/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/250110.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, January 10, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 8 Headlines ACCENTURE LLP: Cook Seeks to Recover Sales Reps' Unpaid Overtime AKUMIN TRADING: Fails to Secure Personal Health Info, Sharp Says AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Faces Tripson Suit Over AIMMA Sweep Program BELIV LLC: Energy Drinks Contain Preservatives, Flood Alleges BELIV LLC: Faces Suit Over Energy Drinks' 'No Preservatives' Claim CHARGE ENTERPRISES: D&Os Can Enforce Certain Plan Provisions CHERVON NORTH AMERICA: Faces Product Liability Class Action Suit COLUMBIA DEBT: Katiyo Alleges Wrongful Debt Collections CSB LOCAL: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Sumlin Suit Alleges DEERE & COMPANY: Workman Sues Over Defective Utility Tractors FORD MOTORS: Faces Class Action Suit Over Faulty Valves GIORGIO ARMANI: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Dalton Alleges HAWKSMOOR RESTAURANT: Sumlin Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ICASA COMMERCE: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages Under FLSA, Cordido Says JWILL ENTERPRISES: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Cole Alleges KEHE DISTRIBUTORS: Faces Alvarez Suit in Calif. Super. KOREAN PROFESSIONAL: Faces Saaveedra Suit in Calif. Super. L'OREAL USA: MDL Sought Over CeraVe, Other BPO Class Action Suits LEXYL TRAVEL: Faces Suit Over Deceptive Business Practices LIMITED RUN: Discloses Users' Info to Third Parties, Carbone Says LONG ISLAND: Parpounas Suit Moved to E.D. New York NAVIENT CORPORATION: Removes Anthony Suit to C.D. Calif. NEW YORK: Faces Susman Suit Over Constitutional Rights Violations OCTAPHARMA PLASMA: Faces Suit in W.D. Missouri OLD LYME: Settles Suit Over Potato Chips' Ingredients for $4-Mil. PACIFIC MARKET: Faces New Class Suit Over Replacement Lids' Refund PRIME PARTNER: Garcia Seeks Unpaid Regular, OT Wages Under FLSA QUOTEWIZARD.COM LLC: Faces Another TCPA Class Suit in M.D. Pa. REYNOLDS & REYNOLDS: Agrees to $129.5MM Dealer Class Settlement SK GROWTH: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Webull Corp SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Faces Class Suit Over Wage Law Violations SPARTAN RACE: Fernandez Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website STANFORD HEALTH: Agrees to Settle Suit Over Nurses' Wages for $10M TAMPA GENERAL: Settles Data Breach Class Action for $6.8 Mil. TUNGRAY TECHNOLOGIES: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims URBAN OUTFITTERS: Fernandez Balks at Online Store's Access Barriers VINCERX PHARMA: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Oqory WESTERN ASSET: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims WILLIAMS-SONOMA INC: Blind Can't Access Online Store, Cantwell Says YUMMY BAZAAR: Jones Sues Over Website's Barriers to Blind People [*] Ontario Court Dismisses Silicone Class Action Over Delays Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bestwall's Texas Two-Step Criticized by Claimants ASBESTOS UPDATE: Merck & Co. Faces Exposure Suit Over Talc Products ********* ACCENTURE LLP: Cook Seeks to Recover Sales Reps' Unpaid Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- MARY ALISSA COOK, Individually and on behalf of all Others similarly situated, v. ACCENTURE LLP and N3 LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-05961-MHC (N.D. Ga., Dec. 27, 2024) seeks to recover overtime wages for all hours worked over 40 in each and every workweek under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, Accenture and its wholly owned subsidiary, N3 have improperly and willfully withheld and refused to pay Plaintiff and all inside sales representatives overtime wages and a premium for overtime hours worked and at the correct lawful rates. Accenture LLP is a wholly owned subsidiary of ACCENTURE PLC, a publicly traded foreign international corporation, and Fortune 500 company selling consulting and processing services and conducting business in the U.S. through its North America Corporate office and principal office located at 500 W. Madison Street, Chicago, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell L. Feldman, Esq. Mitchell Feldman, Esq. FELDMAN LEGAL GROUP 1201 Peachtree Street, NE 2nd Floor Atlanta, GA 30361 Telephone: (813) 639-9366 Facsimile: (813) 639-9376 E-mail: mfeldman@flandgatrialattorneys.com mail@feldmanlegal.us AKUMIN TRADING: Fails to Secure Personal Health Info, Sharp Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER SHARP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, AKUMIN TRADING CORP., Case No. CACE-24-018450 (Fla. Cir., Broward Cty., Dec. 27, 2024) alleges that the Defendant failed to properly secure and Safeguard personally identifiable information and personal health information of the Plaintiff and the Class members that includes name, home address, contact information, date of birth, medical records, diagnosis information, treatment information, and Social Security numbers. On or about Oct. 11, 2023, an intruder gained entry to Defendant's database, accessed Plaintiff's and the Class members' PIF and exfiltrated information from Defendant's systems (the "Data Breach Incident"). According to the complaint, the Defendant did not notify Plaintiff and the Class members of the incident until Dec. 23, 2024. During that time, the Defendant deprived the Plaintiff and the Class Members of the opportunity to take any steps to protect themselves from the misuse of their PIF. The Plaintiff seeks to represent is defined as: "All individuals in Florida whose PII was accessed and/or exfiltrated during the Data Breach Incident.” Akumin provides outpatient diagnostic imaging services in the United States. It operates in two segments, Radiology and Oncology.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: HIRALDO P.A. Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com Telephone: (954) 400-4713 - and - Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Faces Tripson Suit Over AIMMA Sweep Program ----------------------------------------------------------------- FRANK R. TRIPSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL INC., AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC, and AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INVESTMENT SERVICES INC., Defendants, Case No. 0:24-cv-04669 (D. Minn., December 31, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, violations of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, negligence, negligent misrepresentations and omissions, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendants' unlawful practice of sweeping idle customer cash into interest-bearing accounts at banks selected by, and affiliated with, the Defendants under their Ameriprise Insured Money Market Account (AIMMA) sweep program. As a result, the Defendants enriched themselves by paying unreasonably low interest rates to customers, the suit contends. Ameriprise Financial, Inc. is a financial services company, headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Ameriprise Financial Services, LLC is a financial services company, headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota. American Enterprise Investment Services Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Ameriprise Financial, Inc., located in Minneapolis, Minnesota. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stuart A. Davidson, Esq. Stephen R. Astley, Esq. Andrew T. Rees, Esq. Rene A. Gonzalez, Esq. Scott I. Dion, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 225 NE Mizner Boulevard, Suite 720 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 750-3000 Email: sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com sastley@rgrdlaw.com arees@rgrdlaw.com rgonzalez@rgrdlaw.com sdion@rgrdlaw.com - and - Alfred G. Yates, Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ALFRED G. YATES, JR., P.C. 1575 McFarland Road, Suite 305 Pittsburgh, PA 15216 Telephone: (412) 391-5164 Email: yateslaw@aol.com BELIV LLC: Energy Drinks Contain Preservatives, Flood Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- EMILY FLOOD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BELIV, LLC, Case No. 8:24-cv-02993-KKM-NHA (M.D. Fla., Dec. 27, 2024) alleges that the Defendant marketed and sold the Products using a label which prominently displayed "NO Preservatives," alongside a series of similar health-related Claims, however, Beliv's claim that the Products contain "no preservatives" is false, as the Products contain a significant amount of citric acid. As a result of Beliv's false and misleading labeling, Beliv was able to sell the Products to thousands of unsuspecting consumers throughout Florida and the United States, and to charge a price-premium. Beliv's false representations amount to a breach of warranty, violate Florida’s Uniform Commercial Code, and the Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, says the suit. The Defendant labels, markets, and sells berry acai, guava passion fruit, mango, and prickly pear and lime-flavored plant-based energy drinks under its Oca (TM) brand.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bryan J. Geiger, Esq. SERAPH LEGAL, P. A. 2124 W. Kennedy Blvd., Ste. A Tampa, FL 33606 Telephone: (813) 567-1230 E-mail: BGeiger@SeraphLegal.com BELIV LLC: Faces Suit Over Energy Drinks' 'No Preservatives' Claim ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jessy Edwards of Top Class Actions reports that a Florida resident is suing Beliv, the maker of Oca. Why: The plaintiff says the company misleads customers by advertising Oca as containing no preservatives. Where: The Oca class action was filed in a Florida federal court. A Florida woman has hit the maker of Oca plant-based energy drinks with a class action lawsuit alleging it misleads its customers by advertising the beverage as containing no preservatives. Emily Flood filed the class action complaint against Beliv LLC on Dec. 27 in a Florida federal court, alleging violations of state and federal consumer laws. According to the lawsuit, the drinks — available in berry acai, guava passion fruit, mango, and prickly pear-lime flavors — prominently feature the "no preservatives" claim on their labels. However, the lawsuit alleges these products contain citric acid, a substance classified as a preservative by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. "Citric acid is unequivocally identified as a preservative in the FDA's Substances Added to Food database," the Oca no preservatives lawsuit says. The FDA describes citric acid as an antimicrobial agent that prevents mold and bacteria growth in foods. Consumers wouldn't have bought Oca if they knew the truth, lawsuit claims Flood, who says she bought several Oca drinks at Whole Foods in Tampa, says she relied on the "no preservatives" claim when buying the beverages. "Ms. Flood would not have purchased the products, or would have purchased them on different terms, had she known the truth about their contents," the Oca no preservatives lawsuit says. She says Beliv sought to capitalize on consumer demand for "clean label" products—items perceived as healthier and free from additives. As a result, Flood is looking to represent anyone in the United States who bought the Oca products. She is suing for violations of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and the state's prohibition against false advertising, as well as breach of warranty and unjust enrichment, and is seeking certification of the class action, damages, fees, costs and a jury trial. Meanwhile, consumers have recently taken aim at other beverage companies over claims they falsely advertised their products to the public. Several companies also recently initiated or expanded recalls for beverage products, including a variety of apple juice drinks and five batches of Lactaid 96-ounce milk carton products. Click here for more information. The plaintiff is represented by Bryan J. Geiger of Seraph Legal P. A. The Oca class action lawsuit is Emily Flood v. Beliv LLC, Case No. 8:24-cv-02993 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. [GN] CHARGE ENTERPRISES: D&Os Can Enforce Certain Plan Provisions ------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Thomas M. Horan of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware granted the motion filed by Leah Schweller and Craig Denson to enforce certain provisions of Charge Enterprises, Inc.'s Combined Disclosure Statement and Prepackaged Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization against Arena Investors, LP and its affiliates. On June 26, 2024, Arena filed suit against the D&Os in the Supreme Court of New York County, New York. Arena alleged fraudulent inducement/ misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary duty stemming from the D&Os' financial mismanagement, lack of corporate governance and oversight, misrepresentations of financial covenants and warranties, and abdication of their duties as directors and officers of Charge, resulting in millions of dollars of financial harm to Arena. The D&Os contend Arena did not comply with the Plan because it did not send them proper notice of its New York Suit against them. They argue the letter sent to Charge's counsel was deficient in its notice because it did not contain sufficient information and it was sent to Charge's counsel rather than the D&Os directly. Because the notice did not comply with the Plan, the D&Os ask the Bankruptcy Court to enforce the Plan by ordering the New York Suit be dismissed with prejudice. Arena counters that its March 8th e-mail was sufficient to comply with the Plan's notice requirement and that there is no further action needed. Because Arena did not comply with the requirements for notice under section 5.1(f) of the Plan, the Bankruptcy Court holds that Arena violated the Plan, and it orders Arena to stay its New York state court proceedings until it complies with the Plan by issuing proper notice. Since the Petition Date, two actions have been brought against various directors and officers. In a complaint filed on May 28, 2024 (the "Class Action"), in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, purchasers of Charge common stock alleged that Andrew Fox, Craig Denson, and Leah Schweller -- Potential Indemnitees -- made certain misrepresentations -- that would be violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act -- concerning Charge's relationship with KORR Acquisitions Group, KORR's control over Charge's assets, the nature of KORR's investments on Charge's behalf, and the adequacy of Charge's internal disclosure control. In the New York Suit brought June 26, 2024, by Arena, secured creditors and equity holders alleged that the Potential Indemnitees -- along with Amy Hanson -- committed fraudulent inducement/misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary duties. The New York Suit is pending in New York State Supreme Court. The Potential Indemnitees timely filed claims for advancement and indemnification of their reasonable costs and expenses in defending both the Class Action and the New York Suit. Omnibus Objections to Proofs of Claim Charge objected to these claims by the Potential Indemnitees in its First and Third Omnibus Objections. In its First Omnibus Objection, Charge argues that the claims should be subordinated under Bankruptcy Code section 510(b). Alternatively, it argues that the Potential Indemnitees did not meet the requirements for advancement or indemnification, specifically the requirements of an undertaking and an estimate of reasonable expenses for advancement, and thus, the claims should be disallowed. In its Third Omnibus Objection, as to each Potential Indemnitees' claim, Charge contends that "[t]his is a contingent indemnification claim that should be disallowed under section 502(e)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code." The Potential Indemnitees argue that their claims should not be subordinated under Bankruptcy Code section 510(b) because the right to indemnification is contractual, rather than statutory. They also argue that they have met the requirements for advancement and indemnification and that, as a matter of fact, Charge has not met its requirements for denying their advancement request. They assert that Charge never made a preliminary finding of good faith on the Potential Indemnitees' part before it rejected the claim for advancement. Lastly, the Potential Indemnitees argue that the claims should not be disallowed under Bankruptcy Code section 502(e)(1) because they are not contingent claims on which they are co-liable with Charge. The Bankruptcy Court disallows the advancement claims but not the indemnification claims. It also finds that the indemnification claims should not be disallowed under Bankruptcy Code section 502(e). However, the Court subordinates the indemnification claims under Bankruptcy Code section 510(b). Consequently, because the Plan does not provide recovery or distribution for such claims, the claims are canceled, released, and extinguished, as provided for in the Plan. A copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at http://urlcurt.com/u?l=YZKxZK About Charge Enterprises Charge Enterprises, Inc. is an electrical, broadband, and electric vehicle charging infrastructure Debtor that provides clients with end-to-end project management services, from advising, designing, engineering, acquiring, and installing equipment, to monitoring, servicing, and maintenance. The Debtor sought protection under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. D. Del. Case No. 24-10349) on March 7, 2024, with $114,368,349 in assets and $48,718,180 in liabilities. Craig Harper-Denson, authorized officer, signed the petition. Judge Thomas M. Horan oversees the case. The Debtor tapped Ian J. Bambrick, Esq., at FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP as bankruptcy counsel; BERKELEY RESEARCH GROUP, LLC as financial restructuring adviser; and SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP as special litigation counsel. CHERVON NORTH AMERICA: Faces Product Liability Class Action Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dave Byrnes, writing for Courthouse News Services, reports that a Chinese power tool manufacturer that does business in the U.S. and Canada is starting 2025 with a federal product liability class action on its doorstep. A Chicago resident filed the complaint against the manufacturer on Friday, January 3, claiming its "SKIL PWRCore" 40-volt lithium-ion batteries are a fire hazard. "Plaintiff intended to purchase a product that would be safe for normal use, but instead was sold a dangerous fire hazard that eventually overheated and melted," the named plaintiff, Anthony Desparrois, writes in the filing. Desparrois targets Chervon North America -- not to be confused with the multinational energy giant Chevron Corporation -- a branch of Chervon Holdings, which is headquartered in the city of Nanjing, China. The company produces a number of electric construction and landscaping tools, as well as lithium-ion batteries, through associated brands like EGO, SKIL, FLEX, DEVON and X-TRON. Desparrois backs his product liability claims by citing a recall of Chervon's 40-volt lithium batteries for SKIL brand lawnmowers and other outdoor tools, issued this past Dec. 19. The batteries were recalled in both the U.S. and Canada, according to the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission. Chervon North America's headquarters is based in the Chicago suburb of Naperville, Illinois. The Consumer Product Safety Commission lists it as the American importer of the faulty batteries, which were manufactured in China between November 2019 and April 2021. The Canadian government lists Chervon Canada as another importer, based in the city of Mississauga, Ontario. The Canadian government estimates that 359 individual batteries were sold in Canada with another 63,000 sold in the United States. Despite reports of burns and property damage, the batteries' reported tendency to catch fire has thus far not resulted in any serious injuries or deaths. "The firm has received 100 reports of thermal incidents involving the batteries including overheating, melting, smoking and fire," the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission reported in December. "These included eight reports of minor burns and/or smoke inhalation and 49 reports of related property damage." Desparrois does not claim to have suffered any burns or other injuries from the batteries, but does say he has "incurred damages" for buying a faulty product. He now seeks certification of both a nationwide class and Illinois subclass of consumers who also bought the recalled batteries. Desparrois claims the aggregate damages of the classes will exceed $5 million, and he brings 10 counts against Chervon for unjust enrichment, breach of express and implied warranties, fraud, negligence and product liability. "As a result of defendant's breach of warranty, plaintiff and each class member suffered and continue to suffer financial damage and injury, and are entitled to all damages, in addition to costs, interest and fees, including attorneys' fees, as allowed by law," Desparrois writes. The Chicago resident also seeks injunctive relief against Chervon North America, barring it from selling the batteries "until such time that defendant can demonstrate to the court's satisfaction that the products confer the advertised benefits and are otherwise safe to use as intended." Courthouse News reached out to Chervon North America for comment on the new complaint, but was told by a company representative that no one was immediately available to speak on the development. According to Chervon Holdings' 2024 interim report, the company reported net profits of $61.6 million for the first half of last year, and overall revenue of $815.7 million during the same period. [GN] COLUMBIA DEBT: Katiyo Alleges Wrongful Debt Collections ------------------------------------------------------- MINI KATIYO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COLUMBIA DEBT RECOVERY, LLC; and GREP TEXAS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 4:24-cv-00991-SDJ (E.D. Tex., Nov. 6, 2024) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. The case is assigned to District Judge Sean D. Jordan. The Plaintiff is represented by: John Anthony Love, Esq. LOVE CONSUMER LAW 2500 Northwinds Parkway Suite 330 Alpharetta, GA 30009 Telephone: (404) 855-3600 Email: tlove@loveconsumerlaw.com - and - Robert W Murphy, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT W. MURPHY, ESQ. 440 Premier Circle Suite 240 Charlottesville, VA 22901 Telephone: (434) 328-3100 Facsimile: (434) 328-3101 Email: rwmurphy@lawfirmmurphy.com CSB LOCAL: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Sumlin Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- DENNIS SUMLIN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. CSB Local, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-09993 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 27, 2024) alleges that the CSB Local failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website, https://clintonstreetbaking.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Clintonstreetbaking.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials and other programs offered by CSB Local. Yet, Clintonstreetbaking.com contains significant access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the website. In fact, the access barriers make it impossible for blind and visually-impaired users to even complete a transaction on the website, says the suit. Thus, CSB Local excludes the blind and visually-impaired from the full and equal participation in the growing Internet economy that is increasingly a fundamental part of the common marketplace and daily living. In the wave of technological advances in recent years, assistive computer technology is becoming an increasingly prominent part of everyday life, allowing blind and visually-impaired persons to fully and independently access a variety of services. Because Defendant's website is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it allegedly violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in CSB Local's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant’s website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. CSB Local provides to the public a website known as Clintonstreetbaking.com which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to view classic American dishes with a specialty in weekend brunch and pancakes, as well as restaurant services including reservations, delivery, pick-up, catering, and party inquiries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Asher Cohen, Esq. ASHER COHEN PLLC 2377 56th Dr., Brooklyn, NY 11234 Telephone: (718) 914-9694 E-mail: acohen@ashercohenlaw.com DEERE & COMPANY: Workman Sues Over Defective Utility Tractors ------------------------------------------------------------- LEROY WORKMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DEERE & COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:24-cv-04245-SLD (C.D. Ill., December 31, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for breach of implied warranty of merchantability, unjust enrichment, strict liability, and violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. The case arises from the Defendant's manufacture, marketing, advertising, selling, warranting, and servicing of John Deere compact utility tractors with brake system defect. Specifically, the Class tractors have malfunctions regarding their brake systems in which the front bell crank in the brake linkage can fail, thereby causing the tractor to lose braking, resulting in a crash hazard. On September 26, 2024, the Defendant recalled nearly 148,000 of the Class tractors. As a result, the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers who purchased or leased the tractors suffered damages, says the suit. Deere & Company is a manufacturer of tractors, with its principal place of business in Moline, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James M. Ruppert, Esq. Paul H. Rademacher, Esq. HASSAKIS & HASSAKIS, PC 206 S. 9th St., Ste. 201 Mt. Vernon, IL 62864 Telephone: (618) 244-5335 Facsimile: (618) 244-5330 Email: james@hassakislaw.com paul@hassakislaw.com - and - Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 Facsimile: (843) 494-5536 Email: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com cmad@poulinwilley.com FORD MOTORS: Faces Class Action Suit Over Faulty Valves ------------------------------------------------------- Brett Foote, writing for Ford Authority, reports that faulty intake valves quickly became a thorn in the sides of select 2021 Ford Bronco owners following the launch of the sixth-generation SUV -- at least, those equipped with the twin-turbocharged 2.7L V6 EcoBoost powerplant. With some owners experiencing engine failures as a result of this defective part, a number of them filed petitions with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) seeking action on the automaker's part, which eventually led to a recall of those Bronco models, plus other Ford vehicles equipped with EcoBoost Nano engines. Now, a class action lawsuit has been filed over this same matter as well. According to Car Complaints, the lawsuit -- Barkus, et al., v. Ford Motor Company -- was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan by plaintiffs covering a wide array of 2.7L V6 EcoBoost and 3.0L V6 EcoBoost powered models -- the 2021-2022 Ford Bronco, Ford F-150, Ford Edge, Ford Explorer, Lincoln Nautilus, and Lincoln Aviator. The plaintiffs own these vehicles and argue that Ford didn't warn them about the valve issues before they purchased them, though neither has experienced any engine problems thus far. The plaintiffs do note that they wouldn't have purchased these vehicles, or perhaps wouldn't have paid as much money for them if they knew about the potential engine problems beforehand, however. "Ford has yet to provide an adequate remedy, such as a replacement of their defective valves, or compensate consumers for the amount they overpaid for these defective vehicles," the filing claims. Ford issued a recall for this particular problem back in September 2024, instructing dealers to perform an engine cycle test and replace the engine as necessary, free of charge. That recall was sufficient enough to prompt the NHTSA to close its investigation into the matter this past November, which it opened in July 2022 after receiving 26 complaints from customers. [GN] GIORGIO ARMANI: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Dalton Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Giorgio Armani Corporation, Case No. 0:24-cv-04640-KMM-JFD (D. Minn., Dec. 27, 2024) arises because the Defendant's Website, www.armani.com, is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring a change in the Defendant's corporate policies to cause its online store to become, and remain, accessible to individuals with visual disabilities; a civil penalty payable to the state of Minnesota. In addition to her claim under the ADA, the Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The Defendant offers luxury clothing and accessories for sale including, but not limited to, shirts, pants, suits, outerwear, handbags, shoes, perfume, and beauty products.[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 HAWKSMOOR RESTAURANT: Sumlin Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------------- DENNIS SUMLIN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Hawksmoor Restaurant Group, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-09994 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 27, 2024) alleges that Hawksmoor failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website, https://www.hawksmoornyc.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or "visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200. Some blind people who meet this definition have limited vision; others have no vision. Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1 million people in the United States are visually impaired, including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the American Foundation for the Blind’s 2015 report, approximately 400,000 visually impaired persons live in the State of New York. Hawksmoor Restaurant Group provides to the public a website known as Hawksmoornyc.com which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services, including the ability to explore the steakhouse and cocktail bar menus, as well as restaurant services including reservations, private dining, purchasing gift cards and a recipe book.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Asher Cohen, Esq. ASHER COHEN PLLC Telephone: (718) 914-9694 Brooklyn, New York 11234 2377 56th Dr, E-mail: acohen@ashercohenlaw.com ICASA COMMERCE: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages Under FLSA, Cordido Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- Alfonso Cordido, and other similarly situated individuals v. Icasa Commerce, LLC, Vincenzo R. Caruana, and Doris A. Pestana, individually, Case No. 1:24-cv-25097 (S.D. Fla., Dec. 27, 2024) seeks to recover from Defendants regular and overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs, and reasonable attorney's fees under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and all other current and former employees similarly situated to Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours during one or more weeks on or after March 2023, without being adequately compensated. Icasa is a distributor of building materials. The individual Defendants Vincenzo R. Caruana and Doris A. Pestana were and are now the owners/partners/officers and managers of Defendant Corporation Icasa Commerce.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com JWILL ENTERPRISES: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Cole Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ HARON COLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. JWill Enterprises, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-13281 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 27, 2024) alleges that JWill failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website, https://birdcagesnow.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff browsed and intended to make an online purchase of a bird cage on Birdcagesnow.com. Despite his efforts, however, the Plaintiff was denied a shopping experience like that of a sighted individual due to the Website's lack of a variety of features and accommodations. Unless Defendant remedies the numerous access barriers on its website, the Plaintiff and Class members will continue to be unable to independently navigate, browse, use, and complete a purchase on Birdcagesnow.com. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or "visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200. Some blind people who meet this definition have limited vision; others have no vision. Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1 million people in the United States are visually impaired, including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the American Foundation for the Blind's 2015 report, approximately 400,000 visually impaired persons live in the State of Illinois. JWill provides to the public a website known as Birdcagesnow.com which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to view a wide selection of cages for different bird types, along with accessories such as aviary bases, toys, cage covers, door locks, and play stands.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Reyes, Esq. ASHER COHEN LAW PLLC 2377 56th Dr, Brooklyn, NY 11234 Telephone: (630) 352-6997 E-mail: dreyes@ashercohenlaw.com KEHE DISTRIBUTORS: Faces Alvarez Suit in Calif. Super. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action has been filed against KeHE Distributors, LLC captioned as RUDY ALVAREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KEHE DISTRIBUTORS, INC., Defendant, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2024-0015473 (Cal. Super., San Joaquin Cty., Nov. 6, 2024). KeHE Distributors, LLC provides food products. The Company offers dairy, natural foods, confectionery, nuts, grains, seeds, snack mixes, and vitamins. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. Cassandra Castro, Esq. 8889 West Olympic Blvd, #200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 861-3091 KOREAN PROFESSIONAL: Faces Saaveedra Suit in Calif. Super. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action has been filed against Korean Professional Building Maintenance, Inc. captioned as HERMILA SAAVEEDRA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KOREAN PROFESSIONAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE, INC., Defendant, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2024-0015515 (Cal. Super., San Joaquin County, Nov. 6, 2024). Korean Professional Building Maintenance, Inc. is a commercial cleaning service providing janitorial and related services to building owners and managers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Cassandra Castro, Esq. 8889 West Olympic Blvd, #200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 861-3091 L'OREAL USA: MDL Sought Over CeraVe, Other BPO Class Action Suits ----------------------------------------------------------------- Irvin Jackson of About Lawsuits, reports that the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) will hear oral arguments later this month to decide whether to consolidate and centralize CeraVe class action lawsuits and other similar claims filed in recent months against L'Oreal, each involving allegations that popular benzoyl peroxide (BPO) acne treatments contained cancer-causing benzene chemicals. At least a half-dozen putative class action lawsuits have been brought against L'Oreal since March 2024, when the independent testing laboratory Valisure released a report warning that benzene forms in benzoyl peroxide acne products, indicating that levels of the carcinogen found in CeraVe and other acne treatments are often hundreds of times higher than what is federally allowed. Benzoyl peroxide (BPO) is an organic compound that is commonly used in many over-the-counter and prescription acne treatments made by L'Oreal and other companies, since it is known to kill acne-causing bacteria, reduce excess skin oil and prevent breakouts. However, following the release of the Valisure report, concerns have emerged about serious health risks that may result from use of CeraVe, as well as other acne treatments sold by different companies, including ProActive, Clinique and various generic store brands. Benzene is an industrial chemical that can also be formed as a byproduct of other compounds, and exposure is known to increase the risk of several serious forms of cancer and other life-threatening health conditions, including Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML), Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia (CML), Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia (ALL), Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL), Hairy Cell Leukemia (HCL), Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma, Multiple Myeloma, Myelodysplastic Syndrome (MDL), Myelofibrosis, Myeloid Metaplasia, Aplastic Anemia and Thrombocytopenic Purpura. Benzoyl Peroxide MDL Petition In August 2024 the U.S. JPML rejected a prior effort to combine lawsuits over benzoyl peroxide acne products into a single multidistrict litigation (MDL), which would have consolidated all of the cases under one judge for discovery and pretrial proceedings. However, the Panel determined that there were too many different products, companies and formulations involved in the litigation to justify creating a single MDL. As a result, a group of plaintiffs filed a new Motion for Transfer (PDF) on November 26, asking that at least the L'Oreal class action lawsuits over CeraVe and other BPO products sold by that one manufacturer be consolidated, proposing that claims pending in U.S. District Courts nationwide be transferred to the District of Hawaii. Plaintiffs indicate that establishing a separate L'Oreal MDL for CeraVe lawsuits and claims involving other products manufactured and sold by that one company should address the JPML's earlier reservations. "These actions are nearly identical with substantial overlap on issues of both law and fact. All of the cases name L'Oreal as the defendant. All of the cases base their claims on the benzene test results published in Valisure's Citizen's Petition and/or Plaintiffs' own testing of their individual L'Oreal BPO Products," the motion states. "All Plaintiffs rely on the same scientific foundation: that L'Oreal's BPO Products contain benzene and/or degrade to form benzene at standardized temperature intervals that are likely to occur with common use." L'Oreal filed an opposition (PDF) to the request on December 26, 2024, indicating that it is not necessary to establish an MDL for the CeraVe class action lawsuits given the limited number of lawsuits, and lawyers involved in the litigation. Rather, the manufacturer indicates that the parties are "self-organizing" and a motion has already been filed to transfer individual cases to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. "Movants falsely characterize the Parties' self-organization efforts as being at a 'stalemate'," according to the response filed by L'Oreal. "They suggest that, without the Panel's intervention, the six cases will proceed on separate tracks leading to inefficiencies and potentially inconsistent rulings. In reality, Movants are hoping to disrupt the pending [motions to transfer] and avoid transferring the remaining cases to the Southern District of New York." However, plaintiffs pointed out in their original motion that several of L'Oreal's attempts to individually transfer claims to New York have already been denied, based on the "first filed" rule, which will result in at least two of the claims remaining in Hawaii, where U.S. District Judge Micah Smith is already presiding over the claims and facilitating their "expeditious litigation". L'Oreal is already part of another MDL in northern Illinois, as one of several companies facing nearly 10,000 hair relaxer cancer lawsuits alleging that the toxic ingredients in hair straightening products caused women to develop uterine cancer, endometrial cancer, ovarian cancer and other injuries. The JPML has scheduled (PDF) oral arguments for the motion to centralize the L'Oreal benzoyl peroxide lawsuits for a hearing set for January 30, 2025, at the Wilkie D. Ferguson, Jr. U.S. Courthouse, in Miami, Florida. [GN] LEXYL TRAVEL: Faces Suit Over Deceptive Business Practices ---------------------------------------------------------- On Thursday, January 2, 2025, attorneys Adam Werner, Adam Florek, and Michael Hoffman filed a class action lawsuit against Lexyl Travel Technologies, LLC ("Lexyl") in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The lawsuit alleges violations of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act ("FDUTPA") and details an extensive scheme to bilk customers of tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars in fees. The lawsuit -- Canteenwalla et al., v. Lexyl Travel Technologies, LLC, No.: 9:25-cv-80007-RS -- seeks to represent all persons who were automatically enrolled in Lexyl's Travel Insurance program while booking through one of their various websites anytime in the past four years. Allegations Against Lexyl and HotelPlanner.com The class action lawsuit alleges that Lexyl engaged in deceptive and predatory practices, including: -- Negative Billing Practices: automatically adding travel insurance and its fees to each customer's transactions without their explicit or informed consent; -- Misrepresenting Fees: hiding fees for travel insurance and touting it as a complimentary "Upgraded Experience"; and -- Obscuring Opt-Out Options: hiding the ability to decline additional fees in small, greyed-out text. "The company's recent actions have resulted in consumers losing significant amounts of money," said Adam Werner, co-lead counsel for the Plaintiffs. "This isn't just about hidden fees -- it's about a company willfully designing its systems to deceive and exploit consumers." Adam Florek, co-lead counsel for the Plaintiffs, added, "The sheer scope of Lexyl's practices highlights the need for accountability. Our clients and the class deserve justice, and predatory corporations need to be held accountable." What Is Lexyl Travel Technologies? Lexyl Travel Technologies is a Florida-based company and registered 'Seller Of Travel' that operates a network of travel booking websites, including: -- BookOnline.com -- HotelGuides.com -- HotelPlanner.com -- Hotels-Rates.com -- Room77.com These websites allow customers to browse and book purportedly discounted hotel rooms. The catch is in Lexyl's travel insurance. This add-on service offered through Protecht, Inc. purports to be a refund solution for canceled travel plans. Many travelers use Lexyl's websites to locate deals and book last-minute hotel rooms and fail to notice that they're enrolling in additional services or paying additional fees that they wouldn't otherwise have enrolled in. Additionally, Lexyl operates Global Privileges, a subscription-based travel benefits program that touts "savings on over one million hotels and alternative accommodations globally, plus access to a wide variety of travel benefits." The FDUTPA and Lexyl's Deception "The FDUTPA prohibits unfair competition and targets businesses that engage in unethical and oppressive conduct. Lexyl's actions, as detailed in the lawsuit, clearly fall under this definition, and we are committed to holding them accountable," said Hoffman. Werner, Hoffman, Greig & Garcia and Florek Law are currently seeking to speak with consumers who have: 1. Used any of Lexyl's websites, including BookOnline.com, HotelGuides.com, HotelPlanner.com, Hotels-Rates.com, or Room77.com, since December 2020; 2. Been automatically enrolled in Global Privileges or globalprivileges.com; or 3. Been automatically signed up for additional services they never knowingly agreed to pay for. Potential clients can visit Werner, Hoffman, Greig & Garcia's Lexyl Travel Class Action Lawsuit page or call 800-320-HELP(4357) to discuss their case. About Plaintiffs' Counsel Adam Werner and Michael Hoffman are founding partners at Werner, Hoffman, Greig & Garcia, a nationally recognized leader in veterans' benefits and plaintiffs' civil litigation. They have a proven track record of providing skilled and effective representation to historically underrepresented groups, including successful class action lawsuits against major corporations. Adam Florek is the managing attorney at Florek Law, LLC. With extensive experience in class action litigation, Florek has successfully represented dozens of consumer classes in both state and federal courts. Contact Information: Adam Florek, Esq. Florek Law, LLC AFlorek@FlorekLLC.com (800) 320-4357 Michael Hoffman, Esq. Werner, Hoffman, Greig & Garcia MHoffman@WernerHoffman.com (800) 320-4357 Adam Werner, Esq. Werner, Hoffman, Greig & Garcia (800) 320-4357 AWerner@WernerHoffman.com [GN] LIMITED RUN: Discloses Users' Info to Third Parties, Carbone Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- John Carbone, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Limited Run Games, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-08861 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 27, 2024) alleges that Defendant intentionally discloses its users' personally identifiable information (PII) --including a record of every video viewed by the user or audiovisual content purchased—to unauthorized third parties without first complying with the Video Privacy Protection Act. Throughout the Plaintiff's interactions with the Defendant's Website, he has maintained and used Plaintiff's Facebook account from the same browser Plaintiff used to purchase the video game from the Website, which contained cinematic cutscenes. The Carbone never consented, agreed, nor permitted Defendant to disclose Plaintiff's PII and viewing information to Facebook or other third parties and certainly did not do so for purposes violative of the VPPA, says the suit. The Defendant owns and operates its online and mobile applications, including limitedrungames.com. Through its Website and Apps, Defendant sells and/or delivers audiovisual materials, such as video games containing cinematic cutscenes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adrian Gucovschi, Esq. Benjamin Rozenshteyn, Esq. Nathaniel Haim Sari, Esq. GUCOVSCHI ROZENSHTEYN, PLLC 140 Broadway, FL 46 New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 884-4230 Facsimile: (212) 884-4230 E-Mail: adrian@gr-firm.com ben@gr-firm.com nsari@gr-firm.com LONG ISLAND: Parpounas Suit Moved to E.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled KAREN PARPOUNAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LONG ISLAND PLASTIC SURGICAL GROUP, P.C., Defendant, Case No. 7:24-cv-08229, was removed from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on Nov. 5, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-07557-ST to the proceeding. The Case is assigned to Magistrate Judge Steven Tiscione. Long Island Plastic Surgical Group, P. C. provides plastic surgery. The Company offers cosmetic surgery for face, breast, pediatric, and body. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander G. Kykta, Esq. Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq. EKSM, LLP 1105 Milford Street Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (888) 350-3931 Facsimile: (888) 276-3455 Email: akykta@eksm.com lmontgomery@eksm.com NAVIENT CORPORATION: Removes Anthony Suit to C.D. Calif. -------------------------------------------------------- The Defendant in the case of CALEB ANTHONY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NAVIENT CORPORATION; and DOES 1-10, INCLUSIVE, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Luis Obispo (Case No. 24CVP-0091) to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Nov. 6, 2024. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-09600-AH-AS to the proceeding. The case is assigned to Judge Anne Hwang and referred to Magistrate Judge Alka Sagar. Navient Corporation is a finance company. The Company provides technology-enabled education finance and business processing solutions that simplify complex programs for clients. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ethan Preston, Esq. PRESTON LAW OFFICES 4054 McKinney Avenue Suite 310 Dallas, TX 75204 Telephone: (972) 564-8340 Facsimile: (866) 509-1197 Email: ep@eplaw.us - and - Adam Maxlind Hantel EDELSON PC 611 North Brand Blvd., Suite 1300 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (628) 241-2869 Facsimile: (415) 376-9435 Email: mhantel@edelson.com - and - Michael W. Ovca EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 561-4106 Email: movca@edelson.com The Defendant is represented by: Nicholas J Hoffman, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS LLP 355 South Grand Avenue Suite 4200 Los Angeles, CA 90071-3103 Telephone: (213) 457-9855 Facsimile: (213) 457-9883 Email: nhoffman@mcguirewoods.com - and - Aria Hangval, Esq. McGuireWoods LLP 355 S Grand Avenue Suite 4200 Los Angeles, CA 90071-3103 Telephone: (213) 457-9855 Facsimile: (213) 457-9883 Email: ahangval@mcguirewoods.com NEW YORK: Faces Susman Suit Over Constitutional Rights Violations ----------------------------------------------------------------- EDMUND J. SUSMAN, JR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ANN MARIE T. SULLIVAN, M.D. in her official capacity, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-01281 (W.D.N.Y., December 31, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of constitutional rights under the Second Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. This class action complaint seeks to preliminarily and permanently enjoin the Defendant, as the Commissioner of the Office of Mental Health, from reporting individuals to National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), like the Plaintiff, who were admitted to a hospital for a period of evaluation and observation and then discharged without having been committed to a mental hospital. New York State's NICS reporting statutes, Mental Hygiene Law (MHL) Sec. 7.09(j) and 14 New York Codes, Rules and Regulations (NYCRR) 543 should be permanently enjoined as they are overbroad, vague, and violative of the Second Amendment. The statutes are also facially unconstitutional as applied to individuals who are admitted under MHL 9.39/9.40 and discharged without being converted to an involuntary commitment under MHL 9.37. The statutes are also unconstitutional as applied to the Plaintiff, suit says. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amy L. Bellantoni, Esq. THE BELLANTONI LAW FIRM, PLLC 2 Overhill Road, Suite 400 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Email: abell@bellantoni-law.com OCTAPHARMA PLASMA: Faces Suit in W.D. Missouri ---------------------------------------------- A class action has been filed against OctaPharma Plasma, Inc. captioned as R. S., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OCTAPHARMA PLASMA, INC., Case No. 5:24-cv-06145-BCW (W.D. Mo., Nov. 6, 2024). The case is assigned to District Judge Brian C Wimes. The case was terminated on Dec. 9, 2024. Octapharma Plasma, Inc. collects, tests and supplies human blood plasma for manufacture into life-saving therapies. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Maureen M. Brady, Esq. MCSHANE & BRADY, LLC 4006 Central Street Kansas City, MO 64111 Telephone: (816) 888-8010 Email: mbrady@mcshanebradylaw.com OLD LYME: Settles Suit Over Potato Chips' Ingredients for $4-Mil. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Chumney and Jarrod Wardwell of CT Insider reports that a local snack company that was sued over a "non-GMO" graphic on its potato chip packaging has settled a class-action lawsuit by creating a $4 million fund to reimburse consumers. The Old Lyme Gourmet Company, which sells potato chips under the brand Deep River Snacks, agreed to settle the accusations in an agreement approved by a judge last month, but continues to deny any wrongdoing. The federal lawsuit, which was filed in New York in 2020, alleged the company's products contain dairy from cows fed genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, despite containing a "non-GMO ingredients" label. The suit also claimed the label intentionally mimicked the seal of the Non-GMO Project, an independent organization that verifies food products are not derived from GMO crops and that milk and meat are not from animals fed GMO crops. The "defendants avoid the Non-GMO Project's feed standard by using their own self-created non-GMO ingredients seal, thereby creating confusion and deceiving consumers," lawyers for the plaintiffs wrote in the complaint. "Defendants' own 'standard' allows for the use of GMO feed for dairy animals. The Non-GMO Project's independent standard does not." The Old Lyme Gourmet Company, which is headquartered in Deep River and does business as Deep River Snacks, is a subsidiary of the Mexico-based multinational company Arca Continental. A spokesperson for Arca and the plaintiff's lawyers did not immediately return a request for comment. Customers are eligible for a reimbursement if they purchased any of the Deep River brand potato chips with the "non-GMO ingredients" label for personal or household use between Feb. 2, 2017 and Dec. 6, 2024. Those who submit a valid claim with a proof or purchase will receive $5 for the first product and 50 cents for each additional product. As long as the customer has a proof of purchase, there is no limit on the number of products they can claim. Customers without a proof of purchase will be provided $5 for the first product and 50 cents for up to 10 additional products. Claims must be submitted by July 28. Further information can be found at potatochipssettlement.com. In addition to the reimbursement fund, the company also agreed to stop using the "non-GMO ingredients" label on its products. [GN] PACIFIC MARKET: Faces New Class Suit Over Replacement Lids' Refund ------------------------------------------------------------------ Arianna Johnson of PPAI Media reports that the parent company of the Stanley tumbler cups, Seattle-based Pacific Market International (PMI), has been accused in a new class action lawsuit of failing to properly compensate customers for a lid defect that resulted in the recall of 2.6 million mugs. The lawsuit was filed in late December by Danielle Scherzi, a New York resident who claims she's one of the consumers who were denied refunds after it was revealed some of the cups' lids would detach during use, exposing customers to burn hazards and spill risks. PMI reportedly refused to refund affected customers, instead offering "clearly inferior" replacement lids to those who hadn't yet discarded the cups, the lawsuit alleges. "Stanley refuses to give customers any money back for these defective products," Scherzi alleged in the suit. "Instead, Stanley implemented a deficient recall that allows it to say they are doing the right thing, when in fact, the primary objective is to protect their bottom line." The complaint also accuses PMI of knowing about the defect before releasing the products yet still selling them with marketing claims like "leak-proof," "spill-proof" and "durable." PPAI Media has reached out to PMI for comment. About The Recall Stanley's drinkware is popular among promo clients, and the Stanley Quencher was arguably the hottest promotional product of 2023. Stanley informed consumers back in December about a recall of its Switchback and Trigger Action travel mugs after 91 global reports of faulty lids and 38 burn injuries, including 11 that required medical attention, according to the Consumer Product Safety Commission. The stainless-steel travel mugs, which were sold in a variety of colors and sizes, featured a Stanley logo on the side and bottom of the mug. Consumers who bought the products, which have been sold in popular retailers and e-commerce sites since 2016, were advised to contact Stanley to receive a free replacement lid, which should render the product safe to use. Legal Battles In August, PMI requested that a federal judge in Seattle throw out a different class action lawsuit after the company allegedly failed to warn customers that its products contain lead. Last January, many customers took to social media to share stories about using at-home tests to determine whether there's lead in any of their Stanley products. PMI responded by admitting that lead is used as part of the tumbler's vacuum insulation, but that a stainless-steel layer prevents the toxic metal from coming into contact with consumers. Last month, PMI and Amazon filed a joint lawsuit against counterfeiters alleged to have sold fake products using the brands' names in the e-commerce market. [GN] PRIME PARTNER: Garcia Seeks Unpaid Regular, OT Wages Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- Erlan Garcia, and other similarly situated individuals, v. Prime Partner Solutions LLC, Lasership, Inc., d/b/a Ontrac Final Mile, Dora L. Hazera, Case No. 8:24-cv-02991-TPB-AAS (M.D. Fla., Dec. 27, 2024) seeks to recover monetary damages for unpaid regular and overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The complaint asserts that Plaintiff and all other current and former employees similarly situated to Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours during one or more weeks on or after July 2024, without being adequately compensated. Plaintiff Erlan Garcia is a resident of Hillsborough County, Florida, within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court and is otherwise sui juris. The Defendant is a logistic company providing warehousing and delivery services to importers, wholesalers, distributors, and merchants such as Alibaba, TikTok, Temu, Shein, and others. The individual Defendant, Dora L. Hazera, is the owner/partner/and manager of Prime Partner Solutions LLC.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com QUOTEWIZARD.COM LLC: Faces Another TCPA Class Suit in M.D. Pa. -------------------------------------------------------------- Tori Guidry of Troutman Amin, LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, reports that so we all know QuoteWizard.com, LLC had a VERY eventful 2024. Well new year, new TCPA class action. The plaintiff, represented by Andrew Roman Perrong -- famous for his pro se TCPA battles and now a practicing attorney -- alleges in a newly filed complaint against QuoteWizard in the Middle District of Pennsylvania that his phone number was on the National Do Not Call Registry, yet he received multiple telemarketing texts and at least one prerecorded call pitching insurance products. The suit alleges QuoteWizard's messages addressed him as "Gary," even though his name is Leon. According to the complaint, the plaintiff never requested these calls or texts and never provided any form of consent. Instead, he claims that when he tried to opt out by pressing a number prompt, he eventually connected to a representative who admitted that misdialed or mislabeled calls "happen a lot." Yeah . . . The plaintiff is now proposing two separate classes: Robocall Class: All persons in the United States who, (1) within four years prior to the commencement of this litigation until the class is certified (2) received one or more calls on their cellular telephone or any other protected telephone service (3) from or on behalf of QuoteWizard, (4) sent using the same, or substantially similar, pre-recorded message used to contact the Plaintiff. National Do Not Call Registry Class: All persons within the United States: (1) whose residential telephone numbers were on the National Do Not Call Registry for at least 31 days; (2) but who received more than one telephone solicitation call, text message, or combination thereof, from Defendant or a third party acting on Defendant's behalf; (3) within a 12-month period; (4) within the four years prior to the filing of the Complaint. Again, this latest complaint comes on the heels of other recent trouble for QuoteWizard. In Mantha v. QuoteWizard.com, LLC, the Massachusetts court certified a HUGE class after concluding that alleged consent disclosures failed to specifically name QuoteWizard, raising the prospect of MASSIVE damages. In another, Grochowski v. QuoteWizard.com, LLC, a Florida court dismissed the non-Florida plaintiffs for lack of personal jurisdiction but let the Florida plaintiff's claims go forward. The lessons here are loud and clear. Make sure you have consumer consent to utilize regulated technologies, confirm that you are not contacting numbers on the DNCR without the requisite consent, and verify that you are dialing the right consumers (i.e. RND scrubbing). [GN] REYNOLDS & REYNOLDS: Agrees to $129.5MM Dealer Class Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- Balvinder Saaga of TMBU reports that Reynolds & Reynolds has agreed to $129.5M Dealer Management Systems Class Action Settlement. The vehicle seller companies who have purchased the Car Dealership Management Software from Reynolds & Reynolds between 01/07/2013 and 15/08/2024 will be eligible for $129.5M Dealer Management Systems Class Action Settlement. This settlement aims to provide settlement or compensation to those who have claimed the price increase will get the benefits. In this article, we explain all the important details about the $129.5M Dealer Management Systems Class Action Settlement, the Eligibility for the said settlement, and the deadlines for a claim. The important thing is how to claim for $129.5M Car Dealer Management Service Class Action Settlement. Overview of $129.5M Dealer Management Systems Class Action Settlement 2025 Title: $129.5M Dealer Management Systems Lawsuit Settlement Affected Company: Reynolds & Reynolds or CDK Global Claim Type: Class Action/Lawsuits Who is Eligible? Car Dealers who purchased software between Sep 2013 and Aug 2024 Total Settlement Amount: $129.5 Million Affected People: Car Dealers Country: The United States Last Date to Claim: 9th January 2025 Last Hearing: 23rd January 2019 Deadline for exclusion and objection: 7th November 2024 Final Approval Hearing: 25th February 2025 Official Website: Claim for DMS antitrust class action settlement What is $129.5M Dealer Management Systems Class Action Settlement? A $129.5 million DMS Class Action Settlement is expected to be settled by Reynolds and Reynolds Company or CDK Global INC. It is the software company of the US that was alleged to have increased the costs of the Car Dealer Management System/DMS. The company was blamed for raising the prices of Car DMS which was purchased by Car Dealer in the US between September 2013 and August 2024. This class action is also known as Dealer Management System Antirust Litigation or DMS Antitrust Litigation Lawsuit. Reynolds and Reynold were accused by the "Auto Dealership Plaintiffs" of the US for increasing the fixed price of Car DMS or DIS system software. The Company is blamed for violating Federal Antitrust and Consumer Protection Laws. However, it has not been decided yet who is right at the final point. The Reynolds didn't agree to the allegations but CDK Global has agreed to the $129.5 million DMS Class Action Settlement. Who's Eligible for $129.5M Dealer Management Systems Class Action Settlement The Car Dealer who are victims of this DMS Antitrust Litigation or Lawsuit can be eligible to get the settlement payment if they meet the following criteria: -- To be eligible to receive the settlement amount, the members of Automobile Plaintiffs must claim for the settlement by 9th Jan 2025. -- Claimants must have proof to be a victim representing the required documents such as the DMS Schedule, Master Agreements, Service Agreements, and other agreements made with Reynolds and Reynolds or CDK. -- According to the settlement rules, dealers who have bought the DMS Service Software from CDK Global during the mentioned time can get cash benefits. It will depend on the time duration for which they have paid for the services. -- Vehicle Dealers from all the states or locations and sellers who are doing business under various regions will also be eligible for a $129.5 million DMS Class Action Settlement for each region separately. How to Claim for $129.5M Dealer Management Systems Class Action Settlement? To file a claim against Reynolds and Reynolds against $129.5M Dealer Management Systems Class Action Settlement you need to visit the official website of Class Action Settlement. You can also send an email to the Antitrust Litigation Admin to claim for DMS Lawsuit Settlement Payment. Remember, to enter the correct information while submitting a claim to avoid rejection. Conclusion: $129.5 million DMS Class Action Settlement has been approved to be settled by CDK Global. The company was accused of fluctuating the DMS prices of Car dealers in the US who purchased the Software between September 2013 and August 2024. The Company is alleged for violating the US Federal Antitrust and Consumer Protection Laws. The total settlement amount is set at $129.5 Million for settlement. You can apply for this from the official website of the DMS Claim Administration and receive the claims on time. FAQs for $129.5M Car DMS Lawsuit Class Action Settlement What is the Total Claim Settlement Amount under Car Dealer DMS Class Action? CDK Global has agreed to $129.5M out of which $100M+ $2,50,000 for administrative charges and $29.5 were already agreed to be paid in 2029 by Reynolds and Reynolds. What will I need to submit a DMS Claim? While submitting the claim for $129.5 DMS Class Action Settlement, you will need the supporting documents such as a unique ID provided via mail and a PIN provided by the DMS Antitrust litigation admin. [GN] SK GROWTH: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Webull Corp ------------------------------------------------------------ Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating: -- SK Growth Opportunities Corporation (NASDAQ: SKGR), relating to the proposed merger with Webull Corp. Under the terms of the agreement, shares of SK Growth will be converted into shares of Webull Corp. Click link for more information: https://monteverdelaw.com/case/sk-growth-opportunities-corporation-skgr/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Better Choice Company Inc. (NYSE: BTTR), relating to its proposed merger with SRx Health Solutions Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, BTTR shareholders are expected to own approximately 15% of the combined company. Click link for more information: https://monteverdelaw.com/case/better-choice-company-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- PowerUp Acquisition Corp. (Nasdaq: PWUP), relating to its proposed merger with Aspire Biopharma, Inc. Aspire BioPharma shareholders are expected to own a majority of the combined company following completion of the transaction. Click link for more information: https://monteverdelaw.com/case/powerup-acquisition-corp/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Air Transport Services Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: ATSG), relating to a proposed merger with Stonepeak Nile Parent LLC. Under the terms of the agreement, Air Transport Services Group shareholders will receive $22.50 per share of Air Transport Services Group Common Stock they own. Click link for more information: https://monteverdelaw.com/case/air-transport-services-group-inc-atsg/. 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] SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Faces Class Suit Over Wage Law Violations ------------------------------------------------------------- Travel And Tour World reports that Southwest Airlines is currently embroiled in a significant legal battle as it faces a class-action lawsuit demanding $100 million in damages. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, accuses the airline of failing to adhere to New York employment laws that stipulate weekly payments for manual workers. Allegations of Non-Compliance with Labor Laws The central issue in the lawsuit is the allegation that Southwest Airlines did not pay its manual laborers weekly, as required by New York labor regulations, opting instead for bi-monthly payments. This practice allegedly contravenes the New York State Attorney General’s guidelines, which mandate that manual workers’ wages be disbursed no later than one week after they are earned. Broader Implications for Workers and Legal Standards The lawsuit highlights broader concerns regarding the timely and fair compensation of manual laborers, which is crucial for workers who rely on regular income to manage their basic living expenses. The case not only seeks to rectify the alleged pay violations for the workers directly involved but also aims to set a precedent that could influence wage payment practices across various industries. Potential Outcomes and Industry Impact This legal challenge could prompt more stringent enforcement of labor laws, particularly concerning the frequency of wage payments. The outcome of the case could have significant implications for Southwest Airlines, potentially leading to considerable financial penalties and necessitating changes in their payroll practices to comply with labor standards. As the case progresses, it will likely garner attention from various stakeholders in the labor market and could influence future labor practices, ensuring that companies adhere to legal requirements and protect the rights of their employees. [GN] SPARTAN RACE: Fernandez Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website ----------------------------------------------------------------- JACQUELINE FERNANDEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SPARTAN RACE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-10046 (S.D.N.Y., December 31, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law, and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.spartan.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Spartan Race, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services, doing business in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com STANFORD HEALTH: Agrees to Settle Suit Over Nurses' Wages for $10M ------------------------------------------------------------------ Top Class Actions reports that Stanford Health Care agreed to pay $10 million as part of a class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims it failed to provide meal breaks and pay premiums for California nurses. The Stanford Health Care settlement benefits Stanford Health Care operating, peri- and post-operative, catheterization, laboratory, endoscopy, interventional radiology and procedure room nurses who were paid on an hourly basis and worked for Stanford Health Care in California between March 4, 2018, and April 13, 2024. According to the Stanford Health Care class action lawsuit, the health system failed to provide nurses with timely meal periods; failed to pay meal period premiums for late, short or missed meal periods; failed to pay meal premiums at the regular rate of pay; and failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements. These failures allegedly violated California labor laws that guarantee these benefits to eligible workers. Stanford Health Care is a health care system that provides services to the Bay Area and Northern California. Stanford Health Care hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to the $10 million class action settlement to resolve these allegations. This settlement total includes a $180,000 payment to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency. Under the terms of the Stanford Health Care settlement, class members can receive a cash payment based on the number of workweeks they worked during the class period. No payment estimates are available on the settlement website, but class members received payment estimates based on their mailed settlement notices. The deadline for exclusion and objection was Dec. 23, 2024. The final approval hearing for the Stanford Health Care class action lawsuit settlement is scheduled for March 27, 2025. No claim form is required to benefit from the settlement. Class members who do not exclude themselves will automatically receive a settlement payment. Who's Eligible Current and former Stanford Health Care nurses who worked as operating, peri- or post-operative, catheterization laboratory, endoscopy, interventional radiology or procedure room nurses in California between March 4, 2018, and April 13, 2024 Potential Award Varies Proof of Purchase N/A Exclusion Deadline 12/23/2024 Case Name Veitch, et al. v. Stanford Health Care, Case No. 22CV395001, in the California Superior Court for Santa Clara County Final Hearing 03/27/2025 Settlement Website VeitchSHCSettlement.com Claims Administrator Stanford Meal Break Settlement c/o Atticus Administration PO Box 64053 St. Paul, MN 55164 VeitchSHCSettlement@AtticusAdmin.com (888) 210-0855 Class Counsel Laura L Ho Ginger L Grimes GOLDSTEIN, BORGEN, DARDARIAN & HO Defense Counsel Michael D Bruno Seth Weisburst Rachel Wintterle GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP [GN] TAMPA GENERAL: Settles Data Breach Class Action for $6.8 Mil. ------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Tampa General Hospital agreed to pay $6.8 million as part of a class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims it failed to protect patient information from a data breach. The Tampa General Hospital settlement benefits individuals whom Florida Health Sciences Center notified that their personal information may have been compromised in a data breach between May 12, 2023, and May 30, 2023. Tampa General Hospital allegedly discovered the data breach on or around May 31, 2023, and reportedly affected the information of around 2.1 million individuals, including their Social Security numbers, health insurance information, medical record numbers and treatment information. According to the Tampa General Hospital data breach class action lawsuit, the hospital failed to protect patient information from the data breach due to its negligence. Tampa General Hospital is a large regional health care system that serves the Greater Tampa Bay area. Tampa General Hospital hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $6.8 million settlement to resolve the data breach class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the Tampa General Hospital settlement, class members can receive credit-monitoring services and either reimbursement for data breach losses or a one-time cash payment. Class members who experienced ordinary losses as a result of the Tampa General Hospital data breach can receive up to $1,500 in reimbursement for documented expenses, such as bank fees, communication charges, travel expenses and credit-related costs. Class members who experienced extraordinary losses can receive up to $7,500 in reimbursement for documented expenses, such as fraudulent charges and identity theft damages. Class members can also claim up to four hours of lost time at a rate of $25 per hour for a maximum lost time payment of $100. Class members who did not experience losses as a result of the data breach can choose to receive a flat payment of $125. All class members are eligible for one year of free three-bureau credit monitoring services through the settlement. The deadline for exclusion and objection was Dec. 28, 2024. The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for Feb. 3, 2025. To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by Jan. 12, 2025. Who's Eligible Individuals whom Tampa General Hospital notified that their private information was potentially compromised in a data security incident that occurred between May 12, 2023, and May 30, 2023 Potential Award Up to $7,500 Proof of Purchase Documentation such as receipts, bank statements, credit reports, etc. Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 01/12/2025 Case Name DiPierro, et al. v. Florida Health Sciences Center Inc. d/b/a Tampa General Hospital, Case No. 23-CA-013984, in the 13th Judicial Circuit Court for Hillsborough County, Florida Final Hearing 02/03/2025 Settlement Website FloridaHealthSettlement.com Claims Administrator Florida Health Settlement Administrator PO Box 2417 Portland, OR 97208-2417 info@FloridaHealthSettlement.com (877) 817-1030 Class Counsel Jeff Ostrow KOPLOWITZ OSTROW PA Defense Counsel Casie D Collignon BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP [GN] TUNGRAY TECHNOLOGIES: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Tungray Technologies Inc (NASDAQ: TRSG) resulting from allegations that Tungray Technologies may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. So What: If you purchased Tungray Technologies securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. What to do next: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=32968 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. What is this about: On December 31, 2024, Tungray Technologies filed a current report with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Form 6-K. The current report stated that on "December 30, 2024, the Board of Directors of Tungray Technologies Inc (the "Company"), upon recommendation of the Audit Committee and following discussions with management, determined that the Company's financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2023, 2022 and 2021 included in the Company's Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 26, 2024 (the "20-F"), should no longer be relied upon. Similarly, related reports, press releases, earnings releases, and investor communications describing the Company's financial statements for these periods should no longer be relied upon." Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company at the time. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contacts Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] URBAN OUTFITTERS: Fernandez Balks at Online Store's Access Barriers ------------------------------------------------------------------- FELIPE FERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. URBAN OUTFITTERS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-10028 (S.D.N.Y., December 31, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law, and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.shopterrain.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse, asserts the suit. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Urban Outfitters, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services, doing business in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com VINCERX PHARMA: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Oqory ----------------------------------------------------------- Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating: -- Vincerx Pharma, Inc. (NASDAQ: VINC), relating to the proposed merger with Oqory, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, Oqory equity holders are expected to own approximately 95% of the combined entity, while Vincerx equity holders will hold 5%. Click link for more https://monteverdelaw.com/case/vincerx-pharma-inc-vinc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Vacasa, Inc. (NASDAQ: VCSA), relating to the proposed merger with Casago. Under the terms of the agreement, Casago will acquire all outstanding shares of Vacasa held by public stockholders at a price of $5.02 per share. Click link for more https://monteverdelaw.com/case/vacasa-inc-vcsa/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Marinus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: MRNS), relating to the proposed merger with Immedica Pharma AB. Under the terms of the agreement, Immedica will acquire outstanding shares of Marinus common stock for a cash purchase price of $0.55 per share. Click link for more https://monteverdelaw.com/case/marinus-pharmaceuticals-inc-mrns/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Maiden Holdings, Ltd. (NASDAQ: MHLD), relating to the proposed merger with Kestrel Group LLC. Under the terms of the agreement, each issued and outstanding common share of Maiden will be converted into the right to receive one common share in the combined company. Click link for more https://monteverdelaw.com/case/maiden-holdings-ltd-mhld/. 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] WESTERN ASSET: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of Western Asset Management Company mutual fund investors resulting from allegations that Western Asset may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. SO WHAT: If you purchased Western Asset mutual funds you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=31956 call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On November 25, 2024, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission issued a press release entitled "SEC Charges Ken Leech, Former Co-Chief Investment Officer of Western Asset Management Co., with Fraud." This press release stated that Leech had been charged with fraud "for engaging in a multi-year scheme to allocate favorable trades to certain portfolios, while allocating unfavorable trades to other portfolios, a practice known as cherry-picking." WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company at the time. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] WILLIAMS-SONOMA INC: Blind Can't Access Online Store, Cantwell Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- LISA CANTWELL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WILLIAMS-SONOMA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-08924 (E.D.N.Y., December 31, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law, and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.rejuvenation.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse, the suit says. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Williams-Sonoma, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services, doing business in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com YUMMY BAZAAR: Jones Sues Over Website's Barriers to Blind People ---------------------------------------------------------------- CLAY LEE JONES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. YUMMY BAZAAR, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-10040 (S.D.N.Y., December 31, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law, and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.yummybazaar.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse, says the suit. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Yummy Bazaar, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services, doing business in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com [*] Ontario Court Dismisses Silicone Class Action Over Delays ------------------------------------------------------------- Angelica Dino, writing for Canadian Lawyer, reports that the Court of Appeal for Ontario upheld the dismissal of a 21-year-old class action regarding the alleged unauthorized use of liquid injectable silicone or injectable grade liquid silicone (IGLS), citing an inordinate and inexcusable delay that prejudiced the defendant. The representative plaintiff initiated the class action in 2003, and the court certified it later that year. The action sought damages against a physician for unlawfully injecting IGLS into patients' lips and facial contours. Although the parties made some early progress, including conducting discoveries and establishing a protocol to test an IGLS sample seized by Health Canada, the case significantly slowed over time. In 2019, the plaintiff expressed an intention to test the IGLS sample and proceed to trial, but no trial date followed. In 2022, the defendant sought dismissal of the case for delay, and the lower court granted the motion. The Court of Appeal agreed with the motion judge's finding that the delay was excessive and unjustified. It emphasized the principle that plaintiffs bear the responsibility for advancing their claims. The court deemed the two-decade delay without meaningful steps to resolve the matter unacceptable under the Rules of Civil Procedure, which mandate the expeditious resolution of civil cases. The court also upheld the motion judge's conclusion that the delay prejudiced the defendant. The inability to test the IGLS sample, coupled with the absence of evidence from other class members, undermined the ability to adjudicate the case fairly. The court noted that the Rules of Civil Procedure apply equally to class actions, which must adhere to the same standards of efficiency and timeliness as other civil litigation. In its decision, the court highlighted the need for Ontario's civil justice system to prioritize timely dispute resolution. Citing the Supreme Court of Canada's call for a "culture shift" in its Hryniak v. Mauldin decision, the court underscored the harmful effects of prolonged litigation on access to justice and judicial efficiency. Ultimately, the court dismissed the appeal, with costs awarded to the defendant. [GN] Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bestwall's Texas Two-Step Criticized by Claimants ------------------------------------------------------------------ Alex Wittenberg of Law360 reports that a group of injury claimants in separate insolvency proceedings has urged the Fourth Circuit to dismiss Georgia-Pacific unit Bestwall's attempt to manage asbestos liabilities through a controversial "Texas two-step" Chapter 11 case. In their brief, the claimants argued that the strategy is "grotesquely inequitable" and "plainly at odds" with the principles of bankruptcy law, according to report. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Merck & Co. Faces Exposure Suit Over Talc Products ------------------------------------------------------------------- Sargent Gardiner and Aimee Gardiner, and others similarly situated v. MERCK & CO. INC., NOVARTIS CORPORATION, PFIZER, INC., Case No. 190272/2024 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty., Oct. 11, 2024), is brought for pain and suffering suffered as a proximate result of the Plaintiff's regular and prolonged use of, inhalation, ingestion, absorption, and/or exposure to asbestos-containing talc and talcum powder products including but not limited to, Desenex body and foot powders, Dr. Scholl's foot powders, and Johnson & Johnson body powders. The Plaintiff was exposed to asbestos from asbestos-containing talc in the PRODUCTS from 1979 to 2019. During this time he repeatedly inhaled, ingested, absorbed, and was regularly exposed to asbestos dust emanating from the asbestos-containing talc within the PRODUCTS. This was an intended and foreseeable use of the PRODUCTS based on the advertising, marketing, and labeling of the PRODUCTS. The Plaintiff was exposed on numerous and frequent occasions to the PRODUCTS which were mined, milled, produced, processed, designed, manufactured, marketed, tested, compounded, mixed, supplied, delivered, distributed, sold and/ or lobbied for by the Defendants. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' reckless, callous, calculated, and reprehensible conduct, Plaintiff was injured and suffered damages, namely Mesothelioma, which required or will require surgeries and treatments. At the time of his diagnosis, Plaintiff was 53 years old, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was diagnosed with Mesothelioma on January 2022 as a result of his exposure to talc products containing asbestos. ********* 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 ***