/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/241226.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, December 26, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 259 Headlines 3M COMPANY: Reed Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Sanders Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina ACCELLION INC: Brown Seeks to File Class Cert Docs Under Seal ACKER MERRALL: Faces Liz Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ADVANCED MEDICAL: Class Settlement in Brent Suit Gets Approval AMAZON INC: Sued Over Audible Users' Personal Info Collection AMERICAN GOLF: Perez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ANNA JAQUES: McNeal Sues Over Recent Cyberattack and Data Breach ANTONAKOS PAINTING: Pulido Suit Seeks Proper Wages for Painters ARCADIA CONSUMER: Hayde Sues Over Deceptive Product Labeling ARIEL CORP: Fails to Protect Customers' Info, Littleton Says ARMADA SKILLED: Home Healthcare Workers Class Certified in Apodoca ASTRAZENECA PLC: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims BAG BORROW: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Herrera Suit Says BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Huff Sues Over Failure to Disclose Defects BOBA TEA PROTEIN: Jackson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website C&N REINFORCING: Pizano Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CANTEEN: Faces Prieto Wage-and-Hour Suit in Cal. Super. CENCORA INC: Martinez Suit Removed to C.D. California CHECKPEOPLE LLC: Larancuent Sues Over Privacy Rights Violation CHEMGUARD INC: Hamner Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina CLARE V LLC: Picon Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind CMLS HOLDINGS: Nemeth Suit Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duty COLONIAL BEHAVIORAL: Haynes Files Suit in E.D. Virginia COLOR FACTORY: Settles Undisclosed Fees Class Action for $714,700 COMPUTERSHARE TRUST: Pretrial Management Order Entered in HIIT COZY EARTH: Luby Suit Removed to C.D. California DAISO HOLDING: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Food Mislabeling Suit DATAX LTD: McCarthy Sues Over RICO Violation DELOITTE CONSULTING: Faces Class Suit Over RIBridges Cyberattack DMC GLOBAL: Garson Sues Over Misleading Statements on Securities DR. KATES: Parties Seek to Send Notice to Putative Class Members ELEVATE HEALTH: Schweer Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Oklahoma ELITE FIBER: McAnally Sues Over Illegal Worker Misclassification ENDEAVOR AIR: Parties Seek More Time to Complete Fact Discovery ENVOY AIR INC: Pietri Suit Removed to E.D. California EVERSOURCE ENERGY: Newton Files Suit Over Deceptive Charges EXPEDIA GROUP: Faces Class Action Suit Over Breached Duty of Care FIVE9 INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set February 3 FU LONG FOOD: Hernandez Alleges Labor Law Violations GEICO GENERAL: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Jan. 24, 2025 GOODRX INC: Esco Drug Sues Over Antitrust Law Breach GOOGLE UK: Court of Appeal Rejects Claims on Private Info Misuse GRAND FOOD: Faces Guzman Suit Over Wage and Hour Law Breaches ISL EMPLOYEES: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Moton Suit Says JOHNS HOPKINS: Court Grants Bids to Dismiss Godson Class Suit JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces Class Action Over Listerine's Cancer Risks JOHNSON, TN: Bid to Disallow Use of Daigle Report Nixed KIA AMERICA: Raymond Sues Over Defective and Unsafe Vehicles KING ARTHUR BAKING: Wood Suit Removed to D. Vermont LAMB WESTON: Jack Tate Sues Over Anticompetitive Effects LOUISIANA: $21-Mil. Flood Class Settlement Gets Initial Approval LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA: Class Cert Filing Extended to March 26, 2025 M.D. SCIENCE LAB: Knowles Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website MDL 2566: Plaintiff Seeks Leave to File Class Cert. Memo Under Seal MDL 3098: $30MM Settlement in 23andMe Breach Suit Has Prelim. Nod MGP INGREDIENTS: Faces Investors Class Action Lawsuit MICHAEL STORES: Krus Sues Over Products' Higher "Use Tax" Rate MIDWEST TAPE: Faces Smith Suit Over Invasion of Privacy MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Products Contain Harmful Chemicals, Suit Says NCAA: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert. Bid by Feb. 7, 2025 NEW YORK, NY: Settles FDNY Racial Discrimination Suit for $30-MM NORTHVIEW VILLAGE: Hawthorne Wins Bid for Class Certification NORTHWYND REAL: Agrees to Settle Investor Class Action Lawsuit OKLAHOMA: Parents Sue Over Schools' Use of Three-Cueing Instruction OLIN CORP: IPPs' Class Cert Bid Tossed in "Caustic Soda" Suit OMNI FAMILY HEALTH: White Suit Removed to E.D. California ONE POINT: Fails to Secure Customers' Personal Info, Lofton Says OPTAVIA LLC: Classwide Settlement in Zeller Suit Gets Initial Nod ORTHOPEDICS RHODE: Robinson Sues Over Failure to Secure PII PACIFIC DENTAL: Shackley Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties PEARSON EDUCATION: Vaccaro Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties PEOPLECONNECT INC: Larancuent Sues Over Privacy Rights Violation PIH HEALTH INC: Morfin Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. PIH HEALTH INC: Tristan Sues Over Privacy Rights Violation PILOT CATASTROPHE: Wins Bid for Arbitration; Warden Suit Stayed PIPING ROCK: Greene Sues Over Deceptive Supplement Labeling REBBL INC: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Roffman Consumer Suit RECONSERVE OF CALIFORNIA-LOS ANGELES: Faces Razo Labor Class Action RUGSUSA LLC: Hong Sues Over Website's False Price Discounts SHYFT GROUP: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Aebi Schmidt SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Court Tosses 2nd Amended Flight Disruption Suit SPOKEO INC: Tucker Sues Over Privacy Rights Violation SPORT SQUAD: Class Cert. Bids in Matus Due March 24, 2025 STARK CORP: Court Authorizes Shareholder Class Action Suit STRAFFORD PUBLICATIONS: Lindekugel Balks at Private Info Disclosure TARTER GATE: Spears Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages TEAMSTERS PENSION: Paieri Seeks to Exclude Expert's December Report TULE LAKE: More Time to File Class Cert Response Sought UBER TECHNOLOGIES: $200M Settlement in Messinger Suit Has Final OK UBER TECHNOLOGIES: $200M Settlement in Stirratt Suit Has Final OK UBER TECHNOLOGIES: $200MM Settlement in Fazio Suit Has Final Nod UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Counsel in Fazio Awarded $60.8M in Fees & Costs UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Court Approves Plan of Allocation in Fazio Suit UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Court OKs Plan of Allocation in Messinger Suit UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Messinger Counsel Awarded $60.8M in Fees, Costs UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Plan of Allocation in Stirratt Suit Approved UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Stirratt's Counsel Awarded $60.8M in Fees, Costs USHEALTH ADVISORS: Parties Must File Joint Status Report by Dec. 27 VAXART INC: Court OK's Himmelberg Bid to Certify Class VBIT TECHNOLOGIES: Filing for Class Cert. Bids Due Nov. 21, 2025 VGW HOLDINGS: District Court Dismisses Sweepstakes Gaming Suit VNGR BEVERAGE: Finalizes Settlement on Poppi's Class Action Suit WALSWORTH PUBLISHING: Fish Sues Over Unprotected Private Info WELLS FARGO: Court Amends Current Scheduling Order WHITEPAGES INC: Tucker Sues Over Privacy Rights Violation WHOLE FOODS: Winkelman Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class WICHITA, KS: Clingerman Withdraws Class Action XOOM ENERGY: Bid for Reconsideration of Exclusion Order Tossed YARDI SYSTEMS: Court Denies Joint Bid to Dismiss Duffy Class Suit YARDI SYSTEMS: Court Denies Pillar's Bid to Dismiss Duffy Suit ZEUS NETWORKS: Riley Sues Over Unlawful Disclosure of Information ********* 3M COMPANY: Reed Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Billy Reed, et al., and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 3M Company, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-01621 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on Dec. 18, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-07384-RMG to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Kevin B McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP PC 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: (205) 328-9200 Fax: (205) 328-9456 Email: gary@elglaw.com gregc@elglaw.com kmckie@elglaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Gregory M. Taube, Esq. NELSON MULLINS RILEY AND SCARBOROUGH (GA) 201 17th Street NW, Suite 1700 Atlanta, GA 30363 Phone: (404) 817-6050 Email: greg.taube@nelsonmullins.com 3M COMPANY: Sanders Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Ronny Sanders, et al., and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 3M Company, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-01646 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on Dec. 18, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-07383-RMG to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. Yahn Eric Olson, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP PC 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: (205) 328-9200 Fax: (205) 328-9456 Email: gary@elglaw.com gregc@elglaw.com kmckie@elglaw.com yolson@elglaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Harlan Irby Prater, IV, Esq. M. Christian King, Esq. William Larkin Radney, IV, Esq. LIGHTFOOT FRANKLIN WHITE 400 20th Street North Birmingham, AL 35203 Phone: (205) 581-0714 Fax: (205) 581-0799 Email: hprater@lightfootlaw.com cking@lightfootlaw.com lradney@lightfootlaw.com ACCELLION INC: Brown Seeks to File Class Cert Docs Under Seal ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brown v. Accellion, Inc. (ACCELLION, INC. DATA BREACH LITIGATION), Case No. 5:21-cv-01155-EJD (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting motion, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5, to consider whether portions of Motion for Class Certification and documents filed in support thereof should be sealed. -- The Plaintiffs file this motion pursuant to the Stipulated Protective Order and Civil Local Rule 79-5. Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 79-5 and 7-11(c), no hearing date has been set. -- Materials to Be Filed Considered For Filing Under Seal Paragraph 12.3 of the Stipulated Protective Order requires materials designated as Protected Material to be filed under seal. Protected Material includes information (regardless of how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). The Plaintiffs request that the Court consider whether the following documents, or portions of documents, should be filed under seal: Document Material to be Sealed Designating Party Class 1:17-2:3; 3:10-12; 3:17-4:6; Accellion Certification 4:8-11; 4:18-5:1; 5:2-15 & Motion n.28, 35; 6:15-16; 7:2-14; 7:16-17; 15:5-10; 16:2-7, 9- 11 Exhibit 3 219:25-220:12; 229:13-230:11 Accellion Exhibit 4 Entirety Accellion Exhibit 5 Entirety Accellion Accellion is a software company that designed and developed software called the file transfer application and began licensing it to customers in the early 2000s. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 16, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1g60QW at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Adam E. Polk, Esq. Kyle P. Quackenbush, Esq. GIRARD SHARP LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 981-4800 E-mail: apolk@girardsharp.com kquackenbush@girardsharp.com - and - Krysta K. Pachman, Esq. Michael Gervais, Esq. Steven G. Sklaver, Esq. Madeline M. Yzurdiaga, Esq. Kevin R. Downs, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067-6029 Telephone: (310) 789-3100 E-mail: kpachman@susmangodfrey.com mgervais@susmangodfrey.com ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com myzurdiaga@susmangodfrey.com kdowns@susmangodfrey.com ACKER MERRALL: Faces Liz Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- PEDRO LIZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Acker, Merrall & Condit Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-09290-VEC (S.D.N.Y., December 6, 2024) arises from Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. Due to Defendant's failure and refusal to remove access barriers to its website, blind individuals have been and are being denied equal access to the numerous goods, services and benefits offered to the public through the website. 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, the New York State Civil Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and for declaratory relief. Headquartered in New York, NY, Acker, Merrall & Condit Company owns and maintains the website, Ackerwines.com, which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to purchase rare wines, whiskeys, sakes, ciders, sparkling wines and accessories. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gabriel A. Levy, Esq. GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C. 1129 Northern Blvd. Manhasset, NY 11030 Telephone: (347) 941-4715 E-mail: Glevyfirm@gmail.com ADVANCED MEDICAL: Class Settlement in Brent Suit Gets Approval --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY BRENT, et al., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. ADVANCED MEDICAL MANAGEMENT, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-03254-JKB (D. Md.), the Hon. Judge James Bredar entered an order approving class action settlement: The Court finally certifies the following Settlement Class: "All individuals who reside in the United States who: (i) had private health information exposed in the Cyberattack involving Defendant; and (ii) were sent notification of the Cyberattack involving from AMM or was subject to the notice published in the media and on AMM's website." The Court affirms the appointment of David K. Lietz of Milberg Coleman Bryson Philips Grossman, PLLC and Courtney Weiner of the Law Office of Courtney Wiener PLLC as Class Counsel. The Court grants Class Counsel's Motion for an Award of Attorney's Fees and Litigation Costs of $625,000 and costs of $s5,273.37. Advanced Medical is a full service healthcare operational management and business consulting company. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 16, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GlI8J7 at no extra charge.[CC] AMAZON INC: Sued Over Audible Users' Personal Info Collection ------------------------------------------------------------- Kat Black of The Recorder reports that Amazon's podcast and audiobook service, Audible, has been hit with a privacy class action for allegedly diverting users' personally identifiable information to Meta Platforms. What You Need to Know -- Amazon's audiobook subsidiary, Audible, was hit with a privacy class action over its use of the Meta tracking pixel. -- The plaintiffs accuse the company of collecting user data, including reading preferences, without their consent and siphoning it to Meta for marketing purposes. -- The complaint alleges violations of California's wiretapping statutes. Audible, the audiobook and podcast subsidiary of e-commerce giant Amazon, was hit with a privacy class action last week for allegedly diverting users' personally identifiable information to Meta Platforms Inc. through its use of tracking pixels. Bursor & Fisher filed the complaint against Audible, which alleged violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act, on Dec. 12 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Plaintiffs may seek statutory damages of up to $5,000 per violation of CIPA's "wiretapping" statutes under Cal. Penal Code Sec. 637.2. Counsel has not yet appeared for the defendant. Bursor & Fisher, which frequently litigates similar digital privacy claims involving tracking technology in California, did not immediately respond to requests for comment. This action was surfaced by Law.com Radar. The plaintiffs contend that Audible, which is headquartered in Newark, New Jersey, "conspires" with Meta to intercept communications such as users' "protected reading preferences" without their consent using the Meta pixel, a snippet of code installed on the Audible website that transmits user data to Meta servers and provides targeted advertising by tracking and analyzing consumer behavior for marketing and analytics purposes. The information at issue, they said, includes audiobooks that users have viewed, played or purchased. Audible has previously fielded litigation accusing it of patent infringement, false advertising and an allegedly unlawful automatic subscription renewal protocol, and its parent company is currently facing a proposed antitrust class action claiming that Amazon, through its ownership of Audible, maintains an illegal monopoly over the audiobook market. In addition to CIPA violations, the plaintiffs allege invasion of privacy under California's Constitution. "This invasion of privacy is serious in nature, scope, and impact because it relates to users' protected communications requesting or obtaining reading materials," wrote attorneys for the plaintiffs in the complaint. "Moreover, it constituted an egregious breach of the societal norms underlying the privacy right." The plaintiff class, which includes all California residents who have used the Audible website to access audiobooks, is seeking a damages award of more than $5 million; disgorgement of wrongfully obtained revenues and profits; prejudgment interest; injunctive relief; attorneys' fees and costs; and a jury trial. Audible and Amazon could not immediately be reached for comment. [GN] AMERICAN GOLF: Perez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Golf Corporation. The case is styled as Federico Palomera Perez, for himself as an aggrieved employee and on behalf of similarly situated former and current aggrieved employees v. American Golf Corporation, Does 1 to 50, Case No. 24STCV33492 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Dec. 18, 2024). American Golf -- https://www.americangolf.com/ -- is one of the most experienced and innovative operators in the golf industry today.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zorik Mooradian, Esq. MOORADIAN LAW, APC 24007 Ventura Blvd., Suite 210 Calabasas, CA 91302 Phone: (818) 487-1998 Fax: (888) 783-1030 Email: zorik@mooradianlaw.com ANNA JAQUES: McNeal Sues Over Recent Cyberattack and Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jane McNeal, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ANNA JAQUES HOSPITAL, Case No. 1:24-cv-13119 (D. Mass., Dec. 18, 2024), is brought arising out of a recent cyberattack and data breach (the "Data Breach") resulting from ANNA JAQUES's failure to implement reasonable and industry-standard data security practices to protect its patients' Private Information. In providing medical care to patients from across the country, the Defendant collects a significant amount of sensitive data â€“ including its patients' and employees' personal identifiable information ("PII") (e.g., demographic information, Social Security number, driver's license number, financial information, and other personal information) and personal health information ("PHI") (e.g., medical information, health insurance information, and treatment information). This complaint refers to PII and PHI collectively as JAQUES "Private Information." The Defendant collects, uses, and derives a benefit from its patients' and employees' extremely sensitive Private Information and it assumes a significant duty to protect that information. The Data Breach compromised and exposed patients' Private Information such as demographic information, medical information, health insurance information, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, financial information, and other personal or health information. The Defendant failed to protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII/PHI therefore, Plaintiff's and Class Members have been exposed to actual harm consistent with the litany of injuries that data breaches cause, including loss of value of PII, loss of time spent dealing with the Data Breach, imminent threat of and actual theft of PII by cybercriminals financial loss, such as purchasing protective measures including credit monitoring, credit freezes, credit reports, and other means of detecting and mitigating identity theft and any other types of quantifiable harm that stem from the breach, including out-of-pocket losses, says the complaint. The Plaintiff relied on Defendant to keep their PII confidential and securely maintained. ANNA JAQUES touts itself as a provider who "serves the Merrimack Valley, North Shore and Southern New Hampshire areas."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sean K. Collins, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SEAN K. COLLINS 184 High Street, Suite 503 Boston, MA 02110 Phone: 855-693-9256 Fax: 617-227-2843 Email: sean@neinsurancelaw.com - and - Charles E. Schaffer, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Phone: (215) 592-1500 Email: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com - and - Jeffrey S. Goldenberg , Esq. GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA 4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490 Cincinnati, OH 45242 Phone: (513) 345-8291 Email: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com - and - Brett R. Cohen, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514-1851 Phone: (516) 873-9550 Email: bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com ANTONAKOS PAINTING: Pulido Suit Seeks Proper Wages for Painters --------------------------------------------------------------- YAIR ENRIQUE RODRIGUEZ PULIDO, on his own behalf and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ANTONAKOS PAINTING & CONTRACTING INC., aka MP PAINTING CONTRACTOR, aka MPA PAINTERS, and all other affiliated entities and/or joint employers, all whose true names are unknown, MICHAEL ANTONAKOS, Individually, and HECTOR J. MARTINEZ MEJIA, Individually, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-10992 (D.N.J., December 9, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law, and associated provisions of the New Jersey Administrative Code, as well as the New Jersey Wage Payment Law. The suit arises from the Defendants' failure to pay overtime compensation, failure to full amount of wages due at least twice during each calendar month, unlawful discrimination and discharge amounting to retaliation, and unlawful termination. Plaintiff Pulido became employed by Defendants full-time, as a non-exempt painter, beginning in approximately April 2022, and continuing through approximately May 2024, performing duties in furtherance of Defendants' painting and contracting business. Antonakos Painting & Contracting Inc. owns, operates, and/or manages a painting and contracting business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew I. Glenn, Esq. Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq. JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A. 300 Carnegie Center, Suite 150 Princeton, NJ 08540 Telephone: (201) 687-9977 Facsimile: (201) 595-0308 E-mail: aglenn@jaffeglenn.com jjaffe@jaffeglenn.com ARCADIA CONSUMER: Hayde Sues Over Deceptive Product Labeling ------------------------------------------------------------ ERIC HAYDE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ARCADIA CONSUMER HEALTHCARE INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 8:24-cv-02657 (C.D. Cal., December 6, 2024) arises from Defendant's deceptive and misleading front labeling of its Maximum Strength Fungi-Nail Anti-Fungal Liquid product. The product's front label suggests that the product is effective treating nail fungus. However, the product contains a fine print on a back label disclaimer indicating that the product is not meant to treat nail fungus, nor is it effective at doing so. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now asserts claims for intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, breach of express warranty, and for violations of the California False Advertising Law, the Unfair Competition Law, the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act. Headquartered in Bridgewater, NJ, Arcadia Consumer Healthcare Inc. is a corporation that, among other things, manufactures and sells consumer healthcare products, including products for hair and scalp care, digestive health, vitamins, minerals, and supplements, first aid, oral care, cough and cold, and foot care. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thiago M. Coelho, Esq. Shahin Rezvani, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC 9701 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90212 Telephone: (213) 381-9988 Facsimile: (213) 381-9989 E-mail: thiago.coelho@wilshirelawfirm.com shahin.rezvani@wilshirelawfirm.com - and - Chumahan B. Bowen, Esq. Jennifer M. Leinbach, Esq. Reuben Aguirre, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC 3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 381-9988 Facsimile: (213) 381-9989 E-mail: chumahan.bowen@wilshirelawfirm.com jennifer.leinbach@wilshirelawfirm.com reuben.aguirre@wilshirelawfirm.com ARIEL CORP: Fails to Protect Customers' Info, Littleton Says ------------------------------------------------------------ SHANE LITTLETON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ARIEL CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-04249 (S.D. Ohio, December 9, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personally identifying information, which, as a result, is now in criminal cyberthieves' possession. Between June 20 and June 27, 2024, hackers targeted and accessed Defendant's network systems and stole Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive, confidential PII stored therein, including their full names in combination with Social Security numbers, and other sensitive data, causing widespread injuries to Plaintiff and Class Members. The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former customers and/or employees of Defendant who, in order to obtain products and/or employment from Defendant, were and are required to entrust Defendant with their sensitive, non-public PII. The Plaintiff asserts that Defendant failed to adequately protect her and Class Members' PII, and failed to even encrypt or redact this highly sensitive data. This unencrypted, unredacted PII was compromised due to Defendant's negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and its utter failure to protect its customers' sensitive data, says the Plaintiff. Ariel Corporation is a manufacturer of reciprocating gas compressors, and sells its products around the world.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Terence R. Coates, Esq. Dylan J. Gould, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC 119 East Court Street, Suite 530 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 651-3700 Facsimile: (513) 665-0219 E-mail: tcoates@msdlegal.com dgould@msdlegal.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW, P.A. 1 West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 332-4200 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com ARMADA SKILLED: Home Healthcare Workers Class Certified in Apodoca ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Kenneth J. Gonzales of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico grants the Plaintiffs' Motion for Rule 23 Class Certification in the lawsuit captioned BEVERLY APODOCA, GRETCHEN SCHMIDT, and NENA VIGIL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ARMADA SKILLED HOME CARE OF NM LLC, ARMADA HOME HEALTHCARE OF SOCORRO, LLC, and CHRISTOPHER TAPIA, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01071-KG-JFR (D.N.M.). The matter is before the Court on the Plaintiffs' Motion for Rule 23 Class Certification, filed May 23, 2024. The Defendants opposed the Motion; however, they did not file a Response. Named Plaintiffs Beverly Apodaca, an occupational therapist, Gretchen Schmidt, and Nena Vigil, registered nurses, were the Defendants' employees between 2017 and 2019. In their positions, the Plaintiffs provided in-home healthcare services to patients. On Nov. 15, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Collective and Class Action Complaint. On Dec. 4, 2024, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' Second Motion to Amend the Complaint. Because the Court granted the Second Amendment, it replaces previously named Plaintiff Gretchen Valencia with the newly named Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs allege the Defendants wrongfully denied them and other home healthcare workers (HHWs) overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in given workweeks in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act ("NMMWA"), and the New Mexico Wage Payment Act ("NMWPA"). The Plaintiffs' overarching allegation is that the Defendants violated the FLSA, NMMWA, and the NMWPA by knowingly failing to pay their home healthcare workers all overtime premium wages due for the overtime work they performed despite classifying them as non-exempt under the FLSA and eligible for overtime pay. The Plaintiffs state the Defendants maintained a policy and practice of paying home health workers on a "per event" basis for time spent visiting patients based on a set visit rate for each visit completed of a certain type. According to the Plaintiffs, the Defendants required HHWs to use a specific software to track their time on certain tasks, but the Defendants do not use the software to log workers' time spent on other tasks, like travel, preparing for visits, email, voicemail, communicating with patients and other medical providers, and coordinating care. As a result, the Plaintiffs assert the Defendants routinely permitted HHWs, including the Plaintiffs, to work more than 40 hours per week, but did not pay these workers overtime wages at a rate of 1.5 times their regular rate. The Plaintiffs assert all HHWs shared a common primary duty of providing healthcare services to patients in their homes. HHWs performed patient visits each day according to an assigned caseload. All HHWs received the same training on the Defendants' wage and hour policies, and were governed by the same policies, practices, and systems relating to timekeeping, performance requirements, and hours worked. On May 28, 2020, the Court granted conditional certification of the FLSA collective. Now, the Plaintiffs request the Court certify the class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. The Plaintiffs seek certification of their NMMWA claims and defines the proposed class as follows: All individuals employed by Defendants home healthcare workers who worked full-time and were paid on a "per event" basis in New Mexico, within the applicable statute of limitations. The Court finds the named Plaintiffs have satisfied the Rule 23(a) requirements of numerosity, typicality, commonality, and adequacy of counsel, as well as the Rule 23(b)(3) requirements of predominance and superiority. Thus, class certification is appropriate, and the Motion is granted. The Plaintiffs' NMMWA claims are certified as a class action and their counsel is appointed as class counsel. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/5cc5rekp from PacerMonitor.com. ASTRAZENECA PLC: 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 AstraZeneca PLC (NASDAQ: AZN) resulting from allegations that AstraZeneca may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. So What: If you purchased AstraZeneca 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=1331. What is this about: On October 30, 2024, AstraZeneca announced that Leon Wang, Executive Vice President International and AstraZeneca China President, was "cooperating with an ongoing investigation by Chinese authorities." On this news, AstraZeneca American Depositary Shares ("ADS") fell 3.1% on October 30, 2024. Then, on November 5, 2024, Yicai Global published an article entitled "AstraZeneca Insurance Fraud Involves Dozens of Senior Executives in China, Source Says." This article stated that "[d]ozens of senior executives at AstraZeneca China have been implicated in an ongoing insurance fraud case as of last week, according to a person familiar with the matter." Further, it stated that "[o]ver the past three years, insurance fraud cases involving AstraZeneca have surfaced in Shenzhen as well as the provinces of Fujian and Jiangxi. [. . .] These cases amount to the largest insurance fraud in the nation's pharmaceutical sector for years, a person familiar with the matter pointed out." On this news, AstraZeneca ADSs fell a further 7.2% on November 5, 2024. Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company at the time. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contacts Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] BAG BORROW: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Herrera Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- EDERY HERRERA, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BAG BORROW OR STEAL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-09288 (S.D.N.Y., December 6, 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. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to take actions to correct website's access barriers in the face of substantial harm and discrimination to blind class members. The Plaintiff now seeks redress for Defendant's unlawful conduct and alleges that Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website violates his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. Based in Middleton, WI, Bag Borrow or Steal, Inc. operates the Bag Borrow Or Steal online retail store, as well as the Bag Borrow Or Steal interactive website, https://www.bagborroworsteal.com, which offers which information about the company's designer bags & purses, and accessories, as well as other types of goods, pricing, terms of service, refund and privacy policies. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Huff Sues Over Failure to Disclose Defects ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sedera Huff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-11289 (D.N.J., Dec. 18, 2024), is brought against the Defendant's failure to ensure that the vehicle functions properly and safely for its advertised use and is free from defects, failure explicitly disclose the defect and make it right or cease selling the vehicle and failure to stand by the warranty. This action is brought to remedy various violations of law in connection with Defendant's manufacture, marketing, advertising, selling, warranting, and servicing of the Class Vehicles. Specifically, these Class Vehicles have malfunctions regarding the improperly sealed electrical connector on the water pump that may allow water to collect on the plug connector causing an electrical shortage, which could increase the risk of a thermal event and, potentially, a fire. On August 20, 2024, BMW recalled 720,796 of the Class Vehicles ("Recall). The allegations herein are based on personal knowledge as to Plaintiff's own experience and are made as to other matters based on an investigation by counsel, including analysis of publicly available information, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased a 2016 BMW 528i in April 15, 2023. The Defendant designs, manufactures, markets, distributes, services, repairs, sells, and leases vehicles, including the Class Vehicles, nationwide and in the state of Georgia and New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip J. Furia, Esq. Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. SULTZER & LIPARI, PLLC 85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Phone: (845) 483-7100 Fax: (888) 749-7747 Email: furiap@thesultzerlawgroup.com sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com - and - Paul J. Doolittle Esq. Seth Little Esq. POULIN | WILEY | ANASTOPOULO, LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Phone: 803-222-2222 Fax: 843-494-5536 Email: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com seth.little@poulinwilley.com cmad@poulinwilley.com BOBA TEA PROTEIN: Jackson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- Sylinia Jackson, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. BOBA TEA PROTEIN, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-09735 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 18, 2024), is brought against the Defendants for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully and equally accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its services offered thereby, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Because the Defendant's website, https://bobateaprotein.com, including all portions thereof or accessed thereon (collectively, the "Website" or "Defendant's website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. 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. By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services--all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals--thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using her computer. BOBA TEA PROTEIN, LLC, operates the Boba Tea Protein online retail store, as well as the Boba Tea Protein interactive Website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, N.Y. 10003-2461 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: dana@gottlieb.legal michael@gottlieb.legal jeffrey@gottlieb.legal C&N REINFORCING: Pizano Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against C&N Reinforcing, Inc. The case is styled as Bernardo Pizano, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. C&N Reinforcing, Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2024-0017554 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Dec. 18, 2024). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." C&N Reinforcing Inc. -- https://cnreinforcing.com/ -- is a company that operates in the Commercial & Residential Construction industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mehrdad Bokhour, Esq. BOKHOUR LAW GROUP, PC 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Ste. 450 Los Angeles, CA 90067-6006 Phone: 310-975-1493 Fax: 310-675-0861 Email: mehrdad@bokhourlaw.com CANTEEN: Faces Prieto Wage-and-Hour Suit in Cal. Super. ------------------------------------------------------- JORGE PRIETO, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CANTEEN, a California Corporation doing business as CANTEEN VENDING SERVICES; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 24CV102460 (Cal. Super., Alameda Cty., December 9, 2024) arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful labor practices in violation of the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest periods, waiting time penalties, wage statement violations, failure to timely pay wages, failure to indemnify, failure to pay interest on deposits, and unfair competition. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a non-exempt employee, with duties that included, but were not limited to, stocking vending machines and mini markets with food and beverages. Canteen, doing business as Canteen Vending Services, is a vending company in the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David D. Bibiyan, Esq. Henry G. Glitz, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C. 1460 Westwood Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 438-5555 Facsimile: (310) 300-1705 E-mail: david@tomorrowlaw.com henry@tomorrowlaw.com CENCORA INC: Martinez Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Mireya Martinez, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. CENCORA, INC., a Delaware corporation; AMERISOURCEBERGEN DRUG CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; AMERISOURCEBERGEN SERVICES CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; AMERISOURCEBERGEN SPECIALTY GROUP, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. CIVRS2401305 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of San Bernardino, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Dec. 18, 2024, and assigned Case No. 5:24-cv-02663. The Complaint alleges eight causes of action on behalf of Plaintiff and a putative class under California law: failure to pay overtime wages; failure to provide meal periods; failure to provide rest periods; failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay all wages due upon termination; failure to timely pay wages during employment; failure to provide accurate wage statements; and violation of the Unfair Competition Law.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Andrew P. Frederick, Esq. Michelle L. Quach, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1400 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304 Phone: +1.650.843.4000 Fax: +1.650.843.4001 Email: andrew.frederick@morganlewis.com michelle.quach@morganlewis.com CHECKPEOPLE LLC: Larancuent Sues Over Privacy Rights Violation -------------------------------------------------------------- John Larancuent, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. CHECKPEOPLE, LLC and INFORMATION.COM LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-03497 (D. Colo., Dec. 18, 2024), is brought for violations of the Colorado's "Prevention of Telemarketing Fraud Act" or "PTFA") against the Defendants, to prevent Defendants from further violating the privacy rights of Colorado cell phone users and to recover statutory damages. On May 27, 2005, former Colorado Governor Bill Owens signed into law HB05-1288, which amended the PTFA to prohibit commercially listing a cell phone number in a directory, without permission. The Defendants have listed the cellular telephone numbers of thousands of Colorado residents in their for-sale and for-profit directories, without requesting (let alone actually receiving) affirmative consent to such listings. Thus, while Defendants profit handsomely from their unauthorized commercial listing of Plaintiff's and other Class Members' personal information, Defendants do so at the expense of Coloradans' statutory privacy rights, under the PTFA. The Defendants never requested--and Plaintiff never providedâ€”affirmative consent, through written, oral, or electronic means, to such listings. In fact, Plaintiff has no relationship with Defendants whatsoever. Plaintiff had never heard of Defendants and had no reasonable ability to discover Defendants' use of his personal information until shortly before filing suit, says the complaint. The Plaintiff's cellular telephone number was listed by Defendants in their directories, available at checkpeople.com and information.com, to advertise and/or actually sell products and services. The Defendant operates the directory checkpeople.com and information.com.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick H. Peluso, Esq. PELUSO LAW LLC 865 Albion Street, Suite 250 Denver, CO 80220 Phone: (720) 805-2008 Facsimile: (720) 336-3663 Email: ppeluso@pelusolawfirm.com - and - Joseph I. Marchese, Esq. Matthew A. Girardi, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Phone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 Email: jmarchese@bursor.com mgirardi@bursor.com CHEMGUARD INC: Hamner Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Tamara Lynn Hamner, James Allen, Jr., Amanda Anderson, Wayne Paul Bach, Troy Boddie, Vanessa Brown-Williams, Patrick James Burk, John Caswell, Harlan Sheldon Clark, Joseph Benjamin Cohen, Samuel Crawford, Darrel Cyrus, Derek Richard Den Besten, Clarence Evans, Joshua Freeman, Yancy Vanshon Gable, Steven Garcia, Robert Gilbert, Gilbert William Grajales, Creig Griffin, Lindsey Holmes, Allen Hudson, Edmond Terrill Johnson, Debe Knudsen, Jody Lacoss, Jill Lanto, Michael Lipkin, Raymond Joseph Mackey, William Maines, Hugh Malone, Yvonne Arterberry Martini, Neil Melton, Linda Marie Miller, Melissa Mlsna, Timothy Osburn, Dwayne Patterson, Ruddy I. Pereda, Dr. James Phillips, Joseph Prudhomme, Edward Roman, Linda Rush, Josephine Ryals, James Kirk Sherwood, Thomas James Stokes, Sr., Clarence Strother, Mary Thomas, Terry Tremblay, Randy G. Ward, Jean Williams, Oralene Frances Worthington, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Chemguard, Inc., et al, Case No. 2:24-cv-01622 was transferred from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, to the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina on Dec. 18, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-07382-RMG to the proceeding. The nature of suit is state as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability. Linobghk, LLC doing business as The Healthy Kitchen -- https://thishealthykitchen.com/ -- offers plant based recipes with gluten free and oil free options.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Kevin B McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP PC 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: (205) 328-9200 Fax: (205) 328-9456 Email: gary@elglaw.com gregc@elglaw.com kmckie@elglaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Gregory M. Taube, Esq. NELSON MULLINS RILEY AND SCARBOROUGH (GA) 201 17th Street NW, Suite 1700 Atlanta, GA 30363 Phone: (404) 817-6050 Email: greg.taube@nelsonmullins.com CLARE V LLC: Picon Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ----------------------------------------------------------- YELITZA PICON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Clare V., LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-9341 (S.D.N.Y., December 9, 2024) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://www.clarev.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. The Plaintiff browsed and intended to make an online purchase of knitwear on Clarev.com. Despite her efforts, however, she was denied a shopping experience like that of a sighted individual due to the website's lack of a variety of features and accommodations. Unless the Defendant remedies the numerous access barriers on its website, the Plaintiff and Class members will continue to be unable to independently navigate, browse, use, and complete a purchase on Clarev.com, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Clare V.'s policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Clare V., LLC operates the website that sells tees, tanks, sweatshirts, shirts, dresses, handbags and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gabriel A. Levy, Esq. GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C. 1129 Northern Blvd, Suite 404 Manhasset, NY 11030 Telephone: (347) 941-4715 E-mail: Glevyfirm@gmail.com CMLS HOLDINGS: Nemeth Suit Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duty ----------------------------------------------------------- MILANA NEMETH and ADAM SAAB, individually on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ELI D. CASDIN, KEITH A. MEISTER, CHRISTIAN HENRY, KWAME OWUSU-KESSE, CHAD ROBINS, HARLAN ROBINS, AMY ABERNETHY, BRIAN EMES, SHAUN RODRIGUEZ, CMLS HOLDINGS III LLC, CORVEX MANAGEMENT LP, CASDIN CAPITAL, LLC, REVOLUTION MEDICINES, INC., and ALEXIS BORISY, Defendants, Case No. 2024-1268-KSJM (Del. Ch., December 12, 2024) is a verified class action complaint brought by the Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and similarly situated current and former stockholders of CM Life Sciences. The suit arises from (i) breach of fiduciary duty claims arising from CMLS III's December 17, 2021 merger with EQRx, Inc. against Officer Defendants and Director Defendants; (ii) aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty claims against Aiding and Abetting Defendants; and (iii) unjust enrichment claims against the CMLS III Defendants. According to the complaint, the Defendants breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty and candor to Plaintiffs and the Class by prioritizing their own personal, financial, and/or reputational interests in a manner unfair to and misleading Plaintiffs and the Class by failing to adequately inform public stockholders of material information necessary to allow them to make an informed redemption decision. As a result, the Plaintiffs and the Class were harmed due to the impairment of their redemption rights prior to the Merger, says the suit. CMLS Holdings III LLC, renamed EQRx, Inc., was a Delaware corporation that the Controller Defendants formed as a special purpose acquisition company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael J. Barry, Esq. Christine M. Mackintosh, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. 123 Justison Street, 7th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 622-7000 Facsimile: (302) 622-7100 - and - David Wissbroecker, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. 2325 Third Street, Suite 329 San Francisco, CA 94107 Telephone: (415) 229-9720 Facsimile: (415) 789-4367 - and - Peretz Bronstein, Esq. Eitan Kimelman, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 60 E 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 697-6484 - and - Brian J. Robbins, Esq. Gregory E. Del Gaizo, Esq. Mario D. Valdovinos, Esq. ROBBINS LLP 5060 Shoreham Place, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92122 Telephone: (619) 525-3990 COLONIAL BEHAVIORAL: Haynes Files Suit in E.D. Virginia ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Colonial Behavioral Health. The case is styled as James Haynes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Colonial Behavioral Health, Case No. 4:24-cv-00146-JKW-DEM (E.D. Va., Dec. 18, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Colonial Behavioral Health -- https://www.colonialbh.org/ -- provides counseling, IOP, medication management, and psychiatric services for your mental health needs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Elizabeth Kathleen Tripodi, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP 1101 Vermont Avenue NW, Suite 800 Washington D.C., DC 20005 Phone: (202) 524-4290 Email: etripodi@zlk.com COLOR FACTORY: Settles Undisclosed Fees Class Action for $714,700 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Color Factory agreed to pay more than $714,700 to resolve claims it charged undisclosed fees when selling electronic tickets to its Color Factory NYC location. The Color Factory settlement benefits individuals who purchased electronic tickets and paid a fee to gain entrance to Color Factory NYC between Aug. 29, 2022, and Jan. 23, 2024. According to the class action lawsuit, Color Factory failed to disclose fees for electronic tickets to its Color Factory NYC location before consumers selected the tickets for purchase. Plaintiffs in the case say this practice violated the New York Arts & Cultural Affairs Law. Color Factory is an interactive art exhibit with locations in New York City, San Francisco and Tokyo. Color Factory hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to the $714,705.68 settlement to resolve the Color Factory ticket fee class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the Color Factory settlement, class members can receive a proportional share of the net settlement fund based on the amount they paid in fees. Exact payment amounts will vary. No payment estimates are available. Color Factory also agreed to change its ticket purchase flow to comply with New York law. The deadline for exclusion and objection was Sept. 13, 2024. The final approval hearing for the Color Factory ticket fee class action lawsuit settlement was Nov. 6, 2024. To receive a settlement payment, class members must submit a valid claim form by Dec. 23, 2024. Who's Eligible Consumers who purchased electronic tickets to Color Factory NYC between Aug. 29, 2022, and Jan. 23, 2024, and paid a fee in connection with the purchase Potential Award TBD Proof of Purchase N/A Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 12/23/2024 Case Name Charles v. Color Factory LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-00322-JSR, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Final Hearing 11/06/2024 Settlement Website ColorFactoryTicketFeeSettlement.com Claims Administrator Color Factory NYC Ticket Fee Settlement c/o Epiq PO Box 2790 Portland, OR 97208-2790 info@ColorFactoryTicketFeeSettlement.com (888) 495-4585 Class Counsel Philip L Fraietta BURSOR & FISHER PA Defense Counsel Beth-Ann E Krimsky GREENSPOON MARDER LLP [GN] COMPUTERSHARE TRUST: Pretrial Management Order Entered in HIIT --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HERITAGE INTEGRITY INVESTMENT TRUST, v. COMPUTERSHARE TRUST COMPANY, N.A. et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-09309-JPC-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered an order on general pretrial management as follows: -- All pretrial motions and applications, including those related to scheduling and discovery (but excluding motions to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive relief, for summary judgment, or for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23) must be made to Judge Moses and in compliance with this Court's Individual Practices in Civil Cases, available on the Court's website at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-barbara-moses. -- The Court is in receipt of the proposed stipulation and scheduling order between plaintiff and defendants Computershare Trust Company, N.A., Broadridge Financial Solutions, Broadridge Corporate Issuer Solutions, Inc., and Transfer Online, Inc. -- However, of these parties, only defendant Computershare Trust Company is represented by an attorney who has appeared in this action. No later than December 20, 2024: 1. Attorney Platt (or another attorney admitted to practice in this Court) must enter a notice of appearance on plaintiff's behalf; 2. Attorney Jay (or another attorney admitted to practice in this Court) must enter a notice of appearance on behalf of defendants Broadridge Financial Solutions and Broadridge Corporate Issuer Solutions, Inc.; and 3. Attorney Shechter (or another attorney admitted to practice in this Court) must enter a notice of appearance on behalf of defendant Transfer Online, Inc. Computershare Trust Company operates as a brokerage firm. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 16, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=N0gjaa at no extra charge.[CC] COZY EARTH: Luby Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Ryan Luby, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. COZY EARTH HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 30-2024-01432393-CU-BT-CXC was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Orange, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Dec. 18, 2024, and assigned Case No. 8:24-cv-02725. The Complaint, styled as a class action, purports to bring four causes of action, for: unjust enrichment; violation of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"); violation of California's False Advertising Law ("FAL"); and violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"). The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant deceives consumers and gains an unfair upper hand on competitors by advertising "free shipping" on purchases exceeding $50, while simultaneously charging a shipping protection fee.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Stephanie Sheridan, Esq. Meegan B. Brooks, Esq. Nicolette Shamsian, Esq. BENESCH, FRIEDLANDER, COPLAN & ARONOFF LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 3100 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone:628.600.2250 Facsimile: 628.221.5828 Email: ssheridan@beneschlaw.com mbrooks@beneschlaw.com nshamsian@beneschlaw.com DAISO HOLDING: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Food Mislabeling Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Stephanie Bedard of Kilpatrick, in an article for JDSupra, reports that a California federal court denied a Japanese convenience store chain's motion to dismiss and to strike class-wide allegations of food mislabeling, finding the named plaintiff had standing to assert claims for injunctive relief and that defendant Daiso Holding USA Inc. ("Daiso")'s requests to strike the class allegations and disgorgement remedy were premature. Fukaya v. Daiso California LLC, et al., No. 23-cv-00099-RFL, 2024 WL 4784420 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2024). The named plaintiff, Makiko Fukaya, alleged that Daiso failed to properly label its packaged food as containing tree nuts where the English language sticker ingredient label covered the pre-printed Japanese language sticker label. 2024 WL 4784420, at *1. As a result, the plaintiff alleged she suffered a violent allergic reaction and had to be rushed to the emergency room. Id. She asserted claims against Daiso under California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), False Advertising Law ("FAL"), and Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"). Id. In May 2023, the district court preliminarily held that that Fukaya did not have standing to pursue injunctive relief under the CLRA, FAL, and UCL and dismissed the claims with leave to amend. Fukaya v. Daiso California LLC, et al., No. 3:23-cv-00099-JSC (N.D. Cal. May 11, 2023). Fukaya filed an amended complaint, and Daiso again moved to dismiss and to strike the class allegations. Despite the fact that the product Fukaya consumed has since been recalled by the FDA, the district court nonetheless found that Fukaya had standing to assert claims for injunctive relief, for two reasons. First, the court found that an actual or imminent harm could be demonstrated by Fuyaka's "plausible allegations that she will be unable to rely on the product's advertising or labeling in the future, and so will not purchase the product although she would like to." Id. (citing Davidson v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 889 F.3d 956, 969â€“70 (9th Cir. 2018)). Second, the district court found Fukaya had standing because she had plausibly alleged she encountered the same labeling issue on a different Daiso food product. Id. As a result, the court held that the allegations supported a "plausible inference of a systemic failure in Daiso's process of translating and labeling its English-language ingredient lists, such that other Daiso food products are also likely mislabeled." Id. Because Fukaya had sufficiently alleged a desire to purchase other Daiso food products, the court found she still had standing to seek injunctive relief because the harm was sufficiently imminent and non-speculative. Id. The court also denied the motion to strike the class allegations as to the express warranty claim and deferred ruling on whether Fukaya had standing to assert multi-state class claims for breach of express warranty, finding that it was not a question of standing and should instead be resolved at the class certification stage after discovery. Id. at *2. Finally, the court denied the motion to strike the disgorgement remedy, finding that striking claims for relief on the grounds that they are "precluded as a matter of law" was improper under Rule 12(f). Id. (citing Whittlestone, Inc. v. Handi-Craft Co., 618 F.3d 970, 973â€“74 (9th Cir. 2010)). Takeaway: California courts continue to take an expansive view of standing to seek injunctive relief in advertising and labeling class actions, even in situations where the product is no longer available for purchase due to a product recall. [GN] DATAX LTD: McCarthy Sues Over RICO Violation -------------------------------------------- Michelle McCarthy, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons v. DATAX, LTD., FINSANA, LLC, MICHAEL D'AMBROSE, NCR FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., STRATEGIC SOLUTIONS SERVICES doing business as ARROW MOUNTAIN FUNDING, and THE FIRST NATIONS LENDERS' AUTHORITY, Case No. 8:24-cv-02916 (M.D. Fla., Dec. 18, 2024), is brought against all Defendants for violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), Florida's Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act ("CRCPA"), and for unjust enrichment, and against Strategic Solution Services and D'Ambrose for violations of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act ("FCCPA"). Loans made through Arrow Mountain charge interest exceeding 600% annually--rates significantly above the maximum legal rate in most states, including Florida. Indeed, Florida law prohibits usury and caps interest rates at 18% annually. Interest rates of 45% and higher are deemed a felony. Loans made at usurious rates are void ab initio under Florida law. By asserting First Nation governance, and through the use of choice-of law provisions and assertions American borrowers must file legal action in Quebec, Defendants have attempted to strip consumers of any remedies they may have under state law, and also attempted to circumvent state usury laws, such as Florida's. However, the notion that Arrow Mountain is operated primarily by, and/or for the benefit of the Mohawk Territory of Kahnawake is a farce, as the lending scheme operates primarily for the financial benefit of non-First Nation-owned NCR and related entities. To evaluate potential borrowers, the Defendants obtain consumer reports from DataX, a consumer reporting agency which tailors its reports to the subprime lending industry. To collect Arrow Mountain's illegal loans, Strategic Solution Services often hires an Illinois based debt collector, Defendant Michael D'Ambrose, to send wage assignment letters directly to the borrower's employer. Such notices are carefully designed to look like real wage garnishment writs issued by a court of law and claim the borrower's employer is required to garnish the consumer's wages and remit payment directly to Strategic Solution Services. However, Florida law requires that debt be reduced to judgment and also requires approval of a court prior to the garnishment of a consumer's wages. Strategic Solution Services' wage assignment letters are sent without suit ever having been filed, and thus violate the law, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a Consumer as defined by the FCCPA. The Defendants operate, or provide various services essential to the operation of, the online lending website https://www.arrowmountainfunding.com/.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bryan J. Geiger, Esq. SERAPH LEGAL, P. A. 2124 W. Kennedy Blvd., Suite A. Tampa, FL 33606 Phone: 813-567-1230 (Ext: 303) Fax: 855-500-0705 Email: BGeiger@seraphlegal.com DELOITTE CONSULTING: Faces Class Suit Over RIBridges Cyberattack ---------------------------------------------------------------- Alexandra Leslie, writing for WPRI.com, reports that Rhode Islanders have filed federal class action lawsuits over the RIBridges cyberattack, less than 72 hours after officials disclosed the large-scale hack of many state health and benefits programs. Civil complaints were filed against Deloitte, the contractor that runs the RIBridges system for the state, in U.S. District Court in Rhode Island as well as in New York, where the company is headquartered. The complaint alleges that Deloitte failed to adequately protect individuals' sensitive personally identifiable information maintained in RIBridges, the system used to manage social services such as SNAP and Medicaid benefits, as well as health insurance through HealthSourceRI. The online portal used for the programs, HealthyRhode, was taken offline on Friday, December 13, due to the hack. Former state Rep. Peter Wasylyk is the attorney representing the plaintiffs in the new lawsuit. He said Deloitte has left Rhode Islanders receiving state benefits "extremely vulnerable." "Data breaches take an enormous emotional and financial toll on affected individuals, disrupting their lives, causing them stress, and putting them at risk of identity theft, fraud, and other forms of misuse of their personally identifiable information," Wasylyk said in a statement. "This incident is just another example of the critical need for entities to take strong measures to safeguard such sensitive personal information." Wasylyk said the plaintiffs are committed to holding Deloitte accountable and "ensuring that those affected are properly compensated for the harm caused by this data breach." Deloitte is being accused of negligence, breach of contract and unjust enrichment. Wasylyk said anyone looking to learn more information or join the lawsuit can contact him by email at pnwlaw@aol.com or call 401-831-7730. In a statement, Deloitte spokesperson Karen Walsh said the company is working to deal with the situation. "Upon learning that a state system supported by Deloitte had been attacked by an international cybercriminal group, we launched an investigation in collaboration with our client and law enforcement officials," she said. "While that investigation is ongoing, we have shown over the past decade our unwavering commitment to the state of Rhode Island and the people they serve," she continued. "We will continue to work around the clock to resolve this matter." Officials say they first learned on Dec. 5 that an international cybercriminal group may have breached RIBridges, the state system formerly known as UHIP used for a host of health and benefits programs. They said they became more alarmed when the hackers sent a screenshot of file folders from RIBridges and revealed malware had been put into the system. The hackers are believed to have stolen information like Social Security and bank account numbers for potentially hundreds of thousands of residents who have used a long list of state programs over the last eight years. The programs include Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), the Child Care Assistance Program (CCAP), HealthSource RI health insurance, Rhode Island Works, Long-Term Services and Supports (LTSS), the General Public Assistance (GPA) program, and AT HOME cost-sharing. Individuals who are directly affected will be getting a letter in the mail from the state notifying them. Since Sunday, December 15, a toll-free hotline has been accepting calls to give people general information about the breach and advising them on steps they can take to protect their data. McKee's office said that Deloitte is still in the process of identifying impacted customers, and that representatives at the call center "will not yet be able to identify whether particular individuals' data has been impacted." SNAP and RI Works beneficiaries are also being urged to learn how they can freeze and unfreeze their EBT cards in order to ensure their benefit payments aren't stolen. That can be done through the company that manages the cards, FIS, either online or using its mobile app. Detailed instructions are in a PDF on the state's website. [GN] DMC GLOBAL: Garson Sues Over Misleading Statements on Securities ---------------------------------------------------------------- SAMUEL GARSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DMC GLOBAL INC., MICHAEL KUTA, and ERIC V. WALTER, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-03387 (D. Colo., December 6, 2024), seeks to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Plaintiff Garson brings this federal securities class action on behalf of all purchasers of DMC Global securities between May 3, 2024 and November 4, 2024, inclusive. Throughout the said period, the Defendants misrepresented and failed to disclose the following adverse facts about DMC Global's business, operations, and prospects which were known to Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them: (i) the goodwill associated with Acadia Products was overstated due to the adverse events and circumstances affecting that reporting segment; (ii) DMC Global's materially inadequate internal systems and processes were adversely affecting its operations; (iii) the Company's inadequate systems and processes prevented it from ensuring reasonably accurate guidance and that its public disclosures were timely, accurate, and complete; (iv) as a result, Defendants misrepresented DMC Global's operations and financial results; and/or (v) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false, misleading, or lacked a reasonable basis when made, says the suit. DMC Global is a diversified industrial company headquartered in Broomfield, CO. The company's common stock trades on the NASDAQ under the ticker symbol "BOOM." [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey A. Berens, Esq. JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP 2373 Central Park Boulevard, Suite 100 Denver, CO 80238 Telephone: 303/861-1764 Facsimile: (303) 861-1764 E-mail: jeffb@johnsonfistel.com - and - Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq. JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP 40 Powder Springs Street Marietta, GA 30064 Telephone: (470) 632-6000 Facsimile: (770) 200-3101 E-mail: michaelf@johnsonfistel.com DR. KATES: Parties Seek to Send Notice to Putative Class Members ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Valissa Brown, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Dr. Kates Growing Smiles Children's Dentistry, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-00658-JDA (N.D. Ohio), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order allowing them to send court-facilitated notice in this Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") collective action. The notice will provide notice to the putative class members of Plaintiff's FLSA claims. The parties will provide notice to the putative class members per the following schedule. 1) The class members for purposes of court-facilitated notice only is comprised of all former and current dental assistant employees of Dr. Kates Growing Smiles Children's Dentistry, LLC and/or Ohio VIP Dental Assisting School who allegedly were not paid overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for any hours they worked over 40 in any workweek at any time from three years before the date the Court approves Notice. 2) The parties jointly submit Exhibit 1 containing proposed language for notification and consent forms to be authorized by the Court. 3) No later than 30 days after the entry of the Court's approval of this Stipulation, Defendants shall provide to Plaintiff a list (in Microsoft Office Excel format) containing the name, and the last known email address, home address, and telephone number of the putative class members. 4) No later than 45 days after the entry of the Court's approval of this Stipulation, Plaintiff's counsel shall send the proposed notice attached as Exhibit 1 to the individuals appearing on the list referred to in Paragraph 3 via First-Class Mail and email. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Dec. 16, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mkmvOw at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert B. Kapitan, Esq. Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq. THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC The Heritage Building, Suite 250 34555 Chagrin Boulevard Moreland Hills, OH 44022 Telephone: (216) 696-5000 Facsimile: (216) 696-7005 E-mail: robert@lazzarolawfirm.com anthony@lazarrolawfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Michele L. Jakubs, Esq. ZASHIN & RICH CO., L.P.A. 950 Main Ave., 4th Floor Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 696-4441 Facsimile: (216) 696-1618 E-mail: mlj@zrlaw.com â€ƒ ELEVATE HEALTH: Schweer Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Oklahoma -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Elevate Health LLC. The case is styled as Kathleen Schweer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Elevate Health LLC, Case No. 5:24-cv-01323-JD (W.D. Okla., Dec. 18, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Elevate Health, LLC -- https://www.elevatehealthmt.com/ -- provides General Adult psychiatric services for Medication Management, Psychotherapy services, Maintenance Opioid treatment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Roman Perrong, Esq. PERRONG LAW LLC 2657 Mt. Carmel Ave Glenside, PA 19038 Phone: (215) 225-5529 Fax: (888) 329-0305 Email: a@perronglaw.com ELITE FIBER: McAnally Sues Over Illegal Worker Misclassification ---------------------------------------------------------------- WESLEY MCANALLY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ELITE FIBER, LLC, JOHN MUSCHALEK AND LINDA MUSCHALEK, INDIVIDUALLY, Defendants, Case No. 5:24-cv-01393 (W.D. Tex., December 6, 2024) asserts claims arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Plaintiff McAnally and other similarly situated employees are Defendants' current and former fiber optic technicians who were misclassified as independent contractors and were paid on an hourly basis. Throughout their employment with Defendants, they consistently worked more than 40 hours per workweek. However, they never received overtime premiums for any hours worked over 40 per workweek, says the suit. Elite Fiber, LLC specializes in servicing, troubleshooting and repairing fiber optic cable in and around Bexar County and Travis County. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas B. Welmaker , Esq. 409 N. Fredonia, Suite 118 Longview, TX 75601 Telephone: (512) 799-2048 E-mail: doug@welmakerlaw.com ENDEAVOR AIR: Parties Seek More Time to Complete Fact Discovery ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Levy et al., v. Endeavor Air, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-04387-ENV-JRC (E.D.N.Y.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting a 6-month extension of time to complete fact discovery. -- The current deadline for completion of fact discovery is Jan. 17, 2025. -- The Parties request that fact discovery be extended to July 17, 2025 (6 months). -- This is the Parties' first extension requestion and is made upon the consent of both Parties. In sum, the Parties request this extension not to delay the case, but in order to avoid unnecessary motion practice and to ensure that the Court has the evidence needed before it to decide the important issue of class certification which will certainly impact the trajectory of dispositive motions and trial. Endeavor is a regional airline in the United States headquartered at the Minneapolisâ€“Saint Paul International Airport in Minneapolis, Minnesota. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Dec. 16, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=A7YWtg at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brian S. Schaffer, Esq. FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP 28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 300-0375 Facsimile: (212) 481-1333 â€ƒ ENVOY AIR INC: Pietri Suit Removed to E.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Brianna Camacho Pietri, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ENVOY AIR, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 23CV005922 was removed from the Superior Court of the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Sacramento, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on Dec. 18, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-at-01607. This case is purportedly brought as a civil class action for damages and/or penalties under the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code, and applicable provisions of the Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC") Wage Orders, by Plaintiff on behalf of herself and other putative class members. In the Complaint, Plaintiff brings claims against Envoy for its alleged failure to pay overtime wages, failure to timely pay wages upon separation from employment, and failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements. Plaintiff also alleges that Envoy committed acts of unfair competition as defined by the California Unfair Business Practices Act.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Mark W. Robertson, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP 1301 Avenue of the Americas, 17th Floor New York, NY 10019 Phone: (212) 326-2000 Facsimile: (212) 326-2061 Email: mrobertson@omm.com - and - Kelly S. Wood, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP 610 Newport Center Drive, 17th Floor Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: (949) 823-6900 Facsimile: (949) 823-6994 Email: kwood@omm.com EVERSOURCE ENERGY: Newton Files Suit Over Deceptive Charges ----------------------------------------------------------- ALLISON NEWTON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EVERSOURCE ENERGY, Defendant, Case No. ________ (Mass. Super., Suffolk Cty., December 9, 2024) is a proposed class action seeking monetary damages, restitution, and public injunctive and declaratory relief from the Defendant arising from its unconscionable, unfair and deceptive and assessment of so-called "Reconnect Charges" on consumers, including Plaintiff. According to the complaint, the Defendant's "Reconnect Charges" are deceptively named, insufficiently disclosed, and far in excess of the negligible costs to Defendant of restoring electric service that it has previously disconnected due to non-payment. As a result, Defendant's $102 "Reconnect Charges" far exceed Eversource's actual cost of reconnecting electric service and is nothing more than an expensive excuse to collect money from struggling consumers who can afford it the least -- who are already struggling to keep the lights on. Eversource Energy owns and operates electric utilities and is headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan M. Hixon, Esq. HACKETT FEINBERG P.C. 155 Federal Street, 9th Floor Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 422-0200 E-mail: jmh@bostonbusinesslaw.com - and - Jeffrey Kaliel, Esq. Sophia Gold, Esq. Amanda Rosenberg, Esq. KALIEL GOLD PLLC 1100 14th Street NW, 4th Fl. Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 250-4783 E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com sgold@kalielgold.com EXPEDIA GROUP: Faces Class Action Suit Over Breached Duty of Care ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Expedia Group Inc. and Securitas Security Services USA Inc. (collectively, "Defendants") alleging negligent conduct and breached duty of care after a former employee -- Marcelo F. Vargas-Fernandez -- was arrested and charged with first-degree voyeurism. The plaintiff and class are represented by Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman ("Milberg"). Plaintiff and Washington resident, Jane Doe, claims to have suffered "dramatically" after her former co-worker, Vargas-Fernandez, planted multiple spy cameras in restrooms and other private settings at Expedia Group's headquarters, where the two worked together. Filed in King County Superior Court on Friday, December 13, the Milberg class action seeks to hold Expedia and its hired on-site security services provider -- Securitas -- liable for violation of privacy. According to the complaint, "the cameras in the Expedia Group bathrooms were specifically aimed at the toilet in all-gender single occupancy restrooms, allowing [Vargas-Fernandez] to view the private use and genitalia of restroom users." Vargas-Fernandez was arrested on February 1, 2024 and charged with four counts of first-degree voyeurism in King County, Washington. Several Expedia employees claim to have reported the concerning discovery of cameras in Expedia bathrooms to Securitas staff as early as December 2023. In one instance, an Expedia vanpool driver noticed what he believed to be a camera underneath a bathroom sink while using the toilet. Upon further search, he discovered a similar device in an adjacent bathroom. The employee conveyed his findings to a Securitas staff member at the security desk and the matter was reported. However, Securitas supervisors took no action, even deciding against removing the devices, as they were assumed to be "music" apparatuses or "battery backup for the soap dispensers." Another employee would discover the same camera devices in mid-January. As a result, "dozens of individuals fell victim to Mr. Vargas-Fernandez's voyeurism from December 4, 2023 to January 11, 2024, totaling 39 days," not including the alleged "months" of recording before the cameras were first discovered. Following the arrest and the execution of a search warrant, plaintiff Jane Doe was advised by a Seattle Police Department officer that Mr. Vargas-Fernandez's computer contained a digital folder labeled with her name, which contained identifiable video recordings of her while using the restroom. The plaintiff asserts the defendants failed to "adequately monitor and maintain the premises," leading to a myriad of physical and emotional damages suffered by the victims, including Jane Doe herself. According to the complaint, the class is believed to include over 60 victims. "Sadly, Expedia and Securitas refuse to take responsibility for their role in enabling this reprehensible conduct. We look forward to getting our client and the other victims their day in Court," said Milberg Senior Partner Gary Klinger, who represents the plaintiff and class. Milberg seeks damages, injunctive relief, declaratory judgments, costs, attorneys' fees, and more on behalf of the victims. Victims and witnesses with knowledge of the events are encouraged to contact Gary Klinger directly. About Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, PLLC: For over 50 years, Milberg and its affiliates have been fighting to protect victims' rights and have recovered over $50 billion for clients. A pioneer in class action litigation, Milberg is widely recognized as a leader in defending the rights of victims of corporate wrongdoing. Media Contact: Karine Lim klim@milberg.com [GN] FIVE9 INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set February 3 ---------------------------------------------------------- If you suffered a loss on your Five9, Inc. (NASDAQ:FIVN) investment and want to learn about a potential recovery under the federal securities laws, follow the link below for more information: https://zlk.com/pslra-1/five9-inc-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=116675&wire=1 or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. via email at jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or call (212) 363-7500 to speak to our team of experienced shareholder advocates. THE LAWSUIT: A class action securities lawsuit was filed against Five9, Inc. that seeks to recover losses of shareholders who were adversely affected by alleged securities fraud between June 4, 2024 and August 8, 2024. CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that defendants made false statements and/or concealed that: (i) Five9's net new business was not "strong irrespective of the macro" and was, in fact, hampered by macroeconomic issues such as constrained and scrutinized customer budgets; (ii) Five9 was in the midst of a challenging bookings quarter due, in part, to sales execution and efficiency issues, and the Company was not "seeing very strong bookings momentum"; and (iii) defendants did not have "enough information in terms of [their] existing customers that are going live" such that the statements that Five9 would see a positive inflection in its dollar-based retention rate lacked a reasonable basis. WHAT'S NEXT? If you suffered a loss in Five9, Inc. stock during the relevant time frame - even if you still hold your shares - go to https://zlk.com/pslra-1/five9-inc-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=116675&wire=1 to learn about your rights to seek a recovery. There is no cost or obligation to participate. WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Over the past 20 years, Levi & Korsinsky LLP has established itself as a nationally-recognized securities litigation firm that has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders and built a track record of winning high-stakes cases. The firm has extensive expertise representing investors in complex securities litigation and a team of over 70 employees to serve our clients. For seven years in a row, Levi & Korsinsky has ranked in ISS Securities Class Action Services' Top 50 Report as one of the top securities litigation firms in the United States. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Levi & Korsinsky, LLP Joseph E. Levi, Esq. Ed Korsinsky, Esq. 33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 jlevi@levikorsinsky.com Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 https://zlk.com/ [GN] FU LONG FOOD: Hernandez Alleges Labor Law Violations ---------------------------------------------------- JULIAN MANUEL SOSA HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FU LONG FOOD PRODUCT INC. d/b/a FU LONG DELI & GROCERY, and ZHEN FU LU and ZHAN ZHEN XU, as individuals, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-08391-NCM-MMH (E.D.N.Y., December 6, 2024) seeks to recover damages for Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as an organizer, food preparer, cook and cleaner, while performing related miscellaneous duties for the Defendants, from in or around October 2014 until in or around November 2024. The Plaintiff was regularly required to work approximately 63 hours per week from in or around December 2018 until in or around November 2024. However, the Defendants did not pay Plaintiff time and a half for hours worked over 40, violation of the overtime provisions contained in the FLSA and NYLL, says the suit. Fu Long Food Product Inc., doing business as Fu Long Deli & Grocery, is located at 68-28 Fresh Meadow Lane, Flushing, NY. [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 Facsimile: (718) 263-9598 GEICO GENERAL: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Jan. 24, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN MARCELLETTI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 6:23-cv-06211-EAW-MWP (W.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Marian Payson entered a second amended scheduling order: -- The Plaintiff shall file his motion for Jan. 24, 2025 class certification and supporting papers by: -- The Defendant shall file its papers in March 7, 2025. opposition to Plaintiff's motion for class certification (including any expert reports/declarations in support thereof) by: -- The Court will hold a telephonic case March 12, 2025 management conference during the week of March 10-14, 2025 on: Geico offers vehicle, property, motorcycle, boat, homeowners, flood, mobile home, general liability, and pet insurance. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 16, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JyQMs8 at no extra charge.[CC] GOODRX INC: Esco Drug Sues Over Antitrust Law Breach ---------------------------------------------------- ESCO DRUG CO., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GOODRX, INC.; GOODRX HOLDINGS, INC.; CVS CAREMARK CORPORATION; EXPRESS SCRIPTS HOLDING COMPANY; MEDIMPACT HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS, INC.; and NAVITUS HEALTH SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-10543 (C.D. Cal., December 6, 2024), accuses the Defendants of violating Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The case arises from an illegal agreement to suppress the prices paid by pharmacy benefit managers to independent pharmacies for generic prescription medication. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants agreed to act together to artificially suppress prescription drug reimbursement rates paid to independent pharmacies and to increase fees charged to pharmacies on all GoodRx-related transactions, under a scheme called the Integrated Savings Program. Moreover, the conspiracy has caused harm to independent pharmacies throughout the United States. Headquartered in Santa Monica, CA, GoodRx, Inc. offers drug price comparison, pharmacy information services, and drug coupons through its website and mobile application. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Hung G. Ta, Esq. Alexander H. Hu, Esq. HGT LAW 889 Francisco Street, Ste. 2006 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (646) 453-7288 Facsimile: (646) 453-7289 E-mail: hta@hgtlaw.com alex@hgtlaw.com - and - Peter Safirstein, Esq. SAFIRSTEIN LAW LLC 45 N. Broad Street, Ste. 100 Ridgewood, NJ 07450 Telephone: (917) 952-9458 E-mail: PSafirstein@safirsteinlaw.com GOOGLE UK: Court of Appeal Rejects Claims on Private Info Misuse ---------------------------------------------------------------- farrer.co.uk reports that the Court of Appeal has rejected Andrew Prismall's representative claim against Google and DeepMind for misuse of private information (MPI). This decision is in line with the Supreme Court's rejection of representative claims for breaches of data protection laws in Lloyd -v- Google. This is another blow to claimants who had hoped to pursue collective claims for misuse of their information. Background We wrote about the first instance decision in Prismall here. However, by way of a brief recap, Andrew Prismall brought a representative action, pursuant to what is now Civil Procedure Rule 19.8, for MPI against Google UK Limited (Google) and DeepMind Technologies Limited (DeepMind). The representative claim sought damages for the loss of control over private information. The action was brought on behalf of approximately 1.6 million people on the so-called opt-out basis (meaning that these individuals did not need to consent to being represented in the claim but could elect to opt-out of it if they wanted to). The claim related to the transfer of patient data (medical records), without the patients' consent, by the Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust) to Google and DeepMind who then used the data for the purposes of developing an app called "Streams". This app was intended to be used to identify and treat patients suffering from acute kidney injury. High Court ruling At first instance, in May 2023, Justice Heather Williams struck out the claim and granted summary judgment to Google and DeepMind. The Judge applied the reasoning set out by the Supreme Court in 2021 in the data protection claim in Lloyd -v- Google. The principal issue was whether each member of the class represented by Mr Prismall could be said to have "the same interest". To do so it was necessary to identify if there can be a "lowest common denominator" of person whose claim represents the "irreducible minimum scenario" for a claimant whose case would succeed across all of the class. The Judge decided that this notional claimant's claim for MPI was bound to fail. This was principally because the lowest common denominator would, among other factors, include: (i) those whose supposedly private information was in fact likely be anodyne; and (ii) those who had placed their medical information into the public domain so undermining a key part of a claim for MPI that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in that information. Therefore, the representative action could not proceed because the "lowest common denominator" MPI claim would fail. The Appeal The appeal mainly focussed on these two key factors underpinning the first instance Judge's findings. If Mr Prismall could persuade the Court of Appeal that the Judge had been wrong about those factors, then a viable claim covering the whole class might be established. Mr Prismall said that the Judge had been wrong to reject the argument that all patient related information generated in the course of the relationship between a patient and a healthcare provider gives rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy. He also said the Judge had been wrong in rejecting the submission that the placing of medical information in the public domain by patients does not impact the healthcare provider's obligation to keep private the information generated in the context of the relationship with patients, or the reasonable expectation of privacy attaching to that information. He argued that any such information would always give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy. Mr Prismall said this was not general information about a person's health which was anodyne or already in the public domain and where there might therefore be no reasonable expectation of privacy. The claimant said the Judge had therefore been wrong to say that a patient placing information of a general nature about their health in the public domain would mean that the obligation of a healthcare provider to keep their medical records private was negated. The Court of Appeal rejected these main grounds of appeal and agreed with the decision of the first instance Judge that the "same interest" test for all 1.6 million represented individuals could not be met. They explained that a claim for MPI must pass a threshold of seriousness. The Court of Appeal said that this de minimis threshold will not always be satisfied in respect of all types of information recorded on medical records. In addition, where a patient had put information relating to their health into the public domain then that is relevant to assessing whether there is any reasonable expectation of privacy. The Court of Appeal said a claim for MPI would be unlikely to succeed where a patient had placed medical information in the public domain. Conclusion The Court of Appeal concluded its judgment by saying that a representative claim for misuse of private information was always likely to be very difficult to succeed because of the wide range of circumstances that will affect whether there is a reasonable expectation of privacy for any particular claimant. It would be very difficult to arrive at any notional lowest common denominator that would satisfy the same interest test. In other words, aligned with the decision on the data protection claims asserted in Lloyd -v- Google, the nature of an MPI claim is likely to involve individualised elements for each claimant which means it is almost inevitable that the same interest test cannot be satisfied. The impact of this ruling and the Supreme Court decision in Lloyd -v- Google is that representative actions for data privacy claims, whether framed as MPI claims or data protection claims, look like non-starters. The decision of the Court of Appeal is here. This publication is a general summary of the law. It should not replace legal advice tailored to your specific circumstances. [GN] GRAND FOOD: Faces Guzman Suit Over Wage and Hour Law Breaches ------------------------------------------------------------- JUAN CARLOS VALDEZ GUZMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GRAND FOOD SERVICE, INC. d/b/a GOLDEN CITY FOOD SERVICE, and PETER CHEUNG and WAH HAI CHEUNG, as individuals, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-08390 (E.D.N.Y., December 6, 2024) seeks to recover damages for Defendants' alleged violations of state and federal wage and hour laws. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as an organizer, stocker, and loader, while performing other miscellaneous duties, from in or around November 2022 until in or around November 2024. The Plaintiff was regularly required to work approximately 65 hours per week from in or around November 2022 until in or around September 2024; and approximately 59 hours per week from in or around October 2024 until in or around November 2024. However, the Defendants did not pay Plaintiff time and a half for hours worked over 40, a blatant violation of the overtime provisions contained in the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, says the suit. Grand Food Service, Inc. is a food service company in 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 Facsimile: (718) 263-9598 ISL EMPLOYEES: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Moton Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------ KAMIA MOTON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ISL EMPLOYEES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 24-cv-1574 (E.D. Wis., December 9, 2024) is a collective and class action brought against the Defendant pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws for unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory and/or injunctive relief, and/or any such other relief the Court may deem appropriate. According to the complaint, the Defendant operated an unlawful compensation system that deprived and failed to compensate Plaintiff and all other current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt employees for all hours worked and work performed each workweek, including at an overtime rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant into the position of caregiver in approximately July 2024 until the end of her employment in November 2024. ISL Employees, Inc. provides assisted living and senior living services throughout the United States, including but not limited to in the State of Wisconsin.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Walcheske, Esq. Scott S. Luzi, Esq. David M. Potteiger, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240 Brookfield, WI 53005 Telephone: (262) 780-1953 Facsimile: (262) 565-6469 E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com JOHNS HOPKINS: Court Grants Bids to Dismiss Godson Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Randolph D. Moss of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia grants the Defendants' motions to dismiss the lawsuit styled EVANGELISTIC GODSON, Plaintiff v. JOHNS HOPKINS MEDICINE, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-03824-RDM (D.D.C.). Plaintiff Evangelistic Godson, proceeding pro se, filed this action on Dec. 27, 2023, against The Johns Hopkins Hospital and Dr. Patrick Walsh. His claims arise from medical care that he received from Dr. Walsh at The Johns Hopkins Hospital located in Baltimore, Maryland. He seeks a judgment of $2.5 million and asks that the Court treat his claim as "a class action." The Defendants explained in a previous filing that "Johns Hopkins Medicine is a trade name registered in Maryland" and that they presume that the Plaintiff intended to sue The Johns Hopkins Hospital, as the medical care that is the subject of this Complaint took place at The Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, Maryland. The Court previously noted that the Plaintiff may amend his complaint once as a matter of course on or before March 28, 2024, to correct the misnomer and/or make other changes, but the Plaintiff has not done so. Now before the Court are two motions to dismiss, one filed by Dr. Walsh, and another filed by Johns Hopkins. Among other defenses, both motions seek dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Court agrees that it lacks personal jurisdiction over both Defendants. Judge Moss finds that the Plaintiff has failed even to allege--much less to show--that either Dr. Walsh or The Johns Hopkins Hospital is "at home" in the District of Columbia. The evidence that is before the Court, moreover, supports a contrary conclusion. Dr. Walsh attests that his office is located in Baltimore, Maryland, that he lives in the State of Maryland, and that he does not practice medicine, hold a license to practice medicine, maintain an office, or own property in the District of Columbia. Similarly, the Deputy General Counsel for Johns Hopkins Health Systems attests that Johns Hopkins Health Systems is the parent corporation of The Johns Hopkins Hospital and that The Johns Hopkins Hospital is a Maryland corporation with its principal place of business located in Baltimore, Maryland. Rather than dispute any of these factual assertions, Judge Moss notes that the Plaintiff seems to acknowledge that the Defendants lack any ongoing connection to the District of Columbia, explaining that he chose to file suit here for precisely that reason. He requests a jury trial of his peers in a neutral location, Washington, D.C., because, according to him, it would be impossible for this matter to succeed in the State of Maryland and Baltimore County. The Court, accordingly, concludes that the Plaintiff has failed to carry his burden of establishing general jurisdiction over either Dr. Walsh or The Johns Hopkins Hospital in the District of Columbia. As with general jurisdiction, Judge Moss finds the Plaintiff has failed to carry his burden of making this showing with respect to either Dr. Walsh or The Johns Hopkins Hospital. Notably, the complaint makes clear that each of the acts relevant to the Plaintiff's claim occurred in Baltimore, Maryland, at The Johns Hopkins Hospital. Indeed, Judge Moss opines, the Plaintiff fails to allege that any act or event relevant to this case took place in or affected anyone in the District of Columbia. Instead, he assumes that personal jurisdiction exists in a foreign jurisdiction when necessary to avoid the risk of local bias: he demands jurisdiction due to the status of Johns Hopkins in Baltimore and Dr. Walsh as a world renowned published author/physician, who feels he can trample on innocent men of color especially in an economically disadvantaged area where he has practiced medicine, since his infancy and/or formative years. That, of course, is not how personal jurisdiction works, Judge Moss points out. The Court cautioned the Plaintiff on June 24, 2024, and on July 10, 2024, that he needed to respond to the Defendants' motions to dismiss and to address any grounds for dismissal included in those motions. Since then, the Plaintiff has made several filings in this case, but none of those filings respond to the Defendants' arguments relating to personal jurisdiction or offer any additional information that might connect the Defendants or the Plaintiff's claims to the District of Columbia. None of these multiple filings includes any mention of personal jurisdiction, Judge Moss says. The filing also asks that medical documentation attached to it be sealed. In light of that request, the Court will direct that the Clerk of the Court place Dkt. 30 under seal. The Court, accordingly, concludes that the Plaintiff has also failed to establish that the Court has specific jurisdiction over either Defendant with respect to the claims asserted in the Plaintiff's complaint. For these reasons, the Court grants Patrick Walsh's motion to dismiss; grants Johns Hopkins' motion to dismiss; denies the Plaintiff's motions for summary judgment; denies as moot the Plaintiff's motion for hearing; and dismisses the case in its entirety without prejudice. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/58a7236f from PacerMonitor.com. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces Class Action Over Listerine's Cancer Risks ------------------------------------------------------------------- Jessy Edwards of Top Class Actions reports that a Listerine user is suing Johnson & Johnson. Why: The plaintiff alleges the mouthwash is linked to cancer risks. Where: The Listerine class action was filed in a California federal court. A new class action lawsuit alleges that the companies behind Listerine mouthwash don't tell consumers that the product is linked to cancer risks. Plaintiff Paige Vasseur filed the class action complaint against Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. and Kenvue Inc. on Sept. 3 in a California federal court, alleging violations of state and federal consumer laws. Vasseur claims the companies' Listerine Cool Mint Antiseptic Mouthwash misleads consumers by omitting critical health risks. She says the companies fail to warn consumers that regular use of the mouthwash could lead to the proliferation of bacteria linked to serious illnesses, including multiple forms of cancer. According to the lawsuit, bacteria such as Streptococcus anginosus and Fusobacterium nucleatum, which are associated with oral, colorectal, pancreatic, and breast cancers, can thrive with prolonged use of the product. "Nowhere on the product's packaging or labeling do Defendants disclose that the product leads to the proliferation of cancer-causing bacteria," the complaint alleges. Instead, the company markets Listerine as a solution to prevent oral health problems, claiming it "kills 99% of germs that cause bad breath, plaque & gingivitis" and promotes "a fresher and cleaner mouth than brushing alone." Consumers wouldn't buy product if they knew risks, lawsuit claims Vasseur, who has purchased Listerine since 2019, says she relied on the companies' claims and would not have bought the product if she had known about the potential risks. The lawsuit highlights a specific instruction on Kenvue's website, which directs consumers to use Listerine twice daily for 30 seconds. While the product warns against use by children under 12 and cautions against swallowing, Vasseur argues these warnings fail to address the risks posed by regular use. "Consumers trust manufacturers to sell products that are safe and free from harmful side effects," Vasseur's complaint says. As a result, the lawsuit seeks to represent anyone else in the United States who bought the Listerine mouthwash. Vasseur is suing for violations of California's consumer protection laws, including the Unfair Competition Law and the False Advertising Law, as well as fraudulent concealment and unjust enrichment and she seeks certification of the class action, damages, fees, costs and a jury trial. Meanwhile, in March, Nutraceutical Corporation issued a mouthwash recall for 102,100 of its Heritage Store Hydrogen Peroxide mouthwash products because the ethanol content requires child-resistant packaging. The plaintiff is represented by Trenton R. Kashima of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman PLLC and Jonathan Shub of Shun & Johns LLC. The Listerine class action lawsuit is Paige Vasseur v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. et al, Case No. 2:24-cv-07487 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. [GN] JOHNSON, TN: Bid to Disallow Use of Daigle Report Nixed ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANE DOE, et. al., v. JOHNSON CITY, TENNESSEE, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-00071-TRM-JEM (E.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Travis McDonough entered an order: -- denying Defendants' motion to disallow Plaintiffs' use of the Daigle Report in their motion for class-certification under Rule 407, and -- denying as moot Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to respond. The Court ordered the Defendants to file a supplement because Sixth Circuit precedent establishes that the rules of evidence are loosely applied at the classcertification stage of litigation and Defendants failed to address this issue once in their briefing. In their supplement, the Defendants argue that the Court may consider objections based upon substantive evidentiary rules, like Rule 407, at the class-certification stage. Johnson City is in east Tennessee. It's known for outdoor activities at Winged Deer Park, which offers boating and disc golf, and Buffalo Mountain Park, with trails and sweeping views. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 16, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9FF52G at no extra charge.[CC] KIA AMERICA: Raymond Sues Over Defective and Unsafe Vehicles ------------------------------------------------------------ Sara Raymond and Michelle O'Brien individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KIA AMERICA, INC., Case No. 8:24-cv-02737 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 18, 2024), is brought to obtain redress for themselves and those who have purchased or leased Vehicles across the United States and to seek relief for Kia's breaches of implied warranties, fraud, unjust enrichment, and violations of consumer protection law. The Class Vehicles are defective and unsafe. They contain a dangerous and potentially life-threatening defect that results in their brakes malfunctioning, becoming intermittently non-operational, and failing altogether (the "Defect"). This poses a significant and obvious safety hazard to drivers and occupants of Class Vehicles, and puts the lives of Vehicle drivers and occupants, and other drivers on the road at risk. Braking failures create the risk of rear end collisions and crashes and prevent a driver from stopping on command. Numerous consumers have experienced the Defect while operating a Class Vehicle. The Defect manifests when the hydraulic pressure fails on the brake pedals, causing the pedal to fall to the floor and become "spongy." When this occurs, drivers attempting to engage the brakes (i.e., press the brake pedal) cannot do so reliably or effectively. Kia is aware of and has identified the root cause of the Defect, including through internal documents and reports addressing the brake failure in the Class Vehicles. On information and belief, the Defect results from a compromise in the Vehicle's braking system, namely in the master cylinder, that reduces brake fluid pressure. This results in "spongy" brakes that have no pressure and which cannot be engaged, fall to the floor, and do not work. Despite the serious issues posed by the Defect, Kia has omitted this material information from consumers and has not issued a recall or reliable fix. Class Members are thus left in the lurch, driving vehicles with brakes that could unexpectedly fail at any moment, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs purchased the Defendants vehicles. Kia markets, sells, and leases the Class Vehicles throughout the United States, including in this District.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Ahdoot, Esq. Theodore W. Maya, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 2600 West Olive Avenue, Suite 500 Burbank, CA 91505 Phone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 Email: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com KING ARTHUR BAKING: Wood Suit Removed to D. Vermont --------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Brian Wood, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KING ARTHUR BAKING COMPANY, INC., Case No. 24-CV-03973 was removed from the Superior Court for the State of Vermont, Windsor Unit, to the United States District Court for the Central District of Vermont on Dec. 18, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-01439-kjd. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that in June 2023, Defendant was the victim of a data security incident/data breach wherein an "unauthorized actor may have potentially gained access to certain systems that stored personal information" and that the personal information of 3,053 employees and/or customers, including Plaintiff, was affected. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant maintained the private information of Plaintiff and putative class members in a reckless manner, that it failed to take adequate and reasonable measures to ensure its systems were protected against unauthorized intrusions, and that it failed to properly monitor the computer network and systems that housed the private information.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Shapleigh Smith, Jr., Esq. DINSE P.C. 209 Battery Street Burlington, VT 05401 Phone: (802) 864-5751 Email: ssmith@dinse.com LAMB WESTON: Jack Tate Sues Over Anticompetitive Effects -------------------------------------------------------- Jack Tate d/b/a The Tin Pig, LLC, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. 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 CO.; CAVENDISH FARMS LTD; and CAVENDISH FARMS, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-13032 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 18, 2024), is brought against Defendants pursuant to Section 1 of the Sherman Act; state antitrust laws; state consumer protection laws; and common law as a result of the Defendants anticompetitive effects. This action is brought by Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and Classes of persons and entities who indirectly purchased from any Defendant or current or former subsidiary or affiliate, frozen potato products, including frozen French fries, hash browns, tater tots and other variants ("Frozen Potato Products") for their own business use in commercial food preparation in the United States from at least January 1, 2021 through such time as the anticompetitive effects of Defendants' conduct ceases (the "Class Period"). The Defendants are the four dominant processors of Frozen Potato Products sold in the United States. Collectively, they control 97% or more of the $68 billion per year market. Leveraging that market control, beginning no later than 2021, Defendants conspired to raise, fix, stabilize or maintain prices above competitive levels during the Class Period. Rather than competing, this cartel of massive producers implemented lockstep price increases, announcing highly similar price raises very close in time to one another on a multitude of occasions. Notably, they increased the price of their products even as their own costs significantly declined. Due to Defendants' utter domination of the market and lockstep pricing, they had no need to worry that their customers would switch over to purchasing Frozen Potato Products from a less expensive competitor. They were able to raise prices at will, and Plaintiff and other Class members, having no other options, were forced to pay them. This conspiracy continues to this day, and Plaintiff and all others similarly situated continue to be harmed by the anti-competitive, artificially high prices that Defendants have implemented, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a restaurant that purchases frozen potato products, such as French fries and tater tots, and prepares them in its own facility to serve to its customers as components of meals. Lamb Weston Holdings, Inc. is a leading producer, distributor, and marketer of Frozen Potato Products to both individuals and businesses in the food service industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony M. Carter, Esq. Jon A. Tostrud, Esq. TOSTRUD LAW GROUP, P.C. 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 278-2600 Facsimile: (310) 278-2640 Email: jtostrud@tostrudlaw.com acarter@tostrudlaw.com LOUISIANA: $21-Mil. Flood Class Settlement Gets Initial Approval ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dillon Lowe, writing for Business Report, reports that a settlement agreement has received preliminary approval in a class action lawsuit over an Interstate 12 median wall that may have worsened flooding in East Baton Rouge and Livingston parishes during the historic 2016 flood. The lawsuit was filed in January 2017 by a group of plaintiffs that includes the cities of Denham Springs and Walker. The defendants named in the lawsuit include the Department of Transportation and Development and a handful of construction, consulting and engineering firms. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants failed to perform hydrologic testing and modeling prior to designing and installing the 5-foot-tall concrete median crash barrier along a 19-mile stretch of I-12 as part of a larger interstate widening project. Those failures allegedly caused floodwaters to back up, increasing the amount of water that flooded nearby businesses and homes. The plaintiffs alleged that tens of thousands of people were harmed by the defendants' negligence, while the defendants contended that the 2016 flood was an "act of God" that could not have been prepared for and that the median wall complied with applicable standards. After spending more than five years in discovery, the parties have now concluded that an injunctive relief settlement is the "most practical and efficient solution for class relief," according to documents filed in state court late last week. That settlement will see $21,350,000 paid into a fund to be set up and administered by DOTD to be used for revisions to the median wall as well as other flood relief measures. DOTD will report to the court and the parties involved every year for five years regarding the results of its work. The settlement does not seek actual damages for individuals. The defendants participating in the settlement are DOTD, ABMB Engineers Inc. (now known as Stantec Consulting Services Inc.), Evans-Graves Engineers Inc., Gilchrist Construction Co. LLC, James Construction Group LLC and Volkert Inc. GEC Inc., another of the defendants named in the lawsuit, is not participating in the settlement and remains a viable defendant. [GN] LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA: Class Cert Filing Extended to March 26, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as PASSION GABOUREL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA INC. d/b/a LENSCRAFTERS, an Ohio corporation; LUXOTTICA RETAIL NORTH AMERICA, INC., a business entity of unknown form; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 2:22-cv-00471-FWS-MAA (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fred Slaughter entered an order modifying Scheduling Order as follows: Event Date Final Pretrial Conference & Hearing on Jan. 22, 2026 Motions in Limine Deadline for Plaintiff to file motion for Mar. 26, 2025 class certification ("MFCC") Deadline for Defendants' Opposition to June 3, 2025 MFCC Deadline for Plaintiff's Reply in June 30, 2025 Support of MFCC Non-Expert Discovery Cut-Off Aug. 22, 2025 Last Date to Hear Motions Oct. 9, 2025 Luxottica offers prescription glasses and sunglasses. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 16, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QTKX0a at no extra charge.[CC] M.D. SCIENCE LAB: Knowles Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- Carlton Knowles, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. M.D. SCIENCE LAB, L.L.C., Case No. 1:24-cv-09769 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 18, 2024), is brought against the Defendant for its 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. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's interactive website, https://swissnavy.com, including all portions thereof or accessed thereon (collectively, the "Website" or "Defendant's Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services--all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals--thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. M.D. SCIENCE LAB, L.L.C., operates the Swiss Navy online retail store, as well as the Swiss Navy interactive Website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, N.Y. 10003-2461 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal dana@gottlieb.legal jeffrey@gottlieb.legal MDL 2566: Plaintiff Seeks Leave to File Class Cert. Memo Under Seal ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit Re: Telexfree Securities Litigation, Case No. 4:14-md-02566-NMG (D. Mass.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting him leave to file under seal the Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of Class Counsel and the Declaration of Robert J. Bonsignore In Support of Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of Class Counsel. -- The Memorandum incudes references to materials that analyze, reference, and quote from documents and data produced by Defendants that have been designated "Confidential" or "Highly Confidential." -- Exhibits 1-15 and 17-26 to the Bonsignore Declaration include expert reports that analyze, reference, and quote from documents and data produced by the defendants and nonparties, as well as documents produced by the defendants and non-parties in this case, and transcript excerpts which have been designated "Confidential" or "Highly Confidential." Accordingly, in order to fulfill its obligation under the Protective Order and Local Rule 7.2, Plaintiff seeks leave to file the Memorandum and Bonsignore Declaration under seal. The Plaintiff does not necessarily agree with the designations but has agreed to file under seal under the circumstances. The Plaintiff plans to seek the allowance of public filing of all class certification papers. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 16, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SCHjT0 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert J. Bonsignore, Esq. James Lewis, Esq. BONSIGNORE TRIAL LA WYERS, PLLC 23 Fore st St. Medford, MA 0215 5 Telephone: (781) 350-0000 Facsimile: (702) 983-8673 E-mail: rbonsignore@classactions.us - and - James Wagstaffe, Esq. ADAMSKIMOROSKIMADDEN CUMBERLAND & GREEN LLP 6633 Bay Laurel Place Avila Beach, CA 93424 Telephone: (805) 543-0990 E-mail: wagstaffe@ammcglaw.com - and - E. Powell Miller, Esq. Ann L. Miller, Esq. THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C. 950 W. University Dr., Ste. 300 Rochester, Michigan 48307 Telephone: (248) 841-2200 E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com mln@millerlawpc.com - and - Steven Rhodes, Esq. STEVEN RHODES CONSUL TING, LLC 1610 Arborview Boulevard Ann Arbor, MI 48103 Telephone: (734) 646-7406 E-mail: rhodessw@comcast.net - and - Peter A. Barile III, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C. 44 South Broadway, Suite 1100 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 997-0500 Facsimile: (914) 997-0035 MDL 3098: $30MM Settlement in 23andMe Breach Suit Has Prelim. Nod ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Edward M. Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California conditionally grants preliminary approval to the proposed class action settlement in multidistrict litigation titled IN RE 23ANDME, INC. CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION, MDL No. 3:24-md-03098-EMC (N.D. Cal.). The proposed class action settlement provides that 23andMe is to pay out a gross settlement amount of $30 million, none of which will revert back to the company. The case at bar is a multi-district litigation comprised of approximately 40 federal lawsuits. The Plaintiffs are customers of Defendant 23andMe, Inc., a genetic testing company. They have filed a class action against the company based on a data breach. According to the Plaintiffs, in October 2023, 23andMe announced that there was a data breach at the company and, as a result, a wide range of sensitive personal information of customers was compromised, including name, sex, date of birth, genetic information, predicted relationships with genetic matches, ancestry reports, ancestors' birth locations and family names, family tree information, profile pictures, and geographic location. Cybercriminals had specifically targeted 23andMe customers of Ashkenazi Jewish and Chinese descent, offering their data for sale on the dark web. The Court appointed counsel for the putative class (hereinafter "Co-Lead Counsel") in June 2024. Prior to appointment, Co-Lead Counsel -- as well as other attorneys -- had already engaged in settlement discussions with 23andMe because publicly available information strongly suggested that the company was in dire financial straits. If the financial condition of 23andMe was weak, then, even assuming the putative class were to prevail on the merits of the lawsuit (an event that might not happen for several years), 23andMe might, as a practical matter, face insolvency and/or bankruptcy, and thus, the putative class might ultimately obtain little or no relief. After Co-Lead Counsel was appointed, Co-Lead Counsel continued settlement discussions with 23andMe. In mid-July 2024, a settlement in principle was reached, and, in early September 2024, a settlement agreement was signed. Now pending before the Court is the Settling Parties' motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement. The Settling Parties ask that the Court certify a settlement class and approve the class action settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate. Some 23andMe customers, through their own counsel, have raised objections to the settlement. There are five sets of objectors represented by the following firms: Edelson, Milberg, Levi, Labaton, and Potter. The Milberg, Levi, and Labaton firms represent individuals, who have demanded arbitration from 23andMe or initiated arbitration against the company. The Potter firm represents individuals, who have filed litigation against 23andMe in state court. The Settling Parties entered into a settlement agreement on Sept. 5, 2024. The settlement agreement provides for both monetary relief (including the cost of a monitoring program) and injunctive relief. The settlement class is defined as "all natural persons who were residents of the United States on August 11, 2023 and whose Personal Information was compromised in the Security Incident." There is a subclass consisting of "Settlement Class Members who were residents of Alaska, Oregon, California or Illinois as of August 11, 2023." The subclass was carved out in recognition of the fact that these states have laws that specifically provide for statutory damages, noting that these four states have genetic privacy laws providing for statutory damages (Alaska: the Alaska Genetic Privacy Act; California: the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act; Illinois: the Illinois Genetic Information Privacy Act; and Oregon: the Oregon Genetic Privacy Law). In their papers, the Plaintiffs acknowledge that, on their face, the definitions of the settlement class and subclass differ from the definitions of the classes and subclasses in the operative complaint. As the Plaintiffs maintain, the class/subclass definitions used in the settlement agreement encompass all of the class members as defined in the Consolidated Class Action Complaint. The primary dispute between the Settling Parties and some of the objectors is whether the settlement class definition should be revised so as to exclude those individuals, who have demanded or initiated arbitration with 23andMe. Under the settlement agreement, 23andMe is to pay out a gross settlement amount of $30 million, none of which will revert back to the company. Before any money will distributed to the class, certain deductions will be made from the gross settlement fund. There will be deductions for settlement administration costs, estimated to be between $727,000 to $1,038,000, and attorneys' fees of no more than 25% of the gross settlement fund, i.e., no more than $7.5 million, among other deductions. In addition to monetary relief, 23andMe agreed to injunctive relief -- specifically, agreeing to adopt certain business practices. These commitments include: (1) enhanced password protection; (2) mandated multi-factor authentication; (3) annual security awareness training; (4) annual computer scans and cybersecurity audits; (5) information security program; (6) maintenance of data breach incidents response plan and threat management; and (7) limited retention of inactive Personal Information. In exchange for the monetary and injunctive relief, class members will release claims that were asserted, or could have been asserted, based on, relating to, or arising out of the same factual predicate as the allegations in the Litigation. The Settling Parties have expressly confirmed that the release does not extend to the sale of customer information to GlaxoSmithKline. The settlement agreement includes a provision for a preliminary injunction. In essence, per the settlement agreement, the parties request that the Court issue a preliminary injunction barring all Settlement Class Members and their representatives from filing, commencing, prosecuting, maintaining, intervening in, conducting, continuing, or participating in any other lawsuit or administrative, regulatory, arbitration or other proceeding based on the Released Claims. After evaluating nine bids, the Plaintiffs selected Verita (formally KCC) to conduct the settlement administration. Verita will carry out, inter alia, notice to the class, evaluation of claims, distribution to the class, etc. Notice to the class will be effected via email in the first instance and, if email is not successful, direct mail. A reminder email notice will issue at some point prior to the claims filing deadline. Objectors represented by the Milberg, Levi, and Labaton firms contend that the settlement class definition is improper. These objectors are individuals, who have demanded arbitration from or initiated arbitration against 23andMe pursuant to the company's Terms of Service (which contain an arbitration agreement). Collectively, these objectors are referred to as the "Arbitrating Objectors." In addition to the Arbitrating Objectors, the three law firms represent thousands of other 23andMe customers, who have demanded arbitration from or initiated arbitration against 23andMe. Collectively, these customers are referred to as the "Arbitrating Individuals." The Arbitrating Objectors argue that the settlement class definition is improper because it does not exclude the Arbitrating Objectors, the Arbitrating Individuals, and others who have sought arbitration from the settlement class. In the alternative, the Arbitrating Objectors contend that, if these groups are part of the settlement class, then they have already opted out by seeking arbitration, or all groups should be allowed to opt out immediately through their counsel (i.e., instead of individualized opt-outs, their counsel will opt them out "en masse"). The Court agrees with the Arbitrating Objectors that the settlement class definition should be modified so as to exclude those who have demanded or initiated arbitration. There is a question whether those who are bound by an enforceable arbitration clause can be included in a certified class given potential concerns about typicality/adequacy. Regardless, Judge Chen says there is a basic problem with including those who have opted to arbitrate in the class. If an individual has chosen to arbitrate, they have chosen not to litigate; including the individual in the class amounts would force them into litigation in derogation of their right to arbitrate. The Court is cognizant that, for some individuals, the decision to accede to arbitration was made before the settlement ever existed. Also, even if the settlement agreement was already executed, some individuals may not have known about its terms at the time they decided to arbitrate or this Court's assessment of the terms. For these individuals, there is a fair argument they should now be given an opportunity to waive their right to arbitrate and seek to join this this litigation so they can partake in the settlement, especially in light of 23andMe's dire financial condition which may make any arbitration ultimately unfruitful. The Court agrees that these individuals should be given that opportunity. However, that does not mean that the individuals should be defined as part of the class in the first instance. Accordingly, the settlement class definition agreed to by the parties must be modified to exclude those 23andMe customers, who have chosen to exercise their right to arbitrate, whether by making a mere demand for arbitration or by filing a formal complaint with the arbitral forum (but not, e.g., simply threatening to arbitrate). The Court's granting of the motion for preliminary approval is conditioned on the Settling Parties' agreement to a modified definition. Assuming that the Settling Parties agree to modify the definition, the Court directs the Settling Parties to issue a notice to the Arbitrating Objectors, Arbitrating Individuals, and others who have sought arbitration, informing them of the settlement agreement, its terms and their ability to partake in the settlement by filing claims (which would mean a waiver of the right to arbitrate). Judge Chen holds that the notice may be issued to the individuals directly (e.g., sent to their personal email addresses instead of being routed to their counsel), even if they are represented by counsel. The notice should either include a copy of this order as an attachment or include a link to a copy of this order. So as to prevent disputes, the Court orders the Settling Parties and the Arbitrating Objectors to meet and confer immediately on the language of a notice -- which quite frankly should be modeled on the class notices that the Court is approving here, Judge Chen points out. Any disputes about language should promptly be raised with the Court, as the Court's intent is that the notice to those seeking arbitration should be issued at or about the same time as the notices to the class. For these reasons, the Court conditionally grants preliminary approval to the proposed class action settlement. The Settling Parties must report back within two weeks of the date of this order to confirm whether modifications have been made consistent with the Court's rulings herein. The Court also orders the Settling Parties and the Arbitrating Objectors to report back within two weeks on the language of a notice to be issued to those individuals seeking arbitration, who have been excluded from the class definition. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yp8fftjh from PacerMonitor.com. MGP INGREDIENTS: Faces Investors Class Action Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------- Institutional investor Operating Engineers Construction Industry Miscellaneous Pension Fund filed a class action lawsuit on December 19, 2024 against MGP Ingredients, Inc. (NASDAQ:MGPI) ("MGPI" or the "Company"), David Colo, David S. Bratcher, and Brandon M. Gall, alleging they defrauded investors by issuing false and misleading statements concerning the state of MGPI's business and financial results with regards to selling hard spirits and overstocking products. The suit, brought in federal court in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York was filed by leading investor law firm Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. The action is brought on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or acquired MGPI common stock between May 4, 2023 through October 30, 2024, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The action is captioned Operating Engineers Construction Industry Miscellaneous Pension Fund v. MGP Ingredients, Inc., David Colo, David S. Bratcher, and Brandon M. Gall, No. 1:24-cv-09685 (S.D.N.Y.). The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Specifically, MGPI is a manufacturer of hard liquors such as tequila, bourbon, rye, whiskey, vodka, and gin. MGPI sells the spirits it produces under its own brands as well as to other alcohol distributors and brands. Prior to the Class Period, sales of hard liquors, such as those produced and sold by MGPI, increased dramatically in the wake of COVID-19. However, as quarantines ended, sales of hard liquors slowed across the alcoholic beverage industry, and a backlog of inventory began to increase. During the Class Period, MGPI falsely assured investors that its projections and statements accounted for the industry slowdown and that it was well-positioned to avoid a buildup of inventory. The Company also incorrectly claimed that its projected sales took these industry trends into account. The market was thus shocked when MGPI announced on October 17, 2024, that a slowdown in demand and an excess in inventories would undermine sales. This revelation caused the Company's stock to plummet 29.5%. Then, less than two weeks later, on October 31, 2024, Defendants revealed that its excess inventory would have an even greater impact than previously reported. This caused the Company's stock to drop another 14.7%, to a close of $49.04 per share on October 31, 2024. In total, MGPI's share price declined nearly 50% on these two disclosures, wiping out hundreds of millions of dollars in market capitalization and damaging investors. Investors who purchased or acquired MGPI common stock during the Class Period are members of this proposed Class and may be able to seek appointment as lead plaintiff, which is a court-appointed representative for the Class, by complying with the relevant provisions for the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the "PSLRA"). See 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(2)(A)(i)-(iv). If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court by no later than February 14, 2025, which is lead plaintiff deadline that was established by publication of this notice on December 16, 2024. You do not need seek to become a lead plaintiff in order to share in any possible recovery. You may also retain counsel of your choice to represent you in this action. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights, please contact Caitlin M. Moyna at Grant & Eisenhofer at 646-722-8513, or via email at cmoyna@gelaw.com. You can also find more information at gelaw.com. Contacts Grant & Eisenhofer Caitlin M. Moyna (646) 722-8513 cmoyna@gelaw.com [GN] MICHAEL STORES: Krus Sues Over Products' Higher "Use Tax" Rate -------------------------------------------------------------- COURTNEY KRUS, AMY STANTON, LAUREN VEACH, and MARIA KRIDEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MICHAEL STORES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:24-cv-01649 (E.D. Mo., December 6, 2024) seeks to recover damages for Defendants' alleged violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act. The Plaintiffs bring this class action on behalf of all persons that purchased goods from Defendant's internet website for remote delivery to the State of Missouri from January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2023. Under state laws, retailers are required to charge a "use tax" on products sold through remote means, including an Internet website. Additionally, customers are also charged local use taxes on sales made through remote channels, based on their delivery address. The Defendant allegedly applied a higher use tax rate on certain products purchased through remote sales channels, including from its internet website, that are shipped to Missouri customers from an out-of-state facility, resulting in the overcollection of monies from Missouri customers which violates the MMPA. The Defendant is also accused of unjust enrichment and owing Plaintiffs and class members for money had and received, including, but not limited to, the monies that Plaintiffs and the Class were charged at a higher tax rate than the correct applicable use tax rate on the sales at issue. Headquartered in Irving TX, Michael Stores, Inc. operates as a retail chain of arts and crafts store. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Yitzchak Kopel, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: ykopel@bursor.com - and - Stephen A. Beck, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 701 Brickell Ave, Suite 2100 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 330-5512 Facsimile: (305) 679-9006 E-mail: sbeck@bursor.com MIDWEST TAPE: Faces Smith Suit Over Invasion of Privacy ------------------------------------------------------- KEVIN SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MIDWEST TAPE, LLC d/b/a HOOPLA, Defendant, Case No. 4:24-cv-08805 (N.D. Cal., December 6, 2024) accuses the Defendant of violating the Video Privacy Protection Act and the California Invasion of Privacy Act. The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of all California residents who have accessed and used Defendant's web-based library service, hoopladigital.com, to search for, obtain, or otherwise access reading and audio-book materials. Allegedly, the Defendant aids, employs, agrees, and conspires with Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly known as Facebook, Inc., to intercept communications sent and received by Plaintiff and Class Members, including communications containing protected reading preferences. However, the Defendant failed to procure consent before enabling Facebook's interception of these communications, in violation of the VPPA and the CIPA, says the suit. Headquartered in Holland, OH, Midwest Tape, LLC owns and operates Hoopla, a digital media service that allows account holders to borrow movies, music, audiobooks, ebooks, comics, and TV shows to enjoy on their computer, tablet, or phone--even their TV. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7408 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Products Contain Harmful Chemicals, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- TAMMY MONTGOMERY and MARK MCCABE, Plaintiffs v. MOHAWK INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00380 (E.D. Tenn., December 6, 2024) is a class action lawsuit accusing the Defendant of violating state products liability and consumer protection laws. According to the complaint, the Defendant knowingly coated its carpets and rugs with dangerous carcinogens -- the infamous "forever chemicals" known as per- and polyfluoroalkyl chemicals. Moreover, the presence of these PFAS-coated carpet products contaminate the homes and indoor spaces where they are installed and increase the risk of adverse health events, such as various cancers and reproductive issues, of those who encounter these carpet products. However, the Defendant deceptively marketed and/or omitted material information about its PFAS-coated carpet products to Plaintiffs, members of the Class, and the public. Headquartered in Calhoun, GA, Mohawk Industries, Inc. manufactures, distributes, and sells carpets and rugs. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Adam G. Russell, Esq. FISHER | RUSSELL PLLC 10265 Kingston Pike, Suite C Knoxville, TN 37922 Telephone: (865) 259-7777 Facsimile: (865) 322-9998 E-mail: arussell@fisher-russell.com - and - Richard M. Paul III, Esq. Laura C. Fellows, Esq. PAUL LLP 601 Walnut Street, Suite 300 Kansas City, MO 64106 Telephone: (816) 984-8100 Facsimile: (816) 984-8101 E-mail: Rick@PaulLLP.com Laura@PaulLLP.com NCAA: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert. Bid by Feb. 7, 2025 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as REESE BRANTMEIER, and MAY JOINT, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, Case No. 1:24-cv-00238-CCE-JEP (M.D.N.C.), the Court entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for file amended complaint: -- The Defendant shall answer or otherwise respond to the Amended Complaint no later than Dec. 23, 2024. -- The Plaintiffs shall file a motion for class certification no later than Feb. 7, 2025. National Collegiate is a nonprofit organization that regulates student athletics. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 16, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SK11ed at no extra charge.[CC] NEW YORK, NY: Settles FDNY Racial Discrimination Suit for $30-MM ---------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Senzamici, writing for New York Post, reports that The city will pay nearly $30 million to settle a massive race discrimination lawsuit filed by FDNY fire protection inspectors, according to the union repping the workers. First filed in 2020 by five FDNY inspectors, the $29.9 million settlement will now pay out to nearly 600 members of the class action suit -- current or past FDNY employees who say the city racially discriminated against them in their pay. "Our members have been fighting the inequality and mistreatment they receive in the FDNY for decades," said Oren Barzilay, president of FDNY EMS Local 2507, the union representing the inspectors. "This settlement for Fire Inspectors is a step in the right direction of correcting that inequity." The suit's racial discrimination claim states that FDNY fire protection inspectors are predominantly not white and as a result, they are paid up to 20% -- or $9,000 per year -- less than building department inspectors despite the jobs being substantially similar. Department of Building inspectors are roughly 50% white, while FDNY inspectors are roughly 70% non-white, the suit claims. Plaintiffs will receive an average payout of between $5,000 to $35,000, depending on what part of the class action they are members of, according to the union, with the awards scheduled to be paid by next fall. But the settlement isn't all about the big bucks -- the agreement will also help create a labor-management committee for the inspectors. A spokesperson for the city Law Department told The Post they are "pleased" with the court's preliminary sign-off on the settlement. "Fire protection inspectors play a critical role in keeping residents and businesses safe," the spokesperson said, "and while no admission of wrongdoing is made through this settlement, the city stands firmly against all forms of discrimination, including unintentional bias, as alleged here." While the inspectors' case might be over, a separate federal suit making similar race and sex discrimination claims got class action certification in September, with more than 4,500 EMTs and paramedics as members. "The city chronically violates our members' rights based on color and gender," Brazilay charged. "This same pay practice is currently ongoing in our EMS ranks. "Our members, who risk their lives every day to care for New Yorkers, deserve better than this and should be compensated and treated with the same value as the city's other first responders." [GN] NORTHVIEW VILLAGE: Hawthorne Wins Bid for Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAROLYN HAWTHORNE, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, v. NORTHVIEW VILLAGE, INC., et al., Case No. 4:23-cv-01711-SRW (E.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Stephen Welby entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Court further entered an order that: -- Plaintiff Carolyn Hawthorne is appointed as Class Representative to represent the class defined as follows: "All employees of Defendants who were terminated pursuant to a mass layoff or plant closing (as those terms are defined in the WARN Act) within 90 days of Dec. 15, 2023." -- J. Gerard Stranch, IV, John Francis Garvey, Jr., and Michael C. Iadevaia of Stranch Jennings PLLC, and Christopher N. Grant and Brady Lee Root of Schuchat Cook are appointed as Class Counsel. -- With 30 days of the order, Plaintiff must submit a proposed order regarding notice in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B). Plaintiff has shown by a preponderance of evidence that the requirements of Rule 23 have been met. The Court certifies the class. On Dec. 15, 2023, Defendants, who were responsible for operating the Northview Village Nursing Home in St. Louis, informed all employees at Northview Village that they could not pay the employees and the building was being shut down. Shortly thereafter, on Dec. 22, the Plaintiff, an employee at Northview Village, filed a complaint alleging Defendants violated the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, 29 U.S.C. section 2101 et seq. by failing to provide notice before a mass layoff or plant closing. Northview Village was founded in 1992. The Company's line of business includes providing inpatient nursing and rehabilitative services. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 16, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IX0Q2V at no extra charge.[CC] NORTHWYND REAL: Agrees to Settle Investor Class Action Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- On November 28, 2024, the Plaintiff and the Defendants reached a proposed settlement of the class action in Ganong v. Northwynd, which will provide compensation to investors in the Northwynd Real Estate Investment Trust (the "Northwynd REIT"). On December 7, 2018, Burnet, Duckworth & Palmer LLP of Calgary, Alberta ("Class Counsel") filed a class action lawsuit in Alberta on behalf of individuals who held Series A and B trust units in the Northwynd REIT for any period of time between June 3, 2014 and the termination of the Northwynd REIT on January 16, 2017. On September 21, 2021, Justice R. A. Neufeld of the Alberta Court of King's Bench issued a Certification Order certifying the class action against the trustees of the Northwynd REIT, various companies that held or managed property for the Northwynd REIT and its unitholders, and certain individuals who ran those companies. The Parties have now agreed to a settlement whereby the Defendants will pay compensation to unitholders in the Northwynd REIT. The settlement is subject to court approval and a hearing will be held on December 19, 2024 in Calgary for approval. The Settlement Agreement and information on the settlement can be found at northwyndclassaction.com. Contacts Casey Bohn casey@theagencyinc.ca (403) 880-1359 - and - Arleigh Vasconcellos arleigh@theagencyinc.ca (403) 561-4810 [GN] OKLAHOMA: Parents Sue Over Schools' Use of Three-Cueing Instruction ------------------------------------------------------------------- Ray Carter, writing for OCPA, reports that during this year's legislative session, Oklahoma lawmakers voted to ban the use of the "three-cueing" method of reading instruction, which has come under fire as research increasingly suggests it does not teach children to read. Proponents of the legislation argued it would prevent future educational harm to Oklahoma children exposed to a failed method of instruction. But lawmakers may have also limited the potential future financial liability of Oklahoma schools that might have otherwise faced litigation. On Dec. 4, the law firms Justice Catalyst Law and Kaplan & Grady filed a class-action lawsuit in Massachusetts Superior Court on behalf of two parents whose children were allegedly harmed by their schools' use of three-cueing instruction. The complaint noted that, since the 1960s, research has shown phonics-based instruction is "critical to success in learning to read," but said the defendants chose to either downplay or exclude phonics instruction in their reading programs and curriculum, which were widely used in Massachusetts schools. "For years, Defendants hawked their defective goods and services to school districts throughout the country, including throughout the Commonwealth of Massachusetts," the complaint stated. "This fraudulent and deceptive campaign has had devastating consequences. In 2023, for example, less than half of all Massachusetts third graders satisfied the Commonwealth's expectations for performance on the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System English Language Arts exam. Students from minority groups or with learning disabilities fared even worse. Along with the direct impacts on children, families across the Commonwealth have scurried to procure remedial literacy instruction, the cost of which is out of reach for many. Even when families can afford remedial support, it often comes too late, sabotaging children's educational development, career prospects, and fundamental sense of self-worth." The defendants named in the suit include Lucy Calkins, the Reading and Writing Project at Mossflower; Irene Fountas; Gay Su Pinnell; Fountas and Pinnell, LLC; the Board of Trustees of Teachers College, Columbia University; Heinemann Publishing; and HMH (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt) Education Co. The plaintiffs include Karrie Conley and two of her minor children, residents of Boxborough, Massachusetts, and Michele Hudak and her minor child, residents of Ashland, Massachusetts, on behalf of a putative statewide class of children and parents. Under the three-cueing method of instruction, students are encouraged to guess words based on associated pictures and context and to memorize entire words rather than learn to sound them out phonetically. APM Reports has noted that three-cueing is a theory of instruction "that cognitive scientists have repeatedly debunked." ExcelinEd in Action noted that the three-cueing system "can be boiled down to this: Teachers using this method instruct students to guess." This year, Oklahoma lawmakers passed Senate Bill 362, which stated that Oklahoma public-school teachers "shall be prohibited from using the three-cueing system model of teaching students to read" starting in the 2025-2026 school year. The complaint in the Massachusetts lawsuit noted, "Cueing methods have been roundly criticized for teaching children to guess rather than read. Critics have explained that cueing teaches kids â€˜to read like poor readers rather than good readers.' Indeed, even if children can fake the ability to read using cueing or other guessing techniques in the first few years of school, those strategies leave them unequipped when they reach higher grade levels. Thanks to Defendants' success in selling their defective products, it is now common for teachers to see cohorts of third, fourth, or fifth graders who -- despite having received alleged literacy instruction in earlier class years -- do not actually know how to read." The two parents in the case say they experienced that outcome firsthand. Karrie Conley's child, identified as S.C. in the complaint, was taught to read through cueing. By third grade, the child "so struggled with her word-based math curriculum" that her mother transferred the child to a private school, the complaint noted, and the girl "still required year-round private tutoring from fourth through seventh grades to repair the damage done." Another of Conley's children, identified as K.C., was also taught to read via cueing methods from kindergarten through second grade. The family also transferred that child to a private school. The complaint noted, "Sending S.C. and K.C. to private school and securing literacy tutoring cost more than twice what Karrie paid to send another of her children to college." Michele Hudak's minor child, identified as R.H., was also taught using cueing methods. Despite "being unable to read," the complaint said school officials claimed the youth could read at grade level "solely because he could successfully guess words from pictures." "When presented with chapter books in fourth grade," the complaint stated, "it became apparent R.H. was far behind many of his peers -- but the damage already had been done." [GN] OLIN CORP: IPPs' Class Cert Bid Tossed in "Caustic Soda" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MIAMI PRODUCTS & CHEMICAL CO., On Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, et al., v. OLIN CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00385-EAW-MJR (W.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Elizabeth Wolford entered an order -- denying Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs' (IPPs) motion for class certification; -- denying as moot Shintech's motion to exclude certain of Dr. Macartney's opinions and proposed testimony; -- denying as moot Defendants' joint motion to exclude certain of Dr. Macartney's opinions and proposed testimony; -- denying IPPs' motion to strike and exclude certain of Dr. Johnson's opinions and proposed testimony; and -- denying as moot Formosa's motion to exclude certain of Dr. Macartney's opinions. The Court's denial of the parties' motions to strike/exclude shall not preclude the parties from raising any issues related to the admissibility of expert testimony in connection with motions for summary judgment or at trial. The Court will enter a separate Order setting a schedule for additional briefing on the impact of this Decision and Order on IPPs' motion for preliminary approval of the Shintech Settlement Agreement. The Court will also enter a separate Order affording IPPs and Defendants an opportunity to be heard on a summary judgment briefing schedule and any further next steps they propose the Court take in connection with this litigation. The Court finds that IPPs have not satisfied their burden to show that their proposed classes should be certified under Rule 23 and accordingly denies IPPs' motion for class certification. IPPs seek to certify two classes with the following definitions: -- State Antitrust Class: "All persons and entities who indirectly purchased from a distributor, and did not resell, liquid forms of membrane or diaphragm grade caustic soda in Arizona, California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia manufactured by one or more of the Defendants or their co-conspirators (or any of Defendants' or their co-conspirators' parents, predecessors, subsidiaries or affiliates) at any time between Oct. 1, 2015 and Dec. 31, 2019." -- Unjust Enrichment Class: "All persons and entities who indirectly purchased from a distributor, and did not resell, liquid forms of membrane or diaphragm grade caustic soda in Arizona, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin manufactured by one or more of the Defendants or their co-conspirators (or any of Defendantsâ€™ or their co-conspiratorsâ€™ parents, predecessors, subsidiaries or affiliates) at any time between Oct. 1, 2015 and Dec. 31, 2019. Excluded from the proposed classes are "Defendants, their coconspirators, parents, predecessors, subsidiaries, and affiliates, and all federal government entities and instrumentalities of the federal government." The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants entered into a combination or conspiracy to artificially reduce or eliminate competition for the pricing of caustic soda sold to purchasers in the United States. Olin is a vertically integrated global manufacturer and distributor of chemical products and a leading U.S. manufacturer of ammunition. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 16, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9Dhw11 at no extra charge.[CC] OMNI FAMILY HEALTH: White Suit Removed to E.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case is styled as Lateisa White, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Omni Family Health, Case No. BCV-24-103902 was removed from the Superior Court Kern County, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on Dec. 18, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-01552-CDB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Omni Family Health -- https://omnifamilyhealth.org/ -- is a growing network providing primary and preventative healthcare located throughout Kern, Kings, Tulare, and Fresno counties.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer M French, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1234 Camino Del Mar Del Mar, CA 92014 Phone: (619) 762-1903 Fax: (858) 313-1850 Email: jennf@lcllp.com The Defendant is represented by: Tambry L. Bradford, Esq. TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP 350 S. Grand Ave., Suite 3400 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 928-9805 Email: tambry.bradford@troutman.com - and - Ronald I. Raether, Esq. TROUTMAN PEPPER 100 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 1500 Irvine, CA 92614 Phone: (949) 622-2722 Fax: (949) 622-2739 Email: ron.raether@troutman.com ONE POINT: Fails to Secure Customers' Personal Info, Lofton Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- KAYLA LOFTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ONE POINT HR SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-00214-DCR (E.D. Ky., December 9, 2024) is a class action complaint against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of Plaintiff and other similarly situated customers of Defendant, including their names and Social Security numbers. According to Defendant's filing with the Maine Attorney General, the data breach affected the PII of 13,682, but another notification from the same general time-frame states that the data breach affected 22,885 people. By failing to implement reasonable cybersecurity measures, including sufficient logging, monitoring, and alerting capabilities, the Defendant ignored Plaintiff's rights to privacy and their rights to be free from a significantly increased risk of identity theft and fraud -- a substantial risk that Plaintiff and Class Members must now face for years to come because of Defendant's choices and failures, says the suit. One Point HR Solutions, LLC is a professional staffing organization based in Kentucky.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew E. Mize, Esq. J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: amize@stranchlaw.com gstranch@stranchlaw.com OPTAVIA LLC: Classwide Settlement in Zeller Suit Gets Initial Nod ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMIE ZELLER and ANGELICA ALPERT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. OPTAVIA LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-00434-DMS-MSB (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dana Sabraw entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for class certification and preliminary approval of the classwide settlement: -- Pursuant to Federal Rule Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), the Court conditionally certifies the Settlement Class for settlement purposes only. The Settlement Class is defined as follows: "All California customers enrolled in Optavia Premier from Oct. 1, 2017 to March 17, 2022 and who received one automatic Optavia Premier shipment and then cancelled." -- The Court preliminarily appoints Plaintiff Angelica Alpert as Class Representative And preliminarily appoints Dovel & Luner LLP and Golomb Legal P.C as Class Counsel. -- The Court finds that the Notice Planâ€”as set forth in the Settlement Agreementâ€”complies with Rule 23(c)(2)(B) and Rule 23(e) and authorizes the parties to implement the notice plan. The terms of the Settlement Agreement shall govern procedures for the submission of opt-outs, claims, and objections. The Court sets the following timeline for settlement-related events: Optavia is a company that designs and develops proprietary products and programs dedicated to health and well being solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 16, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YM077L at no extra charge.[CC] ORTHOPEDICS RHODE: Robinson Sues Over Failure to Secure PII ----------------------------------------------------------- Patricia Robinson, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Orthopedics Rhode Island, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-00529-MSM-PAS (D.R.I., Dec. 18, 2024), is brought against the Defendant's negligent, reckless, intentional, and/or unconscionable failure to adequately satisfy its contractual, statutory, and common-law obligations. As part of its operations, ORI collects, maintains, and stores highly sensitive personal and medical information belonging to its patients, including, but not limited to "personally identifying information" or "PII", information regarding medical treatment, diagnosis, and prescriptions, medical record numbers, health insurance information, and other protected health information (collectively, "private health information" or "PHI"), as well as financial and payment information ("financial account information") (collectively, "Private Information"). Between September 4, 2024 and September 8, 2024, ORI experienced a data breach incident in which unauthorized cybercriminals accessed its information systems and databases and stole Private Information belonging to Plaintiff and Class members (the "Data Breach"). ORI discovered this unauthorized access on September 7, 2024. Subsequent investigation by ORI determined that the unauthorized actors accessed and stole Private Information concerning Plaintiff and Class members. Because ORI stored and handled Plaintiff's and Class members' highly sensitive Private Information, it had a duty and obligation to safeguard this information and prevent unauthorized third parties from accessing this data. Ultimately, ORI failed to fulfill this obligation, as unauthorized cybercriminals breached ORI's information systems and databases and stole vast quantities of Private Information belonging to ORI's patients, including Plaintiff and Class members. The Data Breach--and the successful exfiltration of Private Information--were the direct, proximate, and foreseeable results of multiple failings on the part of ORI. The Data Breach occurred because ORI failed to implement reasonable security protections to safeguard its information systems and databases. Moreover, before the Data Breach occurred, ORI failed to inform the public that its data security practices were deficient and inadequate. Had Plaintiff and Class members been made aware of this fact, they would have never provided such information to ORI, says the complaint. The Plaintiff received Defendant's Data Breach Notice. ORI is a medical services provider that specializes in orthopedics.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter N. Wasylyk, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF PETER N. WASYLYK 1307 Chalkstone Avenue Providence, RI 02908 Phone: (401) 831-7730 Facsimile: (401) 861-6064 Email: pnwlaw@aol.com - and - Daniel O. Herrera, Esq. Nickolas J. Hagman, Esq. Alex Lee, Esq. CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP 135 S. LaSalle, Suite 3210 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 782-4880 Email: dherrera@caffertyclobes.com nhagman@caffertyclobes.com alee@caffertyclobes.com PACIFIC DENTAL: Shackley Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties ------------------------------------------------------------- Allison Shackley and Gina Ruggieri, individually and as representatives of a class of participants and beneficiaries on behalf of the Pacific Dental Services, LLC 401(k) Plan v. PACIFIC DENTAL SERVICES, LLC and DOES 1 to 10 inclusive, Case No. 8:24-cv-02726 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 18, 2024), is brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") against Defendants to remedy Defendants' breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations of the ERISA. Instead of loyally and prudently acting in the best interest of Plan participants, Defendants chose to use Plan assets to benefit Pacific, to the detriment of the Plan and its participants, by using millions of dollars of Plan assets to offset Pacific's obligations to make contributions to the Plan. Defendants took this action despite knowing that the Plan document explicitly required them to first use the Plan assets for the benefit of Plan participants. To remedy these fiduciary breaches and ERISA violations, Plaintiffs, individually and as representatives of a class of participants and beneficiaries of the Plan, bring this action on behalf of the Plan under the ERISA and to enforce Defendants' personal liability under the ERISA to make good to the Plan all losses resulting from each breach of fiduciary duty and to restore to the Plan any profits made through Defendants' use of the Plan's assets. In addition, Plaintiffs seek such other equitable or remedial relief for the Plan as the Court may deem appropriate, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were participants in the Plan. Pacific is a dental healthcare company incorporated in the state of Delaware with its principal place located in Ave Irvine, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles Joseph Stiegler, Esq. STIEGLER LAW FIRM LLC 318 Harrison Ave, Ste 104, New Orleans, LA 70124-3126 Phone: 504-267-0777 Fax: 504-513-3084 Email: charles@stieglerlawfirm.com - and - Tulio D. Chirinos, Esq. Jenny M. Lewis, Esq. CHIRINOS LAW FIRM PLLC 370 Camino Gardens Blvd., Ste 106 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Phone: (561) 299-6334 Email: tchirinos@chirinoslawfirm.com jlewis@chirinoslawfirm.com PEARSON EDUCATION: Vaccaro Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties --------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Vaccaro, Douglas Vincent O'Dell, and Afshin Mikaili, individually, and as representatives of a Class of Participants and Beneficiaries of The Pearson Retirement Plan v. PEARSON EDUCATION, INC., BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF PEARSON EDUCATION, INC., ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE FOR THE BENEFIT PLANS OF PEARSON EDUCATION, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-09744 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 18, 2024), is brought alleging that the Defendants: improperly utilized forfeited Plan assets to disloyally reduce future employer contributions for their own selfish interests; engaged in fiduciary prohibited transactions by enriching themselves through the Pearson Plan's Personal Management Program ("PMP") MA service; and failed to monitor the Plan Committee with regard to the use of Plan forfeitures and with regard to the excessive Plan MA services. 401(k) defined contribution plans such as the Pearson Plan have become America's primary retirement savings vehicle. As with all defined contribution retirement plans that require participants to bear the costs of plan administration, the Plan participants' retirement savings suffer when the Plan mismanages plan assets, when employers use Plan assets for their own benefit, or pay excessive plan administration fees. The Defendants Pearson Education, Inc. ("Pearson"), the Board of Directors of Pearson Education, Inc. ("Board"), and the Administrative Committee for the Benefit Plans of Pearson Education, Inc. ("Plan Committee") (collectively, "Defendants"), utilized the Plan's forfeitures, a type of plan asset to benefit themselves by reducing their employer contributions to the Plan, violating ERISA's fiduciary duty of loyalty and fiduciary prohibited transaction rules. Furthermore, Defendants failed to implement a prudent fiduciary process to control the Pearson Plan's overall managed account ("MA") expenses, and Plan participants in the MA program paid vastly more than what comparable very large retirement plans pay for comparable MA services, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were current and former participants in the Pearson Plan. Pearson Education, Inc., known since 2011 as simply Pearson, is an educational publishing and services subsidiary of the international corporation Pearson plc.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter B. Schneider, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP 3700 Buffalo Speedway, Suite 960 Houston, TX 77098 Phone: (713) 338-2560 Email: pschneider@schneiderwallace.com - and - Paul M. Secunda, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 125 S. Wacker Dr., Suite 300 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (414) 828-2372 Email: psecunda@walcheskeluzi.com - and - James A. Bloom, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Phone: (415) 421-7100 Email: jbloom@schneiderwallace.com PEOPLECONNECT INC: Larancuent Sues Over Privacy Rights Violation ---------------------------------------------------------------- John Larancuent, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. PEOPLECONNECT, INC., INTELIUS LLC, PUBREC, LLC, THE CONTROL GROUP MEDIA COMPANY, LLC, INSTANT CHECKMATE, LLC, and TRUTHFINDER, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-03498-GPG (D. Colo., Dec. 18, 2024), is brought for violations of the Colorado's "Prevention of Telemarketing Fraud Act" or "PTFA") against the Defendants, to prevent Defendants from further violating the privacy rights of Colorado cell phone users and to recover statutory damages. On May 27, 2005, former Colorado Governor Bill Owens signed into law HB05-1288, which amended the PTFA to prohibit commercially listing a cell phone number in a directory, without permission. The Defendants have listed the cellular telephone numbers of thousands of Colorado residents in their for-sale and for-profit directories, without requesting (let alone actually receiving) affirmative consent to such listings. Thus, while Defendants profit handsomely from their unauthorized commercial listing of Plaintiff's and other Class Members' personal information, Defendants do so at the expense of Coloradans' statutory privacy rights, under the PTFA. The Defendants never requested--and Plaintiff never providedâ€”affirmative consent, through written, oral, or electronic means, to such listings. In fact, Plaintiff has no relationship with Defendants whatsoever. Plaintiff had never heard of Defendants and had no reasonable ability to discover Defendants' use of his personal information until shortly before filing suit, says the complaint. The Plaintiff's cellular telephone number was listed by Defendants in their directories. The Defendants operate the substantially similar directories instantcheckmate.com, intelius.com, truthfinder.com, ussearch.com, and zabasearch.com.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick H. Peluso, Esq. PELUSO LAW LLC 865 Albion Street, Suite 250 Denver, CO 80220 Phone: (720) 805-2008 Facsimile: (720) 336-3663 Email: ppeluso@pelusolawfirm.com - and - Joseph I. Marchese, Esq. Matthew A. Girardi, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Phone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 Email: jmarchese@bursor.com mgirardi@bursor.com PIH HEALTH INC: Morfin Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against PIH HEALTH, INC. The case is styled as Vanessa Morfin, on behalf of herself individually and all others similarly situated v. PIH HEALTH, INC., Case No. 24STCV33472 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Dec. 18, 2024). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Personal Injury/Property Damage tort (General Jurisdiction)." PIH Health -- https://www.pihhealth.org/ -- is a nonprofit, regional healthcare network comprised of three hospitals and 35 outpatient.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John P. Kristensen, Esq. KRISTENSEN LAW GROUP 120 Santa Barbara Street Suite C9 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Phone: (805) 837-2000 Email: john@kristensen.law PIH HEALTH INC: Tristan Sues Over Privacy Rights Violation ---------------------------------------------------------- Deborah Tristan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PIH HEALTH INC., a California corporation; DOES 1-10 inclusive, Case No. 24STCV33539 (Cal. Super. Ct., Dec. 18, 2024), is brought for Breach of Express and/or Implied Contractual Promise; Breach of Covenant of good Faith and Fair Dealing; Negligence; Unfair Competition Law; Confidentiality of Medical Information Act; California Consumer Legal Remedies Act; Invasion of Privacy; California Consumer Privacy Act and to secure redress against Defendant for its reckless and negligent violation of patient privacy rights. The Plaintiff and Class Members suffered significant injuries and damages and are subject to ongoing injury and damage. While it is yet undetermined what specific personal data is subject to the ransomware attack, based on Defendant's prior inability to ensure the privacy and security of its patients' data, significant, actionable personal information has been exposed. As a result of Defendant's wrongful actions and inactions, unauthorized individuals gained access to and harvested Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII. Plaintiff has been forced to take remedial steps to protect himself from future loss. Indeed, all Class Members are currently at a very high risk of identity theft and/or credit fraud, and prophylactic measures, such as the purchase of credit monitoring, are reasonable and necessary to prevent and mitigate future loss, as information will be harvested by unauthorized individuals. As a result of Defendant's wrongful actions and inactions, patient information is subject to theft. Many PIH patients have had their PII compromised, have had their privacy rights violated, have been exposed to the risk of fraud and identify theft, and have otherwise suffered damages, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was a patient of the Defendant. PIH Health, Inc. operates hospitals and clinics in southern California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Ahdoot, Esq. Tina Wolfson, Esq. Theodore W. Maya, Esq. Bradley K. King, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 2600 West Olive Avenue, Suite 500 Burbank, CA 91505 Phone: (310) 474-9111 Fax: (310) 474-8585 Email: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com bking@ahdootwolfson.com PILOT CATASTROPHE: Wins Bid for Arbitration; Warden Suit Stayed --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Karen Gren Scholer of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, grants the Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings in the lawsuit styled BRIAN WARDEN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. PILOT CATASTROPHE SERVICES, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-02156-S (N.D. Tex.). The case arises out of an alleged failure to pay for overtime hours. While working for the Defendant, the Plaintiff was paid on a "day-rate basis" of $300 per day, but he alleges that he regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week. He alleges that the Defendant failed to pay him the statutory overtime rate for these extra hours and instead paid him on a day-rate basis without overtime. The Plaintiff also alleges that the Defendant failed to pay other employees in his same position the proper rate for working overtime. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings individual and collective action claims for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), and a claim for liquidated damages, attorney's fees, and costs. The Defendant subsequently filed the Motion, seeking to compel arbitration, dismiss the collective action claim asserted by the Plaintiff, and stay all court proceedings pending arbitration. To apply to his job with the Defendant, the Plaintiff submitted an application on its website. To do so, the Plaintiff had to create an application profile, which required unique login credentials known only to him. The Defendant's application tracking system, ICIMS, then sent him a secure link requesting completion of onboarding paperwork. In completing the onboarding paperwork, according to Defendant, the Plaintiff signed an arbitration agreement ("Arbitration Agreement"). To access and sign the Arbitration Agreement, the Plaintiff had to log in to ICIMS with his unique email address or username and password. The Arbitration Agreement provides that the Defendant and Plaintiff "agree to binding arbitration as the exclusive remedy" for any dispute or claim between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, whether arising in tort, contract, statute, regulation, equity, common or other law, or otherwise. The Arbitration Agreement also provides that an arbitration covered by this Agreement will be brought on an individual basis only and not as a class, consolidated and/or collective action. The Defendant contends that the Plaintiff affirmatively accepted the Arbitration Agreement by checking the "Signature" box, which plainly states that "checking the checkbox above is equivalent to a handwritten signature." The Plaintiff disputes that he received (or even ever saw) the Defendant's arbitration agreement and that he signed it. Judge Scholer finds the Plaintiff has failed to meet his threshold burden of putting the making of the Arbitration Agreement in issue. And since the evidence shows that he signed and, thus, assented to the Arbitration Agreement, the Court finds that a valid arbitration agreement exists between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. The Court also finds that the Plaintiff's claims fall within the Arbitration Agreement's scope. Finding that the Plaintiff failed to put the existence of the Arbitration Agreement in issue, that the Arbitration Agreement is valid, that it covers the Plaintiff's claims against the Defendant, and that no federal policy or statute renders these claims non-arbitrable, the Court concludes that the Plaintiff's claims are subject to arbitration. The Court next addresses whether the Plaintiff is entitled to his requested discovery related to the existence of the Arbitration Agreement. Specifically, the Plaintiff requests electronically stored information related to the viewing and execution of the Arbitration Agreement; the identity of the Plaintiff's managers and supervisors at the time of his hire; any complaints, investigations, reports, correspondence, or other documents related to the completion of new hire paperwork; and the Plaintiff's complete personnel file. The Plaintiff also asks for permission to depose: (1) the individual, who authenticated the Plaintiff's signature; and (2) a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) witness on the subject of the Defendant's alternative dispute resolution policy. As an initial matter, Judge Scholer holds that allowing discovery on the issue of arbitrability would undercut the purpose of the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"). Allowing the requested discovery would only delay the enforcement of the Arbitration Agreement. Moreover, Judge Scholer explains, the Plaintiff had an opportunity to provide evidence to meet his threshold burden of putting the existence of the Arbitration Agreement in issue. But he failed to do so. Further, much of the requested discovery is either irrelevant or within the personal knowledge of the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Court denies the request for discovery related to the existence of the Arbitration Agreement. The Court further concludes that the Plaintiff agreed to arbitrate his claims on an independent basis. By signing the Arbitration Agreement, Judge Scholer finds the Plaintiff waived his right to bring a collective action. The Court, therefore, dismisses the Plaintiff's collective action claim under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b). For these reasons, the Court grants the Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings. The Plaintiff's collective action claim is dismissed with prejudice. The Plaintiff's remaining claims against the Defendant are stayed. It is, therefore, ordered that this case is administratively closed pending resolution of the arbitration. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/mscdj57t from PacerMonitor.com. PIPING ROCK: Greene Sues Over Deceptive Supplement Labeling ----------------------------------------------------------- Andrea Greene, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Piping Rock Health Products, LLC d/b/a Natural Vitality, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-08383 (S.D.N.Y., December 6, 2024), arises from Defendant's false representations that a 4-gummie single serving of the "CALM GUMMIES Magnesium Supplement" product contains 330 mg of elemental magnesium from magnesium citrate. Allegedly, the Defendant misstated the actual magnesium content of the said supplements, in violation of federal law and regulations designed to prevent deceptive supplement labeling. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks redress for Defendant's unlawful conduct and asserts claims for fraudulent concealment, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, and for violations of the Georgia Fair Business Practices Act. Headquartered in Bohemia, NY, Piping Rock Health Products, LLC, d/b/a Natural Vitality, markets, advertises, distributes and sells food supplements throughout the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sergei Lemberg, Esq. LEMBERG LAW, LLC 43 Danbury Road Wilton, CT 06897 Telephone: (203) 653-2250 Facsimile: (203) 653-3424 E-mail: slemberg@lemberglaw.com REBBL INC: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Roffman Consumer Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Jeffrey S. White of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss in the lawsuit entitled MEHVA ROFFMAN, Plaintiff v. REBBL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:22-cv-05290-JSW (N.D. Cal.). The facts underlying this dispute are set forth in the Court's Order granting, in part, and denying, in part, Rebbl's motion to dismiss the original complaint filed by Plaintiff Mehva Roffman. In brief, Roffman alleges the manner in which Rebbl advertises the amount of protein in its beverages is both unlawful and misleading. Ms. Roffman asserts claims on behalf of herself and putative classes for alleged violations of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), California's False Advertising Law ("FAL"), California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), as well as common law claims for fraud and unjust enrichment. Roffman seeks damages, restitution, and injunctive relief (First Amended Class Action Complaint). Rebbl argues that Roffman still fails to allege that her legal remedies are inadequate precluding her requests for equitable monetary relief. Roffman continues to allege that if the Court requires her and the putative class to show classwide reliance and materiality beyond the objective reasonable consumer standard and that if she and the putative class are not able to demonstrate the requisite mens rea, they may be unable to obtain damages. For the reasons set forth in its previous Order, the Court again concludes those allegations are not sufficient to show Roffman lacks an adequate legal remedy. Roffman acknowledges the Court previously rejected this argument but includes it to preserve the matter for appeal. In her UCL Claim, Roffman also alleges that she seeks, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, equitable relief, including the restitution for the premium and/or full price that they or others paid to the Defendant as a result of the Defendant's conduct. Roffman argues that the only way to obtain relief for this allegedly unlawful conduct is under the UCL, but the Court considered that argument when it considered her allegations that the Sherman Act did not provide a private right of action. Moreover, Roffman's new allegations are legal conclusions, not facts. The Court concludes once again that Roffman's allegations do not establish that the damages she seeks are necessarily inadequate or incomplete. For these reasons, the Court grants Rebbl's motion to dismiss and dismisses Roffman's UCL and FAL claims only to the extent she seeks equitable monetary relief as a remedy. The Court also dismisses the unjust enrichment claim. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/mr2ddk4v from PacerMonitor.com. RECONSERVE OF CALIFORNIA-LOS ANGELES: Faces Razo Labor Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------------- VICTOR RAZO, an individual, on behalf of those similarly situated and the general public, Plaintiff v. RECONSERVE OF CALIFORNIA-LOS ANGELES, INC., a corporation; DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV32440 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., December 9, 2024) arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful labor practices in violation of the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code. The complaint alleges the Defendants' wrongful termination, violations of Labor Code, retaliatory conduct, fraud and intentional misrepresentation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, unfair business practices, and waiting time penalties. The Plaintiff was employed by the Corporate Defendant as a transportation manager from February 2024 through October 21, 2024 when he was wrongfully terminated. Reconserve of California-Los Angeles, Inc. is a recycling and repurposing food waste and byproduct company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian I. Vogel, Esq. VOGEL LAW, APC 572 E. Green Street, Suite 305 Pasadena, CA 91101 Telephone: (626) 796-7470 RUGSUSA LLC: Hong Sues Over Website's False Price Discounts ----------------------------------------------------------- ANNA HONG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RUGUSA, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:24-cv-08799 (N.D. Cal., December 6, 2024) arises from Defendant's fake sales on its website. Allegedly, the Defendant represented that the product Plaintiff purchased was being offered at a steep discount from its purported regular price that Defendant advertised. However, the representations Plaintiff relied on were not true. The purported regular prices were not the true regular prices, the purported "discounts" were not the true discounts, and the discounts were ongoing--not time-limited. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks redress for Defendant's unlawful conduct and asserts several claims for, among other things, breach of contract, breach of express warranty, unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation, and for violations of California's False Advertising Law, Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and Unfair Competition Law. Headquartered in Cranbury, NJ, RugsUSA, LLC manufactures, distributes, markets, and sells rugs and home accessory products, including but not limited to, area rugs, rug pads, and floor mats. The company sells its products directly to consumers through its website, www.rugsusa.com. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christin Cho, Esq. Simon Franzini, Esq. Grace Bennett, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 656-7066 Facsimile: (310) 656-7069 E-mail: christin@dovel.com simon@dovel.com grace@dovel.com SHYFT GROUP: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Aebi Schmidt --------------------------------------------------------------- Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating Shyft Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: SHYF), relating to the proposed merger with Aebi Schmidt Group. Under the terms of the agreement, Shyft shareholders will own 48% of the combined company, with Aebi Schmidt shareholders owning 52%. Click link for more https://monteverdelaw.com/case/shyft-group-inc-shyf/. 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] SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Court Tosses 2nd Amended Flight Disruption Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Anthony J. Battaglia of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss the lawsuit styled In Re: Southwest Airlines Co. Flight Disruption Litigation, Lead Case No. 23-cv-00306-AJB-SBC, Consolidated with: Case No. 23-cv-00313-AJB-SBC and Case No. 23-cv-00633-AJB-SBC (S.D. Cal.). Pending before the Court is Defendant Southwest Airlines Co.'s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs Mary Smith, Matt Grove, Paula Hill, Eva Pina, and Eric Capdeville's Consolidated Second Amended Class Action Complaint ("SAC") pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss, to which Southwest replied. The purported class action arises from canceled flights by Southwest during the winter holiday season of 2022â€“2023. Between Dec. 22, 2022, and Jan. 2, 2023, Southwest canceled over 14,500 flights due to an alleged combination of an outdated software system and winter storms. Each of the named Plaintiffs purchased airline tickets from Southwest, and each had their flights canceled. Plaintiffs Smith, Hill, Pina, and Capdeville assert they were not refunded for the cost of their airline tickets within seven days of cancellation. Plaintiffs Pina, Grove, and Capdeville further allege they were not reimbursed for their out-of-pocket expenses caused by the ticket cancellations within hours of the flight during the holiday season. Smith also asserts she was without her luggage for nearly twelve hours, which included her medication. The Plaintiffs bring claims for (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and (3) violation of bailment. Southwest moves to dismiss all three claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The SAC alleges each Southwest passenger air travel ticket is governed by Southwest's Contract of Carriage ("CoC"), which was drafted by Southwest. This case results from the consolidation of three putative class actions filed against Southwest: (1) Hill v. Southwest Airlines Co., No. 23-cv-00633-AJB-SBC, originally filed in state court but removed to this Court; (2) Smith v. Southwest Airlines Co., No. 23-cv-00313-AJB-SBC, originally filed in the Northern District of California but voluntarily transferred to this Court; and (3) the instant lead case Grove v. Southwest Airlines Co., 23-cv-00306-AJB-SBC. Additionally, the plaintiff in Capdeville v. Southwest Airlines Co., No. 2:22-cv-05590, originally filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, dismissed his own action, and has been added as a named plaintiff. Thereafter, Southwest moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, which the Court granted on June 11, 2024. The Plaintiffs filed their SAC on June 21, 2024. Southwest moves to dismiss the Plaintiffs' breach of contract claim, asserting they fail to plausibly allege a breach and recoverable damages. As an initial matter, the Plaintiffs assert Southwest breached both its CoC and its Customer Service Plan. Southwest asserts the Customer Service Plan is not incorporated by reference into the CoC, and the CoC specifically states the Customer Service Plan "is not a contract, and does not create any contractual obligations of" Southwest. The Plaintiffs do not respond to this argument. The Court finds the language of the CoC controls and will not read into the CoC a requirement that Southwest provide an alternative flight "within a reasonable period of time." The CoC specifically provides a fixed time to provide an alternative flight in the event a flight is cancelled: (1) on Southwest's next flight to the passenger's intended destination, (2) on which space is available. Indeed, to require Southwest to provide an alternative flight within a reasonable period of time where there is no flight to the destination on which space is available would add a new obligation on Southwest to transport the passenger, regardless of whether a flight is available to do so. Moreover, Judge Battaglia says, the Plaintiffs do not allege that Southwest had alternative flights to their intended destinations that had space available but were not offered to the Plaintiffs. Indeed, the Plaintiffs assert Southwest continued to cancel flights resulting in more than 14,500 flights cancelled. Accordingly, the Court grants Southwest's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' breach of contract claim on this basis. The Court also finds the Plaintiffs may not rely upon the Customer Service Plan in support of their breach of contract claim. The Court also finds Southwest was not required to provide a refund within seven days. Importantly, as noted by Southwest, the Plaintiffs do not allege they requested the refund that they received; rather, they allege they requested to be rebooked. For this reason, too, Judge Battaglia opines the Plaintiffs' breach of contract claim based on a failure to provide a refund within seven days fails. Based on the foregoing, the Court dismisses the Plaintiffs' breach of contract claim with leave to amend. In this case, the Court finds unpersuasive the Plaintiffs' argument that the limitation of liability provision in the CoC is a liquidated damages clause. Indeed, the Plaintiffs fail to address any of Southwest's arguments regarding the differences between limitation of liability provisions and liquidated damages clauses, and instead continually asserts the provision is one for liquidated damages. However, as the Court noted in its previous Order, Southwest did not raise this argument in the instant case and the Plaintiffs offer no support for their contention that they may "adopt" an argument made by Southwest in an unrelated case. Indeed, Judge Battaglia notes, upon review, it appears the Plaintiffs merely copy-and-pasted this argument from their previous Response in Opposition to Southwest's first Motion to Dismiss without noting this argument was already rejected by the Court. Based on the foregoing, the Court finds the CoC contains a limitation of liability clause--as opposed to a liquidated damages clause--which specifically prohibits "any consequential, compensatory, indirect, incidental, or punitive damages." Moreover, the Plaintiffs have failed to allege any recoverable damages, as they do not allege Southwest failed to refund them for the price of their cancelled tickets. On this basis, too, Judge Battaglia holds the Plaintiffs' breach of contract claim fails. The Plaintiffs assert in their SAC that Southwest had a duty of good faith and fair dealing due to its special relationship with the Plaintiffs, where there was unequal bargaining power between Southwest and the Plaintiff airline customers/passengers and a risk exists that Southwest may take advantage of them based upon the imbalance of power. The Plaintiffs assert that Southwest is a common carrier in the business of carrying passengers and goods, and holds itself out for hire. As a common carrier, Southwest is held to a higher standard and degree of care to passengers. Judge Battaglia holds that the Plaintiffs fail to cite any case in which a special relationship exists between a common carrier and passenger, and the Court finds none. The cases cited by the Plaintiffs are also distinguishable. The Court finds the Plaintiffs fail to establish the existence of a special relationship arising from their consumer transaction with Southwest. There are no facts, nor any supporting case law, to establish a special relationship between the Plaintiffs and Southwest, and thus, the Court finds this to be a question of law. Based on the foregoing, the Court grants Southwest's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' second claim with leave to amend. The Court also finds the Plaintiffs' bailment claim fails on the separate basis that they did not satisfy the condition precedent, and on the facts alleged, are not excused from performance. As stated in the CoC, the Plaintiffs were required to submit either a completed Lost/Delayed Report Receipt form or a written correspondence to Southwest, no later than 21 days after the occurrence of the event giving rise to the claim. Based on the foregoing, the Court grants Southwest's motion to dismiss with leave to amend. Based on the foregoing, the Court grants Southwest's motion to dismiss with leave to amend. Judge Battaglia points out that this is the Plaintiffs' final opportunity to amend. Should the Plaintiffs desire to amend their complaint, they must file a third amended complaint no later than Dec. 17, 2024. Southwest must file a responsive pleading no later than Jan. 2, 2025. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4pxftvzd from PacerMonitor.com. SPOKEO INC: Tucker Sues Over Privacy Rights Violation ----------------------------------------------------- Robert Tucker and Constance Winter, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. SPOKEO, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-03499-KAS (D. Colo., Dec. 18, 2024), is brought for violations of the Colorado's "Prevention of Telemarketing Fraud Act" or "PTFA") against the Defendants, to prevent Defendants from further violating the privacy rights of Colorado cell phone users and to recover statutory damages. On May 27, 2005, former Colorado Governor Bill Owens signed into law HB05-1288, which amended the PTFA to prohibit commercially listing a cell phone number in a directory, without permission. The Defendants have listed the cellular telephone numbers of thousands of Colorado residents in their for-sale and for-profit directories, without requesting (let alone actually receiving) affirmative consent to such listings. Thus, while Defendants profit handsomely from their unauthorized commercial listing of Plaintiff's and other Class Members' personal information, Defendants do so at the expense of Coloradans' statutory privacy rights, under the PTFA. The Defendants never requested--and Plaintiff never providedâ€”affirmative consent, through written, oral, or electronic means, to such listings. In fact, Plaintiff has no relationship with Defendants whatsoever. Plaintiff had never heard of Defendants and had no reasonable ability to discover Defendants' use of his personal information until shortly before filing suit, says the complaint. The Plaintiff's cellular telephone number was listed by Defendants in their directories. The Defendant operates the directories spokeo.com and thatsthem.com.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick H. Peluso, Esq. PELUSO LAW LLC 865 Albion Street, Suite 250 Denver, CO 80220 Phone: (720) 805-2008 Facsimile: (720) 336-3663 Email: ppeluso@pelusolawfirm.com - and - Joseph I. Marchese, Esq. Matthew A. Girardi, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Phone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 Email: jmarchese@bursor.com mgirardi@bursor.com SPORT SQUAD: Class Cert. Bids in Matus Due March 24, 2025 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GREG MATUS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. SPORT SQUAD, INC. d/b/a JOOLA, Case No. 0:24-cv-60954-DSL (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge David Leibowitz entered an order setting jury trial and class certification deadlines: -- The parties shall select a mediator in Jan. 3, 2025 accordance with Local Rule 16.2; schedule a time, date, and place for mediation; and jointly file a proposed order scheduling mediation in the form specified on the Court's website, http://www.flsd.uscourts.gov.: -- The parties shall file all motions to Jan. 3, 2025 amend pleadings or to join parties: -- The parties shall exchange expert Feb. 7, 2025 witness summaries and reports for class certification: -- The parties shall exchange rebuttal Feb. 21, 2025 expert witness summaries and reports for class certification: -- Class discovery shall be completed: March 10, 2025 -- Class Certification Motions due: March 24, 2025 -- All discovery, including expert discovery June 18, 2025 shall be completed. -- The parties must have completed mediation June 27, 2025 and filed a mediation report: -- The parties shall file all pre-trial July 7, 2025 motions, including motions for summary judgment, and Daubert motions: Sport Squad is a Maryland based, emerging game room equipment manufacturer. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 16, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9jcZaA at no extra charge.[CC] STARK CORP: Court Authorizes Shareholder Class Action Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- The Nation reports that the Southern Bangkok Civil Court has granted permission for a class action lawsuit to proceed against Stark Corporation Pcl on behalf of a group of aggrieved common shareholders. The move on Wednesday, December 18, marks a significant development in Thailand's legal landscape, as it represents the first class action lawsuit involving ordinary stock securities since the amendment of the Code of Civil Procedure in 2015. The lawsuit, designated as Case No. 1061/2024, was initiated by the Thai Investors Association on behalf of five plaintiffs who represent a broader group defined as "individuals who bought or sold shares of Stark Corporation on the Stock Exchange of Thailand between May 11, 2021, and June 16, 2023". The court's order automatically binds all members of this group who share the same factual and legal circumstances. This decision opens the door for a larger group of investors potentially harmed by Stark's actions to seek collective legal recourse. The outcome of the case involving the five initial plaintiffs will be automatically binding on the broader class. Role in supporting victims The investors association said it is playing a central role in assisting victims of the alleged Stark misconduct by facilitating the class action process and disseminating information to affected investors. This includes: -- Issuing two official announcements in 2024 (No. 1/2024 on September 19 and No. 2/2024 on November 12) detailing the progress of the case. -- Maintaining a dedicated section on the association website (www.thaiinvestors.com) under the "Class Action" menu. -- Email communication with registered victims. -- Collaborating with relevant capital market agencies and media outlets to ensure public awareness. The defendants in the case retain the right to appeal the court's decision. This class action represents the first step in a potentially lengthy legal process aimed at achieving justice for Stark's shareholders who may have suffered financial losses. The Securities and Exchange Commission stepped in to suspend trading in the shares of the company which was engaged in the cable manufacturing industry, seized the company's assets, and brought fraud charges against its executives for alleged falsification of financial statements. [GN] STRAFFORD PUBLICATIONS: Lindekugel Balks at Private Info Disclosure ------------------------------------------------------------------- ELENA TREBAOL LINDEKUGEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STRAFFORD PUBLICATIONS, LLC and BARBRI, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-05642-AT (N.D. Ga., December 9, 2024) is an action to redress Defendants' practices of knowingly disclosing Plaintiff's and its other customers' identities as well as the identities of the prerecorded video materials to which they purchased access on Defendants' www.straffordpub.com website to third parties in violation of the federal Video Privacy Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants have systematically transmitted (and continue to transmit today) its customers' personally identifying video viewing information to Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly known as Facebook, Inc., using snippets of code called a tracking pixel. The Defendants disclosed and continue to disclose its customers' private video information to these third parties without asking for, let alone obtaining, its customers' consent to these practices, says the suit. Because Defendants disclosed Plaintiff's private video information to Meta during the applicable statutory period, Defendants violated Plaintiff's rights under the VPPA and invaded her statutorily conferred interest in keeping such information (which bears on her personal affairs and concerns) private, the suit asserts. Strafford Publications, LLC operates as a continuing education provider with principal place of business in Dallas, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric Funt, Esq. THE CHAMPION FIRM, P.C. 445 Franklin Gateway SE, Suite 100 Marietta, GA 30067 Telephone: (404) 495-7459 Facsimile: (404) 671-9347 E-mail: eric@thechampionfirm.com - and - Tyler K. Somes, Esq. HEDIN LLP 1100 15th Street NW, Ste 04-108 Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: (202) 900-3332 Facsimile: (305) 200-8801 E-mail: tsomes@hedinllp.com TARTER GATE: Spears Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------- Belinda Spears, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. TARTER GATE COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-00149-GNS (W.D. Ky., Dec. 18, 2024), is brought to recover unpaid straight time and overtime wages, liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs as a result of Defendant's willful violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Defendant fails to pay hourly-paid production workers for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek at a rate of or greater than 1.5 times their regular rate of pay. In many weeks Defendant further fails to include additional compensation hourly- paid production workers receive in addition to their base hourly wages when determining their regular rates of pay, for purposes of determining the rate to pay them for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. The Defendant fails to include retention bonuses hourly-paid production workers receive in addition to their base hourly wages when determining their regular rates of pay, for purposes of determining the rate to pay them for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. As a result of the Defendant's illegal policies, there were many weeks in which Defendant failed to compensate members of the FLSA collective at an overtime premium rate of not less than one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek as required by the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant an hourly-paid production worker from November 2023 to July 2024. Tarter Gate Company, LLC is a manufacturer of farm and ranch equipment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anne L. Gilday, Esq. THE LAWRENCE FIRM, PSC 535 Madison Avenue, Suite 500 Covington, KY 41011 Phone: 859-578-9130 Fax: 859-578-1032 Email: anne.gilday@lawrencefirm.com - and - Nicholas Conlon, Esq. BROWN, LLC 111 Town Square Place, Suite 400 Jersey City, NJ 07310 Phone: (877) 561-0000 Fax: (855) 582-5279 Email: nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com TEAMSTERS PENSION: Paieri Seeks to Exclude Expert's December Report ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Michael Paieri; Stanley Sawyer, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Western Conference of Teamsters Pension Trust; the Board of Trustees of the Western Conference of Teamsters Pension Trust, Case No. 2:23-cv-00922-LK (W.D. Wash.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting motion to exclude from consideration with respect to class certification, Defendants' untimely and unauthorized "supplemental" expert report of Thomas Terry served on Dec. 9, 2024 ("Terry's December Report") and for such other relief as the Court finds just and appropriate including attorneys' fees. -- Terry's December Report is not a proper supplement under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e) because the information is not based on new information and should have been included in his prior reports. -- The report is untimely and prejudicial to Plaintiffs and should be excluded on class certification. -- The Plaintiffs do not view this motion as a motion related to class certification discovery, as to which the deadline was Sept. 20, 2024, but if the Court were to disagree. -- The Plaintiffs also seek leave to modify the Scheduling Order to bring this motion as Plaintiffs have acted diligently after receiving Terry's December Report and have good cause to make the motion. Teamsters provides plan coverage, participation and vesting, losing and protecting benefits, normal retirement, disability retirement, and other services. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 16, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FYvwag at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael M. Licata, Esq. MARTIN & BONNETT, P.L.L.C 999 N. Northlake Way, Suite 206b Seattle, WA 98103 Telephone: (602) 240-6900 Facsimile: (602) 240-2345 TULE LAKE: More Time to File Class Cert Response Sought -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SCOTT CRAWFORD, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. TULE LAKE LENDING, LLC, d/b/a RESCUE BUCKS, EIC ENTERPRISES, AGUSTIN GARCIA, APRIL POPADITCH, SARAH BROWN GARCIA, PENNY MORANDA, and JOHN DOES Nos, 1-25Case No. 1:24-cv-04305-TWT (N.D. Ga.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting consent motion and brief to extend the time for defendant to respond to the Plaintiff's Complaint and Plaintiff's Obligation to Move for Class Certification as follows: -- the Defendants waived service and the deadline to respond to the Complaint was Dec. 2, 2024. -- On Dec. 2, 2024, Defendants filed Defendants' Unopposed Consolidated Motion and Brief to Extend the Time for Defendant to Respond to Plaintiff's Complaint through and until Dec. 16, 2024. -- On Dec. 4, 2024, the Court Granted the Defendants' Request for Extension of Time to Answer. Rescue Bucks is a direct loan provider. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Dec. 16, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UseXa1 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Cameron Tribble, Esq. John R. Bartholomew, IV, Esq. BARNES LAW GROUP, LLC 31 Atlanta Street Marietta, GA 30060 Telephone: (770) 227-6375 Facsimile: (770)-227-6373 E-mail: ctribble@barneslawgroup.com jbartholomew@barneslawgroup.com - and â€“ Matthew G. Rosendahl, Esq. KELLY GUZZO, PLC 3925 Chain Bridge, Suite 202 Fairfax, VA 22030 Telephone: (703) 424-7572 Facsimile: (703) 591-0167 E-mail: matt@kellyguzzo.com The Defendants are represented by: Jonathan K. Aust, Esq. BEDARD LAW GROUP, P.C. 4855 River Green Parkway, Suite 310 Duluth, GA 30096 Telephone: (678) 253-1871 E-mail:jaust@bedardlawgroup.com UBER TECHNOLOGIES: $200M Settlement in Messinger Suit Has Final OK ------------------------------------------------------------------ Chief District Judge Richard Seeborg of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, issued a Final Order and Judgment approving the settlement in the lawsuit titled Messinger, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-08610-RS (N.D. Cal.). BOSTON RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Plaintiff v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-06361 (N.D. Cal.). The Settlement has created a common fund of $200 million in cash. Lead Plaintiff Boston Retirement System and Class Representatives David Messinger, Salvatore Toronto acting on behalf of the Ellie Marie Toronto ESA, and Irving S. and Judith Braun; additional named Plaintiff Joseph Cianci, on behalf of themselves and all other members of the certified Class, on the one hand, and Uber Technologies, Inc.; Dara Khosrowshahi, Nelson Chai, Glen Ceremony, Ronald Sugar, Ursula Burns, Garrett Camp, Matt Cohler, Ryan Graves, Arianna Huffington, Travis Kalanick, Wan Ling Martello, Yasir Al-Rumayyan, John Thain, and David Trujillo (the "Individual Defendants" and with Uber, the "Uber Defendants"); and Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Barclays Capital Inc., Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., Allen & Company LLC, RBC Capital Markets, LLC, SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc. (now known as Truist Securities, Inc.), Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., HSBC Securities (USA) Inc., SMBC Nikko Securities America, Inc., Mizuho Securities USA LLC, Needham & Company, LLC, Loop Capital Markets LLC, Siebert Cisneros Shank & Co., L.L.C., Academy Securities, Inc., BTIG, LLC, Canaccord Genuity LLC, CastleOak Securities, L.P., Cowen and Company, LLC, Evercore Group L.L.C., JMP Securities LLC, Macquarie Capital (USA) Inc., Mischler Financial Group, Inc., Oppenheimer & Co. Inc., Raymond James & Associates, Inc., William Blair & Company, L.L.C., The Williams Capital Group, L.P., and TPG Capital BD, LLC (the "Underwriter Defendants" and, together with Uber and the Individual Defendants, the "Defendants"), have entered into the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated July 19, 2024 (the "Stipulation"), that provides for a complete dismissal with prejudice of the claims asserted in the Action on the terms and conditions set forth in the Stipulation, subject to the approval of the Court (the "Settlement"). Pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court previously certified a class of: all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Uber's publicly traded common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering Documents for Uber's IPO (as defined in the Second Amended Class Action Complaint), and who were damaged thereby, i.e., those who purchased during the Traceability Period, except for those excluded by definition or request. Excluded from the Class, by definition, are: (i) Defendants and the Individual Defendants' immediate family members; (ii) the officers, directors, affiliates, and subsidiaries of Uber and the Underwriter Defendants, at all relevant times; (iii) Uber's affiliates and employee retirement and/or benefit plan(s) and their participants or beneficiaries to the extent they purchased or acquired Uber common stock pursuant or traceable to the Offering Documents through any such plan(s); (iv) any entity in which the Defendants have or had a controlling interest; and (v) the legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns of any such excluded person or entity. Also excluded from the Class is any person or entity that requested exclusion from the Class in connection with the previously issued Class Notice or whose request is otherwise allowed by the Court, if any. Judge Seeborg notes that the provisions of the Preliminary Approval Order as to notice were complied. As required by the Preliminary Approval Order, Class Representatives moved for final approval of the Settlement. The Settlement Hearing was duly held before the Court on Dec. 4, 2024, at which time all interested Persons were afforded the opportunity to be heard. The Court finds that the dissemination of the Settlement Notice, Settlement Postcard, Summary Notice, and Claim Form complied with the Preliminary Approval Order. There have been no objections to the Settlement. Pursuant to Rule 23(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court approves the Settlement and finds that in light of the benefits to the Class, the complexity and expense of further litigation, the risks of establishing liability and damages, and the costs of continued litigation, said Settlement is, in all respects, fair, reasonable, and adequate. Accordingly, the Settlement is approved in all respects and will be consummated in accordance with the terms and provisions of the Stipulation. The Second Amended Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws, filed on May 14, 2021, is dismissed in its entirety, with prejudice, as to the Class Representatives and other Class Members, and as against each of the Defendants, and without costs to any Party, except as otherwise provided in the Stipulation. The Court also finds, among other things, that during the course of the Action, the Parties and their respective counsel at all times complied with the requirements of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Within 21 days after the settlement is fully distributed according to the plan of allocation, the parties will file a Post-Distribution Accounting and post it on the settlement website. The parties must utilize this district's Post Distribution Accounting Form, attached to this order. A full-text copy of the Court's Final Order and Judgment is available at https://tinyurl.com/3s9w64ku from PacerMonitor.com. Jonathan Gardner -- jgardner@labaton.com -- Alfred L. Fatale III -- afatale@labaton.com -- Joseph N. Cotilletta -- jcotilletta@labaton.com -- Beth C. Khinchuk -- bkhinchuk@labaton.com -- LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP, in New York City, New York 10005, Class Counsel for the Plaintiffs and the Class. UBER TECHNOLOGIES: $200M Settlement in Stirratt Suit Has Final OK ----------------------------------------------------------------- Chief District Judge Richard Seeborg of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, issued a Final Order and Judgment approving the settlement in the lawsuit titled Stirratt v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al. BOSTON RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Plaintiff v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-06361 (N.D. Cal.). The Settlement has created a common fund of $200 million in cash. Lead Plaintiff Boston Retirement System and Class Representatives David Messinger, Salvatore Toronto acting on behalf of the Ellie Marie Toronto ESA, and Irving S. and Judith Braun; additional named Plaintiff Joseph Cianci, on behalf of themselves and all other members of the certified Class, on the one hand, and Uber Technologies, Inc.; Dara Khosrowshahi, Nelson Chai, Glen Ceremony, Ronald Sugar, Ursula Burns, Garrett Camp, Matt Cohler, Ryan Graves, Arianna Huffington, Travis Kalanick, Wan Ling Martello, Yasir Al-Rumayyan, John Thain, and David Trujillo (the "Individual Defendants" and with Uber, the "Uber Defendants"); and Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Barclays Capital Inc., Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., Allen & Company LLC, RBC Capital Markets, LLC, SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc. (now known as Truist Securities, Inc.), Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., HSBC Securities (USA) Inc., SMBC Nikko Securities America, Inc., Mizuho Securities USA LLC, Needham & Company, LLC, Loop Capital Markets LLC, Siebert Cisneros Shank & Co., L.L.C., Academy Securities, Inc., BTIG, LLC, Canaccord Genuity LLC, CastleOak Securities, L.P., Cowen and Company, LLC, Evercore Group L.L.C., JMP Securities LLC, Macquarie Capital (USA) Inc., Mischler Financial Group, Inc., Oppenheimer & Co. Inc., Raymond James & Associates, Inc., William Blair & Company, L.L.C., The Williams Capital Group, L.P., and TPG Capital BD, LLC (the "Underwriter Defendants" and, together with Uber and the Individual Defendants, the "Defendants"), have entered into the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated July 19, 2024 (the "Stipulation"), that provides for a complete dismissal with prejudice of the claims asserted in the Action on the terms and conditions set forth in the Stipulation, subject to the approval of the Court (the "Settlement"). Pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court previously certified a class of: all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Uber's publicly traded common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering Documents for Uber's IPO (as defined in the Second Amended Class Action Complaint), and who were damaged thereby, i.e., those who purchased during the Traceability Period, except for those excluded by definition or request. Excluded from the Class, by definition, are: (i) Defendants and the Individual Defendants' immediate family members; (ii) the officers, directors, affiliates, and subsidiaries of Uber and the Underwriter Defendants, at all relevant times; (iii) Uber's affiliates and employee retirement and/or benefit plan(s) and their participants or beneficiaries to the extent they purchased or acquired Uber common stock pursuant or traceable to the Offering Documents through any such plan(s); (iv) any entity in which the Defendants have or had a controlling interest; and (v) the legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns of any such excluded person or entity. Also excluded from the Class is any person or entity that requested exclusion from the Class in connection with the previously issued Class Notice or whose request is otherwise allowed by the Court, if any. Judge Seeborg notes that the provisions of the Preliminary Approval Order as to notice were complied. As required by the Preliminary Approval Order, Class Representatives moved for final approval of the Settlement. The Settlement Hearing was duly held before the Court on Dec. 4, 2024, at which time all interested Persons were afforded the opportunity to be heard. The Court finds that the dissemination of the Settlement Notice, Settlement Postcard, Summary Notice, and Claim Form complied with the Preliminary Approval Order. There have been no objections to the Settlement. Pursuant to Rule 23(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court approves the Settlement and finds that in light of the benefits to the Class, the complexity and expense of further litigation, the risks of establishing liability and damages, and the costs of continued litigation, said Settlement is, in all respects, fair, reasonable, and adequate. Accordingly, the Settlement is approved in all respects and will be consummated in accordance with the terms and provisions of the Stipulation. The Second Amended Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws, filed on May 14, 2021, is dismissed in its entirety, with prejudice, as to the Class Representatives and other Class Members, and as against each of the Defendants, and without costs to any Party, except as otherwise provided in the Stipulation. The Court also finds, among other things, that during the course of the Action, the Parties and their respective counsel at all times complied with the requirements of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Within 21 days after the settlement is fully distributed according to the plan of allocation, the parties will file a Post-Distribution Accounting and post it on the settlement website. The parties must utilize this district's Post Distribution Accounting Form, attached to this order. A full-text copy of the Court's Final Order and Judgment is available at https://tinyurl.com/bwdyyvv4 from PacerMonitor.com. Jonathan Gardner -- jgardner@labaton.com -- Alfred L. Fatale III -- afatale@labaton.com -- Joseph N. Cotilletta -- jcotilletta@labaton.com -- Beth C. Khinchuk -- bkhinchuk@labaton.com -- LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP, in New York City, New York 10005, Class Counsel for the Plaintiffs and the Class. UBER TECHNOLOGIES: $200MM Settlement in Fazio Suit Has Final Nod ---------------------------------------------------------------- Chief District Judge Richard Seeborg of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, issued a Final Order and Judgment approving the settlement in the lawsuit entitled Diego Fazio v. Khosrowshahi, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-07916 (N.D. Cal.). BOSTON RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Plaintiff v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-06361 (N.D. Cal.). The Settlement has created a common fund of $200 million in cash. Lead Plaintiff Boston Retirement System and Class Representatives David Messinger, Salvatore Toronto acting on behalf of the Ellie Marie Toronto ESA, and Irving S. and Judith Braun; additional named Plaintiff Joseph Cianci, on behalf of themselves and all other members of the certified Class, on the one hand, and Uber Technologies, Inc.; Dara Khosrowshahi, Nelson Chai, Glen Ceremony, Ronald Sugar, Ursula Burns, Garrett Camp, Matt Cohler, Ryan Graves, Arianna Huffington, Travis Kalanick, Wan Ling Martello, Yasir Al-Rumayyan, John Thain, and David Trujillo (the "Individual Defendants" and with Uber, the "Uber Defendants"); and Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Barclays Capital Inc., Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., Allen & Company LLC, RBC Capital Markets, LLC, SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc. (now known as Truist Securities, Inc.), Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., HSBC Securities (USA) Inc., SMBC Nikko Securities America, Inc., Mizuho Securities USA LLC, Needham & Company, LLC, Loop Capital Markets LLC, Siebert Cisneros Shank & Co., L.L.C., Academy Securities, Inc., BTIG, LLC, Canaccord Genuity LLC, CastleOak Securities, L.P., Cowen and Company, LLC, Evercore Group L.L.C., JMP Securities LLC, Macquarie Capital (USA) Inc., Mischler Financial Group, Inc., Oppenheimer & Co. Inc., Raymond James & Associates, Inc., William Blair & Company, L.L.C., The Williams Capital Group, L.P., and TPG Capital BD, LLC (the "Underwriter Defendants" and, together with Uber and the Individual Defendants, the "Defendants"), have entered into the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated July 19, 2024 (the "Stipulation"), that provides for a complete dismissal with prejudice of the claims asserted in the Action on the terms and conditions set forth in the Stipulation, subject to the approval of the Court (the "Settlement"). Pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court previously certified a class of: all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Uber's publicly traded common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering Documents for Uber's IPO (as defined in the Second Amended Class Action Complaint), and who were damaged thereby, i.e., those who purchased during the Traceability Period, except for those excluded by definition or request. Excluded from the Class, by definition, are: (i) Defendants and the Individual Defendants' immediate family members; (ii) the officers, directors, affiliates, and subsidiaries of Uber and the Underwriter Defendants, at all relevant times; (iii) Uber's affiliates and employee retirement and/or benefit plan(s) and their participants or beneficiaries to the extent they purchased or acquired Uber common stock pursuant or traceable to the Offering Documents through any such plan(s); (iv) any entity in which the Defendants have or had a controlling interest; and (v) the legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns of any such excluded person or entity. Also excluded from the Class is any person or entity that requested exclusion from the Class in connection with the previously issued Class Notice or whose request is otherwise allowed by the Court, if any. Judge Seeborg notes that the provisions of the Preliminary Approval Order as to notice were complied. As required by the Preliminary Approval Order, Class Representatives moved for final approval of the Settlement. The Settlement Hearing was duly held before the Court on Dec. 4, 2024, at which time all interested Persons were afforded the opportunity to be heard. The Court finds that the dissemination of the Settlement Notice, Settlement Postcard, Summary Notice, and Claim Form complied with the Preliminary Approval Order. There have been no objections to the Settlement. Pursuant to Rule 23(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court approves the Settlement and finds that in light of the benefits to the Class, the complexity and expense of further litigation, the risks of establishing liability and damages, and the costs of continued litigation, said Settlement is, in all respects, fair, reasonable, and adequate. Accordingly, the Settlement is approved in all respects and will be consummated in accordance with the terms and provisions of the Stipulation. The Second Amended Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws, filed on May 14, 2021, is dismissed in its entirety, with prejudice, as to the Class Representatives and other Class Members, and as against each of the Defendants, and without costs to any Party, except as otherwise provided in the Stipulation. The Court also finds, among other things, that during the course of the Action, the Parties and their respective counsel at all times complied with the requirements of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Within 21 days after the settlement is fully distributed according to the plan of allocation, the parties will file a Post-Distribution Accounting and post it on the settlement website. The parties must utilize this district's Post Distribution Accounting Form, attached to this order. A full-text copy of the Court's Final Order and Judgment is available at https://tinyurl.com/49dunekk from PacerMonitor.com. Jonathan Gardner -- jgardner@labaton.com -- Alfred L. Fatale III -- afatale@labaton.com -- Joseph N. Cotilletta -- jcotilletta@labaton.com -- Beth C. Khinchuk -- bkhinchuk@labaton.com -- LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP, in New York City, New York 10005, Class Counsel for the Plaintiffs and the Class. UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Counsel in Fazio Awarded $60.8M in Fees & Costs ------------------------------------------------------------------ Chief District Judge Richard Seeborg of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, awards attorneys' fees in the amount of $58,000,000, plus interest, and payment of expenses in the amount of $2,810,672.75, plus accrued interest, in the lawsuit titled Diego Fazio v. Khosrowshahi, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-07916 (N.D. Cal.). BOSTON RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Plaintiff v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-06361 (N.D. Cal.). Lead Plaintiff Boston Retirement System and Class Representatives David Messinger, Salvatore Toronto acting on behalf of the Ellie Marie Toronto ESA, and Irving S. and Judith Braun; additional named Plaintiff Joseph Cianci, on behalf of themselves and all other members of the certified Class, on the one hand, and Uber Technologies, Inc.; Dara Khosrowshahi, Nelson Chai, Glen Ceremony, Ronald Sugar, Ursula Burns, Garrett Camp, Matt Cohler, Ryan Graves, Arianna Huffington, Travis Kalanick, Wan Ling Martello, Yasir Al-Rumayyan, John Thain, and David Trujillo (the "Individual Defendants" and with Uber, the "Uber Defendants"); and Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Barclays Capital Inc., Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., Allen & Company LLC, RBC Capital Markets, LLC, SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc. (now known as Truist Securities, Inc.), Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., HSBC Securities (USA) Inc., SMBC Nikko Securities America, Inc., Mizuho Securities USA LLC, Needham & Company, LLC, Loop Capital Markets LLC, Siebert Cisneros Shank & Co., L.L.C., Academy Securities, Inc., BTIG, LLC, Canaccord Genuity LLC, CastleOak Securities, L.P., Cowen and Company, LLC, Evercore Group L.L.C., JMP Securities LLC, Macquarie Capital (USA) Inc., Mischler Financial Group, Inc., Oppenheimer & Co. Inc., Raymond James & Associates, Inc., William Blair & Company, L.L.C., The Williams Capital Group, L.P., and TPG Capital BD, LLC (the "Underwriter Defendants" and, together with Uber and the Individual Defendants, the "Defendants"), have entered into the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated July 19, 2024 (the "Stipulation"), that provides for a complete dismissal with prejudice of the claims asserted in the Action on the terms and conditions set forth in the Stipulation, subject to the approval of the Court (the "Settlement"). On Dec. 4, 2024, a hearing having been held before the Court to determine, among other things, whether and in what amount to award (1) the Plaintiffs' Counsel in the securities class action (the "Action") attorneys' fees and litigation expenses, and (2) the Plaintiffs their costs and expenses (including lost wages), pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the "PSLRA"). Notice of Class Counsel's motion for an award of attorneys' fees and payment of expenses and PSLRA awards (the "Fee and Expense Application") was given to all Class Members, who could be identified with reasonable effort. There have been no objections to Class Counsel's Fee and Expense Application. The Court awards Class Counsel, on behalf of the Plaintiffs' Counsel, attorneys' fees in the amount of $58,000,000, plus interest at the same rate earned by the Settlement Fund, i.e., 29% of the Settlement Fund, and payment of expenses in the amount of $2,810,672.75, plus accrued interest, which sums the Court finds to be fair and reasonable. The reimbursement requests of Lead Plaintiff Boston Retirement System and Class Representatives David Messinger, Salvatore Toronto on behalf of the Ellie Marie Toronto ESA, Irving and Judith Braun, and Joseph Cianci are denied. While the PSLRA does allow for reasonable reimbursement of costs incurred as a direct result of work done for the litigation, Judge Seeborg opines that none of the named Plaintiffs demonstrate the required causality. None claim to have lost wages, missed specific work or other earning opportunities, nor incurred any out-of-pocket expenses to participate in this litigation. Moreover, all five make conclusory estimates of their hourly rates and hours spent on litigation. Therefore, these requests are denied. Judge Seeborg holds that the awarded attorneys' fees and litigation expenses may be paid to Class Counsel, on behalf of the Plaintiffs' Counsel, from the Settlement Fund upon entry of this Order, subject to the terms, conditions, and obligations of the Stipulation, which terms, conditions, and obligations are incorporated in this Order. In making the award of attorneys' fees and payment of litigation expenses to be paid from the Settlement Fund, the Court finds that the Settlement has created a substantial common fund of $200 million in cash and thousands of Class Members, who submit acceptable Claim Forms will benefit from the Settlement created by the efforts of counsel. Judge Seeborg notes that the requested attorneys' fees and litigation expenses have been reviewed and approved as fair and reasonable by the Plaintiffs, sophisticated investors that were directly involved in the prosecution and resolution of the Action and which have an interest in ensuring that any fees paid to counsel are duly earned and not excessive. The Action involved difficult and complex factual and legal issues and, in the absence of settlement, would have involved lengthy proceedings whose resolution was uncertain. Any appeal or challenge affecting the Court's approval of the attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, or awards to the Plaintiffs, will in no way disturb or affect the finality of the Judgment entered with respect to the Settlement, Judge Seeborg points out. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yc283wu6 from PacerMonitor.com. Jonathan Gardner -- jgardner@labaton.com -- Alfred L. Fatale III -- afatale@labaton.com -- Joseph N. Cotilletta -- jcotilletta@labaton.com -- Beth C. Khinchuk -- bkhinchuk@labaton.com -- LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP, in New York City, New York 10005, Class Counsel for the Plaintiffs and the Class. UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Court Approves Plan of Allocation in Fazio Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Chief District Judge Richard Seeborg of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, approves the proposed Plan of Allocation for the distribution of the proceeds of the $200 million settlement in the lawsuit captioned Diego Fazio v. Khosrowshahi, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-07916 (N.D. Cal.). BOSTON RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Plaintiff v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-06361 (N.D. Cal.). The matter came before the Court for a hearing on Dec. 4, 2024, on the motion of Lead Plaintiff Boston Retirement System, David Messinger, Salvatore Toronto acting on behalf of the Ellie Marie Toronto ESA, and Irving S. and Judith Braun (collectively, "Class Representatives"), on behalf of themselves and the other members of the certified Class, for final approval of the proposed Settlement of the Action and approval of the proposed Plan of Allocation for the distribution of the proceeds of the Settlement. This Order incorporates by reference the definitions in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated July 19, 2024 (the "Stipulation"). Pursuant to and in accordance with Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court finds and concludes that due and adequate notice was directed to Persons, who are Class Members, who could be identified with reasonable effort, advising them of the proposed Plan of Allocation and of their right to object thereto, and a full and fair opportunity was accorded to Persons, who are Class Members to be heard with respect to the Plan of Allocation. There were no objections to the Plan of Allocation. The Court finds and concludes that the Plan of Allocation for the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund that is set forth in the Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement and Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses (the "Settlement Notice") provides a fair and reasonable basis upon which to allocate the Net Settlement Fund among Class Members. The Court finds and concludes that the Plan of Allocation, as set forth in the Settlement Notice, is fair, reasonable, and adequate and the Court approves the Plan of Allocation. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/bdez6tzc from PacerMonitor.com. Jonathan Gardner -- jgardner@labaton.com -- Alfred L. Fatale III -- afatale@labaton.com -- Joseph N. Cotilletta -- jcotilletta@labaton.com -- Beth C. Khinchuk -- bkhinchuk@labaton.com -- LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP, in New York City, New York 10005, Class Counsel for the Plaintiffs and the Class. UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Court OKs Plan of Allocation in Messinger Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Chief District Judge Richard Seeborg of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, approves the proposed Plan of Allocation for the distribution of the proceeds of the $200 million settlement in the lawsuit styled Messinger, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-08610-RS (N.D. Cal.). BOSTON RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Plaintiff v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-06361 (N.D. Cal.). The matter came before the Court for a hearing on Dec. 4, 2024, on the motion of Lead Plaintiff Boston Retirement System, David Messinger, Salvatore Toronto acting on behalf of the Ellie Marie Toronto ESA, and Irving S. and Judith Braun (collectively, "Class Representatives"), on behalf of themselves and the other members of the certified Class, for final approval of the proposed Settlement of the Action and approval of the proposed Plan of Allocation for the distribution of the proceeds of the Settlement. This Order incorporates by reference the definitions in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated July 19, 2024 (the "Stipulation"). Pursuant to and in accordance with Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court finds and concludes that due and adequate notice was directed to Persons, who are Class Members, who could be identified with reasonable effort, advising them of the proposed Plan of Allocation and of their right to object thereto, and a full and fair opportunity was accorded to Persons, who are Class Members to be heard with respect to the Plan of Allocation. There were no objections to the Plan of Allocation. The Court finds and concludes that the Plan of Allocation for the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund that is set forth in the Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement and Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses (the "Settlement Notice") provides a fair and reasonable basis upon which to allocate the Net Settlement Fund among Class Members. The Court finds and concludes that the Plan of Allocation, as set forth in the Settlement Notice, is fair, reasonable, and adequate and the Court approves the Plan of Allocation. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/5n6r7up6 from PacerMonitor.com. Jonathan Gardner -- jgardner@labaton.com -- Alfred L. Fatale III -- afatale@labaton.com -- Joseph N. Cotilletta -- jcotilletta@labaton.com -- Beth C. Khinchuk -- bkhinchuk@labaton.com -- LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP, in New York City, New York 10005, Class Counsel for the Plaintiffs and the Class. UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Messinger Counsel Awarded $60.8M in Fees, Costs ------------------------------------------------------------------ Chief District Judge Richard Seeborg of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, awards attorneys' fees in the amount of $58,000,000, plus interest, and payment of expenses in the amount of $2,810,672.75, plus accrued interest, in the lawsuit entitled Messinger, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-08610-RS (N.D. Cal.). BOSTON RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Plaintiff v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-06361 (N.D. Cal.). Lead Plaintiff Boston Retirement System and Class Representatives David Messinger, Salvatore Toronto acting on behalf of the Ellie Marie Toronto ESA, and Irving S. and Judith Braun; additional named Plaintiff Joseph Cianci, on behalf of themselves and all other members of the certified Class, on the one hand, and Uber Technologies, Inc.; Dara Khosrowshahi, Nelson Chai, Glen Ceremony, Ronald Sugar, Ursula Burns, Garrett Camp, Matt Cohler, Ryan Graves, Arianna Huffington, Travis Kalanick, Wan Ling Martello, Yasir Al-Rumayyan, John Thain, and David Trujillo (the "Individual Defendants" and with Uber, the "Uber Defendants"); and Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Barclays Capital Inc., Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., Allen & Company LLC, RBC Capital Markets, LLC, SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc. (now known as Truist Securities, Inc.), Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., HSBC Securities (USA) Inc., SMBC Nikko Securities America, Inc., Mizuho Securities USA LLC, Needham & Company, LLC, Loop Capital Markets LLC, Siebert Cisneros Shank & Co., L.L.C., Academy Securities, Inc., BTIG, LLC, Canaccord Genuity LLC, CastleOak Securities, L.P., Cowen and Company, LLC, Evercore Group L.L.C., JMP Securities LLC, Macquarie Capital (USA) Inc., Mischler Financial Group, Inc., Oppenheimer & Co. Inc., Raymond James & Associates, Inc., William Blair & Company, L.L.C., The Williams Capital Group, L.P., and TPG Capital BD, LLC (the "Underwriter Defendants" and, together with Uber and the Individual Defendants, the "Defendants"), have entered into the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated July 19, 2024 (the "Stipulation"), that provides for a complete dismissal with prejudice of the claims asserted in the Action on the terms and conditions set forth in the Stipulation, subject to the approval of the Court (the "Settlement"). On Dec. 4, 2024, a hearing having been held before the Court to determine, among other things, whether and in what amount to award (1) the Plaintiffs' Counsel in the securities class action (the "Action") attorneys' fees and litigation expenses, and (2) the Plaintiffs their costs and expenses (including lost wages), pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the "PSLRA"). Notice of Class Counsel's motion for an award of attorneys' fees and payment of expenses and PSLRA awards (the "Fee and Expense Application") was given to all Class Members, who could be identified with reasonable effort. There have been no objections to Class Counsel's Fee and Expense Application. The Court awards Class Counsel, on behalf of the Plaintiffs' Counsel, attorneys' fees in the amount of $58,000,000, plus interest at the same rate earned by the Settlement Fund, i.e., 29% of the Settlement Fund, and payment of expenses in the amount of $2,810,672.75, plus accrued interest, which sums the Court finds to be fair and reasonable. The reimbursement requests of Lead Plaintiff Boston Retirement System and Class Representatives David Messinger, Salvatore Toronto on behalf of the Ellie Marie Toronto ESA, Irving and Judith Braun, and Joseph Cianci are denied. While the PSLRA does allow for reasonable reimbursement of costs incurred as a direct result of work done for the litigation, Judge Seeborg opines that none of the named Plaintiffs demonstrate the required causality. None claim to have lost wages, missed specific work or other earning opportunities, nor incurred any out-of-pocket expenses to participate in this litigation. Moreover, all five make conclusory estimates of their hourly rates and hours spent on litigation. Therefore, these requests are denied. Judge Seeborg holds that the awarded attorneys' fees and litigation expenses may be paid to Class Counsel, on behalf of the Plaintiffs' Counsel, from the Settlement Fund upon entry of this Order, subject to the terms, conditions, and obligations of the Stipulation, which terms, conditions, and obligations are incorporated in this Order. In making the award of attorneys' fees and payment of litigation expenses to be paid from the Settlement Fund, the Court finds that the Settlement has created a substantial common fund of $200 million in cash and thousands of Class Members, who submit acceptable Claim Forms will benefit from the Settlement created by the efforts of counsel. Judge Seeborg notes that the requested attorneys' fees and litigation expenses have been reviewed and approved as fair and reasonable by the Plaintiffs, sophisticated investors that were directly involved in the prosecution and resolution of the Action and which have an interest in ensuring that any fees paid to counsel are duly earned and not excessive. The Action involved difficult and complex factual and legal issues and, in the absence of settlement, would have involved lengthy proceedings whose resolution was uncertain. Any appeal or challenge affecting the Court's approval of the attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, or awards to the Plaintiffs, will in no way disturb or affect the finality of the Judgment entered with respect to the Settlement, Judge Seeborg points out. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/34nbzkek from PacerMonitor.com. Jonathan Gardner -- jgardner@labaton.com -- Alfred L. Fatale III -- afatale@labaton.com -- Joseph N. Cotilletta -- jcotilletta@labaton.com -- Beth C. Khinchuk -- bkhinchuk@labaton.com -- LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP, in New York City, New York 10005, Class Counsel for the Plaintiffs and the Class. UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Plan of Allocation in Stirratt Suit Approved --------------------------------------------------------------- Chief District Judge Richard Seeborg of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, approves the proposed Plan of Allocation for the distribution of the proceeds of the $200 million settlement in the lawsuit entitled Stirratt v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al. BOSTON RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Plaintiff v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-06361 (N.D. Cal.). The matter came before the Court for a hearing on Dec. 4, 2024, on the motion of Lead Plaintiff Boston Retirement System, David Messinger, Salvatore Toronto acting on behalf of the Ellie Marie Toronto ESA, and Irving S. and Judith Braun (collectively, "Class Representatives"), on behalf of themselves and the other members of the certified Class, for final approval of the proposed Settlement of the Action and approval of the proposed Plan of Allocation for the distribution of the proceeds of the Settlement. This Order incorporates by reference the definitions in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated July 19, 2024 (the "Stipulation"). Pursuant to and in accordance with Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court finds and concludes that due and adequate notice was directed to Persons, who are Class Members, who could be identified with reasonable effort, advising them of the proposed Plan of Allocation and of their right to object thereto, and a full and fair opportunity was accorded to Persons, who are Class Members to be heard with respect to the Plan of Allocation. There were no objections to the Plan of Allocation. The Court finds and concludes that the Plan of Allocation for the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund that is set forth in the Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement and Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses (the "Settlement Notice") provides a fair and reasonable basis upon which to allocate the Net Settlement Fund among Class Members. The Court finds and concludes that the Plan of Allocation, as set forth in the Settlement Notice, is fair, reasonable, and adequate and the Court approves the Plan of Allocation. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/574fwts2 from PacerMonitor.com. Jonathan Gardner -- jgardner@labaton.com -- Alfred L. Fatale III -- afatale@labaton.com -- Joseph N. Cotilletta -- jcotilletta@labaton.com -- Beth C. Khinchuk -- bkhinchuk@labaton.com -- LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP, in New York City, New York 10005, Class Counsel for the Plaintiffs and the Class. UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Stirratt's Counsel Awarded $60.8M in Fees, Costs ------------------------------------------------------------------- Chief District Judge Richard Seeborg of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, awards attorneys' fees in the amount of $58,000,000, plus interest, and payment of expenses in the amount of $2,810,672.75, plus accrued interest, in the lawsuit captioned Stirratt v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al. BOSTON RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Plaintiff v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-06361 (N.D. Cal.). Lead Plaintiff Boston Retirement System and Class Representatives David Messinger, Salvatore Toronto acting on behalf of the Ellie Marie Toronto ESA, and Irving S. and Judith Braun; additional named Plaintiff Joseph Cianci, on behalf of themselves and all other members of the certified Class, on the one hand, and Uber Technologies, Inc.; Dara Khosrowshahi, Nelson Chai, Glen Ceremony, Ronald Sugar, Ursula Burns, Garrett Camp, Matt Cohler, Ryan Graves, Arianna Huffington, Travis Kalanick, Wan Ling Martello, Yasir Al-Rumayyan, John Thain, and David Trujillo (the "Individual Defendants" and with Uber, the "Uber Defendants"); and Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Barclays Capital Inc., Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., Allen & Company LLC, RBC Capital Markets, LLC, SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc. (now known as Truist Securities, Inc.), Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., HSBC Securities (USA) Inc., SMBC Nikko Securities America, Inc., Mizuho Securities USA LLC, Needham & Company, LLC, Loop Capital Markets LLC, Siebert Cisneros Shank & Co., L.L.C., Academy Securities, Inc., BTIG, LLC, Canaccord Genuity LLC, CastleOak Securities, L.P., Cowen and Company, LLC, Evercore Group L.L.C., JMP Securities LLC, Macquarie Capital (USA) Inc., Mischler Financial Group, Inc., Oppenheimer & Co. Inc., Raymond James & Associates, Inc., William Blair & Company, L.L.C., The Williams Capital Group, L.P., and TPG Capital BD, LLC (the "Underwriter Defendants" and, together with Uber and the Individual Defendants, the "Defendants"), have entered into the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated July 19, 2024 (the "Stipulation"), that provides for a complete dismissal with prejudice of the claims asserted in the Action on the terms and conditions set forth in the Stipulation, subject to the approval of the Court (the "Settlement"). On Dec. 4, 2024, a hearing having been held before the Court to determine, among other things, whether and in what amount to award (1) the Plaintiffs' Counsel in the securities class action (the "Action") attorneys' fees and litigation expenses, and (2) the Plaintiffs their costs and expenses (including lost wages), pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the "PSLRA"). Notice of Class Counsel's motion for an award of attorneys' fees and payment of expenses and PSLRA awards (the "Fee and Expense Application") was given to all Class Members, who could be identified with reasonable effort. There have been no objections to Class Counsel's Fee and Expense Application. The Court awards Class Counsel, on behalf of the Plaintiffs' Counsel, attorneys' fees in the amount of $58,000,000, plus interest at the same rate earned by the Settlement Fund, i.e., 29% of the Settlement Fund, and payment of expenses in the amount of $2,810,672.75, plus accrued interest, which sums the Court finds to be fair and reasonable. The reimbursement requests of Lead Plaintiff Boston Retirement System and Class Representatives David Messinger, Salvatore Toronto on behalf of the Ellie Marie Toronto ESA, Irving and Judith Braun, and Joseph Cianci are denied. While the PSLRA does allow for reasonable reimbursement of costs incurred as a direct result of work done for the litigation, Judge Seeborg opines that none of the named Plaintiffs demonstrate the required causality. None claim to have lost wages, missed specific work or other earning opportunities, nor incurred any out-of-pocket expenses to participate in this litigation. Moreover, all five make conclusory estimates of their hourly rates and hours spent on litigation. Therefore, these requests are denied. Judge Seeborg holds that the awarded attorneys' fees and litigation expenses may be paid to Class Counsel, on behalf of the Plaintiffs' Counsel, from the Settlement Fund upon entry of this Order, subject to the terms, conditions, and obligations of the Stipulation, which terms, conditions, and obligations are incorporated in this Order. In making the award of attorneys' fees and payment of litigation expenses to be paid from the Settlement Fund, the Court finds that the Settlement has created a substantial common fund of $200 million in cash and thousands of Class Members, who submit acceptable Claim Forms will benefit from the Settlement created by the efforts of counsel. Judge Seeborg notes that the requested attorneys' fees and litigation expenses have been reviewed and approved as fair and reasonable by the Plaintiffs, sophisticated investors that were directly involved in the prosecution and resolution of the Action and which have an interest in ensuring that any fees paid to counsel are duly earned and not excessive. The Action involved difficult and complex factual and legal issues and, in the absence of settlement, would have involved lengthy proceedings whose resolution was uncertain. Any appeal or challenge affecting the Court's approval of the attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, or awards to the Plaintiffs, will in no way disturb or affect the finality of the Judgment entered with respect to the Settlement, Judge Seeborg points out. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3z9jmb52 from PacerMonitor.com. Jonathan Gardner -- jgardner@labaton.com -- Alfred L. Fatale III -- afatale@labaton.com -- Joseph N. Cotilletta -- jcotilletta@labaton.com -- Beth C. Khinchuk -- bkhinchuk@labaton.com -- LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP, in New York City, New York 10005, Class Counsel for the Plaintiffs and the Class. USHEALTH ADVISORS: Parties Must File Joint Status Report by Dec. 27 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kraemer v. USHealth Advisors, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-00275 (S.D. Ill., Filed Feb. 6, 2024), the Hon. Judge David W. Dugan entered an order regarding the parties' proposed joint report and proposed scheduling and discovery order: -- Notwithstanding that agreement, on or before Dec. 27, 2024, the parties are directed to file a Joint Status Report that explains why the Court should allow the deviation from its ordinary scheduling and discovery procedures. -- While contemplating a jury trial date of Nov. 16, 2026, the parties are further directed to propose dates for the close of all discovery and the filing of dispositive motions, as such dates are omitted from the proposed joint report of the parties and proposed scheduling and discovery order. The Court notes the parties seek to deviate from its ordinary scheduling and discovery procedures for proposed class actions in that they "agree that in this case discovery should not be bifurcated and that merits discovery can and should take place prior to Class Certification." The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. USHealth is a leading health coverage provider, offering affordable and personalized plans for everyone looking for a custom coverage solution.[CC] VAXART INC: Court OK's Himmelberg Bid to Certify Class ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Himmelberg v. Vaxart, Inc. et al. (re VAXART, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION), Case No. 3:20-cv-05949-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria entered an order: -- Certifying a class of: "All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded Vaxart common stock, or purchased call options or sold put options thereon, between June 25, 2020, and July 24, 2020, inclusive, and were damaged thereby -- and the proposed subclass of all persons or entities who purchased publicly traded Vaxart common stock contemporaneously with the June 26 and 29, 2020, sales of Vaxart common stock by the Armistice defendants and were damaged Thereby -- are certified." -- Appointing Wei Huang, Langdon Elliott, and Ani Hovhannisyan as class representatives, and Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro and Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law as class counsel. The Plaintiffs have fixed the problems with their first motion and satisfied Rule 23(b)(3)'s predominance requirement. Unlike in the first motion, the plaintiffs have explained how price impact and loss causation (as well as the other elements of their claims) can be determined as to all class members, regardless of when in the class period they purchased or sold their Vaxart stock, the Court says. Vaxart is a clinical-stage biotechnology company developing a range of oral recombinant vaccines. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 17, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RsKRBR at no extra charge.[CC] VBIT TECHNOLOGIES: Filing for Class Cert. Bids Due Nov. 21, 2025 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ross Dettmering, Francis Mangubat, and all other similarly situated individuals, v. VBIT Technologies Corp., VBIT Mining LLC, Advanced Mining Group, Danh Cong Vo a/k/a Don Vo, Phuong D Vo a/k/a Katie Vo, Sean Tu, Jin Gao, and John Doe Individuals 1-10, and ABC Companies 1-10, Case No. 1:22-cv-01482-JLH-SRF (D. Del.), the Hon. Judge entered a scheduling order as follows: -- Discovery cut off: July 25, 2025 -- Expert Reports: Aug. 29, 2025 -- Interim Status Report: April 11, 2025 -- Status Conference: May 15, 2025 -- Motions for class certification: Nov. 21, 2025 VBit sells bitcoin mining hardware and offers mining equipment hosting. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 16, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xT84pg at no extra charge.[CC] VGW HOLDINGS: District Court Dismisses Sweepstakes Gaming Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Zak Thomas-Akoo, writing for Next.io, reports that In a recent ruling, the United States District Court, Northern District of Georgia dismissed a class action lawsuit filed by Fair Gaming Advocates Georgia Inc. against VGW Holdings Limited and its subsidiary companies, citing a lack of personal jurisdiction over the defendants. The case was one of many class actions the business has been defending across the US in state and federal courts, amid a wave of regulatory scrutiny on sweepstakes gaming. "This case exemplifies how difficult it is for private civil litigation to serve as the vehicle for testing the legality of the sweepstakes casino business model," commented gaming attorney Daniel Wallach. "From arbitration clauses to jurisdictional defences, there are procedural challenges every step of the way. And those cases that do survive the gauntlet will either take years to litigate or inevitably get settled (see Kentucky). "VGW will not want to risk going to trial, where the possibility of an adverse judgment could have national impacts." Case fails on jurisdictional grounds The lawsuit centred on the defendants' internet-based, casino-themed online games, which the plaintiff claimed violated Georgia's gambling laws. Fair Gaming Advocates sought to recover losses sustained by Georgia citizens who played these games over a four-year period. However, US District Judge Thomas W. Thrash Jr. ruled on 13 December 2024 that the court could not exercise jurisdiction over the defendants, who are primarily based in Australia, Malta, and Delaware. The key issue centred on whether the company's online presence and minimal contacts with Georgia were sufficient to bring them into the state's legal jurisdiction. The court found that despite the defendants having two non-executive employees living and working remotely in Georgia, this was not enough to establish personal jurisdiction. Additionally, while the gaming websites were accessible to Georgia residents and accepted payments from them, the judge determined these interactions were too "random" and "fortuitous" to justify hauling the company into a Georgia court. Judge Thrash applied Georgia's long-arm statute and constitutional due process principles, concluding that the defendants could not reasonably have expected to be sued in Georgia simply because their interactive websites were used by state residents. The court also noted that the websites' interactive nature placed them in a "middle ground" under the Zippo sliding-scale test, which evaluates internet-based business interactions. However, this alone was insufficient to establish jurisdiction. As a result, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss and denied the plaintiff's motion to remand the case to state court. VGW winds down Global Poker in Nevada Elsewhere in the US, VGW recently decided to wind down its Global Poker brand in Nevada. The business informed customers via email that the sweepstakes-based poker offering would no longer be available in the state from 15 April 2025. It is unknown if the withdrawal is related to pressure from Nevada regulators. Besides the Global Poker brand, VGW operates Luckyland Slots and Chumba Casino in the Battle Born State. The Australia-based business has so far faced cease-and-desist letters from several states including Michigan, Delaware, Idaho and Washington. SPGA releases Code of Conduct In September, several companies in the social gaming and sweepstakes sector joined forces to create the Social and Promotional Gaming Association (SPGA). The SPGA has now released its previously announced Code of Conduct, which aims to set standards amongst its members. Red Knot Communications partner and SPGA spokesperson Camilla Wright said: "The pillars of the SPGA Code of Conduct highlight the technology and processes already in place at most social sweeps operators to ensure that the millions of adults who enjoy these games do so in a safe and reliable environment. "The standards of the Code of Conduct go above and beyond the accepted best practices for traditional social casinos." Pillars of the code include age verification, implementation of KYC, location verification of customers and AML policies. [GN] VNGR BEVERAGE: Finalizes Settlement on Poppi's Class Action Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Riley Brennan, writing for ALMLaw.com, reports that earlier December, the parties joined a private mediation with retired Judge Jay C. Gandhi. Following the mediation, the parties indicated that they were finalizing a settlement. The court agreed to vacate Poppi's motion to dismiss the hearing scheduled on Dec. 19. Attorneys from Cooley and Bursor & Fisher informed a federal judge Monday, December 16, that the parties are nearing a finalized settlement in a consumer class action against Poppi's Prebiotic Sodas. Following mediation, the parties filed a joint stipulation indicating that they reached a resolution in principle and asked the court to grant them an additional 60 days to finalize and execute a formal class settlement agreement. According to the stipulation, the parties agreed the extra time would allow them to finalize and execute a formal class settlement agreement and preserve judicial resources, noting Poppi's pending motion to dismiss. The matter stems from a May lawsuit filed by attorneys with Bursor & Fisher on behalf of a consumer, who accused Poppi of falsely representing that their sodas have prebiotic gut health benefits. Poppi retained Cooley as counsel in June and filed a motion to dismiss the suit in September. Earlier this month, the parties joined a private mediation with retired Judge Jay C. Gandhi. Following the mediation, the parties indicated that they were finalizing a settlement. The court agreed to vacate Poppi's motion to dismiss the hearing scheduled for Dec. 19 and agreed to give the parties 60 days to work through the details. The class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, on behalf of Kristin Cobbs against Vngr Beverage, doing business as Poppi, and brought claims for violation of California's False Advertising Law, Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and Unfair Competition Law, as well as unjust enrichment claims. According to the suit, Poppi falsely marketed the drink as a "Prebiotic Soda" made "For a Healthy Gut," despite not providing any meaningful prebiotic effects. Neither Poppi's attorney, Michelle C. Doolin, of Cooley in San Diego, nor Cobbs' attorney, L. Timothy Fisher, of Bursor & Fisher in Walnut Creek, California, immediately responded to requests for comment. [GN] WALSWORTH PUBLISHING: Fish Sues Over Unprotected Private Info ------------------------------------------------------------- LYNN FISH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WALSWORTH PUBLISHING COMPANY, INC, Defendant, Case No. 4:24-cv-01651 (E.D. Mo., December 6, 2024) arises from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of Plaintiff and other similarly situated customers of Defendant, including their names, payment card number, expiration dates, and security codes. According to the complaint, the Defendant knew about the malicious activity by February 9, 2024. However, it waited an astounding nine and a half months to notify affected persons. The delay robbed Plaintiff and the proposed Class of an opportunity to protect themselves from fraudulent activity. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks redress for Defendant's unlawful conduct and asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, breach of bailment, and invasion of privacy. Headquartered in Marceline, MO, Walsworth Publishing Company, Inc. provides commercial printing and binding services. It produces books, catalogs, and magazines. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Colleen Garvey, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC Peabody Plaza 701 Market Street, Suite 1510 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 390-6750 E-mail: gwells@stranchlaw.com cgarvey@stranchlaw.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com WELLS FARGO: Court Amends Current Scheduling Order -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID A. KIRKPATRICK, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., doing business as Wells Fargo Home Mortgage and HSBC BANK USA, N.A., Case No. 5:24-cv-00169 (S.D.W. Va.), the Hon. Judge Frank Volk entered an order granting the joint motion to amend the current scheduling order and incorporated memorandum of law: -- The hearing on Plaintiff's motion of class certification, previously scheduled for May 9, 2025, is continued to Aug. 8, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. in Beckley. -- Apart from the modified date contained herein, the requirements and directives of the previously operative scheduling order(s) remain in full force and effect. The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this order to all counsel of record and any unrepresented parties. Wells Fargo offers online and mobile banking, home mortgage, loans and credit. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 16, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VCwgtv at no extra charge.[CC] WHITEPAGES INC: Tucker Sues Over Privacy Rights Violation --------------------------------------------------------- Robert Tucker, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. WHITEPAGES, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-03500-NRN (D. Colo., Dec. 18, 2024), is brought for violations of the Colorado's "Prevention of Telemarketing Fraud Act" or "PTFA") against the Defendants, to prevent Defendants from further violating the privacy rights of Colorado cell phone users and to recover statutory damages. On May 27, 2005, former Colorado Governor Bill Owens signed into law HB05-1288, which amended the PTFA to prohibit commercially listing a cell phone number in a directory, without permission. The Defendants have listed the cellular telephone numbers of thousands of Colorado residents in their for-sale and for-profit directories, without requesting (let alone actually receiving) affirmative consent to such listings. Thus, while Defendants profit handsomely from their unauthorized commercial listing of Plaintiff's and other Class Members' personal information, Defendants do so at the expense of Coloradans' statutory privacy rights, under the PTFA. The Defendants never requested--and Plaintiff never provided--affirmative consent, through written, oral, or electronic means, to such listings. In fact, Plaintiff has no relationship with Defendants whatsoever. Plaintiff had never heard of Defendants and had no reasonable ability to discover Defendants' use of his personal information until shortly before filing suit, says the complaint. The Plaintiff's cellular telephone number was listed by Defendants in their directories. The Defendant operates the directory whitepages.com.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick H. Peluso, Esq. PELUSO LAW LLC 865 Albion Street, Suite 250 Denver, CO 80220 Phone: (720) 805-2008 Facsimile: (720) 336-3663 Email: ppeluso@pelusolawfirm.com - and - Joseph I. Marchese, Esq. Matthew A. Girardi, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Phone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 Email: jmarchese@bursor.com mgirardi@bursor.com WHOLE FOODS: Winkelman Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHAUNA WINKELMAN, et al., v. WHOLE FOODS MARKET, INC., et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-01352-RP (W.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Robert Pitman entered an order certifying the following class, as to the Class Claims: "All persons, except Defendants and their immediate family members, who were participants in or beneficiaries of the Plan, at any time between November 6, 2017, through the date of judgment (the "Class Period")." The Court finds that the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(1) are satisfied. The Court further entered an order that the Plaintiffs Shauna Winkelman, Michael Lenon, Scott Cenna, Kalea Nixon, Robert Goldorazena, Chad Diehl, and Ross Nanfeldt are appointed as Class representatives and Capozzi Adler, P.C. is appointed as Class counsel. Whole Foods is an American multinational supermarket chain. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 17, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=O8vTGS at no extra charge.[CC] WICHITA, KS: Clingerman Withdraws Class Action ---------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Clingerman v. Wichita, City of Kansas, Case No. 2:23-cv-02435 (D. Kan., Filed Sept. 26, 2023), the Hon. Judge John W. Broomes entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to withdraw ECF Doc 70. -- Notice of Plaintiffs' designation of class certification rebuttal expert witness, is withdrawn. The nature of suit states Civil Rights -- Other Civil Rights.[CC] XOOM ENERGY: Bid for Reconsideration of Exclusion Order Tossed -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUSANNA MIRKIN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. XOOM ENERGY, LLC, and XOOM ENERGY NEW YORK, LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-02949-ARR-JAM (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Allyne Ross entered an order denying the Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the Exclusion Order and the parties' joint briefing on class proceedings. -- But the Court concluded that decertification of the class is unwarranted at this time. -- The exclusion of plaintiff's damages model does not alter my prior conclusion that the case should be tried as a class action. Finally, Judge Ross noted that the parties' briefing has revealed that plaintiff's "damages model" is ultimately not that important to plaintiff's case. Without additional information regarding the content of XOOM's proposed exhibits, as well as the relationship between different categories of documents it seeks to admit, I am unable to evaluate the parties' arguments regarding the value and cumulative effect of the evidence. Therefore, to aid my evaluation of the motions in limine, Xoom is ordered to provide the following supplemental information regarding its purported supply costs and the documentary evidence thereof: (1) A complete list of actual costs that, in XOOM's view, constituted permissible supply costs under the contract. The Plaintiff, if she so desires, may file a brief in response as to (1) whether those categories of other costs were permissible "supply costs" under XOOM's contracts and (2) the import and relevance of XOOMs' exhibits offered to prove those costs. In preparing these submissions, the parties are encouraged to enter any additional stipulations of fact that could streamline the presentation of evidence and mitigate evidentiary disputes at trial. -- The Defendant's brief shall be filed by Jan. 17, 2024, and -- The Plaintiff's response, if any, shall be filed by Feb. 7, 2024. On September 11, 2024, Judge Ross entered an Order excluding plaintiff's original expert report with respect to damages and excluding plaintiff's amended expert report in its entirety. Judge Ross also requested briefing on the continued viability of class proceedings in this case. Xoom provides energy solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 16, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fdpXhR at no extra charge.[CC] YARDI SYSTEMS: Court Denies Joint Bid to Dismiss Duffy Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Robert S. Lasnik of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, denies the Defendants' joint motion to dismiss the lawsuit entitled MCKENNA DUFFY, et al., Plaintiffs v. YARDI SYSTEMS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-01391-RSL (W.D. Wash.). The matter comes before the Court on the Defendants' Omnibus Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Class Action Complaint Pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6). The Defendants, 10 owners or operators of multifamily residential units and the property management software company they rely upon to manage revenues, argue that the Plaintiffs failed to adequately allege core elements of a Sherman Act violation and lack standing. The Plaintiffs allege that, beginning in 2011, the Defendants joined a conspiracy to share detailed, competitively sensitive, non-public information, which would be used to establish supracompetitive rental rates in the multifamily housing market in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The combination and conspiracy allegedly involved (a) a set of vertical agreements between Yardi Systems, Inc., and each individual Lessor Defendant for the use of Yardi's revenue management software, (b) a continuing horizontal agreement between and among the Lessor Defendants to provide their commercially sensitive information to Yardi, to use Yardi's revenue management software, and to implement the recommendations generated, and (c) a shared understanding that Yardi would use the information provided to recommended rental rates above what would be earned in a competitive market. The Defendants seek dismissal of the Plaintiffs' Section 1 claim because the First Amended Class Action Complaint improperly relies on group pleading, fails to plausibly allege a contract, combination or conspiracy between the Lessor Defendants, fails to identify a relevant market that is defined in terms of both product and geography, and fails to plausibly allege that the Defendants have market power in the proposed market. Judge Lasnik notes that the Defendants make no effort to show that there is an ambiguity regarding what one or more of them is alleged to have done or what theory of liability is being asserted against them. Judge Lasnik finds that the First Amended Class Action Complaint adequately informs the Defendants of the nature of the claims asserted against them and allows them to form a meaningful response. Judge Lasnik holds the Defendants' "group pleading" argument is unpersuasive. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged a conspiracy in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. That does not, of course, mean that a conspiracy in fact exists, Judge Lasnik says. There are factors which may not support an inference of concerted action. Judge Lasnik adds that the Plaintiffs have adequately alleged both invitation and acceptance and sufficient plus factors to give rise to a plausible inference of a preceding agreement. In their Motion to Dismiss Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), the Defendants assert that the two named Plaintiffs, McKenna Duffy and Michael Brett, lack standing to pursue the Sherman Act claims because the unlawful conspiracy did not cause them injury. Both of the named Plaintiffs rented multifamily residential units from Defendant R.D. Merrill Real Estate Holdings during the relevant period. They allege that they paid inflated rental prices as a result of R.D. Merrill's use of Yardi's algorithmic pricing mechanism. R.D. Merrill submitted copies of the Plaintiffs' leases with its separate motion to dismiss, and the Defendants cite those leases to argue that the Plaintiffs received rent concessions that (a) disprove their allegations of a conspiracy or (b) show that their rental rates were not impacted by the alleged conspiracy. Assuming, for purposes of this motion, that the leases can be incorporated into the First Amended Class Action Complaint by reference, Judge Lasnik opines that the fact that R.D. Merrill made "concessions" does not mean that there was no conspiracy to manipulate rental prices. The Plaintiffs' allegations of a nationwide system to collectively elevate rental prices without fear of being undercut by competitors are not disproved by evidence that an individual Lessor Defendant negotiated on the rental price, Judge Lasnik holds. Yardi's recommended lease rate can be achieved in any number of ways, including presenting that rate to consumers as a straight per month charge or offering the unit at a higher price that is then reduced by a negotiated "concession." Even if the concessions identified in the Plaintiffs' leases represent a divergence from Yardi's recommended rental rate, Judge Lasnik points out there is no reason to assume at the motion to dismiss stage that the negotiated rate would bring the overall price of the rental to something approximating that which would have prevailed in ordinary market conditions. The Plaintiffs' allegations state the necessary personal interest and injury arising from the Defendants' challenged conduct. For all of these reasons, the Court denies the Defendants' omnibus motion to dismiss. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/79dj57uu from PacerMonitor.com. YARDI SYSTEMS: Court Denies Pillar's Bid to Dismiss Duffy Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Robert S. Lasnik of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, denies Defendant R.D. Merrill Real Estate Holdings, LLC's motion to dismiss the lawsuit captioned MCKENNA DUFFY, et al., Plaintiffs v. YARDI SYSTEMS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-01391-RSL (W.D. Wash.). The matter comes before the Court on Defendant R.D. Merrill Real Estate Holdings, LLC's Motion to Dismiss." R.D. Merrill does business as Pillar Properties ("Pillar") and leases multifamily residential units in the Puget Sound region. Pillar joins in the Defendants' joint motion to dismiss and further argues that the claims against it are implausible given the facts alleged in the First Amended Complaint, documents that can be incorporated by reference, and documents of which the Court can take judicial notice. The Court has denied the joint motion to dismiss by separate order. The Plaintiffs allege that, in or before 2016, Pillar joined an on-going conspiracy to share detailed, competitively sensitive, non-public information that would be used by a third party, Yardi Systems, Inc., to establish supracompetitive rental rates in the multifamily housing market in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The alleged combination and conspiracy involved (a) a set of vertical agreements between Yardi and each individual lessor defendant for the use of Yardi's revenue management software, (b) a continuing horizontal agreement between and among the lessor defendants and other co-conspirators to provide their commercially sensitive information to Yardi, to use Yardi's revenue management software, and to implement the recommendations generated thereby, and (c) a shared understanding that Yardi would use the commercially sensitive information provided by the putative competitors to recommended rental rates above what would be earned in a truly competitive market. Both of the named Plaintiffs rented multifamily residential units from Pillar in Seattle. The Plaintiffs allege that they paid inflated prices as a result of Pillar's use of Yardi's centralized pricing system. Pillar requests that the Court take judicial notice of three leases, the first dated Feb. 17, 2021, between McKenna Duffy and The Wave, the second dated Dec. 21, 2022, between McKenna Duffy/Henry Keiser and The Nolo, and the third dated Aug. 26, 2020, between Michael Brett and The Wave. Pillar offers the documents to show that The Wave leases contain "One-Time Concessions" off the stated rental price, and that the Plaintiffs affirmatively acknowledged that the rent charged was a fair representation of the market rate for similar dwellings at comparable properties. Pillar requests that the Court incorporate and take judicial notice of the three leases signed by the named Plaintiffs and a webpage titled "Success Stories - Pillar Properties on Elevate." Pillar argues that these documents are expressly referenced, cited, and used as the basis of certain allegations in the First Amended Complaint. The relevance and authenticity of the three leases are not disputed, and although they are referenced only once in the First Amended Complaint, the existence of the leases is critical to the Plaintiffs' standing to pursue their claims, Judge Lasnik opines. With regards to the webpage regarding Pillar's success in using Yardi's products, the Plaintiffs chose to quote certain language from the webpage in the First Amended Complaint, asserting that another "success story" available on Yardi's website states that Landlord Defendant Pillar Properties' use of RENTmaximizer "drives higher revenue, manages costs and balances risk. Judge Lasnik notes that the reference to the webpage is very limited and is offered as support for the Plaintiffs' allegation that Pillar was able to raise rents as a result of its use of RENTmaximizer. That factual allegation could have been made without citation to this document, however, and the mere mention of a document does not make it part of the pleading for purposes of a Rule 12(b)(6) analysis, Judge Lasnik points out. If Pillar intends to dispute the Plaintiffs' allegations that its revenues increased when it began using RENTmaximizer, it will have to do so through the presentation of contrary evidence on summary judgment, not by incorporating a non-integral document into the complaint, Judge Lasnik explains. The Court finds that the existence of the webpage meets the standards for judicial notice set forth in Federal Rule of Evidence 201(b). In the circumstances presented here, Judge Lasnik says neither incorporation by reference nor judicial notice under Rule 201 means that the Court must accept the statements contained in the documents as true. Just as importantly, when considering the leases and the webpage in the context of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, their contents must be viewed in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs, Judge Lasnik adds. For the reasons stated in the Order Denying Defendants' Joint Motion to Dismiss, Judge Lasnik opines that the Plaintiffs have adequately alleged "a conscious commitment to a common scheme designed to achieve an unlawful objective" on the part of the Lessor Defendants, including Pillar. The who, what, with whom, where, and when of the scheme are adequately alleged. With regards to the Plaintiffs' lease terms, viewing the leases in the light most favorable to them, the fact that Pillar felt the need to include a declaration of competitiveness in its form lease suggests that the other lease terms, such as the rental rate itself, would imply otherwise, Judge Lasnik says. Baldly asserting that the rent charged is "fair" and "reflective of the rent for a similar dwelling at comparable properties" -- and then compelling the Plaintiffs to agree with those assertions -- is insistent and excessive, bringing to mind the old Shakespearean adage, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks," Judge Lasnik points out. Finally, Judge Lasnik says, the Plaintiffs' allegation that Pillar was able to raise rents as a result of using RENTmaximizer could have been made without citation to Yardi's webpage. Even if the reference were excised from the complaint, Judge Lasnik points out that it does not alter the plausibility of the Plaintiffs' conspiracy allegations. For all of these reasons, the Court denies Pillar's motion to dismiss. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/mnzkswj3 from PacerMonitor.com. ZEUS NETWORKS: Riley Sues Over Unlawful Disclosure of Information ----------------------------------------------------------------- Chalane Riley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly s, ituated v. ZEUS NETWORKS, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-13120 (D. Mass., Dec. 18, 2024), is brought against Defendant for violating the Video Privacy Protection Act ("VPPA") as a result of the Defendant's unlawful disclosure of information. Zeus also has a mobile application available on Android and iOS devices (together, the "App"). The App and the Website are collectively referred to as the "Zeus Network Service." The Zeus Network Service is available to stream on demand in the United States. The Zeus Network Service uses Vimeo OTT (over-the-top) for hosting its content as well as for advertising and analytics purposes. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff and Class Members, Defendant knowingly and intentionally discloses Zeus Network Service users' personally identifiable information--including a record of every video viewed by the user--to unrelated third parties, including but not limited to Vimeo, Inc. By doing so, Defendant is violating the VPPA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff downloaded and installed the Zeus Network App onto her Android phone, then created an account and purchased a subscription to Zeus in 2023. Zeus is a subscription-based video on demand streaming service that creates its own original pre-recorded shows.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John F. Donovan, III, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JOHN F. DONOVAN 6 Beacon St., Suite 312 Boston, MA 02108 Phone: (617) 872-1274 Email: jfdonovanesq@gmail.com - and - Yitzchak Kopel, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Phone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 Email: ykopel@bursor.com ********* 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 ***