claim under the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and
Electronic Surveillance Control Act and the California Invasion of
Privacy Act. Similarly, because Plaintiff Ingrao fails to allege
she suffered the requisite damage or loss, she fails to state a
claim under the California Computer Access and Data Fraud Act.
A copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=V2EAW1
AGA SERVICE: Isaacson Appeals Final Approval of Elgindy Suit Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ERIC ALAN ISAACSON, objector, is taking an appeal from a court
order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of class
action settlement, attorney's fees and costs, and incentive awards
in the lawsuit entitled Adam Elgindy, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AGA Service
Company, et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:20-cv-06304-JST, in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
brought this class action against the Defendants for their alleged
unlawful, unfair, and deceptive practices relating to their online
marketing and sale of travel and event insurance.
On Dec. 21, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for approval of
class action settlement, which Judge Jon S. Tigar granted on Oct.
29, 2024. The Court granted final approval of the proposed
settlement agreement and plan of allocation. The Court granted
Class counsel $4,937,500 in attorney's fees and $188,870.47 in
expenses. An incentive award of $5,000 was also granted to each of
the named Plaintiffs.
The appellate case is captioned Elgindy, et al. v. AGA Service
Company, et al., Case No. 24-7320, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on December 5, 2024.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on December 10,
2024;
-- Appellant's Appeal Transcript Order was due on December 11,
2024;
-- Appellant's Appeal Transcript is due on January 10, 2025;
-- Appellant's Appeal Opening Brief is due on February 19, 2025;
and
-- Appellee's Appeal Answering Brief is due on March 21, 2025.
[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees ADAM ELGINDY, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Hayley Reynolds, Esq.
Stephen Raab, Esq.
Seth Adam Safier, Esq.
GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
San Francisco, CA 94111
Objector-Appellant ERIC ALAN ISAACSON is represented by:
John W. Davis, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JOHN DAVIS
3030 N. Rocky Point Drive W., Suite 150
Tampa, FL 33607
- and -
Charles Benjamin Nutley, Esq.
C. BENJAMIN NUTLEY, ATTORNEY AT LAW
65-1279 Kawaihae Road, Suite 203
Kamuela, HI 96743
Defendants-Appellees AGA SERVICE COMPANY, doing business as Allianz
Global Assistance, et al. are represented by:
Gayle I. Jenkins, Esq.
WINSTON & STRAWN, LLP
333 S. Grand Avenue, 38th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
AIRBNB INC: B.C. Supreme Court Certifies License Class-Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press, in an article for Eagle Valley News, reports
that the B.C. Supreme Court has certified a class-action lawsuit
against Airbnb that alleges the short-term rental company has
breached provincial consumer protection laws by offering unlicensed
real estate brokerage and travel agent services.
Justice Elizabeth McDonald says in a decision posted online
Thursday, December 12, that lead plaintiff Margot Ware's lawsuit
against Airbnb meets the test as a class action on behalf of
consumers who paid fees or commissions when booking
accommodations.
Ware's lawsuit alleges Airbnb is not licensed anywhere in Canada to
provide real estate or travel agent services, nor is it registered
as a money services business with the federal government.
McDonald's ruling says Airbnb and several related companies claimed
Ware's lawsuit was an "abuse of process" and part of a "series of
repeated, piecemeal attacks" on the legality of the company's fees
charged to users.
The legal action applies to all those who made a reservation with
Airbnb in Canada and outside Canada -- excluding those in the
United States -- for accommodations in British Columbia.
Airbnb did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the
ruling, and McDonald's decision says the company has not filed a
response to Ware's lawsuit, which was filed in May 2022.
The ruling says the company objected to the lawsuit moving ahead
because of overlapping issues with other lawsuits it faced, but
McDonald found the "only overlap" was that the company was "yet
again" being sued for the alleged improper collection of fees.
McDonald's ruling says Airbnb also wanted the lawsuit heard in
California rather than British Columbia, but the judge found the
company offered "no meaningful evidence" about why the case
shouldn't be litigated in the province.
McDonald found the plaintiff "has shown a good arguable case" that,
if proven, could open Airbnb up to damages under the province's
Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act.
Ware was described as a B.C resident who used Airbnb's services for
leisure travel for years, including a 13-day stay in Penticton in
August of 2021 that was specifically noted in the ruling, for which
she paid over $7,400. [GN]
ALIBABA GROUP: $433.5MM Class Settlement to be Heard on March 27
----------------------------------------------------------------
IN RE: ALIBABA GROUP HOLDING
LTD. SECURITIES LITIGATION
Master File No. 1:20-CV-09568-GBD-JW
Hon. George B. Daniels
SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, CERTIFICATION OF
SETTLEMENT CLASS, AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT
FAIRNESS HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES
AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES
TO: All persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired
Alibaba American Depositary Shares ("ADS"; NYSE ticker symbol:
BABA) during the period between November 13, 2019 and December 23,
2020, inclusive (the "Settlement Class").
PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, that the above-captioned
litigation (the "Action") has been certified as a class action on
behalf of the Settlement Class, except for certain persons and
entities who are excluded from the Settlement Class by definition
as set forth in the full printed Notice of (I) Pendency of Class
Action, Certification of Settlement Class, and Proposed Settlement;
(II) Settlement Fairness Hearing; and (III) Motion for an Award of
Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses (the
"Notice").
YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Plaintiffs in the Action have reached a
proposed settlement of the Action for $433,500,000 in cash (the
"Settlement") that, if approved, will resolve all claims in the
Action.
A hearing will be held on March 27, 2025, at 10:00 a.m., before the
Honorable George B. Daniels at the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan United
States Courthouse, Courtroom 11A, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY
10007, to determine whether: (i) the proposed Settlement should be
approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) the Action should
be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants, and the Releases
specified and described in the Stipulation (and in the Notice)
should be granted; (iii) the proposed Plan of Allocation should be
approved as fair and reasonable; and (iv) Lead Counsel's
application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of
Litigation Expenses should be approved.
If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be
affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be
entitled to share in the Settlement Fund. If you have not yet
received the Notice and Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these
documents by contacting the Claims Administrator at In re Alibaba
Group Holding Ltd. Sec. Litigation, c/o A.B. Data, Ltd., P.O. Box
173006, Milwaukee, WI 53217; or by telephone at (877) 869-0223.
Copies of the Notice and Claim Form can also be downloaded from the
website maintained by the Claims Administrator,
www.AlibabaClassActionSettlement.com.
If you are a member of the Settlement Class, to be eligible to
receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you must submit a
Claim Form online or postmarked no later than March 26, 2025. If
you are a Settlement Class Member and do not submit a proper Claim
Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the
net proceeds of the Settlement, but you will nevertheless be bound
by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action.
If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for
exclusion such that it is received no later than March 6, 2025, in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you
properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not
be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the
Action and you will not be eligible to share in the proceeds of the
Settlement.
Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of Litigation Expenses must be filed with the Court
and delivered to Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that
they are received no later than March 6, 2025, in accordance with
the instructions set forth in the Notice.
Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, Alibaba, or
its counsel regarding this notice. All questions about this
notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate
in the Settlement should be directed to Lead Counsel or the Claims
Administrator.
Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form,
should be made to Lead Counsel:
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
Kara M. Wolke, Esq.
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
(888) 773-9224
settlements@glancylaw.com
Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to:
In re Alibaba Group Holding Ltd. Sec. Litigation
c/o A.B. Data, Ltd.
P.O. Box 173006
Milwaukee, WI 53217
(877) 869-0223
info@AlibabaClassActionSettlement.com
By Order of the Court
AMAZON.COM INC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Brown Due Jan. 21, 2025
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER BROWN, et al.,
v. AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No.
2:22-cv-00965-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the Parties ask the Court to enter
an order modifying class certification deadlines as follows.
-- In Frame-Wilson, Plaintiffs' deadline to Jan. 21, 2025
file their class certification motion is:
-- Amazon's deadline to oppose Plaintiffs' April 21, 2025
class certification motion is:
-- Plaintiffs' deadline to file their reply June 23, 2025
in support of class certification is:
-- In De Coster, Plaintiffs' deadline to file Feb. 24, 2025
their reply in support of class
certification, their opposition to Amazon's
motion to exclude their expert, and any
motion to exclude Amazon’s expert is:
-- Amazon's opposition to any motion by April 2, 2025
Plaintiffs to exclude Amazon's expert is:
-- Plaintiffs' deadline to file a reply in April 30, 2025
support of any motion they file to
exclude Amazon's expert is:
Amazon.com is engaged in e-commerce, cloud computing, online
advertising, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Dec. 10, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GYwzTT at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
Barbara A. Mahoney, Esq.
Anne F. Johnson, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-7292
Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
barbaram@hbsslaw.com
annej@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Zina G. Bash, Esq.
Jessica Beringer, Esq.
Shane Kelly, Esq.
Roseann Romano, Esq.
Alex Dravillas, Esq.
KELLER POSTMAN LLC
111 Congress Avenue, Suite 500
Austin, TX, 78701
Telephone: (512) 690-0990
E-mail: zina.bash@kellerpostman.com
Jessica.Beringer@kellerpostman.com
shane.kelly@kellerpostman.com
roseann.romano@kellerpostman.com
ajd@kellerpostman.com
- and -
Alicia Cobb, Esq.
Steig D. Olson, Esq.
David D. LeRay, Esq.
Nic V. Siebert, Esq.
Maxwell P. Deabler-Meadows, Esq.
Adam B. Wolfson, Esq.
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP
1109 First Avenue, Suite 210
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 905-7000
E-mail: aliciacobb@quinnemanuel.com
steigolson@quinnemanuel.com
davidleray@quinnemanuel.com
nicolassiebert@quinnemanuel.com
maxmeadows@quinnemanuel.com
adamwolfson@quinnemanuel.com
The Defendant is represented by:
John A. Goldmark, Esq.
MaryAnn Almeida, Esq.
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
Seattle, WA 98104-1610
Telephone: (206) 622-3150
Facsimile: (206) 757-7700
E-mail: SteveRummage@dwt.com
JohnGoldmark@dwt.com
MaryAnnAlmeida@dwt.com
- and -
Karen L. Dunn, Esq.
William A. Isaacson, Esq.
Amy J. Mauser, Esq.
Martha L. Goodman, Esq.
Kyle Smith, Esq.
Meredith Dearborn, Esq.
PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON &
GARRISON LLP
2001 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006-1047
Telephone: (202) 223-7300
Facsimile: (202) 223-7420
E-mail: kdunn@paulweiss.com
wisaacson@paulweiss.com
amauser@paulweiss.com
ksmith@paulweiss.com
mdearborn@paulweiss.com
mgoodman@paulweiss.com
AMAZON.COM INC: Class Cert Filing in De Coster Due Jan. 21, 2025
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELIZABETH DE COSTER, et
al., on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated, v.
AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No.
2:21-cv-00693-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the Parties ask the Court to enter
an order modifying class certification deadlines as follows.
-- In Frame-Wilson, Plaintiffs' deadline to Jan. 21, 2025
file their class certification motion is:
-- Amazon's deadline to oppose Plaintiffs' April 21, 2025
class certification motion is:
-- Plaintiffs' deadline to file their reply June 23, 2025
in support of class certification is:
-- In De Coster, Plaintiffs' deadline to file Feb. 24, 2025
their reply in support of class
certification, their opposition to Amazon's
motion to exclude their expert, and any
motion to exclude Amazon’s expert is:
-- Amazon's opposition to any motion by April 2, 2025
Plaintiffs to exclude Amazon's expert is:
-- Plaintiffs' deadline to file a reply in April 30, 2025
support of any motion they file to
exclude Amazon's expert is:
Amazon.com is engaged in e-commerce, cloud computing, online
advertising, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Dec. 10, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FOzl9j at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
Barbara A. Mahoney, Esq.
Anne F. Johnson, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-7292
Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
barbaram@hbsslaw.com
annej@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Zina G. Bash, Esq.
Jessica Beringer, Esq.
Shane Kelly, Esq.
Roseann Romano, Esq.
Alex Dravillas, Esq.
KELLER POSTMAN LLC
111 Congress Avenue, Suite 500
Austin, TX, 78701
Telephone: (512) 690-0990
E-mail: zina.bash@kellerpostman.com
Jessica.Beringer@kellerpostman.com
shane.kelly@kellerpostman.com
roseann.romano@kellerpostman.com
ajd@kellerpostman.com
- and -
Alicia Cobb, Esq.
Steig D. Olson, Esq.
David D. LeRay, Esq.
Nic V. Siebert, Esq.
Maxwell P. Deabler-Meadows, Esq.
Adam B. Wolfson, Esq.
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP
1109 First Avenue, Suite 210
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 905-7000
E-mail: aliciacobb@quinnemanuel.com
steigolson@quinnemanuel.com
davidleray@quinnemanuel.com
nicolassiebert@quinnemanuel.com
maxmeadows@quinnemanuel.com
adamwolfson@quinnemanuel.com
The Defendant is represented by:
John A. Goldmark, Esq.
MaryAnn Almeida, Esq.
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
Seattle, WA 98104-1610
Telephone: (206) 622-3150
Facsimile: (206) 757-7700
E-mail: SteveRummage@dwt.com
JohnGoldmark@dwt.com
MaryAnnAlmeida@dwt.com
- and -
Karen L. Dunn, Esq.
William A. Isaacson, Esq.
Amy J. Mauser, Esq.
Martha L. Goodman, Esq.
Kyle Smith, Esq.
Meredith Dearborn, Esq.
PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON &
GARRISON LLP
2001 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006-1047
Telephone: (202) 223-7300
Facsimile: (202) 223-7420
E-mail: kdunn@paulweiss.com
wisaacson@paulweiss.com
amauser@paulweiss.com
ksmith@paulweiss.com
mdearborn@paulweiss.com
mgoodman@paulweiss.com
AMAZON.COM INC: Class Cert Filing in Frame-Wilson Due Jan. 21, 2025
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEBORAH FRAME-WILSON, et
al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No.
2:20-cv-00424-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the Parties ask the Court to enter
an order modifying class certification deadlines as follows.
-- In Frame-Wilson, Plaintiffs' deadline to Jan. 21, 2025
file their class certification motion is:
-- Amazon's deadline to oppose Plaintiffs' April 21, 2025
class certification motion is:
-- Plaintiffs' deadline to file their reply June 23, 2025
in support of class certification is:
-- In De Coster, Plaintiffs' deadline to file Feb. 24, 2025
their reply in support of class
certification, their opposition to Amazon's
motion to exclude their expert, and any
motion to exclude Amazon’s expert is:
-- Amazon's opposition to any motion by April 2, 2025
Plaintiffs to exclude Amazon's expert is:
-- Plaintiffs' deadline to file a reply in April 30, 2025
support of any motion they file to
exclude Amazon's expert is:
Amazon.com is engaged in e-commerce, cloud computing, online
advertising, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Dec. 10, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oJ5h46 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
Barbara A. Mahoney, Esq.
Anne F. Johnson, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-7292
Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
barbaram@hbsslaw.com
annej@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Zina G. Bash, Esq.
Jessica Beringer, Esq.
Shane Kelly, Esq.
Roseann Romano, Esq.
Alex Dravillas, Esq.
KELLER POSTMAN LLC
111 Congress Avenue, Suite 500
Austin, TX, 78701
Telephone: (512) 690-0990
E-mail: zina.bash@kellerpostman.com
Jessica.Beringer@kellerpostman.com
shane.kelly@kellerpostman.com
roseann.romano@kellerpostman.com
ajd@kellerpostman.com
- and -
Alicia Cobb, Esq.
Steig D. Olson, Esq.
David D. LeRay, Esq.
Nic V. Siebert, Esq.
Maxwell P. Deabler-Meadows, Esq.
Adam B. Wolfson, Esq.
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP
1109 First Avenue, Suite 210
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 905-7000
E-mail: aliciacobb@quinnemanuel.com
steigolson@quinnemanuel.com
davidleray@quinnemanuel.com
nicolassiebert@quinnemanuel.com
maxmeadows@quinnemanuel.com
adamwolfson@quinnemanuel.com
The Defendant is represented by:
John A. Goldmark, Esq.
MaryAnn Almeida, Esq.
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
Seattle, WA 98104-1610
Telephone: (206) 622-3150
Facsimile: (206) 757-7700
E-mail: SteveRummage@dwt.com
JohnGoldmark@dwt.com
MaryAnnAlmeida@dwt.com
- and -
Karen L. Dunn, Esq.
William A. Isaacson, Esq.
Amy J. Mauser, Esq.
Martha L. Goodman, Esq.
Kyle Smith, Esq.
Meredith Dearborn, Esq.
PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON &
GARRISON LLP
2001 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006-1047
Telephone: (202) 223-7300
Facsimile: (202) 223-7420
E-mail: kdunn@paulweiss.com
wisaacson@paulweiss.com
amauser@paulweiss.com
ksmith@paulweiss.com
mdearborn@paulweiss.com
mgoodman@paulweiss.com
AMAZON.COM INC: Prime Members Sue Over Secret Zip Code Exclusion
----------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Jewett of Top Class Actions reports that a group of Amazon
Prime members filed a class action lawsuit against Amazon.com Inc.
Why: The members argue that Amazon secretly downgraded its delivery
service for Amazon Prime members living in historically underserved
communities.
Where: The class action lawsuit was filed in Washington federal
court.
Amazon covertly stopped providing its fastest delivery service to
Amazon Prime members living in historically underserved communities
in the U.S., a new class action lawsuit alleges.
The Amazon Prime class action claims the company decided in
mid-2022 to limit the way it delivers packages to Prime members
living within specific underserved zip codes in the U.S. by
exclusively relying on third-party delivery services such as UPS
and USPS.
"Rather than ensuring expedited delivery by using its own in-house,
proprietary delivery systems, Amazon began relying exclusively on
third-party delivery services," the Amazon class action says.
The four named plaintiffs want to represent a nationwide class of
all persons residing in excluded zip codes who paid for an Amazon
Prime membership.
Amazon never informed residents their service was downgraded, class
action says
The Amazon Prime members argue that Amazon's decision to use
third-party delivery services for underserved zip codes led to a
"significant decrease" in both the speed and quality of their Prime
service in those areas.
Amazon never informed residents of the excluded zip codes about its
decision or told new customers living in those zip codes about its
policy when they signed up, the Amazon Prime class action alleges.
"Amazon has concealed its delivery exclusion and deceptively
implied that delivery delays were simply due to natural
fluctuations in shipping circumstances, rather than an affirmative
decision by Amazon," the class action says.
The consumers claim Amazon is violating the Washington Consumer
Protection Act. They demand a jury trial and request declaratory
and injunctive relief and an award of restitution or damages for
themselves and all class members.
In other Amazon news, a Washington federal judge earlier this year
dismissed a class action lawsuit filed against the company over
claims it misled consumers about the quality of its Prime
subscription service.
Have you purchased an Amazon Prime membership while living in an
underserved community? Let us know in the comments.
The plaintiffs are represented by Janelle N. Bailey of Washington
Injury Law and Jarrett L. Ellzey and Leigh S. Montgomery of Ellzey
Kherkher Sanford Montgomery, LLP.
The Amazon Prime delivery class action lawsuit is King, et al. v.
Amazon.com Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-02009, in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Washington. [GN]
AMAZON.COM, INC: Loses Bid to Dismiss Ramos, et al Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as Marcos Ramos et al., Plaintiffs, v.
Amazon.com, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-00089-HDV-E
(C.D. Calif.), Judge Hernan D. Vera of the United States District
Court for the Central District of California denied the plaintiffs'
motion to remand and Amazon's motion to dismiss.
Plaintiffs Marcos Ramos, Sahara Antrim, Eldaa Soto, Marissa
Barriga, Esme Nicolson Singh, and Barbara Trevino bring this action
on behalf of a putative class against Defendants Amazon.com, Inc.,
Amazon.com International, Inc., Amazon.Com LLC, Amazon.com Services
LLC, Amazon.com Services, Inc., Audible, Inc., and Alexa Internet
for alleged violations of California Civil Code Section 1670.8 --
commonly known as California's "Yelp Law." Specifically, Plaintiffs
allege that Amazon's "Conditions of Use" run afoul of the Yelp Law
by prohibiting a wide range of protected speech, including anything
that "disparages or discredits Amazon."
The putative class action was filed in state court on November 22,
2023. Amazon removed the case to federal court on January 5, 2024.
Before the District Court are two motions that were heard together:
Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand and Amazon's Motion to Dismiss.
Plaintiffs' Remand Motion asserts that subject matter jurisdiction
is lacking because the Consolidated Complaint does not allege any
"injuries in fact" sufficient to support Article III standing.
Amazon's MTD presents various arguments, but in the main argues
that the claims fail as a matter of law because the plain language
of the Conditions of Use only covers unobjectionable
trademark-related provisions. The Court denies both motions.
Although Plaintiffs now seek to disavow their own pleading, the
Consolidated Complaint includes numerous references to compensatory
damages that amply support the District Court's jurisdiction under
the Class Action Fairness Act.
According to the District Court, Amazon's Motion is denied because
the challenged language of the Conditions of Use is ambiguous. Both
parties' interpretation of the text is plausible and cannot be
adjudicated at this stage of the litigation as a matter of law.
A copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0ehqLU
AMERICAN BANKERS: Loses Bid to Dismiss Dahl Breach of Contract Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Senior Judge Douglas L. Rayes of the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona denied American Bankers Insurance
Company of Florida's motion to dismiss the first amended complaint
in the case captioned as Brendan Dahl, Plaintiff, v. American
Bankers Insurance Company of Florida, Defendant, Case No.
CV-23-08584-PCT-DLR (D. Ariz.)
Dahl brings this action for breach of contract against his insurer,
American Bankers, on behalf of himself and a class of similarly
situated insureds. Dahl contracted with American Bankers for an
insurance policy providing coverage for certain losses to his
property. If an insured property suffers damages requiring
replacement or repair, the policy provides that an insurer may make
an "actual cash value" payment, defined as "the amount it would
cost you to repair or replace damaged property with material of
like kind and quality, less deduction for physical deterioration
and depreciation, including obsolescence."
Dahl alleges that his insured Property suffered damage covered by
the Policy which required replacement or repair. He timely
submitted a claim, and American Bankers determined that the loss
was covered by the policy. In adjusting Dahl's claim, American
Bankers chose to use a replacement cost less depreciation
methodology to calculate the ACV payment. When it calculated Dahl's
ACV benefits, it withheld costs for both materials and future
repair labor as depreciation.
Dahl alleges that, in so doing, American Bankers breached the
policy by paying him less than he was entitled to receive. Based on
these allegations, hel, on behalf of a putative class, asserts a
claim for breach of contract and seeks, among other relief, a
declaratory judgment that American Bankers's property insurance
contracts prohibit the withholding of future repair labor costs
when adjusting losses using the RCLD methodology. American Bankers
moves to dismiss the case for failure to state a claim.
American Bankers argues that Dahl's breach of contract claim is
implausible and that declaratory relief is inappropriate since an
adequate legal remedy exists. It also contends that the declaratory
relief request should be dismissed as duplicative of the contract
claim. Citing Walker v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co. and Sparks v. Republic
Nat'l Life Ins. Co., American Bankers asserts that Walker's
decision is limited to cases where an insurance policy does not
define "actual cash value" (ACV) or "depreciation." Dahl counters
that Walker applies to all policies using the RCLD method for ACV
calculation. The Court agrees with Dahl, emphasizing that Walker's
holding is based on the insurer’s choice of the RCLD method,
regardless of policy definitions, aligning with other courts’
interpretations of Walker.
American Bankers requests the Court not to retroactively apply
Walker's rule.
The Court is satisfied that retroactive application of the rule in
this case would not be unjust. Accordingly, Dahl has stated a
plausible claim, the Court finds.
At the pleading stage, the Court cannot determine that money
damages would afford Dahl complete relief, given the ongoing
contractual relationship between the parties and the possibility of
future misinterpretations of the relevant provisions. Because money
damages will only address American Bankers's past breach and will
not necessarily prevent it from misinterpreting the relevant policy
provisions in the future, declaratory relief may be an appropriate
remedy, the Court concludes.
A copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tDXuQB
AMERICAN HEALTH: Arinatwe Must File Class Cert Bid by March 7, 2025
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARINATWE v. AMERICAN
HEALTH ASSOCIATES, INC., Case No. 0:24-cv-61678 (S.D. Fla., Filed
Sept. 12, 2024), the Hon. Judge Raag Singhal entered an order
granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiff's unopposed
motion to extend joinder deadline, or, in the alternative, schedule
a deadline for class certification.
-- The Plaintiff shall file a Section 216(b) March 7,
2025
and/or Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23
Class Certification Motion on or by:
-- The Plaintiff's request for an extension of the joinder
deadline
is denied as moot.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
American Health is a provider of clinical laboratory services to
long term care in the United States.[CC]
AMERICAN HONDA: Bissell Sues Over Vehicles' Defective Engines
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jessy Edwards of Top Class Actions reports that a Honda Accord
driver is suing American Honda Motor Co.
Why: The plaintiff says the automaker sells vehicles that contain
an engine defect.
Where: The Honda class action was filed in a California federal
court.
A new class action lawsuit accuses Honda of selling vehicles prone
to engine overheating, misfires, and premature wear due to a
coolant leakage defect.
Plaintiff Chris Bissell filed the class action complaint against
American Honda Motor Co. Inc. and Honda Motor Co. Limited on Dec. 6
in a California federal court, alleging violations of state and
federal consumer laws.
According to the lawsuit, Honda sells certain popular vehicles with
serious design defects in some turbocharged engines, including the
Honda Accord, Civic and CR-V.
The complaint centers on Honda's 1.5-liter i-VTEC turbocharged
gasoline direct injection engine, which reportedly suffers from
"inadequate sealing and cooling."
According to Bissell, coolant leaks into engine components, causing
overheating, loss of power, and contamination of engine oil.
In some instances, drivers experienced sudden engine failure, he
alleges. One driver reported that their "car effectively lost power
and [was] stuck coasting on a road where traffic regularly travels
between 45-50+ mph," the lawsuit alleges.
Honda defect poses safety and financial implications, lawsuit
claims
Bissell claims the defect poses serious safety risks to vehicle
occupants and other drivers on the road.
He also alleges that Honda has failed to adequately address the
issue despite being aware of it. While the defect is covered under
warranty, Bissell argues that Honda refuses to honor warranty
claims or release an effective remedy.
Bissell's own vehicle, a 2018 Honda Accord, suffered head gasket
failure at 87,000 miles, leading to costly repairs, he claims.
After initial repairs by an independent mechanic, a Honda
dealership confirmed the defect was a recurring issue.
"The Defect has created a dangerous condition that gives rise to a
clear, substantial, and unreasonable risk of death or personal
injury," the lawsuit says.
As a result, Bissell is looking to represent all U.S. owners or
lessees of certain Honda models from 2016 to 2022 equipped with the
affected engines.
He is suing for breach of warranty, violations of California
consumer protection laws, and unjust enrichment, and is seeking
certification of the class action, damages, fees, costs and a jury
trial.
Meanwhile, Honda is facing a class action lawsuit alleging certain
models of its vehicles from model year 2013 onward suffer from a
white paint defect that leads to peeling, bubbling and flaking.
[GN]
AMERIFLIGHT LLC: Bid for Leave to Amend in Fredericks Suit Granted
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Brantley Starr of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas granted Ameriflight LLC's motion to file
an amended answer with a counterclaim in the case captioned as
KATHLEEN FREDERICKS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AMERIFLIGHT, LLC, Defendant,
Civil Action No. 3:23-CV-1757-X (N.D. Tex.). The plaintiff's motion
to certify a class and collective is granted in part.
Ameriflight is a charter airline operator governed by 14 C.F.R.
Part 135. Part 135 requires governed airlines to submit pilot
training plans to the Federal Aviation Administration, and the
training that pilots receive is not transferrable to another
airline.
Fredericks accepted an offer from Ameriflight in April 2021 and
began working for it in May 2021. To accept Ameriflight's offer,
Fredericks signed an employment agreement saying Ameriflight would
train Fredericks on the Beechcraft 99, but that if she left before
completing 12 months of revenue flying, Fredericks must repay
Ameriflight $20,000 (or $10,000 if she left after 12 months but
before 18). Fredericks prior job involved flying piston-driven
aircraft, and she logged over 1,617 hours -- with
1,512 as a pilot in command. Fredericks finished her training by
July 2021, when her salary became $55,000. Fredericks resigned in
November 2021, triggering the repayment clause.
Fredericks's suit brought claims for: (1) illegal kickbacks under
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA); (2) unpaid wages under the
FLSA; (3) an unlawful contract in restraint of trade (the restraint
claim); and (4) a declaration and injunction that the training
repayment is an unenforceable penalty (the penalty claim).
After the Court denied Ameriflight's motion to dismiss, Ameriflight
filed an answer. When Ameriflight deposed Fredericks, Ameriflight
contends she testified that she entered into the employment
agreement "without intending to honor her obligations thereunder."
Ameriflight moved for leave to amend and bring a counterclaim for
fraudulent inducement.
On the heels of the motion for leave to amend is Fredericks's
motion to certify a class for the restraint and penalty claims and
a collective action for the two FLSA claims.
Fredericks argues that Ameriflight should not be able to amend
because: (1) the proposed fraudulent inducement counterclaim is
futile (as the proposed pleading has no allegation she breached a
duty to disclose her doubts about the legality of the agreement);
(2) the Fifth Circuit disallows contract or tort counterclaims in
FLSA cases; and (3) the proposed counterclaim violates the FLSA's
anti-retaliation provision. Ameriflight disagrees with all of that.
The Court agrees with Ameriflight.
The Court agrees with Ameriflight that equity commands this Court
take or leave the state court claims that arise from these facts
but not take some and leave others. Ameriflight's fraud claim
arises from the same transaction or occurrence as Fredericks's FLSA
and state law claims. Accordingly, the claim is compulsory under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 13(a)(1)(A). And the fraud claim is
so related to Fredericks's claims that it forms part of the same
case or controversy, warranting the exercise of supplemental
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1367.
Fredericks seeks to certify a class of 160 Ameriflight pilots
subject to Ameriflight's training repayment program within the
statute of limitations for two claims: (1) a declaration that the
repayment plan is an unlawful covenant not to compete under the
Texas Business and Commerce Code (the restraint claim); and (2)
whether the repayment plan is an unlawful penalty at the common law
(the penalty claim). She argues under Rule 23(a) that the class is
sufficiently numerous, has common questions, the plaintiff's claims
are typical, and the plaintiff is an adequate class representative.
And she argues under Rule 23(b)(3) that common issues predominate
and a class action is superior. Ameriflight counters that the
restraint and penalty claims lack commonality, Fredericks is not
typical, and a class is not superior.
The Court takes the restraint claim and the penalty claim
separately. It concludes that the restraint claim violates Rule
23(b)(3)'s requirement that common questions predominate.
The other claim Fredericks seeks class certification for is her
penalty claim. This claim argues that the repayment cost for
training was not a reasonable forecast of the actual cost of
training and amounts to an unlawful penalty. Ameriflight argues
that the same issues with commonality for the restraint claim apply
to the penalty claim. The Court agrees with neither party.
The Court certifies for the penalty claim a class of Beechcraft 99
pilots who flew less than 12 months of revenue-generating flying
for Ameriflight (or $10,000 for those who left after 12 months but
before 18). And the Court certifies a collective for the FLSA
claims for pilots with a repayment agreement who left employment
with Ameriflight before the term of the repayment plan was
complete. The Court otherwise denies the motion to certify.
A copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=k2Seb6
APPLIED THERAPEUTICS: Levi Probes Securities Fraud Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky notifies investors that it has commenced an
investigation of Applied Therapeutics, Inc. ("Applied Therapeutics,
Inc.") (NASDAQ:APLT) concerning possible violations of federal
securities laws.
Applied Therapeutics issued a press release on November 27, 2024,
announcing "that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has
issued a Complete Response Letter (CRL) for the New Drug
Application (NDA) for govorestat, a novel, central nervous system
(CNS)-penetrant aldose reductase inhibitor (ARI), for the treatment
of Classic Galactosemia." According to the Company, "[t]he CRL
indicates that the FDA completed its review of the application and
determined that it is unable to approve the NDA in its current
form, citing deficiencies in the clinical application."
Following this news, Applied Therapeutics' stock price fell sharply
during after-hours trading on the same day. To obtain additional
information, go to:
https://zlk.com/pslra-1/applied-therapeutics-inc-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=115781&wire=1
or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212)363-7500.
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]
BANK OF AMERICA: Settles Repossession Class Action for $3.25-Mil.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that Bank of America agreed to a $3.25
million class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims it failed
to send proper notices to Pennsylvania borrowers after repossessing
their vehicles.
The Bank of America repossession settlement benefits consumer
borrowers who were sent notices from Bank of America after their
vehicles were repossessed between Dec. 23, 2016, and Feb. 16,
2024.
According to the Bank of America class action lawsuit, the company
failed to send proper notices to Pennsylvania borrowers after
repossessing their vehicles. These notices allegedly failed to
specify the date after which the bank would sell the repossessed
vehicle -- a date that was supposed to be at least 15 days after
the date of the notice.
Bank of America is a national bank that offers a variety of
financial products, including auto loans.
Bank of America hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to the
$3.25 million class action settlement to resolve these
allegations.
Under the terms of the Bank of America repossession settlement,
class members can receive a cash payment and credit report relief.
Class members will be able to receive a proportional share of the
net settlement fund. Exact payment amounts will vary. Class members
can check their estimated payment on the settlement website under
"Estimated Award Eligibility."
Bank of America agreed to request that credit reporting agencies
delete any reference to class members' auto loan accounts. This
deletion may improve class members' credit scores.
The deadline for exclusion and objection is Dec. 18, 2024.
The final approval hearing for the Bank of America class action
settlement is scheduled for Feb. 18, 2025.
No claim form is required to benefit from the settlement. Class
members who do not exclude themselves will automatically receive
settlement benefits if the court approves the settlement.
Who's Eligible
Borrowers who were sent notices by Bank of America after their
vehicle was repossessed between Dec. 23, 2016, and Feb. 16, 2024
Potential Award
TBD
Proof of Purchase
N/A
Claim Form Deadline
N/A
Case Name
Nelson, et al. v. Bank of America NA, Case No. 5:23-cv-00255-JS, in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania
Final Hearing
02/28/2025
Settlement Website
NelsonClassAction.com
Claims Administrator
Nelson v. Bank of America Class Settlement
c/o Settlement Administrator
PO BOX 23698
Jacksonville, FL 32241-3698
info@NelsonClassAction.com
Class Counsel
Jody T Lopez-Jacobs
FLITTER MILZ PC
Defense Counsel
K Issac deVyver
MCGUIREWOODS LLP [GN]
BHP GROUP: Faces Sexual Harassment Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
Peter Ker, writing for Financial Review, reports that every female
employee of BHP and Rio Tinto of the past 20 years will be invited
to join class actions alleging sexual harassment, after Brisbane
law firm JGA Saddler started legal proceedings on Wednesday,
December 11.
JGA Saddler lawyer Josh Aylward said he had advised two unnamed
women in the filing of two separate claims -- one against BHP and
one against Rio.
The legal action would be run on an "opt-out" basis. That means all
women who worked for BHP or Rio since November 2003 will be
eligible to register for the claim unless they actively choose to
opt out.
The filings were not yet made public by the Federal Court, but Mr
Aylward said they had been lodged.
Mr Aylward said BHP and Rio would be ordered by the court --
potentially as early as February -- to contact all former female
employees and make them aware of their eligibility.
It is unclear whether the female claimants leading the concurrent
class actions will be allowed to remain anonymous.
The class action comes two and a half years after the West
Australian parliament handed down a bombshell inquiry into sexual
harassment at mine sites. The process forced big miners such as
BHP, Rio and Fortescue to reveal dozens of sexual harassment claims
made by their staff.
The claims are awkwardly timed for BHP, which is already defending
class actions in the United Kingdom and Australia over the fatal
Samarco dam disaster in 2015. BHP is also scheduled to achieve
gender balance across its operations in 2025.
"Sexual harassment has no place in our workplace or indeed
anywhere," said a BHP spokeswoman. "We deeply regret and apologise
unreservedly to anyone who has ever experienced any form of
harassment at BHP."
Rio, meanwhile, published a report into its culture last month
which found bullying and harassment were still common.
In a statement on Wednesday, December 11, Rio said it was aware of
the claim: "We treat all such claims with the utmost seriousness,"
said the miner. "We encourage employees, contractors and the public
to report any harmful or disrespectful behaviour." [GN]
BOCKMON & WOODY: Hardin Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------
The case WAYNE HARDIN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated Plaintiff v. BOCKMON & WOODY ELECTRIC CO., INC.,
and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
STK-CV-WE-2024-11996, was removed from the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of San Joaquin, to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of California on December
2, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-at-01525 to the
proceeding.
The Plaintiff alleges that he was a non-exempt employee of the
Defendant working as an operator between May 19, 2023 and July 25,
2024. In the complaint, Plaintiff asserts, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, eight total causes of action, seven
of which are for various violations of the California Labor Code
and one of which is for unfair competition under the California
Business and Professions Code.
Bockmon & Woody Electric Co., Inc. is a general contractor in
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Aaron B. Silva, Esq.
Matthew H. Green, Esq.
MURPHY AUSTIN ADAMS SCHOENFELD LLP
555 Capitol Mall, Suite 850
Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone: (916) 446-2300
Facsimile: (916) 503-4000
E-mail: asilva@murphyaustin.com
mgreen@murphyaustin.com
BOTH INC: Dail Suit Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Reply
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ADRIAN DAIL, et al.
BRITTANY TURNER, KATHY TURNER, FERMIN MARTINEZ, BARBARA ZEUCH,
DANIELLE DAIL, MELISSA POWERS, ASHLEY PARRISH, PATRICIA NEVILLE
POPE, BRITTNEY MICHIE, KELLIE PIERCE, SHARON PENDLETON, and SABRINA
MILLER, Individually and on behalf of all Others similarly
situated, v. BOTH, INC., et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-00276-JKW-DEM
(E.D. Va.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting
unopposed motion for extension of time to file their reply brief in
support of their motion for class certification pursuant to federal
rule 23 and FLSA conditional certification:
-- The Plaintiffs request that the Court enter the Order and grant
an
extension of the briefing schedule extending Plaintiffs' reply
brief deadline to Jan. 7, 2025.
-- On Oct. 30, 2024, the Parties appeared at a case status hearing
to
discuss the briefing schedule on Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification pursuant to Federal Rule 23 and FLSA Conditional
Certification and motion for leave to file a second amended
complaint.
-- On Nov. 8, 2024, Defendants sought an extension of time to
respond
to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification Pursuant to
Federal
Rule 23 and FLSA Conditional Certification.
-- On Nov. 12, 2024, the Court granted the Motion, which extended
the
Defendants' response time to Dec 2, 2024, and Plaintiff’s
reply
brief due December 20, 2024.
Both Inc. is a bank holding company owning or controlling one or
more banks.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 11, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FG7uiw at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Harris D. Butler, III, Esq.
Craig J. Curwood, Esq.
Zev H. Antell, Esq.
Samantha Galina, Esq.
BUTLER CURWOOD, PLC
140 Virginia Street, Suite 302
Richmond, VA 23219
Telephone: (804) 648-4848
Facsimile: (804) 237-0413
E-mail: harris@butlercurwood.com
craig@butlercurwood.com
zev@butlercurwood.com
samantha@butlercurwood.com
BOYLAND AUTO: Court Dismisses Armstrong Suit Without Prejudice
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge J. P. Stadtmueller of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Wisconsin dismisses without prejudice the lawsuit
captioned WILLIAM LOUIS ARMSTRONG, Plaintiff v. BOYLAND AUTO BGMC
LLC, GENERAL MOTORS, KUNES BUICK GMC, AUTOMOTIVE EXPERTS LLC,
NATIONAL BUSINESS BROKERS, DORIAN BOYLAND, and KAUFMAN DOLOWICH,
Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-00765-JPS (E.D. Wis.).
In June 2024, Plaintiff William Louis Armstrong, proceeding pro se,
sued the Defendants ostensibly on behalf of a putative class for
alleged violations of both state and federal law.
The Court deferred screening the Plaintiff's complaint under 28
U.S.C. Section 1915 to address "a threshold issue: Plaintiff's
characterization of his case as a class action." Some four months
later, no progress has been made with respect to that threshold
issue, and the Court is no closer to being able to screen the
Plaintiff's complaint as required under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915.
Over the course of the last four months, the Court has repeatedly
put the Plaintiff on notice that he cannot proceed pro se on behalf
of the putative class. Despite having been so informed, the
Plaintiff has continued to seek relief related to proceeding on
behalf of a class while pro se—for example, by moving for
provisional class certification.
The Court has repeatedly informed the Plaintiff that he has two
options: he may either obtain counsel to proceed on behalf of the
putative class, or he may amend his complaint to proceed solely on
behalf of himself.
In its most recent order, the Court denied the Plaintiff's motions
for reconsideration, for an extension of time, and for provisional
class certification.
Now before the Court is a 45-page omnibus motion filing from the
Plaintiff. Judge Stadtmueller notes that the filing seeks to do
many things—obtain preliminary injunctive relief; vacate a
judgment that does not exist; obtain additional extensions of time;
seek a "writ of Attornatio"; and challenge the notion that the
Plaintiff cannot proceed on behalf of the putative class.
Notably, however, Judge Stadtmueller says the filing neither
includes an amended complaint setting forth the Plaintiff's claims
solely on behalf of himself, nor demonstrates that he has obtained
counsel to represent him and the putative class--the only two
courses of action from which he was authorized by the Court to
elect.
In light of all of the foregoing, and as previously warned, the
Court will order that this case be dismissed without prejudice. The
Court has granted the Plaintiff various opportunities to move his
case forward within the constraints of the law, and it has
repeatedly extended his time within which to do so. Nevertheless,
this case is no closer to resolution than it was at the time of its
filing in June 2024, and the Court has spent more than enough of
its limited time parsing the Plaintiff's voluminous filings, which
fail in large part to comply with the Court's orders.
Accordingly, the Court rules that this case be and the same is
dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with the Court's
orders. Plaintiff William Louis Armstrong's motion to appoint
counsel, to vacate orders, for preliminary injunction, for
extension of time, and for leave to file an interlocutory appeal is
denied as moot.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3tth56ha from PacerMonitor.com.
BRIAN CASEY: Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chief Judge Elizabeth A. Wolford of the United States District
Court for the Western District of New York ruled on the several
motions filed by the parties in the case captioned as CHEIKH
DIAKHATE, Petitioner, v. BRIAN CASEY, Respondent, Case No.
6:23-CV-06736 EAW (W.D.N.Y.).
Pro se petitioner Cheikh Diakhate, a civil immigration detainee
currently held at the Buffalo Federal Detention Facility in
Batavia, New York, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2241. Petitioner previously sought an
injunction barring his removal during the pendency of this action,
which the Court denied.
Petitioner has now filed nine motions:
(1) a motion to file an amended petition;
(2) a motion seeking an investigation into alleged misconduct by
immigration judge Robert P. Driscoll;
(3) a motion for a stay of removal while this action is pending;
(4) a motion for sanctions;
(5) a motion seeking relief from certain conditions of
confinement at the BFDF;
(6) a motion to file an amended petition and for class
certification;
(7) a motion for reconsideration of the Court's denial of his
request for injunctive relief;
(8) another motion for a stay of removal while this action is
pending; and
(9) a third motion for a stay of removal while this action is
pending.
Respondent has moved to dismiss the petition.
Petitioner seeks to file an amended petition that asserts various
claims on behalf of a class of detainees at the BFDF. The members
of the putative class are "typically citizens of" what Petitioner
refers to as "AMMMLACCC countries" -- "AMMMLACCC" standing for
"Africa, Mexico, Majority Muslim, Latin America, the Caribbean and
Communist Controlled." In sum and substance, Petitioner alleges
that citizens of "AMMMLACCC" countries are ordered removed and held
in immigration custody at rates disproportionate to citizens of
"WECANZS" ("Western Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and/or
Scandinavia") countries, in violation of the equal protection
clause.
Petitioner is proceeding pro se and is not an attorney. In his
proposed amended complaint, he explicitly states that he is "a
layman, untrained in the law." "Because a nonlawyer cannot bring
suit on behalf of others, a nonlawyer pro se plaintiff cannot act
as a class representative and bring a class action."
The Court accordingly denies Petitioner's motions seeking to amend
the petition to assert claims on behalf of a class and for class
certification. It denies Petitioner's pending motions. It denies
Respondent's motion to dismiss without prejudice as to Petitioner's
prolonged detention claim but grants Respondent's motion in all
other respects.
A copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dX811Y
BRIGHT DATA: Court Narrows Claims in X Corp. Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------
Judge William Alsup of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California granted in part and denied in part
X Corp.'s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint in
the case captioned as X CORP., Plaintiff, v. BRIGHT DATA LTD.,
Defendant, Case No. C 23-03698 WHA (N.D. Calif.).
Plaintiff X Corp. owns and operates the social media platform X.
The previous order explained that the allegations raised two basic
grievances: First, that Bright Data improperly accessed X Corp.'s
systems and helped others do so. Second, that Bright Data
improperly scraped and sold data and helped others do so. X Corp.'s
legal theories -- trespass to chattels, contract interference,
contract breach, misappropriation, unjust enrichment, and Section
17200 -- corresponded with one, the other, or both basic
grievances. No claim survived dismissal as alleged.
The social media company's first amended complaint was dismissed
for failing to state a claim. The complaint failed to allege that
the data-scraping company accessed the social media platform
without authorization and caused damage. And, the complaint failed
to allege that the data-scraping company scraped and copied data in
which the social media company held a right not preempted by the
Copyright Act.
An earlier motion for leave to amend the complaint failed because
it was filed by conflicted counsel.
With new counsel, X Corp. now files a proposed, second amended
complaint. The amended allegations address:
* Impairment of X's servers by way of scraper-specific use
patterns, including that data-scraping requests disproportionately
target select areas of the X platform compared to human or
authorized machine requests, that ensuring X stays functional
despite these concentrated requests requires millions of dollars of
excess server capacity, that even with supplementary servers X has
suffered "intermittent" server failure and a "glitchy, lagged user
experience", and that Bright Data is a "substantial source" of
data-scraping requests;
* Access to non-public data by way of fake logins, including
that not all content on X is publicly available, that the publicly
available content can be viewed only within narrow limits, that
scrapers access both kinds, and that "the only way to data scrape X
at the scale Bright Data promises is by" ultimately "open[ing]
legions of fake accounts";
* Types of data on X, including that X hosts "user-generated
content (like user posts and profiles) and non-user-generated
content (like follower lists and other information about the
relationships between users)," and "creates" "aggregations" or
"amalgamations" of the other two;
* Purported ownership interests in those data types, including
that X Corp. disclaims any copyright to user-generated content,
disclaims any copyright to non-user-generated content that lacks
creativity, and yet claims some interest in the "organization" or
"aggregateion" of the data that it assembles at great cost and that
can itself be wrongfully copied or taken;
* And, non-pecuniary, user, and state-law interests in the data,
including that X Corp. users are unlikely to be aware that content
they post to the platform is scraped by Bright Data, that the
content once scraped by Bright Data would by Bright Data's own
terms of use no longer be treated with the same privacy and
security protections as X provides, and that because "X cannot
ensure that its users' data is deleted once it has been anonymously
scraped" it cannot "fulfill its obligations" under the California
Consumer Privacy Act.
The proposed complaint also adds three new claims: That Bright Data
violated the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, the Computer Fraud
and Abuse Act, and the California Comprehensive Computer Data
Access and Fraud Act.
As to its access-based claims for trespass to chattels, unlawful
and fraudulent business acts under Section 17200, tortious
interference with contract, and contract breach, the motion is
granted. As to its access-based unfair business acts under Section
17200, the motion is denied without leave. As to its scraping-based
claims for misappropriation, unjust enrichment, tortious
interference with contract, and contract breach, the motion is
denied without leave. Finally, X Corp.'s supplemental claims are
granted.
A copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=agjQ0v
BRIGHT HEALTH: Van Appeals Marquez Suit Dismissal to 2nd Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
WINSTON VAN is taking an appeal from a court order granting the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the lawsuit entitled Victorino
Marquez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Bright Health Group, Inc., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-101, in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
alleges, among other things, that Bright Health Group made
materially false and misleading statements regarding its business,
operations, and compliance policies, which in turn adversely
affected its stock price. An amended complaint was filed on June
24, 2022, which expands on the allegations in the original
complaint and alleges a putative class period of June 24, 2021,
through March 1, 2022.
On Nov. 30, 2022, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint, which Judge LaShann DeArcy Hall granted on Sept.
30, 2024. The Court ruled that the amended complaint's allegations,
if true, would not add up to circumstantial evidence of conscious
misbehavior or recklessness. And, because the Plaintiff does not
adequately plead a material misrepresentation or omission nor
scienter, his Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 claims fail.
Clerk's judgment was entered in favor of the Defendants on Nov. 1,
2024, and the case was closed.
The appellate case is captioned Marquez v. Bright Health Group,
Inc., Case No. 24-3132, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit, filed on December 5, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant WINSTON VAN, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Alfred L. Fatale, III, Esq.
LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP
140 Broadway
New York, NY 10005
Defendants-Appellees BRIGHT HEALTH GROUP, INC., et al. are
represented by:
Joseph M. McLaughlin, Esq.
SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
425 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10017
- and -
Susan Saltzstein, Esq.
SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
One Manhattan West
New York, NY 10001
BROOKFIELD PROPERTIES: Propst Files Suit in D.C. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brookfield Properties
Multifamily, LLC. The case is styled as Norman Propst, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Brookfield Properties
Multifamily, LLC, Case No. 2024-CAB-007753 (D.C. Super. Ct., Dec.
11, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Statutory Claim" for Consumer
Protection Act.
Brookfield Properties -- https://www.brookfieldproperties.com/en/
-- is a multifamily property management company with apartment
communities across North America.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter Silva, II, Esq.
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 1010
Washington, DC 20006
Phone: 202-973-0900
Email: psilva@tzlegal.com
BYERS INDUSTRIAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Clausell Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE CLAUSELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BYERS INDUSTRIAL SERVICES, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:24-cv-10959 (D.N.J., Dec. 6, 2024) seeks to recover from
the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Plaintiff Clausell was employed by the Defendant as a laborer.
Byers Industrial Services, LLC is a specialty contractor that
serves the franklinville, nj area and specializes in electrical,
process piping, equipment, integrated automation. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Franklin J. Rooks, Jr. Esq.
MORGAN ROOKS, PC
525 Route 73 North, Suite 104
Marlton, NJ 08053
Telephone: (856) 874-8999
Email: fjrooks@morganrooks.com
- and -
James E. Goodley, Esq.
Ryan P. McCarthy, Esq.
GOODLEY MCCARTHY LLC
1650 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 394-0541
Email: james@gmlaborlaw.com
ryan@gmlaborlaw.com
CAL DEL: Class Settlement in Orin Suit Obtains Final Court Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Fernando M. Olguin of the United States District Court for
the Central District of California granted plaintiff's motion for
final approval of class action settlement, and unopposed motion for
attorneys' fees and costs and class representative's enhancement
payment in the case captioned as LINDSAY ORIN, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated and on behalf of the general
public, Plaintiff, v. CAL. DEL. U.S.A. INC., Defendant, Case No. CV
23-3404 FMO (KSx) (C.D. Calif.).
On April 3, 2023, Lindsay Orin, a former non-exempt employee of
Cal. Del. U.S.A. Inc., filed this putative class action in state
court against defendant asserting claims on behalf of current and
former non-exempt employees for:
(1) failure to pay all wages due, pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 201, et seq.;
(2) failure to pay all minimum and overtime wages due, Cal.
Lab. Code Secs. 226.7, 246, 510, 512,1194;
(3) failure to provide rest periods or compensation in lieu
thereof, Cal. Lab. Code Sec. 226.7 & California Industrial Welfare
Commission Wage Order No. 4-2001;
(4) failure to provide meal periods or premium wages in lieu
thereof, Cal. Lab. Code Secs. 226.7, 512 & IWC Wage Order No.
4-2001;
(5) failure to reimburse necessary business expenses, Cal. Lab.
Code Sec. 2802;
(6) failure to comply with itemized employee wage statement
provisions, Cal. Lab. Code Sec. 226(a), (e);
(7) failure to timely pay wages due at separation of employment,
Cal. Lab. Code Secs. 201-203; and
(8) violations of California's Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus.
& Prof. Code Sec. 17200, et seq.
On May 4, 2023, defendant removed the action on the basis of
federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331. On July 19,
2023, plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint, which
added a claim for penalties pursuant to the California Private
Attorneys General Act, Cal. Lab. Code Sec. 2698, et seq.
On October 6, 2023, the parties participated in a mediation, and
reached a settlement. The court held a preliminary approval hearing
on January 11, 2024, and after noting several issues with the
proposed settlement and the motion for preliminary approval, the
court denied the motion without prejudice. The parties subsequently
revised the settlement agreement.
The parties have defined the settlement class as "all current and
former non-exempt employees of Defendant employed in California at
any time during the Class Period." The Class Period is defined as
the period from April 3, 2019 through the date of Preliminary
Approval, June 10, 2024.
Pursuant to the settlement, defendant will pay a non-reversionary
gross settlement amount of $250,000, which will be used to pay the
class and PAGA members, the PAGA payment to the California Labor &
Workforce Development Agency, attorney's fees and costs, the class
representative's service payment, and the settlement administrator.
The settlement provides for up to 25% in attorney's fees of the
gross settlement amount ($62,500); costs not to exceed $13,000; an
incentive payment of $5,000 for Orin; and a $7,500 payment to the
LWDA. The settlement administrator, ILYM Group, Inc. will be paid
$3,000. The net settlement amount is expected to be approximately
$146,500.
On June 10, 2024, the court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement, and appointed ILYM as the settlement administrator.
ILYM implemented the notice program approved by the court. As of
September 25, 2024, ILYM had received no requests for exclusion,
and no objections. If all requested costs, fees, and awards are
approved, the average individual class payment is estimated to be
$2,198.79.
Plaintiff now seeks (1) final approval of the settlement; (2)
attorney's fees and costs; and (3) an incentive payment for
plaintiff.
The court finds that the settlement is fair, reasonable, adequate,
and not the product of collusion.
The court finds that the requested $62,500 in attorney's fees,
which equates to the 25% benchmark, constitutes a reasonable fee.
The court finds that the costs incurred by class counsel over the
course of this litigation are reasonable, and therefore awards a
total of $9,982.36 in costs.
Based on its review of the record, the court determined that a
service award of $5,000 to plaintiff was reasonable. The court sees
no reason to depart from its previous determination.
A copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yRXGCD
CALIFORNIA: Quevedo Suit Removed from Sup. Ct. to C.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as OSCAR QUEVEDO, individually,
and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. CALIFORNIA
CEMETERY AND FUNERAL SERVICES, LLC, a limited liability company;
and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV27677 (Filed Oct. 22,
2024), was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California, for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, Western
Division on Dec. 6, 2024.
The Central California District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:24-cv-10509 to the proceeding.
The suit alleges unfair competition in violation of the California
Business and Professions Code and seeks injunctive relief,
statutory penalties, unpaid wages and damages for multiple types of
alleged violations.
California Cemetery offers cremation and burial services.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Carrie M. Francis, Esq.
STINSON LLP
1850 North Central Avenue, Suite 2100
Phoenix, AZ 85004-4584
Telephone: (602) 212-8535
Facsimile: (602) 240-6925
E-mail: carrie.francis@stinson.com
CANADA: Court Refuses to Certify Cadet Program Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
HR Law Canada reports that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
has refused to certify a proposed class action alleging systemic
negligence and other breaches by the Attorney General of Canada in
the administration of Canada's Cadet Program.
The plaintiffs, H.L. and her mother, M.L., sought to represent
thousands of female cadets and their family members, claiming the
program's alleged failures allowed sexual misconduct against young
participants to persist without proper intervention or support.
What happened
The plaintiffs' claim centred on events involving H.L., who joined
the Cadet Program at age 14. She alleged that in 2008 and 2009,
T.E., an adult cadet volunteer and reservist, groomed her online,
encouraged sexualized conversations, and proposed a sexual
encounter.
Although T.E. later pled guilty to a criminal charge of invitation
to sexual touching, H.L. asserted that when she attempted to report
his behaviour internally at the time, her complaint was neither
acted upon nor properly recorded. Both H.L. and M.L. further
alleged that no support or resources were offered by the Cadet
Program following the incident.
Proposed class
The plaintiffs' proposed class encompassed all current and former
female cadets dating back to 2000 who suffered injury as a result
of sexual misconduct by adult instructors, as well as their family
members. They advanced claims in negligence, breach of fiduciary
duty, breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, and a breach
of s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They
alleged that Canada's failure to implement and enforce robust
sexual misconduct policies, training, and reporting mechanisms
created an environment allowing sexual abuse and harassment to
occur unchecked.
Justice Healey, however, concluded that the plaintiffs failed to
meet the statutory criteria required under s. 5 of the Class
Proceedings Act, 1992. The court's analysis focused on whether it
was "plain and obvious" that no cause of action existed and whether
there was "some basis in fact" to certify the proposed class.
Fiduciary duty issue
In dismissing the claims of breach of fiduciary duty, the court
found that while the plaintiffs alleged Canada had duties of
loyalty, care, and good faith toward cadets, the evidence did not
support a legal relationship akin to those recognized fiduciary
duties. According to the decision, neither the statutory framework
nor the facts pled demonstrated that Canada undertook to act in the
cadets' best interests above all others.
The court wrote, "It is plain and obvious that the claim for breach
of fiduciary duty will not succeed."
Negligence claim
The negligence claim was also curtailed. Although the plaintiffs
attempted to frame the allegations as a systemic failure to protect
cadets, the court found that they offered no admissible evidence
indicating widespread wrongdoing or a pattern of non-compliance
with established policies.
The plaintiffs relied heavily on the experiences of H.L. and her
difficulties in reporting abuse, as well as media articles and
reports focusing on the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF), not
specifically the Cadet Program. This fell short of establishing
that sexual misconduct was pervasive, or that Canada's alleged
failures were systemically entrenched. The court stated that,
without evidence showing multiple cases of similar harm, it could
not conclude that the claims of other potential class members would
share common factual and legal underpinnings.
In reference to the s. 7 Charter argument, Justice Healey noted
that the allegations essentially represented a claim of inaction
rather than state action infringing protected rights. The court
concluded that "the Charter does not impose on the defendant an
affirmative duty" to create particular policies, and as such, no
separate Charter cause of action was made out.
Similarly, the claims of negligent misrepresentation and breach of
contract were dismissed due to a lack of pled facts indicating
reliance on specific, identifiable representations from Canada, or
any contractual relationship that would support damages claims.
Proposed class definition
In rejecting the motion for certification, the court carefully
examined the proposed class definition. The definition included any
female cadet who experienced "misconduct of a sexual nature," but
this term was never clearly defined. Moreover, the plaintiffs
presented no admissible, class-wide evidence that additional
individuals beyond H.L. could confirm similar experiences, making
it impossible to find "some basis in fact" that two or more persons
fell within the proposed class.
The common issues proposed by the plaintiffs were also found
wanting. Many were phrased so broadly that they failed to
meaningfully advance the litigation. Without demonstrated systemic
wrongdoing or uniform omissions that could be addressed
collectively, assessing liability would inevitably devolve into
individual inquiries, undercutting the purpose of a class
proceeding.
The court wrote that the decision "is not intended to detract from
the gravity of what occurred to H.L. due to [T.E.'s] conduct," and
acknowledged the serious harm caused by sexual misconduct against
minors. However, it concluded that the complexity and individual
nature of the allegations meant that a class action was "not the
vehicle by which this wrong can be appropriately addressed."
In the result, the plaintiffs' motion for certification was
dismissed in its entirety. The parties were left to address costs,
with further submissions scheduled if they could not agree. [GN]
CASSAVA SCIENCES: Faces Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
A shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against Cassava
Sciences, Inc. ("Cassava" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: SAVA). The
lawsuit alleges that Defendants created a false impression that
they possessed reliable information pertaining to the Company's
drug prospects and anticipated growth while also minimizing risk
from a potential drug failure.
If you bought shares of Cassava between February 7, 2024 to
November 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/cassava/ to learn more.
The deadline to ask the court to be appointed lead plaintiff in the
case is February 10, 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]
CAVENDISH FARMS: Lit'l Alleges Frozen Potato Products Price-Fixing
------------------------------------------------------------------
LIT'L PEPPER GOURMET, INC., Plaintiff v. CAVENDISH FARMS LTD;
CAVENDISH FARMS, INC.; LAMB WESTON HOLDINGS, INC.; LAMB WESTON,
INC.; LAMB WESTON BSW, LLC; LAMB WESTON/ MIDWEST, INC.; LAMB WESTON
SALES, INC.; MCCAIN FOODS LIMITED; MCCAIN FOODS USA, INC.; J.R.
SIMPLOT COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-12350 (N.D. Ill.,
December 2, 2024) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff
against the Defendants under Section 1 of the Sherman Act and
Section 16 of the Clayton Act, seeking injunctive relief, costs of
suit, and reasonable attorney's fees.
The suit arises from the Defendants' conspiratorial and
price-fixing conduct, as well as the conspiratorial and
price-fixing conduct of unnamed co-conspirators that unlawfully
elevated prices of Defendants' frozen potato products. Because
Defendants control roughly 97% of the market for Frozen Potato
Products, which make up a cost-effective staple of North American
diets, they have been able to elevate price levels of Frozen Potato
Products that bear no relationship to normal economic limitations
related to costs and demand for Frozen Potato Products, says the
suit.
The Defendants have increased prices in lockstep both in terms of
timing and amount, and in doing so achieved record profits and
unheard-of-in-the-industry profit margins of over 30%. Moreover,
the conspiracy allowed Defendants to maintain artificially elevated
prices, notwithstanding an operating environment of retreating
costs, the suit alleges.
Cavendish Farms Ltd. manufactures frozen french fries and potato
products at facilities throughout the United States and is the
fourth largest processor of Frozen Potato Products in North
America.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason S. Hartley, Esq.
HARTLEY LLP
101 West Broadway, Suite 820
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 400-5822
E-mail: hartley@hartleyllp.com
- and -
John Landay, Esq.
LANDAY ROBERTS LLP
600 West Broadway, Suite 700
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 648-4811
E-mail: jlanday@landayroberts.com
- and -
Mary Jane Fait, Esq.
Richard M. Paul, III, Esq.
David W. Bodenheimer, Esq.
PAUL LLP
601 Walnut Street, Suite 300
Kansas City, MO 64106
Telephone: (816) 984-8100
E-mail: MaryJane@PaulLLP.com
Rick@PaulLLP.com
David@PaulLLP.com
CENGAGE LEARNING: Bernstein Class Settlement Gets Prelim. Court OK
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. of the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York granted plaintiff's motion for
preliminary approval of settlement and class certification in the
case captioned as DOUGLAS BERNSTEIN, ELAINE INGULLI, TERRY HALBERT,
EDWARD ROY, LOUIS PENNER, and ROSS PARKE, as personal
representative of THE ESTATE OF ALISON CLARKE-STEWART, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. CENGAGE
LEARNING, INC., Defendant, Civil Action No. 19-cv-7541-ALC-SLC
(S.D.N.Y.).
The Court preliminarily approves the Settlement under Rule 23(e),
finding it likely to be fair, reasonable, and adequate for the
Settlement Class based on Rule 23(e)(2) and relevant case law. This
approval is subject to Settlement Class Members’ right to
challenge the Settlement's fairness or adequacy and to show cause,
if any, against final judgment dismissing the action and releasing
claims, following proper notice and a final approval hearing.
The Court finds that the Agreement was entered into at arm's length
by highly experienced counsel with the assistance of a mediator and
is sufficiently within the range of reasonableness that notice of
the Agreement should be given as provided in the Agreement.
The Court finds that the proposed plan of allocation is
sufficiently fair and reasonable.
Pursuant to Rule 23(e)(1)(B)(ii), the Court also finds that it will
likely be able to certify the Settlement Class, consisting of "All
authors of royalty-bearing works who entered into a publishing
agreement with Cengage Learning, Inc., or one of its
predecessors-in-interest, and whose royalty-bearing works have (a)
been sold as a component of a MindTap product and have been
assigned a Digital Royalty Allocation other than 100%; or (b) been
available on Cengage Unlimited" for purposes of judgment on the
proposal under Rule 23(b)(3). This definition includes heirs and
assigns of authors in the Settlement Class.
The Court finds that it will likely certify the class for purposes
of judgment on the proposal because: (i) the Settlement Class is so
numerous that joinder is impracticable; (ii) Plaintiffs' claims
present common issues that are typical of the Settlement Class;
(iii) Plaintiffs and Class Counsel will fairly and adequately
represent the Settlement Class; and (iv) common issues predominate
over any individual issues affecting the Settlement Class Members.
The Court further finds that Plaintiffs' interests are aligned with
the interests of all other Settlement Class Members. The Court also
finds that resolution of this action on a class basis for purposes
of the Settlement is superior to other means of resolution.
The Court appoints Susman Godfrey L.L.P. as counsel to the
Settlement Class for purposes of the Settlement, having determined
that the requirements of Rule 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure are fully satisfied by this appointment.
Plaintiffs Douglas Bernstein, Edward Roy, Louis Penner, Ross Parke
(as personal representative of the estate of Alison
Clarke-Stewart), Elaine Ingulli, and Terry Halbert will serve as
representatives of the Settlement Class for purposes of the
Settlement.
The Court appoints Rust Consulting, Inc., a competent firm, as the
Settlement Administrator. Funds incurred and that become payable
prior to the Effective Date of the Agreement will be paid by
Cengage directly and Cengage will receive credit toward the
Settlement Amount for any such payments, as set forth in the
Agreement. Funds incurred and that become payable after the
Effective Date of the Agreement will be paid from the Final
Settlement Fund as they become due. The Settlement Administrator
shall be responsible for receiving requests for exclusion from
Settlement Class Members.
As of September 19, 2024, all proceedings in the above-captioned
class action have been stayed. All proceedings shall remain stayed
and suspended until further order of the Court, except as may be
necessary to implement the Settlement or comply with the terms of
the Agreement.
The Court schedules a Final Fairness Hearing to occur on February
26, 2025, at 3:00 p.m. ET by telephone conference to determine
whether (i) the proposed Settlement as set forth in the Agreement,
should be finally approved as fair, reasonable and adequate
pursuant to the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(2); (ii) the
Settlement Class shall be certified for purposes of judgment on the
proposal, (iii) an order approving the Agreement and a Final
Judgment should be entered; (iv) an order approving a proposed plan
of allocation should be approved; and (v) the application of Class
Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees, expense reimbursements,
and service awards in this matter should be approved.
A copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EMx9do
CHARLES SCHWAB: Atachbarian Sues Over Unreasonable Interest Rates
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ABRAHAM ATACHBARIAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE CHARLES SCHWAB CORPORATION;
and CHARLES SCHWAB & CO., INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-09316
(S.D.N.Y., Dec. 6, 2024) is an action to remedy harms caused by
Schwab's failure to pay "reasonable" interest rates to its
customers with retirement accounts and rates consistent with
prevailing market conditions to its brokerage customers in its cash
sweep programs.
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, Schwab paid the
Plaintiff and proposed Class members unreasonably low interest
rates, particularly given the recent high interest rate
environment, enabling it to reap huge profits from the spread, at
the expense of its customers.
Schwab violated its fiduciary and contractual duties by sweeping
customers' uninvested funds into sweep accounts, earning interest,
using this earned interest to fund new or current lending
activities, and then failing to pay their customers "reasonable"
rates of interest or prevailing rates on the funds subject to the
sweep. In this way, Schwab was able to increase its own revenues
and profit from the difference or spread between the interest
income on the investments it made and the interest rate that it
paid to its customers, says the suit.
The Charles Schwab Corporation is a financial services company. The
Company provides wealth and asset management, securities brokerage,
banking, trading and research, custody, and financial advisory
services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lynda J. Grant, Esq.
THE GRANT LAW FIRM, PLLC
521 Fifth Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10175
Telephone: (212) 292-4441
Email: LGrant@grantfirm.com
- and -
Howard T. Longman, Esq.
LONGMAN LAW, P.C.
354 Eisenhower Parkway, Suite 1800
Livingston, NJ 07039
Telephone: (973) 994-2315
Email: hlongman@longmanlaw.law
CLEARLINK INSURANCE: Plaintiff Can File Second Amended Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Rachel E. Schwartz of the United States District
Court for the District of Kansas granted the plaintiff's motion for
leave to file a second amended complaint in the case captioned as
JAMES JULIAN, Plaintiff, v. CLEARLINK INSURANCE AGENCY, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 24-2293-KHV-RES (D. Kan.). Plaintiff's consent
motion for leave to amend complaint is also granted.
On July 8, 2024, Plaintiff filed the initial Complaint. Highly
summarized, this action involves claims for alleged violations of
the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Specifically,
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated the TCPA by authorizing
and directing "telemarketing calls" from "September 22, 2023 to
June 5, 2024." Plaintiff brought two separate TCPA claims against
Defendant.
On August 1, 2024, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint.
Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint asserted the same two TCPA
claims with new allegations concerning Defendant's vicarious
liability and ratification of third-party conduct.
On November 7, 2024, one day before the deadline to file any
motions to amend, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File Second
Amended Complaint. In this Motion, Plaintiff seeks to amend his
First Amended Complaint to add class action TCPA claims against
Defendant.
On November 15, 2024, Defendant filed a Response in opposition to
Plaintiff's Motion. Defendant argues that the Court should deny
Plaintiff leave to amend based on undue delay and because Plaintiff
filed the Motion "in bad faith." Defendant asserts that "Plaintiff
could have included the class allegations" in his initial
Complaint or his First Amended Complaint. Because Plaintiff did not
assert a class claim earlier, Defendant asks the Court to deny
Plaintiff's Motion based on "undue delay." Defendant also labels
Plaintiff's Motion as "a bad faith tactic" allegedly intended to
"punish [Defendant] for refusing to settle."
Regarding bad faith, Plaintiff asserts that a failure to settle a
case is insufficient to qualify as a "bad faith" motive for seeking
to amend a pleading.
On November 25, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Consent Motion for Leave to
Amend Complaint to Identify "John Doe" Telemarketing Companies.
Plaintiff's Consent Motion seeks leave to amend his complaint to
add EDM and Boss Leads as defendants. While the Consent Motion
references that Defendant "maintains its opposition to Plaintiff's
request to add class action allegations," Defendant "consents to
the relief requested in this motion (the addition of EDM and Boss
Leads as additional defendants)."
Concerning bad faith, Defendant does not define what constitutes
bad faith under Rule 15. The burden to establish bad faith rests
with the party opposing the motion to amend.
The Court is not persuaded by Defendant's view that undue delay
exists simply because Plaintiff might have been able to include
class claims in earlier pleadings. "Delay alone is not enough to
deny a motion to amend." According to the Court, delay must be
"undue," and Defendant does not cite any case where a court has
denied a motion to amend filed before the deadline in a scheduling
order, within just four months of the initial case filing and, as
reflected on the docket, before any meaningful discovery has
occurred.
While Plaintiff's Motion may have been delayed, because of the
unique procedural posture of this case, the Court does not find
that it is unduly delayed, requiring the denial of Plaintiff's
Motion for Leave.
Defendant alleges that Plaintiff's requested amendment is in bad
faith because it seeks to include class action claims to pressure
Defendant into settlement. In support of this argument, Defendant
unnecessarily publicly discloses in detail the substance of the
parties' settlement negotiations.
Even assuming such a motive were true, this does not rise to the
level of "bad faith" requiring the denial of a timely motion for
leave to amend, the Court concludes.
While Defendant argues that it may have defenses to these class
action claims, it never argues that the class claims are
futile—indeed the word futile does not appear in Defendant's
response.
For these reasons, the Court concludes that Defendant has not met
its burden to establish Plaintiff's bad faith. The timing of this
requested amendment, even after failed settlement discussions, does
not equate to bad faith.
Given that Rule 15(a)(2) allows Plaintiff to amend with Defendant's
written consent, the Court grants the Consent Motion as unopposed.
A copy of the Court's Memorandum Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QiXKiM
CLEVELAND COUNTY, NC: Brown Lawsuit Dismissed Without Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as THURMAN BROWN, Heir to the Estate of Rose
Lee Kee Williams and Lead Plaintiff on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. REGISTRAR OF DEEDS FOR CLEVELAND
COUNTY, et al., Defendants, CIVIL CASE NO. 1:24-cv-00283-MR-WCM
(W.D.N.C.), Chief Judge Martin Reidinger of the United States
District Court for the Western District of North Carolina granted
the plaintiff's application to proceed with this civil action
without prepaying fees or costs. The Plaintiff's Complaint is
dismissed without prejudice.
On October 9, 2024, the pro se Plaintiff Thurman Brown brought a
putative class action on behalf of himself as an heir to the Estate
of Henrietta Flack Withrow, along with other similarly situated
heirs, tenants, and third-party purchasers, asserting claims of
fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, professional negligence, and
negligence. In that action, the Plaintiff named as Defendants
Sarah Jane Spikes, the administrator of Ms. Withrow's estate;
Murrell K. Spikes and Rickey McCluney, who allegedly participated
in fraudulent property transfers of estate property arranged by
Sarah Jane Spikes; Mark D. Lackey and Thomas W. Martin, attorneys
who allegedly prepared and facilitated the fraudulent property
transfers; and the Registrar of Deeds for Cleveland County. The
Plaintiff also sought to proceed without the prepayment of fees and
costs.
On October 23, 2024, the Court entered an Order granting the
Plaintiff's application to proceed without the prepayment of fees
and costs but dismissing the action because the Plaintiff had
failed to assert any basis for the exercise of federal subject
matter jurisdiction.
On October 29, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a motion attempting to
amend his Complaint. The Court denied that motion and instructed
the Plaintiff that he needed to file a new civil action.
On November 15, 2024, the Plaintiff filed the present action. In
his Complaint, he again asserts a putative class action on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated. He again names Sarah
Jane Spikes, Murrell K. Spikes, Rickey McCluney, Mark D. Lackey,
Thomas W. Martin, and the Registrar of Deeds for Cleveland County.
He also names as Defendants: Destany McCluney; the Cleveland County
Magistrate; Martha Thompson, the Cleveland County Attorney;
"Unknown Magistrate Judges"; the "Sheriff Deputy that effectuated
arrest"; the Cleveland County Sheriff's Department; the "Cleveland
County Estates Office"; and "Other Defendants to Be Determined."
In his Complaint, the Plaintiff reiterates his allegations of
fraudulent activities by Defendant Sarah Jane Spikes and others,
involving fraudulent property transfers, "title washing" schemes,
and the manipulation of public records. With respect to the newly
named Cleveland County defendants, he alleges a "systemic denial of
access to justice for economically disadvantaged litigants," as
well as a pattern of "judicial and law enforcement intimidation."
He also alleges that he was arrested on "pretextual charges" for
contempt in a coordinated effort to suppress Plaintiff's legitimate
claims and instill fear.
The Plaintiff asserts claims for the violation of his due process
and equal protection rights under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 and for
violation of the criminal RICO statute, 18 U.S.C Secs. 1961-1968.
He also purports to assert claims for professional negligence and
for "conspiracy to defraud."
The Plaintiff seeks to proceed with this civil action without
having to prepay the costs associated with prosecuting the matter.
In his Application, the Plaintiff asserts that he has no income and
no assets, but has monthly expenses of approximately $500.00. He
states that he "had to rob and steal to get here" and that he is
currently working for food at an outreach ministry. Upon review of
the application, it appears that the Plaintiff lacks the resources
with which to pay the required filing fee. Accordingly, the Court
finds that the application should be granted.
In sum, the Court will allow the Plaintiff to proceed without the
prepayment of costs and fees. However, upon review of his
Complaint, it concludes that the Plaintiff's Complaint is frivolous
and fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The
Court will allow the Plaintiff thirty (30) days to amend his
Complaint, if he so chooses, to correct the deficiencies identified
in this Order and to otherwise properly state a claim upon which
relief can be granted. Any Amended Complaint will be subject to all
timeliness and procedural requirements and will supersede his
previous filings. Piecemeal amendment will not be allowed. Should
the Plaintiff fail to timely file an Amended Complaint in
accordance with this Order, this action will be dismissed without
prejudice and without further notice to the Plaintiff.
A copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Y3H904
CUSTOMERS BANCORP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set January 31
------------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors of the upcoming
January 31, 2025 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the
case filed on behalf of investors who purchased Customers Bancorp,
Inc. ("Customers Bancorp" or the "Company") (NYSE: CUBI) securities
between March 1, 2024 and August 8, 2024, inclusive (the "Class
Period").
Investors suffering losses on their Customers Bancorp investments
are encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to
discuss their legal rights in this class action at (215) 638-4847
or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.
On April 12, 2024, Customers Bancorp disclosed that its Executive
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Carla Leibold, had been
terminated "for 'cause' under her employment agreement for
violating Company policy." However, later that month, the Company
amended this description to state that her termination "was a
separation by mutual agreement" and that Ms. Leibold would be paid
$2.5 million in "post-employment compensation."
On this news, Customer Bancorp's stock price fell $2.40, or 4.9%,
to close at $46.62 on April 15, 2024, thereby injuring investors.
Then, on August 8, 2024, the Federal Reserve Board announced the
execution of an enforcement action with Customers Bancorp, Inc.,
and Customers Bank stating that the most recent inspection of
Customers Bancorp "identified significant deficiencies related to
the Bank's risk management practices and compliance with the
applicable laws, rules, and regulations relating to anti-money
laundering."
On this news, Customer Bancorp's stock price fell $7.22, or 13.3%,
to close at $47.01 per share on August 8, 2024.
That same day, after market hours, Customer Bancorp disclosed a
consent order by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of
Banking and Securities, Bureau of Bank Supervision, which stated
that deficiencies within the Company "give the Bureau reason to
believe that the Bank had engaged in unsafe or unsound banking
practices relating to BSA/AML Requirements[.]"
On this news, Customer Bancorp's stock price fell $1.08, or 2.3%,
to close at $45.93 per share on August 9, 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) Customers Bancorp had inadequate anti-money laundering
practices; (2) as a result, it was not in compliance with its legal
obligations, which subjected it to heightened regulatory risk; 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 Customers Bancorp securities
during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than
January 31, 2025 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff
if you meet certain legal requirements. 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 these
matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of
Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem,
Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone at (215) 638-4847, toll-free at
(888) 638-4847, or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or
visit our website at www.howardsmithlaw.com.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contacts
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
Howard G. Smith, Esquire
(215) 638-4847
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
www.howardsmithlaw.com [GN]
DENTSPLY SIRONA: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set January 27
----------------------------------------------------------------
National plaintiffs law firm Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein,
LLP encourages investors in Dentsply Sirona Inc. ("Dentsply" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: XRAY) who purchased or otherwise acquired
Dentsply common stock between December 1, 2022, and November 6,
2024, inclusive (the "Class Period") to contact us immediately
regarding a pending securities class action against Dentsply. The
deadline to apply to be lead plaintiff is January 27, 2025.
Class Period: December 1, 2022 - November 6, 2024
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: January 27, 2025
Case information:
https://lieffcabraser.com/securities/dentsply-sirona/
Contact us: Email or text investorinfo@lchb.com or call
1-800-541-7358
Dentsply, incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in Charlotte,
North Carolina, manufactures professional dental products,
including Byte, an affordable, "doctor-directed,"
direct-to-consumer dental aligner.
The action alleges that Dentsply made materially false and
misleading statements throughout the Class Period, and failed to
disclose material adverse facts about its business, operations, and
prospects, including that: (1) the Company targeted their Byte
sales towards low-income individuals who lacked access to quality
dental care, and were therefore more likely to have underlying
dental issues making them ineligible for the treatment; (2) the
drive for Byte growth and sales commissions led employees to sell
to contraindicated patients; (3) Dentsply's process for onboarding
Byte patients failed to provide adequate assurance that
contraindicated patients would not be treated; (4) the Company knew
its Byte products were severely injuring patients, but failed to
adequately investigate instances of those injuries; (5) Dentsply
lacked systems to notify the FDA of such injuries within 30 days of
learning of them, as required; and (6) the Company materially
overstated the goodwill value of their Byte business.
On October 24, 2024, Dentsply announced the "voluntary suspension
of sales and marketing of its Byte Aligners and Impression Kits
while the Company conducts a review of certain regulatory
requirements related to these products." Dentsply initially claimed
that this was simply a "precautionary measure"; however, the next
day, Dentsply CEO, defendant Simon D. Campion, revealed that
discussions with the FDA had led to the suspension over concerns
that the Company's patient onboarding process failed to adequately
screen contraindicated patients from treatment with Byte aligners.
Dentsply also disclosed that it expected to record a goodwill
impairment charge of between $450 million and $550 million. On this
news, the price of Dentsply common stock fell $1.10 per share, or
4.5%, from a closing price of $24.41 on October 24, 2024, to close
at $23.31 per share on October 25, 2024, on heavy trading volume.
On November 7, 2024, Dentsply announced a goodwill impairment
charge of $495 million and lowered its financial forecast for 2024,
including reduced adjusted earnings per share of $1.82 to $1.86
(previously $1.96 to $2.02). In the corresponding earnings call,
CEO Campion stated that the Company was considering the
discontinuation of some or all of its Byte business. On this news,
the price of Dentsply common stock fell $6.72 per share, or 28.02%,
from a closing price of $23.98 per share on November 6, 2024, to
close at $17.26 per share on November 7, 2024, on extremely heavy
trading volume.
About Lieff Cabraser
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, with over 125 attorneys in
offices in San Francisco, New York, Nashville, and Munich, Germany,
is an internationally-recognized law firm committed to advancing
the rights of investors and promoting corporate responsibility.
Repeatedly recognized as a "Plaintiffs' Powerhouse" by Law360,
Lieff Cabraser has litigated some of the most important civil cases
in the United States, and has assisted clients in recovering over
$129 billion in verdicts and settlements. For over 50 years, Lieff
Cabraser has remained committed to ensuring access to justice for
all.
Contacts
Sharon Lee
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
415 956-1000
slee@lchb.com [GN]
DOHA NYC INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Carrillo Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
MATEO GENIS CARRILLO; LUIS HUMBERTO LOCON MORALES; and VICTOR
VENTURA LOCON MORALES, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DOHA NYC INC.; PA CHANGO, INC.;
ANDREW CACERES; and ANDRIA JIMENEZ, Defendants, Case No.
1:24-cv-08393-CLP (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 6, 2024) is an action against the
Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation,
authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage
statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as kitchen
employees.
Doha NYC Inc. is a cocktail bar, Latin restaurant, nightclub, and
bar in Long Island City, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Telephone: (718) 263-9591
DOLLARAMA INC: Judge OKs $2.6-Million Deal in False Price Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Lapierre of CBC News reports that a judge has approved a
$2.6-million class-action settlement involving Dollarama.
The lawsuit had argued that Dollarama didn't properly display the
full price of products that were subject to an eco fee. Those
products include batteries, electronic toys and light bulbs.
A Quebec Superior Court judge signed off on the settlement on
Tuesday, December 10. Joey Zukran, a lawyer with LPC Avocats in
Montreal, the firm that filed the class action, confirmed the news
of the court approval.
In April, a judge dismissed an earlier $2.5 million settlement that
Dollarama had agreed to pay out in gift cards.
Class members are eligible for an Interac e-transfer of up to $10.
People who purchased a product subject to eco fees from Dollarama
in Quebec between Dec. 11, 2019, and July 4, 2023, or elsewhere in
Canada between May 29, 2021, and July 4, 2023, can submit a claim
online.
They must attest "under penalty of perjury," according to the
settlement, in which city, province or territory they purchased the
product subject to eco fees. [GN]
DUNKIN' BRANDS: Faces Antitrust Class Action Over Refresher Drinks
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jessy Edwards of Top Class Actions reports that a Dunkin' consumer
sued the company.
Why: The plaintiff claims Dunkin' Refresher drinks contain none of
the fruits advertised in their names
Where: The lawsuit was filed in a New York federal court.
A new class action lawsuit alleges Dunkin' Refresher drinks contain
none of the fruits advertised in their names, including mango,
pineapple and dragonfruit.
Plaintiff Cassandra Daly filed the class action complaint against
Dunkin' Brands Inc. and Inspire Brands Inc. Dec. 4 in a New York
federal court, alleging violations of state and federal consumer
laws.
According to the lawsuit, Dunkin' promotes its Refreshers as
fruit-based drinks, with names like Mango Pineapple Refresher and
Strawberry Dragonfruit Refresher.
The Dunkin' class action complaint alleges these beverages are made
primarily with green tea, water and sugar, with no trace of the
fruits mentioned on the menu.
For example, Daly alleges the Mango Pineapple Refresher contains no
mango or pineapple and the Strawberry Dragonfruit Refresher lacks
both strawberry and dragonfruit.
"Had she known that the products did not contain the named fruits,
she would not have purchased them or would have paid significantly
less for them," the lawsuit claims.
Dunkin deceived consumers, class action alleges
The class action argues Dunkin' engaged in deceptive business
practices by naming the Dunkin' Refresher drinks after fruits they
don't contain, misleading consumers into paying a premium.
Daly says she and others bought the drinks expecting them to be
made with real fruit, only to later discover the beverages rely on
flavored concentrates to simulate the taste of the advertised
ingredients.
This is not typical for Dunkin', the lawsuit claims, pointing out
that other products, such as Dunkin's Strawberry Coolatta, contain
real fruit ingredients like strawberry puree concentrate.
As a result, the class action lawsuit seeks to represent all
customers who purchased the Refreshers thinking they contained real
fruit.
Daly is suing for violations of consumer protection laws and breach
of warranty and seeks certification of the class action, damages,
fees, costs and a jury trial.
Meanwhile, in July, two Dunkin Donuts consumers have hit the coffee
and donut chain with a class action lawsuit claiming it adds hidden
charges onto customer orders when they dine in-store. [GN]
EDWARD BEINER: Wilson Sues Over Website Inaccessibility
-------------------------------------------------------
HOWARD WILSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EDWARD BEINER, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-12389 (N.D. Ill., December 2, 2024) alleges violations of
the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The case arises from Defendant's failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people, says the suit.
Edward Beiner, Inc. owns and operates the website,
www.edwardbeiner.com, which offers a curated selection of designer
eyewear, including prescription glasses and sunglasses. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Yaakov Saks, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com
ENTERPRISE BANCORP: M&A Investigates Merger With Independent Bank
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"),
headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is
investigating:
-- Enterprise Bancorp, Inc. (NASDAQ: EBTC), relating to the
proposed merger with Independent Bank Corp. Under the terms of the
agreement, shareholders of Enterprise will receive 0.60 shares of
Independent, and $2.00 in cash, per share held.
Click link for more
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/enterprise-bancorp-inc-ebtc/. It is
free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
-- Omnicom Group Inc. (NYSE: OMC), relating to the proposed
merger with The Interpublic Group of Companies, Inc. Under the
terms of the agreement, Omnicom shareholders will own 60.6% of the
combined company.
Click link for more
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/omnicom-group-inc-omc/. It is free
and there is no cost or obligation to you.
-- The Interpublic Group of Companies, Inc. (NYSE: IPG), relating
to the proposed merger with Omnicom Group Inc. Under the terms of
the agreement, Interpublic shareholders will own 39.4% of the
combined company.
Click link for more
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/interpublic-group-of-companies-inc-ipg/.
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]
EQUAL EXCHANGE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Wilson Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
HOWARD WILSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EQUAL EXCHANGE, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-12391 (N.D. Ill., December 2, 2024), accuses the Defendant
of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The violations stem from Defendant's failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people. Due to Defendant's failure to build the
website in a manner that is compatible with screen access programs,
the Plaintiff was unable to understand and properly interact with
the website, and was thus denied the benefit of purchasing the
coffee (Organic Mind, Body & Soul Coffee), he wished to acquire
from the website, says the suit.
Equal Exchange, Inc. owns and operates shop.equalexchange.coop,
offering features which should allow all consumers to access the
goods and services including information about its coffee, tea,
chocolate, and other food items for sale online. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yaakov Saks, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com
EVERYTHING KITCHENS: Wilson Sues Over Website's ADA Non-Compliance
------------------------------------------------------------------
HOWARD WILSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EVERYTHING KITCHENS, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:24-cv-12390 (N.D. Ill., December 2, 2024) arises from
Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its
website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by
Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people.
The Plaintiff was injured when he attempted multiple times, most
recently on June 20, 2024 to access Defendant's website from his
home in an effort to shop for Defendant's products, but encountered
barriers that denied his full and equal access to Defendant's
online goods, content and services. Accordingly, the Plaintiff
seeks redress of Defendant's unlawful conduct and asserts claims
for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Everything Kitchens, LLC owns and operates the website,
www.everythingkitchens.com, which serves as an online store
offering kitchenware and appliances from top brands like
KitchenAid, All-Clad, Le Creuset, and Wusthof. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yaakov Saks, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com
EVOLUTION MINING: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
Tasneem Bulbulia, writing for Engineering News, reports that class
action specialist Echo Law has filed class action proceedings
against ASX-listed Evolution Mining in the Federal Court of
Australia, relating to allegations of failure to comply with
disclosure obligations and misleading and deceptive conduct during
the period July 2021 to June 2022, and primarily to statements with
respect to its Red Lake operations, in Ontario, Canada.
The amount of damages sought has not yet been specified by the
applicant.
Evolution Mining says it intends to "vigorously defend the
proceedings".
Evolution operates six mines, comprising five wholly owned mines --
Cowal, in New South Wales; Ernest Henry and Mt Rawdon, in
Queensland; Mungari, in Western Australia; and Red Lake.
It also holds an 80% share in Northparkes, in New South Wales. [GN]
EYEBUYDIRECT INC: Faces Ramos Suit Over Deceptive Free Shipping
---------------------------------------------------------------
ERIKA RAMOS, KIMBERLEY HENLEY, and JESSICA RAMIREZ, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. EYEBUYDIRECT, INC.,
Case No. 8:24-cv-02646 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 6, 2024) seeks monetary
damages, restitution, and public injunctive and declaratory relief
from the Defendant arising from its deceptive and untruthful
promises to provide "free shipping" on clothing merchandise orders
placed on its website.
When consumers browse products on EyeBuyDirect's website,
EyeBuyDirect prominently advertises "Free Shipping" on purchases
exceeding a certain amount. However, that marketing representation
is false because EyeBuyDirect surreptitiously adds a so-called
"Shipping Insurance" to every online order, the Plaintiff contends.
The deceptive addition of the "Shipping Insurance" renders
EyeBuyDirect's promise of FREE or a flat, low-cost shipping false.
Thousands of EyeBuyDirect customers like the Plaintiffs have been
assessed hidden shipping charges for which they did not bargain,
the suit claims.
By unfairly obscuring its true shipping costs, EyeBuyDirect
deceives consumers and gains an unfair upper hand on competitors
that fairly disclose their true shipping charges. To wit, other
major e-commerce sites do not assess "Shipping Insurance" in
addition to a shipping charge -- for the simple reason that
ensuring a package's arrival is an inextricable aspect of
"shipping," the suit adds.
EyeBuyDirect is an online retailer for eyewear including
prescription and nonprescription glasses headquartered in Austin,
Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Sophia Goren Gold, Esq.
Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
Amanda J. Rosenberg, Esq.
KALIEL GOLD PLLC
490 43rd Street, No. 122
Oakland, CA 94609
Telephone: (202) 350-4783
E-mail: sgold@kalielgold.com
jkaliel@kalielpllc.com
arosenberg@kalielgold.com
FARMASI US: Faces Guerra Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
------------------------------------------------------------
MARIO GUERRA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FARMASI US LLC D/B/A FARMASI, Defendant,
Case No. 1:24-cv-24693 (S.D. Fla., December 2, 2024) is a putative
class action against the Defendant pursuant to the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
The complaint alleges that Defendant engages in unsolicited text
messaging to consumers that have registered their telephone numbers
on the National Do Not Call Registry to promote its goods and
services.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt
Defendant's unlawful conduct which has resulted in intrusion into
the peace and quiet in a realm that is private and personal to
Plaintiff and the Class members. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory
damages on behalf of themselves and members of the Class, and any
other available legal or equitable remedies.
Farmasi US LLC, d/b/a Farmasi, is an international multi-level
marketing company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Faaris K. Uddin, Esq.
Zane C. Hedaya, Esq.
Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (813) 360-8838
E-mail: faaris@jibraellaw.com
zane@jibraellaw.com
gerald@jibraellaw.com
FHIA LLC: M.D. Florida Refuses to Dismiss Kennedy TCPA Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Julie S. Sneed of the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, Orlando Division, denies the Defendant's
motion to dismiss the lawsuit styled CAROL KENNEDY, Plaintiff v.
FHIA, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 6:24-cv-00246-JSS-EJK (M.D. Fla.)
Defendant FHIA, LLC, moves to dismiss the amended complaint for
failure to state a claim. Plaintiff Carol Kennedy opposes the
motion.
In this putative class action, the Plaintiff asserts one count
against the Defendant for violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. Section 227. She claims that her
telephone number has been on the national do not-call registry
since June 11, 2010, because, at her specific request, her husband
(then boyfriend) registered the number for her.
The Plaintiff further claims that after Sept. 11, 2023, when she
told the Defendant that she was not interested in its products and
asked it not to call her anymore, the Defendant called her multiple
times without her consent, in violation of the TCPA. She sues on
her own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated.
The Defendant submits that the Plaintiff does not meet the
regulation's definition of a "residential telephone subscriber"
because she did not register her number herself but rather had her
husband register it for her. In support of its position, the
Defendant cites Rombough v. Robert D. Smith Insurance Agency, Inc.,
No. 22-CV-15-CJW-MAR, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124614 (N.D. Iowa June
9, 2022), and relies on the regulation's plain language.
In Rombough, the district court dismissed the complaint because
although the plaintiff alleged that her number had "been
registered" on the do-not-call registry, she did not allege, either
directly or indirectly, that she had registered her telephone on
the do-not-call registry.
Judge Sneed opines that this case differs from Rombough because
here, the Plaintiff alleges that she registered her number; she
just did so through an agent—her husband. Judge Sneed explains
that Rombough does not address an agency relationship, and the
Defendant cites no legal authority suggesting that a "residential
telephone subscriber" cannot use an agent to register her telephone
number on the national do-not-call registry for her. The Court,
thus, rejects the Defendant's argument and denies its motion to
dismiss.
Accordingly, the Court denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss.
The Defendant must answer the amended complaint in compliance with
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a)(4)(A).
A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/fywcr3m3 from PacerMonitor.com.
FIFTH THIRD: Class Cert Bid in Howards Due Jan. 30, 2025
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TROY HOWARDS, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. FIFTH THIRD BANK,
Case No. 1:18-cv-00869-MRB (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Michael R.
Barrett entered an order granting the parties' joint request to
amend the case calendar as follows:
Deadline for close of all non-merits-only Jan. 30, 2025
discovery:
Deadline for Plaintiff's motion for Jan. 30, 2025
Class certification:
Deadline for Defendant's response to motion Mar. 17, 2025
for Class certification:
Deadline for Plaintiff's reply for Apr. 14, 2025
Motion Class certification
Fifth Third Bankthe principal subsidiary of Fifth Third Bancorp, is
a bank holding company headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 11, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2nwBAN at no extra
charge.[CC]
FIFTH THIRD: Court Narrows Claims in Milles Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------
Judge Douglas R. Cole of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio granted in part and denied in part Fifth
Third Bank's motion to dismiss the first amended class action
complaint in the case captioned as NICOLE M. MILLES, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. FIFTH THIRD BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Defendant,
Case No. 1:24-cv-186 (S.D. Ohio) for failure to state a claim.
Plaintiffs Nicole M. Milles, Rhonda D. Knight, and Jeffrey Knight
originally filed this suit on behalf of themselves and a putative
class on April 3, 2024. The Complaint alleged that Fifth Third
charged them fees in violation of the Deposit Agreement and also
contrary to recent Consumer Financial Protection Bureau guidance.
Fifth Third responded by moving to dismiss all claims. Rather than
oppose that motion, Plaintiffs mooted it by filing a First Amended
Complaint.
In that now-operative FAC, Plaintiffs claim that Fifth Third
wrongfully assesses a fifteen-dollar "Returned Deposit Item Fee"
when a consumer attempts to cash a third-party check that later
returns unpaid for lack of sufficient funds in the third-party's
account. According to Plaintiffs, that fee is wrongful in two
ways:
First, Plaintiffs maintain that Fifth Third's assessment of the
fifteen-dollar Return Deposit Item fee violates the Deposit
Agreement.
Second, Plaintiffs argue that, independent of what the agreement
may say, imposing a fee for returned third-party checks amounts to
an unfair and deceptive trade practice under Illinois' state
consumer protection statute.
As a result, Plaintiffs sued Fifth Third for breach of contract
(Count I), breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing (Count II), unjust enrichment (Count III), and for
violating the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act (ICFA) (Count IV). They seek damages and injunctive
relief, among other things. Fifth Third moved to dismiss all four
counts of the FAC.
The Court finds that Plaintiffs' invocation of the contract's plain
language, from a contract that Fifth Third drafted, is enough to
set forth a plausible breach of contract claim.
The Court concludes that Plaintiffs have pleaded factual content
which allows the Court to draw a reasonable inference that Fifth
Third breached the Deposit Agreement when it charged Plaintiffs
those fees. The Court therefore denies Fifth Third's motion as to
the breach of contract claim.
Plaintiffs' claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith
and fair dealing alleges that Fifth Third wrongfully charged
Plaintiffs a fee that neither the Deposit Agreement nor the fee
schedule defined or explained and that customers could not
reasonably avoid.
But as Fifth Third correctly argues, neither Ohio nor Illinois
recognizes a standalone cause of action for breach of implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing. . So the Court must
dismiss Plaintiffs' claim.
Because Plaintiffs cannot bring a standalone claim for breach of
the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing under Ohio or
Illinois law, the Court grants Fifth Third's motion to dismiss as
to this claim and dismisses it with prejudice.
Plaintiffs next allege, in the alternative to the two previous
claims, that Fifth Third unjustly enriched itself by charging then
$15 each time a check they deposited returned unpaid. Plaintiffs
concede that the Deposit Agreement is an express contract that
controls, albeit perhaps ambiguously, which fees Fifth Third will
charge customers. In fact, they attach the Deposit Agreement to
their FAC. Because Plaintiffs admit a valid contract governs this
dispute, the Court grants Fifth Third's motion to dismiss as to the
unjust enrichment claim and dismisses it with prejudice.
Finally, Plaintiffs claim that Fifth Third violated ICFA, Illinois'
consumer protection statute, by charging Return Deposit Item fees
in a "deceptive and unfair" manner. Fifth Third argues for the
claim's dismissal maintaining that (1) the claim cannot proceed if
Ohio law applies, (2) ICFA's own language precludes its application
(or at the very least, federal law preempts ICFA's application
here), and (3) Plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege an ICFA claim.
The Court cannot conclude at the motion-to-dismiss stage that the
Deposit Agreement itself precludes Plaintiffs' ICFA claim.
For these reasons, the Court grants in part and denies in part
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Class
Action Complaint for Failure to State a Claim. Specifically, the
Court dismisses with prejudice Plaintiffs' Breach of the Implied
Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing claim (Count II), Unjust
Enrichment claim (Count III), and Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act claim (Count IV), but only to the
extent it alleges that Fifth Third's practice of charging Return
Deposit Item fees is unfair pursuant to CFPB Bulletin 2022-06.
A copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2S6kIN
FILMSUPPLY LLC: Trimboli Suit Transferred to Texas District Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as JONATHAN TRIMBOLI, Plaintiff, v.
FILMSUPPLY, LLC, a Texas Limited Liability Company, Defendant (N.D.
Calif.), the Honorable James Donato of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California granted the
stipulated motion filed by the parties to transfer this action to
the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas
and to extend Filmsupply's responsive pleading deadline forty-five
(45) days up to and including January 11, 2025.
On September 26, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against
Filmsupply, alleging three claims that are based on allegations
related to Plaintiff's alleged use of Filmsupply's website located
at www.Filmsupply.com.
The Website contains a Terms of Use governing Plaintiff's use of
the Website. Paragraph 14(e) of the Terms of Use contains a forum
selection clause.
The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas
is located in Tarrant County, Texas.
Under 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a), a court is authorized to, for or
the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of
justice transfer any civil action to any other district or division
where it might have been brought. Section 1404 thus requires two
showings: that the transferee court is a proper forum in which the
action could have been brought originally and that the transfer
will enhance the convenience of the parties and witnesses, and is
in the interest of justice.
However, when a forum selection clause exists, it is
well-recognized that this clause is presumptively valid and must be
enforced absent an overwhelming showing that public interest
factors warrant setting aside the Parties' agreed upon choice of
forum.
With these principles in mind, the Section 1404(a) factors
demonstrate this matter should be transferred to the Northern
District of Texas, the Court finds.
According to the Court:
First, the Northern District of Texas has original subject matter
jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331
because it arises under a law of the United States (i.e., the Video
Privacy Protection Act).
Second, the Northern District of Texas has personal jurisdiction
over Filmsupply because Filmsupply is a Texas limited liability
company with its principal place of business in Tarrant County,
Texas, and over Plaintiff, because Plaintiff consented to the
jurisdiction of the Northern District of Texas.
Third, venue is proper in the Northern District of Texas pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1391 because a substantial part of the events or
omissions giving rise to Plaintiff's allegations occurred in the
District and the parties consented to venue being proper in the
Northern District of Texas.
Fourth, the cost of litigating a putative class action is the same
in Northern District of Texas as it is in the Northern District of
California.
Fifth, the Northern District of Texas and this Court have the same
ability to compel the attendance of unwilling non-party witnesses
in this case.
Sixth, Filmsupply is located in the Northern District of Texas and
its witnesses, policies, and business records are located in that
jurisdiction.
Finally, the Northern District of Texas is familiar with and
capable of resolving the three claims at issue in this case: (1)
the Video Privacy Protection Act (18 U.S.C. Sec. 2710); (2) the
California Video Privacy Protection Act (Cal. Civ. Code Sec.
1799.3); and (3) California's Unfair Competition Law (Cal. Bus. &
Prof. Code Sec. 17200, et seq.)
A copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TKSnc6
Attorneys for Plaintiff Jonathan Trimboli:
John J. Nelson, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
402 W. Broadway, Suite 1760
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (858) 209-6941
Email: jnelson@milberg.com
- and -
Julian Hammond, Esq.
HAMMOND LAW, PC
1201 Pacific Ave., Suite 600
Tacoma, WA 98402
Telephone: 310-601-6766
Email: jhammond@hammondlawpc.com
Attorneys for Defendant Filmsupply, LLC:
Ronald I. Raether, Jr., Esq.
TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP
100 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 1500
Irvine, CA 92618
Telephone: 949-622-2722
E-mail: ron.reather@troutman.com
FINDLAY'S TALL: Freeland Files 2nd Cir. Appeal in Labor Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
ERIC FREELAND is taking an appeal from a court order granting the
Defendant's motion for reconsideration in the lawsuit entitled Eric
Freeland, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Findlay's Tall Timbers Distribution Center,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 6:22-cv-6415, in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of New York.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the complaint
is brought seeking to recover underpayment caused by untimely wage
payments and other damages for the Plaintiff in violation the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law (NYLL).
On Jan. 11, 2023, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim, which Judge Frank P. Geraci, Jr. granted
in part and denied in part on July 11, 2023. The Court ruled that
the Plaintiff's overtime claims under the FLSA and NYLL and his
untimely pay claim under NYLL Sec. 191 may proceed. The Plaintiff's
wage statement claim under NYLL Sec. 195(3) was dismissed without
prejudice.
On Jan. 11, 2023, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which
the Defendant moved to dismiss on Aug. 31, 2023.
On Mar. 4, 2024, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim. On Apr. 18, 2024, the Defendant filed a
motion for reconsideration regarding its motion to dismiss.
On May 24, 2024, Judge Geraci granted the Defendant's motion to
dismiss. The Plaintiff's NYLL Sec. 195(3) claim was dismissed
without prejudice. The Defendant's motion for a stay was denied as
moot.
On Oct. 1, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration.
On Nov. 1, 2024, Judge Geraci granted the Defendant's motion for
reconsideration and the Plaintiff's Sec. 191 claim was dismissed.
The Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration was also granted, and
his Sec. 195 claim was reinstated.
The appellate case is captioned Freeland v. Findlay's Tall Timbers
Distribution Center, LLC, Case No. 24-3139, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on December 5, 2024.
[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant ERIC FREELAND, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Brian Scott Schaffer, Esq.
FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
475 Park Avenue South, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 300-0375
Defendant-Appellee FINDLAY'S TALL TIMBERS DISTRIBUTION CENTER, LLC
is represented by:
Christopher Paul Maugans, Esq.
GOLDBERG SEGALLA LLP
665 Main Street
Buffalo, NY 14203
FRANCOIS LAMARRE: Court Approves $10.5-Mil. Class Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
CNW Group, in an article with Yahoo! Finance, reports that on
December 10, 2024, the Quebec Superior Court approved a class
action settlement of up to $10.5 million dollars for the benefit of
the individuals sexually abused by Francois Lamarre over a period
of decades (up until December 31, 2001).
Kugler Kandestin LLP, the lawyers handling the class action for
Lamarre's victims, are extremely pleased with the decision, which
states that the settlement "offers Members a high level of
individual compensation, in the upper range of out-of-court
settlements in similar matters. It varies according to the severity
of the damages suffered, regardless of the number of claims deemed
eligible (. . . ) following a simple, efficient, respectful and
strictly confidential adjudication process" [unofficial
translation].
Francois Lamarre's victims and the victims' estates are strongly
encouraged to contact the lawyers Me Pierre Boivin
(pboivin@kklex.com / 514-360-8881) and Me Emily Painter
(epainter@kklex.com / 514-360-3462), who are available to answer
Members' questions and help them fill out their Claim Form.
Communication with these lawyers is free of charge and completely
confidential. There is a deadline by which claims must be filed,
after which time victims lose their right to benefit from this
excellent settlement agreement. [GN]
FULTON COUNTY, GA: Sues Sheriff Labat to Fix Inhumane Conditions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Henke and Dajhea Jones, writing for 11Alive, report that a
class-action lawsuit has been filed against Sheriff Patrick Labat,
seeking to address the alleged mistreatment of inmates and poor
conditions at the Fulton County Jail. Among the defendants in the
class action suit is Shannon Jackson, a defendant in the recent YSL
RICO trial.
The filing comes less than a month after the Department of Justice
released a scathing report on the "inhumane" conditions inside the
jail.
Unlike recent lawsuits filed in Fulton County that seek financial
damages for recent deaths at the jail, attorneys in the lawsuit are
asking for injunctive relief. Simply put -- a judge could hand the
sheriff a checklist of changes that need to happen at the jail, and
the judge would make sure those items are checked off.
"The state of Georgia has investigated the jail. Nothing happened.
Fulton County Commissioners investigated the jail. Nothings
happened. U.S. Department of Justice investigated the jail, issued
a report. Now we want a federal judge to order, to declare that the
Fulton County jail fix its problems," Michael Harper, the attorney
who filed the suit, stated.
The issues at the jail are detailed in the DOJ report released in
November and now also in the class action suit filed Wednesday,
December 11, in federal court. The report concluded the jail's
conditions are "inhumane, violent and hazardous" to the point of
being unconstitutional.
"The DOJ issued a report about the conditions of the jail, but they
didn't file any kind of legal action to force to have the federal
courts force the jail to make changes. We are taking it a step
further," Harper asserted.
Harper says the conditions listed in the lawsuit include a
prevalence of shanks made out of parts of the crumbling building,
non-working locks, and unsanitary, bug-ridden conditions that he
claims led to plaintiff Nkenegen Hambrick being covered in
appalling sores and scars.
"It is causing these kind of horrific physical scars on people that
are innocent until proven guilty," Harper stated.
Another plaintiff in this lawsuit is Shannon Jackson, known as
Shannon Stillwell, a defendant in the recent YSL RICO trial.
Jackson was found not guilty of murder and other serious crimes but
found guilty of possession of a firearm as a felon. Despite his
primarily not-guilty verdict, he still remains at the jail on other
charges unrelated to the YSL case.
Jackson was involved in two incidents at the jail last year, one in
July and one in December, where he was stabbed by other detainees
with shanks.
"After being in this jail for three years and after almost losing
his life twice, we think he will be out soon," Harper said. "We are
just thankful that he was able to be alive to see his not guilty
verdict."
Sheriff Labat for years has said that the jail needs to be
replaced, putting him at odds with county commissioners who want to
renovate the current building.
Traditionally, the sheriff's office doesn't comment on pending
litigation. However, 11Alive reached out to the office for comment
on the lawsuit, and a spokesperson says it has not yet been served
with the lawsuit.
Despite this class action suit not seeking monetary compensation,
Harper filed a separate federal lawsuit against Labat on behalf of
Dayvion Blake, an inmate who was stabbed to death in the jail last
year. The suit is seeking financial damages tied to Blake's death.
[GN]
FUTURE MOTION: Hedges Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
--------------------------------------------------------------
DONNA HEDGES, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FUTURE MOTION, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-09176 (S.D.N.Y., December 2, 2024) is a civil rights action
against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its interactive website,
https://onewheel.com, to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York
State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.
During Plaintiff's visits to the website, including on April 4,
2024, and the last occurring on Nov. 21, 2024 in an attempt to
purchase a GT S-Series for a gift from Defendant and to view the
information on the website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple
access barriers that denied her a shopping experience similar to
that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and
services offered to the public and made available to the public.
The Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer frustration and
humiliation as a result of the discriminatory conditions present on
Defendant's website. These discriminatory conditions continue to
contribute to Plaintiff's sense of isolation and segregation, says
the suit.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
its website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.
Future Motion, Inc. operates the website that offers electric
skateboard and boardsports accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
GASTON COUNTY: Motion to Dismiss Bolch, et al Suit Denied as Moot
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Frank D. Whitney of the United States District Court for the
Western District of North Carolina ruled on the motions filed by
Gaston County and Mecklenburg County to dismiss the class action
lawsuit captioned as STEVEN BOLCH, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ROY
COOPER, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 3:24-CV-00783 (W.D.N.C.),
On August 27, 2024, Plaintiffs filed their Class Action Complaint.
On October 10, 2024, Defendants Gaston County filed their Motion to
Dismiss and memorandum in support. Also on October 10, 2024,
Defendants Mecklenburg County filed their Motion to Dismiss,
memorandum in support, and request for a hearing on the motion. On
October 22, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a Consent Motion for Extension
of Time to respond to Gaston County's and Mecklenburg County's
Motions to Dismiss. On October 23, 2024, Magistrate Judge Keesler
granted Plaintiffs until November 22, 2024, to either respond to
the motions or file an Amended Complaint.
On November 22, 2024, Plaintiffs filed their Amended Complaint.
According to the Court, since Plaintiffs filed an Amended
Complaint, the pending motions are rendered moot.
The Court entered an order as follows:
1. Defendants Gaston County's Motion to Dismiss is denied as
moot;
2. Defendants Mecklenburg County's Motion to Dismiss is denied
as moot;
3. Defendants Mecklenburg County's Motion for a Preliminary
Hearing on their Motion to Dismiss is also denied as moot.
A copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1m0u5J
GOODRX HOLDINGS: Agrees to $25-Million Privacy Class Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
National Law Review reports that the telehealth and prescription
drug discount provider, GoodRx, recently agreed to pay $25 million
to settle class action claims originating from the company's
unauthorized disclosure of consumers' personal health information,
according to recent filings with the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.
The class action alleges that GoodRx violated federal wiretapping
statutes, consumer protection laws and privacy rights stemming from
the company's use of website tracking technologies and unauthorized
sharing of consumers' health information with Meta Platforms,
Google and Criteo for ad purposes.
If accepted by the District Court, the settlement will resolve a
lawsuit consumers brought following the Federal Trade Commission's
February 2023 enforcement action against GoodRx for violations of
the Health Breach Notification Rule and FTC Act. This settlement is
separate from the $1.5 million civil penalty GoodRx agreed to as
part of the FTC enforcement action, which also prohibits GoodRx
from sharing sensitive health data for advertising. [GN]
GOODYEAR TIRE: Class Cert Bid Filing Continued to June 3, 2025
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DIONDRE EDWARDS,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated; v.
THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, a corporation; JUST TIRES, an
unknown entity; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
2:24-cv-06534-DSF-AJR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dale Fischer
entered an order approving the joint request and orders that this
case is stayed until March 5, 2025:
-- The Parties are ordered to file a joint statement no later than
March 12, 2025, notifying the Court of the outcome of mediation
and the Parties' intended next steps.
-- The Court further orders that the filing deadline on
Plaintiff's
Motion for Class Certification is continued to June 3, 2025.
-- The hearing on Plaintiff's motion for class certification is
scheduled for Monday, Aug. 25, 2025.
Goodyear is an American multinational tire manufacturer.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 11, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iCqSic at no extra
charge.[CC]
GREENBRIER INT'L: Court Tosses Bell Suit Over Cinnamon Product
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jesse M. Furman of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the plaintiff's first amended complaint in the case
captioned as DONNA BELL, Plaintiff, -v- GREENBRIER INTERNATIONAL,
INC. et al., Defendants, Case No. 24-CV-3559 (JMF) (S.D.N.Y.).
Plaintiff Donna Bell brings this putative class action against
Defendants Greenbrier International, Inc., which does business as
Dollar Tree, and Colonna Brothers, Inc., alleging that Supreme
Tradition Ground Cinnamon -- manufactured by Colonna and sold by
Dollar Tree -- "is defective because, undisclosed to consumers, it
is contaminated with lead." Bell brings claims under New York law,
namely for deceptive business practices and false advertising
pursuant to Sections 349 and 350 of the General Business Law and
for unjust enrichment. Defendants each now move, pursuant to Rules
12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to
dismiss Bell's First Amended Complaint.
In this case, Bell asserts a "price-premium" theory of injury in
fact, alleging that, had she been aware of the lead levels in the
Supreme Tradition Ground Cinnamon product, "she would not have
purchased the Product or would have paid significantly less for the
Product."
Judge Furman says it is undisputed that Bell does not allege any
facts tending to show that the single jar of cinnamon she purchased
had elevated levels of lead. That is, she does not allege that the
jar she purchased was from one of the lots included in the FDA
Alert or Defendants' recall. Thus, to establish Article III
standing, Bell must allege 'facts from which the Court could
extrapolate that the FDA's isolated testing should apply broadly to
Defendant's Products, regardless of when they were purchased.
Bell's efforts to do so fall short. She alleges a widespread issue
of lead contamination, ranging at least for a period of 5 months,
and that the jar of Supreme Tradition Ground Cinnamon she purchased
'was manufactured within the range of time known to demonstrate a
widespread issue of lead contamination. But the facts on which she
relies do not support the weight that she puts on them.
Defendants' motions are granted on the ground that Bell lacks
standing.
The Court concludes that Bell fails to "plead sufficient facts to
make it plausible that [she] did indeed suffer the sort of injury
that would entitle [her] to relief." Accordingly, her claims must
be and are dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Moreover, the Court declines to grant Bell leave to amend her
Complaint for a second time. In this case, Bell requests leave to
amend in the event that the Court finds her pleadings insufficient,
but her request is pro forma and does not suggest that she is in
possession of facts that would cure the problems with her lawsuit.
Additionally, the Court already granted Bell leave to amend her
original complaint in response to the Defendants' earlier motions
to dismiss and explicitly warned that she would not be given any
further opportunity to amend the complaint to address issues raised
by the motion to dismiss.
A copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wRbRPc
GUAM: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Inhumane Conditions
---------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Island Times reports that a class action lawsuit filed
Thursday, December 12, against Guam's Department of Corrections
highlights decades of neglect and inhumane conditions within Guam's
correctional facilities and presses for immediate reforms,
including alternative measures for non-violent offenders to ease
overcrowding and ensure humane treatment for all detainees.
Filed by Sen. Thomas Fisher on behalf of the detainees led by Jesse
Leon Guerrero, the lawsuit alleges overcrowding, unsanitary
conditions and a lack of basic necessities, all of which violate
the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.
About 500 class members are being detained right now at DOC.
The lawsuit alleges that detainees, who have not been convicted of
crimes, are made to endure overcrowded cells, no mattresses and
limited access to hygiene products.
"DOC officers and detainees describe conditions unfit even for
animals, with severe risks of violence, disease, and abuse," said a
news release from Fisher's office Friday, December 13.
"These conditions represent a legal and moral failure," Fisher
said. "Our government must act now to meet federal standards and
protect detainees' rights."
The lawsuit was filed against Fred Bordallo, Director of the Guam
Department of Corrections.
Leon Guerrero is being detained at DOC pending the resolution of
two felony charges; class members are also detained for various
allegations. They have not been convicted and are presumed to be
innocent.
Yet, as the class action claims, while waiting for their cases to
be resolved, six detainees are being crammed into cells designed to
accommodate just two persons. There is no air conditioning, some
detainees sleep on the bare floor as no mattress is provided, and
it is always dark. No soap is provided, so detainees take a shower
with just plain water.
"In short , inmates are neither kept clean nor are they allowed the
human necessity to be clean. They shower, if at all, in water
alone," the lawsuit claims.
Leon Guerrero himself is not provided a mattress. Instead, he
sleeps on the concrete floor that is regularly splashed with urine,
the suit alleges.
All of these happen in gloom and darkness since there is no light.
Personal hygiene, which is presumably necessary due to such close
confinement, is nearly impossible since no soap or cleaning
solution is provided.
The lawsuit also claims that detainees are not screened for obvious
common transmittable diseases such as tuberculosis, HIV, hepatitis,
and sexually transmitted diseases, making it easy for detainees to
contract diseases.
Being housed in a cell like sardines also causes detainees to fight
and makes them probable victims of prison rape or sexual
harassment, the suit alleges.
"They have incidents almost every day of getting beat up but claim
they fell from their bunk or slipped in the shower and got two
black eyes. They are afraid to report the truth about how they
sustained injuries," the suit says.
The lack of air conditioning causes detainees to be irritated and
makes it difficult to breathe.
Such appalling conditions make it impossible for Guam's Department
of Corrections to be accredited. "Indeed the only accrediting
institution for adult correctional facilities (the American
Correctional Association and the Commission on Accreditation for
Corrections) would not accredit our Department of Corrections based
upon its standards," the class action states.
The class action claims Bordallo knows about these legal
violations, yet has not resolved them.
A declaration attached to the lawsuit stated that correctional
officials acknowledged that pre-trial detainees are being housed in
the detention facility "with no AC units, no lights, lack of water,
lack of toiletry items, lack of personal hygiene products, no
laundry soap, sometimes no fire-retardant mattresses because it was
damaged by prisoners, no beddings, no towels, no cups."
"All of these problems lead to the violation of their civil rights,
which falls under the Eighth Amendment of Cruel and Unusual
Punishment," the lawsuit alleges. "The Eighth Amendment's ban on
inflicting cruel and unusual punishment proscribe[s] more than
physically barbarous punishments. It prohibits penalties that are
grossly disproportionate to the offense, as well as those that
transgress today's broad and idealistic concepts of dignity,
civilized standards, humanity, and decency."
The class action, represented by the law firm Fisher and
Associates, says Leon Guerrero has exhausted all available
administrative remedies. [GN]
HASBRO INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set January 13
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Gross Law Firm issues the following notice to shareholders of
Hasbro, Inc. (NASDAQ: HAS).
Shareholders who purchased shares of HAS during the class period
listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible lead
plaintiff appointment. Appointment as lead plaintiff is not
required to partake in any recovery.
CONTACT US HERE:
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/hasbro-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=115520&from=3
CLASS PERIOD: February 7, 2022 to October 25, 2023
ALLEGATIONS: According to the filed complaint, it is alleged that
defendants made numerous materially false and misleading statements
and omissions about the quality inventory that Hasbro held
throughout the class period, and represented that its rising
inventory levels reflected outstanding and anticipated demand,
rather than excess supply that outpaced waning demand. As a result
of the foregoing, Hasbro common stock traded at artificially
inflated prices throughout the Class Period and defendants'
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
DEADLINE: January 13, 2025 Shareholders should not delay in
registering for this class action. Register your information here:
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/hasbro-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=115520&from=3
NEXT STEPS FOR SHAREHOLDERS: Once you register as a shareholder who
purchased shares of HAS during the timeframe listed above, you will
be enrolled in a portfolio monitoring software to provide you with
status updates throughout the lifecycle of the case. The deadline
to seek to be a lead plaintiff is January 13, 2025. There is no
cost or obligation to you to participate in this case.
WHY GROSS LAW FIRM? The Gross Law Firm is a nationally recognized
class action law firm, and our mission is to protect the rights of
all investors who have suffered as a result of deceit, fraud, and
illegal business practices. The Gross Law Firm is committed to
ensuring that companies adhere to responsible business practices
and engage in good corporate citizenship. The firm seeks recovery
on behalf of investors who incurred losses when false and/or
misleading statements or the omission of material information by a
company lead to artificial inflation of the company's stock.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.
CONTACT:
The Gross Law Firm
15 West 38th Street, 12th floor
New York, NY, 10018
Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com
Phone: (646) 453-8903 [GN]
HCND INC: Duan and Sun Sue Over Unlawful Labor Practices
--------------------------------------------------------
KUN DUAN, and MINGLING SUN, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HCND INC d/b/a Beyond's China
Buffet, HAO CHEN, and FEI LU, Defendants, Case No.
3:24-cv-00238-ARS (D.N.D., December 2, 2024), accuses the
Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants to work as cooks at
Beyond's China Buffet's restaurant. Throughout their employment
with the Defendants, the Plaintiffs were subjected to Defendants,
various willful, malicious, and unlawful employment policies,
patterns, and/or practices, including failures to pay overtime
wages and to provide lawful breaks.
HCND, Inc. owns and operates a restaurant located at 407 Dakota
Avenue, Wahpeton, ND. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
John Troy, Esq.
Tiffany Troy, Esq.
Aaron B. Schweitzer, Esq.
TROY LAW, PLLC
41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 110
Flushing, NY 11355
Telephone (718) 762-1324
Facsimile (718) 762-1342
E-mail: troylaw@troypllc.com
KALEIDA HEALTH: Bids to Compel in Cleary Suit Granted in Part
-------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Jeremiah J. McCarthy of the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of New York issued a Decision and Order
granting in part and denying in part the parties' various motions
filed in the lawsuit entitled ROXANNE CLEARY, et al., Plaintiffs v.
KALEIDA HEALTH, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00026-LJV-JJM
(W.D.N.Y.).
Before the Court are the Plaintiffs' and the Defendants' motions to
compel; the Defendants' motion for a protective order; and the
Defendants' motion to quash non-party subpoenas. Pursuant to the
request of the parties at oral argument on Aug. 31, 2023, Judge
McCarthy held in abeyance the parties' cross-motions to compel
while they met and conferred concerning the discovery necessary to
perform rough damages calculations.
Judge McCarthy further narrowed the issues by issuing a Decision
and Order concerning the temporal scope issue raised by the
Plaintiffs. In addition, Judge McCarthy held a series of status
conferences while the parties worked to narrow the discovery
issues.
At a status conference held on Feb. 2, 2024, the parties agreed to
submit letters to Judge McCarthy identifying which portions of
their motions remained outstanding. In the Text Order instructing
the parties to submit those letters, Judge McCarthy stated that
those portions of the parties' motions not specifically identified
by that date will be deemed resolved.
In 1998, the consolidation of several area hospitals resulted in
the creation of an entity known today as Kaleida Health. This
putative class action alleges various violations under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 arising from the July 1999
consolidation of retirement plans for non-union employees of those
hospitals. The Plan was amended in July 1999 to transform the
traditional pension benefit provisions into "cash balance"
provisions. This action has been referred to Judge McCarthy by
District Judge Lawrence J. Vilardo for supervision of pretrial
proceedings.
For the reasons set forth in the Decision and Order, the Court
rules that the parties' motions are granted in part and denied in
part. In summary, Judge McCarthy instructs the parties as follows.
The Plaintiffs will provide a privilege log that complies with the
requirements of Local Rule 26(d) on or before Dec. 20, 2024. The
Defendants will provide to the Plaintiffs the documents responsive
to the request discussed in section B.6. in the Decision and Order,
or disclose by Bates number the documents already produced that are
responsive to this request, on or before Dec. 20, 2024.
The Defendants will serve unredacted copies of the redacted
documents marked "Non-Responsive", subject to appropriate
designation under the Confidentiality Order, on or before Dec. 20,
2024.
To the extent that any "actuarial valuation" exists and contains
"assumptions the Plan's enrolled actuary made in calculating the
Plan's estimated benefit liabilities", as limited by Judge
McCarthy's Sept. 25, 2023 Decision and Order, the Defendants will
serve any such "actuarial valuation", or state that no such
document(s) exists, on or before Dec. 20, 2024.
To the extent that the Defendants have withheld any responsive
documents created post commencement that are not subject to the
work-product privilege, the Defendants must produce them on or
before Dec. 20, 2024. With respect to litigation hold letters, the
Defendants will submit these to the Court for in camera by Dec. 13,
2024, for Judge McCarthy to determine whether they "constitute or
contain legal advice and work product."
The Defendants will answer Requests Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,
and 10, as modified, on or before Dec. 20, 2024. The Plaintiffs may
re-serve the Mercer subpoena with Exhibit 1 modified to the extent
discussed in the Decision and Order.
The Plaintiffs may re-serve the Nixon subpoena with Exhibit 1
modified to the extent discussed in the Decision and Order, and, to
the extent that any responsive communications or documents remain
subject to the attorney-client privilege, Nixon may place them on a
privilege log that complies with Local Rule 26(d).
The remaining issues raised by the parties' motions, but not
identified in their Feb. 12, 2024 letters are deemed resolved
pursuant to Judge McCarthy's Feb. 2, 2024 Text Order and,
therefore, denied as moot.
A full-text copy of the Court's Decision and Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/uthjch6c from PacerMonitor.com.
KANNACT INC: Settles Data Breach Class Action for $700,000
----------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that Kannact agreed to pay $700,000 to
resolve claims it failed to protect consumer information in a 2023
data breach.
The Kannact settlement benefits individuals whose information may
have been impacted in the Kannact data breach on or around March
13, 2023, including individuals who received a mailed notification
letter.
The class action lawsuit claims hackers allegedly gained access to
Kannact's computer systems and stole sensitive consumer
information, including names, addresses, dates of birth, Social
Security numbers, health insurance information and medical data.
The plaintiffs argue Kannact could have prevented the data breach
through reasonable cybersecurity measures.
Kannact is a health care company that provides diabetes management,
hypertension management and other chronic care solutions.
Kannact hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $700,000
settlement to resolve the data breach class action lawsuit.
Under the terms of the Kannact settlement, class members can
receive either reimbursement for data breach-related losses or a
pro rata cash payment.
Class members who experienced losses as a result of the data breach
can receive up to $5,000 in compensation for losses, such as
unreimbursed fraudulent charges, identity theft expenses, bank
fees, credit monitoring costs and other documented losses.
Class members who did not experience losses and cannot claim
reimbursements can instead receive a pro rata cash payment. Exact
payments will vary based on the number of claims filed with the
settlement.
All claimants, regardless of whether they experienced losses, can
receive three years of free credit monitoring services from the
settlement. These services include three-bureau credit monitoring
and at least $1 million in identity theft insurance coverage.
The deadline for exclusion and objection was Nov. 19, 2024.
The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for Jan.
22, 2025.
To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid
claim form by Dec. 19, 2024.
Who's Eligible
All persons in the United States whose information may have been
impacted in the data incident, including persons to whom Kannact
mailed a notification
Potential Award
$5,000
Proof of Purchase
Bank statements, receipts, tax documents, financial documents,
travel receipts, professional invoices, credit reports and other
documentation of data breach-related expenses
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
12/19/2024
Case Name
In re: Kannact Inc. Data Security Incident Litigation, Case No.
6:23-cv-1132, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Oregon
Final Hearing
01/22/2025
Settlement Website
KannactDataSettlement.com
Claims Administrator
Kannact Settlement Administrator
PO Box 3637
Baton Rouge, LA 70821
info@KannactDataSettlement.com
(844) 755-4754
Class Counsel
Nickolas J Hagman
CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
Ryan J Kelly
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
Mason A Barney
Tyler J Bean
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
Kim D Stephens
Kaleigh N Boyd
TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
Defense Counsel
Michael P Lowery
David M Ross
WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN & DICKER LLP [GN]
KATE SOMERVILLE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Murphy Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES MURPHY, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated v. KATE SOMERVILLE SKINCARE, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-09286
(S.D.N.Y., Dec. 6, 2024) sues the Defendant for its failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website ,
https://www.katesomerville.com/, to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons pursuant to the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on
Nov. 23, 2024, in an attempt to purchase a Peptide K8 Power Cream
and to view the information on the Website, the Plaintiff
encountered multiple access barriers that denied him a shopping
experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal
access to the goods and services offered to the public and made
available to the public, the suit alleges.
The Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer frustration and
humiliation as a result of the discriminatory conditions present on
the Defendant's Website. These discriminatory conditions continue
to contribute to Plaintiff's sense of isolation and segregation,
the suit asserts.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
Mr. Murphy is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer.
The Defendant offers skincare products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
KAYE-SMITH ENTERPRISES: Settles Data Breach Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Alder, writing for HIPAA Journal, reports that the marketing
company and mailing vendor, Kaye-Smith Enterprises, has agreed to
settle a class action lawsuit filed in response to a 2022
cyberattack and data breach. Hackers gained access to its systems,
used ransomware to encrypt files, and potentially exfiltrated
sensitive data.
Several healthcare providers were affected by the incident,
including MultiCare Health System, St. Luke's Health System, UW
Medicine, Delta Dental of Washington, Geisinger Health System and
Seattle Children's Hospital.
Several class action lawsuits were filed in response to the breach,
which were consolidated into a single action -- Smith, et al. v.
Kaye-Smith Enterprises Inc.- in the U.S. District Court of Oregon.
The plaintiffs asserted a variety of claims related to the failure
to protect sensitive data. Kaye-Smith maintains there was no
wrongdoing; however, the decision was taken to settle the lawsuit
to avoid further legal costs and the uncertainty of trial.
The $2 million settlement includes benefits for consumers whose
personal and protected health information was compromised in the
attack and compensation for businesses that suffered losses due to
the data breach.
Individuals who had their sensitive information compromised may
submit claims for up to $2,500 to recover document losses,
including time and money spent mitigating data breach (up to 5
hours at $25 per hour), the cost of credit monitoring services, and
losses to identity theft and fraud. Alternatively, individuals may
choose to receive a cash payment of $500. Regardless of the option
chosen, class members will also benefit from 12 months of
complimentary credit monitoring services.
Businesses may also submit claims for losses due to the data breach
and while there is no limit on the amount that may be claimed, they
will be paid after legal expenses, attorneys' fees, class
representative awards, and consumer claims have been paid, with the
amount paid depending on the remainder of the settlement fund.
Kaye-Smith has also agreed to update its business and cybersecurity
practices to better protect the data it stores. The deadline for
objecting to the settlement is December 26, 2024, and the final
approval hearing is scheduled for January 7, 2025. [GN]
LIBERTY FIRST: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Walker Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
DENISE WALKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LIBERTY FIRST CREDIT UNION, Defendant, Case
No. 4:24-cv-03225 (D. Neb., Dec. 9, 2024) is a class action lawsuit
on behalf of all persons who entrusted Defendant with sensitive
Personally Identifiable Information ("PII" or "Private
Information") that was impacted in a data breach that Defendant
publicly disclosed on November 25, 2024 (the "Data Breach" or the
"Breach").
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, as a result of the
Defendant's inadequate digital security and notice process,
Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was exposed to
criminals. Plaintiff and the Class Members have suffered and will
continue to suffer injuries including: financial losses caused by
misuse of their Private Information; the loss or diminished value
of their Private Information as a result of the Data Breach; lost
time associated with detecting and preventing identity theft; and
theft of personal and financial information.
As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff is now subject to
substantial and imminent risk of future harm. Plaintiff would not
have used the Defendant's services if she had known that it would
expose her sensitive Private Information, says the suit.
Liberty First Credit Union operates as a financial cooperative. The
Union provides financial solutions such as saving and checking
accounts, loans, insurance, credit and debit cards, security, ATMs,
online banking, and other related services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian E. Jorde, Esq.
DOMINALAW GROUP, PC LLO
2425 South 144th Street Omaha, NE 68144
Telephone: (402) 493-4100
Email: bjorde@dominalaw.com
- and -
Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
Mark Svensson, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 363-7500
Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
Email: ek@zlk.com
msvensson@zlk.com
LUXOTTICA US: Court Grants in Part Duke's Bid for Reconsideration
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Nusrat J. Choudhury of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York grants in part and denies in part the
Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration in the lawsuit titled Janet
Duke, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Luxottica U.S. Holdings Corp., Oakley, Inc., Luxottica
Group ERISA Plans Compliance & Investment Committee, and Luxottica
Group Pension Plan, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-06072-NJC-AYS
(E.D.N.Y.).
Plaintiff Janet Duke brings this action on behalf of herself and
other similarly situated individuals against Defendants Luxottica
U.S. Holdings Corp.; Oakley, Inc.; Luxottica Group ERISA Plans
Compliance & Investment Committee ("Plans Committee"); and
Luxottica Group Pension Plan under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(2) and
(a)(3) ("Section 502(a)(2)" and "Section 502(a)(3)").
The Complaint alleges that the Defendants have violated, and
continue to violate, ERISA's actuarial equivalence,
anti-forfeiture, and joint and survivor annuity requirements with
respect to the Plan.
On Sept. 30, 2023, the Court dismissed without prejudice Duke's
Section 502(a)(2) claims under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, denied without prejudice the Defendants'
factual challenge to Duke's individual Article III standing to
pursue Section 502(a)(2) and 502(a)(3) claims, granted the motion
to compel arbitration of Duke's Section 502(a)(3) claims, stayed
the case pending arbitration, and did not address the Defendants'
motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) ("Order"),
Ms. Duke filed a Motion for Reconsideration under Local Civil Rule
6.3. Before the Court is the fully-briefed Motion. For the reasons
set forth in this Opinion and Order, the Court grants in part and
denies in part Duke's Motion.
First, Judge Choudhury grants reconsideration of the Order's Rule
12(b)(1) dismissal without prejudice of Duke's claims under Section
502(a)(2) and finds that Duke has standing to pursue these claims
on behalf of the Plan for Plan-wide remedies under 29 U.S.C.
Section 1109 ("Section 409").
Second, Judge Choudhury denies reconsideration of the Order's grant
of the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration of Duke's Section
502(a)(3) claims. Third, because Judge Choudhury concludes that
Duke has standing to pursue the Section 502(a)(2) claims, Judge
Choudhury reaches the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration of
these claims and denies the motion, concluding that Duke's
agreement with Luxottica to pursue some claims through arbitration
on an individual basis is unenforceable with respect to her Section
502(a)(2) claims, which she brings in a representative capacity on
behalf of the Plan to seek Plan-wide remedies.
Fourth, Judge Choudhury denies the Defendants' request to stay the
adjudication of the Section 502(a)(2) claims pending arbitration of
the Section 502(a)(3) claims because the Defendants fail to argue,
much less demonstrate, that they have met their heavy burden to
secure such a stay. Duke's Section 502(a)(2) claims will proceed in
this action while her Section 502(a)(3) claims will proceed in
arbitration on an individual basis.
The Complaint alleges that Duke is a former employee of a Luxottica
subsidiary and vested participant in the Plan, which is a defined
benefit plan within the meaning of ERISA Section 3(35), 29 U.S.C.
Section 1002(35). Duke receives a joint and survivor annuity--a
benefit that pays an annuity both to the participant for their
lifetime and to the participant's surviving spouse for their
lifetime. The Complaint alleges that the Defendants improperly
relied on outdated and unreasonable actuarial assumptions--namely,
a mortality table that is "50 years out of date" and a 7% interest
rate--in calculating Duke's pension benefits in violation of
Sections 502(a)(2) and 502(a)(3).
On April 1, 2021, the Defendants allegedly amended the Plan to use
updated and reasonable mortality assumptions when calculating joint
and survivor annuities. The Complaint alleges that if the
Defendants use the proper, updated mortality assumptions, Duke and
other members of the putative class would receive larger monthly
pension payments.
Ms. Duke signed a Dispute Resolution Agreement during her
employment with Luxottica in 2015. There is no dispute that she had
the opportunity to opt out of the Agreement but did not opt out and
instead electronically signed it. The Agreement encourages
employees to express job-related concerns to the company through an
"Open Door Policy" of discussing these issues with managers and the
human resources department. If the dispute is not resolved through
the Open Door Process, the next step is Arbitration.
The Agreement provides that the arbitration portion of this
Agreement covers virtually all legal claims arising out of or
related to employment with Luxottica. Its arbitration provision
also contains a "Class Action Waiver." It further provides that any
disputes about the enforceability of the arbitration provision will
be decided by a court.
Ms. Duke filed this action on Nov. 1, 2021, bringing claims under
Section 502(a)(2) and Section 502(a)(3) on behalf of herself and a
putative class of Plan participants and their beneficiaries, who
receive joint and survivor annuity benefits calculated using the
actuarial assumptions in effect before the April 1, 2021 amendment.
The Complaint alleges that the Defendants breached their fiduciary
duties of prudence and loyalty and violated ERISA's actuarial
equivalence, anti-forfeiture, and joint and survivor annuity
requirements by failing to provide actuarially equivalent benefits
to Duke and others whose joint and survivor annuity payments were
calculated using the pre-amendment approach.
For the reasons set forth in the Opinion and Order, the Court rules
that Duke's motion for reconsideration of the Memorandum & Order on
Motion to Compel and Motion to Dismiss is granted in part and
denied in part. The Court grants reconsideration as to the
dismissal of Duke's Section 502(a)(2) claims and finds that Duke
has Article III standing to bring these claims. The Court denies
reconsideration of the ruling that the parties are compelled to
arbitrate Duke's Section 502(a)(3) claims on an individual basis.
The Court lifts the stay of this action. Duke's Section 502(a)(2)
claims will proceed in this Court and her Section 502(a)(3) claims
will proceed in arbitration.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/mr2sfzrh from PacerMonitor.com.
MARQETA INC: Wai Sues Over Alleged Drop in Share Price
------------------------------------------------------
WILSON WAI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MARQETA, INC.; SIMON KHALAF; and MICHAEL
MILOTICH, Defendants, Case No. 4:24-cv-08874-YGR (N.D. Cal., Dec.
9, 2024) is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons and entities other than the Defendants
who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded Marqeta
securities between August 7, 2024 and November 4, 2024, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period"), the Plaintiff seeks to recover
compensable damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the
federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the reports submitted
by the Defendants to the SEC were materially false and misleading
because they misrepresented and failed to disclose the following
adverse facts pertaining to the Company's business which were known
to Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them.
Specifically, the Defendants made false and misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Marqeta understated the
regulatory challenges affecting its business outlook; (2) as a
result, Marqeta would have to cut its guidance for the fourth
quarter of 2024 and; (3) as a result, the Defendants' public
statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant
times.
Marqeta's stock price fell $2.53 per share, or 42.5 percent, to
close at $3.42 per share on November 5, 2024. As a result of the
Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous
decline in the market value of the Company's common shares, the
Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses
and damages, says the suit.
Marqeta, Inc. develops and publishes a commerce payments platform.
The Company offers an online-to-offline multi-merchant prepaid
debit card solution that enables merchants to capture greater
customer loyalty. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 785-2610
Facsimile: (213) 226-4684
Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
MEDICAL MANAGEMENT: Wolfing Suit Remanded to State Court
--------------------------------------------------------
Judge Dena Coggins of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of California granted plaintiff's motion to remand
the case captioned as AMBER WOLFING, Plaintiff, v. MEDICAL
MANAGEMENT INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:24-cv-01963-DC-JDP (E.D. Calif.) to the Sacramento County
Superior Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1447(c), for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction.
On April 18, 2024, Plaintiff filed a wage-and-hour class action
complaint against her employer Defendant Medical Management
International, Inc. and Does 1 through 10, in the Sacramento County
Superior Court. Plaintiff alleges that since August 2019, she
worked for Defendant in California as an hourly-paid, non-exempt
employee. Plaintiff brings nine claims under California state law
for:
(1) unfair competition in violation of the Unfair Competition
Law, California Business and Professional Code Secs. 17200, et seq;
(2) failure to pay minimum wages;
(3) failure to pay overtime wages;
(4) failure to provide required meal periods;
(5) failure to provide required rest periods;
(6) failure to provide accurate itemized statements;
(7) failure to reimburse employees for required expenses;
(8) failure to pay sick wages; and
(9) failure to provide reasonable accommodation in violation of
the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, California
Government Code Sec. 12940(m).
Plaintiff brings her UCL claim on behalf of herself and a
"California Class," and she brings her labor claims on behalf of
herself and a "California Labor Sub Class." Plaintiff's FEHA claim
is brought only on behalf of herself individually, and for that
claim she seeks:
(1) compensatory damages in excess of $25,000;
(2) special and general damages;
(3) punitive damages;
(4) statutory damages, penalties, and attorneys' fees;
(5) past and future loss of earnings; and
(6) "interest at the legal rate in an amount according to
proof."
On July 17, 2024, Defendant filed a notice of removal asserting
this court has subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity
pursuant to 20 U.S.C. Secs. 1332, 1441, and 1446. On August 23,
2024, Plaintiff filed the pending motion to remand this action back
to the Sacramento County Superior Court, on the grounds that
Defendant failed to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence,
that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, as required.
Defendant filed its opposition to the pending motion and a request
for judicial notice on September 13, 2024. Plaintiff filed her
reply thereto on September 23, 2024
In its notice of removal, Defendant makes a calculation that
differs somewhat from the calculation made in its opposition to the
motion to remand. Defendant in its notice of removal calculates the
amount in controversy to be $98,200.00. In this calculation,
Defendant includes damages from Plaintiff's minimum wage claim
($2,800.00), meal and rest break claims ($9,800.00), overtime wage
claim ($7,350.00), wage statement claims ($3,250.00), wage
statement claim ($9,800.00), emotional distress damages
($25,000.00), punitive damages ($25,000.00), and attorneys' fees
for all of Plaintiff's claims ($25,000). Plaintiff argues in her
motion to remand that Defendant's calculations with respect to each
of these claims are both factually and facially deficient.
The District Court finds Defendant has not met its burden to show
by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy
requirement is satisfied. Even if the District Court adopted the
remainder of Defendant's calculations as stated in its opposition,
the total amount in controversy would still fall short of $75,000.
Therefore, because the District Court does not have subject matter
jurisdiction over this action, the Court will grant Plaintiff's
motion to remand this case.
A copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NhqKlK
MEMPHIS, TN: Janet Doe Suit Over SAKs Remanded to Trial Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as JANET DOE V. CITY OF MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE,
No. W2023-01248-COA-R9-CV (Tenn. App. Ct.), Judge Andy D. Bennett
of the Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Jackson reversed the trial
court's decision dismissing the City's motion for summary judgment.
The case is remanded to the trial court.
In 2012, police arrested Anthony Alliano for raping at least eight
women in the Memphis area over the course of nearly ten years.
Ultimately, Mr. Alliano was convicted of the rapes, and he received
a sentence of 178 years in prison. The investigation that led to
Mr. Alliano's arrest brought to light concerns that the City had a
substantial backlog of untested sexual assault kits. On August 19,
2013, the City's police director made a public media disclosure
that the City had approximately 2,000 untested SAKs. In October
2013, the City's police director made a second media disclosure to
inform the public that the City, in fact, had over 12,000 untested
SAKs.
On August 15, 2014, Meaghan Ybos, Madison Graves, and Rachel
Johnson filed a class action lawsuit against the City and Shelby
County, Tennessee, under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability
Act. They claimed negligent and reckless infliction of emotional
distress, alleging that they were sexually assaulted (in 2003 or
2010), underwent forensic exams yielding evidence placed in SAKs
(sexual assault kits), and later discovered the City mishandled
these kits. This mishandling allegedly allowed their assailant, Mr.
Alliano, to remain free and caused additional emotional distress
due to "shocking and haphazard" public disclosures in 2013. The
plaintiffs asserted their experiences were representative of other
class members' claims.
On May 9, 2018, the City filed three motions for summary judgment.
Two of the motions pertained to Ms. Graves and Ms. Johnson and
argued that they did not present valid claims because the
undisputed facts showed that their SAKs were not mishandled. In
particular, the City contended that Ms. Graves's SAK was submitted
to the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation seven days after her
assault, the results of the test were entered into the Combined DNA
Index System database, and her assailant was later identified as
Mr. Alliano when his DNA was entered into the CODIS database.
Regarding Ms. Johnson, the City asserted that her SAK was
submitted to the TBI for testing the day after her assault, the
results were loaded into the CODIS database, and her assailant was
later identified as Mr. Alliano when his DNA was entered into the
CODIS database.
The City also filed a motion for summary judgment as to Ms. Doe's
claims on May 9, 2018. According to the City, the undisputed facts
showed that Ms. Doe admitted that any claim she had against the
City arose on or before the first week of August 2014. She did not
become a party to the case or assert any claims against the City,
however, until fourteen months later on October 16, 2015. Thus, the
City argued, her claim was time-barred because she did not commence
her GTLA action within twelve months after it arose as required by
Tenn. Code Ann. Sec. 29-20-305(b).
Although the complaints in the case were styled as class actions,
no class was certified, nor was a motion for class certification
filed before the City moved for summary judgment. The plaintiffs
delayed filing a class certification motion until October 12,
2018—over four years after the lawsuit began and five months
after the City’s summary judgment motions. The case saw little
activity until January 8, 2021, when Ms. Doe responded to the
City’s summary judgment motion, arguing that the original
complaint tolled the statute of limitations for later class
plaintiffs. Ms. Johnson and Ms. Graves dismissed their claims in
2021, leaving Ms. Doe as the sole named plaintiff.
On February 26, 2021, Ms. Doe filed a motion for partial summary
judgment, arguing that the City of Memphis was liable for
mishandling and delaying the testing of over 12,000 sexual assault
kits (SAKs). She claimed that the City's public admission of the
untested SAKs meant there was no dispute that the City breached its
duty by not testing her SAK. The City opposed the motion, asserting
that there was a genuine issue of material fact about whether it
breached the standard of care, as Ms. Doe's SAK pre-dated the CODIS
database, and the standards at the time did not require testing
SAKs with no suspects. The City also argued that immunity under the
Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA) and the public duty doctrine
applied.
After hearing arguments on the motion for class certification and
the parties' motions for summary judgment, the trial court
announced its rulings, which were reflected in three written orders
entered on August 16, 2023. In the first order, the court denied
the City's motion for summary judgment after concluding that Ms.
Doe's claim was not time-barred. The trial court also ruled that
the City was not immune under the public duty doctrine based upon
its conclusion that the City had a special relationship with the
potential class members because it invited sexual assault victims
to submit to SAKs, creating an expectation that the City would do
more for them.
In the second August 16, 2023 order, the trial court denied Ms.
Doe's motion for partial summary judgment as to the City's
liability after finding that material disputes of facts existed,
particularly because there was no standard in place and no DNA
comparative database when Ms. Doe's sexual assault occurred. In the
third August 16, 2023 order, the trial court granted Ms. Doe's
motion for class certification.
The City filed an application for interlocutory appeal pursuant to
Rule 9 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure which this
Court granted as to the following issues: whether the trial court
erred in concluding that Ms. Doe's action was not time-barred under
Tenn. Code Ann. Sec. 29-20-305(b) and whether the trial court erred
in concluding that the City was not immune under the public duty
doctrine.
Concluding that the applicable statute of limitations barred the
new plaintiff's claims, the judgment of the trial court is
reversed, and the matter is remanded to the trial court for entry
of an order granting summary judgment to the City and dismissing
Ms. Doe's claims against the City. Costs of this appeal are
assessed against the appellee, Janet Doe, for which execution may
issue if necessary.
A copy of the Court's Opinion is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8NsCGY
MEMPHIS, TN: Trial Court's Class Certification Order Vacated
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as JANET DOE V. CITY OF MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE,
No. W2023-01222-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. App. Ct.), Judge Andy D. Bennett
of the Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Jackson vacated the trial
court's class certification order and remanded the matter for
further proceedings as may be necessary .
This lawsuit stemmed from public announcements made by the City of
Memphis in August and October 2013 regarding thousands of untested
sexual assault kits (SAKs) in its possession. On August 15, 2014,
nearly a year after the announcements, Megan Ybos, Madison Graves,
and Rachel Johnson filed a complaint against the City and Shelby
County, Tennessee, claiming negligent and reckless infliction of
emotional distress. The plaintiffs, all sexual assault victims,
alleged that their evidence was mishandled, allowing their
assailant to remain free. They also cited emotional distress caused
by the City's handling of the SAKs and the "shocking" public
disclosures about the untested kits.
On September 23, 2014, the initial plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint to add a request for damages in the amount of $1,400,000
with a maximum recovery of $700,000 per defendant. The initial
plaintiffs amended the complaint a second time on October 16, 2015,
asserting the same claims asserted in the previous pleadings but
adding Janet Doe as a plaintiff and identifying her as the "lead
class representative." The second amended complaint removed Ms.
Ybos from the case, and the trial court entered an order on
December 17, 2015, dismissing her claims as time-barred. After the
parties engaged in some discovery, Ms. Johnson and Ms. Graves
voluntarily dismissed their claims in March and May 2021,
respectively, because the undisputed facts showed that their SAKs
were timely submitted for DNA testing and that their assailant had
been apprehended. The case then proceeded with Ms. Doe as the sole
plaintiff.
On October 12, 2018, more than four years after the lawsuit began,
the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking class certification under
Tenn. R. Civ. P. 23. The trial court heard arguments on the motion
in October 2022 and entered an order on August 16, 2023, granting
it. The City appealed pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. Sec. 27-1-125,2
and presents the following issues for our review: whether the trial
court erred by failing to properly define the class, and whether
the trial court erred in finding that Ms. Doe satisfied the
requirements of Tenn. R. Civ. P. 23.
Judge Bennett says that after reviewing the trial court's class
certification order, all must agree that the trial court failed to
adequately define the class it was certifying. The order contains
nothing that would illuminate the class being certified. Rather,
the court merely found that 'Plaintiff has to find the class it
wants certified.' Elsewhere in the order, the court hinted at some
parameters for the class, but the class definition remained
uncertain.
Despite the trial court's inadequate definition preventing the
appellate court from conducting a meaningful review so as to reach
the "conclu[sion] that the trial court has conducted the type of
analysis necessary to insure compliance with the Rule 23
requirements," Ms. Doe urges the appellate court not to vacate the
trial court's certification order. She argues that the absence of a
precise class definition is justified because she could not propose
a more precise class definition due to the trial court's
limitations on discovery that prevented her from learning "not only
names and addresses of other victims, but other details such as
where and when the victims' rapes occurred, and presumably what the
disposition of each SAK was."
According to the appellate court, a thorough review of the record
shows that the information Ms. Doe claims she lacked was either
provided to her or she failed to demonstrate that it was necessary
for deciding the class certification issue. Notably, she received
detailed information regarding all four named plaintiffs, the
Memphis Police Department's historic policies and procedures, and
the 12,000 SAKs, including when they were collected and their test
status. Furthermore, Ms. Doe questioned Deputy Chief Donald Crowe
about these issues in two separate depositions. Ms. Doe's argument
on this issue is unavailing, the appellate court finds.
Judge Bennett concludes, "In sum, because we cannot determine the
parameters of the class certified by the trial court, we cannot
conduct a meaningful review. Therefore, we must vacate the trial
court's class certification order and remand for further
proceedings as may be necessary and are consistent with this
opinion."
A copy of the Court's Opinion is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kGBpu8
META PLATFORMS: Settles Quebec Class Action Lawsuit For $9-Mil.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mathieu Paquette of The Canadian Press, writing for CTV News
Montreal, reports that social media giant Meta has agreed to pay $9
million to settle a class action lawsuit filed in Quebec in which
the plaintiffs accused Facebook of violating the privacy of its
users by sharing personal and private information with third
parties without their consent.
The class action, authorized in 2021 by the Superior Court, was
brought on behalf of all Facebook users in Quebec since 27 July
2012. The plaintiffs are Stuart Thiel and Brianna Thicke.
In their motion, the plaintiffs argued that Facebook acted
"unlawfully and with full knowledge of the violation of users'
rights."
"Although Facebook has always claimed to respect the privacy rights
of its users, over the past decade the company has provided third
parties with unlawful access to vast amounts of personal and
private information, without the knowledge or consent of its
users," the application read.
"These partnerships and data-sharing practices, which have affected
hundreds of millions of users, have allowed Facebook to expand its
commercial activities and generate advertising revenues to the
detriment of the contractual, statutory and human rights of Quebec
residents," the plaintiffs alleged.
Without admitting any liability, Meta - Facebook's parent company -
agreed to settle the class action for $9 million last August. The
existence of this agreement was revealed in the last few days.
The proposed settlement, which will have to be approved by the
courts, stipulates that this sum is to be used to fund research and
teaching activities aimed at promoting and protecting privacy
rights in Quebec at public universities.
Once the legal fees have been retained, the money will be divided
equally between the Université du Québec à Montréal, Concordia
University, and Université Laval. The court could choose to add
other educational institutions to this list.
The law firm leading the class action, Trudel Johnston &
Lespérance, intends to seek 25 per cent of the total settlement
amount, which amounts to $2.25 million, plus disbursements and
applicable taxes. The court will be responsible for determining the
amount paid to the lawyers.
The settlement agreement will be presented to the Superior Court
next February. [GN]
MILLENNIA TAX: Court Grants Class Certification in McCoy Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Lee P. Rudofsky of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Arkansas granted the plaintiff's motion for
class certification, appointment of class representative, and
appointment of class counsel in the case captioned as KENT MCCOY,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v. MILLENNIA TAX RELIEF, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:23-cv-898-LPR
(E.D. Ark.).
In this class action brought under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. section 227, Plaintiff Kent McCoy has
moved for certification of a Class of natural persons to whom
Defendant Millennia Tax Relief, LLC sent pre-recorded robocalls
which are alleged to have violated the TCPA. Specifically,
Defendant is alleged to have violated the TCPA by making calls to
the cellular telephones of Representative Plaintiff and Class
Members using an "automatic telephone dialing system" and an
"artificial or prerecorded voice" as described in 47 U.S.C. section
227(b)(1), without receiving prior express consent within the
meaning of the TCPA. Defendant has not responded to the Class
Certification Motion. That is an adequate basis, without more, for
granting the motion. Defendant has also failed to respond to
Requests for Admissions and has therefore admitted the substance of
those requests under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(a)(3).
In light of Defendant's failure to respond, and having considered
all of the submissions and arguments with respect to Plaintiff's
Motion, including Defendant's "admissions," the Court concludes as
follows:
1. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and (b)(3),
the Court certifies the following Class: All individuals who, since
September 23, 2019, received one or more pre-recorded calls to
their cellular telephones using the term "business tax credits" and
the phrase "call 818-237-4185 now."
2. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(1)(B), the
Court certifies Class claims against Millennia Tax for (allegedly)
violating the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1), for sending
pre-recorded robocalls without having prior express consent.
3. In so holding, the Court finds that the prerequisites of Rule
23(a) have been satisfied by a preponderance of the evidence.
4. The Court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the
Class is sufficiently numerous. Rule 23(a)(1) requires that the
Class be "so numerous that joinder of all members is
impracticable." In general, "class numbers in the 40-or-more range
should have a reasonable chance of success" in meeting numerosity,
although the Eighth Circuit has approved a class of as low as 20
members. Defendant Millennia Tax admitted to sending the
prerecorded marketing messages to at least 50,000 cellular
telephone numbers.
5. Rule 23(a)(2) requires that there are questions of law and fact
common to the class. In this case, important factual and legal
questions include:
(a) Whether Millennia Tax owns or operates the phone number
818-237-4185;
(b) Whether Millennia Tax caused the pre-recorded messages to be
sent to the cellular telephones of Representative Plaintiff and
other class members;
(c) Whether (and, if so, how) Millennia Tax obtained prior
permission or consent before it transmitted the pre-recorded
marketing calls;
(d) Whether Millennia Tax obtained the cellular telephone numbers
of Representative Plaintiff and other class members for the purpose
of sending prerecorded messages that market its products and/or
services;
(e) Whether Millennia Tax made phone calls to Plaintiff and other
class members whose phone numbers are on the National Do Not Call
Registry;
(f) Whether Representative Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to
equitable and/or injunctive relief.
The Court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that at least
one, likely most, and maybe all of the foregoing issues (and
potential defenses) are questions of law or fact common to the
Class that satisfy Rule 23(a)(2).
6. The Court also finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that
the claims or defenses of the Representative Plaintiff are typical
of the claims or defenses of the Class and thus satisfy Rule
23(a)(3).
7. Representative Plaintiff Kent McCoy, the named Plaintiff herein,
is appointed representative of the Class.
8. Pursuant to Rules 23(c)(1)(B) and 23(g), the Court appoints Joe
P. Leniski, Jr. of Herzfeld, Suetholz, Gastel, Leniski and Wall
PLLC, and James Streett of the Streett Law Firm, P.A. as Co-Lead
Counsel for the Class.
9. Pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2), the Court finds, by a preponderance
of the evidence, that Defendant has (allegedly) acted or refused to
act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final
injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is
(potentially) appropriate respecting the class as a whole.
10. Pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3), the Court finds, by a preponderance
of the evidence, that common issues predominate over individual
issues, and that a class action is superior to other alternative
methods of adjudicating this dispute.
A copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DpYFbu
MONEYLION INC: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Gen Digital
----------------------------------------------------------------
Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"),
headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is
investigating MoneyLion Inc. (NYSE: ML), relating to the proposed
merger with Gen Digital Inc. Under the terms of the agreement,
shareholders of MoneyLion will receive $82.00 per share in cash,
and, in addition, one contingent value right per share entitling
the shareholder to a contingent payment of Gen Digital common
stock.
Click link for more
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/moneylion-inc-ml/. 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]
MORGAN STANLEY: Appeals Denied Reconsideration Bid in Shafer Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MORGAN STANLEY, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
denying their motion for reconsideration and/or clarification in
the lawsuit entitled Matthew T. Shafer, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Morgan Stanley, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-11047, in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the complaint
is brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974 (ERISA) to recover the deferred compensation that financial
advisors (FAs) forfeited when they left Morgan Stanley.
On Mar. 23, 2023, Judge Paul G. Gardephe entered an Order granting
the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file their second notice of
supplemental authority in support of their opposition to the
Defendants' motion to compel arbitration.
On Dec. 5, 2023, the Defendants filed a motion for reconsideration
and/or clarification, which Judge Gardephe denied on Nov. 5, 2024.
The Court held that the Defendants have proffered evidence, in
support of their reconsideration motion, demonstrating that
deferred equity and cash awards to former employees are in fact not
rare. And here, the payments made to former employees are expressly
contemplated by the terms of the plan documents. Morgan Stanley's
deferred compensation programs therefore fit comfortably within the
meaning of 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1002(2)(A)(ii).
The appellate case is captioned Shafer v. Morgan Stanley, Case No.
24-3141, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, filed on December 5, 2024. [BN]
NATIONAL DEBT: Cavalier Alleges Unlawful Personal Info Disclosure
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DOMINIQUE CAVALIER AND JUSTIN CAFFIER, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NATIONAL DEBT
RELIEF, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-09194 (S.D.N.Y., December
2, 2024), accuses the Defendant of violating Plaintiffs' rights to
privacy by aiding, agreeing with, employing, or conspiring with
various third parties to learn, use, or attempt to learn or use
Plaintiffs' sensitive, personal financial communications.
Allegedly, the Defendant has installed third party surveillance
technologies on its website. These technologies aid, permit, or
cause Defendant and third parties to learn or attempt to learn the
contents of such communications, without the users' consent, in
violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act, says the
suit.
Headquartered in New York, NY, National Debt Relief is a major debt
relief company in the United States and operates the website at
https://www.nationaldebtrelief.com. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Samuel R. Jackson, Esq.
Joseph Henry (Hank) Bates, III, Esq.
CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
One Allied Drive, Suite 1400
Little Rock, AR 72202
Telephone: (501) 312-8500
Facsimile: (501) 312-8505
Email: sjackson@cbplaw.com
hbates@cbplaw.com
NATIONAL HOCKEY: WAIPU, et al. Suit Against CHL Defendants Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Margaret M. Garnett of the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York granted the CHL Defendants'
motion to dismiss the first amendment complaint under Rule 12(b)(2)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in the case captioned as
WORLD ASSOCIATION OF ICEHOCKEY PLAYERS UNIONS NORTH AMERICA
DIVISION et al., Plaintiffs, -against- NATIONAL HOCKEY LEAGUE et
al., Defendants, Case No. 24-CV-01066 (MMG) (S.D.N.Y.),
Plaintiffs World Association of Icehockey Players Unions North
America Division and World Association of Icehockey Players Unions
USA Corporation (collectively, the "WAIPU Plaintiffs"), on behalf
of their members, and Plaintiffs Tanner Gould and Isaiah DiLaura,
on behalf of themselves and a class of others similarly situated,
brought an action against (1) the National Hockey League ("NHL"),
and (2) the Canadian Hockey League ("CHL"); three leagues (the
"Major Junior Leagues") within the CHL (consisting of the Western
Hockey League ("WHL"), the Ontario Major Junior Hockey League
("OHL"), and the Québec Major Junior Hockey League (also known as
the Québec Maritimes Junior Hockey League) ("QMJHL")); the 60
member clubs within the three Major Junior Leagues (the "Major
Junior Clubs"); and CHL President Dan MacKenzie (collectively, the
"CHL Defendants") for violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act.
Plaintiffs Gould and DiLaura, the individual plaintiffs, seek to
represent a putative class of "[a]ll Major Junior Players who play
or played major junior hockey for a Major Junior Club at any time
between February 14, 2020 and the date of judgment in this
matter."
On behalf of themselves and the putative class, Gould and DiLaura
claim that the conduct of both the CHL Defendants in allegedly
conspiring to allocate geographic markets, conduct involuntary
Player drafts, impose a de facto reserve system upon Players, and
artificially depress and fix the compensation and benefits for
players, as well as the conduct of the NHL in allegedly making its
annual funding contingent on the CHL Defendants maintaining many of
the rules and practices alleged and preventing AHL and ECHL clubs
from competing to sign 18- and 19-yearold players that are subject
to the NHL-CHL Agreement, violates Section 1 of the Sherman
Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1.
On June 21, 2024, the CHL Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for
lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2) and a
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6). With respect to the motion pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2), the
parties have engaged in jurisdictional discovery.
The CHL Defendants argue that they are not subject to personal
jurisdiction in this District. They argue, inter alia, that the CHL
Defendants primarily operate in Canada, that no hockey games within
or across the Major Junior Leagues are played in New York, that no
Major Junior Players are trained in New York, that the Major Junior
Defendants do not have physical locations in New York and do not
sell tickets to hockey events in New York, and that their
broadcasting arrangements focus largely on Canadian audiences. To
the extent they have any conduct that touches upon New York, they
assert that contact is incidental and insufficient to establish
personal jurisdiction under any theory proffered by Plaintiff.
For their part, Plaintiffs argue that the CHL Defendants have
sufficient connection to New York state or to this District
through, for example, their recruiting and scouting activities, the
availability of their internet-based merchandise to New York
customers, and their connections to and relationships with the NHL,
which is headquartered in New York City. However, the lack of
evidence that the claims and injuries of these plaintiffs have any
connection to the CHL Defendants' contacts with the forum, even
assuming those contacts are otherwise sufficient, is fatal to the
Plaintiffs' jurisdictional arguments, under any proffered theory.
Plaintiffs have failed to show personal jurisdiction in this Court
over the CHL Defendants, which primarily operate in Canada or in
states other than New York. As such, the CHL Defendants' motion to
dismiss is granted.
The Court does not have personal jurisdiction over the CHL
Defendants under New York's long-arm statute because, among other
reasons, the named Plaintiffs did not experience injury in New York
for the purposes of Section 302(a)(3), and the claims of the named
Plaintiffs do not arise from the CHL Defendants' transaction of
business in New York for the purposes of Section 302(a)(1). The
same is true for the WAIPU Plaintiffs, who have not even attempted
to identify a member who satisfies these requirements.
Additionally, the Court does not have personal jurisdiction under
the Clayton Act because Plaintiffs have not satisfied the Act's
venue prong: They have not shown that the CHL Defendants "transac
business" in this District.
Because the Court dismisses without prejudice all claims asserted
against the CHL Defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction, the
Court's scheduling order regarding the preliminary injunction
hearing is moot, and the preliminary injunction hearing that was
previously scheduled for
January 27, 2025, is cancelled.
A copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7sDL2F
NCH HEALTHCARE: Plaintiff Can File Reply in Support of Class Cert.
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as LAUREN MCFALLS, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated and the Proposed Rule 23
Class, Plaintiff, v. NCH HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, INC. and NAPLES
COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, INC., Defendants, Case No.: 2:23-cv-572-SPC-KCD
(M.D. Fla.), Magistrate Judge Kyle C. Dudek granted McFalls'
unopposed motion for leave to file a reply in support of her motion
for class certification.
The reply brief must also address whether the proposed class is
sufficiently numerous under Rule 23(a). Defendants NCH Healthcare
System Inc. and Naples Community Hospital, Inc. will also be
required to file a supplemental brief addressing the issue of
numerosity.
McFalls is a registered nurse. In May 2021, she accepted a position
in NCH's Specialty Fellowship Program. In consideration for the
training she would receive, McFalls agreed to work at NCH for two
years. She also agreed to pay back the Fellowship Program fee of
$5,000 if she did not complete her two-year commitment.
McFalls left NCH after eleven months. So NCH deducted $477.90 from
her final paycheck and refused to pay out 35 hours of accrued paid
time off in the amount of $897.91. NCH then forwarded the
outstanding balance of the Fellowship Program fee to a debt
collector.
McFalls brought this suit to challenge the fee. She claims NCH
represented that the training was worth at least $5,000. But what
she received was worthless. She believes the fee is not reflective
of the training's value but is instead meant to prevent nurses from
leaving NCH's employment.
McFalls believes the fee violates several statutes. Because every
nurse in the Fellowship Program agrees to pay the same fee if they
do not stay for at least two years, McFalls wants to certify a
class action for her claims under Florida's Declaratory Judgment
Act -- Florida Statute Sec. 86.011 -- and Florida's Deceptive and
Unfair Trade Practices Act—Florida Statute Sec. 501.204.
The proposed class would consist of "all nurses who are or were
subject to NCH's Specialty Fellowship Program Employment Agreement
and the training repayment provisions therein at any point from
July 31, 2019, through trial."
McFalls contends that the proposed class includes at least 238
individuals based upon records produced by NCH. As best the Court
can tell, this number represents every nurse who participated in
the Fellowship Program after July 31, 2019 and agreed to pay the
$5,000 fee unless they completed a two-year commitment. NCH
contends that this figure is bloated. As they tell it, many of the
prospective class members do not have to pay the $5,000 fee because
they have completed their two-year commitment or are currently
employed. As a result, those prospective class members cannot
satisfy a key element of the FDUTPA claim: damages.
The Court cannot tell whether the proposed class will satisfy Rule
23 if it excludes nurses who completed their two-year commitment
(and thus owe nothing) or had their fee waived.
A copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PiXdZH
NETFLIX INC: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Securities Class Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A&O Shearman, in an article for JD Supra, reports that on November
26, 2024, Judge Jon S. Tigar of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California granted a motion to dismiss
a putative securities fraud class action against a subscription
streaming services company (the "Company"), and its CEOs, CFO, and
COO (the "Individual Defendants"). Pirani v. Netflix, Inc., et al.,
No. 22-cv-02672-JST (N.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2024). Plaintiff alleged
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, based on
alleged false and misleading statements and omissions regarding the
impact of account sharing and market saturation on the Company's
subscriber growth. The Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss
with prejudice, holding that plaintiff failed to plausibly allege
that defendants' statements were false or misleading.
Plaintiff, representing a putative class of investors that
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between
January 19, 2021 and April 19, 2022 (the putative "Class Period"),
alleged that defendants made false and misleading statements about
the Company's ability to overcome the challenges posed by the
COVID-19 pandemic, which allegedly caused a "pull-forward" in
demand for subscriptions in 2020 that ultimately slowed down during
the Class Period. Plaintiff specifically alleged that defendants
failed to disclose the fact that account sharing -- which occurs
when a paying user of the Company's services shares their username
and password with a non-paying user who does not reside in the
subscriber's household -- constrained the Company's growth and
revenue potential, especially in the United States and Canada (the
"UCAN" market). Plaintiff alleged that before the Class Period,
defendants knew that account sharing was a "major problem eating
into subscriptions" and that the COVID-19 subscription spike was
temporary, but defendants nonetheless misled investors by asserting
that the Company had a "big long runway of growth" ahead with "a
lot of headroom" for expansion. Plaintiff further alleged that the
Company's quarterly financial results throughout the Class Period
fell below consensus estimates and that on the last day of the
Class Period, the Company announced a net loss of 200,000
subscribers, which it allegedly attributed to oversaturation caused
by account sharing that had been "obscured by [the Company's] COVID
growth." The Company's alleged stock price fell more than 35% by
the next day. Plaintiff filed this action in May 2022 and
subsequently filed an amended complaint. The Court granted
defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint and plaintiff
filed a second amended complaint. Defendants moved to dismiss.
The Court first held that some of defendants' alleged statements
were nonactionable under the PSLRA safe harbor, as the statements
were forward-looking and accompanied by meaningful cautionary
language. However, the Court found that defendants' alleged
statements concerning present or historical metrics or business
conditions, such as statements that the Company had "an ample
runway for growth," were statements of current fact not protected
under the safe harbor and therefore considered whether those
statements were otherwise false.
In addressing falsity, the Court grouped the alleged false
statements into three categories: (1) statements regarding the
Company's market penetration and headroom for growth; (2)
statements attributing the Company's growth slowdown to COVID-19;
and (3) statements about the Company's growth metrics and long-term
trajectory.
As to the first category, the Court held that none of defendants'
representations about market penetration were false or misleading
because the alleged statements clearly referred to paid
subscribers, rather than non-paying users. In so holding, the Court
found that the Company's alleged statement that it had penetrated
60% of the UCAN market was not false or misleading because
reasonable investors reading the statement "fairly and in context"
would not expect the penetrated market figure to account for
anything other than paid subscribers. The Court similarly found
that defendants' statements relating to the Company's headroom for
growth did not imply that the remaining portion of the UCAN market
was readily available for capture.
As to the second category -- statements allegedly attributing the
Company's growth slowdown to the COVID-19 pandemic's "pull-forward"
without acknowledging the impact of account sharing and market
saturation -- the Court held that plaintiff did not adequately
allege that defendants did not hold their stated beliefs, nor did
plaintiff allege that a statement of fact contained in these
statements was untrue. The Court further held that plaintiff did
not adequately allege that facts about account sharing formed the
basis of defendants' opinions about the pandemic's effects and that
plaintiff accordingly failed to plead an actionable
misrepresentation or omission to those statements.
As to the third category -- alleged statements about the Company's
growth metrics and long-term trajectory -- the Court held that
plaintiff's theory of falsity relied on previously rejected
theories relating to account sharing and market saturation. For
example, the Court rejected plaintiff's argument that the Company
inflated its viewing metrics by counting views from account sharers
as views by subscribers, thereby overestimating its revenue
potential, finding that the complaint did not plead any false or
misleading statements about viewership specifically, nor did it
allege with particularity why any such statements were false.
Because the Court found that plaintiff failed to plausibly allege
that the statements at issue were false or misleading, the Court
did not address defendants' other arguments.
Finally, having found no primary liability under Section 10(b), the
Court dismissed plaintiff's derivative Section 20(a) claim. The
Court did not grant leave to further amend, noting that plaintiff
had already been given an opportunity to amend and any further
amendment would be futile. [GN]
NETFLIX INC: Court Tosses Pirani Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------
Judge Jon S. Tigar of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the second amended class action complaint in the case
captioned as FIYYAZ PIRANI, Plaintiff, v. NETFLIX, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-02672-JST (N.D. Calif.).
Lead Plaintiff Fiyyaz Pirani, as a trustee of Imperium Irrevocable
Trust, brings this action individually and on behalf of all other
persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Netflix
common stock between January 19, 2021 and April 19, 2022,
inclusive. Plaintiff alleges that Netflix and certain of its
officers—Hastings (cofounder and co-Chief Executive Officer),
Sarandos (co-CEO), Neumann (CFO), and Peters (COO) violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
United States Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 by
making false and misleading statements and omissions about
Netflix's business, operations, and prospects that artificially
inflated the price of Netflix stock during the Class Period.
Plaintiff's allegations center around account sharing, which occurs
when a paying Netflix member shares their Netflix username and
password with a non-paying user who does not reside in the
subscriber's household so that the non-paying user can access and
use Netflix's platform.
The Class Period starts on January 19, 2021, when Netflix announced
its results for Q4'20 and FY'20. During the earnings call that day,
an analyst inquired about market saturation in the UCAN region,
which encompasses the markets for the United States and Canada.
Defendant Neumann responded that Netflix was "roughly 60%
penetrated" and "still growing" in the UCAN market and that it
still had "a lot of headroom" to grow in all of its markets.
Plaintiff contends that if account sharing was included in this
metric, the effective rate of market penetration was therefore
about 79%, and the "headroom" that Netflix had to grow was more
limited than investors were led to believe.
Plaintiff filed this action on May 3, 2022. The Court granted
Defendants' motion to dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint on
January 5, 2024. Plaintiff filed the SAC on February 16, 2024,
which Defendants moved to dismiss in full on April 16, 2024.
Plaintiff asserts a claim under Section 10(b) and a derivative
claim under Section 20(a) premised on allegedly false or misleading
statements made in press releases, investor presentations, and
earnings calls. Defendants move to dismiss the Section 10(b) claim,
arguing that a number of statements are protected by the PSLRA safe
harbor and that Plaintiff has not pleaded facts to support the
elements of falsity, scienter, or loss causation. Defendants move
to dismiss the Section 20(a) claim on grounds that Plaintiff fails
to plead a viable Section 10(b) claim.
The Court does not find the representations about market
penetration to be false or misleading because these statements
clearly referred to paid subscribers. Absent an explanation that
Netflix treated account sharers as equivalent to subscribers in
calculating such a figure, reasonable investors "reading the
statements fairly and in context" would not expect that the
"penetrated market" figures would have accounted for anything but
paid subscribers.
As for statements relating to Netflix's headroom for growth, the
Court does not find that Defendants' statements implied that the
remaining portion of the UCAN market was readily available for
capture.
Plaintiff contends that statements in Netflix's risk disclosures
were false and misleading because they did not sufficiently
disclose the risks of account sharing. Plaintiff alleges facts
suggesting that Netflix experienced a high degree of account
sharing, but fails to allege facts suggesting that the company's
"ability to add new members" was hindered or that its "operations"
were necessarily adversely impacted. As such, Plaintiff does not
adequately allege that these risks had materialized, the Court
finds.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs fail to plausibly allege that the
statements at issue were false or misleading.
Because Plaintiff's Section 20(a) claim requires a viable Section
10(b) claim, the Section 20(a) claim must be dismissed, the Court
concludes.
The Court grants Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claim
under Section 10(b) and derivative claim under Section 20(a). The
dismissal is with prejudice.
A copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hwpCPo
NORDIC NATURALS: Court Issues Discovery Order in Caldwell Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Edward M. Chen of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California issued an order with respect to the
scope of allowed discovery prior to class certification in the case
captioned as CHERYL CALDWELL, Plaintiff, v. NORDIC NATURALS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 23-cv-02818-EMC (N.D. Calif.).
Plaintiff Cheryl Caldwell has filed a putative class action on
behalf of herself and a nationwide class of those similarly
situated against Defendant Nordic Naturals, Inc., based on the sale
of its dietary supplement product "Ultimate(R) Omega 2X." Plaintiff
claims that Defendant's use of "2X" in conjunction with "Ultimate
Omega" on the front of the package misleads consumers into thinking
that there is double the amount of omega-3 per serving than the
amount of omega in the Nordic Naturals product named "Ultimate(R)
Omega." The Plaintiffs, and putative class representatives, are
from California, Illinois, Florida and New York.
Parties filed a joint letter brief regarding the scope of allowed
discovery prior to class certification. Plaintiff served Defendant
with Interrogatories 4-5 and Requests for Production 2-5 seeking
all nationwide and California gross retail sales and units sold of
the Product. Defendant produced data for sales within the state of
California, and only from their direct-to-consumer sales of their
"Ultimate Omega 2X" fish oil product.
Plaintiffs argue nationwide sales are relevant to their claims, as
well as sales to to brick-and-mortar retailers, wholesalers, and
distributors. Defendant states they produced (or will produce) data
for states from which Plaintiffs reside, and for direct-to-consumer
sales only because that is the scope of the potential relevance.
Defendant argues Plaintiffs are unlikely to be able to certify a
nationwide class, thus discovery regarding nationwide sales is not
relevant. Further, Defendant argues sales made directly to
consumers are the only relevant sales, as opposed to sales to
third-parties, who then sell to consumers.
The Court orders Defendant to supplement its responses and produce
nationwide sales, and all units sold to retailers, wholesalers, and
distributors.
Judge Chen says it's premature at this stage for Defendant to argue
that a nationwide class could not be certified, or that nationwide
sales are not relevant. Additionally, sales of all retail and units
sold could be relevant to Plaintiff's damages model for a
nationwide class, as they will be required to submit, at minimum, a
proposal for calculating damages on a class-wide basis.
A copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=o6gcbR
NUCOR CORP: Agrees to Settle 2023 Data Breach Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that Nucor Corp. agreed to a class action
lawsuit settlement to resolve claims it failed to prevent a 2023
data breach that compromised sensitive employee information.
The Nucor data breach settlement benefits individuals who received
a notice from Nucor in or around June 2023 informing them their
personal information may have been compromised in the data
incident.
According to the class action lawsuit, Nucor failed to protect
sensitive employee information from a data breach that occurred
between approximately May 26, 2023, and June 1, 2023. The breach
reportedly compromised names, bank account numbers, routing numbers
and other sensitive information.
Nucor is a steel producer and scrap recycler that employs thousands
of workers across the country.
The company hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay an
undisclosed sum to resolve the class action lawsuit.
Under the terms of the Nucor data breach class action settlement,
class members can receive reimbursement for documented
out-of-pocket expenses related to the data breach, including but
not limited to bank fees, communication charges and credit
monitoring expenses. Class members can also be reimbursed for up to
four hours of lost time spent addressing data-breach-related issues
at a rate of $17.50 per hour. These payments are capped at $750.
Class members who experienced extraordinary losses as a result of
the Nucor data breach can receive larger payments of up to $7,500.
These payments are available to class members who experienced
identity theft or fraud as a result of the data breach.
All class members are eligible for two years of free credit
monitoring services even if they already enrolled in the services
offered by Nucor.
The deadline for exclusion and objection was Nov. 29, 2024.
The final approval hearing for the Nucor data breach settlement is
scheduled for Jan. 13, 2025.
To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid
claim form by Dec. 30, 2024.
Who's Eligible
Individuals who received a data breach notification from Nucor in
June 2023 informing them their personal information may have been
compromised in a data breach discovered in June 2023
Potential Award
Up to $8,250 in cash benefits
Proof of Purchase
Documentation of out-of-pocket expenses, such as bank statements or
receipts
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
12/30/2024
Case Name
Burleson v. Nucor Corporation, Case No. 24CV012197-910, in the
Superior Court of North Carolina, Wake County
Final Hearing
1/13/2025
Settlement Website
NucorDataSettlement.com
Claims Administrator
Nucor Data Settlement
c/o RG/2 Claims Administration LLC
P.O. Box 59479
Philadelphia, PA 19102-9479
NucorDataSettlement@rg2claims.com
(866) 742-4955
Class Counsel
Gary Klinger
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
Defense Counsel
Daniel E Raymond
ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP [GN]
NVIDIA CORP: Supreme Court Allows Investor Class Action to Proceed
------------------------------------------------------------------
WTOP News reports that the Supreme Court is allowing a class-action
lawsuit that accuses Nvidia of misleading investors about its past
dependence on selling computer chips for the mining of volatile
cryptocurrency to proceed.
The court's decision Wednesday, December 11, comes the same week
that China said it is investigating the the microchip company over
suspected violations of Chinese anti-monopoly laws. The justices
heard arguments four weeks ago in Nvidia's bid to shut down the
lawsuit, then decided that they were wrong to take up the case in
the first place. They dismissed the company's appeal, leaving in
place an appellate ruling allowing the case to go forward.
At issue was a 2018 suit led by a Swedish investment management
firm. It followed a dip in the profitability of cryptocurrency,
which caused Nvidia's revenues to fall short of projections and led
to a 28% drop in the company's stock price.
Nvidia had argued that the investors' lawsuit should be thrown out
because it does not measure up to a 1995 law, the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act, that is intended to bar frivolous
complaints. A district court judge had dismissed the complaint
before the federal appeals court in San Francisco ruled that it
could go forward. The Biden administration backed the investors at
the Supreme Court.
"This is a win for corporate accountability. When corporations
mislead shareholders, they undermine trust in our markets. Ensuring
that investors can seek justice is essential to preserving fairness
and transparency," Deepak Gupta, who represented the investors at
Supreme Court, said in a statement.
In 2022, Nvidia, which is based in Santa Clara, California, paid a
$5.5 million fine to settle charges by the Securities and Exchange
Commission that it failed to disclose that cryptomining was a
significant source of revenue growth from the sale of graphics
processing units that were produced and marketed for gaming. The
company did not admit to any wrongdoing as part of the settlement.
Nvidia's recent performance has been spectacular. Even after the
news of the China investigation, its share price is up 180% this
year.
Nvidia has led the artificial intelligence sector to become one of
the stock market's biggest companies, as tech giants continue to
spend heavily on the company's chips and data centers needed to
train and operate their AI systems.
The lawsuit is one of two high court cases that involved
class-action lawsuits against tech companies. The justices also
dismissed an appeal from Facebook parent Meta that sought to end to
a multibillion-dollar class action investors' lawsuit stemming from
the privacy scandal involving the Cambridge Analytica political
consulting firm. [GN]
OBI SEAFOODS: Settles Underpayment Class Action for $2.1 Million
----------------------------------------------------------------
Margaret Sutherland, writing for KDLG 670AM, reports that two major
Alaskan seafood processors have agreed to settle a class-action
lawsuit alleging wage violations during the COVID-19 pandemic.
OBI Seafoods and Ocean Beauty Seafoods were ordered to pay a total
of $2.1 million as part of a settlement approved last week by Judge
Marsha J. Pechman in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington.
The case, brought by former employees Marija and Dusan Paunovic on
behalf of processing facility workers, accused the companies of
delaying wage payments and underpaying workers during mandatory
quarantine periods.
OBI has 10 facilities in the state and was formed in 2020 through a
merger between Ocean Beauty and former Alaskan processor Icicle
Seafoods. Ocean Beauty currently owns a stake in the company as
part of the new ownership group.
In email correspondence with KDLG, OBI's chief executive officer
John Hanrahan said that all workers at the company's processing
facility in Naknek were paid a daily stipend during the quarantine
period, and were provided with free housing, meals, and laundry
services.
He went on to say "OBI Seafoods values its employees, pays
competitive wages, and complies with all federal, state, and local
wage laws and regulations."
Plaintiffs, however, contended that the stipend was insufficient
for extended quarantine periods.
The plaintiffs argued the companies failed to adequately compensate
employees for time spent in isolation as required by Alaska's Wage
and Hour Act and the federal Fair Labor Standards Act.
As part of the settlement, each of the more than 2,300 class
members will receive $536, with some payouts exceeding $3,100,
after deductions for legal fees and administrative costs.
The agreement also includes $630,000 in attorney fees, $100,000 for
litigation costs, and $20,000 in service awards for the two lead
plaintiffs. Administrative costs of up to $32,000 will be deducted
from the settlement fund. The remainder will be distributed pro
rata based on workers' quarantine periods and delayed wages.
According to court documents, the settlement financially covers
roughly three-quarters of the damages cited by the lawsuit's class
members. [GN]
OMNI FAMILY: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Cubit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------
BRANDON CUBIT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. OMNI FAMILY HEALTH, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-at-01002 (E.D. Cal., Dec. 6, 2024) allege violation of the
California Consumer Privacy Act.
According to the complaint, on August 2024, unauthorized persons
accessed Omni's information systems and stole the personal
identifiable information and protected health information
(collectively "Private Information") of the Plaintiff and the Class
Members (the "Data Breach"). Omni did not discover the Data Breach
until August 7, 2024. On August 23, 2024, the unauthorized persons
made all of the Private Information publicly available.
As a result of Omni's lax security, hackers accessed and made
public the Private Information in a readily usable form, causing
the Plaintiff and Class Members to be exposed to criminals seeking
to use the Private Information for illegal activities, such as
identity theft schemes, says the suit.
Omni Family Health provides healthcare services throughout
California's Central Valley, in Kern, Kings, Tulare, and Fresno
counties. The Company provides healthcare delivery system that
offers a full range of primary, preventative care, and supportive
services in medical, dental, behavioral health, pharmacy, and many
more specialties. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James F. Clapp, Esq.
Marita Murphy Lauinger, Esq.
CLAPP & LAUINGER LLP
701 Palomar Airport Road, Suite 300
Carlsbad, California 92011
Telephone: (760) 209-6565
Facsimile: (760) 209-6565
Email: jclapp@clapplegal.com
mlauinger@clapplegal.com
- and -
Edward J. Wynne, Esq.
George R. Nemiroff, Esq.
WYNNE LAW FIRM
80 E. Sir Francis Drake Blvd., Ste. 3G
Larkspur, CA 94939
Telephone: (415) 461-6400
Facsimile: (415) 461-3900
Email: Ewynne@wynnelawfirm.com
Gnemiroff@wynnelawfirm.com
OMNI FAMILY: Fails to Protect Personal, Health Info, Cubit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
BRANDON CUBIT, individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated persons v. OMNI FAMILY HEALTH, Case No.
1:24-cv-01491-KES-CDB (E.D. Cal., Dec. 6, 2024) alleges that the
Defendant failed to protect the private information of the
Plaintiff and the Class from being accessed and compromised.
In August 2024, unauthorized persons accessed Omni's information
systems and stole the personal identifiable information and
protected health information of the Plaintiff and the Class
Members.
On Aug. 23, 2024, the unauthorized persons made all of the private
information publicly available.
Not until Oct. 10, 2024 did Omni began notifying the Plaintiff and
the Class Members that unauthorized persons had stolen their
private information, which included their names, addresses, dates
of birth, social security numbers, health insurance plan
information, financial information, and private medical
information.
The criminals' theft of the Plaintiff's and the Class Members'
private information invaded their privacy interests, decreased the
value of their private information, and placed them at imminent,
immediate, and continuing risk of further identity theft-related
harm, the suit asserts.
The Plaintiff expects that he and the Class Members will need to
spend time and money on credit monitoring, including the expense of
a credit monitoring service, as part of a reasonable effort to
mitigate against such harm and will continue to incur such expenses
on an ongoing basis, the suit adds.
Omni Family is a growing network providing primary and preventative
healthcare.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James F. Clapp, Esq.
Marita Murphy Lauinger, Esq.
CLAPP & LAUINGER LLP
701 Palomar Airport Road, Suite 300
Carlsbad, CA 92011
Telephone: (760) 209-6565 ext. 101
Facsimile: (760) 209-6565
E-mail: jclapp@clapplegal.com
mlauinger@clapplegal.com
- and -
Edward J. Wynne, Esq.
George R. Nemiroff, Esq.
WYNNE LAW FIRM
80 E. Sir Francis Drake Blvd., Ste. 3G
Larkspur, CA 94939
Telephone: (415) 461-6400
Facsimile: (415) 461-3900
E-mail: Ewynne@wynnelawfirm.com
Gnemiroff@wynnelawfirm.com
PALADIN ENERGY: 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 Paladin Energy Ltd (OTC: PALAF) resulting from
allegations that Paladin may have issued materially misleading
business information to the investing public.
So What: If you purchased Paladin 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=32303 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 12, 2024, Paladin issued an
announcement entitled "Langer Heinrich Mine update and revision of
FY2025 guidance." In this announcement, Paladin announced in part
that "[a]s a result of the lower than expected production results
for October, and noting the ongoing challenges and operational
variability experienced to date in ramping up production at the
[Langer Heinrich Mine], Paladin has determined to revise its FY2025
production guidance to 3.0 -- 3.6 Mlb (previously 4.0 -- 4.5 Mlb)
and withdraw all other guidance in relation to FY2025."
On this news, Paladin shares fell 24.7% on November 12, 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]
PALMCO ADMINISTRATION: Court Addresses Discovery Disputes in Nock
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge J. Mark Coulson of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order
addressing discovery disputes in the lawsuit entitled Robert Nock,
Plaintiff v. PalmCo Administration, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case
No. 1:24-cv-00662-RDB (D. Md.).
The putative class action alleges that Defendants Palmco
Administration, LLC d/b/a Indra Energy; Palmco Power MD, LLC d/b/a
Indra Energy; and Palmco Energy MD, LLC d/b/a Indra Energy
(collectively, "Indra" or "Defendants") violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act and its Maryland equivalent by contacting
the Plaintiff and others similarly situated in violation of the
statutes. The Plaintiff further alleges that the Defendants' agents
tried to mask these violations by portraying them as in-person
solicitations rather than telephone contacts so as to avoid
liability under the statutes.
On Nov. 7, 2024, this matter was referred to Judge Coulson for
discovery and all related scheduling by U.S. District Judge Richard
Bennett. On that same date, the Court docketed a memorandum
outlining its informal discovery dispute process. Pursuant to that
process, on Nov. 13, 2024, the parties filed a joint letter
outlining the current areas of dispute.
On Nov. 18, 2024, the parties filed their respective position
letters regarding those areas of dispute. On Nov. 26, 2024, the
Court held a telephonic discovery conference with the parties to
get a fuller understanding of the dispute. The Court's decision
follows in this Memorandum Opinion and Order.
By way of other pertinent background, Judge Bennett addressed a
previous discovery issue raised by the parties on July 26, 2024. In
his order of that date, Judge Bennett directed that the Defendants
produce "communications with Neil St. Louis/NSL Marketing, LLC and
any other Indra sales agents who enrolled Maryland consumers with
Defendants between April 1, 2021, and July 1, 2021." Further, Judge
Bennett ordered that the Defendants produce a witness, Mr.
Cleckley, as a fact witness for a two-hour deposition.
Based on the allegations of the amended complaint, it appears Judge
Bennett concluded this information was relevant to the issue of
whether the Defendants knew or were on notice of the alleged
practice of the Defendants' sales agents to substitute telephone
solicitation for in-person solicitation at the time of the named
Plaintiff's alleged telephone solicitations. Eventually, the
Defendants concluded their production of documents responsive to
Judge Bennett's order, and produced Mr. Cleckley for deposition.
The Plaintiff now argues that the Defendants' production was
incomplete as to certain emails and certain document types, and
that Mr. Cleckley was improperly instructed not to answer certain
deposition questions in violation of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure ("FRCP") Rule 30(c)(2). For their part, the Defendants
contend that their document production was complete, and that any
further production would be burdensome.
Further, the Defendants defend their objections at Mr. Cleckley's
deposition because they deemed them being beyond the scope of
discovery. Finally, the Defendants urge the Court to bifurcate
discovery in this matter to allow for discovery and dispositive
motions practice as to the validity of the named Plaintiff's claim
only, allowing for class discovery only if the Court denies their
anticipated dispositive motion as to the named Plaintiff. The
Plaintiff resists such bifurcation.
Dealing with the last issue first, the Court will order additional
limited briefing on the issue of bifurcation of discovery, with
each side limited to ten (10) pages. In this regard, the
Defendants' brief is due Dec. 16, 2024, and the Plaintiff's
Opposition is due on Jan. 6, 2025. Along with whatever arguments
they intend to raise, Judge Coulson says the parties should
specifically address what they anticipate the evidence will be
supporting whether any calls were made by the Defendants to the
named Plaintiff that would constitute a violation of the TCPA.
As to the remaining issues, the Court's decision-making is heavily
guided by Judge Bennett's prior decision of July 26, 2024, in that
Judge Bennett has already found that "communications" between the
Defendants' sales agents (including those acting on their behalf at
NSL) and the Defendants regarding Maryland consumers, who were
enrolled by the Defendants is within the scope of discovery.
Indeed, Judge Coulson notes the Plaintiff indicates that the
production to date, together with Mr. Cleckley's deposition
testimony, supports his allegation that the Defendants' agents were
disguising telephone solicitations (potentially governed by the
TCPA and its Maryland equivalent) as in person sales calls, at
least in one instance as shown by the GPS coordinates of the sales
agents at the time of enrollment. The Defendants' sales
verification software, TPV.com captures such GPS data.
Additionally, Mr. Cleckley's deposition demonstrated that some
customers during quality assurance calls indicated that the sales
agents contacted them by telephone rather than in-person. Further,
as the Plaintiff points out, the definition of "communications"
used in their requests for production includes communications
through a database such as TPV.com. For their part, the Defendants
argue that such further production would be create a
disproportionate burden on them, and that if the Court were to
bifurcate discovery, such production would be outside the scope of
"individual" discovery and should be deferred, if at all, to
"class" discovery. However, Judge Coulson points out that the
Defendants offer no specifics to allow the Court to assess their
claims of burden, and, whether the Court will bifurcate discovery
has yet to be decided.
Based on the foregoing, within thirty (30) days from the date that
the Court decides the bifurcation issue outlined here (unless
excused as a result of that bifurcation decision), the Court will
order the Defendants to produce all TPV.com data for all attempted
and successful enrollments between April and July of 2021. The
Court will not order the Defendants to further produce "the top 300
attempted enrollments by distance" at this time. Such data, to the
extent it falls within the date range here, should already be
included in rhw Defendants' production.
The Court will also order the Defendants to produce recordings for
quality assurance calls for door to door enrollment during that
same time period based on the deposition testimony of Mr. Cleckley,
however, if they prefer, the Defendants need only produce those
recordings where the consumer indicated that the sales agents
telephoned them rather than visited them in person. Defense counsel
are reminded of their obligation under FRCP 26(g) to have at least
one attorney of record sign the production (which, in turn, serves
as certification that the production is complete to the best of the
attorney's knowledge, information and belief formed after a
reasonable inquiry).
As to further supplementing its prior production based on the
Plaintiff's contention that it is incomplete, the Defendants are
directed to supplement their prior production with any additional
responsive documents uncovered that have not been previously
produced, or indicate that no further responsive documents have
been located, again signed by at least one attorney of record
pursuant to Rule 26(g).
As for deposition objections, Judge Coulson notes that Rule
30(c)(2) allows for an instruction not to answer only under very
limited circumstances. Those circumstances include matters
protected by privilege or to enforce a limitation ordered by the
Court. The Court having not ordered any limitation at this point,
any instruction to not answer a question will be limited to
preserve privilege only. Any other objection should be "stated
concisely in a nonargumentative and nonsuggestive manner" to
preserve the record, but the witness is not excused from
answering.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/mr3epww2 from PacerMonitor.com.
PARKMOBILE LLC: Settles Data Security Class Action for $32.8-Mil.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Walrath-Holdridge, writing for USA TODAY, reports that The
digital parking payment app ParkMobile has agreed to a $32.8
million settlement after a 2021 data breach exposed the information
of more than 20 million users.
A proposed class action suit was first filed in Georgia federal
court on May 25, 2021, two months after the company initially
announced the leak. The suit was filed on behalf of Tyler Baker and
"all others similarly situated," and alleged that Baker had
experienced "abnormal activity" in his PayPal account linked to
ParkMobile and had been forced to spend "valuable time" mitigating
these activities, changing passwords and monitoring the account.
ParkMobile was accused of harming impacted consumers long-term by
failing to secure their data and therefore exposing them to
identity theft, fraud and the need to spend time securing related
accounts.
As with any settlement, ParkMobile's agreement to pay does not mean
they admitted to wrongdoing, but rather that involved parties
decided this was a better course of action than a lengthy trial
process. Even so, millions are now up for grabs.
Here's how to claim your compensation in the ParkMobile data breach
settlement.
2021 ParkMobile data breach
ParkMobile is a mobile and web app that allows users to pay for
parking digitally. It was launched in the U.S. in 2009 and has
since built out other services, including a parking reservation
system, a self-service management platform for parking location
owners and operators and integration with Google Maps.
In March 2021, the company announced that it had experienced a
"cybersecurity incident linked to a vulnerability in a third-party
software." A later lawsuit lodged against the company indicated
that the data of roughly 21 million users was compromised.
ParkMobile said in subsequent updates that "sensitive data"
information like payment card numbers had not been leaked and
users' encrypted passwords were accessed but not the encryption
keys needed to read them.
The lawsuit said leaked information included license plate numbers,
email addresses, phone numbers, vehicle nicknames and, in a small
number of cases, mailing addresses.
Court documents accused ParkMobile of ignoring deficiencies in its
security systems, failing to follow industry guidelines and failing
to adopt security measures recommended by experts in the field,
including the Federal Communications Commission.
In a statement posted to its website Nov. 15, ParkMobile said that
it immediately launched an investigation following the incident and
"quickly eliminated a third-party vulnerability."
On Dec. 5, it shared a link to the class action settlement on the
same webpage.
USA TODAY reached out to ParkMobile for comment.
What's in the ParkMobile settlement?
In total, the settlement adds up to about $32.8 million.
ParkMobile will provide $9 million in funds for class members
claiming payments, as well as $300,000 for administration fees. $21
million has also been made available to supply class members with
in-app credits if they do not claim a cash payment.
An additional $2.5 million will also be allocated to ParkMobile to
implement improved security measures.
Who's entitled to payment in the ParkMobile settlement?
If you received a notification from ParkMobile about the "2021 Data
Security Incident," you are considered a settlement class member.
Members were also sent notice of this class action settlement via
email.
If you received either notice, you are eligible to submit a claim.
How to get your ParkMobile settlement payment
If you received either of the notices mentioned above, you are
automatically considered a class member in the settlement.
Eligible members who do nothing will remain part of the settlement
but will only receive a code from ParkMobile for a $1.00 credit in
the ParkMobile App that is good for up to a year.
Members who would like to receive a cash payment must submit a
claim form. Forms can be found and submitted online or via mail.
The claim form must be submitted electronically via the settlement
website at www.ParkMobileSettlement.com or mailed to: ParkMobile
Data Security Incident, Attn: Claim Forms, 1650 Arch Street, Suite
2210, Philadelphia, PA 19103.
Electronic claims must be submitted by March 5, 2025, and physical
mail must be postmarked on or before that date. The amount each
member can receive is capped at $25.
Members who would like to opt out of the settlement must do so
before February 3, 2025. To be excluded, members must send a letter
by mail stating that they want to be excluded from the Settlement
in Baker, et al. v. ParkMobile, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-02182-SCJ to
the same address listed above.
An approval hearing will be held at 10:00 a.m. on March 13, 2025,
to officially greenlight the settlement. [GN]
PORT OF SEATTLE: Loses Bid to Dismiss Codoni, et al. Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jamal N. Whitehead of the United States District Court for
the Western District of Washington denied the defendants' motions
to dismiss the second amended complaint in the case captioned as
CINDY CODONI and MICHELLE GEER, Plaintiffs, v. PORT OF SEATTLE,
ALASKA AIR GROUP, and DELTA AIR LINES INC., Defendants, CASE NO.
2:23-cv-795-JNW (W.D. Wash.).
This is a putative class action about the effects of aircraft
emissions near the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. Plaintiffs
include property owners and residents within a five-mile radius of
Sea-Tac Airport who allege that Defendants' pollution has caused
physical harm, death, and property damage. Plaintiffs' claims
against all Defendants include negligence, battery, continuing
intentional trespass, and public nuisance. They also pursue an
inverse condemnation claim against Defendant Port of Seattle.
Plaintiffs pursue only state-law claims.
Defendants Alaska Air Group and Delta Air Lines, Inc. jointly move
to dismiss, while the Port moves to dismiss on its own. Defendants
argue primarily that federal law preempts Plaintiffs' state-law
claims. Defendants also raise separate subject-matter jurisdiction
challenges under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).
Defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motions are based on their federal
preemption affirmative defense.
Defendants argue that express, field, and conflict preemption
preclude Plaintiffs' claims.
The Defendants all argue that the ADA expressly preempts
Plaintiffs' claims, citing to the ADA provision governing
"[p]reemption of authority of prices, routes, and services."
The Airline Defendants argue that the ADA preempts Plaintiffs'
claims because Plaintiffs' "allegations make clear that their
theory of liability hinges on the Airlines' 'course of travel' and
'provision of air transportation to and from SeaTac Airport at
various times' -- i.e., their routes and services." Similarly, the
Port maintains that "in effect, Plaintiffs' claims against the Port
seek to curtail takeoffs and landings from Sea-Tac Airport and to
generally reduce the amount of flight activity at the Airport."
Further, the Port asserts that Plaintiffs' claims "necessarily
'relate to' airline 'routes, and services."
Because Plaintiffs' claims assert that the chemicals released from
Defendants' planes have harmed them, factual allegations about
flight frequency and Plaintiffs' proximity to the airport are
certainly relevant.
The Court finds Defendants' ADA preemption argument is premature
and requires factual findings. Given the Rule 12(b)(6) standard and
the Court's duty to "start with the assumption that the historic
police powers of the States [are] not to be superseded by the [ADA]
unless that was the clear and manifest purpose of Congress," the
Court rejects Defendants' ADA preemption argument at this early
stage.
Defendants also argue that Section 233 of the CAA (42 U.S.C. Sec.
7573) expressly preempts Plaintiffs' claims. While the Airline
Defendants insist that they are complying with these standards, the
Court cannot make that factual finding in Defendants' favor on
Defendants' 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. At bottom, given the
applicable legal standard and the Ninth Circuit's "case-by-case"
preemption test designed specifically for Section 233, the Court
rejects Defendants' Section 233 preemption argument at this stage.
Defendants maintain that Plaintiffs' Washington common law claims
are subject to field preemption.
The Airline Defendants argue that "there is no question that the
FAA occupies the field for flight operations at issue here --
involving airspace management and flight paths, aviation safety,
aircraft engine and body design, and emissions. "But to say that
the FAA preempts Plaintiffs' claims because they "involve" broad
categories of federally regulated activity is insufficient, the
Court finds. Because Plaintiffs allege that they were harmed by
pollution from airplanes, the Court considers the pertinent field
to be airplane pollution and its effects on people and property.
Accordingly, the Court rejects Defendants' field preemption
argument.
Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal based on Defendants' affirmative defense of
conflict preemption is inappropriate, the Court concludes. In
short, Plaintiffs have not plead themselves out of court.
A copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ARIXdh
PRGX GLOBAL: Settles 2022 Data Breach Class Action for $675,000
---------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that PRGX Global Inc. agreed to a
$675,000 class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims it
failed to protect consumers from a 2022 data breach.
The PRGX Global settlement benefits individuals who received a data
breach notice from PRGX regarding a data breach that occurred in
April 2022.
According to the PRGX data breach class action lawsuit, the company
should have protected consumers' sensitive data from the
cyberattack through reasonable cybersecurity measures.
PRGX Global is a data analytics company that provides services to
the health care, retail, consumer goods, telecommunications and
technology industries.
PRGX hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to the $675,000
class action settlement to resolve these allegations.
Under the terms of the PRGX Global settlement, class members can
receive a cash payment of up to $600 for out-of-pocket losses,
including bank fees, communication charges, credit expenses and up
to three hours of lost time at a rate of $30 per hour. Class
members can also receive payment for extraordinary losses, such as
unreimbursed fraud or identity theft, up to $5,000.
Class members who do not have out-of-pocket losses or other
compensable damages can instead receive an alternative cash payment
of up to $75.
Claimants who make reimbursement claims can also receive three
years of credit monitoring and identity theft protection services.
Those who receive an alternative cash payment are not eligible for
these services.
The deadline for exclusion and objection was Dec. 2, 2024.
The final approval hearing for the PRGX data breach settlement is
scheduled for Jan. 23, 2025.
To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid
claim form by Jan. 2, 2025.
Who's Eligible
Individuals who received a data breach notice from PRGX informing
them their information may have been compromised in a cybersecurity
incident that occurred in April 2022
Potential Award
Up to $5,600
Proof of Purchase
Receipts, bank statements, financial documents, credit reports, tax
documents or 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
01/02/2025
Case Name
Ebert, et al. v. PRGX Global Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-04233-TWT, in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
Final Hearing
01/23/2025
Settlement Website
PRGXDataIncident.com
Claims Administrator
Settlement Administrator
1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210
Philadelphia, PA19103
(844) 791-4449
info@PRGXDataIncident.com
Class Counsel
William B Federman
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
Defense Counsel
Amanda Harvey
MULLEN COUGHLIN LLC [GN]
PROTECTIVE LIFE: Court Stays Allen Suit Pending Ruling in Moriarty
------------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Christopher D. Baker of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of California grants the Defendants'
motion to stay the lawsuit styled BEVERLY R. ALLEN, et al.,
Plaintiffs v. PROTECTIVE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00026-JLT-CDB (E.D. Cal.).
Pending before the Court is the motion of Defendants Protective
Life Insurance Company and American General Life Insurance Company
to stay proceedings in this action, filed June 24, 2024, pending an
anticipated ruling of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in
Moriarty v. American General Life Insurance Co., No. 23-3650
("Moriarty"). Plaintiffs Beverly R. Allen and The Danny and Beverly
R. Allen Family Trust filed an opposition on July 8, 2024, and the
Defendants replied on July 18, 2024.
The Plaintiffs initiated this action on Sept. 26, 2022, in the
Superior Court for the State of California, County of San Francisco
(styled as Beverly R. Allen, et al. v. Protective Life Insurance
Company, et al., No. CGC-22-601938), asserting six claims for
relief against the Defendants. The Plaintiffs seek to collect
insurance benefits allegedly owed under a $200,000 life insurance
policy.
The Defendants removed the action to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California on Oct. 27, 2022. On Jan. 5,
2023, following the parties' stipulated request to transfer venue,
the Northern District transferred the case to this Court. On May 9,
2023, this Court entered the operative scheduling order.
On Aug. 11, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the
complaint. Among the proposed amendments, the Plaintiffs seek to
add class allegations against Defendant American General Life
Insurance ("AGLI"). In the motion, the Plaintiffs assert Allen is
"the proper candidate to bring class claims" following the denial
of class certification in an action pending in the Southern
District of California where the plaintiff alleges facts and causes
of action substantially similar against Defendant American General
Life Insurance Company as the Plaintiffs assert here, citing
Moriarty v. General Life Insurance Company, et al., Case No.
3:17-cv-01709-BTMBGS.
After the Plaintiffs' motion to amend in the Court was fully
briefed, on Sept. 26, 2023, the Moriarty plaintiff was granted
leave to file a renewed motion for class certification. The
Moriarty district court also stayed the action and certified for
interlocutory appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals its
order granting Plaintiff summary judgment on the breach of contract
cause of action.
On Nov. 2, 2023, in light of the Moriarty district court's Sept.
26, 2023 order, the Court ordered the parties to file a joint
report regarding the Plaintiffs' motion to amend and address
whether the Court should hold the motion in abeyance pending the
Ninth Circuit's ruling in Moriarty.
In their responsive joint report filed Nov. 7, 2023, the parties
represented that holding the Plaintiffs' motion to amend in
abeyance pending the outcome in Moriarty will promote efficiency,
economy, consistency, and comity. Accordingly, the following day,
the Court entered an order holding in abeyance the Plaintiffs'
motion to amend pending resolution of the class certification
issues in Moriarty.
On Sept. 7, 2023, the Court ordered the Plaintiffs to file a notice
of related cases or show cause why the case should not be related
to the action styled Beverly Allen v. Protective Life Insurance
Company, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00530-JLT-CDB ("Allen I"). On
Sept. 12, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a notice of related cases and
indicated the instant case is related to Allen I. On Sept. 14,
2023, the Court related the cases and reassigned the instant action
to Judge Baker with the new case number 1:23-cv-00026-JLT-CDB
("Allen II" or "instant action").
On Dec. 12, 2023, in the related case Allen I, the Court granted
the Defendants' motion to stay pending resolution by the Ninth
Circuit of important and potentially dispositive issues germane to
that case, i.e., appellate decisions in the Farley and/or Small
actions.
Pending before the Court is the Defendants' motion to stay
proceedings in this action, filed June 24, 2024, in anticipation of
a ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Moriarty v.
American General Life Insurance Co., No. 23-3650. The fully briefed
appeal in Moriarty is scheduled for oral argument at the Ninth
Circuit on Feb. 5, 2025, at 9:00 a.m.
In the pending motion, the Defendants argue that a stay of this
action pending an appellate decision in Moriarty is warranted
because this case raises many of the same issues that are being
litigated in Moriarty, and that requiring them to defend this
lawsuit before that case is resolved could lead the Defendants to a
substantial risk of real harm.
The Plaintiffs counter that the Defendants have not met their
considerable burden to support a stay while Moriarty is decided,
that the Plaintiffs will be damaged by a stay given the harm caused
by maintaining the status quo, that the Defendants face no
actionable hardship by proceeding in the action, and that the
parties will not gain a resolution by waiting for the Ninth
Circuit's decision in Moriarty.
The Plaintiffs seek to add class allegations related to the conduct
and claims asserted against the Defendants in their pending motion
to amend. However, Judge Baker says, the mere fact that the
Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of elderly and vulnerable
individuals and seeks remedial relief does not materially heighten
the exigency of the action -- particularly where the Plaintiffs
could have, but have not sought a temporary restraining order or
preliminary injunctive relief.
Indeed, though the Plaintiffs state in their complaint that they
will seek, in addition to damages, injunctive, equitable and
declaratory relief, to the greatest extent possible, Judge Baker
points out that the Plaintiffs have not moved for any injunctive
relief, permanent or otherwise, notwithstanding their assertions of
entitlement to such relief in the complaint and their opposition to
the pending motion.
The Plaintiffs' delay in seeking immediate injunctive relief and
their agreement to a temporary stay of the Court's adjudication of
their pending motion to amend undermine their ability to show a
"fair possibility" of harm here and the absence of tangible ongoing
harm, Judge Baker opines.
The Court also finds the risk of harm or prejudice resulting from a
stay is reduced because the declaratory relief the Plaintiffs seek
on behalf of the class would be the same and have the same effect
if awarded now or in a year. The Court further finds the second
Landis factor favors a stay, as there is a tangible risk of
inconsistent judgments and duplicative efforts if the action
proceeds.
In sum, the Court finds the three factors under Landis v. N. Am.
Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936), weigh in favor of a stay.
After balancing the potential harm and prejudice implicated by
staying this action against the competing equities of hardship
imposed and judicial economy, the Court finds good cause exists to
grant the Defendants' motion to stay pending resolution by the
Ninth Circuit of important and potentially dispositive issues
germane to this case.
For the reasons set forth in this Order, the Court grants the
Defendants' motion to stay. This action is stayed pending issuance
of an opinion by the Ninth Circuit in the Moriarty action. If no
determinative decision is rendered in Moriarty within one year of
the date of this Order, the Plaintiffs may seek relief through a
motion to lift stay.
No later than 14 days following the issuance of such opinion(s),
the parties will file a joint status report in which they set forth
their positions on whether the stay in this case should be lifted.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/bdh48p54 from PacerMonitor.com.
RAPID FINANCIAL: Watkins Suit Settlement Gets Prelim. Court Nod
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Miranda M. Du of the United States District Court for
the District of Nevada granted preliminary approval of the class
settlement in the case captioned as CHRISTOPHER WATKINS, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. RAPID
FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS, INC. d/b/a/ ACCESS FREEDOM CARDS; AXIOM BANK
N.A.; KEEFE COMMISSARY NETWORK, LLC d/b/a ACCESS SECURE RELEASE;
and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, CASE NO.
3:20-cv-00509-MMD-CSD (D. Nev.).
The proposed settlement class satisfies the requirements of a class
action settlement class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, because the class
members are readily ascertainable, and a well-defined community of
interest exists in the common questions of law and fact affecting
the parties.
The following classes of persons are certified in this action
solely for the purposes of the Settlement:
All persons who, at any time between July 31, 2016 and October 20,
2016, or after January 18, 2024 to the present and were: (1)
released from a jail, detention center, or prison located in the
State of Nevada, (2) entitled to the return of money either
confiscated from them or remaining in their inmate account when
they were released, (3) issued a prepaid debit card from Defendant
Rapid Financial Solutions or its affiliates, and/or Defendant Axiom
Bank N.A. of Florida, and/or Defendant Keefe Commissary Network and
were subject to fees, charges, and restrictions, and (4) not
offered an alternative method for the return of their money.
The Parties' Settlement Agreement is granted preliminary approval
as it meets the criteria for preliminary settlement approval. The
Settlement falls within the range of possible approval as fair,
adequate, and reasonable to all potential members of the Settlement
Class when balanced against the probable outcome of further
litigation and ultimately
relating to liability and damages issues and appears to be the
product of arm's length and informed negotiations.
Phoenix Action Administration Solutions is appointed to act as the
Settlement Administrator, pursuant to the terms set forth in the
Settlement.
Plaintiff Christopher Watkins is appointed as Class Representative,
and the Court preliminarily approves a Case Contribution Payment in
the amount of $15,000.00 to Plaintiff Watkins.
Mark R. Thierman, Joshua Buck and Leah L. Jones of Thierman Buck,
LLP, Chrisitan Gabroy and Kaine Messer of Gabroy Messer Law
Offices, and Lance Hendron of Hendron Law Group, LLC are appointed
Class Counsel, and the Court preliminarily approves their
attorneys' fee request of no more than $500,000.00 and litigation
costs not to exceed $10,000.00.
The Settlement Administrator is directed to mail the approved Class
Notice by first-class mail to members of the respective classes as
soon as possible using best efforts, with the intent of issuing the
Notice Packet to every Class Member by December 26, 2024 such that
all claims must be filed by January 27, 2025.
Thus, a final hearing will be held in Courtroom 5 on March 26,
2025, at 10:00 a.m., to determine: (1) whether the proposed
Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and should be finally
approved by the Court; (2) the amount of attorney's fees and
litigation costs to award to Class Counsel; (3) the amount to be
paid to the Claims Administrator; and (4) the amount of the Case
Contribution Award to the Class Representative. The Court will hear
all evidence and argument necessary to evaluate the Settlement, and
Class Members and their counsel may support, oppose, or comment
upon the Settlement if they so desire, as set forth in the Class
Notice.
All papers filed in support of final approval of the settlement and
response to any objections will be filed no later than February 24,
2025.
A copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RsLwZk
RARE HOSPITALITY: Fails to Pay Server's Minimum Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN PEKARI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. RARE HOSPITALITY INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-05615-SEG
(N.D. Ga., Dec. 6, 2024) contends that the Defendant pays its
servers and bartenders below the federal minimum wage rate by
taking advantage of the tip-credit provision of the Fair Labor
Standards Act's.
The Defendant also maintained a policy and practice whereby tipped
employees were required to perform non-tip producing side work
unrelated to the employees' tipped occupation, the suit alleges.
As a result, the Plaintiff and the Class Members were engaged in
dual occupations while being compensated at the tip credit rate.
While performing these non-tip generating duties, they did not
interact with customers and could not earn tips.
Given that the Defendant failed to comply with the requirements to
take the tip credit, the Defendant has lost the ability to claim
the tip credit and owes the Plaintiff and the Class Members pay at
the full minimum wage rate per hour for all hours they worked for
Defendant, the suit says.
Mr. Pekari worked at the Longhorn Steakhouse in Marietta, Georgia
as a server from March 2020 to August 2022.
The Defendant owns and operates a chain of restaurants nationwide
known as Longhorn Steakhouse.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Arnold J. Lizana, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF ARNOLD J. LIZANA III
1175 Peachtree Street NE, 10th Floor
Atlanta, GA 30361
Telephone: (877) 443-0999
Facsimile: (877) 443-0999
- and -
Don J. Foty, Esq.
Fazila Issa, Esq.
HODGES & FOTY, LLP
2 Greenway Plaza, Suite 250
Houston, TX 770046
Telephone: (713) 523-0001
Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
E-mail: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com
fissa@hftrialfirm.com
REAL PAGE: Faces Class Action Suit Over Rent Fixing
---------------------------------------------------
Angela Hennessy of CBC News reports that a proposed class-action
lawsuit alleges more than a dozen landlords and property managers
have conspired to artificially inflate rents across Canada.
The suit claims landlords and property managers did it by using
software called YieldStar.
The move comes after the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a
similar lawsuit in August against RealPage Inc., the Texas-based
company that created YieldStar.
RealPage says it has filed a motion to dismiss the DOJ's lawsuit
alleging antitrust violations.
The Canadian suit alleges the software essentially allows landlords
and property managers to share proprietary data on their rental
pricing -- information that wouldn't normally be shared with
competitors -- and that this could potentially allow companies to
fix prices.
"It is important to note that all of this still needs to be proven
in court," Adam Tanel, the main litigator on the Canadian case,
told CBC's The National. "But if these allegations are proven in
court, it is absolutely horrendous behaviour."
RealPage, which is also named in the proposed Canadian suit, has
told CBC its software is designed to be "legally compliant" and
that it will "vigorously defend itself" in court.
In response to the proposed suit, the company told CBC in an email
that "RealPage revenue management software has never served more
than 1% of the rental market in Canada."
RealPage has not responded to specific questions about how many
Canadian companies or rental units have been affected by its
software.
Seeking financial compensation
The proposed class action is seeking financial compensation for any
current and past tenants who have lived in any of the properties
owned or operated by the 14 companies named, going back to 2009.
The allegation is they may have overpaid rent as part of this
scheme.
This issued claim is the first step before a class action is
certified in court, which Tanel says is still months away.
CBC found evidence YieldStar has been used in Canada since at least
2017.
The 15 companies named in the proposed suit are:
-- RealPage Inc.
-- Quadreal Property Group
-- Westcorp Property Management Inc.
-- FirstService Residential Management Canada Inc.
-- GWL Realty Advisors Residential Inc.
-- M&R Property Management
-- Rhapsody Property Management Services Limited Partnership
-- Hollyburn Properties Limited
-- Canadian Apartment Properties Real Estate Investment Trust
(CAPREIT)
-- Dream Unlimited Corp.
-- Woodbourne Capital Management International LP
-- RIOCAN Real Estate Investment Trust
-- Choice Properties Real Estate Investment Trust
-- Tricon Residential Canada ULC
-- Associated Property Management (2001) Ltd.
CBC has reached out to the companies named in the suit, but has not
heard back from all of them.
During a CBC investigation in October into the use of YieldStar in
Canada, GWL Realty Advisors -- a division of Canada Life -- said
they had used the software but that "after an internal review"
decided to "terminate the use of YieldStar."
Tricon told CBC they stopped using YieldStar this past summer, and
that it never impacted rents.
Neither company has commented on the proposed class action.
In a previous CBC investigation, Dream Unlimited told CBC they have
never subscribed to YieldStar, but had a property manager who did,
and that they had asked him to stop. They also said the software
never impacted their rents.
Choice Property Real Estate Inc. also told CBC they have never
subscribed to YieldStar, but had worked with a third-party property
manager who did, and have asked them to stop.
Tanel says this distinction is irrelevant.
"From our perspective, a property owner who hires a property
manager that uses YieldStar [means] the property owner is also
liable, because they are one of the beneficiaries of the use of the
product that we say is illegal," Tanel said.
Several other companies -- including Associated Property Management
and M&R Property Management -- have denied any use of the
software.
Canadian Apartments Property REIT (CAPREIT) told CBC in an email,
"We have not, are not, and will never use" Yieldstar, and that it
will be seeking to have this "action dismissed."
Quadreal told CBC it could not comment on a matter before the
courts.
Tanel said as the investigation moves forward, some companies will
likely be added, while others will be taken off the list.
"This is a lawsuit about damages suffered by real people and money
that folks were deprived of if they paid above-market rent as a
result of a non-competitive landlord atmosphere," Tanel said.
'I want justice for renters'
Cynthia Black, the main plaintiff in the proposed class action,
lives in a building in Toronto owned by GWLRA. When she discovered
earlier this year that GWLRA was using YieldStar, she thought
little of it.
But that changed when she heard about the FBI investigation of
RealPage, which alleged the company was involved in collusion,
price-fixing and artificially inflating rents across the U.S., and
led to the DOJ lawsuit.
"I want justice for renters. I want this software and other
software like it to be banned in Canada, and I want retribution for
what has already been lost," Black said.
Tanel said beyond financial compensation, he hopes the suit will
deter landlords from using this or similar software in the Canadian
rental market.
Black, along with dozens of other tenants, has also been pushing
for a Competition Bureau investigation into the use of YieldStar
since the summer.
When CBC asked, the Competition Bureau did not confirm if an
investigation was underway. After this story was published, the
Competition Bureau contacted CBC to say it had begun a preliminary
investigation into "algorithmic pricing in the Canadian real estate
rental market."
"I think use of this software is illegal and should not be allowed
in Canada, and I hope we are able to make a difference," said
Cameron Clark, another GWLRA tenant.
"It feels like it has become impossible to live in Toronto and
across Canada, and the rising rents don't make sense and they
aren't fair." [GN]
RENAL ADVANTAGE: Dela Pena Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------
EUGENE DELA PENA, an individual; on behalf of himself and all
others similarly and the general public, Plaintiff v. RENAL
ADVANTAGE, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 to 100,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CGC-24-618976, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Francisco to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California on December 2, 2024.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:24-cv-08649 to the proceeding.
The case arises from Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Business and Professions Code and the California Labor
Code in connection with unfair business practices and illegal pay
practices.
Based in Waltham, MA, Renal Advantage, Inc. provides outpatient
dialysis services to patients who suffer from chronic kidney
disease. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
David H. Stern, Esq.
Alex E. Spjute, Esq.
Jennifer D. Ghassemi, Esq.
Matthew J. Goodman, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2700
Los Angeles, CA 90067-4301
Telephone: (310) 820-8800
Facsimile: (310) 820-8859
E-mail: dstern@bakerlaw.com
aspjute@bakerlaw.com
jghassemi@bakerlaw.com
mgoodman@bakerlaw.com
RON HIBACHI: Court Approves $500K Class Settlement in Chen Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Pascal of the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey, Camden Vicinage, approves the $500,000
class action settlement in the lawsuit titled DAN DAN CHEN, on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, et al.,
Plaintiffs v. RON HIBACHI GRILL SUPREME BUFFET INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-02591-EAP (D.N.J.).
The matter comes before the Court upon the Plaintiffs' unopposed
Motion for Approval of Settlement, seeking approval of a proposed
settlement that resolves the Plaintiffs' claims for wage-and-hour
claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New
Jersey Wage and Hour Law ("NJWHL"). The Defendants have not opposed
the motion. The Court heard oral argument at a settlement hearing
on Nov. 19, 2024, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
78(a).
The case arises out of Defendant Hibachi Grill & Supreme Buffet's
employment of Plaintiffs Dan Dan Chen, Yan Zhao, Mei Feng Lin, Xue
Ran Huang, and Chujun Zheng, and others similarly situated.
According to the Complaint, Hibachi Grill claims to be the largest
restaurant in Atlantic County offering a wide selection of over two
hundred and fifty buffet items of Chinese, Japanese, American,
Italian, and Mexican cuisines. Hibachi Grill is open seven days a
week from 11:00 a.m. to either 10:00 p.m. or 10:30 p.m. The
Plaintiffs allege that Hibachi Grill and its owners and
operators--Defendants He Ping Chen, Qi Yun Chen, and Yun Qin Li--
hired over twenty employees to operate their buffet restaurant
during the relevant time from February 2016 to April 2023.
The Plaintiffs allege that they worked as servers and waitresses in
the Defendants' Mays Landing, New Jersey restaurant. They were
hired as "tipped workers," who were compensated only by tips from
the restaurant's customers. The Plaintiffs allege that the
Defendants did not pay them wages. Waiting staff also worked a
diverse range of untipped "side works" daily, including washing,
slicing, chopping, and preparing food materials; making dumplings,
soup, and salad; filling and minding the buffet plate[s]; washing
and cleaning dish[es], soda machines, and other dining equipment;
cleaning table[s], chair[s], and dining facilities; and cleaning
bathroom[s] and toilets. The Complaint further asserts that these
"side works" regularly occupied more than two hours of a wait
staff's workday.
The Plaintiffs also allege that the Defendants would take a $10
deduction from each server's daily tips from Sunday to Thursday,
and $15 from each server's tips from Friday to Saturday. The
Complaint states that the Defendants told the Plaintiffs that the
tips were to be shared with a "busboy," even though all the typical
work duties of a busser were carried out by the waiting staff, with
no additional person assisting. In addition, during some of the
relevant time period, the Plaintiffs had no designated mealtime or
uninterrupted break time during the workday, despite often working
more than ten hours per day.
On May 12, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit as a collective
action on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated. They
assert claims for unpaid minimum wages and overtime wages, and
improper retention of tips/gratuities under the New Jersey Wage and
Hour Law (Counts I, II, III) and the Fair Labor Standards Act
(Count IV, V, VI).
Following extensive discovery, the parties engaged in settlement
discussions with the Court throughout September 2024. On Sept. 20,
2024, the parties reached a settlement in principle. Subsequently,
the parties executed a Settlement Agreement and Release, which
resolves the Plaintiffs' individual claims and confirms that they
are settling only in their individual capacities. The settlement
would resolve and dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims.
According to the proposed Settlement Agreement and Release, the
Defendants have agreed to pay $500,000 ("Settlement Amount") to the
five Plaintiffs as compensation for their wage-and-hour claims. The
Defendants will make that payment in eighteen enumerated
installments--with the first installment due on Dec. 1, 2024--in
exchange for the Plaintiffs' dismissal of their claims.
The Settlement Agreement provides for the following allocation of
the $500,000: $164,833.98 for attorneys' fees, $5,496.42 in costs,
and $65,933.92 for distribution to each of the five Plaintiffs. In
addition, the Plaintiffs agree to waive, discharge and release the
Defendants from any wage-and-hour claims related to the Plaintiffs'
respective employment with the Defendants that were alleged in the
Complaint, including claims arising under the FLSA and NJWHL for
unpaid wages, unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime wages,
prejudgment interest, and attorney fees and costs.
On Oct. 22, 2024, the Plaintiffs submitted an unopposed Motion for
Settlement of the matter. On Nov. 19, 2024, the Court held a
settlement hearing via Microsoft Teams and heard oral argument from
the parties on the record in support of the proposed settlement.
Following the hearing, the Plaintiffs submitted a supplemental
declaration in support of their request for costs.
The Plaintiffs now seek approval of their Settlement Agreement with
the Defendants.
The Court finds that the Settlement is fair and reasonable. A bona
fide dispute exists between the parties, the terms of the agreement
are fair and reasonable to the employee Plaintiffs, and the terms
of the Settlement Agreement will not frustrate the implementation
of the FLSA. Accordingly, the Court approves the settlement.
Having thoroughly considered the requested attorneys' fees under
the percentage-of-recovery approach and having cross-checked the
requested fee against the lodestar amount, the Court finds that the
requested fee is fair, reasonable, and commensurate with the amount
of work counsel expended on this litigation. Accordingly, the Court
approves attorneys' fees in the amount of $164,833.98.
The Plaintiffs' counsel seeks reimbursement of $5,496.42 in costs,
consisting of charges for filing, service, copying, transcription,
and Uber fees. Judge Pascal notes that these categories of costs
are typical in FLSA cases, and the Court finds that the amounts
billed are not excessive. The Court, therefore, approves a
reimbursement of $5,496.42 in costs.
For these reasons, the Court finds that the proposed Settlement
Agreement is a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide
dispute over FLSA provisions. The Plaintiffs' counsel's request for
attorneys' fees in the amount of $164,833.98 is appropriate, and
$5,496.42 of the Plaintiffs' counsel's requests for costs is
reasonable and supported by itemized receipts. Accordingly, the
Motion for Settlement is granted and the settlement is approved.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2upfyhft from PacerMonitor.com.
SABA UNIVERSITY: Court Decertifies Class in Ortiz Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
Judge William G. Young of the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts ruled that the class must be decertified
in the case captioned as NATALIA ORTIZ, on behalf of herself and a
class of similarly situated persons, v. SABA UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF
MEDICINE, R3 EDUCATION, INC., Defendants, Case No.
1:23-cv-12002-WGY (D. Mass.) .
The present complaint seeks class treatment for a claim of false
advertising, a type of claim that calls out for class treatment. On
September 17, 2024, the Court held a full hearing addressing the
issue of class certification. In both her brief and at oral
argument, the plaintiff's counsel made a compelling argument
supporting class certification as to liability. Defense counsel
focused on the difficulties in calculating damages and the
concomitant administrative problems in administrating a worldwide
class action.
Natalia Ortiz, a former student of Saba University School of
Medicine, on behalf of herself and all those similarly situated
moved for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(b) (3).
On June 29, 2019, Ortiz sent a "Letter of Intent to Enroll" to R3
Education, Inc. seeking to enroll in Saba University School of
Medicine. Ortiz began classes in September of 2019.
Saba is a for-profit medical school in the Dutch Caribbean,
headquartered in Massachusetts, that caters mainly to students with
comparatively low GPAs and MCAT scores. Generally, the first USMLE
exam, USMLE Step 1, is taken after students complete their basic
science courses in their first two years or five semesters of
medical school, and the series of USMLE exams is required to be
completed in order to obtain a medical license. The overall average
passage rate for first-time USMLE Step 1 test takers from American
and Canadian medical schools was 97% in 2019, 98% in 2020, 96% in
2021, and 93% in 2022.
Ortiz alleges that Saba consistently advertised, since at least
June 2015, that its students' passage rate for the USMLE Step 1 was
95-100%, and that Saba's Director of Admissions stated via e-mail
to Ortiz that "virtually every Saba student passes the USMLE on
their first attempt." Ortiz alleges that this high passage rate was
represented as indicative of the quality of Saba's education, and
that it was due to these high passage rates that she applied to
Saba.
Ortiz soon came to learn that in order for students at Saba to sit
for the USMLE Step 1, they must first achieve a certain score on an
internal Saba University pre-test. This was not something she was
informed about prior to enrolling. On average, only 50% of students
at Saba sit for the USMLE Step 1. In contrast, of students that
matriculated at American medical schools in the period 2017- 2019,
89.3% sat for the USMLE Step 1. Therefore, while an average of
85.6% of students at all American medical schools passed the USMLE
on their first attempt, the vast majority of students sat for it.
In contrast, the near-100% pass rate that Saba advertised was based
on the scores of the around only 50% of its students who sat for
the exam.
Ortiz claims that she would not have taken out hefty student loans
and matriculated at Saba if she had been aware that only half of
Saba's students sat for the USMLE Step 1. After completing her
first five semesters at Saba, Ortiz failed to pass the pre-test
within three attempts and was dismissed in accordance with Saba's
policies.
Ortiz brought this action on behalf of herself and others Similarly
situated, seeking damages from Saba University and other relief
based on the claim that it misled her and other class members
through its advertisements about its near-100% USMLE Step 1 pass
rates while omitting that an average of only 50% of its students
sit for Step 1.
Sensitive to the need—present in every case—to move the case
along, the Court ruled from the bench and tentatively certified the
following class:
All individuals who enrolled at Saba from September 2017 to the
date of the certification order in this matter who: 1) are no
longer enrolled at Saba and 2) did not sit for the USMLE Step 1
exam. Excluded from the Class are: [Students who transferred credit
to another school, or failed to pass a majority of the classes that
they took]; Defendants, any entity in which Defendants have a
controlling interest, and Defendants[‘] officers, directors,
legal representatives, successors, and assigns.
Because the laws of multiple jurisdictions apply to this putative
worldwide class of consumers, the differences in state and national
laws predominate over common issues, leaving the predominance
requirement of 23(b)(3) unsatisfied. As a result, certification of
the nationwide class is precluded, and the class must be
decertified. The Court decertifies the class. Ortiz's motion for
class notice is denied as moot, and Saba's motion to stay
proceedings pending the resolution of the appeal is likewise denied
as moot.
A copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1lb8p4
SAFELITE SOLUTIONS: Correa Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled TONY CORREA, individually, and on behalf of other
members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
SAFELITE FULFILLMENT, INC., a Delaware corporation; SAFELITE
SOLUTIONS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1
through 10, Defendants, Case No. CIVRS2401474, was removed from the
Superior Court for the State of California for the County of San
Bernardino to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on December 2, 2024.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 5:24-cv-02558 to the proceeding.
The case arises from Defendants' alleged failure to pay overtime
compensation pursuant to California Labor Code Sections 510 and
1198.
Headquartered in Columbus, OH, Safelite Fulfillment, Inc. provides
auto glass services including windshield repair and replacement.
[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Jocelyn M. Hoffman, Esq.
Krystal V. Campos, Esq.
VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR AND PEASE LLP
4675 MacArthur Court, Suite 700
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Telephone: (949) 526-7904
Facsimile: (949) 526-7904
E-mail: jmhoffman@vorys.com
kvcampos@vorys.com
SAG-AFTRA HEALTH: Members Sue Over Health Plan Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------
Ted Johnson of DEADLINE reports that two SAG-AFTRA members filed a
class action lawsuit against the SAG-AFTRA Health Plan, claiming
that it failed to make adequate safeguards to prevent a recent data
breach.
The lawsuit was filed on Dec. 5 by members Matthew Rouillard and
Kristy Munden, and seeks class action status.
"SAG Health failed to protect the very customer information it was
entrusted, compromising the personal information of an undisclosed
number of its members," the lawsuit alleged. It was filed in U.S.
District Court in Los Angeles.
The data breach was disclosed on Dec. 2 as SAG-AFTRA Health
notified members of an email phishing attack.
The lawsuit contended that SAG-AFTRA Health "failed to comply with
industry standards to protect information systems that contain
Private Information, and failed to provide timely and adequate
notice to Plaintiffs and other members of the Class that their
Private Information had been accessed and compromised."
The suit claimed that members were hit with "out-of-pocket expenses
associated with preventing, detecting, and remediating identity
theft, social engineering, and other unauthorized use of their
Private Information," as well as other injuries including the
increased risk of fraud and identity theft.
The lawsuit claimed violation of California's unfair competition
law, the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, deceit by
concealment, negligence, breach of express warranty, invasion of
privacy and unjust enrichment.
The litigation is seeking a slate of remedies, including adequate
security protocols and the use of independent third party security
auditors, as well as unspecified actual, statutory and punitive
damages.
The SAG-AFTRA Health Plan, which is separate from the union itself,
said in a statement, "While we are unable to comment on any pending
litigation, protecting the privacy and security of plan
participants' information is a critical priority, and we take this
matter very seriously. Upon discovering unauthorized access to the
contents of a single employee's email account, we immediately
contained and remediated the access and launched an investigation
with the assistance of third-party experts. We sincerely regret any
concern or inconvenience this may have caused and remain committed
to maintaining the trust of our participants." [GN]
SCHWAN'S CONSUMER: Thompson Seeks to Modify Briefing Schedule
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Thompson v. Schwan's
Consumer Brands Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-00831-CM (S.D.N.Y.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order modifying briefing
schedule as follows:
-- The Plaintiff's Expert Report and Motion March 26, 2025
for Class Certification to be due by:
-- The Defendant's Expert Report and Opposition April 30, 2025
for Class Certification to be due by:
Schwan's manufactures and markets food products.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 10, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uTaSSL at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES P.C.
60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412
Great Neck NY 11021
Telephone: (516) 268-7080
Facsimile: (516) 234-7800
E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com
SEBASTIAN'S PIZZERIA: Seeks Conditional Certification of Collective
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as VALENTINA VELEVA, on
behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. SEBASTIAN'S
PIZZERIA INC. d/b/a LAZZARA'S PIZZA, SEBASTIAN LAZZARA, and TONY
LAZZARA, Case No. 1:24-cv-04930-MKV (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks
the Court to enter an order granting motion for conditional
certification of a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective.
Sebastian's is an Italian/pizza restaurant.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 11, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LzwMJ5 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael DiGiulio, Esq.
JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP
32 Broadway, Suite 601
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 688-5640
Facsimile: (212) 688-2548
SHARI'S MANAGEMENT: Former Employees File Suit Over Sudden Layoffs
------------------------------------------------------------------
Debbie Cockrell, writing for The News Tribune, reports that a
once-prolific but now much-reduced Northwest restaurant chain is
the focus of two class-action lawsuits involving former employees
as well as job applicants. The corporate entities tied to ownership
of Shari's Cafe & Pies, with just a handful of locations remaining,
are the focus of the two cases, one filed in Washington state and
the other in Oregon.
The Washington case involves allegations of past job postings that
ran afoul of salary and benefits information requirements, while
the Oregon case is tied to the sudden layoffs and closures of
Shari's Oregon properties. Attempts to reach Shari's corporate
legal department for comment on the cases were unsuccessful. An
auto-reply generated by the email listed in its corporate filings
with Washington state noted the recipient was "no longer at the
company" and referred inquiries to other unrelated departments.
Oregon lawsuit The most recent of the two lawsuits was filed in
November against Shari's Management Corporation, Gather Holdings,
LLC, and Gather Holdings Guarantee, LLC, following the mass closing
of the Oregon restaurants in October. The case, filed by attorneys
for former Shari's employee Heidi Woebbeking of Portland, contends
she was "terminated without cause and did not receive 60 days'
notice of her termination."
At the time of her employment, she was working at the chain's
Grant's Pass restaurant. "On or about October 20, 2024, Defendants
unceremoniously informed all employees (including Woebbeking) at
her restaurant, that their jobs would be immediately terminated as
of that same day," the filing states. "Defendants not only failed
to provide any advance notice, but they also failed to pay out the
full amount of (Woebbeking's) and the putative class's final
paychecks," according to the filing.
The lawsuit contends that the chain violated terms of the federal
Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, which requires
employers to give a 60-day notice to affected employees as well as
state and local representatives "prior to a plant closing or mass
layoff," as described at the state's WARN Act Notifications site
online. According to the lawsuit, the layoffs affected "at least 50
employees," though it is unclear the total number of workers who
lost jobs. The lawsuit seeks to cover all Shari's employees
terminated in a span of three months. "Within 90 days of October
20, 2024, upon information and belief, Defendants abruptly
terminated employees across all locations in Oregon, unilaterally
and without proper notice to employees or staff, terminating over
50 employees and at least 33% of active full-time employees,
including Plaintiff," it states. The lawsuit calls for "back pay to
the fullest extent permitted by the WARN Act" along with
compensation for lost benefits as well as litigation costs and
attorney fees and seeks a jury trial. Woebbeking's attorney did not
respond to a News Tribune request for comment on the case.
The Oregon closures as previously reported appeared to be tied to
debt owed the Oregon Lottery for video lottery-gaming machines,
which had been an extra revenue stream at its restaurants in that
state. Melanie Mesaros, media representative for the Oregon
Lottery, told The News Tribune the week of Dec. 8, in response to
questions, "No payments have been made. The outstanding debt amount
is the same as what we previously shared: $905,164.67." The
closures marked an end of an era for the chain that originally
launched in 1978 in Hermiston, Oregon. At the time of the closures,
Shari's had 42 sites remaining in the state. Washington lawsuit A
separate class-action lawsuit against Shari's Management Corp. and
10 unidentified parties was filed June 14 in Pierce County Superior
Court, later removed to federal court. In that case, Mary Turner of
Puyallup and Tyler Crutchfield of Olympia contend that Shari's
violated regulations regarding the state's wage-transparency
requirements.
Turner applied for work in February 2024 and Crutchfield applied in
April, according to the initial filing. The complaint contends the
parent company engaged in "a systematic scheme of failing to
include the wage scale, salary range, and/or a general description
of all benefits and other compensation to be offered in job
openings," going back to January 2023. That's when new regulations
took effect in Washington state regarding the disclosure of salary
and benefits information required in employment listings for
employers with 15 or more workers. "Plaintiffs applied for the jobs
in good faith with the genuine intent of gaining employment and, as
such, became personally exposed to risk of harm caused by
Defendant's violations," the filing states. "Plaintiffs seek to
represent a class of all individuals who, from January 1, 2023
through the present applied for a job in the State of Washington
with Defendant, where the job posting did not disclose the wage
scale or salary range for the position."
The lawsuit in July was removed to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington at Tacoma. In a response to the
complaint filed in July, attorneys representing Shari's Management
issued a general denial off all listed allegations in the
complaint, argued against the case's merits as a class action, and
stated, among other defenses, that "Plaintiffs have failed to state
a claim for which relief can be granted. Plaintiffs lack standing
as they have not suffered an injury-in-fact." On Nov. 26, the
attorneys for Shari's Management Corp. filed a motion to withdraw
from the case, "due to a substantial open balance," owed to the law
firm. "Defendant is unable to continue paying for legal
representation in defense of the claims," the filing stated, adding
that there would be plenty of time to retain new counsel before the
start of private mediation, "currently scheduled for January 9." It
noted that Shari's Management also was advised "that if no new
counsel were engaged to enter an appearance, the Court may enter a
default judgment on any claims Plaintiffs have against Defendant."
As reported in September by The News Tribune, the restaurant
chain's corporate ownership has faced delinquent tax debt with the
states of Washington and Idaho as well as numerous eviction notices
and debt collection cases, including in Pierce County, over unpaid
rent.
Mikhail Carpenter, communications manager with the Washington State
Department of Revenue, told The News Tribune on Dec. 10 that there
have been no additional tax warrants issued against Shari's, but
also no payoffs on existing warrants with the state. [GN]
SKATIE LLC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Crumwell Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DENISE CRUMWELL, on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SKATIE, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-09203(S.D.N.Y., December 2, 2024) arises from Defendant's
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive
website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by
Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons.
During Plaintiff’s visits to the Defendant's website, the last
occurring on November 20, 2024, in an attempt to purchase products
available online from Defendant and to view the information on the
website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks redress for Defendant's
unlawful conduct and asserts claims for violations of the Americans
with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the
New York City Human Rights Law.
Headquartered in Culver City, CA, Skatie, LLC operates the Skatie
online interactive website and retail store across the United
States. Its website offers goods and services including information
about Defendant's: bikinis, tops, bottoms, one pieces, and active
wear. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
SPORTS RESEARCH: Settlement in Capaci Suit Gets Final Court Nod
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Fernando M. Olguin of the United States District Court for
the Central District of California granted the plaintiff's motion
for final approval of class action settlement and motion for
attorneys' fees, costs, and incentive award in the case captioned
as FRANK CAPACI, et al., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SPORTS RESEARCH CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. CV 19-3440 FMO (PDx) (C.D. Calif.).
Cynthia Ford, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, filed the operative Second Amended Complaint against
Sports Research Corporation asserting claims for:
(1) violations of California's Unfair Competition Law,
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 17200, et seq.;
(2) violations of California's False Advertising Law,
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 17500, et seq.;
(3) violations of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Cal.
Civ. Code Sec. 1750, et seq.;
(4) breach of express warranty, Cal. Com. Code Sec. 2313(1);
(5) breach of implied warranty, Cal. Com. Code Sec. 2314; and
(6) negligent misrepresentation.
Plaintiff alleges that SR markets 'Sports Research Garcinia
Cambogia', a dietary supplement that Defendant falsely claims is an
effective aid in 'weight management' and 'appetite control,'
despite the fact that the Product's only purportedly active
ingredients, Hydroxycitric Acid and extra virgin organic coconut
oil, are scientifically proven to be incapable of providing such
weight loss benefits.
On April 14, 2022, the court granted in part and denied in part
plaintiff's motion for class certification. On March 26, 2023, the
court denied defendant's motion for reconsideration regarding the
class certification order, and plaintiff's motion for attorney's
fee, costs, and sanctions. On July 21, 2023, the court approved
plaintiff's proposed class notice and notice plan. On August 4,
2023, defendant filed a motion for class decertification, which was
stricken for failure to comply with the Court's Order. A deadline
to file another motion for decertification was also set.
On August 24, 2023, plaintiff filed a motion to strike documents
not disclosed during discovery, and a motion for attorney's fees
and costs. Before the motions were decided, the parties reached a
settlement.
The parties have defined the settlement class as "all persons who
purchased Sports Research Garcinia Cambogia labeled 'weight
management,' 'appetite suppression,' and/or 'appetite control' in
the United States on or after April 26, 2015 and until the date
preliminary approval is granted for personal or household use and
not for resale, and who did not receive a refund or return the
Product." The settlement class differed from the previously
certified classes (a nationwide class and a California sub-class)
by collapsing them into single class and by modifying the
definition of the Product to include the label statement, "appetite
control."
Pursuant to the settlement, defendant will pay a non-reversionary
gross settlement amount of $1.6 million, which will be used to pay
class members, administration costs, attorney's fees and expenses,
and an incentive payment for plaintiff. The Settlement Agreement
provides for up to one-third of the settlement consideration in
attorney's fees; costs not to exceed $150,000; and an incentive
award of $5,000 for plaintiff. The settlement administrator,
Classaura Class Action Administration, will be paid no more than
$150,000.
Class members that submit valid claim forms will receive up to
$20.00 in cash irrespective of the size or quantity of the Product
purchased. Beyond the completed claim form, no additional proof of
purchase will be required. The actual amount paid to class members
will depend on the number of valid claims. If the amount of valid
claims exceeds the amount of the settlement fund, each cash payment
"will be reduced pro rata until the funds remaining in the
[s]ettlement [f]und are exhausted." If the amount of valid claims
does not exhaust the settlement fund, the payment to class members
will increase pro rata.
In addition to monetary relief, the settlement provides that
defendant "will agree to discontinue selling the Product with
labels that contain the statements 'weight management support,'
'appetite suppression,' and/or 'appetite control' for a period of
five years from the Court's entry of the Final Order and Judgment."
Defendant "estimates" that it has spent approximately $50,000 to
remove such labeling statements from the Product's labels.
On June 10, 2024, the court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement, appointed Classaura as the settlement administrator,
and directed Classaura to provide notice to the class. Classaura
implemented the notice program approved by the court. As of
September 19, 2024, Classaura had not received any requests for
exclusion, and no objections have been submitted.
Plaintiff now seeks: (1) final approval of the settlement; (2)
attorney's fees and costs; and (3) an incentive payment for
plaintiff.
The court finds that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and
adequate, and not the product of collusion.
The court is persuaded that an award of one third ($550,000) of the
settlement consideration is reasonable.
The court finds that the costs incurred by class counsel over the
course of this litigation are reasonable, and therefore awards a
total of $131,810.76 in costs.
Based on its review of the record, the court determined that a
service award of $5,000 to plaintiff was reasonable. The court sees
no reason to depart from its previous determination.
A copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lGhquH
SRP FEDERAL: Chimicles Probes Potential Data Breach Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chimicles Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith is investigating a
potential class action relating to a data breach incident involving
SRP Federal Credit Union ("SRP"), a financial institution based out
of North Augusta, ME. The Company confirmed an estimated 240,742
individuals had their information taken in a data breach incident
according to a filing with the Maine Attorney General.
What Happened at SRP?
On or around November 22, 2024, SRP discovered that an unauthorized
user had gained access to its system. In response, the Company
hired a third-party cybersecurity forensics agency to conduct a
thorough investigation and ascertain the scope of the potential
data security incident.
The investigation confirmed that the personally identifying
information of an estimated 240,742 individuals was compromised
including, but not limited to: name and government-issued photo
identification.
Why is it Important to you?
The data breach, if confirmed, could have severe implications for
the affected users, leading to potential identity theft, financial
fraud, and further cyber attacks. The hacker group’s bold move to
put this data on sale goes on to show the growing menace of
cybercrime and the increasing sophistication of these cyber
adversaries. [GN]
STAKE CENTER: Bid to Extend Time Referred to Magistrate Judge
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Holtsclaw v. Stake Center
Locating, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-00490 (D. Colo., Filed Feb. 20,
2024), the Hon. Judge Regina M. Rodriguez entered an order
referring joint motion for Extension of Time to File for Class
Certification filed by Brian Holtsclaw, to Magistrate Judge Susan
Prose.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
involving minimum wage or overtime compensation.
Stake Center provides utility locating services for gas, power,
communications, cable, and large fiber optic networks to ensure
safe excavation.[CC]
SUN COMMUNITIES: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder
rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed against Sun Communities ("SUI" or the "Company") (NYSE: SUI)
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired SUI securities between February 28, 2019 and
September 24, 2024, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").
Investors have until February 10, 2025 to apply to the Court to be
appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.
The complaint alleges that defendants provided investors with
material information concerning SUI's accounting practices and
internal control over financial reporting. On September 24, 2024,
after market close, an investment research report emerged calling
into question the integrity of SUI's Board and the integrity of the
Company's governance, controls, and financial disclosures.
Investors and analysts reacted immediately to SUI's revelation. The
price of SUI's common stock declined dramatically. From a closing
market price of $139.10 per share on September 24, 2024, SUI's
stock price fell to a low of $137.48 per share on September 25,
2024.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired SUI shares and suffered a
loss, are a long-term stockholder, have information, would like to
learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning
this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Brandon Walker or Marion Passmore by email
at investigations@bespc.com, telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by
filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to
you.
About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in commercial,
securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and
federal courts across the country. For more information about the
firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Contact Information:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Marion Passmore, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]
SUNDANCE HOLDINGS: Loses Bid to Dismiss Arnstein, et al. Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chief Judge Robert J. Shelby of the United States District Court
for the District of Utah denied the defendant's motion to dismiss
the first amended complaint in the case captioned as SHANNON
ARNSTEIN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SUNDANCE HOLDINGS GROUP, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-00344-RJS-DAO (D. Utah).
Sundance, a specialty retailer, sells clothing and household
products through catalogs and a website. It maintains a database of
customer information, including names, addresses, and purchase
histories (Private Purchase Information). To boost revenue,
Sundance shares this data with aggregators who enhance it with
additional details like gender, age, religion, and ethnicity.
Sundance then rents, sells, and discloses the original and enhanced
customer lists to various third parties, including advertisers,
data brokers, and organizations.
Between 2004 and 2024, each named Plaintiff purchased products from
Sundance by placing orders on Sundance's website. Sundance
completed the sales by shipping the products to each Plaintiff from
a location within Utah. Sundance failed to notify Plaintiffs that
it would disclose Plaintiffs' Private Purchase Information, and
Plaintiffs never authorized Sundance to do so. At times, Sundance
shared Plaintiffs' Private Purchase Information with various third
parties for compensation.
Plaintiffs initiated this proposed class action in May 2024,
alleging Sundance violated Utah's Notice of Intent to Sell
Nonpublic Personal Information Act (NISNPIA). In July 2024,
Sundance filed the present Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Plaintiffs allege Sundance violated NISNPIA by sharing their
Private Purchase Information without notice and claim subject
matter jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) due
to a class size exceeding 100 members, a controversy exceeding $5
million, and minimum diversity. Sundance seeks dismissal, arguing
that NISNPIA’s class action bar prevents meeting CAFA's
amount-in-controversy requirement, eliminating jurisdiction.
Additionally, Sundance contends the complaint fails to state a
valid NISNPIA claim, as Plaintiffs offer only conclusory assertions
that Sundance sold their data.
The court disagrees with Sundance. The court finds Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs the issue of whether
Plaintiffs may proceed as a class and ultimately establish
diversity jurisdiction. It also finds Plaintiffs adequately pleaded
a claim for relief under NISNPIA pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).
A copy of the Court's Memorandum Decision and Order dated November
25, 2024, is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OChi9w
SUNNOVA ENERGY: Court Refuses to Remand Almadani Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Monica Ramirez Almadani denied plaintiff's motion to
remand and amendment to the motion to remand in the case captioned
as Jose Martinez v. Sunnova Energy Corporation, et al, Case No.
2:24-cv-06346-MRA-MAR (C.D. Calif.).
Plaintiff Jose Martinez filed this putative class action against
Defendant Sunnova Corporation on June 26, 2024, in Los Angeles
County Superior Court. Martinez, who worked for Sunnova as an
hourly, non-exempt solar technician, alleges that Sunnova violated
the California Labor Code and engaged in unfair business practices
stemming from its purported failure to pay overtime compensation,
provide meal breaks and rest periods, pay minimum wage, provide
accurate wage statements, maintain accurate time and payroll
records, reimburse necessary business-related expenses, and pay
reporting wages.
On July 26, 2024, Defendant removed this action to federal court
based on diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec.
1332(a).
Plaintiff filed the instant Motion, arguing that Defendant has not
established that the amount in controversy exceeds the
jurisdictional minimum, $75,000. Defendant filed an Opposition to
the Motion on September 12, 2024, and Plaintiff filed a Reply on
September 19, 2024. The District Court held a hearing on October 3,
2024.
In its analysis, the District Court does not consider Plaintiffs'
minimum wage, reimbursement, and unfair business practices claims
because Defendant did not include these claims as part of its
amount-in-controversy allegations in the Notice of Removal. It
also adopts Plaintiffs' concessions in his Reply. Plaintiff
concedes that the amount in controversy as to his overtime wage
claim, based on a pro rata hourly rate of $58.77, is at least
$9,146.57. He also concedes that the amount in controversy as to
his wait-time claim pursuant to California Labor Code sections
201-203 is at least $11,880.
The District Court finds that Plaintiff's meal and rest break
claims have placed $52,266.12 in controversy.
It also finds Plaintiff's claim for wages not timely paid during
employment puts at least an additional $21,528.85 in controversy.
Because Plaintiff could recover the statutory maximum,
notwithstanding any affirmative defense raised by Defendant, the
District Court determines that the amount in controversy as to
Plaintiff's wage statement claim is $4,000.
Because Plaintiff has not provided any estimate of total damages
for the purported class, the District Court finds that it is
reasonable to use the amount of Plaintiff's alleged damages to
calculate his proportional share of the fee award. In this case,
the amount of Plaintiff's individual claims is at least $94,821.54.
Both parties assume a class of 100 members. Assuming Plaintiff's
individual claims are proportional to the remainder of the class,
the total class-wide damages amount is $9,482,154. The attorneys'
fees award attributable to Plaintiff is therefore $23,705.39.
The District Court finds that Defendant has demonstrated by a
preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy
exceeds $75,000. Therefore, the Motion is denied.
A copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2bCAqn
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Court Certifies Overtime Pay Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Fisher, writing for Land Line, reports that a federal court
has granted class-action status to a lawsuit accusing Swift
Transportation of failing to provide overtime pay to employee
drivers who live in Washington state.
Judge Robert J. Bryan of the Western District of Washington federal
court approved the class-action lawsuit on Monday, Dec. 9. The
lawsuit was filed by David Carlson, a Swift driver accusing the
mega carrier of violating Washington state overtime pay laws.
Washington state law requires companies to pay employees 1.5 times
their regular rate for time worked beyond 40 hours a week. However,
an exemption applies to interstate truck drivers if the
"compensation system" is "reasonably equivalent" to that overtime
pay requirement.
Like most truck drivers, Swift employee drivers are paid on a
per-mile or per-delivery basis each week. Pay is based on hours
recorded as on-duty (not driving) or driving. Drivers are eligible
for detention time pay, as well as stop pay for making additional
stops during a trip.
Swift notes in court documents that considering truckers typically
work more than 40 hours a week, it sets its mileage-based pay rate
to include overtime compensation. What is considered overtime
compensation is the heart of the case.
Reasonable equivalence
Washington state law requires motor carriers to pay truck drivers a
"reasonable equivalence" of the general overtime pay of 1.5 times
the base pay rate.
Swift is pointing to similar cases that found that state law does
not require an additional or separate rate of pay. Rather,
compensation for expected overtime can be baked into truckers'
per-mile rate. But what is the base rate of pay from which that is
calculated?
According to court documents submitted by Swift, the Washington
Department of Labor and Industries has accepted the hourly rate
trucking companies pay their local or short-haul drivers as the
base rate of pay when evaluating whether a compensation system like
a mileage rate satisfies the "reasonable equivalence" requirement.
Regardless, court precedent established that a carrier does not
need to establish a separate base pay rate for non-overtime work.
That same case also found that drivers are not entitled to be
notified about the baked-in overtime pay and that the base pay rate
can be established retroactively.
Plaintiffs cite a different case that found that state law
"mandates that truck drivers must obtain extra compensation for
hours worked over 40 hours per week." They claim Swift admits
drivers are not given extra pay above their trip pay or beyond 40
hours a week. However, Swift counterargues that "extra
compensation" means either actual overtime pay or the reasonable
equivalent.
What time is compensable?
There is also the question of what is considered "hours worked?"
State law defines "hours worked" as "all hours during which the
employee is authorized or required by the employer to be on duty on
the employer's premises or at a prescribed workplace." Swift argues
that drivers are paid for hours logged as "on duty" or "driving,"
thus satisfying state law.
Plaintiffs point to a Department of Labor clarification expanding
on that definition to include "all work requested, suffered,
permitted, or allowed while on duty on the employer's premises or
at a prescribed workplace, and includes travel time, training and
meeting time, wait time, on-call time, preparatory and concluding
time, and may include meal periods." It also includes "time spent
driving a company-provided vehicle."
According to documents submitted by Swift, the drivers are claiming
all time spent away from home, including sleeper berth time, should
be calculated as hours worked. The carrier points out that during
all off-duty or sleeper berth time, drivers are not required or
expected to respond to company messages or calls. Drivers are not
required to sleep in the sleeper berth, either. Both of those
policies suggest the company has no control over drivers during
those times.
Last year, the First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that trucking
companies must pay team drivers for time spent in sleeper berths in
excess of eight hours. However, Washington state falls under the
jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit.
'Washington-based' drivers
Lastly, there's an issue of who is considered a "Washington-based"
Swift driver.
Court precedent states that Washington's wage laws apply to
"Washington-based" interstate truck drivers. One case rejected the
idea that a driver's mere residence in Washington renders them
Washington-based.
How a court defines "Washington-based" could tip the scales in
favor of Swift.
The carrier points out that drivers who live in Washington spend
the vast majority of their time outside of the Evergreen State. On
top of that, most drivers that live in Washington are assigned a
home terminal in either Lewiston, Idaho, or Troutdale, Ore. Neither
of those states have overtime pay laws similar to Washington,
creating a conflict when deciding which state law controls in this
case.
Drivers point to a four-prong test to determine which state has
controlling power:
1. Place where the injury occurred
2. Place where the conduct causing the injury occurred
3. Domicile, residence, nationality, place of incorporation
and place of business of the parties
4. Place where the relationship, if any, between the parties
is centered
They argue the first two have minimal weight, whereas the third
prong is more significant. Therefore, the residence of the Swift
drivers moves the case to use Washington state law.
Also, Washington has a unique law requiring out-of-state companies
to pay workers residing in the state according to the state's wage
and hour laws. Therefore, when the relationship is centered in
Washington, the interests and public policies of Washington
override those of other states.
With class certification granted, the case will proceed and apply
to all truck drivers employed by Swift who have been Washington
residents at any time since April 21, 2020.
GOT Truckers Act
A bill currently floating around in Congress could end any
confusion related to overtime pay for truck drivers.
The GOT Truckers Act would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938 to require that truckers receive overtime compensation when
they work more than 40 hours in a week.
Although the bill would apply only to company drivers, the
Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association contends that
forcing shippers and receivers to value a trucker's time would
create change throughout the industry.
"America's truckers keep our nation's economy moving, and without
the hard work of these men and women, our supply chain would grind
to a halt," OOIDA President Todd Spencer said. "Unbelievably,
trucking is one of the only professions in America that is denied
guaranteed overtime pay. We are way past due as a nation in valuing
the sacrifices that truckers make every single day. This starts
with simply paying truckers for all of the time they work."
As of Thursday, Dec. 12, the House version introduced by Rep.
Jefferson Van Drew, R-N.J., has three co-sponsors, including two
Democrats and one Republican. The Senate version introduced by Sen.
Alex Padilla, D-Calif., has five co-sponsors.
To ask your lawmaker to endorse the GOT Truckers Act, go to
FightingForTruckers.com. [GN]
SYNTA TECHNOLOGY: Agrees to Settle Market Monopoly Suit for $32MM
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Star reports that a settlement has been proposed by the
Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit against
Synta Technology Corp. of Taiwan; Suzhou Synta Optical Technology
Co. Ltd.; Nantong Schmidt Opto-Electrical Technology Co. Ltd.;
Synta Canada International Enterprises Ltd.; Pacific Telescope
Corp.; Olivon Manufacturing Co. Ltd.; SW Technology Corporation;
Celestron Acquisition, LLC; Olivon, USA LLC; Dar Tson ("David")
Shen; Joseph Lupica; Dave Anderson; Jean Shen; Sylvia Shen; Jack
Chen; Laurence Huen; and Corey Lee ("Settling Defendants and
Co-Conspirators"). The other, non-settling, defendants or
co-conspirators are Ningbo Sunny Electronic Co. Ltd.; Sunny Optical
Technology Co., Ltd.; Meade Instruments Corp.; Sunny Optics Inc.;
Wenjun "Peter" Ni; and Wenjian Wang (collectively, "Non-Settling
Defendants and Co-Conspirators"). The lawsuit claims defendants and
co-conspirators (1) unlawfully divided the consumer telescopes
market and fixed prices for consumer telescopes, and (2) unlawfully
attempted to monopolize and conspired to monopolize the consumer
telescope market in the United States. The settlement resolves the
Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs' claims against the Settling
Defendants and Co-Conspirators only.
Who is included? The settlement includes all persons and entities
in the Indirect Purchaser States who, from January 1, 2005 to
September 6, 2023, purchased one or more Telescopes from a
distributor (or from any entity other than a defendant) that any
defendant or alleged co-conspirator manufactured ("Settlement Class
Members"). "Indirect Purchaser States" include Arizona, Arkansas,
California, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii,
Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,
Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire,
New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode
Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont,
West Virginia, and Wisconsin.
"Telescopes" refers to optical instruments that magnify and enhance
the view of faraway objects, and does not include other optical
instruments not marketed as telescopes, such as binoculars, siting
scopes, microscopes, etc. Typically, such telescopes were branded
Celestron, Orion, Skywatcher, Zhumell, or Meade.
What does the settlement provide? The Settling Defendants have
agreed to create a $32,000,000 settlement fund to provide cash
payments to Settlement Class Members who submit a valid Claim
Form.
What are my options? You may (1) participate in the settlement and
receive your portion of the settlement fund, (2) request to exclude
yourself from the settlement, or (3) object to the settlement.
Participate in the Settlement. If you wish to participate in the
settlement and receive your portion of the settlement fund, you
must complete and submit a Claim Form by May 20, 2025. Claim Forms
are available and may be filed online at
www.telescopesettlement.com. You can also visit the website to have
a paper Claim Form mailed to you. A claim may be made regardless of
whether you purchased a telescope manufactured by a Settling
Defendant or a Non-Settling Defendant or Co-Conspirator.
Exclude Yourself from the Settlement. If you do not want to be
legally bound by the settlement, you must exclude yourself by
February 13, 2025. Unless you exclude yourself from the settlement,
you will not be able to bring your own lawsuit against the Settling
Defendants and Co-Conspirators for any claim released by the
settlement agreement. Instructions on how to exclude yourself from
the settlement are available at www.telescopesettlement.com.
Object to the Settlement. If you wish to object to the settlement,
you must file or mail a written objection to the Clerk of the
Court. If you wish to appear at the Court hearing to determine the
fairness of the settlement, you must notify the Court that you or
your lawyer intend to appear at the Court's fairness hearing.
Objections must be filed or postmarked by February 13, 2025.
Instructions on how to object to the settlement are available at
www.telescopesettlement.com.
The Court's Fairness Hearing. The Court will hold a fairness
hearing in this case (In Re Telescopes Antitrust Litig. Indirect
Purchaser Actions, No. 5:20-cv-03639-EJD) on April 3, 2025, at 9:00
a.m. At this hearing, the Court will decide whether to approve: (1)
the settlement; (2) Interim Co-Lead Counsel's request for up to
$10.66 million in attorneys' fees along with proportional interest
that accumulates on the settlement fund; (3) Interim Co-Lead
Counsel's request for reimbursement of litigation expenses not to
exceed $1.5 million; and (3) a $3,000 service award for each named
class representative. You may appear at the hearing, but you do not
have to. You also may hire your own attorney, at your own expense,
to appear or speak for you at the hearing.
Want more information? Visit www.telescopesettlement.com, email
admin@telescopesettlement.com, call 1-833-419-3506 or write to
Telescopes Antitrust Litigation Settlement Administrator, P.O. Box
301172, Los Angeles, CA 90030-1172. [GN]
THOMSON REUTERS: Claims Filing Deadline Extended to December 27
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Baker, writing for KGET.com reports that the deadline for
current and former California residents to file for a claim in a
$27.5 million class action lawsuit against Thomson Reuters has been
extended. The settlement against the media giant was first
announced back in October.
It was pertaining to a lawsuit filed in 2020 by East Bay activist
Cat Brooks and Oakland-based journalist Rasheed Shabazz in
connection to Thomson Reuters' CLEAR platform. CLEAR is an online
investigative software platform -- not to be confused with the
airport security system of the same name -- the company markets to
governments and law enforcement.
According to a 2022 complaint filed by Shabazz and Brooks, the news
agency leveraged CLEAR to make money by collecting "a vast quantity
of photos, identifying information, and personal data of American
consumers, including Californians, without their consent.” The
complaint also alleges Thomson Reuters sold that information to
"corporations, law enforcement, and government agencies.”
The privacy settlement is open to any adults who resided in
California between Dec. 3, 2016 and Oct. 31, 2024. Individual
payments for those who file a claim are expected to be between $19
to $48, according to law group handling the settlement.
The initial deadline was set for Dec. 6. However, that deadline has
been extended to Dec. 27.[GN]
TMC THE METALS CO: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set January 7
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, is
investigating potential claims against TMC the metals company Inc
("TMC" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: TMC) and reminds investors of the
January 7, 2025 deadline to seek the role of lead plaintiff in a
federal securities class action that has been filed against the
Company.
Faruqi & Faruqi is a leading national securities law firm with
offices in New York, Pennsylvania, California and Georgia. The firm
has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors since
its founding in 1995. See www.faruqilaw.com.
As detailed below, the complaint alleges that the Company and its
executives violated federal securities laws by making false and/or
misleading statements and/or failing to disclose that: (1) TMC
maintained deficient internal controls over financial reporting;
(2) as a result, the Company inaccurately classified the sale of
future revenue attributable to the LCR Partnership as deferred
income rather than debt; (3) the foregoing misclassification, when
it became known, would require TMC to restate one or more of its
previously issued financial statements; and (4) as a result,
Defendants' public statements were materially false and/or
misleading at all relevant times.
On March 25, 2024, TMC disclosed in a filing with the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission that the Company's financial
statements for the first three quarters of 2023 "should be restated
and, accordingly, should no longer be relied upon", citing the
"re-evaluat[ion of] whether the offsetting entry to the proceeds it
received from LCR should be classified as debt or deferred income."
Further, TMC explained that, "[a]s the transaction with LCR was
considered an equity investment rather than a sale transaction, the
sale of future revenue will be reclassified as Royalty liability"
per appropriate accounting standards.
On this news, TMC's stock price fell $0.205 per share, or 13.23%,
to close at $1.345 per share on March 26, 2024.
The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the largest
financial interest in the relief sought by the class who is
adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees the
litigation on behalf of the putative class. Any member of the
putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member. Your ability to share in any
recovery is not affected by the decision to serve as a lead
plaintiff or not.
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information TMC's
conduct to contact the firm, including whistleblowers, former
employees, shareholders and others.
To learn more about the TMC class action, go to
www.faruqilaw.com/TMC or call Faruqi & Faruqi partner Josh Wilson
directly at 877-247-4292 or 212-983-9330 (Ext. 1310). [GN]
TORONTO-DOMINION BANK: Dec. 21 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as James Tiessen, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, -v- The
Toronto-Dominion Bank, Bharat B. Masrani, Leovigildo Salom,
Riaz E. Ahmed, and Kelvin Vi Luan Tran, Defendants, Case No.
24-CV-8032 (AS) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Arun Subramanian of the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York has
given the purported class until December 21, 2024, to move the
court to serve as lead plaintiff.
On October 22, 2024, Plaintiff filed a class action lawsuit on
behalf of purchasers of The Toronto-Dominion Bank securities
between February 29, 2024 and October 9, 2024. The complaint
alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder.
Under the PSLRA, Section 78u-4(a)(3)(A), plaintiffs in securities
class actions must publish notice of the lawsuit in a national
business publication or wire service within 20 days of filing the
complaint, informing potential class members of the case, claims,
and class period. Class members have 60 days from the notice date
to request to serve as lead plaintiff. The court must appoint a
lead plaintiff within 90 days, selecting the individual or group
best suited to represent the class. If multiple related actions are
filed, the court must decide on consolidation before appointing a
lead plaintiff.
Plaintiff's counsel notified the Court that the required notice was
published on October 22, 2024. Members of the purported class
therefore have until December 21, 2024 to move the Court to serve
as lead plaintiffs. It is further ordered that opposition to any
motion for appointment of lead plaintiff shall be served and filed
by January 6, 2025.
Finally, it is ordered that a conference shall be held on January
15, 2025, at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 15A of the Daniel Patrick
Moynihan Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007, to
consider any motions for appointment of lead plaintiff and lead
counsel and for consolidation.
If an amended complaint or a related case is filed prior to
appointment of a lead plaintiff, Plaintiff's counsel shall, within
one week, submit a letter to the Court identifying any differences
between the allegations in the new complaint(s) and the allegations
in the original complaint (including but not limited to any
differences in the claims asserted and the relevant class periods)
and showing cause why the Court should not order republication of
notice under the PSLRA and set a new deadline for the filing of
motions for appointment.
A copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ycV9fD
TOYOTA MOTOR: Daley et al. Sue Over Alleged Engine Defect
---------------------------------------------------------
TOM DALEY, MARTHY HOLSTIEN, and TERRANCE REGAN, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TOYOTA MOTOR
NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-01318-mkl (D.
Vt., December 2, 2024) arises from Defendant's failure to warn
Plaintiffs and class members about engine defect of its model year
2022-2024 Toyota Tundra and Toyota Tundra hybrid vehicles.
The engines in the said vehicles suffer from a serious defect which
causes them to stall and, in some cases, fail completely.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs bring this action to seek damages for
Toyota's breach of implied warranties, consumer fraud and
omissions, unjust enrichment, and violations of state consumer
protection laws. They also seek declaratory and injunctive relief
to address Toyota's ongoing misconduct.
Headquartered in Plano, TX, Toyota Motor North America, Inc. is the
American subsidiary of Toyota Motor Corporation. The company is
responsible for sales, marketing, service, distribution, import,
and export of Toyota branded products throughout the United States.
[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joshua . Simonds, Esq.
THE URLINGTON LAW PRACTICE, PLLC
2 Church Street, Suite 2G
Burlington, VT 05401
Telephone: (802) 651-5370
Facsimile: (802) 651-5374
- and -
Benjamin F. Johns, Esq.
Samantha E. Holbrook, Esq.
SHUB & JOHNS LLC
Four Tower Bridge
200 Barr Harbor Drive, Suite 400
Conshohocken, PA 19428
Telephone: (610) 477-8380
E-mail: bjohns@shublawyers.com
sholbrook@shublawyers.com
- and -
Andrew W. Ferich, Esq.
Alyssa Brown, Esq.
AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650
Radnor, PA 19087
Telephone: (310) 474-9111
Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
E-mail: aferich@ahdootwolfson.com
abrown@ahdootwolfson.com
TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Transmission Defects
----------------------------------------------------------
Sophie Wilson, writing for Southern Ontario Smart News, reports
that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the Federal District
Court for the Central District of California against Toyota Motor
North America, Inc., and Toyota Motor Sales, Inc., by law firms
Beasley Allen and Blood Hurst & O'Reardon. The suit addresses
alleged defects in the Aisin-Toyota 8-speed automatic transmissions
used in 2024 and newer Toyota Tacoma trucks.
The complaint claims these transmissions can cause:
1. Harsh engagement or failure to shift into gear.
2. Entry into "Limp Mode," limiting vehicle power.
3. Internal component damage or total transmission failure.
While Toyota markets these transmissions as enhancing fuel
efficiency and offering smooth acceleration, plaintiffs allege poor
material quality leads to premature wear and sudden failure.
The alleged defect presents significant safety risks, potentially
endangering drivers and others on the road. Despite reportedly
knowing about these issues since 2016, Toyota has not issued a
recall or extended warranty. Instead, the automaker released a
limited Technical Service Bulletin (TSB) for select 2024 Tacoma
models.
According to the lawsuit, this TSB is inadequate, as it requires
specific diagnostic trouble codes (DTC) for owners to qualify for
free transmission replacements. Many drivers report persistent
transmission problems even after repairs.
Legal and Consumer Impact
The lawsuit seeks to hold Toyota accountable for these defects and
ensure affected customers receive compensation. Legal teams are
actively investigating additional complaints, aiming to uncover the
full scope of the issue.
Stay updated for more developments as this case unfolds, with
potential implications for Toyota and Tacoma owners nationwide.
[GN]
UNITEDHEALTHCARE GROUP: Settles ERISA Class Action for $69MM
------------------------------------------------------------
Colleen Murphy, writing for ALM Law.com, reports that UnitedHealth
Group has agreed to settle an ERISA class action for $69 million
over allegations stemming from a 401(k) plan investment in Wells
Fargo funds.
Plaintiff's counsel, Sanford Heisler Sharp McKnight, announced the
settlement was reached Friday, December 13, in Snyder v.
UnitedHealth Group and said it is believed to be the largest ever
reached in a case stemming from poor performance of a 401(k). One
UnitedHealthcare employee, Kim Snyder, was selected as the sole
representative of a class of roughly 300,000, plaintiffs. Although
the parties have reached an agreement, it is subject to review by
U.S. District Judge John R. Tunheim of the District of Minnesota.
"From 2010 through 2015, the Wells Fargo Target Fund Suite
significantly underperformed both its benchmark indices and
comparable target date funds," the complaint said. "In the
investment world, five years is precious time where even slight
underperformance throughout the entire period is difficult, if not
impossible, to justify."
The complaint, filed in April 2021, alleged that United Health
violated its fiduciary duties under the federal Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 by "imprudently and disloyally
selecting, retaining, and monitoring a suite of poorly performing
target date funds." The investment at the center of the dispute is
the Wells Fargo Target Fund Suite, a family of 11 target retirement
date funds managed by Wells Fargo Asset Management.
The complaint alleged that the Wells Fargo suite of products
performed worse then 70% to 97% of its peer funds, which cost
retirement investors over $7 billion. In an amended complaint, the
plaintiff further alleged that Wells Fargo was a customer and
financier for UnitedHealth and that executive leaders with the
health care giant personally intervened to keep the Wells Fargo
products on the UnitedHealth 401(k) plan.
However, UnitedHealth denied those allegations in court documents
and argued that their standards for monitoring and selecting funds
for the plan complied with ERISA.
Leigh Anne St. Charles, managing partner of Sanford Heisler's
Nashville, Tennessee, office, noted that in March 2024, the
district court issued an order substantially denying summary
judgment. After that order was issued, which removed
UnitedHealthgroup's board of directors as a defendant, Snyder's
primary claims, alleging breach of various duties and engaging in
prohibited conduct, survived.
"Because a reasonable trier of fact could easily find that
plaintiff Kim Snyder caught defendant UnitedHealth Group, Inc. with
its hand in the cookie jar, the court will substantially deny
United's motion for summary judgment," Tunheim wrote in his
decision.
The judge held that since UnitedHealthcare did not contest that its
business relationship with Wells Fargo was a potential conflict of
interest, the court needed to examine the defendant's motivations.
"Without restating the full factual background, Snyder has
established a genuine dispute of material fact that United was
impermissibly motivated in selecting Wells by its desire to
maintain its business relationship with Wells," Tunheim said.
St. Charles called that a turning point in the case. Since
experienced litigators represented both sides, she said, counsel
realized it was time to see if a resolution was possible ahead of
trial.
"Through months of arm's length negotiation, following years of
litigation, we were able to achieve this historic settlement," St.
Charles said.
"This is a tremendous and historic result for our plaintiff and
plan participants," Charles H. Field of Sanford Heisler said in a
statement. "Our plaintiff took a leading and decisive part in the
litigation and fought with courage and strength against a major
corporation to obtain an outstanding result for the plan and its
participants."
In addition to St. Charles and Field, the plaintiff class was
represented by Sanford Heisler Chairman David Sanford, Co-Vice
Chairman Kevin Sharp, Brent Hannafan, Shannon Henris, and Susan
Coler of Halunen Law.
UnitedHelathcare was represented by Craig S. Primis, Kenneth Winn
Allen, and Madelyn Morris of Kirkland & Ellis, and Drew Horwood and
Martin Chester of Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath. None immediately
responded to requests for comment.
A hearing date on the settlement has yet to be scheduled. [GN]
USHEALTH ADVISORS: Loses Bid to Dismiss Kraemer's TCPA Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge David W. Dugan of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois denied the motion filed by USHealth
Advisors, LLC to dismiss the plaintiff's first amended complaint in
the case captioned as DAVID KRAEMER, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. USHealth Advisors,
LLC, a Texas company, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-275-DWD (S.D.
Ill.). The stay of discovery is lifted.
Defendant, a wholly owned national subsidiary of US Health Group,
markets and sells health insurance plans to consumers in the United
States. It allegedly solicits business by providing its agents with
consumer leads, sales scripts or templates, and an automatic dialer
system. Consumers allegedly receive scheduled text messages that
are sent en masse by one of Defendant's employees. Further,
Plaintiff alleges many of the leads are "bad" or "poor," as the
agents do not have consent to contact the consumers. He was
allegedly exposed to this misconduct because throughout 2023, he
received calls and text messages from the Defendant soliciting
insurance quotes for somebody name Randy, despite not knowing who
Randy is and telling the callers and texters that he is not Randy
and asking for the calls to stop.
Therefore, on behalf of himself and two proposed classes, Plaintiff
filed this action against Defendant under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227(c)(5), alleging vicarious
liability related to Defendant's agents' placing of phone calls and
sending of text messages, without consent, to telephone numbers on
the DoNot-Call Registry. Plaintiff further alleges Defendants'
agents repeatedly send text messages to consumers, despite
receiving, and confirming the receipt of a "stop" communication.
Notwithstanding consumer complaints, Defendant also allegedly
failed to "institute proper procedures to prevent consumers from
continuing to receive solicitations."
The Plaintiff defines the proposed classes as follows: Do Not Call
Registry Class: All persons in the United States who from four
years prior to the filing of this action through trial (1)
Defendant, or an agent calling on behalf of the Defendant,
called/texted more than one time, (2) within any 12-month period,
(3) where the person's telephone number had been listed on the
National Do Not Call Registry for at least thirty days, (4) for
substantially the same reason that Defendant called/texted
Plaintiff.
Internal Do Not Call Registry Class: All persons in the United
States who from four years prior to the filing of this action
through class certification (1) the Defendant called/texted more
than one time, (2) within any 12 month period (3) for substantially
the same reason Defendant called/texted Plaintiff, (4) including at
least once after the person requested that they stop calling and/or
sending text messages.
As relief for Defendant's alleged misconduct, Plaintiff seeks
declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief.
The Court finds Plaintiff has adequately alleged he "received more
than one telephone call within any 12-month period by or on behalf
of" Defendant "in violation of the regulations prescribed under"
Sec. 227(c)(5). While Plaintiff does not include the same level of
specificity for the alleged telephone calls as he does for the text
messages, the Court finds the allegations of the First Amended
Class Action Complaint, when taken together and viewed in a light
most favorable to Plaintiff, plausibly state a claim to relief
under Sec. 227(c)(5) and Sec. 64.1200(c)(2).
Another regulation prescribed under Sec. 227(c), and adopted by the
FCC, is Sec. 64.1200(d), which states: "No person or entity shall
initiate . . . any call for telemarketing purposes to a residential
telephone subscriber unless such person or entity has instituted
procedures for maintaining a list of persons who request not to
receive such calls made by or on behalf of that person or entity."
By extension, although the Court has already recognized Plaintiff
did not include the same level of specificity for the alleged
telephone calls as he did for the alleged text messages, the Court
finds the allegations of the First Amended Class Action Complaint,
on the whole and viewed in Plaintiff's favor, plausibly state a
claim to relief under Sec. 227(c)(5) and Sec. 64.1200(d).
More specifically, Plaintiff has alleged that Defendant, by virtue
of its telephone calls and text messages, must have failed to
institute the minimum standards for the "procedures for maintaining
a list of persons who request not to receive such calls" under Sec.
64.1200(d). The repeated nature of the telephone calls and texts
messages, as alleged by Plaintiff and despite the "stop"
communications, render the claim facially plausible and provide
notice under Rule 8(a)(2), the Court concludes.
The Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Cause of Action for the Do
Not Call Registry Class is denied.
The Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Cause of Action for the
Internal Do Not Call Registry Class is also denied.
The Final Pretrial Conference and Jury Trial are reset for November
5, 2026, at 10:00 a.m., and November 16, 2026, at 9:00 a.m.,
respectively.
A copy of the Court's Memorandum & Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aOVI5y
VISA INC: Griffith Alleges Debit Network Market Monopoly
--------------------------------------------------------
LINDY GRIFFITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VISA, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:24-cv-08656 (N.D. Cal., December 2, 2024) alleges that Visa
intentionally and wrongfully maintained, attempted to maintain,
and/or conspired to maintain monopoly power in the relevant debit
network market in violation of the Sherman Act, various state
antitrust and consumer protection laws.
According to the complaint, Visa has engaged and continues to
engage in unlawful and anticompetitive conduct that has
artificially raised the price of network fees to supracompetitive
prices, including but not limited to, monopolizing the debit
network market and leveraging its monopoly power to suppress
competition by punishing retailers for using alternative networks,
entering into contracts to pay off potential competitors or prevent
the development of substitute networks.
Visa's anticompetitive conduct allows it to enrich itself at the
expense of the American people who ultimately bear the brunt of
Visa's debit network fees. The Plaintiff brings this case on behalf
of herself and those similarly situated to stop Visa's unlawful
conduct, redress past harms, and restore competition to the debit
network market.
Plaintiff Griffith uses a debit card from Commerce Bank that has
Visa designated as the font-of-card network.
Visa, Inc. is a Delaware company with its principal place of
business in San Francisco, California. Visa owns and operates the
Visa debit network, the largest debit network in the United
States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason S. Hartley, Esq.
Jason M. Lindner, Esq.
HARTLEY LLP
101 W. Broadway, Suite 820
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 400-5822
E-mail: hartley@hartleyllp.com
lindner@hartleyllp.com
VISION SERVICE: Faces Patients' Privacy Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Allison Bell, writing for ALM Benefits Pro, reports that plaintiffs
who wanted to see the world more clearly say a vision care company
used a hidden pixel on its website to track how they moved through
its website for Google and Meta, the parent of Facebook.
The plaintiffs, Peter Hahn of Itasca, Illinois, and Marianna
Tendick of Martinez, California, last week filed a suit making
those allegations against Vision Service Plan in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
The plaintiffs are seeking to represent a class of hundreds of
thousands of consumers who used the VSP website and were tracked
with tracking pixels.
Many websites have used tracking pixels to see what visitors look
at and for how long for more than a decade, and many acknowledge
that in terms of service documents. Consumer advocates have argued
that using web visitor tracking technology without drawing
visitors' attention to the tracking very forcefully may violate the
visitors' privacy rights, and that tracking visitors without
providing even more forceful warnings might violate state and
federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act health
information privacy rules.
Hahn and Tendick "had their personally identifiable information and
protected health information disclosed to Meta and Google without
their express written authorization or knowledge," the plaintiffs
say in their complaint.
The plaintiffs are hoping the eligible users will be those who
still have the legal ability to file a suit, based on the laws
governing the time limits for web visitor privacy suits, and Aug.
1, 2024.
The plaintiffs have accused VSP of violating the federal Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, "which prohibits the intentional
interception of the contents of any electronic communication";
violating the California Invasion of Privacy Act, for California
residents; and conversion of the web visitors' internet browsing
data and sensitive health information for web tracking use without
the web visitors' consent.
The plaintiffs may have filed the suit in Illinois partly because
the state is known for having a tough state biometric privacy law.
California is another popular location for lawyers bringing web
tracking suits.
The plaintiffs in the new VSP suit want to create one class for VSP
site users covered by the California Invasion of Privacy Act and a
second class for other VSP site users.
The plaintiffs are asking for a jury trial.
Attorneys for VSP have not yet appeared in court and
representatives for the company were not immediately available to
comment on the suit. [GN]
WESTERN ASSET: 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
Western Asset Management Company mutual fund investors resulting
from allegations that Western Asset may have issued materially
misleading business information to the investing public.
So What: If you purchased Western Asset mutual funds 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=31956 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 25, 2024, the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission issued a press release entitled "SEC Charges
Ken Leech, Former Co-Chief Investment Officer of Western Asset
Management Co., with Fraud." This press release stated that Leech
had been charged with fraud "for engaging in a multi-year scheme to
allocate favorable trades to certain portfolios, while allocating
unfavorable trades to other portfolios, a practice known as
cherry-picking."
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]
WEXFORD HEALTH: Class Cert Bid Filing in Spurlock Due Feb. 6, 2025
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAUREN SPURLOCK; HEATHER
SMITH; and SHAWN ZMUDZINSKI, individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated, v. WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INCORPORATED,
Case No. 3:23-cv-00476 (S.D.W. Va.), the Hon. Judge Robert Chambers
entered a fifth amended scheduling order as follows:
-- Motions for Plaintiffs to join other Dec. 31, 2024
parties or to amend the pleadings
shall be filed by:
-- Motions for Defendant to join other Jan. 30, 2025
parties or to amend the pleadings shall
be filed by:
-- A motion seeking class certification Feb. 6, 2025
shall be filed by:
-- Opposition to the motion for class March 6, 2025
certification shall be filed by:
-- Any reply to the motion for class April 3, 2025
certification shall be filed by:
-- The Court reschedules the hearing on April 21,
2025
the motion for class certification to:
Wexford is one of the nation's premier correctional health care
companies.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 11, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZsVKiZ at no extra
charge.[CC]
WHALECO INC: Bid to Compel Arbitration Granted in Part
------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Anthony J. Battaglia of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California granted in part and
denied in part defendant's motion to compel arbitration in the case
captioned as KRISTEN KOHLER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. WHALECO, INC., a Delaware
Corporation, d/b/a Temu; and DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No.:
24-cv-00935-AJB-DEB (S.D. Calif.). The Court also denied as moot
Defendant's motion to stay discovery pending resolution of the
motion to compel arbitration.
Plaintiff Kohler is a customer of Whaleco, an e-commerce company
that operates www.Temu.com, an online retailer that sells
merchandise ranging from clothing, beauty and health products, home
and kitchen products, sports goods, appliances, pet supplies, toys,
and games. Temu operates both a website and mobile application. In
February 2024, Plaintiff purchased seven items through the Temu
Website.
On May 28, 2024, Plaintiff filed a class action against Whaleco,
alleging it misrepresented price discounts on products sold on the
Temu website. Plaintiff claims Whaleco used fake, inflated
"Reference Prices" alongside lower sales prices to mislead
consumers into believing they were receiving significant discounts.
The complaint alleges these reference prices did not reflect former
or prevailing market prices, causing consumers to pay more than
they would have otherwise. The proposed class includes all
California residents who purchased products from Temu advertised
with struck-through reference prices since February 24, 2020,
without receiving refunds or credits. Plaintiff asserts claims
under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), False
Advertising Law (FAL), and Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA).
Temu's Terms set forth the rules and restrictions governing
consumers' use of Temu's applications, products, services, and
websites.
The Terms also include agreements to participate in an informal
dispute resolution before arbitration to "waive all rights to have
any dispute be brought, heard, administered, resolved, or
arbitrated on a class, collective, representative, or mass action
basis," and "in the event that there are twenty-five (25) or more
individual Arbitration Notices of a substantially similar nature
filed against Whaleco within a thirty (30) day period, AAA (the
American Arbitration Association) shall administer the arbitration
demands in batches of 100 Arbitration Notices per batch."
On February 24, 2024, Plaintiff purchased several products from the
Temu Website on her phone. She does not recall seeing Temu's Terms
and she did not clink on any hyperlinks. She also purports she was
not aware she had created an account with Temu when she made her
purchase.
Whaleco now moves to compel arbitration and to stay the action
pending arbitration.
Whaleco contends that on February 24, 2024, Plaintiff affirmatively
agreed to Temu's Terms, which includes the Arbitration Agreement.
Plaintiff asserts that insufficient evidence exists to establish
that Plaintiff entered into an arbitration agreement with Temu, but
even if Plaintiff had, the purported Arbitration Agreement is
unconscionable, and therefore unenforceable.
The Court finds that Plaintiff unambiguously assented to Temu's
Terms by pressing the "Continue" button multiple times prior to
purchasing items on Temu's Website.
Because Plaintiff assented to Temu's Terms, the Court considers
whether Plaintiff's claims are subject to the Arbitration
Agreement. Plaintiff's UCL, FAL, and CLRA claims center around
Plaintiff's allegations that Temu's advertising using strikethrough
reference prices purposefully misled consumers, and therefore
relate to a dispute arising out of Plaintiff's "access to and use
of Temu's Services." The Court finds that all of
Plaintiffs' claims are subject to the Arbitration Agreement.
The Court grants Defendant's motion to compel arbitration for all
claims and prayers for relief, with the exception of Plaintiff's
request for a public injunctive relief.
A copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rD7C6o
WHITEFISH, MT: Settlement in Weinberg Suit Gets Final Court Nod
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Kathleen L. DeSoto of the United States District
Court for the District of Montana granted the plaintiff's motion
for final approval of the class settlement agreement reached by and
between the parties in the case captioned as JEFF BECK,
individually; AMY WEINBERG, individually; ZAC WEINBERG,
individually; ALTA VIEWS, LLC, individually; and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated persons and entities, Plaintiffs, vs.
CITY OF WHITEFISH, a Montana municipality, and DOES 1-10,
Defendants, CITY OF WHITEFISH, a Montana municipality, Third-Party
Plaintiff, vs. FINANCIAL CONSULTING SOLUTIONS GROUP, INC.,
Third-Party Defendant, Case No. CV 22-44-M-KLD (D. Mont.).
Since preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement, Class
Counsel has completed the Notice process and submitted their Fee
Application. Settlement Class Members were notified of the pending
Settlement and Class Counsel's request for attorneys' fees and
costs, and no objections to the Settlement Agreement were
submitted. Now, Plaintiffs, with approval from the other parties,
request that the Court:
(1) grant final certification of the Settlement Class;
(2) finally approve the Settlement Agreement as fair,
reasonable, and adequate;
(3) rule that the Notice process was reasonable and the best
practicable under the circumstances; and
(4) award from the Settlement Fund attorneys' fees and costs and
class representative Service Award Payments.
A Final Approval Hearing, with counsel for all parties appearing,
was held before the Court on November 19, 2024.
On September 29, 2023, upon analysis of Plaintiffs' Motion for
Class Certification (Doc. 39) and the requirements of Rule 23(a)
and (b)(3), the Court certified a class in this Action defined as:
"All persons or entities who bore the cost of impact fees for water
and wastewater services to the City of Whitefish from January 1,
2019 to the present." In the Court's Preliminary Approval Order,
consistent with the Settlement Agreement, the Court preliminarily
certified a Settlement Class comprising all persons and entities
meeting the original class definition who did not request exclusion
from this Action during the opt-out period. No circumstances have
since arisen that justify altering the Settlement Class.
Accordingly, final certification of the Settlement Class, for
settlement purposes, is warranted under Rule 23(a) and (b)(3).
The Court finds the Settlement Agreement fair, reasonable, and
adequate. The Settlement resolves complex legal and factual
disputes, avoiding the risks of a lengthy trial and appeal, and
provides substantial compensation to the Settlement Class.
Recommended by Magistrate Judge John T. Johnston, who mediated the
case, the Settlement was endorsed by experienced Class Counsel as a
fair outcome. Additionally, no Settlement Class Members objected
during the objection period, and the City of Whitefish, a
governmental participant, is part of the agreement, further
supporting its fairness.
The Settlement represents a common-fund recovery on behalf of the
Settlement Class. Of the $1,400,000.00 Settlement Fund, Class
Counsel requests an attorneys' fee award of $466,666.67, which
represents one-third (approximately 33%) of recovery, as well as
reimbursement of up to $175,000.00 in costs, which includes
administration costs. Class Counsel filed a memorandum in support
of this request which satisfies the Court that the requested fees
and costs are reasonable and appropriate.
The Class Counsel requests $3,500.00 in Service Award Payments to
each of the Named Plaintiffs in this Action, a total of $14,000.00.
The Court finds these Service Award Payments fair and reasonable to
compensate the Named Plaintiffs for their time, efforts, and other
contributions in litigating and resolving this Action on behalf of
the Settlement Class.
A copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=59o50s
WILBUR CURTIS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Benitez Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
GABRIEL BENITEZ JR., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WILBUR CURTIS CO., INC.; SEB
PROFESSIONAL NORTH AMERICA; WCCI ACQUISITION CO.; SEB PROFESSIONAL;
GROUPE SEB; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
24STCV32324 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Dec. 6, 2024) is an
action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages,
overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods,
provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business
expenses.
Plaintiff Benitez Jr. was employed by the Defendants as a staff.
Wilbur Curtis Co., Inc. manufactures coffee brewing equipments. The
Company offers coffee and tea brewers, grinders, syrup warmers, and
water towers. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Emil Davtyan, Esq.
David Yeremian, Esq.
David Keledjian, Esq.
D.LAW, INC.
450 N. Brand Blvd., Ste. 840
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 962-6465
Facsimile: (818) 962-6469
Email: emil@d.law
d.yeremian@d.law
d.keledjian@d.law
WONDERFUL COMPANY: Court Narrows Claims in Hernandez, et al. Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Edgardo Ramos of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York granted in part and denied in part
the defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in
the case captioned as BERTHA HERNANDEZ and WAYNE CATALANO,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, – against – THE WONDERFUL COMPANY LLC and POM
WONDERFUL LLC, Defendants, Case No. 23-cv-1242 (ER) (S.D.N.Y.),
Hernandez and Catalano are both citizens and residents of New York.
The Wonderful Company is a privately held $5 billion company that
is "committed to offering high-quality, healthy brands and helping
consumers make better choices, every day." POM is a wholly owned
subsidiary of The Wonderful Company. Defendants manufacture and
sell POM 100% Pomegranate Juice at mass market retailers and
grocery stores throughout the United States.
The Product is a ready-to-drink juice which is uniformly
represented as a "healthy, All Natural beverage." Plaintiffs allege
that the Product's packaging is replete with representations
designed to convince consumers of its health benefits.
In addition, Plaintiffs claim that Defendants' website represents
that the Product is "Tree to Table" and links to scientific studies
purporting to demonstrate that the Product is a healthy choice for
consumers; further, Defendants' social media campaigns also
emphasize that the Product is a source of antioxidants, describing
the Product as "Home of the Antioxidant Superpowers."
Contrary to Defendants' representations that the Product is "All
Natural," Plaintiffs allege that it actually contains per– and
polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"), and the Product does not
disclose the presence of PFAS -- or any other synthetic chemical --
in its ingredients.
Hernandez initially filed the Complaint as the sole plaintiff on
February 14, 2023, and filed the First Amended Complaint on June 9,
2023. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the FAC on June 30, 2023
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of
standing, and Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. On
December 29, 2023, the Court granted the Defendants' motion
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) and allowed Hernandez leave to file the
SAC. Because the Court granted the motion pursuant to Rule
12(b)(1), it did not decide Defendants' arguments with respect to
Rule 12(b)(6). Id.
On January 24, 2024, Hernandez filed the SAC, adding Catalano as a
plaintiff. SAC alleges (1) violations of the New York Deceptive
Trade Practice Act (New York General Business Law Secs. 349 and
350); (2) negligence per se due to violations of the Food Drug and
Cosmetics Act (21 U.S.C. Secs. 342 and 343) and Section 199–a of
the New York Agriculture and Markets Law; and (3) unjust
enrichment. Defendants now move to dismiss the SAC, arguing that
Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6).2
Defendants argue that Plaintiffs' claims against The Wonderful
Company should be dismissed because the claims against it are
insufficient. The Court finds that the SAC fails to allege
sufficient facts to support a claim against The Wonderful Company.
According to the Court, none of the allegations against The
Wonderful Company indicate that it had any role in the decision to
label the Product "All Natural" or exclude the presence of PFAS
from the label. The facts laid out in the SAC do not specifically
relate to any marketing decisions that The Wonderful Company
"controlled," but rather the fact that they provided marketing
resources to their subsidiary and created a uniform message across
all advertising platforms. While The Wonderful Company might
"review every step of the production process", as the SAC alleges,
it is not alleged to have reviewed or have had any control over the
alleged deceptive marketing. The SAC does not allege that The
Wonderful Company itself, during the "review" of production, had
any role in marketing decisions.
Therefore, the allegations in the SAC are not sufficient to
establish that The Wonderful Company actively participated in the
marketing and advertising decision to label the Product as "All
Natural," or failing to disclose the presence of PFAS, the Court
finds. All that these allegations show, rather, is that The
Wonderful Company was acting as a parent company that "necessarily
exercises a considerable degree of control over the subsidiary
corporation," but "the discharge of that supervision alone" is not
enough to give rise to direct liability.
The SAC alleges that POM violated GBL Secs. 349 and 350 by (1)
misleadingly, inaccurately, and deceptively advertising and
marketing the Product to consumers as "All Natural" in order to
induce consumers to pay a premium; and (2) omitting from their
labeling the fact that the Product contains dangerous levels of
PFAS, even though POM maintained exclusive control -- and knowledge
of -- the contents of the Product.
POM argues that the Court should dismiss Plaintiffs' GBL Secs. 349
and 350 claims because the SAC failed to sufficiently allege that
POM's labeling is materially misleading to a reasonable consumer.
Drawing all reasonable inferences in Plaintiffs' favor, the Court
finds that they have sufficiently pleaded that a reasonable
consumer could be misled.
At this juncture, the question is whether "no reasonable consumer
would believe" that the Products did not contain PFAS. Given the
allegedly known serious health conditions associated with PFAS
exposure -- and PFAO exposure in particular -- as well as the
tension between various representations on the packaging of the
Product and the alleged health risks posed by PFAS, Plaintiffs
sufficiently allege the expectations of a reasonable consumer at
this stage, the Court finds.
In response to Plaintiffs' omissions-based theory, POM argues that
they "have no obligation to affirmatively disclose the presence of
varying levels and types of ubiquitous microcontaminants that might
exist, if at all, in concentrations that Plaintiffs have not
plausibly alleged present any risk to health." This argument fails
because the SAC repeatedly alleges that POM knew that PFAS were in
the Product and that PFAS had harmful effects, the Court finds.
At this juncture, given the allegedly known serious health issues
associated with PFAS exposure, as well as the tension between those
health issues and the various representations on the packaging of
the Product, the SAC sufficiently pleads allegations that support
an objective expectation that the Product did not contain a
detectable level of PFAS, the Court concludes.
According to the Court, Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim must be
dismissed because it merely duplicates their other claims.
The GBL Secs. 349 and 350 (Claims I & II) and negligence per se
(Claim III) claims are not dismissed, but the unjust enrichment
claim (Claim IV) is dismissed, the Court holds.
A copy of the Court's Opinion & Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=upTlwo
WORLDWIDE FLIGHT: Davenport & Palacios Suit Removed to C.D. Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled AKILA DAVENPORT and PEARL PALACIOS, as individuals,
and on behalf of the State of California and all Class Members and
all Aggrieved Employees, Plaintiffs v. WORLDWIDE FLIGHT SERVICES,
INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1-100, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 24STCV23213, was removed from the Los Angeles
Superior Court of the State of California to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California on December 2, 2024.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:24-cv-10349-CAS-KS to the proceeding.
The case arises from Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code in connection with their failure to pay
minimum and overtime wages, and their failure to provide meal and
rest periods.
Worldwide Flight Services operates businesses specializing the
provision of ground handling and/or air cargo support services to
major airlines and airports throughout California. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
James C. Fessenden, Esq.
Julia A. Sherwood, Esq.
Lauren M. Guggisberg, Esq.
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
4747 Executive Drive, Suite 1000
San Diego, CA 92121
Telephone: (858) 597-9600
Facsimile: (858) 597-9601
E-mail: jfessenden@fisherphillips.com
jsherwood@fisherphillips.com
lguggisberg@fisherphillips.com
- and -
Landon R. Schwob, Esq.
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
444 South Flower Street, Suite 1500
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213)330-4500
Facsimile: (213)330-4501
E-mail: lschwob@fisherphillips.com
- and -
Lirit King, Esq.
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 650
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Telephone: (818) 230-4250
Facsimile: (818) 230-4251
E-mail: lking@fisherphillips.com
YOGI DONUT: Property Inaccessible to Disabled People, Cheli Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLENE CHELI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. YOGI DONUT CORP., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-10985 (D.N.J., Dec. 9, 2024) alleges violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants'
property known as Dunkin' Donuts located at 360 N Delsea Dr,
Vineland, NJ 08360, is not accessible to mobility-impaired
individuals in violation of ADA.
Yogi Donut Corp. operates a place of public accommodation in
Vineland, NJ. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jon G. Shadinger Jr., Esq.
Shadinger Law, LLC
2220 N East Ave
Vineland, NJ 08360
Telephone: (609) 319-5399
Email: js@shadingerlaw.com
ZERIFY INC: Settlement Approval Hearing Set for March 20
--------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
OF SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTION
TO: ALL OWNERS OF THE COMMON STOCK OF ZERIFY, INC. ("ZERIFY" OR THE
"COMPANY") CURRENTLY AND AS OF NOVEMBER 20, 2024 ("CURRENT ZERIFY
SHAREHOLDERS")
THIS NOTICE RELATES TO THE PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF
SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE LITIGATION. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE
CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. IF YOU ARE A ZERIFY SHAREHOLDER,
THIS NOTICE CONTAINS IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR RIGHTS.
The parties in the shareholder derivative action, Zanfardino v.
Kay, Case No. 2:22-CV- 07258-MCA-AME (D.N.J.), have reached an
agreement to settle the derivative claims brought on behalf of and
for the benefit of Zerify.
The terms of the settlement are set forth in a Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement dated November 20, 2024 (the
"Stipulation"). This notice should be read in conjunction with, and
is qualified in its entirety by reference to, the text-of the
Stipulation, which has been filed with the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey. A link to the text of the
Stipulation and the fulllength Notice of Pendency and Proposed
Settlement of Shareholder Derivative Action may be found on
Zerify's website at www.zerify.com, as well as the websites of
Plaintiff's counsel set out below. Under the terms of the
Stipulation, as a part of the proposed Settlement, Zerify will
adopt and implement certain corporate governance reforms and
provide certain relief to the Company, which the Settling Parties
agree confer substantial benefits upon Zerify.
In light of the substantial benefits conferred upon Zerify by
Plaintiffs' Counsel's efforts, and subject to Court approval,
Plaintiff's Counsel shall apply to the Court for an award of
attorneys' fees in an amount not to exceed $368,607 and for
reimbursement of expenses not to exceed $8,547 (collectively, the
"Fee and Expense Amount"). Plaintiff's Counsel may also apply to
the Court for a Service Award of up to $5,000 for Plaintiff.
A hearing will be held on March 20, 2025, at 3:00 p.m., before the
Honorable Madeline Cox Arleo, at the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey, Martin Luther King Jr. Bldg. & U.S.
Courthouse, 50 Walnut Street, Newark N.J. New Jersey 07102,
Courtroom 4A (the "Settlement Hearing"), at which the Court will
determine whether to approve the Settlement. The Court may decide
to hold the Settlement Hearing telephonically or by other virtual
means without further notice.
Any Current Zerify Shareholder has a right, but is not required, to
appear and to be heard at the Settlement Hearing, providing that
they are a shareholder of record or beneficial owner of Zerify
common stock and were a shareholder of record or beneficial owner
of Zerify common stock as of November 20, 2024. Any Zerify
shareholder who satisfies this requirement may enter an appearance
through counsel of such shareholder's own choosing and at such
shareholder's own expense or may appear on their own. However, you
shall not be heard at the Settlement Hearing unless, at least
fourteen (14) calendar days prior to the Settlement Hearing, you
have filed with the Court a written notice of objection containing
the following information:
1. Your name, legal address, email address and telephone number;
2. The case name and number (Zanfardino v. Kay, Case No.
2:22-CV-07258- MCA-AME);
3. Documentation sufficient to show that you are a Current Zerify
Shareholder (defined above);
4. A statement of each objection being made;
5. Notice of whether you intend to appear at the Settlement Hearing
(you are not required to
appear); and
6. Copies of any papers you intend to submit to the Court, long
with the names of any witness(es)
you intend to call to testify at the Settlement Hearing and the
subject(s) of their testimony.
All written objections and supporting papers must be filed-with the
Clerk of the Court, U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey, Martin Luther King Jr. Bldg. & U.S. Courthouse, 50 Walnut
Street, Newark, New Jersey 07102 and served upon each of the
following Settling Parties' counsel:
Counsel for Individual Defendants:
Andrew T. Hambelton
BLANK ROME LLP
1271 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10020
Tel: (212) 885-5000
E-mail: andrew.hambelton@blankrome.com
Counsel for Nominal Defendant Zerify:
Robert J. Cahall
McCORMICK & PRIORE, P.C.
300 Carnegie Ctr. Blvd, Suite 160
Princeton, NJ 08540
Tel: (609) 716-9550
Fax: (609) 716-8140
E-mail: rcahall@mecormickpriore.com
Counsel for Plaintiff:
Matthew F.Gately
LIFLAND PEARLMAN HERRMANN & KNOPF LLP
Park 80 Plaza West-One
250 Pehle Avenue, Suite 401
Saddle Brook, NJ 07663
Tel: (201) 845-9600
E-mail: mfg@njlawfirm.com
Robert S. Schachter
ZWERLING, SCHACHTER & ZWERLING, LLP
41 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10010
Tel: (561) 245-4608
E-mail: rschachter@zsz.com
YOUR WRITTEN OBJECTIONS MUST BE ON FILE WITH THE CLERK OF THE COURT
NO LATER THAN March 6, 2025. Only Current Zerify Shareholders who
have filed and delivered valid and timely written notices of
objection will be entitled to be heard at the Settlement Hearing
unless the Court orders otherwise. If you fail to object in the
manner and within the time prescribed above you shall be deemed to
have waived your right to object (including the right to appeal)
and shall forever be barred, in this proceeding or in any other
proceeding, from raising such objection(s).
Inquiries may be made to Plaintiffs Counsel at Cohn Lifland
Pearlman Herrmann & Knopf LLP, telephone (201) 845-9600 or
Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP, telephone (561) 245- 4608, or
at the email addresses above for additional information concerning
the settlement.
PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR ZERIFY REGARDING THIS NOTICE.
Form and Substance Approved By Court Order Dated December 3, 2024.
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: GMS Inc. Still Defends Exposure Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------
GMS INC., certain of its subsidiaries, continues to have a number
of active asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits that they
vigorously defend against, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "The building materials industry has been
subject to personal injury and property damage claims arising from
alleged exposure to raw materials contained in building products as
well as claims for incidents of catastrophic loss, such as building
fires. As a distributor of building materials, we face an inherent
risk of exposure to product liability claims if the use of the
products we have distributed in the past or may in the future
distribute is alleged to have resulted in economic loss, personal
injury or property damage or to have violated environmental, health
or safety or other laws. Such product liability claims have
included and may in the future include allegations of defects in
manufacturing, defects in design, a failure to warn of dangers
inherent in the product, negligence, strict liability or a breach
of warranties. Certain of our subsidiaries have been the subject of
claims related to alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products
they distributed prior to 1979."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RCI5jH
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scotts Miracle-Gro Defends Exposure Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company has been named as a defendant in a
number of cases alleging injuries that the lawsuits claim resulted
from exposure to asbestos-containing products, apparently based on
its historic use of vermiculite in certain of its products,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
In many of these cases, the complaints are not specific about the
plaintiffs' contacts with the Company or its products. The cases
vary, but complaints in these cases generally seek unspecified
monetary damages (actual, compensatory, consequential and punitive)
from multiple defendants. The Company believes that the claims
against it are without merit and is vigorously defending against
them. The Company has not recorded any accruals in its consolidated
financial statements as the likelihood of a loss from these cases
is not probable at this time. The Company does not believe a
reasonably possible loss would be material to the Company's
financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. In
addition, the Company does not believe the ultimate resolution of
these cases will have a material adverse effect on the Company's
financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. There can
be no assurance that future developments related to pending claims
or claims filed in the future, whether as a result of adverse
outcomes or as a result of significant defense costs, will not have
a material effect on the Company's financial condition, results of
operations or cash flows.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Y1E2th
*********
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 ***