/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/250103.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, January 3, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 3
Headlines
4E BRANDS NORTH: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Callantine Suit
AEROVATE THERAPEUTICS: M&A Probes Merger With Jade Biosciences
AMERICAN NEIGHBORHOOD: Greene Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info
ASTRAZENECA PLC: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
BLOOMBERG LP: Ndugga Suit Seeks Class Certification
BOCA DEL RIO: Faces Duran Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D. Cal.
BRIGHTLINE INC: Agrees to Settle 2023 Data Breach Class Action
CAPRI HOLDINGS: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Statements
CENGAGE LEARNING: Discloses Private Video Viewing Info, Haines Says
CUCINA ANTICA: Taps Ross Smith & Binford as Bankruptcy Counsel
DADA NEXUS: $4.8MM Class Settlement to be Heard on March 17
EL MILAGRO: Sanchez Appeals Court Order in IHRA Suit to 7th Cir.
ENPHASE ENERGY: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set Feb. 11
FAMILY ENERGY: Knight Brings Appeal to N.Y. Appellate Div.
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS: Crowe Files Bid for Class Certification
FOX AND BIRD: Faces Dieter Suit Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation
GENERAL MOTORS: Vita Bid to Certify Class Moot
GIBSON INC: Murphy Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
GNC HOLDINGS: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Dalton Says
KELLY SERVICES: Appeals Arbitration, Dismissal Order in Lewis Suit
LINKEDIN CORPORATION: Case Management Conference Set for Jan. 7
LUXOTTICA US: Appeals Reconsideration Bid Order in Duke ERISA Suit
MARTINEZ REFINING: Malan Seeks to Certify Damaged Resident Class
MDL 3132: Three Suits Consolidated in Midwest Energy Patent Row
NASSAU COUNTY, NY: Faces Jean Suit for Racial Discrimination
NATIONAL POTATO: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Pricing Scheme
NEW YORK, NY: Settles Suit Over Detention Practices for $92.5-Mil.
ORIGINAL SOFT: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Gomberg Says
REGIONAL CARE: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Gibbons Says
RIVERSIDE NATURAL: Faces Class Action Over MadeGood Granola Bar
SABA UNIVERSITY: Ortiz Appeals Class Decert. Order to 1st Circuit
SELECTQUOTE AUTO: Davis Suit Seeks to Certify Class
SRP FEDERAL: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Frierson Says
ST. JOHN'S UNIVERSITY: Barot Suit Seeks Class Certification
TJ UNITED: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Factor Suit Says
TORONTO-DOMINION BANK: Gonzalez Sues Over Share Price Drop
UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Settles Suit Over Denials of Coverage for $1.4M
VANGUARD INVESTOR: Proposes Settlement in Retirement Funds Suit
VAXART INC: Judges Certifies Securities Class Action Suit in Calif.
ZOOMINFO TECHNOLOGIES: Judge Appoints Lead Plaintiff in Class Suit
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deere & Co. Faces Product Liability Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toro Co. Defends Asbestos & Environmental Claims
*********
4E BRANDS NORTH: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Callantine Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
4E BRANDS NORTH AMERICA LLC is taking an appeal from a court order
granting the Plaintiff's motion for class certification in the
lawsuit entitled Melody Callantine, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. 4E Brands North
America LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-CV-801 DRL-SJF, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Indiana.
In August 2020, Ms. Callantine filed a lawsuit on behalf of
herself, her minor children, and all others similarly situated
against the Defendant in St. Joseph Superior Court in Indiana. The
lawsuit brought claims under the Indiana Products Liability Act and
the Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act (IDCSA). The Defendant
promptly removed on diversity jurisdiction under the Class Action
Fairness Act (CAFA).
In February 2022, the Defendant filed for bankruptcy in Texas. That
July, Ms. Callantine filed an unopposed proof of claim on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated, and that October the
bankruptcy court confirmed the company's disclosure statement and
liquidation plan.
Ms. Callantine moved for class certification of the IDCSA claims on
March 15, 2024. The IDCSA punishes certain deceptive statements
from suppliers of consumer products, including statements
describing a product's characteristics or quality that the supplier
knows or should know are false.
On May 10, 2024, the Defendant filed its response opposing class
certification. Ms. Callantine filed a reply on June 14, 2024. She
also filed a motion to seal certain sensitive information in her
briefs and exhibits.
On Nov. 27, 2024, Judge Damon R. Leichty granted the Plaintiff's
motion to certify class. The Court ruled that Ms. Callantine has
satisfied all the requirements of Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3).
Accordingly, the Court granted the motion and certified the
following class for Count 4 claims under the Indiana Deceptive
Consumer Sales Act: all Indiana residents who, within two years of
Aug. 11, 2020, purchased any type of Blumen hand sanitizer placed
into the stream of commerce by 4E Brands or its affiliates or
related companies that contained methanol as an active ingredient.
The Court also designated Ms. Callantine as the class
representative, appointed her counsel as class counsel, and granted
her motion to seal. The Court ordered the parties to confer
concerning appropriate notice to the class and a trial plan and to
file the proposed notice and trial plan (with any separate
objections) by Dec. 20, 2024.
The appellate case is captioned 4E Brands North America LLC v.
Melody Callantine, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated persons, Case No. 24-8025, in the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Seventh Circuit, filed on December 11, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiff-Respondent MELODY CALLANTINE, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Douglas E. Sakaguchi, Esq.
Ryan G. Milligan, Esq.
Peter Hamann, Esq.
PFEIFER MORGAN & STESIAK
53600 N. Ironwood Drive
South Bend, IN 46635
Telephone: (574) 272−2870
Facsimile: (574) 271−4329
Email: dsakaguchi@pilawyers.com
rmilligan@pilawyers.com
phamann@pilawyers.com
Defendant-Petitioner 4E BRANDS NORTH AMERICA LLC is represented
by:
Scott B. Cockrum, Esq.
Ami T. Anderson, Esq.
Corban J. Cavanaugh, Esq.
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD &SMITH LLP
2211 Main Street, Suite 3-2A
Highland, IN 46322
Telephone: (219) 440-0600
Facsimile: (219) 440-0601
Email: Scott.Cockrum@lewisbrisbois.com
Ami.Anderson@lewisbrisbois.com
Corban.Cavanaugh@lewisbrisbois.com
AEROVATE THERAPEUTICS: M&A Probes Merger With Jade Biosciences
--------------------------------------------------------------
Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"),
headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is
investigating:
-- Aerovate Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: AVTE), relating to a
proposed merger with Jade Biosciences. Under the terms of the
agreement, pre-merger Aerovate stockholders are expected to own
approximately 1.6% of the combined company, while pre-merger Jade
stockholders are expected to own approximately 98.4% of the
combined entity.
Click link for more information
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/aerovate-therapeutics-inc-avte/. It
is free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
-- Brightcove Inc. (NASDAQ: BCOV), relating to the proposed
merger with Bending Spoons. Under the terms of the agreement,
Brightcove shareholders will receive $4.45 per share in cash for
each share of Brightcove common stock that they own.
Click link for more
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/brightcove-inc-bcov/. It is free and
there is no cost or obligation to you.
-- AlloVir, Inc. (NASDAQ: ALVR), relating to its proposed
merger with Kalaris Therapeutics. Under the terms of the agreement,
AlloVir will acquire 100% of the outstanding equity interest of
Kalaris. Upon completion of the Merger, pre-Merger AlloVir
stockholders are expected to own approximately 25.05% of the
combined company and pre-Merger Kalaris stockholders are expected
to own approximately 74.95% of the combined company.
Click link for more information
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/allovir-inc-alvr/. It is free and
there is no cost or obligation to you.
-- Adams Resources & Energy, Inc. (NYSE: AE), relating to the
proposed merger with an affiliate of Tres Energy LLC. Under the
terms of the agreement, Adams stockholders will receive $38.00 per
share in cash for each share of Adams common stock they own.
Click link for more information
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/adams-resources-energy-inc-ae/. It
is free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you
should talk to a lawyer and ask:
1. Do you file class actions and go to Court?
2. When was the last time you recovered money for
shareholders?
3. What cases did you recover money in and how much?
About Monteverde & Associates PC
Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders. . .
and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are
a national class action securities firm with a successful track
record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme
Court.
No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common
stock in any of the above listed companies and have concerns or
wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit
our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341.
Contact:
Juan Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740
New York, NY 10118
United States of America
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
Tel: (212) 971-1341
Attorney Advertising. (C) 2024 Monteverde & Associates PC. The law
firm responsible for this advertisement is Monteverde & Associates
PC (www.monteverdelaw.com). Prior results do not guarantee a
similar outcome with respect to any future matter. [GN]
AMERICAN NEIGHBORHOOD: Greene Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SEANA GREENE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN NEIGHBORHOOD MORTGAGE ACCEPTANCE
COMPANY, LLC D/B/A ANNIEMAC HOME MORTGAGE, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-11025-RMB-MJS (D.N.J., December 11, 2024) seeks to hold
Defendant responsible for the harms it caused Plaintiff and
similarly situated customers in the preventable data breach of
Defendant's inadequately protected computer systems.
AnnieMac detected suspicious activity on its computer network,
indicating a data breach. Based on a subsequent forensic
investigation, AnnieMac determined that an unauthorized third-party
gained access to its inadequately secured computer system and
thereby gained access to its data files between August 21, 2024,
and August 23, 2024. According to AnnieMac, the personal
information accessed by cybercriminals involved highly sensitive
personal identifiable information including full names and Social
Security numbers.
The complaint asserts that the Defendant breached this duty and
betrayed the trust of Plaintiff and Class members by failing to
properly safeguard and protect their personal information, thus
enabling an unauthorized third-party to access, acquire,
appropriate, compromise, disclose, encumber, exfiltrate, release,
steal, misuse, and/or view it.
The Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, including
significant improvements to Defendant's data security systems and
protocols, future annual audits, Defendant-funded long-term credit
monitoring services, and other remedies as the Court sees necessary
and proper.
American Neighborhood Mortgage Acceptance Company is a nationwide
mortgage loan provider headquartered in Mount Laurel, New
Jersey.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Vicki J. Maniatis, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS
GROSSMAN, PLLC
405 East 50th Street
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (516) 491-4665
E-mail: vmaniatis@milberg.com
- and -
A. Brooke Murphy, Esq.
MURPHY LAW FIRM
4116 Wills Rogers Pkwy, Suite 700
Oklahoma City, OK 73108
Telephone: (405) 389-4989
E-mail: abm@murphylegalfirm.com
ASTRAZENECA PLC: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has
filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of securities
of AstraZeneca PLC (NASDAQ: AZN) between February 23, 2022 and
December 17, 2024, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The
lawsuit seeks to recover damages for AstraZeneca PLC investors
under the federal securities laws.
To join the AstraZeneca class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=1331 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com
for information on the class action.
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) AstraZeneca engaged in insurance fraud in China;
(2) as a result, AstraZeneca faced heightened legal exposure in
China, which eventually resulted in the AstraZeneca China President
being detained by Chinese law enforcement authorities; (3) as a
result, AstraZeneca understated its legal risks; (4) the foregoing,
once revealed, could materially harm AstraZeneca's business
activities in China; and (5) as a result, defendants' statements
about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially
false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all
relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than February
21, 2025. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=1331 or to discuss your
rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact
Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or
via e-mail at case@rosenlegal.com.
NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. 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. Rosen Law Firm achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company
at the time. Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized
by numerous independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has
secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors.
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]
BLOOMBERG LP: Ndugga Suit Seeks Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NAULA NDUGGA, ON BEHALF OF
HERSELF AND SIMILARLY SITUATED WOMEN, v. BLOOMBERG L.P., Case No.
1:20-cv-07464-GHW-GWG (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order granting class certification.
Bloomberg is an American privately held financial, software, data,
and media company.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 20, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=a0a6cs at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christine E. Webber, Esq.
Rebecca A. Ojserkis, Esq.
Dana Busgang, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
1100 New York Ave. NW, Suite 800
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 408-4600
Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
E-mail: cwebber@cohenmilstein.com
rojserkis@cohenmilstein.com
dbusgang@cohenmilstein.com
- and -
Donna H. Clancy, Esq.
THE CLANCY LAW FIRM, P.C.
40 Wall Street, 61st Floor
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 747-1744
Facsimile: (646) 693-7229
E-mail: dhc@dhclancylaw.com
BOCA DEL RIO: Faces Duran Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------
YADIRA DURAN, and FLOR NAVARRO, on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiffs v. BOCA DEL RIO AGRICULTURE, LLC,
a California Limited Liability Company; BOCA DEL RIO HOLDINGS, LLC,
a California Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 20,
Defendants, Case No. 1:24-at-01014 (E.D. Cal., December 11, 2024)
is a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule
23 and a collective action pursuant to the Migrant and Seasonal
Agricultural Workers Protection Act, California Labor Code and Wage
Orders, and California's Unfair Competition Law.
The Plaintiffs bring this suit against the Defendants for failure
to pay wages owed, failure to pay contractual and minimum wages,
failure to pay overtime, failure to provide accurate wage
statements, failure to provide proper rest and meal periods,
failure to pay all wages owed upon termination, and failure to pay
wages due without condition.
The Plaintiffs are individuals residing in California who were
directly or jointly employed by Defendants as non-exempt employees
in California on or around April to July 2024.
Boca Del Rio Agriculture, LLC is a limited liability company with a
mailing address in Riverside, California.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Stan Mallison, Esq.
Hector Martinez, Esq.
Caroline L. Hill, Esq.
MALLISON & MARTINEZ
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 730
Oakland, CA 94612-3547
Telephone: (510) 832-9999
Facsimile: (510) 832-1101
E-mail: StanM@TheMMLawFirm.com
HectorM@TheMMLawFirm.com
CHill@TheMMLawFirm.com
BRIGHTLINE INC: Agrees to Settle 2023 Data Breach Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that Brightline Inc. agreed to a class
action settlement to resolve claims it failed to prevent a 2023
data breach that compromised consumer data.
The Brightline settlement benefits individuals who received a
Brightline data breach notification informing them their
information may have been compromised in a data breach.
The January 2023 Brightline data breach reportedly compromised the
information of around 1 million individuals when a vendor
vulnerability allowed hackers to access sensitive consumer data,
including insurance information, Social Security numbers and other
identifiers. Plaintiffs claim Brightline should have implemented
reasonable cybersecurity measures to protect their information and
prevent the data breach.
Brightline is a mental health provider for kids and teens.
Brightline hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay an
undisclosed sum to resolve the data breach class action lawsuit.
Under the terms of the Brightline settlement, class members can
receive a pro rata payment of up to $100 or reimbursement for
documented data breach losses up to $5,000. In addition to these
payments, class members from California can receive an additional
$100 payment.
All class members are eligible for three years of free credit
monitoring services. Class members who already claimed the two
years of free credit monitoring offered by Brightline can receive
an additional year of monitoring services.
The deadline for exclusion and objection is Jan. 9, 2025.
The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for Feb.
10, 2025.
To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid
claim form by Feb. 26, 2025.
Who's Eligible
Individuals who received a Brightline data breach notification
informing them their information may have been compromised in a
2023 data breach
Potential Award
$5,100
Proof of Purchase
Receipts, account statements, notices, invoices, credit reports,
tax documents, financial documents, IRS letters and other
documentation of data breach losses
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
02/26/2025
Case Name
Rosa, et al. v. Brightline Inc., Case No. 24-md-03090-RAR, in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
Final Hearing
02/10/2025
Settlement Website
BrightlineDataSecuritySettlement.com
Claims Administrator
Brightline Data Incident Settlement
c/o Settlement Administrator
P.O. Box 4867
Portland, OR 97208-4867
info@BrightlineDataSecuritySettlement.com
(888) 884-1369
Class Counsel
Jeff Ostrow
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW PA
John A Yanchnis
MORGAN & MORGAN
James E Cecchi
CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI BRODY & ANGELLO PC
Mason A Barney
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
Defense Counsel
Phyllis B Sumner
Elizabeth D Adler
Charles G Spalding Jr.
KING & SPALDING LLP [GN]
CAPRI HOLDINGS: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Statements
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that purchasers of Capri
Holdings Limited (NYSE: CPRI) stock or sellers of Capri puts
between August 10, 2023 and October 24, 2024, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), have until February 21, 2025 to seek appointment as lead
plaintiff of the Capri class action lawsuit. Captioned Hurwitz v.
Capri Holdings Limited, (D. Del.), the Capri class action lawsuit
charges Capri, Tapestry, Inc., and certain of their top executive
officers with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead
plaintiff of the Capri class action lawsuit, please provide your
information here:
https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-capri-holdings-limited-class-action-lawsuit-cpri.html
You can also contact attorneys J.C. Sanchez or Jennifer N. Caringal
of Robbins Geller by calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at
info@rgrdlaw.com.
CASE ALLEGATIONS: Capri is a fashion firm that owns several fashion
brands, such as Michael Kors, which is a fashion house that
manufactures and sells handbags, among other things. Tapestry is
similarly a fashion firm, and it owns fashion brands such as Coach
and Kate Spade. Like Michael Kors, Coach and Kate Spade are fashion
houses that manufacture and sell, among other things, handbags. On
August 10, 2023, Capri and Tapestry jointly announced their entry
into a merger agreement, pursuant to which Tapestry would purchase
Capri for $57 per share in cash. The Capri acquisition would
combine three close competitors: Tapestry's Coach and Kate Spade
brands and Capri's Michael Kors brand.
The Capri class action lawsuit alleges that defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i)
the accessible luxury handbag market is a distinct and well-defined
market within the overall handbag market and understood as such by
the individual defendants, as well as by other Capri and Tapestry
executives; (ii) Capri and Tapestry maintained analogous production
facilities and supply chains for their accessible luxury handbags
that were distinct from the production facilities and supply chains
used to manufacture luxury or mass market handbags, confirming that
the accessible luxury handbag market is distinct from the mass
market and luxury handbag markets; (iii) Capri and Tapestry
internally considered Coach and Michael Kors to be each other's
closest and most direct competitors; (iv) that, conversely, Capri
and Tapestry did not internally consider their handbag brands to be
in direct competition with luxury handbags or mass market handbags;
(v) a primary internal rationale for the Capri acquisition was to
consolidate prevalent brands within the accessible luxury handbag
market so as to reduce competition, increase prices, improve profit
margins, and reduce consumer choice within that market; and (vi) as
a result of the above, the risk of adverse regulatory actions
and/or the Capri acquisition being blocked was materially higher
than represented by defendants.
The Capri class action lawsuit further alleges that after a
seven-day hearing, on October 24, 2024, Judge Jennifer L. Rochon of
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
granted the U.S. Federal Trade Commission's motion to preliminarily
enjoin the Capri acquisition. In doing so, the court determined,
among other things, that a "substantial body of compelling
evidence" demonstrated that, in contrast to their public
statements, defendants themselves believed that their brands were
direct competitors in a well-defined "accessible luxury handbag
market." On news, the price of Capri stock fell by nearly 50%.
The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive
experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions
involving financial fraud. You can view a copy of the complaint by
clicking here.
THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Capri stock
or sold Capri puts during the Class Period to seek appointment as
lead plaintiff in the Capri class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff
is generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the
relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and
adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of
all other class members in directing the Capri class action
lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to
litigate the Capri class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to
share in any potential future recovery of the Capri class action
lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff.
ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of
the world's leading law firms representing investors in securities
fraud cases. Our Firm has been #1 in the ISS Securities Class
Action Services rankings for six out of the last ten years for
securing the most monetary relief for investors. We recovered $6.6
billion for investors in securities-related class action cases --
over $2.2 billion more than any other law firm in the last four
years. With 200 lawyers in 10 offices, Robbins Geller is one of the
largest plaintiffs' firms in the world and the Firm's attorneys
have obtained many of the largest securities class action
recoveries in history, including the largest securities class
action recovery ever -- $7.2 billion -- in In re Enron Corp. Sec.
Litig. Please visit the following page for more information:
https://www.rgrdlaw.com/services-litigation-securities-fraud.html
Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.
Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices.
Contact:
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
J.C. Sanchez, Jennifer N. Caringal
655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101
(800) 449-4900
info@rgrdlaw.com [GN]
CENGAGE LEARNING: Discloses Private Video Viewing Info, Haines Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXANDRIA HAINES, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CENGAGE LEARNING, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:24-cv-00710-MWM (S.D. Ohio, December 11, 2024) is an
action to redress the Defendant's practices of selling, renting,
transmitting, and/or otherwise disclosing, to various third
parties, records containing the personal information of each of its
customers, along with detailed information revealing the
subscription to prerecorded video content or titles and subject
matter of prerecorded video and other audiovisual materials
requested or obtained by each customer in violation of the Video
Privacy Protection Act.
The complaint asserts that the Defendant has systematically
transmitted (and continues to transmit today) its customers'
personally identifying video viewing information to third parties,
such as Meta Platforms, Inc. The programming code for Meta is
called the "Meta Pixel," which Defendant chose to install on the
websites of its brands, including but not limited to the
www.ed2go.com website and the www.miladytraining.com website.
Accordingly, on behalf of herself and the putative Class members,
the Plaintiff brings this Class Action Complaint against Defendant
for intentionally and unlawfully disclosing her and the Putative
Class members' Private Viewing Information to Meta.
Cengage Learning, Inc. is an educational technology company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel J. O'Connor Jr., Esq.
O'CONNOR, HASELEY & WILHELM LLC
470 W. Broad St., Suite 15
Columbus, OH 43215
Telephone: (614) 572-6762
Facsimile: (614) 937-8872
E-mail: doconnor@goconnorlaw.com
- and -
Elliot O. Jackson, Esq.
HEDIN LLP
1395 Brickell Ave., Suite 610
Miami, FL 33131-3302
Telephone: (305) 357-2107
Facsimile: (305) 200-8801
E-mail: ejackson@hedinllp.com
CUCINA ANTICA: Taps Ross Smith & Binford as Bankruptcy Counsel
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cucina Antica Foods Corp. seeks approval from the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the Northern District of Texas to hire Ross, Smith &
Binford, PC as counsel.
The firm will render these services:
(a) advise and consult with Debtor concerning questions
arising in the conduct of the administration of the estate and
concerning Debtor's rights and remedies with regard to the estate's
assets and claims of secured, preferred, and unsecured creditors
and other parties in interest;
(b) appear for, prosecute, defend and represent Debtor's
interest in suits or legal matters arising in or related to the
cases; and, specifically, to appear for and represent the Debtor
with the review of proofs of claim filed in the case and to prepare
subsequent objections that are necessary;
(c) assist in the preparation of such pleadings, motions,
notices and orders as are required for the orderly administration
of the Debtors' estates; and
(d) prepare, file and prosecute confirmation of a chapter 11
plan, in cooperation with the major constituencies in these cases.
The firm will be paid at these hourly rates:
Frances A. Smith, Esq. $650
Jonathan Gitlin, Esq. $525
Honest Kapic, Esq. $400
Abigail Rogers, Esq. $400
Michael Coulombe, Paralegal $150
Casey Eary, Paralegal $150
The firm will also be reimbursed for reasonable out-of-pocket
expenses incurred.
Frances Smith, Esq., a partner at Ross, Smith & Binford, PC,
disclosed in a court filing that the firm is a "disinterested
person" as the term is defined in Section 101(14) of the Bankruptcy
Code.
The firm can be reached at:
Frances A. Smith, Esq.
Ross Smith & Binford, PC
700 North Pearl Street, Suite 1610
Dallas, TX 75201
Tel: (214) 377-7879
Fax: (214) 377-9409
Email: frances.smith@rsbfirm.com
About Cucina Antica Foods Corp.
Cucina Antica Foods Corp. is a manufacturer of pasta sauces and
ketchup.
Cucina Antica Foods Corp. sought relief under Chapter 11 of the
U.S. Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. N.D. Tex. Case No. 24-34058) on
December 13, 2024. In the petition filed by Suzanne Fusco, as
authorized representative, the Debtor reports estimated assets
between $100,000 and $500,000 and estimated liabilities between $1
million and $10 million.
The Debtor is represented by Frances A. Smith, Esq. at ROSS, SMITH
& BINFORD, PC.
DADA NEXUS: $4.8MM Class Settlement to be Heard on March 17
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. on Dec. 30 announced that the United
States District Court for the Central District of California has
approved the following announcement of a proposed class action
settlement that would benefit purchasers of Dada Nexus Limited
American Depositary Shares (NASDAQ: DADA):
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
YAN WANG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
DADA NEXUS LIMITED, JEFF HUIJIAN HE, BECK ZHAOMING CHEN, LAURA
MARIE BUTLER, BAOHONG SUN, JIAN HAN, AND JD.COM, INC.
Defendants.
Case No. 2:24-cv-00239-SVW-BFM
Hon. Stephen V. Wilson
CLASS ACTION
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND
PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED THE PUBLICLY TRADED AMERICAN
DEPOSITARY SHARES ("ADSs") OF DADA NEXUS LIMITED ("DADA") FROM
MARCH 9, 2023 THROUGH APRIL 22, 2024, BOTH DATES INCLUSIVE.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, that a
hearing will be held on March 17, 2025, at 1:30 p.m. before the
Honorable Stephen V. Wilson, United States District Judge of the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California, First Street Federal Courthouse, 350 W. First Street,
Courtroom 10A, Los Angeles, California 90012, or by telephonic or
videoconference means as directed by the Court, for the purpose of
determining:
(1) whether the proposed Settlement of the claims in the
above-captioned Action for consideration including the sum of
$4,800,000 ("Settlement Amount") should be approved by the Court as
fair, reasonable, and adequate;
(2) whether the proposed plan to distribute the Settlement
proceeds is fair, reasonable, and adequate;
(3) whether the application of Lead Counsel for an award of
attorneys' fees of up to one-third of the Settlement Amount,
reimbursement of expenses of not more than $95,000, and an award of
no more $15,000 in total, to Plaintiffs, should be approved; and
(4) whether this Action should be dismissed with prejudice as
set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement, dated October 14,
2024.
If you purchased Dada ADSs during the period from March 9, 2023
through April 22, 2024, both dates inclusive, your rights may be
affected by this Settlement, including the release and
extinguishment of claims you may possess relating to your ownership
interest in Dada ADSs.
If you have not received a postcard providing instructions for
obtaining a detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of
Class Action ("Long Notice") and a copy of the Proof of Claim and
Release Form ("Claim Form"), you may obtain copies of the Long
Notice and Claim Form by writing to or calling the Claims
Administrator at: Dada Nexus Ltd. Securities Litigation, c/o
Strategic Claims Services, 600 N. Jackson St., Ste. 205, P.O. Box
230, Media, PA 19063; (Tel) (866) 274-4004; (Fax) (610) 565-7985;
info@strategicclaims.net, or going to the website,
www.strategicclaims.net/Dada. If you are a member of the Settlement
Class, in order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement
Fund, you must submit a properly completed Claim Form
electronically or postmarked no later than February 15, 2025 to the
Claims Administrator, establishing that you are entitled to
recovery. Unless you submit a written request to be excluded from
the Settlement Class, you will be bound by any judgment rendered in
the Action whether or not you make a claim.
If you desire to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must
submit a request for exclusion to the Claims Administrator in the
manner and form explained in the Long Notice so that it is received
no later than February 24 2025. All members of the Settlement Class
who have not requested exclusion from the Settlement Class will be
bound by any judgment entered in the Action.
Any objection to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or Lead
Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement
of expenses and an Award to Plaintiffs must be in the manner and
form explained in the Long Notice and received no later than
February 24, 2025, by each of the following:
Clerk of the Court
United States District Court
Central District of California
First Street Federal Courthouse
350 W. First Street, Suite 4311
Los Angeles, CA 90012
LEAD COUNSEL:
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
Laurence M. Rosen
355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
Los Angeles, CA 90071
COUNSEL FOR DADA AND JD:
SKADDEN, ARPS, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
Peter B. Morrison
300 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3400
Los Angeles, CA 90071
All inquiries concerning the Settlement should be directed to:
Dada Nexus Ltd. Securities Litigation
c/o Strategic Claims Services
P.O. Box 230
600 N. Jackson St., Ste. 205
Media, PA 19063
Tel.: 866-274-4004
Fax: 610-565-7985
Email: info@strategicclaims.net
OR
Laurence M. Rosen
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
355 South Grand Avenue
Suite 2450
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Tel: 213-785-2610
Fax: 213-226-4684
Email: info@rosenlegal.com
PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.
Dated: November 27, 2024
BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
EL MILAGRO: Sanchez Appeals Court Order in IHRA Suit to 7th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
ALMA SANCHEZ is taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit
entitled Alma Sanchez, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. El Milagro, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 1:22-cv-01852, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit,
which was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, was brought
against the Defendant for its failure to address the sexual
harassment complaints of its employees in violation of the Illinois
Human Rights Act (IHRA).
The appellate case is captioned Alma Sanchez v. El Milagro, Inc.,
Case No. 24-3250, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit, filed on December 11, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant ALMA SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Alejandro Caffarelli, Esq.
CAFFARELLI & ASSOCIATES LTD.
224 S. Michigan Avenue
Chicago, IL 60604
Telephone: (312) 763-6880
Defendant-Appellee EL MILAGRO, INC. is represented by:
Gerald Leonard Maatman, Jr., Esq.
DUANE MORRIS LLP
190 S. LaSalle Street
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 499-6710
ENPHASE ENERGY: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set Feb. 11
------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces
the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of
common stock of Enphase Energy, Inc. (NASDAQ: ENPH) between April
25, 2023 and October 22, 2024, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period"). A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you
wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later
than February 11, 2025.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Enphase common stock during the Class
Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any
out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Enphase Energy class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=25593 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com
for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has
already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you
must move the Court no later than February 11, 2025. A lead
plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class
members in directing the litigation.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or
any meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company at the time. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS
Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class
action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4
each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of
dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438
million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was
named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's
attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants
throughout the Class Period made materially false and/or misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts,
about Enphase's business and operations. Specifically, defendants
systematically overstated Enphase's ability to maintain its pricing
levels and market share for microinverter products in Europe in the
face of competition from low-cost, Chinese alternatives. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.
To join the Enphase class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=25593 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com
for information on the class action.
No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
case@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
FAMILY ENERGY: Knight Brings Appeal to N.Y. Appellate Div.
----------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN KNIGHT, et al. have filed an appeal in the lawsuit entitled
Kevin Knight, et al., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Family Energy Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 650903/2023, in the lower court of New York.
The appellate case is captioned Kevin Knight et al. vs. Family
Energy Inc., Case No. 24-07538, in the First Judicial Department,
New York Appellate Division, filed on December 11, 2024.
The case type is stated as Civil Action - General.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Petitioners KEVIN KNIGHT, et al., on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by:
James B. McInturff, Esq.
305 Broadway Fl. 7
New York, NY
Defendant-Respondent FAMILY ENERGY INC. is represented by:
Tristan D. Hujer, Esq.
620 Eighth Avenue, 38th Floor
New York, NY 10018
Telephone: (716) 504-5728
Email: thujer@phillipslytle.com
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS: Crowe Files Bid for Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Vanessa CROWE and Glen
GALEMMO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, et al., Case No.
1:24-cv-03582 (D.D.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an
order granting the motion for class certification and appointment
of class counsel.
Accordingly, the proposed class meets all requirements of Rule
23(a). Therefore, certification pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2), and
class-wide relief, is appropriate.
Plaintiffs' counsel satisfy all four criteria. Plaintiffs are
jointly represented by the American Civil Liberties Union
Foundation, the American Civil Liberties Union of the District of
Columbia, and Jenner & Block LLP. Counsel from all three
organizations are experienced litigators, most of whom have
specific expertise in representing criminal defendants,
incarcerated people, and/or civil rights plaintiffs, and most of
whom have extensive experience in class action litigation.
The Plaintiffs file this lawsuit to challenge the Bureau of
Prisons' ("BOP") and BOP Director Peters' failure to follow
Congress's unequivocal directives about when eligible people must
be moved out of prison so that they may work towards successful
rehabilitation and reentry in a halfway house or home confinement.
As alleged in the Complaint, the Defendants are failing to comply
with the requirements Congress imposed in the First Step Act of
2018 ("FSA").
The Plaintiffs seek to certify a proposed class of:
"All incarcerated people who have earned or will earn time
credits
under the First Step Act, who meet or will meet the
prerequisites
for prerelease custody in 18 U.S.C. section 3624(g)(1), and
who
have not been or will not be moved out of prison on or before
the
date when their time credits equal their remaining sentences."
The Plaintiff Vanessa Crowe is incarcerated at FCI Marianna in
Florida and was convicted of aiding and abetting possession with
intent to distribute methamphetamine; she has been incarcerated for
nearly 10 years.
The Plaintiff Glen Galemmo is incarcerated at FCI Williamsburg in
South Carolina and was convicted of wire fraud and money
laundering; he has spent over 10 years in prison.
Federal Bureau of Prisons (FBOP) manages federal prisons, and
community-based facilities that provide work and opportunities to
assist offenders.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 20, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8c78Tr at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Elizabeth Henthorne, Esq.
JENNER & BLOCK LLP
1099 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 900
Washington, DC 20001
Telephone: (202) 637-6367
E-mail: BHenthorne@Jenner.com
- and -
Emma A. Andersson, Esq.
Julian Clark, Esq.
Arthur B. Spitzer, Esq.
Scott Michelman, Esq.
Aditi Shah, Esq.
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
125 Broad St. – 18th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 549-2500
E-mail: eandersson@aclu.org
jclark@aclu.org
aspitzer@acludc.org
smichelman@acludc.org
ashah@acludc.org
FOX AND BIRD: Faces Dieter Suit Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation
--------------------------------------------------------------
FLORENCE DIETER, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FOX AND BIRD, LLC, d/b/a HERITAGE TAVERN,
Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00879 (W.D. Wis., December 11, 2024)
arises from the Defendant's alleged unlawful labor practices in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was a server for Fox and Bird, LLC's Heritage Tavern
bar and restaurant in Madison, Wisconsin from June 2023 to October
2024. During her employment, Plaintiff was paid the lower tipped
minimum wage but was subject to an unlawful deduction and unlawful
tip pool, and was therefore denied payment of the full minimum
wage.
In addition, when Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees
worked hours over 40 in a single workweek, the Defendant failed to
pay the applicable overtime wage of one and one-half times
employees' full regular rate of pay, says the suit.
Upon recognizing Defendant's unlawful pay policy, the Plaintiff
posted on a public social media platform complaining about
Defendant's illegal pay policy. In retaliation, the Defendant
terminated Plaintiff's employment. The Plaintiff suffered wage
losses as a result of Defendant's illegal retaliation, the suit
alleges.
Fox and Bird, LLC, d/b/a Heritage Tavern, is a domestic business
with a principal office at 895 19th Street, Prairie du Sac,
Wisconsin.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David C. Zoeller, Esq.
Natalie L. Gerloff, Esq.
HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C.
Madison, WI 53701-2155
Telephone: (608) 257-0040
Facsimile: (608) 256-0236
Email: dzoeller@hq-law.com
ngerloff@hq-law.com
GENERAL MOTORS: Vita Bid to Certify Class Moot
----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Vita v. General Motors LLC
(GM), Case No. 2:20-cv-01032 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Feb. 25, 2020), Hon.
Judge Nusrat Jahan Choudhury entered an order finding as moot
motion to certify class in light of the Courts Dec. 4, 2024, Order.
The nature of suit state -- Personal Injury -- Motor Vehicle
Product Liability.
GM is an American multinational automotive manufacturing company
headquartered in Detroit, Michigan.[CC]
GIBSON INC: Murphy Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
-----------------------------------------------------------
JAMES MURPHY, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GIBSON, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-09428 (S.D.N.Y., December 11, 2024) is a civil rights
action 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 in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New
York City Human Rights Law.
During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on
November 24, 2024, in an attempt to purchase a Lifton Leather
Backpack-Brown from Defendant and to view the information on the
website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that
denied Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted
person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered
to the public and made available to the public. He was unable to
locate pricing and was not able to add the item to the cart due to
broken links, pictures without alternate attributes and other
barriers on Defendant's website, which prevented him from doing so,
says the suit.
The 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.
Gibson, Inc. operates the Gibson online retail store, as well as
the Gibson 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 PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
GNC HOLDINGS: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Dalton Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GNC Holdings Inc., Defendant, Case No.
0:24-cv-04463 (D. Minn., December 11, 2024) arises because
Defendant's website, www.gnc.com, is not fully and equally
accessible to Plaintiff and other people who are blind or who have
low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory
mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and
services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and
its implementing regulations.
As a consequence of her experience visiting Defendant's website,
including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on
her behalf, the Plaintiff found Defendant's website has a number of
digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like her full and
equal access to important website content -- content Defendant
makes available to its sighted website users.
In addition to her claim under the ADA, the Plaintiff also asserts
a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act.
The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and others who are similarly
situated, seeks relief including an injunction requiring Defendant
to make its website accessible to Plaintiff and the putative class;
and requiring Defendant to adopt sufficient policies, practices,
and procedures, the details of which are more fully described
below, to ensure that Defendant's website remains accessible in the
future.
GNC Holdings Inc. operates the website that offers vitamins and
accessories for sale including, but not limited to, vitamins,
supplements, proteins, beauty, skin care products and more.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chad A. Throndset, Esq.
Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq.
Jason Gustafson, Esq.
THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC
80 South 8th Street, Suite 900
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (763) 515-6110
E-mail: chad@throndsetlaw.com
pat@throndsetlaw.com
jason@throndsetlaw.com
KELLY SERVICES: Appeals Arbitration, Dismissal Order in Lewis Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
KELLY SERVICES GLOBAL, LLC, et al. are taking an appeal from a
court order granting in part and denying in part their motion to
compel arbitration and motion to dismiss in the lawsuit entitled
Marquise Lewis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Kelly Services Global, LLC, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-06781-JLS-AGR, in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit,
was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, is brought against the Defendants for
violations of California Labor Code.
On Sept. 11, 2024, the Defendants filed a motion to compel
arbitration and motion to dismiss, which Judge Josephine L. Staton
granted in part and denied in part on Nov. 7, 2024. The Defendants'
motions were granted in part and denied in part as follows: (1) all
of Lewis's claims, except for his Unfair Competition Law (UCL)
claim, are compelled to arbitration on an individual basis; (2)
Lewis's class-wide claims asserting California Labor Code
violations are dismissed without prejudice; (3) and this action,
which proceeds on Lewis's UCL claim and representative,
non-individual Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) claim, is
stayed pending the completion of arbitration. The parties are
ordered to file a joint status report with this Court every six (6)
months or within ten (10) days of completion of the arbitration,
whichever comes first. Any dates and deadlines currently scheduled
in this case are vacated.
The appellate case is captioned Lewis v. Kelly Services Global,
LLC, et al., Case No. 24-7483, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on December 12, 2024.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on December 17,
2024;
-- Appellant's Appeal Opening Brief is due on January 21, 2025;
and
-- Appellee's Appeal Answering Brief is due on February 20,
2025. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellee MARQUISE LEWIS, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
Deanna Silva Leifer, Esq.
MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
2101 E. El Segundo Boulevard, Suite 403
El Segundo, CA 90245
Defendants-Appellants KELLY SERVICES GLOBAL, LLC, et al. are
represented by:
Eden Edwards Anderson, Esq.
DUANE MORRIS, LLP
Spear Tower 1 Market Plaza, Suite 2200
San Francisco, CA 94105
- and -
Nicholas Baltaxe, Esq.
DUANE MORRIS, LLP
865 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 3100
Los Angeles, CA 90017
LINKEDIN CORPORATION: Case Management Conference Set for Jan. 7
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Crowder, et al., v.
LinkedIn Corporation, Case No. 4:22-cv-00237 (N.D. Cal., Filed Jan.
13, 2022), Hon. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. entered an order
denying the parties' joint notice of settlement in principle and
stipulation and proposed order vacating deadlines:
-- The Court stays the deadline for filing of Plaintiff's class
certification motion and leaves all other deadlines in place
for
now pending a discussion with the parties about the plan for
and
timing of a preliminary approval motion.
-- The Court further sets a case management conference on Jan. 7,
2025, at 2:00 p.m.
-- The hearing will be held by Public Zoom Webinar. All counsel,
members of the public, and media may access the webinar
information at https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/hsg.
The nature of suit states antitrust litigation.
LinkedIn is a business and employment-focused social media platform
that works through websites and mobile apps.[CC]
LUXOTTICA US: Appeals Reconsideration Bid Order in Duke ERISA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
LUXOTTICA U.S. HOLDINGS CORP., et al. are taking an appeal from a
court order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiff's
motion for reconsideration in the lawsuit entitled Janet Duke, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
Luxottica U.S. Holdings Corp., et al., Defendants, Case No.
2:21-cv-6072, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of New York.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Plaintiff
Janet Duke brings this action on behalf of herself and other
similarly situated individuals against the Defendants under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29
U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(2) and (a)(3) ("Section 502(a)(2)" and
"Section 502(a)(3)").
The Complaint alleges that the Defendants have violated, and
continue to violate, ERISA's actuarial equivalence,
anti-forfeiture, and joint and survivor annuity requirements with
respect to the Luxottica Group Pension Plan.
On Sept. 30, 2023, the Court dismissed without prejudice Duke's
Section 502(a)(2) claims under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, denied without prejudice the Defendants'
factual challenge to Duke's individual Article III standing to
pursue Section 502(a)(2) and 502(a)(3) claims, granted the motion
to compel arbitration of Duke's Section 502(a)(3) claims, stayed
the case pending arbitration, and did not address the Defendants'
motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) ("Order"),
Ms. Duke filed a Motion for Reconsideration under Local Civil Rule
6.3. Before the Court is the fully-briefed Motion. For the reasons
set forth in this Opinion and Order, the Court granted in part and
denied in part Duke's Motion.
First, Judge Choudhury granted reconsideration of the Order's Rule
12(b)(1) dismissal without prejudice of Duke's claims under Section
502(a)(2) and finds that Duke has standing to pursue these claims
on behalf of the Plan for Plan-wide remedies under 29 U.S.C.
Section 1109 ("Section 409").
Second, Judge Choudhury denied reconsideration of the Order's grant
of the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration of Duke's Section
502(a)(3) claims. Third, because Judge Choudhury concludes that
Duke has standing to pursue the Section 502(a)(2) claims, Judge
Choudhury reaches the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration of
these claims and denies the motion, concluding that Duke's
agreement with Luxottica to pursue some claims through arbitration
on an individual basis is unenforceable with respect to her Section
502(a)(2) claims, which she brings in a representative capacity on
behalf of the Plan to seek Plan-wide remedies.
Fourth, Judge Choudhury denied the Defendants' request to stay the
adjudication of the Section 502(a)(2) claims pending arbitration of
the Section 502(a)(3) claims because the Defendants fail to argue,
much less demonstrate, that they have met their heavy burden to
secure such a stay. Duke's Section 502(a)(2) claims will proceed in
this action while her Section 502(a)(3) claims will proceed in
arbitration on an individual basis.
The appellate case is captioned Duke v. Luxottica U.S. Holdings
Corp., Case No. 24-3207, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit, filed on December 11, 2024. [BN]
Defendants-Appellants LUXOTTICA U.S. HOLDINGS CORP., et al., are
represented by:
Jeremy Paul Blumenfeld, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
2222 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
MARTINEZ REFINING: Malan Seeks to Certify Damaged Resident Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID MALAN, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. MARTINEZ REFINING
COMPANY LLC, Case No. 4:23-cv-04184-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff
will move the Court on April 10, 2025, for an order designating and
certifying a class of:
"Residents allegedly damaged by particulate emissions (dust) and
noxious odor emissions from the Martinez Refining Company, LLC
Facility, located at 3485 Pacheco Boulevard, Martinez,
California."
Prior to merits discovery, the Plaintiffs seek preliminary
certification of the following Class:
"All owner-occupants and renters of residential property
located,
in whole or in part, within one mile (1.0) Defendant's Refinery,
located at 3485 Pacheco Boulevard, Martinez California, from
Aug.
16, 2020 to the Present."
An entire community in Martinez, California is seeking relief from
the pervasive and widespread dust and odor emissions that have been
unreasonably spewed into their community for years by a neighboring
oil refinery operated by Defendant Martinez Refining Company, Inc.
("MRC").
Martinez refines gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 20, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jPl6rf at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mike M. Arias, Esq.
Arnold C. Wang, Esq.
M. Anthony Jenkins, Esq.
SANGUINETTI WANG & TEAM LLP 6701
Center Drive West, 14th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90045
Telephone: (310) 844-9696
Facsimile: (310) 861-0168
- and -
Steven D. Liddle, Esq.
Laura L. Sheets, Esq.
Matthew Z. Robb, Esq.
LIDDLE SHEETS P.C.
975 E. Jefferson Avenue
Detroit, MI 48207
Telephone: (313) 392-0015
Facsimile: (313) 392-0025
MDL 3132: Three Suits Consolidated in Midwest Energy Patent Row
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the multi-district action captioned "In re: Midwest Energy
Emissions Corp. Patent Litigation," MDL No. 3132, Chairperson Karen
K. Caldwell of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
has entered an order transferring three actions -- one from each of
the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, Southern
District of Iowa and Eastern District of Missouri, all to the
Southern District of Iowa and assigned to Stephen H. Locher for
inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
The panel finds that the three actions involve common questions of
fact, and that centralization will serve the convenience of the
parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of
this litigation.
Moreover, the actions share factual questions arising from
allegations that defendants infringed patents that describe a
method of capturing mercury pollution at coal-fired power plants by
using a combination of halogen additives (such as bromine and
iodine) and activated carbon. Five of the six patents identified in
the complaints are asserted in all three actions.
Defendants Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company, MidAmerican Energy
Company, PacifiCorp, Alliant Energy Corporation, Alliant Energy
Corporate Services, Inc., Interstate Power and Light Company,
Wisconsin Power and Light Company, Ameren Corp., Union Electric
Co., and Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power
District opposed centralization, and alternatively suggested that
centralization be postponed.
In opposition to centralization, Defendants argued that unique
questions of fact regarding how each of Defendants' accused power
plants operate will undermine the efficiencies to be achieved
through centralization. They also contend that some of them will
have unique defenses, such as licensing and sovereign immunity
defenses. However, the panel held that ME2C has already litigated
infringement claims against more than 70 defendants in the District
of Delaware. That action involved at least two of the patents
asserted here, numerous accused power plants, and an additional
type of defendant -- suppliers of refined coal. The efficient
prosecution of that action indicates that the unique factual issues
and defenses that defendants identify here will not significantly
undermine the efficiencies to be obtained through centralization,
the panel stated.
Defendants also argued that centralization is premature because
plaintiff has not yet identified which patent claims it is
asserting against which Defendant. The panel, however, ruled that
this argument too is not persuasive. While it is true that these
actions are in their early stages, it is readily apparent that the
patents and claims asserted will overlap substantially, if not
completely, it held. While there may be some variation in how each
accused power plant allegedly infringed the asserted patents, all
defendants operate coal-fired power plants and are alleged to have
infringed the same patents in the same manner. Moreover, the prior
prosecution of these patents against other power plant operators in
Delaware suggests that the same or similar patent claims will be
litigated here.
A full-text copy of the court's December 12, 2024 Transfer Order is
available at
https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3132-Transfer_Order-12-24.pdf
NASSAU COUNTY, NY: Faces Jean Suit for Racial Discrimination
------------------------------------------------------------
GARLINSKY JEAN, KENNETH HERBERT, ALEXANDER S. RENWART, and DAVID
SOTO, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. COUNTY OF NASSAU, NASSAU COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT and
PATRICK RYDER, in his personal and official capacities, Defendants,
Case No. 2:24-cv-08463 (E.D.N.Y., December 11, 2024) is brought to
remedy on going, disability and invidious racial discrimination by
the Defendants in the treatment of male police officers of color
with the medical condition known as Pseudofolliculitis, who are
members of the Nassau County Police Department.
The Plaintiffs alleges that the collective Defendants engaged in
discrimination and retaliation and negligently, wantonly,
recklessly, intentionally and knowingly sought to and did
wrongfully deprive Plaintiffs of equal and proper treatment, the
appropriate employment opportunities and access to title and pay
through acts that were taken against Plaintiffs because of their
disability and/or race, color, and national origin, and opposing
discrimination.
The Plaintiffs further allege that the collective Defendants
engaged in discrimination and retaliation and negligently,
wantonly, recklessly, intentionally and knowingly sought to and did
wrongfully deprive Plaintiffs of the right to be able to earn
overtime, gain benefit equal to and consistent with other similarly
situated police officers in terms of work hours, conditions, pay,
overtime, advancement and contact with the public and denying
appropriate employment position and title and pay through acts that
were taken against Plaintiffs because of their disability, race,
color, and national origin, gender and opposing discrimination.
Each of the named Plaintiffs have served the People of Nassau
County as police officers for a number of years.
County of Nassau is a municipality of the State of New York.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Frederick K. Brewington, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF FREDERICK K. BREWINGTON
556 Peninsula Blvd.
Hempstead, NY 11550
Telephone: (516) 489-6959
NATIONAL POTATO: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Pricing Scheme
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class
action lawsuit accuses the National Potato Promotion Board (NPPB)
and four of the country's largest potato processors of unlawfully
conspiring to artificially inflate prices for frozen French fries,
hash browns, tater tots and other potato products to
supracompetitive levels.
The 38-page antitrust lawsuit alleges the trade association and
four members—defendants Lamb Weston, McCain Foods, the J.R.
Simplot Company and Cavendish Farms—have engaged in a
price-manipulation scheme to the detriment of consumers. To carry
out this scheme, the defendants have agreed to regularly exchange
non-public and "competitively sensitive" data about the supply,
production and pricing of their frozen potato products, the suit
claims.
According to the class action suit, the detailed information is
shared through PotatoTrac, a data analytics service provided by
co-defendant Circana, LLC. Per the case, PotatoTrac's statistical
reports, which aggregate pricing data on potato products
market-wide, enable the defendants to directly exchange
information, coordinate and control prices, and ensure that "no
price competition takes place."
"Armed with the same access to each other's data on pricing and
other sensitive information, as well as with a direct line of
communication to each other, the potato cartel moves prices skyward
in lockstep—harming all purchasers of potatoes in the process,"
the complaint claims.
As a result of the defendants' "anticompetitive and predatory"
conduct, prices for frozen potato products have skyrocketed, the
filing alleges.
Consumers have been left to foot the bill, as the price of potatoes
has increased by as much as 43 percent at retail since January
2021, the potato price-fixing lawsuit asserts.
The suit contends that the NPPB and potato processors have also
harmed market-wide competition. As the case tells it, the alleged
scheme has "throttled any incentive" for producers in the potato
market to compete on price, quality, service or other forms of
innovation.
The lawsuit looks to represent any individuals, businesses,
entities and corporations in the United States who indirectly
purchased the defendants' frozen potato products at any time since
January 1, 2021. [GN]
NEW YORK, NY: Settles Suit Over Detention Practices for $92.5-Mil.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Grant Pass Tribune reports that in a landmark settlement, New York
City has agreed to pay $92.5 million to resolve a class-action
lawsuit alleging the unlawful detention of thousands of individuals
in city jails to facilitate federal immigration enforcement. The
case, which spanned over a decade, raises significant questions
about the intersection of local law enforcement and federal
immigration policies.
The lawsuit, filed more than ten years ago, accused the city of
detaining more than 20,000 individuals between 1997 and 2012 beyond
their scheduled release dates. The extended detentions, which
ranged from days to weeks, were reportedly carried out at the
request of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). ICE had
sought to temporarily hold these individuals to enable their
transfer into federal custody for potential deportation
proceedings.
At the heart of the case was the plaintiffs' argument that the
city's compliance with ICE requests violated the rights of those
detained. They claimed that once a person's criminal charges were
resolved and they were eligible for release, any further detention
without due process constituted an unlawful act. This practice, the
plaintiffs argued, disproportionately affected migrants, many of
whom faced heightened uncertainty and hardship as a result.
The settlement is one of the largest of its kind and underscores
the ongoing legal and ethical challenges surrounding immigration
enforcement in the United States. While the city has agreed to the
payout, it has not admitted to any wrongdoing as part of the
settlement. However, the resolution marks a significant step in
addressing grievances raised by affected individuals and immigrant
advocacy groups.
New York City officials have acknowledged the settlement but
emphasized that the practices in question largely predated recent
reforms to the city's approach to immigration-related detentions.
In 2014, the city adopted policies limiting its cooperation with
ICE detainer requests, requiring a judicial warrant or evidence of
a serious crime before compliance.
Advocates for immigrant rights hailed the settlement as a victory
for accountability and justice. "This settlement sends a strong
message that unlawful detention practices will not be tolerated,"
said a spokesperson for the legal team representing the plaintiffs.
"It's a step forward in ensuring that the rights of migrants are
respected, regardless of their immigration status."
Critics, however, have raised concerns about the financial burden
of the settlement on the city, particularly in light of ongoing
fiscal challenges. Some have also questioned whether the settlement
will have a lasting impact on broader immigration enforcement
practices at the national level.
For the individuals who were unlawfully detained, the settlement
represents a measure of recognition and redress for the hardships
they endured. Many of the affected individuals reported disruptions
to their lives, families, and livelihoods as a result of the
extended detentions.
As immigration continues to be a contentious issue in the United
States, the case serves as a reminder of the delicate balance
between local and federal jurisdictions. The settlement not only
resolves a decade-long legal battle but also highlights the
importance of upholding constitutional rights in the face of
evolving immigration policies. [GN]
ORIGINAL SOFT: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Gomberg Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW GOMBERG, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. An Original Soft Pretzel Factory, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-06599 (E.D. Pa., December 11, 2024)
arises from the Defendant's failure to make its digital properties
accessible to legally blind individuals, which violates the
effective communication and equal access requirements of Title III
of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
During the Plaintiff's visit to the website on November 11, 2024,
he intended to explore and order Philly Pretzel Factory's baked
pretzels and bakery products available near his residence. However,
on the order page, he encountered an address search bar but was not
informed about the search suggestions. As a result, he was unable
to figure out how to select the nearest store to properly complete
his order. The Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that
denied him a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted
person and prevented him from having full and equal access to the
goods and services offered on the website, says the suit.
The 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.
An Original Soft Pretzel Factory, Inc. operates the online bakery
and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of Pennsylvania
and throughout the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Glanzberg, Esq.
Robert Tobia, Esq.
GLANZBERG TOBIA LAW, P.C.
123 South Broad Street Suite 1640
Philadelphia, PA 19109
Telephone: (215) 981-5400
E-mail: DGlanzberg@aol.com
robert.tobia@gtlawpc.com
REGIONAL CARE: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Gibbons Says
----------------------------------------------------------
JERRY GIBBONS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. REGIONAL CARE, INC., Case No. 4:24-cv-03238 (D. Neb.,
Dec. 23, 2024) seeks to hold the Defendant responsible for the
injuries it inflicted on Plaintiff and others due to the
Defendant's inadequate data security, which resulted in the
sensitive personal data of Plaintiff and those similarly situated
to be exposed to unauthorized third parties (the "Data Breach").
RCI is a third-party health plan administrator that works with more
than 25,000 members across Nebraska and nationwide. The data that
Defendant exposed to the public is unique and highly sensitive. For
one, the exposed data included personal identifying information
("PII") and protected health information ("PHI") like full names,
Social Security numbers, dates of birth, genders, health insurance
information, and medical information, which the Plaintiff and Class
Members provided to Defendant with the understanding Defendant
would keep that information private in accordance with both state
and federal laws.
On Sept. 18, 2024, RCI detected unusual activity on its internal
computer network. As a result, the security and privacy of the
Private Information of Defendant's clients and employees was
impacted.
According to the complaint, RCI disregarded the rights of Plaintiff
and Class Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, and/or
negligently failing to implement reasonable measures to safeguard
Private Information and by failing to take necessary steps to
prevent unauthorized disclosure of that information. RCI's woefully
inadequate data security measures made the Data Breach a
foreseeable, and even likely, consequence of its negligence, the
lawsuit says.
The Plaintiff and Class Members provided their Private Information
either directly or indirectly through the Defendant's clients
and/or broker partners to RCI in exchange for their health plan
management services.
RCI offers health plan administration services to its clients and
broker partners.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Terence R. Coates, Esq.
Spencer D. Campbell, 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
scampbell@msdlegal.com
RIVERSIDE NATURAL: Faces Class Action Over MadeGood Granola Bar
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jessy Edwards of Top Class Actions reports that a MadeGood granola
bar consumer is suing Riverside Natural Foods Inc.
Why: The plaintiff claims customers were misled when they bought
granola bars that may have contained pieces of metal.
Where: The MadeGood class action was filed in a California federal
court.
A California woman has filed a class action lawsuit against the
maker of MadeGood granola bars, alleging the bars are deceptively
marketed and may contain metal fragments.
Plaintiff Tiana Gamino filed the granola bar class action complaint
against Riverside Natural Foods Inc. on Dec. 13 in a California
federal court, alleging violations of California consumer laws and
breach of implied warranties.
The lawsuit was filed after the company announced an international
recall of some of its popular MadeGood granola bars as they may
contain pieces of metal. The recalled granola bars were produced
between January and November 2024 and were distributed throughout
the United States, Canada and other international markets.
Gamino claims the company's labeling misled consumers by failing to
disclose this risk, violating California's consumer protection
laws.
She alleges that the company's granola bars, sold in multiple
flavors such as Chocolate Chip, Mixed Berry, and Cookies & Cream,
were marketed as safe and premium products. However, she claims
they are "at risk of containing metal," posing a danger to
unsuspecting buyers.
"Metal can be a serious risk when it makes its way into foods and
is consumed with food," the granola bar class action states. Gamino
also argues the company's assurances that its products are "safe
for schools" are undermined by the alleged metal contamination.
Plaintiff alleges contamination was caused by poor manufacturing
processes
Gamino says she bought the MadeGood Mixed Berry granola bars on
three occasions in 2024 at a Sprout's grocery store near her home
in Santa Ana County.
She says she would not have bought the products -- or would have
paid less -- if she had known they might contain metal. "Consumers
like Plaintiff trust manufacturers such as Defendant to sell
products that are safe and free from harmful metal pieces," the
granola bar class action reads.
Gamino points to the company's recall as an indication of "a
significant problem with the products," and alleges the
contamination resulted from poor manufacturing practices.
As a result, Gamino is looking to represent all customers who
purchased MadeGood granola bars in California. She is seeking
certification of the class action, damages, fees, costs and an
injunction requiring accurate labeling of the granola bars.
What do you think of the allegations in this MadeGood class action?
Let us know in the comments.
The plaintiff is represented by Craig W. Straub and Michael T.
Houchin of Crosner Legal P.C.
The MadeGood class action is Tiana Gamino v. Riverside Natural
Foods Inc., Case No. 8:24-cv-02698 in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California. [GN]
SABA UNIVERSITY: Ortiz Appeals Class Decert. Order to 1st Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NATALIA ORTIZ is taking an appeal from a court order decertifying
the Chapter 93A class in her lawsuit entitled Natalia Ortiz, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
Saba University School of Medicine, et al., Defendants, Case No.
1:23-cv-12002, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Ortiz brought
this action on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
seeking damages from Saba University and other relief based on the
claim that it misled her and other class members through its
advertisements about its near-100 percent United States Medical
Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 pass rates while omitting that
an average of only 50 percent of its students sit for Step 1.
On June 7, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify class,
which Judge William G. Young granted on Sept. 17, 2024.
On Nov. 26, 2024, Judge Young entered an Order to decertify the
class. The Court ruled that because the laws of multiple
jurisdictions apply to this putative worldwide class of consumers,
the differences in state and national laws predominate over common
issues, leaving the predominance requirement of 23(b)(3)
unsatisfied. As a result, certification of the nationwide class is
precluded, and the class must be decertified. The Court decertified
the class; Ortiz's motion for class notice is denied as moot; and
Saba's motion to stay proceedings pending the resolution of the
appeal was likewise denied as moot.
The appellate case is captioned Natalia Ortiz v. Saba University
School of Medicine, et al., Case No. 24-8033, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, filed on December 11, 2024.
[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant NATALIA ORTIZ, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Patrick T. Egan, Esq.
BERMAN TABACCO
One Liberty Square
Boston, MA 02109
Telephone: (617) 542-8300
Email: pegan@bermantabacco.com
- and -
Margaret M. Siller, Esq.
MAYNARD NEXSEN PC
1131 4th Ave. S., Suite 320
Nashville, TN 37210
Telephone: (629) 258-2253
Email: msiller@maynardnexsen.com
- and -
Daniel A. Zibel, Esq.
NATIONAL STUDENT LEGAL DEFENSE NETWORK
1701 Rhode Island Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 734-7495
Email: dan@defendstudents.org
Defendants-Respondents SABA UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE, et al.,
are represented by:
Daryl J. Lapp, Esq.
LOCKE LORD LLP
111 Huntington Avenue
Boston, MA 02199
Telephone: (617) 230-0100
Email: daryl.lapp@lockelord.com
- and -
Dale A. Evans, Jr., Esq.
LOCKE LORD LLP
777 South Flagler Drive, East
Tower Suite 215
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Telephone: (561) 820-0248
Email: dale.evans@lockelord.com
- and -
Michael J. McMorrow, Esq.
LOCKE LORD LLP
111 S. Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 443-0246
Email: michael.mcmorrow@lockelord.com
- and -
Nathalie M. Vega, Esq.
LOCKE LORD LLP
2800 Financial Plaza
Providence, RI 02903
Telephone: (401) 276-6421
Email: nathalie.vega@lockelord.com
SELECTQUOTE AUTO: Davis Suit Seeks to Certify Class
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRADLEY P. DAVIS, v.
SELECTQUOTE AUTO & HOME INSURANCE SERVICES, LLC, Case No.
3:22-cv-00185-RJC-DCK (W.D.N.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order:
(1) Certifying the proposed class;
(2) Designated the Named Plaintiff as Class Representatives;
(3) Appointing Plaintiffs' Counsel as Class Counsel; and
(4) Providing for such other relief as the Court deems just and
proper.
SelectQuote is an independent direct to consumer life insurance
sales agency in the United States.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 20, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7NpAAx at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael C. Harman, Esq.
HARMAN LAW, PLLC
16507 Northcross Drive, Suite B
Huntersville, NC 28078
Telephone: (704) 885-5550
E-mail: michael@harmanlawnc.com
SRP FEDERAL: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Frierson Says
---------------------------------------------------------
CHITANIA FRIERSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. SRP FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Case No. 1:24-cv-07538-CMC
(D.S.C., Dec. 23, 2024) is a class action against SRPCFU for
various acts and omissions related to its failure to properly
secure and safeguard personally identifiable information including,
but not limited to, Plaintiff and Class Members’ names, dates of
birth, Social Security numbers, and financial account numbers.
The Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendant responsible for the harms it
caused and will continue to cause her and other similarly situated
persons in the substantial and preventable cyberattack purportedly
that occurred between September 5, 2024, and November 4, 2024,
whereby cybercriminals infiltrated Defendant's inadequately
protected network and accessed and exfiltrated highly sensitive,
unencrypted PII belonging to Plaintiff and Class Members which was
being kept unprotected (the "Data Breach").
The Plaintiff further seeks to hold Defendant responsible for not
ensuring that Defendant maintained the PII in a manner consistent
with industry standards.
On Dec. 12, 2024, Defendant notified state Attorneys General and
many Class Members about the widespread Data Breach (the "Notice
Letter"). While Data Breach Began in early Sept. 5, 2024, Defendant
did not begin informing victims of the Data Breach until December
12, 2024, over three months later. Indeed,
The Plaintiff and Class Members were wholly unaware of the Data
Breach until they received Notice Letters from Defendant in
mid-December 2024. During this time, Plaintiff and Class Members
were unaware that their sensitive PII had been compromised, and
that they were, and continue to be, at present and significantly
increased risk of identity theft and various other forms of
personal, social, and financial harm, says the suit.
The Defendant is a credit union headquartered in North Augusta,
South Carolina. The Defendant provides financial services including
savings programs, checking accounts, and loans to over 195,000 of
its members. The Defendant operates 12 branch locations in South
Carolina and 8 branch locations in Georgia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Paul Doolittle, Esq.
POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO, LLC
32 Ann Street
Charleston, SC 29403
Telephone: (803) 222-2222
Facsimile: (843) 494-5536
E-mail: pauld@akimlawfirm.com
- and -
Terence R. Coates, Esq.
MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
119 E. Court Street, Suite 530
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Telephone: (513) 651-3700
Facsimile: (513) 665-0219
E-mail: tcoates@msdlegal.com
ST. JOHN'S UNIVERSITY: Barot Suit Seeks Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHRIKANT BAROT,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ST.
JOHN'S UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:22-cv-04823-NRM-LKE (E.D.N.Y.), the
Plaintiff ask the Court for an order:
-- Granting the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification,
-- Appointing Plaintiff, Shrikant Barot, as Class Representative,
and
-- Appointing Plaintiff's counsel, Giskan Solotaroff & Anderson
LLP,
as Class Counsel.
St. John's University is a private Catholic university in Queens,
New York City.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 20, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UBcpPK at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Catherine E. Anderson, Esq.
Raymond Audain, Esq.
GISKAN SOLOTAROFF & ANDERSON LLP
90 Broad Street, 2nd Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 847-8315 x 12
E-mail: canderson@gslawny.com
raudain@gslawny.com
TJ UNITED: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Factor Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------
Silviano Factor, individually and on behalf of themselves and all
other similarly situated persons, known and unknown, Plaintiff v.
TJ United Grill, Inc. and Trifon Tambakos, Defendants, Case No.
1:24-cv-12717 (N.D. Ill., December 11, 2024) seeks redress for
Defendants' willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act as
well as any related state law claims, for their failure to pay
overtime wages owed to employees including Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff began working at Defendant TJ United in or before
2017 until April 2024. At all times, the Plaintiff held the same
position at Defendant United working in food preparation.
Throughout the course of Plaintiff's employment, the Defendants
regularly scheduled and directed Plaintiff to work in excess of 40
hours per week. The Defendants did not pay Plaintiff not less than
one and a half times the regular rate at which he was employed
during the hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week, says the
suit.
TJ United Grill, Inc. is a business that is located in Chicago,
Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Dore, Esq.
DORE LAW OFFICES LLC
6232 N. Pulaski Rd., 3rd Floor
Chicago, IL 60646
Telephone: (773) 415-4898
E-mail: james@dorelawoffices.com
TORONTO-DOMINION BANK: Gonzalez Sues Over Share Price Drop
----------------------------------------------------------
PEDRO GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE TORONTO-DOMINION BANK, BHARAT B.
MASRANI, KELVIN VI LUAN TRAN, RIAZ E. AHMED, and LEOVIGILDO SALOM,
Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-09445 (S.D.N.Y., December 11, 2024) is
a class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons and
entities who purchased or acquired TD securities between March 7,
2022, and October 9, 2024, asserting claims under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
This case concerns Defendants' misrepresentations regarding TD's
Bank Secrecy Act and anti-money laundering (AML) controls,
processes, and procedures. Throughout the Class Period, the
Defendants assured investors that the Company was "committed to
taking all reasonable and appropriate steps to detect and deter
persons engaged in money laundering from utilizing TD products or
services to do so," and repeatedly touted its "Risk Governance
Structure" through which TD's Audit Committee purportedly
"[o]versaw the execution and ongoing effectiveness of" the
Company's AML controls to ensure that money laundering is
"appropriately identified and mitigated." And in 2023, when
investors started to learn that TD's regulators were investigating
the adequacy of the Company's AML controls, the Defendants
repeatedly minimized and downplayed the extent of the problems.
In truth, from January 2014 to October 2023, "pervasive" and
"systemic deficiencies" plagued TD's AML controls. Despite these
"known" and "glaring deficiencies," TD "chose profits over
compliance" and "failed to appropriately fund and staff its AML
program."
On this news, the price of TD stock declined $4.07 per share, or
6.4%, from $63.51 per share on October 9, 2024, to $59.44 per share
on October 10, 2024, says the suit.
The Toronto-Dominion Bank is a Canadian multinational banking and
financial services corporation. Its largest subsidiary, TD Bank,
N.A., is a federally chartered national bank in the United
States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Javier Bleichmar, Esq.
BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP
300 Park Avenue, Suite 1301
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 789-1340
Facsimile: (212) 205-3960
E-mail: jbleichmar@bfalaw.com
- and -
Ross Shikowitz, Esq.
BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP
75 Virginia Road
White Plains, NY 10603
Telephone: (914) 265-2991
Facsimile: (212) 205-3960
E-mail: rshikowitz@bfalaw.com
- and -
Adam McCall, Esq.
BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP
1330 Broadway, Suite 630
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (212) 789-2303
Facsimile: (415) 445-4020
E-mail: amccall@bfalaw.com
UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Settles Suit Over Denials of Coverage for $1.4M
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey McCroskey, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a more
than $1.4 million settlement has been reached that, if approved by
the court, will resolve a proposed class action lawsuit over United
Behavioral Health's allegedly illegal denial of coverage for mental
health and substance abuse treatment services it considered to be
"experimental, investigational or unproven."
The proposed class action settlement covers a class of 349 people
covered under ERISA-governed healthcare plans administered or
insured by United Behavioral Health whose requests for coverage for
mental health and substance abuse treatment services received at a
licensed residential treatment center were denied in total based on
its determination that a component of the program is experimental,
investigational or unproven.
The lawsuit against United Behavioral Health was initially filed in
May 2021 by a man who sought coverage for his son's mental health
and substance abuse treatment at an Arizona facility. According to
the class action suit, the insurer denied the plaintiff's claim for
coverage based on its view that a part of the treatment center's
program, equine therapy, was considered to be "unproven." The case
contended that United Behavioral Health, by issuing such blanket
denials of coverage, violated the Mental Health Parity and
Addiction Equity Act.
The plaintiff filed an unopposed motion and memo detailing the
terms of the settlement agreement with United Behavioral Health on
December 18, 2024. The parties now await preliminary approval of
the terms of the deal from United States District Judge David N.
Hurd.
If the $1,415,000 United Behavioral Health settlement is initially
approved by the court, class members will not need to take any
action to receive a payout, the agreement says.
According to the plaintiff's memo, individual payment amounts will
be based on the category a class member fits into—"experimental,"
"multiple" or "wilderness."
Per the document, consumers are members of the "experimental" group
if their dependents were treated at residential treatment programs,
and if United Behavioral Health raised only the contention that the
program was investigational, experimental or unproven. The eight
class members who fit this definition may each receive
approximately $19,000, the memo states.
Individuals whose dependents were treated at residential treatment
programs and for whom the insurer raised multiple reasons for
denial—including a contention that the program was
investigational, experimental or unproven—are part of the
"multiple" category, the memo shares. There are 46 class members in
this group, and each may receive an estimated $9,500 payment, the
document adds.
Finally, those whose dependents were treated at wilderness programs
and for whom United Behavioral Health denied the claim are part of
the "wilderness" group, of which there are 292 members, the memo
relays. These individuals may each receive approximately $950, with
the three consumers whose dependents attended two wilderness
programs receiving double that amount, the document says.
According to the agreement, class members' group designations will
appear on the settlement notice they can expect to receive by mail
within 60 days following preliminary approval of the deal. [GN]
VANGUARD INVESTOR: Proposes Settlement in Retirement Funds Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. announces that the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has approved the
following announcement of a proposed class action settlement that
would benefit investors in Vanguard Investor Target Retirement
Funds:
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND
PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
TO: ALL INVESTORS IN VANGUARD INVESTOR TARGET RETIREMENT FUNDS
("INVESTOR TRFs") WHO: (1) RESIDE IN THE UNITED STATES; (2) HELD
SHARES OF THE INVESTOR TRFs IN TAXABLE ACCOUNTS OR IN
TAX-ADVANTAGED ACCOUNTS WHERE CAPITAL GAINS FROM THE INVESTOR TRFs
WERE DISTRIBUTED OUTSIDE OF THE TAX-ADVANTAGED ACCOUNTS; AND (3)
RECEIVED CAPITAL GAINS DISTRIBUTIONS FROM THE INVESTOR TRFs IN
2021.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, that a
hearing will be held on March 11, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. before the
Honorable John F. Murphy, United States District Judge of the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, James A. Byrne U.S. Courthouse,
Courtroom 3-B, 601 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106, for the
purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed Settlement of the
claims in the above-captioned Action for consideration including
the sum of $40,000,000 should be approved by the Court as fair,
reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether the proposed plan to
distribute the Settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable, and
adequate; (3) whether the application of Lead Counsel for an award
of attorneys' fees of up to one-third of the Settlement Amount plus
interest, reimbursement of expenses of not more than $985,000, and
service awards of no more than $20,000 to each Plaintiff, or
$240,000 in total, should be approved; and (4) whether this Action
should be dismissed with prejudice as set forth in the Stipulation
of Settlement, dated November 6, 2024 ("Stipulation"). The Court
reserves the right to hold the Settlement Hearing telephonically or
by other virtual means.
If you received capital gains distributions in 2021 from Investor
TRFs that were held in a Taxable Account or in a Tax-Advantaged
Account where capital gains from the Investor TRFs in 2021 were
distributed outside of the Tax-Advantaged Account, your rights may
be affected by this Settlement, including the release and
extinguishment of claims you may possess relating to the 2021
capital gains distributions from those funds. If you need
assistance obtaining a detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed
Settlement of Class Action ("Notice") and a copy of the Proof of
Claim and Release Form ("Proof of Claim"), you may write to, call,
or contact the Claims Administrator: Vanguard Chester Funds
Litigation, c/o Strategic Claims Services, 600 N. Jackson St., Ste.
205, P.O. Box 230, Media, PA 19063; (Toll-Free) (866) 274-4004;
(Fax) (610) 565-7985; info@strategicclaims.net. You can also
download copies of the Notice and submit your Proof of Claim online
at www.strategicclaims.net/vanguard. If you are a member of the
Settlement Class, to share in the distribution of the Net
Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim electronically or
postmarked no later than February 11, 2025 to the Claims
Administrator, establishing that you are entitled to share in the
recovery. Unless you submit a written exclusion request, you will
be bound by any judgment rendered in the Action whether or not you
make a claim.
If you desire to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must
submit to the Claims Administrator a request for exclusion so that
it is received no later than February 18, 2025, in the manner and
form explained in the Notice. All members of the Settlement Class
who have not requested exclusion from the Settlement Class will be
bound by any judgment entered in the Action pursuant to the
Stipulation.
Any objection to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or Lead
Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement
of expenses and awards to Plaintiffs must be in the manner and form
explained in the detailed Notice and received no later than
February 18, 2025, by each of the following:
Clerk of the Court
United States District Court
Eastern District of Pennsylvania
James A. Byrne U.S. Courthouse, Room 2609
601 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Phillip Kim
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
275 Madison Ave
40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Lead Counsel
Maeve L. O'Connor
DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON LLP
66 Hudson Boulevard
New York, NY 10001
Counsel for Vanguard Defendants
Daniel J. Kramer
PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP
1285 Avenue of the Americas
Counsel for Trustee Defendants
If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may call or
write to Lead Counsel:
Phillip Kim
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
philkim@rosenlegal.com
PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.
DATED: NOVEMBER 25, 2024
BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN
DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA [GN]
VAXART INC: Judges Certifies Securities Class Action Suit in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Lexology reports that on December 17, 2024, Judge Vince Chhabria of
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California granted a renewed motion for class certification in a
securities action against a majority shareholder of a biotechnology
company (the "Company") under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. In re Vaxart, Inc.
Sec. Litig., 20-cv-05949 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2024). Before
plaintiffs moved for class certification, they settled with the
Company and certain of its director and officer defendants, leaving
the majority shareholder hedge fund and two directors appointed to
the Company board by the fund as defendants. The Court, which
previously denied certification and allowed plaintiffs to renew
their motion to address the deficiencies identified by it, held
that plaintiffs satisfied Rule 23(b)(3)'s predominance requirement
with their expert damages model.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Company, which was in the business
of developing vaccines, misled investors about its COVID-19 vaccine
development initiatives and its participation in a federal
government-funded program to develop COVID-19 vaccines (the
"Program"). Specifically, the Company allegedly (i) touted that its
partnership with a manufacturer and distributor would enable it to
produce "a billion or more COVID-19 vaccine doses per year" when it
had executed a memorandum of understanding with a manufacturer that
lacked any FDA certifications or technical capacity to produce that
amount of doses, and (ii) issued a press release with a title that
allegedly misled the investors that it was selected as part of the
Program, where the text below stated that it was participating in a
separate study that left unclear whether it received any government
funding (it did not). Plaintiffs further allege that the hedge fund
defendant sold nearly all of its shares when the Company's stock
price went up on the purportedly misleading news and that the truth
"leaked" into the market over several weeks including based on the
text of the press releases themselves, the Company's SEC filings,
and a New York Times article that stated that the Company never had
negotiations with the federal government regarding the Program. In
denying plaintiffs' initial class certification motion, the Court
held that the evidence presented by plaintiffs did not match their
"leakage" theory because it failed to consider that the market
could have started adjusting right away and that plaintiffs'
expert's damages model assumed that the stock price was inflated to
the same extent between the different alleged corrective
disclosures in the putative class period. According to the Court,
this meant that plaintiffs failed to show that common issues
predominated over individual issues.
In the order granting the renewed motion for class certification,
the Court held that plaintiffs fixed these problems. Specifically,
the Court held that plaintiffs' revised damages model reflected
levels of inflation that varied throughout the class period in a
way that damages could be apportioned on a class-wide basis and
that it had factual bases for its conclusions of the varying impact
on stock prices. In so holding, the Court rejected defendants'
argument that plaintiffs' model failed to disaggregate the price
impact of the undisputedly true portions of the press releases at
issue from the impact of the allegedly fraudulent parts. The Court
stated that whether some portion of the stock price increase could
be attributed to the true portions of the press releases were
merits issues that could later be factored into the damages
calculation based on a jury's finding. Similarly, the Court
rejected defendants' argument that the model incorrectly attributed
all stock declines to the revelation of the alleged fraud, which it
said "amounts to an argument that the plaintiffs have failed to
establish loss causation." According to the Court, plaintiffs did
not need to do so for class certification. [GN]
ZOOMINFO TECHNOLOGIES: Judge Appoints Lead Plaintiff in Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
River News Network reports that a federal judge has appointed Ohio
as lead plaintiff in a securities class-action lawsuit against
ZoomInfo Technologies Inc., a software company accused of
deliberately misleading investors, fueling $75.9 million in losses
for two state pension funds.
On Nov. 13, Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost filed a motion asking
that Ohio be named lead plaintiff in the suit.
In a motion filed on Nov. 4 in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington, Yost sought the lead-plaintiff
status on behalf of the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System and
the State Teachers Retirement System.
The lawsuit accuses ZoomInfo of committing securities fraud by
concealing a slowing demand for its product after a temporary
revenue boost early in the COVID-19 pandemic.
Late last week, U.S. District Judge Tiffany M. Cartwright ruled in
Ohio's favor.
ZoomInfo, headquartered in Vancouver, Washington, provides its
business clients with contact information for potential customers
through subscription-based software. According to the lawsuit, the
company engaged in deceptive tactics to inflate the value of its
stock while falsely crediting its growth to the strength of its
product. [GN]
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deere & Co. Faces Product Liability Actions
------------------------------------------------------------
Deere & Company is subject to various unresolved legal actions and
investigations, the most prevalent of which relate to product
liability (including asbestos related liability), employment,
patent, trademark, and antitrust matters (including class action
litigation), according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Currently we believe the reasonably possible
range of losses for unresolved legal actions would not have a
material effect on our financial statements; however, the outcome
of any current or future proceedings, claims, or investigations
cannot be predicted with certainty. Adverse decisions in one or
more of these proceedings, claims, or investigations could require
us to pay substantial damages or fines, undertake service actions,
initiate recall campaigns, or take other costly actions. It is
therefore possible that legal judgments or investigations could
give rise to expenses that are not covered, or not fully covered by
our insurance programs and could affect our financial position and
results."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eWOz6I
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toro Co. Defends Asbestos & Environmental Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Toro Company is subject to litigation and administrative and
judicial proceedings with respect to claims involving asbestos and
the discharge of hazardous substances into the environment,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Some of these claims assert damages and
liability for personal injury, remedial investigations or clean-up
and other costs and damages."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=URmw2Y
*********
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 2025. 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 ***