/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230526.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, May 26, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 106
Headlines
3M COMPANY: Stanley Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
3M COMPANY: Thibodeaux Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
3M COMPANY: Whitton Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
3M COMPANY: Wood Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
557 1ST STREET: Fails to Pay Service Workers' OT, Sanchez Claims
ALL SECURE: Parties Seek Approval of Class Notice & Forms in White
ALVARIA INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Cerda Suit Alleges
AMERISOURCEBERGEN DRUG: Fails to Pay Timely Wages, Akerley Says
ARCADIA CONSUMER: Vogel Sues Over Fungi Nail Products' False Ads
ARCONIC CORP: Hearing on Final OK of Settlement Set for August 9
ASBURY CARBONS: Miller Alleges Breach of Contract Under ERISA
AUDIOPHILE MUSIC: Class Settlement in Tuttle Gets Initial Nod
AUSTRALIA: Sheep Farmers Warn of Class Action Over Live Export Ban
BADIA SPICES: "New Mexico Chili" Misdescriptive, Reyes Suit Says
BAYER AG: 1000++ Women Join Suit Over Contraceptives in Victoria
BLOCK.ONE: EOS Network Sues Over Unmaterialized Investment
BLUE RIBBON IP: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due March 19, 2024
BNG CONSTRUCTION: Romero Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Overtime
BOTANIC TONICS: Supplement Capsules Causes Addiction, Suit Says
BPROTOCOL FOUNDATION: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Naming Due July 14
BRAND SERVICES: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CAREFIRST: Court OK's Class Action Treatment in Attias Suit
CARVIN SOFTWARE: Boyles Files Suit in D. Arizona
CARVIN SOFTWARE: Fails to Secure Client's Personal Info, Lipp Says
CARVIN SOFTWARE: Halpren Sues Over Data Breach
CATSCO INC: Kuzminski Sues Over Unsolicited Texts
CAVCO INDUSTRIES: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
CHARLES RIVER: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due July 18
CHARLES RIVER: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
CHELSEA MARKET: Lopez Sues Over Unpaid Wages
CHEMOURS CO: Bid to Stay Deadline to Select Mediator OK'd
CHEMOURS CO: Filing of Class Status Bid Due June 29, 2024
CHOBANI LLC: Franco Sues Over Deceptive Package Labeling
CIMA'S LANDSCAPE: Vasquez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
CLUB 360: Filing of Class Cert. Bid Continued to May 30
COINBASE GLOBAL: Continues to Defend Underwood Class Suit in SDNY
COLUMBUS REGIONAL: Parties Seek Extension of Class Cert. Deadlines
CONOCOPHILLIPS: Continues to Defend Federal Class Suit in Texas
CRUNCHBASE INC: Casar Files Placeholder Bid for Class Certification
CSC PRODUCTIONS: Monteau Sues Over Unsolicited Sales Call
CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages, Suit Claims
DAVID R. HINES: Hatcher Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
DELTA T LLC: Discloses Web Users Info to Google, Rodriguez Says
DEMANDSCIENCE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cline Suit Alleges
DFO LLC: Cantu Sues Over Secret Reporting of Details
DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Crocker Lawsuit
DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Cubbage Lawsuit
DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Davis Lawsuit
DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Dunbar Lawsuit
DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Edlund Lawsuit
DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Sheeders Lawsuit
DUN & BRADSTREET: Discovery in Batis Class Suit Stayed
DUN & BRADSTREET: Discovery in DeBose Class Suit Ongoing
EDUCATIONAL CREDIT: Kincaid Seeks to Certify Class & 6 Subclasses
EL CAMINO HOSPITAL: Spalinger Suit Removed to N.D. California
ETHICON SARL: Court Approved $300-M Settlement in Pelvic Mesh Suit
EXECUTIVE LE: Bid to Strike Nunez Class Action Tossed
FCS INDUSTRIES: Sikorsky Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
FIRST NATIONAL BANK: Mirabile Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection
FLATIRON WINES: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
FLYWHEEL ENERGY: Class Cert. Replies Extended to June 5 in Eubanks
FLYWHEEL ENERGY: Class Cert. Replies Extended to June 5 in Flowers
FLYWHEEL ENERGY: Class Cert. Replies Extended to June 5 in Oliger
FOUR SEASONS: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Staley to 2nd Cir.
FOX CORP: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
FRANCHISE GROUP: Quintana Files Suit in C.D. California
FRESHPAIR.COM INC: DiMeglio Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
FRESHWORKS INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Cal.
GLASSWING LLC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GREEN RUSH ADVISORY: Terrell Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California
GREGORY AHERN: 2nd Gonzalez Bid for Class Status Conditionally OK'd
GROCERY DELIVERY: Rivas Sues Over Unsolicited Text Message
HARRIS COUNTY CONSTABLE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime
HEALTH INSURANCE: Agrees to Settle TCPA Class Suit for $900,000
HEIDI HEDBERG: Court Certifies Two Classes in Kamkoff Suit
HOMETOWN AMERICA: Turner Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL: Sued Over Uranium Plant's Health Risks
HORIZON BANCORP: Investors Reminded of Lead Plaintiff Naming Due
HOUSTON PIZZA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Blackmon Alleges
IRHTYM TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in CA
JUNK BRANDS: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
KIA MOTORS: Faces Consolidated Suit Over Defective Windshields
KPB IMMIGRATION: Lomeli Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
LCA-VISION INC: Crabill Files Suit in S.D. Ohio
LENOVO INC: Harmon Sues Over False and Misleading Representation
LEXINGTON COUNTY, SC: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert. Response
LEXINGTON GOLF: Laine Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Class
LINDT & SPRUNGLI: Newman Suit Transferred to E.D. New York
LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit
LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Continues to Defend Fiduciary-Related Class Suits
LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CA: Doe FLSA Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
LUCKY2MEDIA LLC: Bellanca Files Suit in N.D. Ohio
LUME DEODORANT: Nelson Files Suit in E.D. New York
LUMINESS DIRECT: Conidi Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
MAAMOUL SHOP LLC: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
MACLELLAN INTEGRATED: Hoye BIPA Suit Removed to C.D. California
MAPLEBEAR INC: Faces Young BIPA Suit Over Biometric Info Collection
MATT MARTORELLO: Duggan Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
MATTERPORT INC: Lynch Seeks to Certify Class of Service Partners
MCLEAN COUNTY, IL: Ct. Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Grimm
MDL 2913: Morenci Area Alleges E-Cigarette Promotion to Youth
MDL 2972: Blackbaud Must Oppose Mesa Class Cert. Bid by June 9
MDL 2972: Blackbaud Must Oppose Roth Class Cert. Bid by June 9
MDL 2972: Blackbaud Must Sheth Oppose Class Cert. Bid by June 9
MDL 2972: Opposition to Atwood Class Cert. Bid Due June 9
MDL 2972: Opposition to Clayton Class Cert. Bid Due June 9
MDL 2972: Opposition to Peterson Class Cert. Bid Due June 9
MELISSA & DOUG: Cano Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
META PLATFORMS: Modified $725M Suit Deal, Included Deleted Accounts
META PLATFORMS: More Eligible Users to File Claim After Suit Update
META PLATFORMS: Settles Lundy Privacy Class Suit for $37.5M
META PLATFORMS: Settles User Data Sharing Suit for $725 Million
MICHAEL FRANCIS: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due August 9
MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Faces Suit Over Data Privacy Violations
MIKE ARNOLD: Parties Seek to Modify Class Cert. Briefing Schedule
MILKY MAMA: Rivas Sues Over Unsolicited Text Message Marketing
MINT CENTER: Bardales FLSA Suit Removed to S.D. Fla.
MINT CENTER: Espinoza FLSA Suit Removed to S.D. Fla.
MINT CENTER: Ochoa FLSA Class Suit Removed to S.D. Fla.
MINT URBAN: Apartment Complex Not Habitable, Tenants' Suit Claims
MITSUBISHI MOTORS: Wade Suit Transferred to M.D. Tennessee
MODERN CONCEPTS: Puskas Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
MODIVCARE INC: Farah Settlement Awaits Arbitrator's Approval
MOLSON COORS: Faces Suit Over Ranch Water Hard Seltzer False Ads
MOSAIC CO: Continues to Defend Cruz Class Suit in Florida
NATIONSBENEFITS LLC: Veazey Sues Over Failure to Secure Information
NATURAL GROCERS: FLSA Class Suit Jury Trial Set for December 2023
NEXTCURE INC: Discovery in Ye Zhou Stockholder Class Suit Stayed
NEXTGEN HEALTHCARE: Faces Multiple Data Breach Class Action Suits
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Sues Over Securities Exchange Act Violation
PARK APARTMENTS: Western Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Drori & Wilson Suit Settlement for Court OK
PHARMERICA CORP: Sued Over Data Breach Affecting 6-Mil. Customers
PINNACLE GROUP: Conditional Certification of FLSA Action Sought
PIROZZI ENTERPRISES: Marquez Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
RESURGENT CAPITAL: Dismisses Winter FDCPA Suit for Lack of Standing
RON NEAL: Mayberry Files Suit in N.D. Indiana
RUST-OLEUM CORP: June 14 Continuance to Present Experts Sought
SANDERSON FARMS: Announces Proposed Settlement In Broiler Suit
STEM INC: Petersen Sues Over Exchange Act Violation
TESLA INC: Monopolizes Maintenance & Repair Services, Ragone Says
TEXAS CAPITAL: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
VIATRIS INC: Taylor Sues Over Securities Exchange Act Violation
VIRTU FINANCIAL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due July 18
WALT DISNEY: Alleges Execs of Giving Analysts Inaccurate Guidance
WELLS FARGO: Civil Rights Lawyer Joins Mortgage Lender Class Suit
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Constellation Energy Has $91MM Est. Liabilities
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitex Int'l. Defends Product Liability Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MetLife Receives 587 New Personal Injury Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MSA LLC Records $395.1MM Product Liability Reserve
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Paramount Global Has 21,640 Cases as of March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Co-defends 112 Personal Injury Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sempra Energy's Subsidiaries Faces PI Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Faces 1,485 Exposure Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trane Tech. Faces Product Liability Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean's Subsidiary Defends 235 PI Lawsuits
*********
3M COMPANY: Stanley Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
---------------------------------------------------------
Harry Stanley, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.); Case No. 2:23-cv-02026-RMG (D.S.C., May 11,
2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a state police officer and was diagnosed with bladder cancer as
a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James E. Murrill, Jr., Esq.
Keith Jackson, Esq.
Jeremiah Mosley, Esq.
RILEY & JACKSON, P.C.
3530 Independence Dr.
Birmingham, AL 35209
Phone: 205-879-5000
Facsimile: 205-879-5901
3M COMPANY: Thibodeaux Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Thibodeaux, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA,
INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION;
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.;
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA,
INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a
DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL
COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION,
INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); Case No. 2:23-cv-02036-RMG
(D.S.C., May 11, 2023), is brought for damages for personal injury
resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF")
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not
limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a state police officer and was diagnosed with prostate cancer as
a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James E. Murrill, Jr., Esq.
Keith Jackson, Esq.
Jeremiah Mosley, Esq.
RILEY & JACKSON, P.C.
3530 Independence Dr.
Birmingham, AL 35209
Phone: 205-879-5000
Facsimile: 205-879-5901
3M COMPANY: Whitton Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
---------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Whitton, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.); Case No. 2:23-cv-02033-RMG (D.S.C., May 11,
2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a state police officer and was diagnosed with bladder cancer as
a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James E. Murrill, Jr., Esq.
Keith Jackson, Esq.
Jeremiah Mosley, Esq.
RILEY & JACKSON, P.C.
3530 Independence Dr.
Birmingham, AL 35209
Phone: 205-879-5000
Facsimile: 205-879-5901
3M COMPANY: Wood Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
---------------------------------------------------------------
Quenton Wood, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.); Case No. 2:23-cv-02034-RMG (D.S.C., May 11,
2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a state police officer and was diagnosed with prostate cancer as
a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James E. Murrill, Jr., Esq.
Keith Jackson, Esq.
Jeremiah Mosley, Esq.
RILEY & JACKSON, P.C.
3530 Independence Dr.
Birmingham, AL 35209
Phone: 205-879-5000
Facsimile: 205-879-5901
557 1ST STREET: Fails to Pay Service Workers' OT, Sanchez Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
ADRIAN SANCHEZ and CRISPIN ROSAS, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly v. MARC RUSSELL, 557 1ST STREET CORPORATION, and
SKY BOY INCORPORATED, Case No. 2:23-cv-02632 (D.N.J., May 15, 2023)
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages for the Plaintiffs and their
similarly situated co-workers, all of whom worked as food service
workers at Defendants' restaurant, Northern Soul, located in
Hoboken, New Jersey, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, and the New Jersey Wage Payment Law.
Plaintiffs Sanchez and Rosas, and the FLSA Collective, regularly
worked for the Defendants six or seven days a week, 8-15 hours per
day. They assert that the Defendants illegally failed to pay them
and the other hourly food-service workers for all of the hours they
worked for Defendants, and any overtime premiums for the many
overtime hours they worked for the Defendants.
Plaintiff Sanchez worked for the Defendants from middle of 2018
until April, 2022 while Plaintiff Rosas worked for the Defendants
from September 2019 until the end of 2020.
557 1ST STREET CORP. is engaged in the food service industry.
Defendant Russel was the Chief Executive Officer of 1st Street and
Sky Boy.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David Harrison, Esq.
HARRISON, HARRISON & ASSOC., LTD
110 State Highway 35, 2nd Floor
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Telephone: (888) 239-4410
E-mail: dharrison@nynjemploymentlaw.com
ALL SECURE: Parties Seek Approval of Class Notice & Forms in White
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAUREN WHITE,
Individually, and on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, v. ALL SECURE, LLC, a Tennessee Limited Liability
Company, Case No. 2:22-cv-02501-TLP-cgc (W.D. Tenn.), the Parties
ask the Court to enter an order granting their joint motion to
approve proposed notice and consent forms pursuant to 29 u.s.c.
section 216(b).
The submission of the forms was requested by the Court's Order
Granting the Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification.
Although the Court granted conditional certification the Defendant
reserves the right to later seek decertification of the conditional
class.
The proposed Notice and Consent forms are almost identical to the
notice and consent forms approved by this Court in Jamie Gibbs, et
al., v. Flagship Security Company, LLC et. al., Civil Case No.
2:20-cv-02895-TLP-tmp.
All Secure is a full service commercial and residential security
company offering security services to Denver area business owners,
operators and homeowners.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 10, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3WCWHAZ at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
JACKSON SHIELDS YEISER HOLT
OWEN & BRYANT
262 German Oak Drive
Memphis, TN 38018
Telephone: (901) 754-8001
Facsimile: (901) 759-1745
E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
rbryant@jsyc.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Florence M. Johnson, Esq.
JOHNSON AND JOHNSON, PC
1407 Union Avenue, Suite 1002
Memphis, TN 38104
Telephone: (901) 725-7520
E-mail: fjohnson@johnsonandjohnsonattys.com
ALVARIA INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Cerda Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERTO CERDA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ALVARIA, INC.; CARRINGTON MORTGAGE SERVICES,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-11088 (D. Mass., May 15, 2023) is
a class action against the Defendants for their failure to properly
secure and safeguard sensitive personally identifiable information
provided by, and belonging to, their customers and the customers of
their clients, including, without limitation, names, mailing
addresses, telephone numbers, loan numbers, current loan balances,
and the last four digits of Social Security numbers.
According to the complaint, on or around March 9, 2023, Alvaria was
the victim of a sophisticated ransomware attack on a portion of its
"customer environment" that maintained "some of its customers'
workforce management and outbound dialer data." (the "Data
Breach"). This ransomware attack involved personal information that
came into Alvaria's possession through Carrington who provided
Alvaria access to their customers' personal information, says the
suit.
The Plaintiff and the Class Members' PII was compromised as a
result of the Defendants' failure to: (i) adequately protect the
PII of the Plaintiff and Class Members; (ii) the warn Plaintiff and
Class Members of their inadequate information security practices;
and (iii) effectively secure hardware containing protected PII
using reasonable and effective security procedures free of
vulnerabilities. Defendants' conduct amounts to at least negligence
and violates federal and state statutes designed to prevent or
mitigate this very harm, the suit alleges.
ALVARIA, INC. is an American multinational software company that
sells call center and customer experience software technology to
large enterprises. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Randi Kassan, Esq.
MILBERG, COLEMAN, BRYSON,
PHILLIPS & GROSSMAN
100 Garden City Plaza
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (516) 741-5600
-and -
M. Anderson Berry, Esq.
Gregory Haroutunian, Esq.
Brandon P. Jack, Esq.
CLAYEO C. ARNOLD
A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
865 Howe Avenue
Sacramento, CA 95825
Telephone: (916) 239-4778
Facsimile: (916) 924-1829
Email: rkassan@milberg.com
aberry@justice4you.com
gharoutunian@justice4you.com
bjack@justice4you.com
AMERISOURCEBERGEN DRUG: Fails to Pay Timely Wages, Akerley Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
CHRIS AKERLEY, Plaintiff v. AMERISOURCEBERGEN DRUG CORPORATION, and
WORLD COURIER INC., Defendants, Case No. 607347/2023 (N.Y. Sup.,
Nassau Cty., May 9, 2023) is a class action brought by the
Plaintiff, on behalf of all similarly situated manual workers,
seeking to recover from Defendants the amount of untimely paid
wages as liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs,
and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as provided for by the
New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from approximately
2015 to 2017 as an Operations Associate at a World Courier location
in New Hyde Park, New York.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Company is a drug wholesale company that
provides drug distribution and consulting related to medical
business operations and patient services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
Alec M. Leslie, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: ykopel@bursor.com
aleslie@bursor.com
ARCADIA CONSUMER: Vogel Sues Over Fungi Nail Products' False Ads
----------------------------------------------------------------
COURTNEY VOGEL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. ARCADIA CONSUMER HEALTHCARE, INC. d/b/a KRAMER
LABORATORIES, INC., a Florida Corporation, Case No. 6:23-cv-00899
(M.D. Fla., May 15, 2023) alleges that Kramer Labs, which
manufactures, distributes, and sells the Fungi Nail products,
deceives the public about the products' abilities to cure nail
fungus.
The Defendants claim on their advertising, packaging, and website
(http://funginail.com)that the products have many purported
benefits such as: All Fungi-Nail (TM) products are Clinically
Proven to Cure and Prevent Fungal Infections, Maximum Strength
Medicine, Clinically Proven Ingredient to Cure and Prevent Fungal
Infections, Triple Action Formula Kills Fungus, Stops Itching &
Burning, Restores Skin Health.
The Defendants' representations concerning the product are unfair,
unlawful, and fraudulent, and have the tendency or capacity to
deceive or confuse reasonable consumers. As such, Defendants'
practices violate Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices,
says the suit.
The Plaintiff and members of the classes purchased the product for
their ingredients, potency, and effects, and paid a premium for the
Defendants' products over comparable products that were not
promoted with the misrepresentations at issue here.
Plaintiff Courtney Vogel purchased the Fungi Nail product from a
local retailer. The Plaintiff specifically relied upon
representations made by the Defendants. She allegedly did not
receive the promised benefits or receive the full value of her
purchase.
Kramer Labs manufactures, distributes, advertises, and sells the
product.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William C. Wright, Esq.
THE WRIGHT LAW OFFICE
515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite P-300
West Palm Beach, FL 33410
Telephone: (561) 514-0904
E-mail: willwright@wrightlawoffice.com
ARCONIC CORP: Hearing on Final OK of Settlement Set for August 9
----------------------------------------------------------------
Arconic Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 4, 2023, that the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania sets August 9, 2023 as the
date of the final settlement approval hearing for the consolidated
Howard and Sullivan class suits.
A purported class action complaint related to the Grenfell Tower
fire was filed on August 11, 2017 in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania against ParentCo and
Klaus Kleinfeld.
A related purported class action complaint was filed in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on
September 15, 2017, under the caption Sullivan v. Arconic Inc. et
al., against ParentCo, three former ParentCo executives, several
current and former ParentCo directors, and banks that acted as
underwriters for ParentCo's September 18, 2014 preferred stock
offering (the "Preferred Offering").
The plaintiff in Sullivan had previously filed a purported class
action against the same defendants on July 18, 2017 in the Southern
District of New York and, on August 25, 2017, voluntarily dismissed
that action without prejudice.
On February 7, 2018, on motion from certain putative class members,
the court consolidated Howard and Sullivan, closed Sullivan, and
appointed lead plaintiffs in the consolidated case.
On April 9, 2018, the lead plaintiffs in the consolidated purported
class action filed a consolidated amended complaint.
The consolidated amended complaint alleged that the registration
statement for the Preferred Offering contained false and misleading
statements and omitted to state material information, including by
allegedly failing to disclose material uncertainties and trends
resulting from sales of Reynobond PE for unsafe uses and by
allegedly expressing a belief that appropriate risk management and
compliance programs had been adopted while concealing the risks
posed by Reynobond PE sales.
The consolidated amended complaint also alleged that between
November 4, 2013 and June 23, 2017 ParentCo and Kleinfeld made
false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material
information about ParentCo's commitment to safety, business and
financial prospects, and the risks of the Reynobond PE product,
including in ParentCo's Form 10-Ks for the fiscal years ended
December 31, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016, its Form 10-Qs and
quarterly financial press releases from the fourth quarter of 2013
through the first quarter of 2017, its 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016
Annual Reports, its 2016 Annual Highlights Report, and on its
official website.
The consolidated amended complaint sought, among other things,
unspecified compensatory damages and an award of attorney and
expert fees and expenses.
On June 8, 2018, all defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint for failure to state a claim.
On June 21, 2019, the Court granted the defendants’ motion to
dismiss in full, dismissing the consolidated amended complaint in
its entirety without prejudice.
On July 23, 2019, the lead plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint. The second amended complaint alleges generally the same
claims as the consolidated amended complaint with certain
additional allegations, as well as claims that the risk factors set
forth in the registration statement for the Preferred Offering were
inadequate and that certain additional statements in the sources
identified above were misleading.
The second amended complaint seeks, among other things, unspecified
compensatory damages and an award of attorney and expert fees and
expenses.
On September 11, 2019, all defendants moved to dismiss the second
amended complaint.
On June 23, 2021, the Court granted in part and denied in part the
defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint.
The Court dismissed with prejudice plaintiffs' claim against
ParentCo, certain officers and directors and the underwriters based
on the registration statement for the Preferred Offering, with the
exception of one statement and only as to purchases made before
October 23, 2015.
In addition, plaintiffs' claim based on ParentCo's statements in
other SEC filings, in product brochures, and on websites was
dismissed in its entirety as to Kleinfeld and dismissed in part and
allowed in part as to ParentCo.
The Court also dismissed the control-person liability claims in
their entirety.
The Court held a status conference on September 14, 2022, and on
December 2, 2022, the Court issued an initial Case Management Order
("CMO") setting forth dates for class certification briefing and
discovery.
In March 2023, following successive mediation sessions, the parties
reached a settlement in principle that remains subject to court
approval and, among other things, is to be covered by insurance
proceeds, in exchange for the dismissal of the action and a release
of all claims against the defendants.
The settlement is without admission of fault or wrongdoing by the
defendants.
Plaintiffs filed a Stipulation of Settlement, a motion to
preliminarily approve the settlement, and related papers with the
court on April 21, 2023.
On May 2, 2023, the court issued an order granting plaintiffs’
motion to preliminarily approve the settlement and setting August
9, 2023 as the date of the final settlement approval hearing.
Arconic Corporation is a manufacturing company of metals based in
Pennsylvania.
ASBURY CARBONS: Miller Alleges Breach of Contract Under ERISA
-------------------------------------------------------------
LANCE MILLER and LARRY RICHARDSON, individually and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated v. NEIL BROZEN, ASBURY
CARBONS, INC., PATRICK SOOK, and ASBURY CARBONS, INC. EMPLOYEE
STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-02540 (D.N.J.,
May 9, 2023) is a class action brought on behalf of the Plaintiffs
and other participants and beneficiaries of the Asbury Carbons,
Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan (Asbury ESOP) seeking damages
and other relief against Defendants for violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.
According to the complaint, the suit is about a family-owned
company, Asbury Carbons, Inc., which was founded by Harry M. Riddle
in 1895, and which was recently sold to end an intra-family schism
among his descendants over the leadership and strategic direction
of the Company to the significant benefit of those descendants (the
"Riddle family"), but to the significant detriment of Plaintiffs
and the other participants in the Asbury ESOP, who, as a result of
the sale, have lost approximately 53 percent of the value of their
retirement benefits. In approving this sale, the Defendants, which
consist of the Asbury ESOP Trustee and Plan Administrator, breached
the fiduciary duties they each owed to the Asbury ESOP participants
in violation of ERISA, says the suit.
Ignoring their fiduciary duties to the Asbury ESOP participants,
each of the Defendants acted to consummate the directive of the
Riddle family to sell the Company as soon as possible. Pursuant to
this family directive, no alternatives to a sale were pursued and
no efforts were made by Defendants to block this significant below
fair value sale, even though the Asbury ESOP, with its nearly 20%
holdings of the Company's stock, had the ability to do so, the suit
asserts.
Asbury Carbons, Inc. produces graphite and carbon products.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Seth R. Lesser, Esq.
Jeffrey A. Klafter, Esq.
KLAFTER LESSER LLP
Two International Drive, Suite 350
Rye Brook, NY 10573
Telephone: (914) 934-9200
E-mail: seth@klafterlesser.com
jak@klafterlsesser.com
AUDIOPHILE MUSIC: Class Settlement in Tuttle Gets Initial Nod
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEPHEN J. TUTTLE, et al.,
v. AUDIOPHILE MUSIC DIRECT INC., et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-01081-JLR
(W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge James L. Robart entered an order
preliminary approval of class action settlement:
-- The court finds that the Amended Settlement Agreement resulted
from arm's-length negotiations and is sufficient to warrant
notice thereof to members of the Class and scheduling of the
final approval hearing.
-- The court preliminarily finds, for the reasons set forth
above,
that the Amended Settlement Agreement is fair, adequate, and
reasonable pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(e)(2).
-- The court preliminarily finds, for the reasons set forth
above, that the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure
23(a) and 23(b)(3) are likely to be satisfied and therefore
conditionally certifies the following Class:
"All original retail consumers in the United States who, from
March 19, 2007, through July 27, 2022 purchased, either
directly
from a the Defendant or other retail merchants, new and unused
Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab, Inc. (MoFi) vinyl recordings which
were marketed by the Defendants using the series labeling
descriptors "Original Master Recording" and/or "Ultradisc
One-
Step," that were sourced from original analog master tapes and
which utilized a direct stream digital transfer step in the
mastering chain, and provided that said purchasers still own
said
recordings.
Excluded from the Class are persons who obtained subject
Applicable Records from other sources.
-- The court appoints Kroll Settlement Administration LLC as the
Settlement Administrator. Kroll shall fulfill the functions,
duties, and responsibilities of the Settlement Administrator
as
set forth in the Amended Settlement Agreement and this
Order.
-- The court appoints the Plaintiffs Stephen J. Tuttle and Dustin
Collman as Class representatives for settlement purposes
only.
-- The court appoints Duncan Calvert Turner of Badgley Mullins
Turner PLLC as Class counsel for settlement purposes only.
The following deadlines shall govern proceedings through the final
approval hearing:
Notice Deadline June 23, 2023
The Plaintiffs' Counsel's Fee July 18, 2023
Motion Deadline
Exclusion/Objection Deadline August 22, 2023
Parties' Final Approval Motion October 6, 2023
Deadline:
Responses to Objections Deadline October 6, 2023
Final Approval Hearing October 30, 2023
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants represented that many of
these recordings were produced using analog-only processes when, in
fact, they were not. Approximately 123 OMR and One-Step recordings
that the Plaintiffs allege the Defendants had represented were
analog-only but in fact were produced using a digital processing
step are at issue in this litigation.
Audiophile is a producer and seller of vinyl music recordings.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 9, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BQcItL at no extra charge.[CC]
AUSTRALIA: Sheep Farmers Warn of Class Action Over Live Export Ban
------------------------------------------------------------------
Brad Thompson and Tom Rabe at afr.com reports that farmers have
warned the Albanese government it faces a class action unless it
backs down on moves to permanently shut down the live sheep trade,
as West Australian Premier Mark McGowan concedes he is powerless to
reverse the impending ban.
West Australian farmers will be hardest hit by the phasing out of
live sheep exports by sea. Farmers told The Australian Financial
Review that the ban would have far-reaching implications for rural
communities and a domino effect on all livestock production by
emboldening animal rights activists.
Federal Labor has committed to phasing out live sheep exports,
though not in its first term of government.
Farmer and Wagin Shire president Phillip Blight estimated the drop
in value of the 15 million sheep in WA as a result of the pending
ban at $900 million. "That damage is irreversible, a class action
is imminent," he said.
WA Premier Mark McGowan is opposed to the federal plan, but asked
whether he could do more to prevent the shutdown of the live sheep
export industry, he said: "I can't work miracles".
"I did everything I could for them. [The government] made their
decision, I raised the issue... I went public on it," he said.
"In terms of the compensation, it will be the responsibility of the
Commonwealth government."
Corrigin stud merino breeder Steven Bolt said the live export
industry had gone to great lengths to clean up its act since 2019
with mortality rates on shipments from WA to the Middle East now at
record lows.
"The industry is improving voyage-on-voyage and with Australia
leading the way that flows across the globe to other live exported
animals," he said.
"The result of pressure from activist groups is that the government
is making a decision that's not based on the science and the
evidence.
Mr Bolt, who came within a whisker of losing his home in a bushfire
that ripped through prime WA farmland in February 2022, said
farmers were already selling out of sheep because they could not
cope with the uncertainty.
He said it was extremely disappointing that WA premier Mark Mc
McGowan refused to intervene with his Labor colleagues in Canberra
to help rural communities.
In Wagin in April about 150 farmers turned up at short notice to
voice concerns to a four-person panel providing feedback to Federal
Agriculture Minister Murray Watt about how and when to phase out
live sheep exports.
Mr Blight said the price of wethers waiting for a market had
plunged with a collective loss to farmers at the meeting of $6
million.
"There are at least 300,000 more sheep in Wagin that have also lost
about $50 per head in value," he said.
"The total loss is $21 million to the Wagion economy and at a
marginal tax rate of 25 per cent, a loss to the government of over
$5 million in tax revenue.
"To broaden this out to the 15 million sheep in WA currently, I
estimate the net drop in value is $900 million. "
Mr Blight said it was a disgrace that the Albanese government
hadn't already paid compensation to cattle producers affected by a
snap ban on exports to Indonesia imposed by the then Gillard
government in 2011.
Advisory panel chair Phillip Glyde said farmers had raised concerns
over potential impacts on WA agricultural infrastructure, given
more sheep would likely need to be slaughtered at local abattoirs,
which are already experiencing significant backlogs.
Mr Glyde, the former chief executive of the Murray Darling Basin
Authority, said the policy had created heavy uncertainty within the
WA farming industry.
"There's this part of the business that might be disappearing, or
being reduced, what does it mean for their overall activity and
what does that mean for the supply industry - the shearers, the
diesel mechanics - what does it mean for communities in small towns
that are heavily dependent upon grazing," he said.
"All of that is really coming out loud and clear to us and a lot of
people are just worried about the uncertainty that it causes."
The panel will provide a report to the federal Agriculture Minister
Murray Watt by the end of September. The Federal Court ruled in
2020 that the government had acted unlawfully and unreasonably,
paving the way for talks to settle the class action at a cost of up
to $1.2 billion.
Reforms in the live sheep trade since harrowing footage emerged of
animals dying of heat stress have included a ban on shipments to
the Middle East during summer in the Northern Hemisphere.[GN]
BADIA SPICES: "New Mexico Chili" Misdescriptive, Reyes Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Celeste Reyes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Badia Spices, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-03607 (E.D.N.Y.,
May 15, 2023) alleges that the Defendant's "New Mexico Chili"
replete with imagery associated with New Mexico in the form of
indigenous markings and design under the Badia brand (Product) is
deceptively misdescriptive as a name because the Product is not
grown in New Mexico.
The Plaintiff contends that even if consumers turned the package
around they would not be informed the Product is not from New
Mexico, because the ingredients identify "New Mexican chili" and
the label is not required to disclose its country of origin. That
the Product is not grown in New Mexico is only disclosed on
Defendant's website, indicating the New Mexico chili peppers'
country of origin is Mexico. The Plaintiff read and relied on "New
Mexico Chilis" and the Native American graphics to believe it had a
bona fide connection to the referenced place. The Plaintiff asserts
that she did not know the Product was not from the referenced
place.
The value of the Product that the Plaintiff purchased was
materially less than its value as represented by the Defendant. As
a result of the false and misleading representations, the Product
is sold at a premium price, $6.99 for 6.0 oz, excluding tax and
sales, the Plaintiff says.
The Plaintiff seeks certification of the following classes:
New York Class: All persons in the State of New York who
purchased the Product during the statutes of limitations
for each cause of action alleged;
Consumer Fraud Multi-State Class: All persons in the States
of North Dakota, Utah, Idaho, Alaska and West Virginia who
purchased the Product during the statutes of limitations
for each cause of action alleged.
The Plaintiff purchased the Product between June 2020 and the
present at stores near where she lives, such as the Western Beef
Supermarket in Staten Island.
The Defendant is a seller of spices under its own brand and
third-parties, otherwise known as "private label."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412
Great Neck NY 11021
Telephone: (516) 268-7080
E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com
- and -
James Chung, Esq.
JAMES CHUNG LAW OFFICE
4322 216th St
Bayside NY 11361
Telephone: (718) 461-8808
E-mail: jchung_77@msn.com
BAYER AG: 1000++ Women Join Suit Over Contraceptives in Victoria
----------------------------------------------------------------
nine.com.au reports that a class action is continuing in the
Supreme Court of Victoria, after more than 1000 women claimed to
have fallen victim to a permanent contraceptive device.
The Essure coil device, which was once hailed as a medical
breakthrough, was placed on the Australian Register of Therapeutic
Goods in 1999.
In 2014, the reporting of adverse effects emerged and in a
statement to A Current Affair, a Therapeutic Goods Administration
spokesperson said "the TGA [had] received 114 reports associated
with the Essure device," as of 13 April 2023.[GN]
BLOCK.ONE: EOS Network Sues Over Unmaterialized Investment
----------------------------------------------------------
James Morales, writing for BeInCrypto, reports that after raising
over 4 billion USD in a 2018 ICO, Block.one promised to invest one
billion dollars in supporting the EOS ecosystem.
Five years on, the relationship between Block.one and the EOS
Network Foundation has soured after the investment never
materialized.
Now, the foundation is threatening to bring a class action lawsuit
against Block.one. [GN]
BLUE RIBBON IP: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Blue Ribbon IP, LLC.
The case is styled as Jenny Hwang, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Blue Ribbon IP, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-03582-CBA-TAM (E.D.N.Y., May 12, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Blue Ribbon IP, LLC doing business as CLUCK YEAH! --
https://www.cluckyeah.co.uk/ -- is the cool new kid on the Take
Away chicken block.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
14749 71st Ave.
Flushing, NY 11367
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due March 19, 2024
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RANBIR GUJRAL and DANIELLE
EMERSON, on behalf of themselves and the Putative Class, v. BMW OF
NORTH AMERICA, LLC, and BAYERISCHE MOTOREN WERKE
AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT, Case No. 2:19-cv-20581-CCC-AME (D.N.J.), the
Hon. Judge André M. Espinosa entered a fourth amended scheduling
order as follows:
-- On March 19, 2024, the Plaintiffs shall file their class
certification motion and all papers in support thereof.
-- The parties shall exercise diligence in meeting the deadlines
set by this Order. Any request for modification of the
schedule
shall be made in writing at least ten days before the
expiration
of the deadline it seeks to extend and shall be supported by
a
clear articulation of good cause.
-- Fact Discovery Deadline. No fact discovery is to be issued or
engaged in beyond this date, except upon application and for
good cause shown.
-- Motions to Add New Parties or Amend Pleadings. No motions to
amend or add parties is permitted beyond this date, except
upon
application and for good cause shown.
-- Electronic Discovery. The parties are directed to Rule 26(f),
as
amended, which, addresses preservation of discoverable
information, discovery of electronically stored information,
and
claims of privilege or work product protection.
-- Class Certification Expert Reports. the Plaintiffs' class
certification expert report(s) shall be delivered June 15,
2023.
-- Discovery Related to Class Certification Experts. Discovery
related to the Plaintiffs' class certification expert(s)
shall
be completed by August 15, 2023.
BMW is an importer and distributor of BMW luxury and performance
vehicles, and light trucks.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 10, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ItjadE at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Bruce H. Nagel, Esq.
Randee M. Matloff, Esq.
NAGEL RICE LLP
103 Eisenhower Parkway
Roseland, NJ 07068
Telephone: (973) 618-0400
The Defendant is represented by:
Christopher J. Dalton, Esq.
Argia J. DiMarco, Esq.
Melissa J. Bayly, Esq.
BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC
550 Broad Street, Suite 810
Newark, NJ 07102
Telephone: (973) 273-9800
BNG CONSTRUCTION: Romero Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Yuver Noel Romero and Miguel Angel Arroyo, Plaintiffs v. BNG
Construction, Inc. and Bettina A. Fulford, Defendants, Case No.
6:23-cv-00858 (M.D. Fla., May 9, 2023) is a class action brought by
the Plaintiffs, on behalf all similarly situated employees, due to
Defendants' alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs and the employees they seek to represent are current
and former employees of Defendants who worked within the past three
years. The Defendants knowingly, deliberately, and voluntarily
failed to pay their employees for all hours worked over 40 in a
workweek at the federal and state mandated overtime rate, assert
the Plaintiffs.
BNG Construction is a construction business that is located,
headquartered, and conducts business in Sanford, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Daniel I. Schlade, Esq.
JUSTICIA LABORAL, LLC
6232 N. Pulaski, #300
Chicago, IL 60646
Telephone: (773) 550-3775
E-mail: dschlade@justicialaboral.com
BOTANIC TONICS: Supplement Capsules Causes Addiction, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
C.C., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. BOTANIC TONICS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-03687
(C.D. Cal., May 15, 2023) is a class action lawsuit against the
Defendant for deceptive sales practices regarding its "Feel Free"
Tonic and Herbal Supplement Capsules.
According to the complaint, the Defendant tells consumers that its
Feel Free products deliver energy, focus and a "social lift." The
key ingredient in the products is kratom. However, what reasonable
consumers do not know, and what the Defendant fails to disclose, is
that kratom works on the same opioid receptors in the human brain
as morphine and its analogs, has similar effects, and has similar
risks of physical addiction and dependency, with similar withdrawal
symptoms, says the suit.
The Defendant intentionally and negligently failed to disclose
these material facts anywhere on its labeling, packaging, or
marketing materials, and it has violated warranty law and state
consumer protection laws in the process, the suit asserts.
BOTANIC TONICS, LLC offers plant-based wellness tonics. They
provide an alternative to alcohol, energy drinks, and synthetic
focus enhancers. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yeremey Krivoshey, Esq.
Joel D. Smith, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
E-mail: jsmith@bursor.com
ykrivoshey@bursor.com
- and -
Matthew R. Mendelsohn, Esq.
MAZIE SLATER KATZ & FREEMAN LLC
103 Eisenhower Parkway
Roseland, NJ 07068
Telephone: (973) 228-9898
E-mail: mrm@mazieslater.com
BPROTOCOL FOUNDATION: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Naming Due July 14
----------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on May 21
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
U.S.-based investors, also called liquidity providers ("LPs"), in
Bancor Version 3 ("Bancor v3") between May 11, 2022 and May 11,
2023, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit is against
BProtocol Foundation, Bancor DAO, Galia Benartzi, Guy Benartzi,
Eyal Hertzog, and Yehuda Levy (together, "Defendants"). A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than July 14, 2023.
SO WHAT: If you invested, or provided liquidity, in Bancor v3
during the Class Period and are a U.S. resident you may be entitled
to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs
through a contingency fee arrangement.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Bancor v3 class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=16271 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than July 14, 2023. A
lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any
meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, the Defendants
violated the federal securities laws and various state laws by
offering and selling investment contracts to Bancor v3 liquidity
providers, without registering under applicable federal securities
laws as an exchange or broker-dealer, and without a registration
statement in effect for the securities offered and sold. The
lawsuit also alleges that the Defendants concealed and
misrepresented material information concerning the risks associated
with providing liquidity to Bancor v3.
To join the Bancor v3 class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=16271 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
BRAND SERVICES: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brand Services And
Holdings L.L.C. The case is styled as Denise Crumwell, on behalf of
herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Brand Services
And Holdings L.L.C., Case No. 1:23-cv-03999 (S.D.N.Y., May 12,
2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Brand Services, LLC provides construction services. The Company
offers civil construction, coatings, forming and shoring, cathodic
protection, and mechanical services for oil and gas industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
CAREFIRST: Court OK's Class Action Treatment in Attias Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHANTAL ATTIAS, et al., v.
CAREFIRST, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-00882-CRC (D.D.C.), the Court
entered an order granting the motion for class action treatment
pursuant to FRCP 23(b)(3).
On March 28, 2023, the Court denied without prejudice the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification on the grounds that
neither the Plaintiffs' nor the Defendants' briefs addressed the
United States Supreme Court case TransUnion, LLC. v. Ramirez, 141
S.Ct. 2190 (2021) and other issues or concerns the Court
elucidated.
In light of TransUnion, LLC. v. Ramirez, the Court has cast doubt
on whether the Plaintiffs' common issues of law and fact
predominate over individual inquiries, as required by Rule
23(b)(3).
Therefore, the Court has requested that the parties file Renewed
Motions to address this Court's concerns regarding TransUnion and
its potential effect on Rule 23(b)(3)'s predominance factor.
However, despite the Court's concerns, the TransUnion decision does
not affect this Court's decision regarding class certification.
The 2014 CareFirst data breach was not only a breach of contract
under D.C. common law, but also violated the Maryland Consumer
Protection Act (MCPA) and the Virginia Consumer Protection Act
(VCPA).
In accordance with the Court’s Order, the Plaintiffs now file
this Renewed Motion for Class Certification and argument in support
thereof:
A. The Plaintiffs Have Adequately Identified the Classes
the Plaintiffs seek certification of three classes which
mirror
the corresponding descriptions in the Second Amended
Complaint:
The Contract Class:
"All persons who reside in the District of Columbia, the
State
of Maryland and the Commonwealth of Virginia and have
purchased
and/or possessed health insurance from Carefirst, Inc., Group
Hospitalization and Medical Services, Inc., Carefirst of
Maryland, Inc., and/or Carefirst BlueChoice and whose
personally
identifiable information, personal health information,
sensitive
personal information, and/or financial information was
breached
as a result of the data breach announced on or about May 20,
2015.
The Maryland Consumer Class:
"All persons who reside in the State of Maryland, and have
purchased and/or possessed health insurance from Carefirst,
Inc., Group Hospitalization and Medical Services, Inc.,
Carefirst of Maryland, Inc., and/or Carefirst BlueChoice and
whose personally identifiable information, personal health
information, sensitive personal information, and/or financial
information was breached as a result of the data breach
announced on or about May 20, 2015."
The Virginia Consumer Class:
"All persons who reside in the Commonwealth of Virginia, and
have purchased and/or possessed health insurance from
Carefirst,
Inc., Group Hospitalization and Medical Services, Inc.,
Carefirst of Maryland, Inc., and/or Carefirst BlueChoice and
whose personally identifiable information, personal health
information, sensitive personal information, and/or financial
information was breached as a result of the data breach
announced on or about May 20, 2015.
Carefirst provides medical, dental and vision insurance.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 10, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MrRS8y at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan B. Nace, Esq.
NIDEL & NACE, PLLC
One Church Street, Suite 802
Rockville, MD 20850
Telephone: (202) 780-5153
Facsimile: (301) 963-8135
E-mail: jon@nidellaw.com
- and -
Troy N. Giatras Esq.
Matthew W. Stonestreet, Esq.
THE GIATRAS LAW FIRM, PLLC
118 Capitol Street, Suite 400
Charleston, WV. 25301
E-mail: troy@thewvlawfirm.com
matt@thewvlawfirm.com
Telephone: (304) 343-2900
Facsimile: (304) 343-2942
- and -
Christopher T. Nace, Esq.
PAULSON & NACE, PLLC
1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW, Suite 810
Washington, DC 20007
E-mail: ctnace@paulsonandnace.com
Telephone: (202) 463-1999
Facsimile: (202) 223-6824
CARVIN SOFTWARE: Boyles Files Suit in D. Arizona
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Carvin Wilson
Software LLC. The case is styled as Brandon Boyles, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Carvin Wilson
Software LLC doing business as: Carvin Software LLC, Case No.
2:23-cv-00828-SRB (D. Ariz., May 12, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for
Injunctive & Declaratory Relief.
Carvin Wilson Software LLC doing business as Carvin Software --
https://carvinsoftware.com/ -- specializes in designing and
developing software solutions for staffing and financial management
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Cristina Perez Hesano, Esq.
PEREZ LAW GROUP PLLC
7508 N 59th Ave.
Glendale, AZ 85301
Phone: (623) 826-5593
Email: cperez@perezlawgroup.com
- and -
Kennedy Marie Brian, Esq.
William B Federman, Esq.
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
10205 N Pennsylvania Ave.
Oklahoma City, OK 73120
Phone: (405) 235-1560
Fax: (405) 239-2112
Email: kpb@federmanlaw.com
wbf@federmanlaw.com
CARVIN SOFTWARE: Fails to Secure Client's Personal Info, Lipp Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
SASHA LIPP, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CARVIN SOFTWARE, LLC (CS); and DOES 1-10, Case No.
2:23-cv-03681 (C.D. Cal., May 15, 2023) alleges that the Defendant
failed to implement and maintain reasonable cybersecurity
procedures that resulted in a data breach of its systems in or
around February 22, 2023, through March 9, 2023.
On or around May 2, 2023, CS mailed data breach notices to impacted
parties. According to notice mailed to impacted individuals, the
breach resulted in individuals' name and social security number
being exposed to unauthorized third parties.
The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint to redress
injuries related to the data breach, on behalf of herself and a
nationwide class and California class of similarly situated
persons. The Plaintiff also brings claims on behalf of a California
subclass for violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act, the
California Customer Records Act, violation of the California Unfair
Competition Law, and for invasion of privacy based on the
California Constitution.
As a direct and foreseeable result of CS's alleged negligent
failure to implement and maintain reasonable data security
procedures and practices and the resultant breach of its systems,
the Plaintiff and all class members, have suffered harm in that
their sensitive personal information has been exposed to
cybercriminals and they have an increased stress, risk, and fear of
identity theft and fraud.
Plaintiff Sasha Lipp is a citizen and resident of the State of
California whose personal identifying information was part of the
February and March 2023 data breach.
Carvin is a software company based in Gilbert, Arizona. The company
creates software based on its clients' individual needs to provide
customized and industry-specific solutions and conducts business in
Los Angeles County California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason M. Wucetich, Esq.
Dimitrios V. Korovilas, Esq.
WUCETICH & KOROVILAS LLP
222 N. Pacific Coast Hwy., Suite 2000
El Segundo, CA 90245
Telephone: (310) 335-2001
Facsimile: (310) 364-5201
E-mail: jason@wukolaw.com
dimitri@wukolaw.com
CARVIN SOFTWARE: Halpren Sues Over Data Breach
----------------------------------------------
Michael Halpren, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Carvin Wilson Software, LLC., d/b/a Carvin Software,
Case No. 2:23-cv-00845-DWL (D. Ariz., May 15, 2023), is brought
seeking to hold Carvin, a company offering software and consulting
services to staffing and financial management companies,
responsible for the injuries it inflicted on Plaintiff and
similarly situated persons arising from a data breach of Carvin's
systems between February 22 and March 9, 2023 (the "Data Breach"),
asserting claims for: negligence; unjust enrichment; breach of
contract; violation of California's Consumer Privacy Act; violation
of California's Unfair Competition Law; breach of fiduciary duty;
and Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief.
Carvin's negligent cybersecurity practices resulted in the exposure
of the personal information of Plaintiff and those similarly
situated to cybercriminals. Upon information and belief, the Data
Breach involved approximately 187,360 consumers. The data that
Carvin exposed to cybercriminals was highly sensitive. The exposed
data includes personal identifying information ("PII") like Social
Security Numbers, names, addresses, and financial information.
Carvin collected PII and then maintained that sensitive data in a
negligent and/or reckless manner. As evidenced by the Data Breach,
Carvin inadequately maintained its network--rendering it easy prey
for cybercriminals. Upon information and belief, the risk of the
Data Breach was known to Carvin. Thus, Carvin was on notice that
its inadequate data security created a heightened risk of exposure,
compromise, and theft.
The Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered--and will continue to
suffer--from the loss of the benefit of their bargain, unexpected
out-of-pocket expenses, lost or diminished value of their PII,
emotional distress, and the value of their time reasonably incurred
to mitigate the fallout of the Carvin's Data Breach. Through this
action, Plaintiff seeks to remedy these injuries on behalf of
himself and all similarly situated individuals whose PII were
exposed and compromised in the Data Breach, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is unsure how Carvin got his information but assumes
a staffing company receiving its software and financial accounting
services from Carvin provided Carvin with his PII, including but
not limited to his name, Social Security Number, and financial
information.
Carvin is a software and consulting company that designs and
develops software solutions for staffing and financial
companies.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Elaine A. Ryan, Esq.
Colleen M. Auer, Esq.
AUER RYAN, P.C.
20987 N. John Wayne Parkway, #B104-374
Maricopa, AZ 85139
Phone: (520) 705-7332
Email: eryan@auer-ryan.com
cauer@auer-ryan.com
- and –
Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
613 Williamson Street, Suite 201
Madison, WI 53703
Phone: (608) 237-1775
Facsimile: (608) 509-4423
Email: raina@turkestrauss.com
CATSCO INC: Kuzminski Sues Over Unsolicited Texts
-------------------------------------------------
Eric Kuzminski, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CATSCO, INC. D/B/A MY TROPX, Case No. CACE-23-013640
(Fla. 17th Judicial Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., May 15, 2023), is
brought asserting a class action claim for monetary and treble
damages pursuant to the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act ("FTSA")
and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 ("TCPA") as a
result of the Defendant unsolicited texts.
The Plaintiffs cell phone number was registered on the Do Not Call
("DNC") list on May 19, 2005. The Plaintiffs cell phone is for
personal use only. It is not used as a business number. Beginning
June, 2022, the Defendant began spamming Plaintiff with unsolicited
texts to Plaintiffs cellular telephone number. The Defendant's
calls and/or texts constitute telemarketing because they were
solely made to encourage the future purchase or investment in
property, goods, or services. The Defendant's calls and/or text(s)
failed to disclose the name of the individual caller and/or the
entity on whose behalf the call was made, and/or a telephone number
or address at which the person or entity may be contacted as
required pursuant to the FTSA and TCPA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was in Florida when the Plaintiff received the above
text message calls, and the Defendant's violative conduct occurred
in substantial part in Florida.
The Defendant maintains its primary place of business and
headquarters in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy Dover, Esq.
DEMESMIN & DOVER, PLLC
1650 SE 17th street, suite 100
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
Phone: (866) 954-6673
Facsimile: (954) 916-8499
Email: SPAM-Pleadings@attorneysoftheinjured.com
Jdover@attorneysoftheinjured.com
CAVCO INDUSTRIES: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues
its investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of Cavco Industries, Inc. (NASDAQ: CVCO) resulting
from allegations that Cavco may have issued materially misleading
business information to the investing public.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Cavco 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=7555 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On November 8, 2018, Cavco revealed in an SEC
filing that it had "received a subpoena from the SEC's Division of
Enforcement requesting certain documents relating to, among other
items, trading in the stock of another public company." On this
news, Cavco share price fell $49.48 per share, or over 23%, to
close at $165.20 per share on November 9, 2018.
On February 4, 2019, Cavco revealed that it had received requests
for additional documents. Cavco further disclosed that it spent,
and expected to spend, millions of dollars on legal and insurance
expenses in relation to the SEC's subpoenas and Cavco's independent
investigation into the matter. On this news, Cavco's share price
fell $26.92 per share, or about 16.7%, to close at $134.37 per
share on February 5, 2019.
On September 2, 2021, the SEC filed a complaint against Cavco,
former CEO Joseph Stegmayer, and former CFO and Chief Compliance
Officer Daniel Urness. The SEC complaint alleged that Stegmayer and
Urness caused Cavco to purchase shares of publicly traded companies
on material non-public information. On this news, Cavco's share
price fell $6.59 per share, or about 2.5%, to close at $252.48 per
share on September 3, 2021.
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 has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. 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
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
CHARLES RIVER: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due July 18
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder
rights law firm, disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been
filed against Charles River Laboratories International, Inc.
("Charles River" or the "Company") (NYSE: CRL) in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of all
persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Charles
River securities between May 5, 2020 and February 21, 2023, both
dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors have until July 18,
2023 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the
lawsuit.
On February 22, 2023, before the market opened, Charles River
revealed that it had received a subpoena from the U.S. Department
of Justice ("DOJ") relating to an ongoing investigation in
conjunction with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ("USFWS") into
the supply chain and illegal importation of non-human primates for
research. The Company noted that it was voluntarily suspending
shipments of primates from Cambodia, which would negatively impact
its earnings for the year and would reduce revenue growth by 200
basis points to 400 basis points.
On this news, Charles River's stock price fell $24.51, or 10%, to
close at $219.09 per share on February 22, 2023, on unusually heavy
trading volume.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that Charles River had engaged in illegal activity
with respect to its importation of non-human primates for research;
(2) that, as a result, Charles River was at a heightened risk of
criminal and regulatory investigation by, inter alia, the U.S.
Department of Justice; (3) that, as a result, Charles River would
be forced to suspend shipments of primates from Cambodia; and (4)
that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were
materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Charles River shares and
suffered a loss, are a long-term stockholder, have information,
would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Brandon Walker or Marion
Passmore by email at investigations@bespc.com, telephone at (212)
355-4648, or by filling out this contact form. There is no cost or
obligation to you.
About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in commercial,
securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and
federal courts across the country. For more information about the
firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Contacts
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Marion Passmore, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]
CHARLES RIVER: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), announces that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, captioned Coleman v. Charles River
Laboratories International, Inc., et al., Case No. 23-cv-11132, on
behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired
Charles River Laboratories International, Inc. ("Charles River" or
the "Company") (NYSE: CRL) securities between May 5, 2020 and
February 21, 2023, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff
pursues claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").
Investors are hereby notified that they have 60 days from the date
of this notice to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this
action.
If you suffered a loss on your Charles River investments or would
like to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your
loss under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact
information at
www.glancylaw.com/cases/Charles-River-Laboratories-International-Inc/.
You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at
shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights.
On February 22, 2023, before the market opened, Charles River
revealed that it had received a subpoena from the U.S. Department
of Justice ("DOJ") relating to an ongoing investigation in
conjunction with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ("USFWS") into
the supply chain and illegal importation of non-human primates for
research. The Company noted that it was voluntarily suspending
shipments of primates from Cambodia, which would negatively impact
its earnings for the year and would reduce revenue growth by 200
basis points to 400 basis points.
On this news, Charles River's stock price fell $24.51, or 10%, to
close at $219.09 per share on February 22, 2023, on unusually heavy
trading volume.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that Charles River had engaged in illegal activity
with respect to its importation of non-human primates for research;
(2) that, as a result, Charles River was at a heightened risk of
criminal and regulatory investigation by, inter alia, the U.S.
Department of Justice; (3) that, as a result, Charles River would
be forced to suspend shipments of primates from Cambodia; and (4)
that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were
materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Charles River securities
during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than 60
days from the date of this notice to ask the Court to appoint you
as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need not take
any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or
take no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you
wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire,
of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles California
90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.[GN]
CHELSEA MARKET: Lopez Sues Over Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------
Marlon Waldemar Cardona Lopez a/k/a Cardona Lopez, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. CHELSEA MARKET DELI
LLC d/b/a FRIEDMAN'S; PHILLIPS 35 INC. d/b/a FRIEDMAN'S; FRIEDMAN'S
31ST STREET LLC d/b/a FRIEDMAN'S; FRIEDMAN'S 47TH LLC d/b/a
FRIEDMAN'S; PAG 72ND STREET INC d/b/a FRIEDMAN'S; JONAH'S PASTRAMI
LLC d/b/a FRIEDMAN'S; FRIEDMAN'S ON GRAND LLC d/b/a FRIEDMAN'S;
JONAH PHILLIPS, and ALAN PHILLIPS, Case No. 1:23-cv-03996
(S.D.N.Y., May 12, 2023), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"), that he is entitled to recover from
Defendants: unpaid wages, including overtime premium, unpaid wages,
including overtime premium, due to invalid tip credit, unpaid wages
due to time-shaving, compensation for improperly deducted meal
credits, liquidated damages, statutory penalties, and attorneys'
fees and costs.
Throughout his employment with Defendants, Defendants failed to pay
Plaintiff at the proper overtime premium. Additionally,
approximately 2 times per week, Plaintiff would clock out for the
end of his shift, but was stopped before leaving and required to
continue working for 30 minutes, off the clock. Throughout
Plaintiff's employment, Defendants also automatically deducted a
meal credit from employees' wages for each shift they worked,
without regard to whether their employees actually consumed the
credited meal. Plaintiff, the Tipped Subcollective, and the Tipped
Subclass were paid below the minimum wage at an invalid "tip
credit" minimum wage. Throughout Plaintiff's employment, Defendants
also automatically deducted a meal credit from employees' wages for
each shift they worked, without regard to whether the meal credit
deducted exceed the meals "reasonable cost." The Defendants
knowingly and willfully operated their business with a policy of
not paying the FLSA minimum wage or the New York State minimum
wage, and the proper overtime rate thereof for hours worked over 40
in a workweek, to Plaintiff, the Tipped Subcollective, and Tipped
Subclass members. Defendants were not entitled to claim any tip
credits under the FLSA or the NYLL, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was re-hired by the Defendants as a runner/busser at
Defendants' "Friedman's", located in New York City.
The Defendants own and operate a chain of restaurants under the
trade name "Friedman's."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor
New York, NY 10011
Phone: 212-465-1188
Fax: 212-465-1181
CHEMOURS CO: Bid to Stay Deadline to Select Mediator OK'd
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAMMIE PRISELAC,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, THE CHEMOURS COMP ANY, E.I. DUPONT DE
NEMOURS AND COMPANY, INC., E.I. DUPONT CHEMICAL CORPORATION,
CORTEVA, INC., DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC., ELLIS H. MCGAUGHY, BRIAN D.
LONG, and MICHAEL E. JOHNSON, Case No. 7:20-cv-00190-D (E.D.N.C.),
the Hon. Judge James C. Dever III entered an order granting the
parties' joint motion to stay the deadline to select a mediator.
The parties' deadline to select a mediator is stayed. The Court
will set a new deadline after resolution of the class-certification
phase of the case.
Chemours Company is a leading manufacturer and developer of
fluorochemical, fluoropolymer, specialty, and industrial chemical
ingredients.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 9, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45k2KOP at no extra charge.[CC]
CHEMOURS CO: Filing of Class Status Bid Due June 29, 2024
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAMMIE PRISELAC,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, E.I. DUPONT DE
NEMOURS AND COMPANY, INC., E.I. DUPONT CHEMICAL CORPORATION,
CORTEVA, INC., DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC., ELLIS H. MCGAUGHY, BRIAN D.
LONG, and MICHAEL E. JOHNSON, Case No. 7:20-cv-00190-D (E.D.N.C.),
the Hon. Judge JAMES C. DEVER III entered a second amended
scheduling order as follows:
1. All fact discovery related to class Dec. 17, 2023
certification, including depositions
of class representatives, must be
completed by:
2. The Plaintiffs expert disclosures on Jan. 17, 2024.
all matters related to class
certification must be served by:
3. Rebuttal expert disclosures, limited April 10, 2024
to responding to opinions stated by
initial experts, if any, must be
served by:
4. Surrebuttal expert disclosures, if May 21, 2024
any, must be served on or before:
5. All expert discovery related to June 17, 2024
class certification must be completed
by:
6. The Plaintiffs' motions for class June 29, 2024
certification and/or summary judgment
are due by:
4. The Defendants' motions for summary Aug.26, 2024
judgment, Daubert motions, and
opposition to the Plaintiffs' motions
for class certification and/or summary
judgment, are due by:
5. The Plaintiffs' reply briefs in support Oct. 22, 2024
of motions for class certification
and/orsummary judgment, and opposition
to the Defendants' motions for summary
judgment and Daubert motions are due by:
6. The Defendants' reply briefs in support Dec. 3, 2024
of motions for summary judgment and
Daubert motions are due by:
Chemours Company is a leading manufacturer and developer of
fluorochemical, fluoropolymer, specialty, and industrial chemical
ingredients.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 9, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3By93R2 at no extra charge.[CC]
CHOBANI LLC: Franco Sues Over Deceptive Package Labeling
--------------------------------------------------------
Jason Franco, Abigail Franco, Misty M. Lacy, and John D. Baker
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated class
and subclass members v. Chobani, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-03047 (N.D.
Ill., May 15, 2023), is brought against the Defendant's deceptive
package labeling of CHOBANI ZERO SUGAR yogurt, in violation of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act
("ICFA") and violations of similar consumer protection laws and
Little-FTC Acts enacted in the other states.
Every serving of CHOBANI ZERO SUGAR yogurt is sweetened with 4
grams of allulose. Allulose is a naturally occurring sugar found in
figs, raisins, wheat, maple syrup and molasses. This is a
straightforward case. Defendant has sold millions of containers of
yogurt to unsuspecting consumers by telling them that it has "zero
sugar" and "no sugar." As it turns out, CHOBANI ZERO SUGAR contains
quite a lot of sugar. Selling consumers a food product that is
intentionally mislabeled and intended to deceive them violates a
whole host of laws, including consumer fraud and false advertising
laws that have been enacted by state legislatures across the
country. It is also just plain wrong, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs purchased Chobani's deceptively labeled product.
Chobani, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with ts
principal executive office in Norwich, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yates M. French, Esq.
Heather L. Kramer, Esq.
Amanda M. Zannoni, Esq.
RATHJE WOODWARD LLC
300 E. Roosevelt Road, Suite 300
Wheaton, IL 60187
Phone: 630-668-8550
Email: yfrench@rathjewoodward.com
hkramer@rathjewoodward.com
azannoni@rathjewoodward.com
- and -
Alexander H. Burke, Esq.
BURKE LAW OFFICES LLC
909 Davis Street, Suite 500
Evanston, IL 60201
Phone: 312-729-5288
Email: ABurke@BurkeLawLLC.com
CIMA'S LANDSCAPE: Vasquez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cima's Landscape &
Maintenance, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Jesus Vasquez, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Paradise
Oaks Youth Services, Does 1-10, Case No. 23CV001639 (Cal. Super.
Ct., Sacramento Cty., May 12, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case."
Cima's Landscape & Maintenance, Inc. --
http://www.cimalandscape.com/-- have become the go-to landscaping
company in the area.[BN]
CLUB 360: Filing of Class Cert. Bid Continued to May 30
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Edwin Bazarganfard, et
al., v. Club 360 LLC, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-02272-CBM-PLA (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Consuelo B. Marshall entered an order that
Counsel must be notified that pursuant to the Judge's directive,
the motion for class certification, currently on calendar for May
16, 2023, is continued to May 30, 2023.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 9, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3W992MG at no extra charge.[CC]
COINBASE GLOBAL: Continues to Defend Underwood Class Suit in SDNY
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Coinbase Global Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2023, that Company continues to
defend itself from the Underwood class suit in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.
In October 2021, a purported class action captioned Underwood et
al. v. Coinbase Global, Inc., was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York against the Company alleging
claims under Sections 5, 15(a)(1) and 29(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and
violations of certain California and Florida state statutes.
On March 11, 2022, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding
Coinbase, Inc. and Brian Armstrong as defendants and adding causes
of action.
Among other relief requested, the plaintiffs sought injunctive
relief, unspecified damages, attorneys' fees and costs.
On February 1, 2023, the court dismissed all federal claims (with
prejudice) and state law claims (without prejudice) against
Coinbase Global, Inc., Coinbase, Inc. and Brian Armstrong.
Subsequently, on February 9, 2023, the plaintiffs filed a notice of
appeal of the District Court's ruling.
The Company and other defendants continue to dispute the claims in
this case and intend to vigorously defend against them.
Coinbase Global, a Delaware corporation, is one of the world's
largest crypto asset exchanges.[BN]
COLUMBUS REGIONAL: Parties Seek Extension of Class Cert. Deadlines
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BARBARA GOODMAN, LISA
COUNTRYMAN, SHARON CLARKE, CHERYL GALLOPS, SHERRI STUCKEY, LAUREN
SPIVEY and TIFFANY HAIRSTON-LOTT, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, v. COLUMBUS REGIONAL HEALTHCARE
SYSTEM, INC., Case No. 4:21-cv-00015-CDL (M.D. Ga.), the Parties
ask the Court to enter an order extending the discovery period, and
the deadlines for the Defendant's response to the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification and the Plaintiffs' reply thereto
set forth in the Amended Scheduling Order.
Pursuant to the Amended Scheduling Order, the period for fact
discovery is set to end on May 10, 2023.
The Parties have been diligent in their discovery efforts, and have
substantially completed discovery, including written discovery,
document production, third-party discovery, and the taking of the
Defendant's 30(b)(6) deposition, two fact witness depositions, two
third-party 30(b)(6) depositions, and the depositions of three of
the named the Plaintiffs (counting the one being taken today).
Despite these efforts, due to counsel for the Plaintiffs and the
Defendant having been ill in recent weeks, as well as other
scheduling conflicts, the depositions of three of the named the
Plaintiffs remain to be taken. One deposition is scheduled for
tomorrow. The Parties are scheduling the remaining two depositions
over the next several days, and respectfully request that the Court
extend the discovery deadline to May 19, 2023, so that these
depositions may be scheduled.
In addition, the Defendant's deadline to respond to the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification is May 15, 2023, and the Plaintiffs'
reply is due June 9, 2023. Due to counsel's illnesses and the
remaining depositions that need to be taken, the Parties request a
short extension of the Defendant’s response deadline, to May 26,
2023 (one week after the close of fact discovery), with a
corresponding adjustment to the Plaintiffs' reply deadline from
June 9, 2023 to June 20, 2023.
Columbus Regional Health is a nationally recognized health system
serving a 10-county region in southeastern Indiana.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 10, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Ov13Ia at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
John Williamson, Esq.
Chris York, Esq.
WILLIAMSON & YORK, LLC
2727 Paces Ferry Road, SE
Building One, Suite 750
Atlanta, GA 30339
Telephone: (678) 358-9317
E-mail: jwilliamson@williamsonyork.com
attorneychrisyork@gmail.com
- and -
James H. White, IV, Esq.
JAMES WHITE FIRM, LLC
2100 Morris Avenue
Birmingham, AL 35203
E-mail: james@whitefirmllc.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Emily E. Friedman, Esq.
Colin Ðặng Delaney, Esq.
Monica P. Witte, Esq.
SMITH GAMBRELL & RUSSELL, LLP
1105 W. Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 1000
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone: (404) 815-3500
Facsimile: (404) 815-3509
E-mail: efriedman@sgrlaw.com
cdelaney@sgrlaw.com
mwitte@sgrlaw.com
CONOCOPHILLIPS: Continues to Defend Federal Class Suit in Texas
---------------------------------------------------------------
ConocoPhillips disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 4, 2023, that the Company continues to defend
itself from federal securities class suit in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
In July 2021, a federal securities class action was filed against
Concho, certain of Concho's officers, and ConocoPhillips as
Concho's successor in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas.
On October 21, 2021, the court issued an order appointing Utah
Retirement Systems and the Construction Laborers Pension Trust for
Southern California as lead plaintiffs (Lead Plaintiffs).
On January 7, 2022, the Lead Plaintiffs filed their consolidated
complaint alleging that Concho made materially false and misleading
statements regarding its business and operations in violation of
the federal securities laws and seeking unspecified damages,
attorneys' fees, costs, equitable/injunctive relief, and such other
relief that may be deemed appropriate.
On February 23, 2023, a Magistrate Judge issued a Memorandum and
Recommendation (R&R) recommending the defendants' Motion to Dismiss
be denied.
The defendants have filed objections to the R&R.
The Company believes the allegations in the action are without
merit and are vigorously defending this litigation.
ConocoPhillips is an exploration and production company based in
Texas. On January 15, 2021, it completed the acquisition of Concho
Resources Inc. (Concho), an independent oil and gas exploration
and
production company with operations in New Mexico and West Texas
focused on the Permian Basin.
CRUNCHBASE INC: Casar Files Placeholder Bid for Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT CASAR and MICHAEL
FINK, Ohio citizens, individually and as the representatives of a
class of similarly situated persons, v. CRUNCHBASE, INC., a
Delaware corporation, Case No. 1:23-cv-00950-JG (N.D. Ohio), the
Plaintiffs filed a "placeholder" motion for class certification to
protect against any potential attempt by Crunchbase to moot their
claims through the tendering of individual relief.
The Plaintiffs file this motion to prevent a "pick-off" of their
claims. The Plaintiffs request the Court allow the "placeholder"
motion for class certification to remain pending to protect against
any alternative pick-off attempt following the Supreme Court’s
decision in Campbell-Ewald.
The proposed class meets the requirements of Rules 23(a), (b)(2),
(b)(3), and (g). the Plaintiffs request that following discovery
and further briefing, the Court certify the class, appoint the
Plaintiffs as the class representatives, and appoint the
Plaintiffs' attorneys as class counsel. The Plaintiffs will file
its memorandum of law in support of its Motion after Rule 23
discovery has been completed. The parties need to meet and confer
and propose a discovery schedule with this Court and the Plaintiffs
respectfully request a status conference with the Court as soon as
practicable to set a discovery schedule on the Plaintiffs' Rule 23
Motion.
The Plaintiffs propose the following class definition:
"All current and former Ohio residents who are not subscribers
to
Crunchbase’s platform and whose name and/or identity are used
to
market paid subscriptions for Crunchbase’s platform."
A class of persons whose personal identifying information is
used
without written consent by Crunchbase to market paid
subscriptions
for its online platform is defined by "objective" criteria and
thus
"ascertainable."
CrunchBase operates as a software company. The Company offers
prospecting and research solutions.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 10, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ItEQq6 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
ANDERSON + WANCA
3701 W. Algonquin Rd. Ste 500
Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
Telephone: (847) 368-1500
E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com
CSC PRODUCTIONS: Monteau Sues Over Unsolicited Sales Call
---------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Monteau, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CSC Productions LLC d/b/a Nutrition Solutions, Case No.
170198079 (Fla. 13th Judicial Cir. Ct., Hillsborough Cty., April 3,
2023), is brought under the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act
("FTSA") as a result of the Defendants unsolicited telephonic sales
calls.
To promote its goods and services, Defendant engages in telephonic
sales calls to consumers without having secured prior express
written consent as required by the FTSA. The Plaintiff and the
Class members have been aggrieved by the Defendant's unlawful
conduct, which adversely affected and infringed upon their legal
rights not to be subjected to the illegal acts at issue. Through
this action, Plaintiff seeks an injunction and statutory damages on
behalf of Plaintiff individually and the Class members and any
other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the
unlawful actions of Defendant, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is an individual and a "called party."
The Defendant is a consumer goods and services retailer.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Benjamin W. Raslavich, Esq.
KUHN RASLAVICH, P.A.
2110 West Platt Street
Tampa, FL 33606
Phone: (813) 422–7782
Facsimile: (813) 422–7783
Email: ben@theKRfirm.com
CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Christian Bautista of Moliving reports that Cushman & Wakefield
faces a lawsuit that claims the brokerage firm stiffed workers out
of at least $21.6 million in wages and fees.
The complaint, filed in a San Francisco court on March 30, outlines
allegations that Cushman & Wakefield failed to pay minimum and
overtime wages and reimburse employees for business expenses. The
company also allegedly failed to provide meal periods and rest
breaks for workers.
The case, a putative class-action lawsuit, was filed by a lead
plaintiff named Anthony Ports. He works as a mobile engineer out of
Cushman & Wakefield's Costa Mesa, California office, according to
the company's website.
The proposed class-action, if approved, would cover a total of
1,932 employees. The class includes people who were employed at the
firm between March 30, 2019 to the date the complaint was filed.
The complaint did not specify where the employees worked.
According to the petition, the total amount that Cushman &
Wakefield supposedly owes its workers is unclear. However, $21.6
million has been set as the minimum amount in question. That figure
includes $5.4 million in waiting time penalties, $4.6 million in
meal period and rest break premiums, $6.9 million in overtime wages
and $4.6 million in minimum wages.
Cushman & Wakefield recently announced that Michelle MacKay, who
has been its chief operating officer since 2020, will be taking
over as its new chief executive. She will replace John Forrester,
who will retire at the end of June.
The firm posted a net loss of $76.4 million in the first quarter.
The firm attributed the loss to drops in leasing and capital
markets revenue. The company also reported difficulties with higher
operating costs due to inflation.
Cushman & Wakefield did not respond to a request for comment.
The company was formed in 1917. Earlier this month, the company
announced that John Cushman III, longtime CEO and grandson of the
firm's co-founder, died at age 82. [GN]
DAVID R. HINES: Hatcher Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Hatcher, individually on behalf of himself, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. DAVID R. HINES, SHERIFF
OF THE COUNTY OF HANOVER, VIRGINIA and THE COUNTY OF HANOVER,
VIRGINIA, Case No. 3:23-cv-00325-JAG (E.D. Va., May 15, 2023), is
brought seeking unpaid wage and overtime compensation for Plaintiff
and all others similarly situated whilst the Deputies were "on
duty" prior to the beginning of their shifts, under the federal and
state laws which establish wage and overtime compensation due to
law enforcement officers.
This action is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"),
the Virginia Wage Payment Act ("VWPA"), the Virginia Gap Pay Act
("VGPA"), the Virginia Overtime Wage Act ("VOWA"), in which
Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation and
liquidated damages from the Defendant. The Plaintiff and those
similarly situated are entitled to recover payment of their unpaid
wages, an equal amount of liquidated damages, prejudgment interest,
and attorney's fees. Further, Defendants' acts amounted to a
"knowing" violation of the VWPA, thus entitling Plaintiff and
putative class members to recovery of triple damages, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants in hourly (non-salary)
capacities for the last three years as a Deputy.
The Sheriff of Hanover County, David R. Hines, operates the
Sheriff's office for and through Hanover County, Virginia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig Juraj Curwood, Esq.
Zev H. Antell, Esq.
Samantha R. Galina, Esq.
BUTLER CURWOOD, PLC
140 Virginia Street, Suite 302
Richmond, VA 23219
Phone: (804) 648-4848
Fax: (804) 237-0413
Email: craig@butlercurwood.com
zev@butlercurwood.com
samantha@butlercurwood.com
DELTA T LLC: Discloses Web Users Info to Google, Rodriguez Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
REBEKA RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. DELTA T LLC, a Kentucky limited liability
company d/b/a WWW.BIGASSFANS.COM, Case No. 2:23-cv-03717 (C.D.
Cal., May 15, 2023) alleges that, whenever someone watches a video
on www.bigassfans.com, the Defendant secretly reports all the
details to Google the visitor's personally identifiable information
and the titles watched in violation of the Video Privacy Protection
Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant knowingly disclosed
Plaintiff's and Class members' PII because it used that data to
build audiences on Google and retarget them for its advertising
campaigns, the Plaintiff claims. The Plaintiff and Class members
did not provide Defendant with any form of consent—either written
or otherwise—to disclose their PII to third parties, the suit
says.
Accordingly, the Defendant's alleged disclosures were not made in
the "ordinary course of business" as the term is defined by the
VPPA because they were not necessary for "debt collection
activities, order fulfillment, request processing, [or] transfer of
ownership."
The Plaintiff is a resident and citizen of California. In the
Spring of 2023, the Plaintiff watched a video titled "Ask Big Ass
Fans - Competitor Comparison" on the Defendant's website at the
link
https://bigassfans.com/ask-big-ass-fans-competitor-comparison/.
The Defendant is a for-profit Kentucky entity that sells large
ceiling fans throughout the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS
4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Telephone: (949) 706-6464
Facsimile: (949) 706-6469
E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com
DEMANDSCIENCE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cline Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
TERI CLINE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DEMANDSCIENCE, LLC; and PURE B2B, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-03045 (N.D. Ill., May 15, 2023) seeks
to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Cline was employed by the Defendants as a sales
associate.
DEMANDSCIENCE, LLC is a global B2B data company that partners with
customers to upgrade their sales pipelines. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John William Billhorn, Esq.
Samuel D. Engelson, Esq.
BILLHORN LAW FIRM
53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 1137
Chicago, IL 60604
Telephone: (312) 853-1450
DFO LLC: Cantu Sues Over Secret Reporting of Details
----------------------------------------------------
Jesse Cantu, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. DFO, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; DENNY'S
CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; DENNY'S, INC., a Florida
corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
2:23-cv-03696 (C.D. Cal., May 15, 2023), is brought against the
Defendant for violations of the Video Privacy Protection Act
("VPPA") as a result of the Defendant who secretly report all the
details of the visitors' identity, the titles watched, and more
without warning visitors or obtaining their consent.
Whenever someone watches a video on https://www.dennys.com (the
"Website"), Defendant secretly reports all the details to Facebook:
the visitor's personally identifiable information ("PII"), the
titles watched, and more. When the Plaintiff played the videos on
the Website, the Defendant knowingly disclosed the title to
Facebook, along with numerous identifiers that constitute PII. In
other words, Defendant did exactly what the VPPA prohibits: it
disclosed the Plaintiff' video viewing habits to a third party in a
manner that any ordinary person can understand the Plaintiff's
viewing habits. Visitors would be shocked and appalled to know that
the Defendant secretly discloses to Facebook all of key data
regarding a visitors' viewing habits. The Defendants' conduct is
illegal, offensive, and contrary to visitor expectations, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff visited the Website and watched one or more videos.
The Defendants own, operate, and or control the Website,
https://www.dennys.com.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS
A Professional Corporation
4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Phone: (949) 706-6464
Fax: (949) 706-6469
Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com
DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Crocker Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HARRY CROCKER v. DST
SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 4:21-9174-NKL (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge
Nanette K. Laughrey entered an order denying DST motion to stay the
Court's injunction because it has failed to meet its burden of
proof.
The Court said, "Because DST has failed to show irreparable harm,
and the Judgment Creditors would be substantially harmed if the
injunction were lifted, and DST has not shown a likelihood of
success on the merits, and public interest considerations weigh
against lifting the injunction, a stay of the injunction is
inappropriate."
DST argues that because the Ferguson class includes 9,000 members,
it is in the public interest to facilitate settlement. DST
disregards the fact that several avenues for settlement remain open
to it. In any event, permitting DST to strip the Judgment Creditors
of a substantial portion of the value of judgments entered in their
favor without their express consent would undermine public
confidence in the predictability and reliability of the judicial
system.
DST Systems moves for stay of the injunction the Court entered on
April 10, 2023.
On March 31, 2023, the Court entered an order that confirmed
arbitration awards in favor of 55 plaintiffs (the "Judgment
Creditors") and entered a final judgment in each case.
On April 10, 2023, counsel for the Judgment Creditors moved on an
emergency basis, but with notice, for a temporary restraining order
and preliminary injunction restraining and enjoining DST, the DST
Systems, Inc. 401(K) Profit Sharing Plan, The Advisory Committee of
the DST Systems, Inc. 401(K) Profit Sharing Plan, The Compensation
Committee of the Board of Directors of DST Systems, Inc., and their
respective law firms, and anyone acting on their behalf or in
concert with them, "from settling, or attempting to settle, through
any class or representative action, the Confirmation Plaintiffs'
individual arbitration awards, or any part thereof, unless such
settlement is entered into individually and voluntarily by the
Confirmation Plaintiff and the attorneys to whom any related fees
and costs were awarded."
DST Systems is an American company that was acquired by SS&C
Technologies in 2018. The company provided advisory, technology and
operations outsourcing services to the financial services and
healthcare industries.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 5, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41BBCaT at no extra charge.[CC]
DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Cubbage Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANICE CUBBAGE, v. DST
SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 4:21-09152-NKL (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge
Nanette K. Laughrey entered an order denying DST motion to stay the
Court's injunction because it has failed to meet its burden of
proof.
The Court said, "Because DST has failed to show irreparable harm,
and the Judgment Creditors would be substantially harmed if the
injunction were lifted, and DST has not shown a likelihood of
success on the merits, and public interest considerations weigh
against lifting the injunction, a stay of the injunction is
inappropriate."
DST argues that because the Ferguson class includes 9,000 members,
it is in the public interest to facilitate settlement. DST
disregards the fact that several avenues for settlement remain open
to it. In any event, permitting DST to strip the Judgment Creditors
of a substantial portion of the value of judgments entered in their
favor without their express consent would undermine public
confidence in the predictability and reliability of the judicial
system.
DST Systems moves for stay of the injunction the Court entered on
April 10, 2023.
On March 31, 2023, the Court entered an order that confirmed
arbitration awards in favor of 55 plaintiffs (the "Judgment
Creditors") and entered a final judgment in each case.
On April 10, 2023, counsel for the Judgment Creditors moved on an
emergency basis, but with notice, for a temporary restraining order
and preliminary injunction restraining and enjoining DST, the DST
Systems, Inc. 401(K) Profit Sharing Plan, The Advisory Committee of
the DST Systems, Inc. 401(K) Profit Sharing Plan, The Compensation
Committee of the Board of Directors of DST Systems, Inc., and their
respective law firms, and anyone acting on their behalf or in
concert with them, "from settling, or attempting to settle, through
any class or representative action, the Confirmation Plaintiffs'
individual arbitration awards, or any part thereof, unless such
settlement is entered into individually and voluntarily by the
Confirmation Plaintiff and the attorneys to whom any related fees
and costs were awarded."
DST Systems is an American company that was acquired by SS&C
Technologies in 2018. The company provided advisory, technology and
operations outsourcing services to the financial services and
healthcare industries.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 5, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BppNde at no extra charge.[CC]
DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Davis Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACQUELINE DAVIS, v. DST
SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 4:21-9168-NKL (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge
Nanette K. Laughrey entered an order denying DST motion to stay the
Court's injunction because it has failed to meet its burden of
proof.
The Court said, "Because DST has failed to show irreparable harm,
and the Judgment Creditors would be substantially harmed if the
injunction were lifted, and DST has not shown a likelihood of
success on the merits, and public interest considerations weigh
against lifting the injunction, a stay of the injunction is
inappropriate."
DST argues that because the Ferguson class includes 9,000 members,
it is in the public interest to facilitate settlement. DST
disregards the fact that several avenues for settlement remain open
to it. In any event, permitting DST to strip the Judgment Creditors
of a substantial portion of the value of judgments entered in their
favor without their express consent would undermine public
confidence in the predictability and reliability of the judicial
system.
DST Systems moves for stay of the injunction the Court entered on
April 10, 2023.
On March 31, 2023, the Court entered an order that confirmed
arbitration awards in favor of 55 plaintiffs (the "Judgment
Creditors") and entered a final judgment in each case.
On April 10, 2023, counsel for the Judgment Creditors moved on an
emergency basis, but with notice, for a temporary restraining order
and preliminary injunction restraining and enjoining DST, the DST
Systems, Inc. 401(K) Profit Sharing Plan, The Advisory Committee of
the DST Systems, Inc. 401(K) Profit Sharing Plan, The Compensation
Committee of the Board of Directors of DST Systems, Inc., and their
respective law firms, and anyone acting on their behalf or in
concert with them, "from settling, or attempting to settle, through
any class or representative action, the Confirmation Plaintiffs'
individual arbitration awards, or any part thereof, unless such
settlement is entered into individually and voluntarily by the
Confirmation Plaintiff and the attorneys to whom any related fees
and costs were awarded."
DST Systems is an American company that was acquired by SS&C
Technologies in 2018. The company provided advisory, technology and
operations outsourcing services to the financial services and
healthcare industries.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 5, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/42WOHN5 at no extra charge.[CC]
DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Dunbar Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DENNIS DUNBAR, v. DST
SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 4:21-09079-NKL (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge
Nanette K. Laughrey entered an order denying DST motion to stay the
Court's injunction because it has failed to meet its burden of
proof.
The Court said, "Because DST has failed to show irreparable harm,
and the Judgment Creditors would be substantially harmed if the
injunction were lifted, and DST has not shown a likelihood of
success on the merits, and public interest considerations weigh
against lifting the injunction, a stay of the injunction is
inappropriate."
DST argues that because the Ferguson class includes 9,000 members,
it is in the public interest to facilitate settlement. DST
disregards the fact that several avenues for settlement remain open
to it. In any event, permitting DST to strip the Judgment Creditors
of a substantial portion of the value of judgments entered in their
favor without their express consent would undermine public
confidence in the predictability and reliability of the judicial
system.
DST Systems moves for stay of the injunction the Court entered on
April 10, 2023.
On March 31, 2023, the Court entered an order that confirmed
arbitration awards in favor of 55 plaintiffs (the "Judgment
Creditors") and entered a final judgment in each case.
On April 10, 2023, counsel for the Judgment Creditors moved on an
emergency basis, but with notice, for a temporary restraining order
and preliminary injunction restraining and enjoining DST, the DST
Systems, Inc. 401(K) Profit Sharing Plan, The Advisory Committee of
the DST Systems, Inc. 401(K) Profit Sharing Plan, The Compensation
Committee of the Board of Directors of DST Systems, Inc., and their
respective law firms, and anyone acting on their behalf or in
concert with them, "from settling, or attempting to settle, through
any class or representative action, the Confirmation Plaintiffs'
individual arbitration awards, or any part thereof, unless such
settlement is entered into individually and voluntarily by the
Confirmation Plaintiff and the attorneys to whom any related fees
and costs were awarded."
DST Systems is an American company that was acquired by SS&C
Technologies in 2018. The company provided advisory, technology and
operations outsourcing services to the financial services and
healthcare industries.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 5, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41uwdlS at no extra charge.[CC]
DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Edlund Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS EDLUND, v. DST
SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 4:21-9177-NKL (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge
Nanette K. Laughrey entered an order denying DST motion to stay the
Court's injunction because it has failed to meet its burden of
proof.
The Court said, "Because DST has failed to show irreparable harm,
and the Judgment Creditors would be substantially harmed if the
injunction were lifted, and DST has not shown a likelihood of
success on the merits, and public interest considerations weigh
against lifting the injunction, a stay of the injunction is
inappropriate."
DST argues that because the Ferguson class includes 9,000 members,
it is in the public interest to facilitate settlement. DST
disregards the fact that several avenues for settlement remain open
to it. In any event, permitting DST to strip the Judgment Creditors
of a substantial portion of the value of judgments entered in their
favor without their express consent would undermine public
confidence in the predictability and reliability of the judicial
system.
DST Systems moves for stay of the injunction the Court entered on
April 10, 2023.
On March 31, 2023, the Court entered an order that confirmed
arbitration awards in favor of 55 plaintiffs (the "Judgment
Creditors") and entered a final judgment in each case.
On April 10, 2023, counsel for the Judgment Creditors moved on an
emergency basis, but with notice, for a temporary restraining order
and preliminary injunction restraining and enjoining DST, the DST
Systems, Inc. 401(K) Profit Sharing Plan, The Advisory Committee of
the DST Systems, Inc. 401(K) Profit Sharing Plan, The Compensation
Committee of the Board of Directors of DST Systems, Inc., and their
respective law firms, and anyone acting on their behalf or in
concert with them, "from settling, or attempting to settle, through
any class or representative action, the Confirmation Plaintiffs'
individual arbitration awards, or any part thereof, unless such
settlement is entered into individually and voluntarily by the
Confirmation Plaintiff and the attorneys to whom any related fees
and costs were awarded."
DST Systems is an American company that was acquired by SS&C
Technologies in 2018. The company provided advisory, technology and
operations outsourcing services to the financial services and
healthcare industries.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 5, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3O6Tk2M at no extra charge.[CC]
DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Sheeders Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT SHEEDERS, v. DST
SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 4:21-09108-NKL (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge
Nanette K. Laughrey entered an order denying DST motion to stay the
Court's injunction because it has failed to meet its burden of
proof.
The Court said, "Because DST has failed to show irreparable harm,
and the Judgment Creditors would be substantially harmed if the
injunction were lifted, and DST has not shown a likelihood of
success on the merits, and public interest considerations weigh
against lifting the injunction, a stay of the injunction is
inappropriate."
DST argues that because the Ferguson class includes 9,000 members,
it is in the public interest to facilitate settlement. DST
disregards the fact that several avenues for settlement remain open
to it. In any event, permitting DST to strip the Judgment Creditors
of a substantial portion of the value of judgments entered in their
favor without their express consent would undermine public
confidence in the predictability and reliability of the judicial
system.
DST Systems moves for stay of the injunction the Court entered on
April 10, 2023.
On March 31, 2023, the Court entered an order that confirmed
arbitration awards in favor of 55 plaintiffs (the "Judgment
Creditors") and entered a final judgment in each case.
On April 10, 2023, counsel for the Judgment Creditors moved on an
emergency basis, but with notice, for a temporary restraining order
and preliminary injunction restraining and enjoining DST, the DST
Systems, Inc. 401(K) Profit Sharing Plan, The Advisory Committee of
the DST Systems, Inc. 401(K) Profit Sharing Plan, The Compensation
Committee of the Board of Directors of DST Systems, Inc., and their
respective law firms, and anyone acting on their behalf or in
concert with them, "from settling, or attempting to settle, through
any class or representative action, the Confirmation Plaintiffs'
individual arbitration awards, or any part thereof, unless such
settlement is entered into individually and voluntarily by the
Confirmation Plaintiff and the attorneys to whom any related fees
and costs were awarded."
DST Systems is an American company that was acquired by SS&C
Technologies in 2018. The company provided advisory, technology and
operations outsourcing services to the financial services and
healthcare industries.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 5, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3M24kMi at no extra charge.[CC]
DUN & BRADSTREET: Discovery in Batis Class Suit Stayed
------------------------------------------------------
Dun & Bradstreet Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report
for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2023, that discovery
in Batis class suit is stayed in Northern District Court of
California until the appeal is decided.
Batis v. Dun & Bradstreet Holdings, Inc., No. 4:22-cv-01924-AGT
(N.D.Cal.)
On March 25, 2022, Plaintiff Odette R. Batis filed a Class Action
Complaint against the Company, alleging that the Company used the
purported class members' names and personas to promote paid
subscriptions to the Company's Hoovers product website without
consent, in violation of the California right of publicity statute,
California common law prohibiting misappropriation of a name or
likeness and California's Unfair Competition Law.
On June 30, 2022, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
Complaint pursuant to California's anti-SLAPP statute.
On February 10, 2023, the District Court denied the motion to
dismiss.
The decision was subject to an automatic right of appeal, and the
Company has appealed the matter to the Ninth Circuit.
All discovery in the District Court is stayed until the appeal is
decided.
The Dun & Bradstreet -- http://www.dnb.com/-- is an American
company that provides commercial data, analytics, and insights for
businesses.[BN]
DUN & BRADSTREET: Discovery in DeBose Class Suit Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
Dun & Bradstreet Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report
for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2023, that discovery
started for DeBose class suit.
DeBose v. Dun & Bradstreet Holdings, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-00209-ES-CLW
(D.N.J.)
On January 17, 2022, Plaintiff Rashad DeBose filed a Class Action
Complaint against the Company, alleging that the Company used the
purported class members' names and personas to promote paid
subscriptions to the Company's Hoovers product website without
consent, in violation of the Ohio right of publicity statute and
Ohio common law prohibiting misappropriation of a name or likeness.
On March 30, 2022, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
Complaint.
The motion was briefed, and in November 2022 the Court requested
supplemental briefing.
Supplemental briefing was completed in January 2023. The Court has
not yet set a date for oral argument.
Discovery has commenced.
The Dun & Bradstreet -- http://www.dnb.com/-- is an American
company that provides commercial data, analytics, and insights for
businesses.[BN]
EDUCATIONAL CREDIT: Kincaid Seeks to Certify Class & 6 Subclasses
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHEILA KINCAID;
individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated, v. EDUCATIONAL CREDIT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION,
an unknown business entity; ECMC GROUP, an unknown business entity;
and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 2:21-cv-00863-TLN-JDP
(E.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order as
follows:
1. certifying the following Class and Subclasses:
Class:
"All current and former hourly-paid or non-exempt employees
who
worked for Educational Credit Management Corporation and/or
ECMC
Group within the State of California at any time during the
period from February 26, 2017, up to the deadline, to be
determined by the Court at a later date, by which class
members
may opt-out after being provided notice of certification
(Class
Period);"
Regular Rate Subclass:
"All members of the Class who received non-discretionary
bonuses, commissions, and/or incentives which were not
included
in the regular rate of pay for purposes of overtime
compensation;"
Rounding Subclass:
"All members of the Class whose time entries were rounded by
ECMC during the Class Period;"
Off-the-Clock Subclass:
"All members of the Class who used ECMC's phone dialer system
to perform their job duties during the Class Period;"
Meal Period Subclass:
"All members of the Class who worked at least one shift of
more
than five hours at any time during the Class Period;"
Rest Period Subclass:
"All members of the Class who worked at least one shift of
three
and one-half hours or more at any time during the Class
Period;"
and
Premium Subclass:
"All members of the Class who received non-discretionary
bonuses, commissions, and/or incentives which were not
included
in the regular rate of compensation for purposes of a premium
payment made pursuant to California Labor Code section 226.7
at
any time during the Class Period;"
2. appointing her as the Class Representative;
3. appointing the following individuals as Class Counsel: Edwin
Aiwazian, Arby Aiwazian, and Tara Zabehi of Lawyers for
Justice,
PC and Jill J. Parker and S. Emi Minne of Parker & Minne,
LLP;
4. requiring ECMC to provide to the Plaintiff’s Counsel an
up-to-
date list of all potential class members, including their
names,
last four digits of their social security numbers, last known
telephone numbers, last known e-mail addresses, and last
known
residential and mailing addresses, within 30 days following
the
date the Court grants class certification; and
5. directing the Plaintiff's Counsel and ECMC's counsel promptly
meet and confer regarding a form of notice to the class and
submit either an agreed-upon form or their respective
proposed
forms to this Court within 10 days following the Court's
order
granting certification.
The Plaintiff was employed by ECMC as a Loan Repayment Counselor
from June 25, 2012 to August 4, 2018 at ECMC's location in
Mather.
Educational Credit Management Corporation is a student loan
guarantor for the Federal Family Education Loan Program
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 10, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ohNhOt at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
Arby Aiwazian, Esq.
Tara Zabehi, Esq.
LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC
410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 265-1020
Facsimile: (818) 265-1021
E-mail: edwin@calljustice.com
arby@calljustice.com
tara@calljustice.com
- and -
Jill J. Parker, Esq.
S. Emi Minne, Esq.
PARKER & MINNE, LLP
700 S. Flower Street, Suite 1000
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (310) 882-6833
Facsimile: (310) 889-0822
E-mail: jill@parkerminne.com
emi@parkerminne.com
EL CAMINO HOSPITAL: Spalinger Suit Removed to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Indigo Spalinger, individually and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated v. El Camino Hospital, Case
No. 23CV412292 was removed from the Santa Clara County Superior
Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California on May 12, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:23-cv-02350 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
El Camino Health -- https://www.elcaminohealth.org/ -- includes two
not-for-profit acute care hospitals in Los Gatos and Mountain
View.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
The Defendant is represented by:
Teresa Carey Chow, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, CA 90025-0509
Phone: (310) 820-8800
Fax: (310) 820-8859
Email: tchow@bakerlaw.com
ETHICON SARL: Court Approved $300-M Settlement in Pelvic Mesh Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Angela Wood and Jemima Stratton of Maddocks report that on 16 March
2023, the Federal Court of Australia made orders in the Johnson &
Johnson pelvic mesh class action (Gill v Ethicon Sarl (No 10)
[2023] FCA 228), approving a settlement sum of $300 million, which
is the largest settlement in a product liability class action in
Australian history.
The judgment provides a cogent discussion of the types of factors
to be considered when determining if a proposed settlement sum is
within the range of fair and reasonable outcomes. This guidance is
not only valuable to parties involved in other contemporaneous
class actions concerning similar transvaginal mesh products, such
as the class action against TFS Manufacturing Pty Ltd and IVS Pty
Ltd, but also any future court-assessed settlement schemes for
medical goods class actions.
Background
These proceedings concerned pelvic mesh devices manufactured by
Ethicon and marketed and sold by Johnson & Johnson which, once
inserted, caused serious and chronic complications for many women.
Key milestones in the proceedings include:
in 2019, the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia (Full
Court) found in favour of the applicants regarding nine of the
pelvic medical devices (further information on this decision can be
found here);
in 2021, the Full Court unanimously dismissed all 17 grounds of
appeal brought by the Ethicon parties (further information on this
decision can be found here);
in 2021, the High Court of Australia refused an application for
special leave;
in February 2022, the parties entered into negotiations in an
attempt to settle the proceedings;
in 9 September 2022, the parties agreed upon a proposed settlement;
and
in 10 November 2022, the matter was set down before the Federal
Court of Australia to determine whether the settlement amount was
within the range of fair and reasonable outcomes.
Key reasons of the Court
Courts are responsible for scrutinising the terms of a proposed
settlement agreement between parties to a class action dispute and
must determine whether it is a fair and reasonable compromise of
the claims made on behalf of the broader pool of group members in
the class action. In coming to the view that the proposed
settlement was within the range of fair and reasonable outcomes,
'albeit at the lowest end of that scale', Justice Lee considered
the following factors.
Reaction of the class
The Court placed considerable weight on the written and oral
objections provided by group members which focused primarily on the
final settlement sum agreed by the parties. Nevertheless, Justice
Lee concluded that these concerns were mitigated to some extent by
the fact that a settlement would substantially lessen the distress
suffered by group members. His Honour also recognised that many of
the strong objectors within the group recounted experiences of
great severity and would therefore likely be entitled to claims
that were at the higher end of compensation under the proposed
settlement scheme.
Adequacy of the settlement sum
The Court also acknowledged that only an estimated $174,433,640.30
would be left for group members once all payments owing to third
parties were deducted. Justice Lee concluded that although the
amount of compensation would be less than what might have been
obtained in a 'best case scenario', the proposed settlement would
nevertheless provide a 'sizable amount' of compensation and would
provide certainty and closure as well as avoiding further delay and
vexation.
Assessment under the Trade Practices Act
In negotiating a settlement amount, the applicants' solicitors
decided that the claims of group members would be assessed under
the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) (Trade Practices Act) and the
Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) (Competition and Consumer
Act), as opposed to the applicable negligence laws in each State
and Territory.
This approach was criticised by many of the group members as it
restricted the scope of compensation to only the top 15% of group
members who suffered the most extreme cases of non-economic loss,
meaning that women who do not meet the threshold would not be
compensated. Furthermore, the financial caps on the maximum amount
of compensation available under the Trade Practices Act and
Competition and Consumer Act were significantly less than the
limits applicable under the negligence laws in each State and
Territory.
The Court recognised that the applicants' choice to assess the
potential claims of group members in this way was 'ungenerous', but
was nevertheless accepted as a practical way to implement a
universal regime which could be applied across the whole cohort of
group members in a time efficient manner.
His Honour also took into consideration any unfairness to group
members whose claims were excluded from the proposed settlement
because they were not within the top 15% of cases despite having
viable claims of negligence. Justice Lee concluded that the
compensation which could be obtained for group members outside of
the 15% threshold would be limited and therefore was a reasonable
restriction to have in place.
Deductions to the settlement sum
Justice Lee also expressed considerable concern towards the costs
to be deducted from the settlement sum and, in particular, that
only an estimated $174,433,640.30 would remain for group members
once all payments owing to third parties and the applicants'
solicitors had been made.
Despite these concerns, Justice Lee approved the settlement
proposal on the basis that orders would be made to 'guard against
unjust deductions'. In justifying the settlement approval, his
Honour also considered the potential benefits of bulk payment
arrangements with third party payers, such as Medicare and health
insurance funds to increase the net funds available to group
members.
Lack of merits to the respondents' claim
While determining that the proposed sum is within the range of fair
and reasonable outcomes, Justice Lee was nonetheless troubled by
this outcome. His Honour considered as significant the
unmeritorious approach taken by the respondents throughout the
proceedings which put the group members through further delay and
suffering. In describing the proposed settlement, his Honour
concluded:
big-pocketed respondents have taken every point (including points
eventually shown to be contrary to the true position and wholly
devoid of merit) and dragged out the dispute interminably only to
be rewarded at the eleventh hour by a proposed settlement which
reduces Ethicon's likely exposure.
Ultimately, the respondents' approach to the proceedings was one of
the more significant factors which placed the proposed settlement
on the lower end of the fair and reasonable scale.
Next steps
Having approved the settlement scheme, the next question was the
administration of it. The proposed orders nominated Shine Lawyers,
the solicitors for the applicants, as the default administrators.
Given Shine Lawyers' estimate of the costs of administration was
over $36 million, his Honour ordered that the administration of the
scheme be put to tender, with a view to reducing the cost and time
needed to distribute the funds, and ultimately increasing the pool
of compensation available for group members. The Court concluded
that it will make further orders for the distribution of funds to
be paid under the settlement at a later date (yet to be
determined).[GN]
EXECUTIVE LE: Bid to Strike Nunez Class Action Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALFREDO NUNEZ,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, and JOSEPH
TEJADA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v.
EXECUTIVE LE SOLEIL NEW YORK LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-04262-KPF
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Katherine Polk Failla entered an order
that because the Plaintiffs alleged cognizable injuries and
adequately alleged a class claim, the Defendant's motion to strike
class action is denied in full.
The Defendant shall file an answer to the Amended Complaint on or
before May 31, 2023.
Additionally, on or before June 14, 2023, the parties are ordered
to meet and confer and file a joint letter indicating whether they
wish to participate in the Southern District's mediation program or
a settlement conference before a magistrate judge. If the parties
are not interested in alternative dispute resolution and wish to
proceed directly to discovery, they shall include with their joint
letter a proposed case management plan.
The Court may ultimately agree with the Defendant that determining
which Le Soleil employees qualify as manual workers under the NYLL
requires an individualized inquiry into each employee's job title
and duties that is incompatible with Rule 23's commonality and
typicality requirements. But it will not do so on the limited
record before it today. If the Defendant believes that information
unearthed in discovery supports its position, it may renew its
arguments at the class certification stage. But at this time, the
Defendant's motion to strike is denied and this case may proceed as
a putative class action.
The Plaintiffs sued their former employer, Executive Le Soleil New
York LLC, for failing to pay its manual laborers with the frequency
required by Section 191 of the New York Labor Law (NYLL).
The Plaintiffs bring untimely wage claims on behalf of themselves
and a putative class of similarly situated employees. The Defendant
has moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims for lack of standing
and to strike their class allegations. Because the Plaintiffs
satisfied their pleading burden on both fronts, the Court denies
the Defendant’s motion.
The Defendant, a Delaware company, operates the Executive Hotel Le
Soleil New York in midtown Manhattan. The Defendant employed Nunez
as a bellhop/night auditor at Le Soleil from August 2015 until May
2016.
The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of a putative class of
individuals employed by the Defendant as manual laborers at Le
Soleil from October 8, 2015, to the present:
"Similarly situated employees who performed work for the
Defendant
in nonexempt, hourly positions in capacities that required them
to
perform physical tasks for more than 25% of their workdays."
Executive Le Soleil offers guests a luxurious boutique hotel
experience in the heart of New York City.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 9, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3M9NmeU at no extra charge.[CC]
FCS INDUSTRIES: Sikorsky Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Sikorsky, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated
v. FCS INDUSTRIES, CORP., a Florida Corporation, Case No.
6:23-cv-00885-GAP-RMN (M.D. Fla., May 12, 2023), is brought for
unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees
and costs, and all other applicable relief pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act, as amended ("FLSA").
The Plaintiff routinely worked overtime hours. The Plaintiff was
not paid time and one-half of his hourly rate for all overtime
hours worked by him. Specifically, the Plaintiff and other drivers
had to report by 5:30 A.M., to get the dump truck vehicle, do a
pre-trip inspection, and perform other work before leaving the
yard. However, instead of paying for all hours worked, the
Defendant only paid the Plaintiff and other drivers for time on the
"tickets" they received for what they were hauling. The Plaintiff
and other drivers were not paid for the time worked in the morning
before the first haul, nor were they paid for the travel time back
to the yard at the end of the shift, as well as the time to do the
post-trip inspection and to clean the truck when needed. As a
result, the Plaintiff and other hourly-paid drivers did not receive
full overtime compensation due for all overtime hours worked, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for Defendant from around November 2021 to
August 2022 as an hourly paid dump truck driver.
FCS INDUSTRIES, CORP., operates as a hauling company which hauls
asphalt, limerock, fill, and other road-based materials.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN P.A.
20 N. Orange Ave., 15th Floor
Orlando, FL 32801
Phone: (407) 420-1414
Facsimile: (407) 245-3401
Email: rmorgan@forthepeople.com
FIRST NATIONAL BANK: Mirabile Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Mirabile, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF OMAHA, Case No. CACE-23-013602
(Fla. 17th Judicial Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., May 12, 2023), is
brought against the Defendants for violations of the Florida
Consumer Collection Practices Act ("FCCPA") by an unlawful
collection of debt due to sending the communication between a time
zone without prior consent.
On a date better known by the Defendant, the Defendant began
attempting to collect a debt (the "Consumer Debt") from the
Plaintiff. The Consumer Debt is an obligation allegedly had by the
Plaintiff to pay money arising from a transaction between the
creditor of the Consumer Debt, the Defendant, and the Plaintiff
(the "Subject Service"). The Plaintiff is the alleged debtor of the
Consumer Debt. The Subject Service was primarily for personal,
family, or household purposes.
The FCCPA prohibits persons from communicating with a debtor
between the hours of 9:00 PM and 8:00 AM in the debtor's time zone
without the prior consent of the debtor. On May 11, 2023, the
Defendant sent an electronic mail communication to the Plaintiff
(the "Communication"). The Communication was a communication in
connection with the collection of the Consumer Debt. The
Communication was sent from fnbo@service.fnbo.com delivered to the
Plaintiffs personal e-mail address.
The Communication advised the Plaintiff "Past due. Did you forget
about your payment? Your FNBO Visa account is past due. Please make
at least your minimum payment today. Payment Due: $1 ,049.95. CLICK
TO PAY. MAKE A PAYMENT (links provided)." The Communication was
sent by the Defendant to the Plaintiff at 6:33 AM in the Plaintiffs
zone. The Communication was received by the Plaintiff from the
Defendant at 6:33 AM in Plaintiff' s zone., says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a natural person, and a citizen of the State of
Florida, residing in Broward County, Florida.
The Defendant is a Financial Institution, with its principal place
of business located in Omaha, Nebraska.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
Jennifer G. Simil, Esq.
Shannon E. Gilvev, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th St., Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (954) 907-1136
Email: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
jen@jibraellaw.com
shannon@jibraellaw.com
FLATIRON WINES: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Flatiron Wines, Inc.
The case is styled as Jenny Hwang, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Flatiron Wines, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-03584 (E.D.N.Y., May 12, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Flatiron Wines & Spirits -- https://flatiron-wines.com/ -- is an
award-winning fine wine and spirits merchant with locations in New
York City and San Francisco.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
14749 71st Ave.
Flushing, NY 11367
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
FLYWHEEL ENERGY: Class Cert. Replies Extended to June 5 in Eubanks
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Eubanks, et al., v.
Flywheel Energy Production LLC, et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-00329
(E.D. Ark., Filed Sept. 25, 2020), the Hon. Judge Lee P. Rudofsky
entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for
extension of time to file reply brief to motion to certify class.
The Replies are due by: June 5, 2023
The nature of suit states Breach of Contract.
Flywheel Energy is a private exploration and production company
formed to acquire and operate onshore U.S. oil and gas assets.[CC]
FLYWHEEL ENERGY: Class Cert. Replies Extended to June 5 in Flowers
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Flowers, et al., v.
Flywheel Energy Production LLC, et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-00330
(E.D. Ark., Filed April 21, 2021), the Hon. Judge Lee P. Rudofsky
entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for
extension of time to file reply brief to motion to certify class.
The Replies are due by: June 5, 2023
The nature of suit states Breach of Contract.
Flywheel Energy is a private exploration and production company
formed to acquire and operate onshore U.S. oil and gas assets.[CC]
FLYWHEEL ENERGY: Class Cert. Replies Extended to June 5 in Oliger
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Oliger, et al., v.
Flywheel Energy Production LLC, et al., Case No. 4:20-cv-01146
(E.D. Ark., Filed Sept. 25, 2020), the Hon. Judge Lee P. Rudofsky
entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for
extension of time to file reply brief to motion to certify class.
The Replies are due by: June 5, 2023
The nature of suit states Breach of Contract.
Flywheel Energy is a private exploration and production company
formed to acquire and operate onshore U.S. oil and gas assets.[CC]
FOUR SEASONS: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Staley to 2nd Cir.
------------------------------------------------------------------
FOUR SEASONS HOTELS AND RESORTS, et al. are taking an appeal from a
court order denying their motion to compel arbitration in the
lawsuit entitled Selena Staley, et al., on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Four Seasons Hotels
and Resorts, et al., Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-6781, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
brought this class action suit against the Defendants to remedy
violations of the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification Act, the New York State Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification Act, and for breach of contract, breach of
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and tortious
interference with a contract.
According to the complaint, Plaintiffs and other similarly situated
employees that were working at the Defendants' hotel were placed on
furlough for an indefinite period of time beginning approximately
March 20, 2020, and continuing for thirty days thereafter. Because
the furloughs/layoffs extended more than six months and proper
notice for extension was never provided by any of the Defendants,
the Plaintiffs and the other similarly situated employees were
effectively terminated from their employment when their furloughs
began, says the suit.
On Nov. 28, 2022, the Defendants filed a motion to compel
arbitration, which the Court denied through an Order entered by
Judge Jed S. Rakoff on May 3, 2023.
The appellate case is captioned Staley v. Four Seasons Hotels and
Resorts, Case No. 23- 770, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, filed on May 4, 2023. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees SELENA STALEY, et al., on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Brian Lewis Bromberg, Esq.
BROMBERG LAW OFFICE, P.C.
352 Rutland Road, #1
Brooklyn, NY 11225
Telephone: (212) 248-7906
Defendants-Appellants FOUR SEASONS HOTELS AND RESORTS, et al. are
represented by:
Kathryn Lundy, Esq.
SMITH, GAMBRELL & RUSSELL, LLP
1301 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 907-9700
FOX CORP: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues
its investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of Fox Corporation (NASDAQ: FOX) (NASDAQ: FOXA)
resulting from allegations that FOX may have issued materially
misleading business information to the investing public. The
prospective class includes those who purchased FOX call options
and/or sold put options. ROSEN, Leading Investor Counsel,
Encourages Fox Corporation Investors to Inquire About Class Action
Investigation - FOX, FOXA
SO WHAT: If you purchased FOX 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=13327 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: In the wake of the 2020 U.S. Presidential
Election, Dominion Voting Systems sued FOX for defamation.
Dominion's lawsuit alleges that FOX defamed Dominion's business by
endorsing, repeating or broadcasting a series of "verifiably false
yet devastating lies about Dominion." Dominion claims that various
statements that were made on FOX News, including that Dominion
committed election fraud by rigging the 2020 election, that
Dominion's software and algorithms manipulated vote counts in the
2020 election, that Dominion was founded for the purpose of rigging
elections, and that Dominion paid kickbacks to government officials
who used its machines, were defamatory and false. Dominion and Fox
eventually agreed to settle the case for $787 million.
Beginning in February 2023, specific details emerged of internal
discussions at FOX in the wake of the 2020 election, revealing that
FOX's senior leaders understood that claims to the effect that
Dominion and other entities had rigged the 2020 election were
false. As a consequence, FOX faces significant potential legal
liability.
As a result of ongoing revelations about FOX's legal exposure in
the Dominion lawsuit, FOX's Class A stock has declined from a
closing price of $37.03 on February 17, 2023 to a closing price of
$32.52 on March 15, 2023, a 12% decline. FOX's Class B stock has
declined from a closing price of $34.22 on February 17, 2023 to a
closing price of $29.83 on March 15, 2023, a 12% decline.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any
meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. 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
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com
The issuer is solely responsible for the content of this
announcement. [GN]
FRANCHISE GROUP: Quintana Files Suit in C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Franchise Group,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Michelle Quintana, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Franchise Group,
Inc., American Freight, LLC, Case No. 8:23-cv-00583-JWH-KES (C.D.
Cal., April 3, 2023).
The nature suit is stated as Other Contract.
Franchise Group, Inc. -- https://franchisegrp.com/ -- is an
American publicly traded holding company that acquires and manages
mainly franchise companies.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christin Kyungsik Cho, Esq.
Simon Carlo Franzini, Esq.
DOVEL AND LUNER LLP
201 Santa Monica Boulevard Suite 600
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Phone: (310) 656-7066
Fax: (310) 656-7069
Email: christin@dovel.com
simon@dovel.com
FRESHPAIR.COM INC: DiMeglio Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Freshpair.com, Inc.
The case is styled as Maria DiMeglio, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Freshpair.com, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-03987 (S.D.N.Y., May 12, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Freshpair -- https://www.freshpair.com/ -- has a great selection of
lingerie brands from your favorite designers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
FRESHWORKS INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Freshworks Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 4, 2023, that the Company continues to defend
itself from the securities class suit in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California.
On November 1, 2022, a purported Company stockholder filed a
securities class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California against the Company, certain of
its current officers and directors, and underwriters of the
Company's initial public offering (IPO).
On April 14, 2023, the court appointed lead plaintiff filed a
consolidated amended class action complaint. The complaint alleges
that defendants violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 by making material misstatements or
omissions in offering documents filed in connection with the IPO.
The complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest, fees, costs, and
rescission on behalf of purchasers and/or acquirers of common stock
issued in the IPO.
The Company and the other defendants intend to vigorously defend
against the claims in this action.
Freshworks, which is headquartered in San Mateo, California,
provides customer engagement software for businesses.[BN]
GLASSWING LLC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Glasswing, LLC. The
case is styled as Luis Toro, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Glasswing, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-03976-VEC
(S.D.N.Y., May 12, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Glasswing -- https://glasswingshop.com/ -- is a women & men's
clothing and home goods store in Seattle, Washington.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
GREEN RUSH ADVISORY: Terrell Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Green Rush Advisory
Group, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Joshua Terrell,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Green Rush Advisory Group, LLC, Healthy Healing Holistic Options,
Inc., Does 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 3:23-cv-00886-AJB-DEB (S.D.
Cal., May 15, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Green Rush Advisory Group -- https://www.green-rush.us/ -- provides
Marijuana Enterprise Consulting and Comprehensive Marijuana
Licensing Support for California, Oregon, and more.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN PC
21031 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 340
Woodland Hills, CA 91364
Phone: (323) 306-4234
Fax: (866) 633-0228
Email: abacon@toddflaw.com
tfriedman@toddflaw.com
GREGORY AHERN: 2nd Gonzalez Bid for Class Status Conditionally OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL GONZALEZ, et al.,
v. GREGORY J. AHERN, et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-07423-JSC (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley entered an order
denying in part and conditionally granting in part the Plaintiffs'
second motion for class certification:
-- The motion is denied as to the inadequate medical care and
inadequate food subclasses.
-- The motion is granted as to the inadequate sanitation
subclass,
but only on the condition that Ms. Huang obtain qualified
co-
counsel to appear in this action and litigate it with her.
-- The Court sets a status conference for June 29, 2023 at 1:30
p.m. via Zoom video. A joint case management conference
statement is due one week in advance and shall identify Ms.
Huang's co-counsel, if any, as well as why the addition of
co-
counsel means counsel can adequately represent the class.
-- The previously established pretrial schedule otherwise
remains
in effect.
-- The Court strikes the Plaintiffs' administrative motions to
seal
and the Plaintiffs separately filed evidentiary objections.
-- The Court does not find that ethical concerns preclude Ms.
Huang
from adequately representing the class. However, in light of
the
issues with this motion and the Plaintiffs' prior motion for
class certification, the Court has serious concerns regarding
Ms. Huang’s ability as a "single practitioner [to]
effectively
litigate an action that involves thousands of [detainees at
Santa Rita Jail]" and their constitutional claims. See Cullen
v.
New York State Civ. Serv. Comm'n, 435 F. Supp. 546, 560
(E.D.N.Y. 1977).
The Plaintiffs filed this action in November 2019 alleging they are
subject to unlawful, inhumane, and unconstitutional treatment at
the Santa Rita Jail (Jail). Over the following three and a half
years, the Plaintiffs filed five amended complaints and the
Defendants moved to dismiss each version of the complaint. the
Plaintiffs also sought a preliminary injunction in February 2021 on
their inadequate and unsanitary food claims. The Court denied the
motion because the Plaintiffs had not demonstrated a likelihood of
success on the merits of their claims regarding inadequate kitchen
cleanliness, contaminated food, and food that lacked sufficient
nutritional value in light of
the Defendants' unrebutted evidence regarding the Jail's policies
and practices.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 9, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/42T6Viq at no extra charge.[CC]
GROCERY DELIVERY: Rivas Sues Over Unsolicited Text Message
----------------------------------------------------------
Gabriela Rivas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. GROCERY DELIVERY E-SERVICES USA, INC. d/b/a HELLOFRESH,
Case No. 0:23-cv-60902-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 15, 2023), is brought
pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the "TCPA"), and
the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act ("FTSA") as a result of the
Defendant's unsolicited text message marketing.
The Defendant engages in unsolicited text message marketing,
including to individuals who have registered their telephone
numbers on the National Do-Not-Call Registry, to those who have not
provided Defendant with their prior express written consent as
required by the FTSA, as well as text messages consumers before the
hours of 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m. in violation of the TCPA's
do-not-call regulations. Defendant's unsolicited text message spam
caused Plaintiff and the Class members harm, including violations
of their statutory rights, trespass, annoyance, nuisance, invasion
of their privacy, and intrusion upon seclusion. Defendant's text
messages also occupied storage space on Plaintiff's and the Class
members' telephones. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks an
injunction, statutory damages, and/or actual liquidated damages on
behalf of Plaintiff and the Class members, and any other available
legal or equitable remedies resulting from the unlawful actions of
Defendant, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is an individual and a "called party."
The Defendant is a Florida limited liability company and a
"telephone solicitor."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Manuel Santiago Hiraldo
HIRALDO PA
401 E Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 1400
Ft Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (954) 400-4713
Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
- and –
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th St., 17th Floor
HARRIS COUNTY CONSTABLE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Molina-Torres, individually and on behalf of similarly
situated individuals v. HARRIS COUNTY CONSTABLE PRECINCT 6, Case
No. 4:23-cv-01786 (S.D. Tex., May 15, 2023), is brought to redress
failure to pay overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, including liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and
expenses.
Precinct 6 failed to pay Deputy Torres, and other canine handlers
like him, overtime as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"). Based on reasonable belief, Precinct 6 does not have a
personnel manual that calls for a 28-day pay period for deputy
constables or K-9 Deputy and for the payment of overtime. Precinct
6 regularly scheduled Torres and K-9 Deputy to work over 171 hours
in 28 days. When they worked over 40 hours a week or 171 hours in
28 days, Precinct 6 does not pay K-9 Deputy overtime for the hours
they spent taking care of the police canine partners. Precinct 6
did not pay Deputy Torres and other canine deputies for all the
hours they spent taking care of their canine partner. The Plaintiff
did not receive overtime or additional compensation for caring for
the dog on workdays. The Plaintiff does receive one hour of
overtime on each weekend day and holiday for caring for the dogs,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by Precinct 6 as an hourly employee.
Deputy Torres is domiciled in Texas and performed work out of
Precinct 6's office as a K-9 Deputy.
Harris County Constable Precinct 6 is an entity subject to the
FLSA.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Trang Q. Tran, Esq.
TRAN LAW FIRM
2537 S. Gessner Suite 104
Houston, Texas 77063
Phone: (713) 223–8855
Email: trang@tranlf.com
service@tranlf.com
HEALTH INSURANCE: Agrees to Settle TCPA Class Suit for $900,000
---------------------------------------------------------------
topclassactions.com reports that Health Insurance Associates agreed
to pay $990,000 to resolve claims that it violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) with unsolicited telemarketing
calls.
The settlement benefits users or subscribers to a telephone number
that received two or more telemarketing calls from Health Insurance
Associates within a 12-month period more than 30 days after their
number was registered with the National Do Not Call Registry.
Plaintiffs in the telemarketing class action lawsuit claim they
received unsolicited phone calls from Health Insurance Associates.
According to the plaintiffs, these calls violated the TCPA.
Health Insurance Associates is a health and life insurance agency
in Daytona Beach, Florida.
The company hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $990,000
settlement to resolve the TCPA class action lawsuit.
Under the terms of the settlement, class members can receive an
equal share of the net settlement fund.
Payments are estimated to be $100 per class member per telephone
number. Class members who have multiple eligible phone numbers may
receive multiple payments.
The company also agreed to enhance its business policies in order
to comply with TCPA regulations going forward.
The deadline for exclusion and objection is June 9, 2023.
The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for June
23, 2023.
In order to receive a settlement payment, class members must submit
a valid claim form by June 9, 2023.
Who's Eligible
Users or subscribers to a telephone number that received two or
more telemarketing calls from Health Insurance Associates within a
12-month period more than 30 days after their number was registered
with the National Do Not Call Registry.
Potential Award
$100 per telephone number
Proof of Purchase
N/A
Claim Form
CLICK HERE TO FILE A CLAIM »
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
06/09/2023
Case Name
Lomas, et al. v. Health Insurance Associates LLC, Case No.
6:22-cv-00679-PGB-DCI, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida
Final Hearing
06/23/2023
Settlement Website
InsuranceTCPASettlement.com
Claims Administrator
Insurance TCPA Settlement
c/o A.B. Data, Ltd
P.O. Box 173039
Milwaukee, WI 53217
info@InsuranceTCPASettlement.com
877-390-3290[GN]
HEIDI HEDBERG: Court Certifies Two Classes in Kamkoff Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DELLA KAMKOFF, et al., v.
HEIDI HEDBERG, in her official capacity as Commissioner of the
Alaska Department of Health, Case No. 3:23-cv-00044-SLG (D.
Alaska), the Hon. Judge Sharon L. Gleason entered an order
approving parties' stipulation on class certification:
1. The action is certified as a class action with the following
two
subclasses:
a) An Untimely Eligibility Class comprised of all Alaska
residents who since January 20, 2021, have applied, are
applying, or will apply for SNAP benefits through an
initial
application or an application for recertification and did
not or will not receive an eligibility determination
within
the legally required time frames;
b) A Right to File Class comprised of all Alaska residents
who
since October 1, 2022, were or will be denied the right
to
file a SNAP application the first time they contact DPA
during office hours.
2. The Court finds that both classes meet the threshold
certification requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) because
the
classes are so numerous that joinder is impracticable.
3. The Court find that there are questions of law and fact
common
to each of the two plaintiff classes as required by Fed. R.
Civ.
P. 23(a)(2).
4. The Court finds that the typicality requirement, as set forth
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3), is met and authorizes:
a) Della Kamkoff, John Andrew, Kayla Birch, Rose Carney,
Tereresa Ferguson, Zoya Jenkins, Troy Fender, Nataliia
Moroz,
and Rhonda Conover to serve as representatives of the
Untimely Eligibility Class; and
b) Autumn Ellanna to serve as representative of the Right to
File Class.
5. The Court finds that the named plaintiffs and their counsel
will
fairly and adequately protect the interests of the plaintiff
classes as required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4).
6. The Court finds that the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(b)(2) are met because the requested relief, if ordered,
will
inure to all members of the plaintiff classes.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 9, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Wc2Tzl at no extra charge.[CC]
HOMETOWN AMERICA: Turner Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
Bernice J. Turner, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. HOMETOWN AMERICA MANAGEMENT, L.P. a limited
partnership; and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 23CV413381
(Cal. Super. Ct., Santa Clara Cty., April 3, 2023), is brought
against a defendant for California Labor Code violations and unfair
business practices stemming from the Defendant's failure to pay
minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide
meal periods, failure to authorize and permit rest periods, failure
to maintain accurate records of hours work and meal periods,
failure to timely pay all wages to terminated employees, failure to
indemnify necessary business expense and failure to furnish
accurate wage statements.
Throughout the statutory period, the Defendants maintained a
systematic company wide policy and practice of: Failing to pay
employees for all hours to work, including minimum wages and
overtime wages; Failing to provide employees with timely and duty
free meal periods, failing to maintain accurate records of all meal
periods taken or missed, and failing to pay an additional hour's
pay for each work day and meal period violation occurred; Failing
to authorize and permit employees to take timely and duty free rest
periods and failing and failing to pay an additional hour's pay for
each work day a rest period violation occurred; Failing to identify
employees for necessary business expenses incurred; Willfully
failing to pay employees on minimum wages, overtime wages, meal
period premium wages and rest period premium wages due within the
time period, specified by California law when employment
terminates; Failing to maintain accurate records of the hours that
employees worked; Failing to provide employees with accurate,
itemized wage statements containing all the information required by
the California Labor law and I WC wage orders; all in compliance
with the California Labor Code and IWC Wage orders, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as an office assistant.
Hometown America Management, L.P. is a limited liability company
with its principal business in Santa Clara, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kane Moon, Esq.
H. Scott Leviant, Esq.
Mariam Ghazaryan, Esq.
MOON & YANG, APC
1055 W. Seventh St., Suite 1880
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Phone: (213) 232-3128
Facsimile: (213) 232-3125
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL: Sued Over Uranium Plant's Health Risks
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jasmine Youngblood and Randall Barnes of WPSD Local report that
contamination is widespread. That's what lawyers say they've
discovered so far in the class action lawsuit filed against
Honeywell, a uranium conversion plant.
The class action suit, filed back in May 2018, alleges that
contamination has caused medical problems and property damage for
people who live by the Metropolis, Illinois, plant.
Lawyers say this finding is significant, because the risk varies
from plaintiff to plaintiff.
Their goal now is to determine the risk level for each.
They estimate more than 6,000 people are at risk.
Their biggest concern right now is cancer.
One by one, people signed in at the informational town hall meeting
in Metropolis.
Each one was longing for answers in a lawsuit that began five years
ago.
Like the many people in attendance, Debbie Randolph is concerned
about Honeywell's impact on her health.
"I had breast cancer, so, and I didn't have it until I moved into
Metropolis," Randolph says.
Her home of seven years is only a mile away from the Honeywell
plant.
She's now in remission, but Randolph says she still suffers with
lifelong impacts.
"I am on cancer medicine for the rest of my life. And I had a
mastectomy — left mastectomy. I had chemo and radiation, " says
Randolph.
This is the type of information attorneys are looking for now.
Lead attorney Kevin Thompson says that's why all attendees were
asked to fill out a health survey.
"What we need to know is what people's actual health experience is,
as many people as we can, so we can support our medical monitoring
program request," Thompson says.
Medical data coupled with the sampling of 52 homes and several
other businesses in Metropolis will be strong evidence in their
case against the uranium plant, attorneys say. That way, Honeywell
can be safe for the city and people who rely on it.
"Regardless of how important the work is that is done at the
Metropolis works, at the very base, people want their families to
be safe," says Thompson.
That's all that Randolph wants, too.
Until that happens, she's in a constant state of worry for her
neighbors and herself.
"I do. I think about it a lot actually, about it coming back
somewhere else," Randolph says.
The counsel's next step is to obtain the emissions data from
Honeywell. Then, they'll release expert reports that outline risk
levels throughout the city.
Production at Metropolis Works halted in 2017, due to oversupply in
the uranium industry.
The company announced plans to restart production in 2021 and did
so earlier this year.
Honeywell responded to the lawsuit in 2018. [GN]
HORIZON BANCORP: Investors Reminded of Lead Plaintiff Naming Due
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on May 21 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Horizon Bancorp, Inc. ("Horizon" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: HBNC), and certain officers. The class action,
filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of New York, and docketed under 23-cv-02961, is on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants
that purchased or otherwise acquired Horizon securities between
March 9, 2022 and March 10, 2023, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
against the Company and certain of its top officials.
If you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired
Horizon securities during the Class Period, you have until June 19,
2023 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the
class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at
www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S.
Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or
888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail
are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number,
and the number of shares purchased.
Horizon operates as the bank holding company for Horizon Bank,
which provides a range of commercial and retail banking services.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) the Company maintained deficient internal
accounting controls relating to its classification of certain loan
balances and securities; (ii) as a result of the foregoing
deficiencies, throughout 2022 the Company issued quarterly
financial statements containing errors that would require
subsequent revision; (iii) restatement of the foregoing financial
statements would hinder the Company's ability to timely file its
annual report for 2022; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.
On March 10, 2023, after trading hours, Horizon filed a notice of
the Company's inability to timely file its Annual Report on Form
10-K for the year ended December 31, 2022 with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, announcing receipt of a notice from NASDAQ as
a result of failing to timely file its annual report, as well as
disclosing that it had identified material weaknesses in its
internal controls.
On this news, Horizon's stock price fell $1.43 per share, or
10.96%, to close at $11.62 per share on March 13, 2023.
Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier
firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the
dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of
securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later,
Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for
the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of
fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered
billions of dollars in damages awards on behalf of class members.
See www.pomlaw.com.
CONTACT:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
888-476-6529 ext. 7980 [GN]
HOUSTON PIZZA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Blackmon Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
KYLE BLACKMON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HOUSTON PIZZA VENTURE, LLC d/b/a PAPA JOHN'S
PIZZA, Defendant, Case No. 4:23-cv-01784 (S.D. Tex., May 15, 2023)
seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Blackmon was employed by the Defendant as a delivery
driver.
HOUSTON PIZZA VENTURE, LP doing business as Papa John's, operates
as restaurant chain business. The Company provides retail sale of
prepared foods and drinks for on-premise consumption. Papa John's
also offers education and scholarship program, and school night
fundraiser services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
Jolie N. Pavlos, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
20 N. Orange Ave., 15th Floor
Orlando, FL 32802-4979
Telephone: (407) 420-1414
Facsimile: (407) 245-3401
Email: RMorgan@forthepeople.com
JPavlos@forthepeople.com
IRHTYM TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
iRhythm Technologies Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2023, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the securities class suit in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California.
On February 1, 2021, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California (the "Court") alleging that the Company and its former
Chief Executive Officer, Kevin M. King, violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder
("Securities Class Action Lawsuit").
On August 2, 2021, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint,
and filed a further amended complaint on September 24, 2021.
The amended complaint names as defendants, in addition to the
Company and Mr. King, its former Chief Executive Officer, Michael
J. Coyle, and former Chief Financial Officer and former Chief
Operating Officer, Douglas J. Devine.
The purported class in the amended complaint includes all persons
who purchased or acquired the Company's common stock between August
4, 2020 and July 13, 2021, and seeks unspecified damages
purportedly sustained by the class.
On October 27, 2021, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.
The motion to dismiss was fully briefed and the Court held a
hearing on the motion on February 4, 2022, after which the Court
took the matter under submission.
On March 31, 2022, the Court issued an order granting the Company''
motion to dismiss the Securities Class Action Lawsuit, without
allowing plaintiff further leave to amend, and entered judgment in
favor of the Company and the other defendants.
On April 29, 2022, the plaintiff that filed the initial complaint
in the action filed a notice of appeal.
On September 7, 2022, the plaintiff-appellant filed its opening
brief, and the Company filed a motion to dismiss for lack of
standing to appeal and Article III standing on September 27, 2022.
On October 17, 2022, the plaintiff filed its response to the
Company's motion to dismiss, and the Company filed its reply in
support of the motion to dismiss on November 3, 2022.
The Company's motion to dismiss the appeal was denied without
prejudice on December 8, 2022.
The Company filed its responding brief on the appeal on February
16, 2023.
The Company believes the Securities Class Action Lawsuit to be
without merit and plan to defend itself vigorously.
iRhythm Technologies, Inc. is a digital healthcare company
redefining the way cardiac arrhythmias are clinically diagnosed by
combining its wearable biosensing technology with cloud-based data
analytics and deep-learning capabilities. The company is based in
San Francisco, California.
JUNK BRANDS: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Junk Brands Company,
LLC. The case is styled as Luis Toro, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Junk Brands Company, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-03973 (S.D.N.Y., May 12, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
JUNK Brands -- https://www.junkbrands.com/ -- are makers of the #1
high performance athletic headband for both men and women.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
KIA MOTORS: Faces Consolidated Suit Over Defective Windshields
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Thompson of Repairer Driven News reports that a group of
Kia owners is launching a class action lawsuit against the
automaker, claiming a windshield defect poses an "extreme safety
hazard" for drivers, passengers, and pedestrians.
The consolidated class action complaint is demanding a jury trial
to determine whether Kia knowingly hid a defect and avoided
warranty obligations.
The 119-page complaint includes accounts from 11 plaintiffs from
throughout the U.S. detailing claims of their windshields cracking
shortly after purchasing 2019-2022 Tellurides directly from
dealerships.
Their stories are markedly similar. According to the filing:
Yandery Sanchez bought a new 2020 Kia Telluride in Houston, Texas
in November 2019. By January 2020, she said she discovered a crack
on her SUV's windshield after parking it in the garage.
Louise Knudson bought a new 2021 Kia Telluride in Elmira, New York
in October 2020. Two days after taking it home, she "went to her
garage and observed a large crack across… the vehicle's
windshield."
Andrea Reiher-Odom bought a 2021 Telluride in September 2020 and
said its windshield cracked one month later after a "small pebble"
hit it and caused a small chip. She said by the next morning, the
chip had expanded to a "two-foot long crack"
Amber Witt bought a new 2021 Kia Telluride in Mooresville, North
Carolina and said one day after purchasing it she discovered a
small crack on its windshield that "quickly grew significantly
larger."
Mark Treston bought a 2022 Kia Telluride in Temecula, California on
Dec. 18, 2021 and paid extra for an extended warranty. He said less
than a week after purchasing the vehicle, he discovered it
developed a crack while parked in his garage. Within a day the
crack grew to be two-feet long, he said, adding the replacement was
not covered under his warranty.
Margaret Ritzler bought a 2022 Kia Telluride on July 13, 2021 in
Albuquerque, New Mexico and said in August woke up to discover a
crack on its windshield.
Hank Herber bought a new 2022 Kia Telluride in Louisville,
Tennessee in September 2021. He said a crack appeared on his
windshield within two months despite not observing any prior impact
that might have caused it.
Linda Wilbur purchased a new 2022 Kia Telluride from a dealership
in Indianapolis, Indiana in February 2022 and said a crack formed
across its windshield the following month.
Thomas Rocco bought a 2021 Kia Telluride from a Blakely,
Pennsylvania dealership in August 2020. He said he discovered a
chip in the windshield in May 2022.
On Nov. 28, 2020 Jerry Dubose bought a new 2021 Kia Telluride in
Houston, Texas and said its windshield inexplicably developed a
crack the following August.
April Fisher bought a new 2022 Kia Telluride in Lynchburg, Virginia
in May 2022 and said in June a small pebble struck its windshield,
quickly resulting "in a crack across the entire length of the
windshield."
In each case, the vehicle owners said they contacted the authorized
dealer they purchased their Telluride from to request that the
windshields be replaced under Kia's warranty. In each case, the
automaker refused, the lawsuit claims.
The plaintiffs said they were left with out-of-pocket replacement
costs that averaged about $1,000, or forced to pay a $500
deductible to have their windshields replaced through their auto
insurance policies.
A few plaintiffs said their replacement windshields were defective
as well and cracked shortly after installation.
The drivers said the cracks impacted their ability to drive,
especially during glare caused by sunlight or oncoming headlights
at nighttime. Witt said that in her case the crack caused the
windshield's rain detection sensors to malfunction.
The lawsuit said the defect was "unreasonably dangerous to
consumers due to [its] impact on visibility, the distracting nature
of the resulting cracks, as well as the class vehicles' structural
integrity, and the potential for injury."
The complaint states a class action lawsuit is necessary because
more than 100 similar cases have been identified with damages
estimated to exceed $5 million.
One plaintiff, Sanchez, said her cracked windshield prompted her to
do some online research to determine whether Kia had issued a
recall for the windshield defect. She then happened upon a letter
from Nov. 9 2019 that Kia sent to some of its customers, the
lawsuit said.
"Kia stated that it had 'identified that in some instances,
customers have reported windshield chipping following by extensive
cracking within a short period of time, thereby preventing repair
of the chip,'" the lawsuit claimed. "The goodwill letter further
stated that in 'an effort to ensure customer satisfaction, Kia will
replace your Telluride's windshield as a goodwill gesture should it
chip and crack thereby preventing repair of the chip while we
continue to investigate this issue' and advised that customers
should ‘contact your local authorized Kia dealer and schedule an
appointment’ and ‘[b]ring this letter to the appointment and
provide it to the dealer for reference.'"
Sanchez reached out to her dealer and asked again whether her
windshield could be replaced at no cost, given the issue Kia
acknowledged in its goodwill letter. She said she was told the
letter "did not apply to her."
None of the plaintiffs listed in the lawsuit received the goodwill
letter.
Kia has yet to counter the allegations in court and did not respond
to Repairer Driven News requests for comment.
It says on its website that windshield replacement costs are
covered through its superior and superior plus coverage plans but
does not indicate whether windshield replacements are covered under
its bumper-to-bumper warranty. [GN]
KPB IMMIGRATION: Lomeli Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against KPB Immigration Law
Firm PC, et al. The case is styled as Cecilia Lomeli, on behalf of
all other similarly situated employees v. KPB Immigration Law Firm
PC, Kerosky, Purves, & Bogue, LLP, Wilson Purves, Case No.
23CV001639 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., May 15, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case."
KPB Law Firm -- https://www.kpbimmigrationlawfirm.com/ -- is a team
of experienced immigration attorneys that has provided reliable,
creative and practical legal advice for businesses and
individuals.[BN]
LCA-VISION INC: Crabill Files Suit in S.D. Ohio
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against LCA-Vision Inc. The
case is styled as Maren Crabill, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. LCA-Vision Inc. doing business as:
LasikPlus doing business as: Joffe Docket No. Medicenter, Case No.
1:23-cv-00280-TSB (S.D. Ohio, May 12, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
LCA-Vision -- http://www.lasikplus.com/-- is a provider of
photorefractive keratectomy in the United States under the
LasikPlus brand.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
ANDERSON & WANCA
3701 Algonquin Road, Ste. 500
Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
Phone: (847) 368-1500
Fax: (847) 368-1501
Email: rkelly@andersonwanca.com
LENOVO INC: Harmon Sues Over False and Misleading Representation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sue Harmon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Lenovo (United States) Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-01643
(S.D. Ill., May 15, 2023), is brought seeking damages and an
injunction to stop the Defendant's false and misleading
representation of its "smart clock" promised to have a "big & bold
display so you can check out the time from across the room" as a
result of its four inch light emitting diode ("LED") display
("Product").
Regardless of whether the Product is sold from a third-party or
directly from Lenovo, its representations are substantially similar
because Defendant distributes the same promotional material and
requires it be presented to consumers. The representations are
misleading because the LED lights consistently burn out prematurely
and fail to adjust to changing levels of ambient light. The result
is that users cannot "check the time & weather," because the time
could be anywhere from 4:20 PM to 8:20 PM based on the first digit,
while the temperature reading of zero degrees was false because it
was 80 degrees.
Many owners have described how this defect is prone to manifest
when the screen dims when the amount of ambient light decreases.
This means the Product cannot "be a great night-time companion with
its built-in nightlight that provides a small source of light"
because users are unable to check what time it is. Frustrated yet
creative users have attempted numerous "fixes" with no success.
This includes rebooting and resetting the device, applying light
pressure to the edges and face of the display and controlling
and/or disabling the auto-dim functionality. The causes of this
issue are likely attributable to manufacturing defects and
quality-control failures. The circuits in LED displays contain
numerous emitters, capacitors, and/or semiconductors, and where one
of these components is faulty or where quality control is lacking,
the result will be a display failure for the user because of
overheating, among other things.
Additionally, the use of incompatible and defective LED drivers
causes improper power distribution, making it more likely for the
screen to suffer from display failures. By using low-grade
materials which wear out quicker than expected, it is more likely
and even probable that the display will become non-functioning
within a short period of time after first use. The high number of
occurrences reported on social media and the internet, where the
clock had been used for less than a year point to a combination of
the above factors as the cause.
Finally, numerous reports indicate that Lenovo consistently denies
claims for warranty coverage even during the relevant time period
it purports to allow such claims. In denying coverage, Defendant
attributes the display failures to consumer misuse which they say
voids any coverage, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412
Great Neck NY 11021
Phone: (516) 268-7080
Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com
LEXINGTON COUNTY, SC: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert. Response
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bradley Amick and Taylor
Kitchens, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, v. Lexington County, Case No. 3:23-cv-00336-CMC (D.S.C.),
the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order extending by 10
calendar days the date by which the Defendant Lexington County must
respond to the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.
-- The new deadline for the Defendant's Response to the
Plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification would be Thursday, May 25,
2023.
The mother of Charles F. Thompson, Jr., counsel for the Defendant
Lexington County, passed away on May 4, 2023. The memorial service
for Mr. Thompson's mother is scheduled for Saturday, May 13, 2023.
The Plaintiffs have graciously provided their consent to this
Motion. The Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class Certification
on Monday, May 1, 2023. the Defendant's Response is currently due
on or before Monday, May 15.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated May 10, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Iu0xXd at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Daniel S. Haltiwanger, Esq.
Brady R. Thomas, Esq.
Grace M. Babcock, Esq.
RICHARDSON THOMAS, LLC
1513 Hampton Street, First Floor
Columbia, SC 29201
Telephone: (803) 281-8150
E-mail: dan@richardsonthomas.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Michael D. Malone, Esq.
Charles F. Thompson, Jr., Esq.
Lake E. Summers, Esq.
MALONE, THOMPSON, SUMMERS & OTT, LLC
339 Heyward Street, Suite 200
Columbia, SC 29201
Telephone: (803) 254-3300
Facsimile: (803) 254-0309
E-mail: malone@mtsolawfirm.com
LEXINGTON GOLF: Laine Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMANDA LAINE, ELIZABETH
UNDERWOOD, and KRISTIAN KISKADEN, On Behalf of Themselves and All
Others Similarly Situated, v. LEXINGTON GOLF & TRAVEL, LLC, ACT
DISTRIBUTORS LLC, and GPT (DE) LLC, d/b/a CHEETAH PREMIER
GENTLEMEN’S CLUB OF LEXINGTON, Case No. 5:23-cv-00126-GFVT (E.D.
Ky.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:
1. enjoining the Defendants from communicating with current and
potential Opt-In the Plaintiffs in this collective action
regarding the case and its subject matter;
2. conditionally certifying their Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA)
and Kentucky Wages and Hours Act (KWHA) claims as a
collective
action, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b); and
3. authorizing expedited notice of this action to the following
individuals:
"All current and former VIP Hosts and Hostesses of the
Defendants at Cheetah in Lexington, Kentucky at any time since
April 27, 2018 (Collective Class)."
In addition to this relief, the Plaintiffs also request that the
Court adopt their proposed expedited notice procedures by ordering
that:
1. the Defendants shall produce within seven days of the
Court's order a list containing the following information for
each member of the Collective Class: name(s), dates of
employment, last known mailing address(es), last known email
address(es), and last known telephone number(s);
2. the Plaintiffs' proposed Notices and Consent Form are
approved;
3. the Plaintiffs' counsel are authorized to distribute the
approved Notices and Consent Form to members of the
Collective
Class via U.S. Mail (along with a prepaid return envelope
addressed to the Plaintiffs' counsel), E-mail, and Short
Message
Service (SMS) / text message;
4. the Defendants are ordered to post the approved Notice in
conspicuous locations within the Defendants' Cheetah Premier
Gentlemen's Club of Lexington facility where potential Opt-In
the Plaintiffs are most likely to view the Notice;
5. the Plaintiffs' counsel are authorized to send a reminder
notice approximately halfway through the 90-day notice period
as
set forth in the proposed order; and
6. Consent Forms to join this action must be postmarked or
otherwise received by the Plaintiffs' counsel within ninety
(90)
days of the date notices are sent via U.S. Mail, E-mail, and
SMS
/ text message.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 9, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Bv84B9 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David W. Garrison, Esq.
Joshua A. Frank, Esq.
Nicole A. Chanin, Esq.
BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC
Philips Plaza, 414 Union Street, Suite 900
Nashville, TN 37219
Telephone: (615) 244-2202
Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com
jfrank@barrettjohnston.com
nchanin@barrettjohnston.com
LINDT & SPRUNGLI: Newman Suit Transferred to E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Tara Newman, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Lindt & Sprungli (North America) Inc.,
Case No. 1:23-cv-01972 was transferred 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 May 15, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-03641-ENV-JRC to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Fraud or Truth-In-Lending.
Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprungli AG, doing business as Lindt &
Sprungli -- http://www.lindt-spruengli.com/-- is a Swiss
chocolatier and confectionery company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nick Suciu, III, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
6905 Telegraph Rd., Suite 115
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301
Phone: (313) 303-3472
Email: nsuciu@milberg.com
- and -
Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
THE SULTZER LAW GROUP
85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200
Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
Phone: (845) 483-7100
Email: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Alvina Pillai, Esq.
KING & SPALDING LLP
1185 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
Phone: (212) 790-5331
Fax: (212) 556-2222
Email: apillai@kslaw.com
- and -
Nicolas Duque Franco, Esq.
KING & SPALDING
633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1600
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 443-4371
Fax: (213) 443-4310
Email: nfranco@kslaw.com
LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Lordstown Motors Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2023, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the consolidated securities class suits in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.
Six related putative securities class action lawsuits were filed
against the Company an d certain of its current and former officers
and directors and former DiamondPeak directors between March 18,
2021 and May 14, 2021 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio (Rico v. Lordstown Motors Corp., et al. (Case No.
21-cv-616); Palumbo v. Lordstown Motors Corp., et al. (Case No.
21-cv-633); Zuod v. Lordstown Motors Corp., et al. (Case No.
21-cv-720); Brury v. Lordstown Motors Corp., et al. (Case No.
21-cv-760); Romano v. Lordstown Motors Corp., et al., (Case No.
21-cv-994); and FNY Managed Accounts LLC v. Lordstown Motors Corp.,
et al. (Case No. 21-cv-1021)).
The matters have been consolidated and the Court appointed George
Troicky as lead plaintiff and Labaton Sucharow LLP as lead
plaintiff's counsel.
On September 10, 2021, lead plaintiff and several additional named
plaintiffs filed their consolidated amended complaint, asserting
violations of federal securities laws under Section 10(b), Section
14(a), Section 20(a), and Section 20A of the Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5 thereunder against the Company and certain of its current and
former officers and directors.
The complaint generally alleges that the Company and individual
defendants made materially false and misleading statements relating
to vehicle pre-orders and production timeline.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which is fully briefed as of
March 3, 2022.
A hearing on the motion to dismiss has not been scheduled and a
decision has not yet been rendered.
The Company intends to vigorously defend against the claims. The
proceedings are subject to uncertainties inherent in the litigation
process.
Lordstown is an automotive company founded for the purpose of
developing and manufacturing light duty electric trucks targeted
for sale to fleet customers.
LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Continues to Defend Fiduciary-Related Class Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Lordstown Motors Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2023, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the consolidated the breach of fiduciary duty
class suits in the Delaware Court of Chancery.
Two putative class action lawsuits were filed against former
DiamondPeak directors and DiamondPeak Sponsor LLC on December 8 and
13, 2021 in the Delaware Court of Chancery (Hebert v. Hamamoto, et
al. (C.A. No. 2021-1066); and Amin v Hamamoto, et al. (C.A. No.
2021-1085)).
The plaintiffs purport to represent a class of investors in
DiamondPeak and assert breach of fiduciary duty claims based on
allegations that the defendants made or failed to prevent alleged
misrepresentations regarding vehicle pre-orders and production
timeline, and that but for those allegedly false and misleading
disclosures, the plaintiffs would have exercised a right to redeem
their shares prior to the de-SPAC transaction.
On February 9, 2022, the parties filed a stipulation and proposed
order consolidating the two putative class action lawsuits,
appointing Hebert and Amin as co-lead plaintiffs, appointing
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP and Pomerantz LLP as
co-lead counsel and setting a briefing schedule for the motions to
dismiss and motions to stay.
The motions to stay were fully briefed as of February 23, 2022 and
the court held oral argument on February 28, 2022.
On March 7, 2022, the court denied the motion to stay. On March 10,
2022, defendants filed their brief in support of their motion to
dismiss.
The motion to dismiss was fully briefed on April 27, 2022, and was
scheduled for oral argument on May 10, 2022.
On May 6, 2022, defendants withdrew the motion to dismiss without
prejudice.
On July 22, 2022, co-lead plaintiffs filed an amended class action
complaint asserting similar claims.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended class action
complaint on October 14, 2022. Plaintiffs' answering brief and
Defendants’ reply brief were due on November 18 and December 9,
2022, respectively.
Oral argument on the motion to dismiss was scheduled for January 6,
2023.
On January 5, 2023, the defendants withdrew their motion to
dismiss.
On February 2, 2023, the court issued a case scheduling order
setting forth pre-trial deadlines and a date for trial in March
2024.
On February 3, 2023, defendants filed their answer to plaintiffs'
amended class action complaint.
On February 7, 2023, plaintiffs served the Company, as a non-party,
with a subpoena for certain information, which the Company
responded to on February 21, 2023.
Plaintiff and the Company, as a non-party, are currently meeting
and conferring regarding the scope of the Company's discovery
obligations pursuant to the subpoena.
The defendants intend to vigorously defend against the claims. The
proceedings are subject to uncertainties inherent in the litigation
process.
Lordstown is an automotive company founded for the purpose of
developing and manufacturing light duty electric trucks targeted
for sale to fleet customers.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CA: Doe FLSA Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JOHN DOE, individually and on behalf of those
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, a public
entity; ANTHONY C. MARRONE, Chief of Los Angeles County Fire
Department, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
23STCV05065, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California in and for the County of Los Angeles to the United
States District Court for the Central District of California on May
9, 2023.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:23-cv-03541 to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff asserts two causes of action against the Defendants
including violation of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and
writ of mandate pursuant to the California Code of Civil
Procedure.
County of Los Angeles is the most populous county in the United
States.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Geoffrey S. Sheldon, Esq.
Elizabeth T. Arce, Esq.
Victor D. Gonzalez, Esq.
LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE
A Professional Law Corporation
6033 West Century Boulevard, 5th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90045
Telephone: (310) 981-2000
Facsimile: (310) 337-0837
E-mail: gsheldon@lcwlegal.com
earce@lcwlegal.com
vgonzalez@lcwlegal.com
LUCKY2MEDIA LLC: Bellanca Files Suit in N.D. Ohio
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lucky2Media, LLC. The
case is styled as James Bellanca, William Bruce, Ohio citizens,
individually and as the representatives of a class of
similarly-situated persons v. Lucky2Media, LLC doing business as:
GoLookUp, Case No. 1:23-cv-00967-CEF (N.D. Ohio, May 12, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
Lucky2Media, LLC doing business as GoLookUp --
https://golookup.com/ -- provides a basic free people search
directory for its users.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
ANDERSON & WANCA
3701 Algonquin Road, Ste. 500
Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
Phone: (847) 368-1500
Fax: (847) 368-1501
Email: rkelly@andersonwanca.com
LUME DEODORANT: Nelson Files Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lume Deodorant, LLC.
The case is styled as Melissa Nelson, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Lume Deodorant, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-03629 (E.D.N.Y., May 15, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Fraud or Truth-In-Lending.
Lume Deodorant -- https://lumedeodorant.com/ -- is an aluminum free
deodorant for pits, feet and privates.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer I. Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Road, Ste. 409
Great Neck, NY 11021
Phone: (516) 260-7080
Fax: (516) 234-7800
Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com
LUMINESS DIRECT: Conidi Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Jennifer Conidi, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Luminess Direct, LLC doing
business as: Luminess Cosmetics doing business as: Does 1-10 d/b/a
Luminess Cosmetics, Case No. 2023-CH-02147 was removed from the
Cook County Circuit Court, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on April 3, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-02099 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Luminess Direct, LLC doing business as Luminess Cosmetics --
https://www.luminesscosmetics.com/ -- offers a huge selection of
high quality cosmetics & skincare online.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David B. Levin, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN. P.C.
707 Skokie Blvd., Suite 600
Northbrook, IL 60062
Phone: (224) 218-0882
Email: dlevin@toddflaw.com
- and -
Steven Gene Perry, Esq.
707 Skokie Blvd., Ste 600
Northbrook, IL 60062
Phone: (224) 218-0875
Email: steven.perry@toddflaw.com
- and -
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN
21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Phone: (877) 206-4741
Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Vivian Sandoval, Esq.
DENTONS US LLP
233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 5900
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 876-3149
Email: vivian.sandoval@dentons.com
MAAMOUL SHOP LLC: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Maamoul Shop, LLC.
The case is styled as Jenny Hwang, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Maamoul Shop, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-03585-NRM-RML (E.D.N.Y., May 12, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Maamoul Shop is located in New York, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
14749 71st Ave.
Flushing, NY 11367
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
MACLELLAN INTEGRATED: Hoye BIPA Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled CHANTELLE HOYE, et al., individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. MACLELLAN INTEGRATED SERVICES,
INC., Case No. 2023CH000008, was removed from the Circuit Court of
McLean County, Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of Illinois on April 11, 2023.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:23-cv-01150-MMM-JEH to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged unlawful capture of
its employees' private biometric information, without informed
consent, in violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy
Act.
MacLellan Integrated Services, Inc. is a provider of cleaning and
maintenance services headquartered in Lexington, Kentucky. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Anne E. Larson, Esq.
OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART PC
Suite 4300
155 N. Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 558-1253
Email: anne.larson@ogletreedeakins.com
MAPLEBEAR INC: Faces Young BIPA Suit Over Biometric Info Collection
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Samantha Young, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Maplebear, Inc. d/b/a Instacart, Case No. 1:23-cv-03046
(N.D. Ill., May 15, 2023) is a class action complaint against the
Defendant for collection and retention of biometric information, in
violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.
According to the complaint, to be a Shopper for Instacart, the
Plaintiff was required to upload a picture of her face taken on her
cell phone to be her profile image to server as her "avatar" as
well as a picture of her government issued identification.
Instacart then requires the Plaintiff and all its Shoppers to take
verification photos on their cell phones at regular intervals when
they are working through the Instacart app.
At all relevant times, Instacart had no written policy, made
available to the public, establishing a retention schedule and
guidelines for permanently destroying biometric information when
the initial purpose for collecting or obtaining such biometric
information has been satisfied or within 3 years of the
individual's last interaction with Instacart, whichever occurs
first, the Plaintiff contends.
Additionally, Instacart disclosed, redisclosed, or otherwise
disseminated Plaintiff's biometric information (1) without
Plaintiff's consent; (2) without Plaintiff's authorization to
complete a financial transaction requested or authorized by
Plaintiff; (3) without being required by State or federal law or
municipal ordinance; or (4) without being required pursuant to a
valid warrant or subpoena issued by a court of competent
jurisdiction, the Plaintiff claims.
The Plaintiff worked as an Instacart Shopper and had her biometric
information collected and stored by Instacart within the five years
immediately preceding the filing of this action.
Maplebear is a Delaware corporation which operates as Instacart an
online, "app-based" food delivery platform.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael L. Fradin, Esq.
FRADIN LAW
8 N. Court St. Suite 403
Athens, OH 45701
Telephone: (847) 986-5889
Facsimile: (847) 673-1228
E-mail: mike@fradinlaw.com
- and -
James L. Simon, Esq.
SIMON LAW CO.
5000 Rockside Road
Liberty Plaza - Suite 520
Independence, OH 44131
Telephone: (216) 816-8696
E-mail: james@simonsayspay.com
MATT MARTORELLO: Duggan Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Dana Duggan, individually and on behalf of
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff; Monique Martinez, Petitioner
v. Matt Martorello, Eventide Credit Acquisition, LLC, Case No.
3:22-mc-00665 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
District of Puerto Rico, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts on May 15, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-mc-91305-NMG to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Civil Miscellaneous Case.
Matt Martorello is Venture Partner at Promus Ventures.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roberto A. Camara-Fuertes
FERRAIUOLI, LLC
PO Box 195168
San Juan, PR 00919-5168
Phone: (787) 766-7000
Fax: (787) 766-7001
Email: rcamara@ferraiuoli.com
- and -
Alexandra C. Casellas-Cabrera
ADSUAR MUNIZ GOYCO SEDA & PEREZ-OCHOA, PSC
PO Box 70294
San Juan, PR 00936-8294
Phone: (787) 413-1452
Fax: (787) 756-9010
Email: alecasellas7@gmail.com
MATTERPORT INC: Lynch Seeks to Certify Class of Service Partners
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHAWN LYNCH, on behalf of
himself and all other persons similarly situated, v. MATTERPORT,
INC., a Delaware corporation; RJ PITTMAN, DAVE GAUSEBECK, MATT
BELL, CARLOS KOKRON, PETER HEBERT, JASON KRIKORIAN, and MIKE
GUSTAFSON, Case No. 3:22-cv-03704-WHA (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order certifying a class of:
"All persons in the United States who, within the applicable
statute of limitations, (a) did not previously own a Matterport
3D
camera, (b) applied online through Matterport's website and
became
a Matterport Service Partner (MSP), and (c) purchased a
Matterport
3D camera or Matterport Cloud services in connection with
becoming
an MSP, or incurred other expenses to start or operate their MSP
business."
The Class is comprised of approximately 2,647 MSPs in the United
States who relied on Matterport’s misrepresentations and
omissions
about the MSP program and incurred expenses to start or operate
their MSP business.
Excluded from the Class are: (1) the Defendant and the
Defendant's
agents; (2) the Judge to whom this case is assigned and the
Judge's
immediate family; (3) any person who executes and files a timely
request for exclusion from the Class; (4) any persons who have
had
their claims in this matter finally adjudicated and/or otherwise
released; and (5) the legal representatives, successors and
assigns
of any such excluded person.
Matterport operates as a software company.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 10, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43eq6mP at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark L. Javitch, Esq.
JAVITCH LAW OFFICE
3 East 3rd Ave. Ste. 200
San Mateo CA 94401
Telephone: (650) 781-8000
Facsimile: (650) 648-0705
E-mail: mark@javitchlawoffice.com
- and -
Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq.
Sharon A. Harris, Esq.
ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 440-0020
Facsimile: (312) 440-4180
E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com
sharon@attorneyzim.com
www.attorneyzim.com
firm@attorneyzim.com
MCLEAN COUNTY, IL: Ct. Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Grimm
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Grimm v. Board of
Education of McLean County Unit School District No 5 McLean and
Woodford Counties Illinois, Case No. 1:22-cv-01432-JES-JEH (C.D.
Ill.),
the Hon. Judge Jonathan E. Hawley entered a standing order as
follows:
-- Rule 16 scheduling conference
The Court will set a Rule 16 scheduling conference
approximately
30 days after the answer or other responsive pleading is
filed.
The conference will generally be conducted by telephone.
-- Discovery plan
The discovery plan shall be filed with the Court at least
three
calendar days before the Rule 16 scheduling conference.
-- Waiver of the Rule 16 scheduling conference
If the parties agree on all matters contained in the
discovery
plan, then the parties may waive the Rule 16 scheduling
conference. To do so, the parties shall indicate in the
discovery that the parties agree upon all maters contained
within the discovery plan, and they request that the Rule 16
scheduling conference be cancelled.
-- Failure of counsel to attend a scheduled telephone hearing
For the convenience of counsel, the Court conducts most
hearings
by telephone when possible. Counsel's failure to appear for a
telephone hearing will be treated as a failure of counsel to
appear for an in-person hearing.
-- Discovery disputes brought to the Court's attention after the
discovery deadline has already passed
The parties may not raise a discovery dispute with the Court
after the relevant discovery deadline has passed; all
discovery
disputes must be brought to the Court's attention before the
relevant discovery deadline passes. Any discovery disputes
raised with the Court after the expiration of the relevant
discovery deadline shall be deemed waived by the Court, even
if
the parties agreed to conduct discovery after the relevant
discovery deadline has passed. If the parties agree to
conduct
discovery after the expiration of a deadline set by the
Court,
they must still file a motion requesting that the Court move
that deadline as agreed by the parties in order to avoid any
subsequent discovery disputes being deemed waived.
-- Settlement conferences and mediation
The parties are encouraged to seek a settlement conference or
mediation with a magistrate judge. Where parties request a
settlement conference or mediation in a case referred to
Judge
Hawley, Judge Hawley will conduct said conference or
mediation.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 9, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Ok1MvF at no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 2913: Morenci Area Alleges E-Cigarette Promotion to Youth
-------------------------------------------------------------
MORENCI AREA SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES;
ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.; and
JOHN DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-02255-WHO
(N.D. Cal., May 9, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants
for public nuisance, negligence, gross negligence, strict product
liability, punitive damages, and violation of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, Juul Labs, Inc., the maker of the JUUL
e-cigarette, and Altria, one of the world's largest producers and
marketers of tobacco products, worked together to implement their
shared goal of growing a youth market in the image of the
combustible cigarette market through a multi-pronged strategy to:
(1) create an highly addictive product that users would not
associate with cigarettes and that would appeal to the lucrative
youth market, (2) deceive the public into thinking the product was
a fun and safe alternative to cigarettes that would also help
smokers quit, (3) actively attract young users through targeted
marketing, and (4) use a variety of tools, including false and
deceptive statements to the public and regulators, to delay
regulation of e-cigarettes.
By working to preserve and expand the market of underage JUUL
customers, fraudulently denying JLI's youth-focused marketing, and
deceiving regulators and the public in order to allow JUUL products
and mint-flavored JUULpods to remain on the market, the JLI
Enterprise caused the expansion of an illicit e-cigarette market
for youth in Plaintiff's schools and caused a large number of youth
in Plaintiff's schools to become addicted to nicotine, thus forcing
Plaintiff to expend time, money, and resources to address the
epidemic Defendants created through their conduct, the suit
asserts.
The Plaintiff, and similarly situated school districts in the State
of Michigan, have redirected significant resources to combat
Defendants' alleged deceptive marketing scheme, to educate its
students on the true dangers of Defendants' e-cigarette products
and to prevent the possession and use of Defendants' e-cigarette
products on Plaintiffs' property.
The Morenci Area Schools case has been consolidated in MDL No.
2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.
Morenci Area Schools is a public school district organized and
existing in accordance with the laws of the State of Michigan with
its geographic boundaries located in Lenawee County.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
Jade S. Koller, Esq.
Kristina Aghazaryan, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
jkoller@frantzlawgroup.com
kaghazaryan@frantzlawgroup.com
MDL 2972: Blackbaud Must Oppose Mesa Class Cert. Bid by June 9
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mesa, et al., v. Enloe
Medical Center, Case No. 3:21-cv-01872 (D.S.C., Filed June 17,
2021), the Hon. Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., entered an amended
scheduling order as follows:
Event Deadline
-- Blackbaud's opposition to class June 9, 2023
Certification:
-- Blackbaud's rebuttal class June 9, 2023
certification expert disclosure:
-- Blackbaud's Daubert Motion on June 9, 2023
Plaintiffs' class certification
Experts:
-- Plaintiffs' deadline to file a Aug. 3, 2023
motion seeking leave to submit
rebuttal expert information with
reply brief:
-- Plaintiffs' response in opposition Sept. 11, 2023
to Blackbaud's Daubert Motions on
Plaintiffs' class certification
Experts:
-- Blackbaud's reply in support of its Oct. 20, 2023
Daubert motion on Plaintiffs’ class
certification experts:
-- Plaintiffs' reply in support of their Oct. 20, 2023
motion for class certification:
-- Plaintiffs' Daubert Motions on Oct. 20, 2023
Blackbaud rebuttal class
certification experts:
-- Plaintiffs' reply in support on Jan. 22, 2024
their Daubert Motions on
Blackbaud's rebuttal class
certification experts:
-- Hearing on class certification: TBD
and Daubert Motions:
The Mesa case is consolidated in the Blackbaud, Inc., Customer Data
Breach. The Lead case is Case No. 3:20-mn-02972.
The Plaintiffs in the actions allegedly received data breach
notices from the following organizations: Atrium Health; Bread for
the World; Crystal Stairs; Episcopal High School; Light of Life
Rescue Mission; Planned Parenthood; St. David's Center for Child
and Family Development; University of Wisconsin -- Eau Claire;
WakeMed Foundation; and Manhattan School of Music
The Plaintiffs in the potential tag-along actions allegedly
received notices from Allina Health; Bank Street College of
Education; Childrens' Hospitals and Clinics of Minnesota; Harvard
College; Inova Health System; KidsQuest Children's Museum; Lower
East Side Tenement Museum; Mt. Sinai Health System; Northwest
Memorial Healthcare; Nuvance Health; Planned Parenthood; Stetson
University; Stony Brook University Hospital; and UMass Memorial
Medical Center.
The actions allege that numerous other schools, universities,
healthcare institutions, and non-profit organizations were affected
by the data breach. The Plaintiffs allege that the personal
information compromised by the breach includes user names, email
addresses, dates of birth, phone numbers, social security numbers,
credit card numbers, bank account numbers, financial profiles,
passwords, and health information.
The common factual questions include:
(1) Blackbaud's data security practices and whether the
practices
met industry standards;
(2) how the unauthorized access occurred;
(3) the extent of personal information affected by the breach;
(4) when Blackbaud knew or should have known of the breach;
(5) the investigation into the breach; and
(6) the alleged delay in disclosure of the breach to Blackbaud
clients and affected consumers.
Blackbaud is a cloud computing provider that serves the social good
community—nonprofits, foundations, corporations, education
institutions, healthcare organizations, religious organizations,
and individual change agents.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 9, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pKlFBW at no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 2972: Blackbaud Must Oppose Roth Class Cert. Bid by June 9
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Roth, et al., v.
Blackbaud, Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-00053 (D.S.C., Filed Jan. 7,
2021), the Hon. Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., entered an amended
scheduling order as follows:
Event Deadline
-- Blackbaud's opposition to class June 9, 2023
Certification:
-- Blackbaud's rebuttal class June 9, 2023
certification expert disclosure:
-- Blackbaud's Daubert Motion on June 9, 2023
Plaintiffs' class certification
Experts:
-- Plaintiffs' deadline to file a Aug. 3, 2023
motion seeking leave to submit
rebuttal expert information with
reply brief:
-- Plaintiffs' response in opposition Sept. 11, 2023
to Blackbaud's Daubert Motions on
Plaintiffs' class certification
Experts:
-- Blackbaud's reply in support of its Oct. 20, 2023
Daubert motion on Plaintiffs’ class
certification experts:
-- Plaintiffs' reply in support of their Oct. 20, 2023
motion for class certification:
-- Plaintiffs' Daubert Motions on Oct. 20, 2023
Blackbaud rebuttal class
certification experts:
-- Plaintiffs' reply in support on Jan. 22, 2024
their Daubert Motions on
Blackbaud's rebuttal class
certification experts:
-- Hearing on class certification: TBD
and Daubert Motions:
The Roth case is consolidated in the Blackbaud, Inc., Customer Data
Breach. The Lead case is Case No. 3:20-mn-02972.
The Plaintiffs in the actions allegedly received data breach
notices from the following organizations: Atrium Health; Bread for
the World; Crystal Stairs; Episcopal High School; Light of Life
Rescue Mission; Planned Parenthood; St. David's Center for Child
and Family Development; University of Wisconsin -- Eau Claire;
WakeMed Foundation; and Manhattan School of Music
The Plaintiffs in the potential tag-along actions allegedly
received notices from Allina Health; Bank Street College of
Education; Childrens' Hospitals and Clinics of Minnesota; Harvard
College; Inova Health System; KidsQuest Children's Museum; Lower
East Side Tenement Museum; Mt. Sinai Health System; Northwest
Memorial Healthcare; Nuvance Health; Planned Parenthood; Stetson
University; Stony Brook University Hospital; and UMass Memorial
Medical Center.
The actions allege that numerous other schools, universities,
healthcare institutions, and non-profit organizations were affected
by the data breach. The Plaintiffs allege that the personal
information compromised by the breach includes user names, email
addresses, dates of birth, phone numbers, social security numbers,
credit card numbers, bank account numbers, financial profiles,
passwords, and health information.
The common factual questions include:
(1) Blackbaud's data security practices and whether the
practices
met industry standards;
(2) how the unauthorized access occurred;
(3) the extent of personal information affected by the breach;
(4) when Blackbaud knew or should have known of the breach;
(5) the investigation into the breach; and
(6) the alleged delay in disclosure of the breach to Blackbaud
clients and affected consumers.
Blackbaud is a cloud computing provider that serves the social good
community—nonprofits, foundations, corporations, education
institutions, healthcare organizations, religious organizations,
and individual change agents.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 9, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3IaTT7N at no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 2972: Blackbaud Must Sheth Oppose Class Cert. Bid by June 9
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sheth v. Blackbaud Inc.,
Case No. 3:20-cv-04511 (D.S.C. Filed Dec. 30, 2020), the Hon. Judge
Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., entered an amended scheduling order as
follows:
Event Deadline
-- Blackbaud's opposition to class June 9, 2023
Certification:
-- Blackbaud's rebuttal class June 9, 2023
certification expert disclosure:
-- Blackbaud's Daubert Motion on June 9, 2023
Plaintiffs' class certification
Experts:
-- Plaintiffs' deadline to file a Aug. 3, 2023
motion seeking leave to submit
rebuttal expert information with
reply brief:
-- Plaintiffs' response in opposition Sept. 11, 2023
to Blackbaud's Daubert Motions on
Plaintiffs' class certification
Experts:
-- Blackbaud's reply in support of its Oct. 20, 2023
Daubert motion on Plaintiffs’ class
certification experts:
-- Plaintiffs' reply in support of their Oct. 20, 2023
motion for class certification:
-- Plaintiffs' Daubert Motions on Oct. 20, 2023
Blackbaud rebuttal class
certification experts:
-- Plaintiffs' reply in support on Jan. 22, 2024
their Daubert Motions on
Blackbaud's rebuttal class
certification experts:
-- Hearing on class certification: TBD
and Daubert Motions:
The Sheth case is consolidated in the Blackbaud, Inc., Customer
Data Breach. The Lead case is Case No. 3:20-mn-02972.
The Plaintiffs in the actions allegedly received data breach
notices from the following organizations: Atrium Health; Bread for
the World; Crystal Stairs; Episcopal High School; Light of Life
Rescue Mission; Planned Parenthood; St. David's Center for Child
and Family Development; University of Wisconsin -- Eau Claire;
WakeMed Foundation; and Manhattan School of Music
The Plaintiffs in the potential tag-along actions allegedly
received notices from Allina Health; Bank Street College of
Education; Childrens' Hospitals and Clinics of Minnesota; Harvard
College; Inova Health System; KidsQuest Children's Museum; Lower
East Side Tenement Museum; Mt. Sinai Health System; Northwest
Memorial Healthcare; Nuvance Health; Planned Parenthood; Stetson
University; Stony Brook University Hospital; and UMass Memorial
Medical Center.
The actions allege that numerous other schools, universities,
healthcare institutions, and non-profit organizations were affected
by the data breach. The Plaintiffs allege that the personal
information compromised by the breach includes user names, email
addresses, dates of birth, phone numbers, social security numbers,
credit card numbers, bank account numbers, financial profiles,
passwords, and health information.
The common factual questions include:
(1) Blackbaud's data security practices and whether the
practices
met industry standards;
(2) how the unauthorized access occurred;
(3) the extent of personal information affected by the breach;
(4) when Blackbaud knew or should have known of the breach;
(5) the investigation into the breach; and
(6) the alleged delay in disclosure of the breach to Blackbaud
clients and affected consumers.
Blackbaud is a cloud computing provider that serves the social good
community—nonprofits, foundations, corporations, education
institutions, healthcare organizations, religious organizations,
and individual change agents.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 9, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3o8jBTG at no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 2972: Opposition to Atwood Class Cert. Bid Due June 9
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Atwood v. Blackbaud, Inc.,
Case No. 3:20-cv-04516 (D.S.C. Filed Dec. 31, 2020), the Hon. Judge
Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., entered an amended scheduling order as
follows:
Event Deadline
-- Blackbaud's opposition to class June 9, 2023
Certification:
-- Blackbaud's rebuttal class June 9, 2023
certification expert disclosure:
-- Blackbaud's Daubert Motion on June 9, 2023
Plaintiffs' class certification
Experts:
-- Plaintiffs' deadline to file a Aug. 3, 2023
motion seeking leave to submit
rebuttal expert information with
reply brief:
-- Plaintiffs' response in opposition Sept. 11, 2023
to Blackbaud's Daubert Motions on
Plaintiffs' class certification
Experts:
-- Blackbaud's reply in support of its Oct. 20, 2023
Daubert motion on Plaintiffs' class
certification experts:
-- Plaintiffs' reply in support of their Oct. 20, 2023
motion for class certification:
-- Plaintiffs' Daubert Motions on Oct. 20, 2023
Blackbaud rebuttal class
certification experts:
-- Plaintiffs' reply in support on Jan. 22, 2024
their Daubert Motions on
Blackbaud's rebuttal class
certification experts:
-- Hearing on class certification: TBD
and Daubert Motions:
The Atwood case is consolidated in the Blackbaud, Inc., Customer
Data Breach. The Lead case is Case No. 3:20-mn-02972.
The Plaintiffs in the actions allegedly received data breach
notices from the following organizations: Atrium Health; Bread for
the World; Crystal Stairs; Episcopal High School; Light of Life
Rescue Mission; Planned Parenthood; St. David's Center for Child
and Family Development; University of Wisconsin -- Eau Claire;
WakeMed Foundation; and Manhattan School of Music
The Plaintiffs in the potential tag-along actions allegedly
received notices from Allina Health; Bank Street College of
Education; Childrens' Hospitals and Clinics of Minnesota; Harvard
College; Inova Health System; KidsQuest Children's Museum; Lower
East Side Tenement Museum; Mt. Sinai Health System; Northwest
Memorial Healthcare; Nuvance Health; Planned Parenthood; Stetson
University; Stony Brook University Hospital; and UMass Memorial
Medical Center.
The actions allege that numerous other schools, universities,
healthcare institutions, and non-profit organizations were affected
by the data breach. The Plaintiffs allege that the personal
information compromised by the breach includes user names, email
addresses, dates of birth, phone numbers, social security numbers,
credit card numbers, bank account numbers, financial profiles,
passwords, and health information.
The common factual questions include:
(1) Blackbaud's data security practices and whether the
practices
met industry standards;
(2) how the unauthorized access occurred;
(3) the extent of personal information affected by the breach;
(4) when Blackbaud knew or should have known of the breach;
(5) the investigation into the breach; and
(6) the alleged delay in disclosure of the breach to Blackbaud
clients and affected consumers.
Blackbaud is a cloud computing provider that serves the social good
community—nonprofits, foundations, corporations, education
institutions, healthcare organizations, religious organizations,
and individual change agents.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 9, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oayrcj at no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 2972: Opposition to Clayton Class Cert. Bid Due June 9
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Clayton, et al., v.
Blackbaud Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-01058 (D.S.C., Filed April 9,
2021), the Hon. Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., entered an amended
scheduling order as follows:
Event Deadline
-- Blackbaud's opposition to class June 9, 2023
Certification:
-- Blackbaud's rebuttal class June 9, 2023
certification expert disclosure:
-- Blackbaud's Daubert Motion on June 9, 2023
Plaintiffs' class certification
Experts:
-- Plaintiffs' deadline to file a Aug. 3, 2023
motion seeking leave to submit
rebuttal expert information with
reply brief:
-- Plaintiffs' response in opposition Sept. 11, 2023
to Blackbaud's Daubert Motions on
Plaintiffs' class certification
Experts:
-- Blackbaud's reply in support of its Oct. 20, 2023
Daubert motion on Plaintiffs' class
certification experts:
-- Plaintiffs' reply in support of their Oct. 20, 2023
motion for class certification:
-- Plaintiffs' Daubert Motions on Oct. 20, 2023
Blackbaud rebuttal class
certification experts:
-- Plaintiffs' reply in support on Jan. 22, 2024
their Daubert Motions on
Blackbaud's rebuttal class
certification experts:
-- Hearing on class certification: TBD
and Daubert Motions:
The Clayton case is consolidated in the Blackbaud, Inc., Customer
Data Breach. The Lead case is Case No. 3:20-mn-02972.
The Plaintiffs in the actions allegedly received data breach
notices from the following organizations: Atrium Health; Bread for
the World; Crystal Stairs; Episcopal High School; Light of Life
Rescue Mission; Planned Parenthood; St. David's Center for Child
and Family Development; University of Wisconsin -- Eau Claire;
WakeMed Foundation; and Manhattan School of Music
The Plaintiffs in the potential tag-along actions allegedly
received notices from Allina Health; Bank Street College of
Education; Childrens' Hospitals and Clinics of Minnesota; Harvard
College; Inova Health System; KidsQuest Children's Museum; Lower
East Side Tenement Museum; Mt. Sinai Health System; Northwest
Memorial Healthcare; Nuvance Health; Planned Parenthood; Stetson
University; Stony Brook University Hospital; and UMass Memorial
Medical Center.
The actions allege that numerous other schools, universities,
healthcare institutions, and non-profit organizations were affected
by the data breach. The Plaintiffs allege that the personal
information compromised by the breach includes user names, email
addresses, dates of birth, phone numbers, social security numbers,
credit card numbers, bank account numbers, financial profiles,
passwords, and health information.
The common factual questions include:
(1) Blackbaud's data security practices and whether the
practices
met industry standards;
(2) how the unauthorized access occurred;
(3) the extent of personal information affected by the breach;
(4) when Blackbaud knew or should have known of the breach;
(5) the investigation into the breach; and
(6) the alleged delay in disclosure of the breach to Blackbaud
clients and affected consumers.
Blackbaud is a cloud computing provider that serves the social good
community—nonprofits, foundations, corporations, education
institutions, healthcare organizations, religious organizations,
and individual change agents.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 9, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BwWGoa at no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 2972: Opposition to Peterson Class Cert. Bid Due June 9
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Peterson v. Allina Health
System, et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00989 (D.S.C. Filed April 2,
2021), the Hon. Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., entered an amended
scheduling order as follows:
Event Deadline
-- Blackbaud's opposition to class June 9, 2023
Certification:
-- Blackbaud's rebuttal class June 9, 2023
certification expert disclosure:
-- Blackbaud's Daubert Motion on June 9, 2023
Plaintiffs' class certification
Experts:
-- Plaintiffs' deadline to file a Aug. 3, 2023
motion seeking leave to submit
rebuttal expert information with
reply brief:
-- Plaintiffs' response in opposition Sept. 11, 2023
to Blackbaud's Daubert Motions on
Plaintiffs' class certification
Experts:
-- Blackbaud's reply in support of its Oct. 20, 2023
Daubert motion on Plaintiffs' class
certification experts:
-- Plaintiffs' reply in support of their Oct. 20, 2023
motion for class certification:
-- Plaintiffs' Daubert Motions on Oct. 20, 2023
Blackbaud rebuttal class
certification experts:
-- Plaintiffs' reply in support on Jan. 22, 2024
their Daubert Motions on
Blackbaud's rebuttal class
certification experts:
-- Hearing on class certification: TBD
and Daubert Motions:
The Peterson case is consolidated in the Blackbaud, Inc., Customer
Data Breach. The Lead case is Case No. 3:20-mn-02972.
The Plaintiffs in the actions allegedly received data breach
notices from the following organizations: Atrium Health; Bread for
the World; Crystal Stairs; Episcopal High School; Light of Life
Rescue Mission; Planned Parenthood; St. David's Center for Child
and Family Development; University of Wisconsin -- Eau Claire;
WakeMed Foundation; and Manhattan School of Music
The Plaintiffs in the potential tag-along actions allegedly
received notices from Allina Health; Bank Street College of
Education; Children's Hospitals and Clinics of Minnesota; Harvard
College; Inova Health System; KidsQuest Children's Museum; Lower
East Side Tenement Museum; Mt. Sinai Health System; Northwest
Memorial Healthcare; Nuvance Health; Planned Parenthood; Stetson
University; Stony Brook University Hospital; and UMass Memorial
Medical Center.
The actions allege that numerous other schools, universities,
healthcare institutions, and non-profit organizations were affected
by the data breach. The Plaintiffs allege that the personal
information compromised by the breach includes user names, email
addresses, dates of birth, phone numbers, social security numbers,
credit card numbers, bank account numbers, financial profiles,
passwords, and health information.
The common factual questions include:
(1) Blackbaud's data security practices and whether the
practices
met industry standards;
(2) how the unauthorized access occurred;
(3) the extent of personal information affected by the breach;
(4) when Blackbaud knew or should have known of the breach;
(5) the investigation into the breach; and
(6) the alleged delay in disclosure of the breach to Blackbaud
clients and affected consumers.
Blackbaud is a cloud computing provider that serves the social good
community—nonprofits, foundations, corporations, education
institutions, healthcare organizations, religious organizations,
and individual change agents.
Allina Health is a not-for-profit health care system based in
Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States. It owns or operates 12
hospitals and more than 90 clinics throughout Minnesota and western
Wisconsin.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 9, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/42Fil9P at no extra charge.[CC]
MELISSA & DOUG: Cano Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Melissa & Doug, LLC.
The case is styled as Anthony Cano, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Melissa & Doug, LLC, Case No.
STK-CV-UOE-2023-0004889 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., May 12,
2023).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."
Melissa & Doug, LLC -- https://www.melissaanddoug.com/ -- is an
American manufacturer of children's toys, including wooden puzzles,
arts & crafts products, plush toys, and other educational
toys.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jessica L. Campbell, Esq.
AEGIS LAW FIRM
9811 Irvine Center Dr., Ste. 100
Irvine, CA 92618
Phone: 949-379-6250
Fax: (949) 379-6251
Email: jcampbell@aegislawfirm.com
META PLATFORMS: Modified $725M Suit Deal, Included Deleted Accounts
-------------------------------------------------------------------
NBC 5 Staff reports that with a few months still left to file a
claim in a massive, nationwide $725 million class-action settlement
involving Facebook, the lawsuit has now been modified to allow
claims for those who held accounts that are now deleted.
According to an email sent out to Facebook account holders, the
change affects individuals who deleted one or more Facebook
accounts in the class period of May 24, 2007 and Dec. 22, 2022
before creating a new Facebook account in the same period.
Those who are filing a claim for a deleted account are asked to do
the following:
Go to the Settlement Website
Click on "Submit Claim."
Click the link located at the top of the page to edit your claim
("Filed A Claim? Click Here to Edit Your Claim").
Provide the Notice ID and Confirmation Code provided at the top of
this notice in order to access and edit your claim.
In the "Details" section of the form, proceed to the third question
("Are you filing a claim for a current account, a deleted account
or a combination of both?")
Select from the options: "Current Account(s)", "Deleted Account(s)"
or "Both Current and Deleted Accounts."
Complete the information requested regarding your account(s), as
applicable.
Those who have had an active Facebook account may be owed a payout
as part of the $725 million settlement that was reached with
Facebook's parent company, Meta Platforms Inc.
The lawsuit is currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, and alleges that Facebook made
users' data available to third parties without their permission.
The suit also alleges that the platform did not monitor or enforce
third-party access to the data they received. [GN]
META PLATFORMS: More Eligible Users to File Claim After Suit Update
-------------------------------------------------------------------
NBC 5 reports that with plenty of time still left to file a claim
in a nationwide $725 million class-action settlement involving
Facebook, more people are now eligible to file a claim following a
recent modification to the lawsuit.
Under the latest update, individuals who held Facebook accounts
during the class period of the lawsuit that are now deleted are now
eligible to file a claim.
An email sent to Facebook account holders said that the change
affects individuals who deleted one or more Facebook accounts in
the class period of May 24, 2007 and Dec. 22, 2022 before creating
a new Facebook account in the same period.
Those eligible can file a claim up until Aug. 25, 2023.
The lawsuit is currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, and alleges that Facebook made
users' data available to third parties without their permission.
The suit also alleges that the platform did not monitor or enforce
third-party access to the data they received.
This includes the collection of data by now-defunct political
consulting firm Cambridge Analytica, which went on to be used for
political advertising on the platform.
Additionally, how much you could receive, and what you'll need in
order to file a claim depends on several factors.
Here's everything else you need to know about the settlement.
Who Is Eligible To File a Claim?
Anybody who was a U.S. Facebook user at any point between May 24,
2007 and Dec. 22, 2022 is eligible to file a claim.
How Do I File A Claim?
Individuals hoping to receive a payment as part of the class-action
settlement can file a claim here at any point through Aug. 25,
2023.
What Do I Need In Order to File a Claim?
In addition to providing some personal information, as well has the
preferred method of payment, class-action members will be asked to
submit their Facebook username, along with any phone numbers and
email addresses associated with the account.
How To Find Your Facebook Username
Your specific Facebook username can be found by logging onto your
Facebook account, and then navigating to: "Account" > "Settings
and Privacy" > "General Account Settings" > "Username."
How Much Money Could I Receive in a Payment?
The payment size for each individual ultimately depends on how long
each person was a Facebook user and how many users ultimately file
a claim before the deadline, the settlement administrator says.
Administrative and court costs will initially be deducted from the
overall settlement total, creating a "net settlement fund," which
payments will be paid out of from.
The amount each claimant receives will then be determined by the
length of Facebook usage and number of overall claimants.
Each eligible claimant will be assigned "one point for each month"
they had an activated Facebook account during that window. Once the
total number of claimants and their points have been determined,
along with the total settlement fund amount, each person will then
receive a designated amount, multiplied by their total number of
points.
Deadlines to Know
Individuals looking to object to or opt out of the settlement have
until July 26, 2023 to do so.
Those who do not file a claim, opt out or object to the settlement
are automatically part of the settlement, but are ineligible to
receive a payment unless a claim is filed.
The deadline to file a claim is on Aug. 25, 2023.
The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for
Sept. 7, 2023 at 11 a.m. CDT.
The latest lawsuit and settlement is different from the $650
million class action settlement reached with Facebook in Illinois
last year, which resulted in hundreds of dollars being paid out to
more than a million residents.[GN]
META PLATFORMS: Settles Lundy Privacy Class Suit for $37.5M
-----------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that the lawsuit alleges Meta improperly
inferred the location of Facebook users in the United States
through their IP addresses even if a Facebook user had turned off
location services on their iOS or Android device for the Facebook
application in the case - captioned Lundy, et al. v. Meta Platforms
Inc., Case No. 3:18-cv-06793-JD.
Meta expressly denies any liability or wrongdoing.
The settlement class includes all natural persons residing in the
United States who used Facebook between Jan. 30, 2015, and April
18, 2018, inclusive, and whose iOS or Android Location Services
setting for the Facebook application was turned off at any point
during that period, but whose location information was inferred by
Facebook via the user's IP Addresses.
Consumers may file a claim if they reside in the United States,
used Facebook between Jan. 30, 2015, and April 18, 2018, inclusive,
and believe their iOS or Android Location Services setting for the
Facebook application was turned off at any point during that
period.
If the settlement is approved by the court, the defendant will
establish a settlement fund of $37.5 million to pay all valid
claims submitted by the settlement class members (unless deemed
economically or administratively infeasible as determined by the
court), as well as notice and administration expenses, attorneys'
fees and costs, and service awards for the settlement class
representatives.
If the court determines the number of claims made renders it
economically or administratively infeasible to pay money to persons
who make a timely and valid claim, payment will instead be made to
non-profit organizations as approved by the court. In other words,
in this situation, class members who made claims will not receive
payment, but rather the settlement fund will be distributed to
non-profit organizations.
The deadline to submit a claim form is Aug. 11, 2023.
Settlement class members who wish to exclude themselves from the
settlement must do so no later than Aug. 11, 2023. Settlement class
members who wish to object to the settlement must do so no later
than Oct. 5, 2023.
The court has scheduled a final approval hearing at 10 a.m. Pacific
on Oct. 19, 2023.
Who's Eligible
All natural persons residing in the United States who used Facebook
between Jan. 30, 2015, and April 18, 2018, inclusive, and whose iOS
or Android Location Services setting for the Facebook application
was turned off at any point during that period, but whose location
information was inferred by Facebook via the user's IP addresses.
Potential Award
Varies.
Claim Form Deadline
08/11/2023
Case Name
Lundy, et al. v. Meta Platforms Inc., Case No. 3:18-cv-06793-JD,
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California
Final Hearing
10/19/2023
Settlement Website
FacebookLocationSettlement.com
Claims Administrator
Facebook Location Settlement
c/o Settlement Administrator
1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210
Philadelphia, PA 19103
info@FacebookLocationSettlement.com
855-488-0996
Class Counsel
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
Defense Counsel
GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP [GN]
META PLATFORMS: Settles User Data Sharing Suit for $725 Million
---------------------------------------------------------------
Om Chaturvedi, writing for TechStory, reports that the massive $725
million Facebook settlement has caught the attention of many
individuals who were affected by the social media network's
mishandling of personal data. The settlement stems from a
class-action lawsuit against Meta, Facebook's parent company, which
alleges that users' personal information was shared with third
parties, including Cambridge Analytica, a consulting firm that
played a role in Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign. The
lawsuit covers Facebook users in the United States between May 24,
2007, and December 22, 2022, regardless of whether their data was
specifically shared or not.
While it only takes a couple of minutes to submit a claim online or
through mail, it will take considerably longer for eligible
recipients to receive their payout. The deadline for submitting
claims is August 25, 2023, providing ample time for affected users
to participate in the settlement. However, it's important to note
that even after the claim deadline, there are still additional
steps to be taken before payments can be distributed.
The final settlement hearing is scheduled for September 7, 2023, at
1 p.m. Pacific Time. This hearing will determine the final approval
of the settlement. It is at this point that the judge will decide
whether to grant the settlement, providing the necessary legal
authorization for payments to be sent out. While the exact date for
issuing payments remains uncertain, it is reasonable to expect that
distribution could occur shortly after the September court date if
the court grants final approval.
Despite the anticipation surrounding the settlement payments, there
is a caveat. The settlement page explicitly states that there is a
possibility of appeals, which could potentially delay the
resolution of the case. If an appeal were to occur, the timeline
for resolving the appeals process is unclear, adding further
uncertainty to when the payments will ultimately be distributed.
The settlement page reassures claimants that payments will be
distributed as soon as possible following the court's final
approval and the resolution of any appeals. This indicates that the
distribution process will not be unnecessarily delayed once all
legal matters have been resolved. However, it is important to
recognize that the timing of these events is contingent upon
various factors and the intricacies of the legal process.
When the settlement payments are finally distributed, the total sum
of $725 million will undergo significant reductions before reaching
individual bank accounts. The amount awarded to each person will
vary based on the length of time they held a Facebook account.
While specific payment details are not disclosed in the report, an
expert interviewed by Nexstar predicted that higher-end payments
could potentially reach the "triple digits," indicating a range of
several hundred dollars. However, it is expected that many
recipients will receive less than $100 due to the extensive number
of claimants involved in the settlement.
In addition to the timeline and payment estimates, it's worth
noting the significance of the Facebook settlement and its broader
implications. The lawsuit brought attention to the critical issue
of data privacy and raised concerns about how social media
platforms handle user information. The $725 million settlement
serves as a reminder that individuals should be cautious and
vigilant about the data they share online. It also emphasizes the
need for stricter regulations and increased transparency in the
tech industry to safeguard user privacy. The Facebook settlement
case has sparked discussions about digital rights and the
responsibilities of social media companies, prompting a wider
examination of data protection practices across various platforms.
In conclusion, the Facebook settlement payments will not be sent
out immediately after submitting a claim. Claimants must wait for
the final settlement hearing, scheduled for September 7, 2023, to
determine if the settlement is approved. After all legal matters
are resolved, payments will be distributed as quickly as possible.
However, the potential for appeals adds an element of uncertainty
to the timeline. Once payments are finally issued, recipients can
expect varying amounts based on the duration of their Facebook
account, with some potentially receiving payments in the triple
digits, while many others may receive less than $100. It is
important for claimants to remain patient and stay informed about
the progress of the settlement process. [GN]
MICHAEL FRANCIS: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due August 9
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL D. ROSE, and
EDWARD L. HARMON, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. MICHAEL FRANCIS and LARRY WARDEN, both
individually and as employees of the West Virginia Division of
Corrections and Rehabilitation, et al., Case No. 5:22-cv-00405
(S.D.W. Va.), the Hon. Judge Frank W. Volk entered an order setting
class certification dates as follows:
-- Deadline for written fact discovery July 19, 2023
related to class certification:
-- Deadline for fact witness depositions Aug. 1, 2023
related to class certification:
-- Deadline for plaintiffs to serve Aug. 1, 2023
expert reports supporting class
certification:
-- Deadline to serve motion for class Aug. 9, 2023
Certification:
-- Deadline for defendants to depose Aug. 15, 2023
Plaintiffs' expert witnesses on
class certification:
-- Deadline for defendants to serve Aug. 15, 2023
expert reports supporting class
certification:
-- Deadline for response to motion for Aug. 23, 2023
class certification:
-- Deadline for plaintiffs to depose Aug. 21, 2023
the Defendants' expert witnesses on
class certification:
-- Deadline for plaintiffs reply Aug. 30, 2023
supporting their motion for class
certification:
-- Hearing on the plaintiffs' motion for Oct. 19, 2023
class certification:
-- Amending the pleadings or joining Dec. 1, 2023
Parties:
-- Last date to serve discovery requests: Oct. 3, 2023
-- Opening Rule 26 expert disclosures: Sept. 18, 2023
-- Responsive Rule 26 expert disclosures: Oct. 18, 2023
-- Rebuttal Rule 26 expert disclosure: Nov. 3, 2023
-- Discovery to close: Nov. 17, 2023
-- Settlement meeting: Feb. 7, 2024
-- Final settlement conference: April 5, 2024
The Defendants include THE RALEIGH COUNTY COMMISSION, John/Jane Doe
Employees of the Raleigh County Commission, THE FAYETTE COUNTY
COMMISSION, John/Jane Doe Employees of the Fayette County
Commission, THE GREENBRIER COUNTY COMMISSION, John/Jane Doe
Employees of the Greenbrier County Commission, THE MERCER COUNTY
COMMISSION, John/Jane Doe Employees of the Mercer County
Commission, THE MONROE COUNTY COMMISSION, John/Jane Doe Employees
of the Monroe County Commission, THE SUMMERS COUNTY COMMISSION,
John/Jane Doe Employees of the Summers County Commission, THE
WYOMING COUNTY COMMISSION, John/Jane Doe Employees of the Wyoming
County Commission, PRIMECARE MEDICAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, INC.,
John/Jane Doe PrimeCare Employees, JOHN/JANE DOE CORRECTIONAL
OFFICERS, BETSY JIVIDEN, individually as an employee of the West
Virginia Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation, WEXFORD HEALTH
SOURCES, INC. John/Jane Doe Wexford Employees, BRAD DOUGLAS,
individually and in his official capacity as the acting
Commissioner of the West Virginia Division of Corrections and
Rehabilitation, JEFF S. SANDY, individually and in his official
capacity as the Cabinet Secretary of the West Virginia Division
Department of Homeland Security.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 9, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ofFtwt at no extra charge.[CC]
MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Faces Suit Over Data Privacy Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
JANE DOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION; QUALTRICS
INTERNATIONAL INC.; and QUALTRICS LLC, Defendants, Case No.
2:23-cv-00718 (W.D. Wash., May 15, 2023) alleges violation of the
California Invasion of Privacy Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants
repeatedly and systematically have violated that legally-protected
privacy interest by extracting private healthcare and other
information from Kaiser Permanente Members' communications with the
Kaiser Website. Through Defendants' code implemented on the Kaiser
Website, the Defendants have vacuumed up information about Kaiser
Members' medical conditions, immunizations, prescriptions,
physician information, and other private data, including healthcare
search terms, videos watched, and links accessed. And all of that
information is linked to particular patients because Defendants
each take that data together with unique identifiers that allow
Defendants to identify the Kaiser Member, says the suit.
Allegedly, the Defendants violated CIPA by intentionally reading or
attempting to read, and learning the contents of the online
communications between (i) Plaintiff, Class Members and Subclass
Members, on the one hand, and (ii) the Kaiser Website, on the
other, without Plaintiff, Class Members, and Subclass Members'
consent.
MICROSOFT CORPORATION operates as a software company. The Company
offers applications, extra cloud storage, and advanced security
solutions. Microsoft serves customers worldwide. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alexander A. Baehr, Esq.
SUMMIT LAW GROUP, PLLC
315 Fifth Avenue S, Suite 1000
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: (206) 676-7000
Email: alexb@summitlaw.com
- and -
Ekwan E. Rhow, Esq.
Marc E. Masters, Esq.
Barr Benyamin, Esq.
BIRD MARELLA BOXER WOLPERT NESSIM
DROOKS LINCENBERG & RHOW, PC
1875 Century Park East, 23rd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-2100
Email: erhow@birdmarella.com
mmasters@birdmarella.com
bbenyamin@birdmarella.com
- and -
Jonathan Rotter, Esq.
Kara M. Wolke, Esq.
Pavithra Rajesh, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
Email: jrotter@glancylaw.com
kwolke@glancylaw.com
prajesh@glancylaw.com
MIKE ARNOLD: Parties Seek to Modify Class Cert. Briefing Schedule
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRENDA SZALANSKI, on
behalf of herself, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. MIKE ARNOLD, et al., the Parties ask the
Court to enter an order modifying the remaining class certification
briefing schedule:
Deadline Prior Date New Date
Response to Motion to May 12, 2023 May 26, 2023
Certify Class
Reply on Motion to June 12, 2023 June 26, 2023
Certify Class
A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 10, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3WnfW16 at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
R. Joseph Barton, Esq.
Colin M. Downes, Esq.
BARTON & DOWNES LLP
1633 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Ste. 200
Washington, DC 20009
Telephone: (202) 734-7046
E-mail: jbarton@bartondownes.com
colin@bartondownes.com
- and -
Andrew W. Erlandson, Esq.
Catherine E. White, Esq.
HURLEY BURISH, S.C.
33 East Main Street, Suite 400
Madison, WI 53703
Telephone: (608) 257-0945
E-mail: aerlandson@hurleyburish.com
cwhite@hurleyburish.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Michael L. Scheier, Esq.
Brian P. Muething, Esq.
Jacob D. Rhode, Esq.
KEATING MUETHING & KLEKAMP PLL
One E. 4th Street, Suite 1400
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Telephone: (513) 579-6400
E-mail: mscheier@kmklaw.com
bmuething@kmklaw.com
jrhode@kmklaw.com
- and -
Todd G. Smith, Esq.
GODFREY & KAHN, S.C.
One East Main Street, Suite 500
Madison, WI 53701-2719
Telephone: (608) 284-2653
E-mail: tsmith@gklaw.com
- and -
Mark A. Nebrig, Esq.
Joseph M. Piligian, Esq.
Catherine R. Prater, Esq.
MOORE & VAN ALLEN PLLC
100 North Tryon Street, Suite 4700
Charlotte, NC 28205
Telephone: (704) 331-3602
E-mail: marknebrig@mvalaw.com
joepiligian@mvalaw.com
catherineprater@mvalaw.com
- and -
Barret V. Van Sicklen, Esq.
DEWITT LLP
2 East Mifflin Street, Suite 600
Madison, WI 53703
Telephone: (608) 252-9386
MILKY MAMA: Rivas Sues Over Unsolicited Text Message Marketing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gabriela Rivas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MILKY MAMA, LLC, Case No. 0:23-cv-60903-XXXX (S.D.
Fla., May 15, 2023), is brought pursuant to the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (the "TCPA"), and the Florida Telephone Solicitation
Act ("FTSA") as a result of the Defendant's unsolicited text
message marketing.
The Defendant engages in unsolicited text message marketing,
including to individuals who have registered their telephone
numbers on the National Do-Not-Call Registry, and to those who have
not provided Defendant with their prior express written consent as
required by the FTSA. The Defendant's unsolicited text message spam
caused Plaintiff and the Class members harm, including violations
of their statutory rights, trespass, annoyance, nuisance, invasion
of their privacy, and intrusion upon seclusion. Defendant's text
messages also occupied storage space on the Plaintiff's and the
Class members' telephones. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks an
injunction, statutory damages, and/or actual liquidated damages on
behalf of Plaintiff and the Class members and any other available
legal or equitable remedies resulting from the unlawful actions of
Defendant, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is an individual and a "called party."
The Defendant is a Florida limited liability company and a
"telephone solicitor."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Manuel Santiago Hiraldo
HIRALDO PA
401 E Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 1400
Ft Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (954) 400-4713
Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
- and –
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th St., Suite 1744
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
MINT CENTER: Bardales FLSA Suit Removed to S.D. Fla.
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled JOSSELIN PAOLA BANEGAS BARDALES, on behalf of other
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. MINT CENTER LLC.,
d/b/a MINT WELLNESS CENTER MIAMI, a Florida Corporation and MINT
DESIGN LLC., a Florida Corporation, Defendants, Case No.
2023-017511 CC 25, was removed from the County Court in and for
Miami-Dade County, Florida, to the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Florida on May 9, 2023.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 1:23cv21747 to the proceeding.
This is an action arising under the laws of the United States of
America, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 201 et seq., the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Mint Center LLC is a spa services provider.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Lowell J. Kuvin, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF LOWELL J. KUVIN
17 East Flagler St. Suite 223
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 358-6800
E-mail: lowell@kuvin.law
MINT CENTER: Espinoza FLSA Suit Removed to S.D. Fla.
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled JEIMY PAOLA ESPINOZA, on behalf of other similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff v. MINT CENTER LLC., d/b/a MINT
WELLNESS CENTER MIAMI, a Florida Corporation and MINT DESIGN LLC.,
a Florida Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 2023-017484 CC 25, was
removed from the County Court in and for Miami-Dade County,
Florida, to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida on May 9, 2023.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 1:23-cv-21748 to the proceeding.
This is an action arising under the laws of the United States of
America, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 201 et seq., the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Mint Center LLC is a spa services provider.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Lowell J. Kuvin, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF LOWELL J. KUVIN
17 East Flagler St. Suite 223
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 358-6800
E-mail: lowell@kuvin.law
MINT CENTER: Ochoa FLSA Class Suit Removed to S.D. Fla.
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MILDRED MARISOL BARDALES OCHOA, on behalf of other
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. MINT CENTER LLC.,
d/b/a MINT WELLNESS CENTER MIAMI, a Florida Corporation and MINT
DESIGN LLC., a Florida Corporation, Defendants, Case No.
2023-017487-CC-25, was removed from the County Court in and for
Miami-Dade County, Florida, to the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Florida on May 9, 2023.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 1:23-cv-21749 to the proceeding.
This is an action arising under the laws of the United States of
America, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 201 et seq., the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Mint Center LLC is a spa services provider.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Lowell J. Kuvin, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF LOWELL J. KUVIN
17 East Flagler St. Suite 223
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 358-6800
E-mail: lowell@kuvin.law
MINT URBAN: Apartment Complex Not Habitable, Tenants' Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Katie Eastman at 9news.com reports that four former tenants who
are suing the owners of Mint Urban Infinity Apartments in southeast
Denver said that the complex wasn't habitable, and they're hoping a
judge approves class-action status for their lawsuit.
"It was a nightmare," said Brandon Smith, the lead plaintiff. "It
was one of the worst and most stressful times in my life."
When Smith moved into his apartment in the complex, located near
South Colorado Boulevard and East Louisiana Avenue, in April of
2021, he said the elevators didn't work and he just had ACL
surgery.
"It was incredibly painful for the first six or eight months of
hiking up four flights of stairs to get to my apartment, but I had
to do it," he said. "There weren't any other options."
Another plaintiff, Shivani Mohan, moved to the complex in May 2019,
but she moved out less than a year later after she said she asked
repeatedly for locks on the main front doors of her building.
She broke her lease after one incident left her shaken.
"There was a man walking through the hallways with his zipper
undone, exposed," Mohan said. "Just walking around."
Despite explaining what happened to the management company, Mohan
said they still charged her $2,500 for breaking her lease.
Mohan and Smith are two of the four people asking a Denver District
Court judge to approve bringing a class-action lawsuit against the
owners of Mint Urban Infinity for operating what they say was a
"veritable slum."
The lawsuit alleges "elevators and air conditioning failed for
weeks and months, doors and hallways were unsafe, the pool and
laundry facilities were in disrepair, and the property suffered
from repeated infestations."
"I believe there are 561 apartments at Mint Urban Infinity, and my
lawsuit would encompass all of them ideally," Smith said.
The defendants declined an interview with 9NEWS.
Some of the people in the galley of the courtroom said they hope to
be a part of the class-action lawsuit. Griffin O'Connor still lives
in the complex, and he said the issues persist but he doesn't have
enough money to move out.
"I want them to learn a lesson that treating people like this isn't
really OK," said O'Connor of the apartment complex owners.
One of the lawyers representing the plaintiffs is also a Colorado
lawmaker. Democrat Rep. Steven Woodrow helped pass a bill last
session that would make it easier for tenants to bring landlords to
court.
His team said it could take weeks or months before a judge decides
whether the case can become a class-action suit.[GN]
MITSUBISHI MOTORS: Wade Suit Transferred to M.D. Tennessee
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Courtney Wade, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Mitsubishi Motors North America, Inc.,
Case No. 2:22-cv-02135 was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on May 15, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-00488 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
Mitsubishi Motors North America, Inc. --
http://www.mitsubishicars.com/-- is the U.S. operation of
Mitsubishi Motors Corporation, overseeing sales and research and
development functions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephen F Taylor, Esq.
LEMBERG LAW LLC
43 Danbury Road
Wilton, CT 06897
Phone: (203) 653-2250
Email: staylor@lemberglaw.com
- and -
Sergei Lemberg, Esq.
LEMBERG & ASSOCIATES, LLC
1100 Summer Street, 3rd Floor
Stamford, CT 06905
Phone: (203) 653-2250
Fax: (888) 953-6237
Email: slemberg@lemberglaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Amir Nassihi, Esq.
SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP (SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE)
535 Mission Street, Suite 2300
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: (415) 544-1900
Fax: (415) 391-0281
Email: anassihi@shb.com
- and -
Joseph H. Blum, Esq.
SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. (PHILADELPHIA OFFICE)
Two Commerce Square
2001 Market Street, Suite 3000
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 575-3115
Fax: (215) 278-2594
Email: jblum@shb.com
MODERN CONCEPTS: Puskas Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Brian Puskas and Teresa Puskas, and others
similarly situated v. MODERN CONCEPTS CONSTRUCTION, LLC, MODERN
CONCEPTS SOLAR AND ROOFING, INC. and GOODLEAP, LLC, Case No.
2023-Ca-000857 was removed from The Twelfth Judicial Circuit Court
in and for Manatee County, Florida to the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Florida on April 3, 2023, and
assigned Case No. 8:23-cv-00736-SDM-TGW.
Specifically, the Plaintiffs purport to assert claims against
GoodLeap under the Electronic Signatures in Global and National
Commerce Act and the Truth and Lending Act. In the State Court
Action, the Plaintiffs allege "at the time of the transaction,
Defendant failed to give the necessary disclosures as required
under The E-Sign Sct and the Truth and Lending Act (TILA)."[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Terrance W. Anderson, Jr., Esq.
THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ATTORNEY, PA
301 W. Platt. St., #216
Tampa, FL 33606
Email: bryant@theconsumerprotectionattorney.com
eservice@theconsumerprotectionattorney.com
MODIVCARE INC: Farah Settlement Awaits Arbitrator's Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
ModivCare Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 3, 2023, that the agreed Farah class suit
settlement awaits approval of the arbitrator.
On August 6, 2020, the Company's subsidiary, ModivCare Solutions,
LLC ("ModivCare Solutions"), was served with a putative class
action lawsuit filed against it by Mohamed Farah, the owner of
transportation provider Dalmar Transportation, in the Western
District of Missouri, seeking to represent all non-employee
transportation providers contracted with ModivCare Solutions.
The lawsuit alleges claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938, as amended (the "FLSA"), and the Missouri Minimum Wage Act,
and asserts that all transportation providers to ModivCare
Solutions in the putative class should be considered ModivCare
Solutions' employees rather than independent contractors.
On June 6, 2021, the Court conditionally certified as the putative
class all current and former In Network Transportation Providers
who, individually or through their companies, were issued 1099
payments from ModivCare Solutions for providing non-emergency
medical transportation services for ModivCare Solutions for the
previous three years.
Notice of the proposed collective class was issued on October 5,
2021, and potential members of the class had until January 3, 2022
to opt-in.
Plaintiff moved for class certification on August 15, 2022, and
ModivCare Solutions filed an opposition to class certification on
September 6, 2022.
On January 13, 2023, the matter was transferred with the consent of
the parties and the court to binding arbitration.
The parties have agreed on a settlement and are awaiting the
arbitrator's approval.
ModivCare Inc. is a technology-enabled healthcare services company
based in Colorado.
MOLSON COORS: Faces Suit Over Ranch Water Hard Seltzer False Ads
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Younger, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Molson Coors Beverage Company, Case No. 2:23-cv-00344
(M.D. Fla., May 15, 2023) alleges that the Defendant's "Ranch Water
Hard Seltzer" with "100% Agave & Lime" described as "Spiked
Sparkling Water" under the Topo Chico brand misleads consumers to
expect it will contain tequila made from "100% Agave" instead of
lower quality "Mixto Tequila," in violation of the Florida
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.
The Plaintiff saw and relied on the label's statements and pictures
to expect the Product (1) contained tequila because "100% Agave"
refers to a type of tequila, (2) contained Topo Chico mineral
water, because this is inextricably linked with ranch water and the
Product is sold under the Topo Chico brand and (3) did not contain
added sugar ingredients because these are inconsistent with the
light, non-sweet taste of ranch water. The fine print ingredient
list reveals the only agave-based ingredient is "Agave Syrup," a
sweetener similar to sugar, the lawsuit claims.
The Product's labeling as a "hard seltzer" and "spiked" fails to
comply with the Federal and identical state regulations because it
is required to tell consumers what they are buying is a malt
beverage and best characterized as a flavored beer. As a result of
the false and misleading representations of its ranch water as
including "100% Agave" with pictures of agave under the Topo Chico
brand, the Product is sold at a premium price, approximately no
less than $18.99 for a twelve-pack of 12 oz cans, excluding tax and
sales, the Plaintiff says.
Accordingly, the value of the Product that Plaintiff purchased was
materially less than its value as represented by Defendant.
The Plaintiff seeks certification of the following classes:
Florida Class: All persons in the State of Florida
who purchased the Product during the statutes of limitations
for each cause of action alleged; and
Consumer Fraud Multi-State Class: All persons in the States
of North Dakota, Louisiana and Montana who purchased the
Product during the statutes of limitations for each cause of
action alleged.
Molson Coors manufactures "Ranch Water Hard Seltzer" under the Topo
Chico brand.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William Wright, Esq.
THE WRIGHT LAW OFFICE, P.A.
515 N Flagler Dr Ste P300
West Palm Beach FL 33401
Telephone: (561) 514-0904
E-mail: willwright@wrightlawoffice.com
- and -
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412
Great Neck NY 11021
Telephone: (516) 268-7080
E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com
MOSAIC CO: Continues to Defend Cruz Class Suit in Florida
---------------------------------------------------------
The Mosaic Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2023, that the Company continues
to defend itself from Cruz class suit in the Circuit Court of the
Thirteenth Judicial Circuit in Hillsborough County, Florida.
On August 27, 2020, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit in
Hillsborough County, Florida against our wholly-owned subsidiary,
Mosaic Global Operations Inc., and two unrelated co-defendants. The
complaint alleges claims related to elevated levels of radiation at
two manufactured housing communities located on reclaimed mining
land in Mulberry, Polk County, Florida, allegedly due to phosphate
mining and reclamation activities occurring decades ago.
Plaintiffs seek monetary damages, including punitive damages,
injunctive relief requiring remediation of their properties, and a
medical monitoring program funded by the defendants.
On October 14, 2021, the court substantially granted a motion to
dismiss that the Company filed late in 2020, with leave for the
plaintiffs to amend their complaint.
On November 3, 2021, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and, in
response, Mosaic filed a motion to dismiss that complaint with
prejudice on November 15, 2021.
On December 23, 2021, plaintiffs opposed that motion and Mosaic
replied to that opposition on January 26, 2022.
On April 6, 2022, the court heard argument on the motions to
dismiss filed by Mosaic and each other co-defendant.
The Company is awaiting the court's ruling on these motions. It
intends to continue to vigorously defend this matter.
The Mosaic Company is a producer and marketer of concentrated
phosphate and potash crop nutrients. The Company is a
single-source
supplier of phosphate and potash-based crop nutrients and animal
feed ingredients.
NATIONSBENEFITS LLC: Veazey Sues Over Failure to Secure Information
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Roderick Veazey, Tracy Bussell, Denise Emery, Brenda Gilpatrick,
William Henry, Roger Jackson, Pamela Lazaroff, and Kevin Mccoy,
Kevin Stone, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. NATIONSBENEFITS, LLC, Case No. 0:23-cv-60891-KMM (S.D.
Fla., May 12, 2023), is brought against NationsBenefits for its
failure to properly secure and safeguard highly valuable, protected
personally identifiable information, including without limitation,
names, addresses, emails, phone numbers, health plan account and id
numbers, date of birth, Medicare numbers, and Social Security
numbers, and private health information (collectively "Private
Information"); failure to comply with industry standards to protect
information systems that contain Private Information; unlawful
disclosure of the Private Information of Plaintiffs and other
members of the class; and failure to provide adequate notice to
Plaintiffs and other members of the class that their Private
Information had been disclosed and compromised.
In the course of providing these services, NationsBenefits obtains,
uses, and transmits the highly sensitive personal information of
the members/clients of NationsBenefits' clients. NationsBenefits
failed, however, to adequately safeguard this sensitive, valuable
Private Information and, between January 28, 2023 and January 30,
2023, NationsBenefits allowed the Private Information of Plaintiffs
and millions of other individuals to be accessed and exfiltrated by
an unauthorized third-party (the "Data Breach").
Despite the occurrence of the Data Breach in January 2023,
NationsBenefits did not begin notifying impacted individuals such
as Plaintiffs and Class Members until April 27, 2023. This delay
deprived Plaintiffs and Class Members of the opportunity to take
meaningful steps to mitigate the impact of the Data Breach.
The value of Plaintiffs' and Class Members' stolen data, including
Private Information, is recognized by many different
constituencies. First, the value is recognized by the
NationsBenefits itself. Second, the value is recognized by the
cybercriminals who exfiltrated the for purposes of selling it to
others who intend to data to commit identity theft and fraud. And
third, the value is recognized by the individuals, themselves,
including Plaintiffs and Class Members, whose Private Information
was stolen.
As a result, Plaintiffs and Class Members are at substantially
increased risk of identity theft, both currently and for the
indefinite future. Plaintiffs' and Class Members' Private
Information--including their names linked with their dates of
birth, health plan identification numbers, Medicare identification
numbers, and Social Security numbers which were compromised by
cyber criminals in the Data Breach--is highly valuable to bad
actors who may seek to commit fraud and identity theft, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff Veazey received a letter dated April 27, 2023 from
NationsBenefits informing him that his Private Information was
compromised in the Data Breach.
NationsBenefits provides plan administration services, supplemental
benefits, flex cards, and member engagement solutions to its
clients, which include health insurers and managed care
organizations.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eric S. Dwoskin, Esq.
DWOSKIN WASDIN LLP
433 Plaza Real, Ste. 275
Boca Raton, FL 33432
Phone: 561/849-8060
Email: edwoskin@dwowas.com
- and -
Ian W. Sloss, Esq.
Steven L. Bloch, Esq.
Brett Burgs, Esq.
SILVER GOLUB & TEITELL LLP
One Landmark Square, Floor 15
Stamford, CN 06901
Phone: (203) 325-4491
Fax: (203) 325-3769
Email: isloss@sgtlaw.com
sbloch@sgtlaw.com
bburgs@sgtlaw.com
- and -
Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
Erin G. Comite, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
The Helmsley Building
230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10169
Phone: (212) 223-6444
Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
Email: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com
ecomite@scott-scott.com
NATURAL GROCERS: FLSA Class Suit Jury Trial Set for December 2023
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Natural Grocers by Vitamin Cottage Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q
Report for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2023 filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2023, that the
jury trial for FLSA class suit is scheduled for December 2023.
In January 2020, a former assistant store manager filed a putative
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado on behalf of current and former assistant
store managers alleging that the Company violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) and Colorado labor laws by misclassifying the
assistant store managers as exempt.
The alleged violations relate to failure to pay for overtime work.
In November 2020, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for
conditional certification with regard to the FLSA claim. Currently,
there are 100 opt-in plaintiffs in the FLSA collective action.
In December 2022, pre-trial motions were filed by both parties,
including a motion filed by the Company to decertify the FLSA
collective action.
In February 2023, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking
certification of a putative class with regard to alleged violations
of Colorado labor laws, which the Company has opposed.
These pre-trial motions are before the court.
The court has scheduled a jury trial for December 2023.
Natural Grocers by Vitamin Cottage, Inc. operates natural and
organic grocery and dietary supplement stores.
NEXTCURE INC: Discovery in Ye Zhou Stockholder Class Suit Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
NextCure Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 4, 2023, that discovery is stayed in Ye Zhou
stockholder class suit pending motion resolution.
On September 21, 2020, a putative stockholder class action was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York styled Ye Zhou v. NextCure, Inc., et. al., Case 1:20-cv-0772
(S.D.N.Y.) (the "Ye Zhou action").
On February 26, 2021, the Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated
amended complaint that asserts claims against us, certain of our
officers and members of our board of directors, and the
underwriters in our May 2019 initial public offering and November
2019 underwritten secondary public offering.
The complaint alleges that the defendants violated provisions of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange
Act"), and the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, with respect to
statements made regarding the Company's NC318 product candidate and
the FIND-IO platform.
The complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a purported
class of purchasers of the Company's securities between May 8, 2019
and July 14, 2020.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint on April 27, 2021, and discovery is stayed pending
resolution of that motion.
NextCure, Inc. a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company
committed
to discovering and developing novel, first-in-class
immunomedicines
to treat cancer and other immune-related diseases by restoring
normal immune function. The company is based in Beltsville,
Maryland.
NEXTGEN HEALTHCARE: Faces Multiple Data Breach Class Action Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Alder of HIPAA Journal reports that a healthcare data breach
of 1 million+ records is certain to result in multiple lawsuits,
and the data breach experienced by NextGen Healthcare is no
exception. The data breach was only disclosed by NextGen on May 5,
but at least a dozen lawsuits have already been filed in federal
court in Georgia over the breach.
The data breach was the result of a hacking incident involving
stolen credentials, which allowed unauthorized individuals to
access a database that contained sensitive patient data such as
names, addresses, dates of birth, and Social Security numbers. The
investigation determined that the credentials stolen by the hackers
came from other sources and did not appear to have been stolen from
NextGen. The breach was detected by NextGen on March 30, 2023, and
the forensic investigation confirmed hackers had access to its
network between March 29, 2023, and April 14, 2023. This was the
second data breach to be reported by NextGen this year, with the
earlier incident being a BlackCat ransomware attack. NextGen told
the Maine Attorney General that 1,049,375 individuals had been
affected and complimentary credit monitoring services have been
offered to affected individuals.
The lawsuits were all filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, and make
similar allegations - That NextGen was negligent for failing to
safeguard the sensitive data of patients. The lawsuits claim
NextGen was or should have been aware of the high risk of data
breaches as multiple warnings have been issued by federal agencies
about cybersecurity threats targeting the healthcare sector and
extensive media reports about healthcare data breaches. Further,
NextGen had suffered a ransomware attack just a few weeks
previously and should have known that security needed to be
improved.
The lawsuits also take issue with the length of time it took to
contain the breach - two weeks after the intrusion was detected,
the length of time it took to issue notification letters to
affected individuals, and the failure to disclose sufficient facts
about the data breach in those notification letters to allow the
victims to determine the level of risk they face. The lawsuits
allege the victims of the breach have already suffered harm and
will continue to do so, and face a continuing risk of identity
theft and fraud for years to come. The lawsuits seek class action
status, a jury trial, damages, legal costs, and injunctive relief,
including an order from the court to prohibit NextGen from engaging
in unlawful practices and for improvements to be made to its data
security practices. [GN]
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Sues Over Securities Exchange Act Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Perdue, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. NORFOLK SOUTHERN CORPORATION, ALAN H. SHAW, JAMES A.
SQUIRES, and MARK R. GEORGE, Case No. 2:23-cv-02634 (D.N.J., May
15, 2023), is brought on behalf of all purchasers of Norfolk
Southern common stock between October 28, 2020 and March 3, 2023,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff seeks to pursue remedies
against Norfolk Southern and certain of the Company's senior
executives under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
The Class Period begins on October 28, 2020. On that day, Norfolk
Southern filed with the SEC a Form 8-K, which attached a copy of a
press release the Company published that day announcing the
Company's financial results for the quarter ended September 30,
2020. On February 4, 2021, Norfolk Southern filed with the SEC its
annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2020 (the "2020 10-K"), which was signed by defendants Squires and
George. On March 31, 2021, Norfolk Southern filed with the SEC its
annual proxy statement ("2021 Proxy Statement").
The statements materially false and/or misleading when made because
they failed to disclose the following adverse facts pertaining to
the Company's business, operations, and financial condition, which
were known to or recklessly disregarded by each of the defendants
as follows: that Norfolk Southern's PSR, including its use of
longer, heavier trains staffed by fewer personnel, had led to the
Company suffering increased train derailments and a materially
increased risk of future derailments; that Norfolk Southern's PSR,
including its use of longer, heavier trains staffed by fewer
personnel, was part of a culture of increased risk-taking at the
expense of reasonable safety precautions due to the Company's
near-term focus solely on profits; that Norfolk Southern's PSR,
including its use of longer, heavier trains staffed by fewer
personnel, rendered the Company more vulnerable to train
derailments and train derailments with potentially more severe
human, financial, legal, and environmental consequences; that
Norfolk Southern's capital spending and replacement programs were
designed to prioritize profits over the Company's ability to
provide safe, efficient, and reliable rail transportation services;
(5) that Norfolk Southern's lobbying efforts had undermined the
Company's ability to provide safe, efficient, and reliable rail
transportation services; that Norfolk Southern's commitment to
reducing operating expenses as part of its PSR goals undermined
worker safety and the Company's purported "commitment to an
injury-free workplace" because the Company's PSR plan prioritized
reducing expenses through fewer personnel, longer trains, and less
spending on safety training, technology, and equipment such as hot
bearing wayside detectors (a/k/a "hotboxes") and acoustic sensors;
that Norfolk Southern's rail services were, as a result of its
adoption of PSR principles, more susceptible to accidents that
could cause serious economic and bodily harm to the Company, the
Company's workers, the Company's customers, third parties, and the
environment; that Norfolk Southern had failed to put in place
responsive practices and procedures to minimize the threat to
communities in the event that these communities suffered the
derailment of a Norfolk Southern train carrying hazardous and toxic
materials; and as a result, defendants' Class Period statements
detailed above regarding the safety of Norfolk Southern's
operations were materially false and/or misleading.
The true facts, however, began to be revealed after the market
closed on Friday, February 3, 2023. On that evening, about 8:54
p.m. Eastern Standard Time, eastbound NSR general merchandise
freight train 32N derailed 38 railcars in East Palestine, Ohio,
about a mile from the Ohio-Pennsylvania border, leaving behind what
the Associated Press called "a mangled and charred mass of boxcars
and flames."
The chemicals released from the derailment entered the air and
water of the surrounding residential areas, the closest of which
were only 1,000 feet from the site of the accident. The plume of
smoke from the inferno was reportedly thousands of feet high and
visible for miles. Reports cited thousands of dead fish, chemical
slicks in the water, and chemical odors in the air around the blast
site. On this news, the price of Norfolk Southern stock fell on
February 6, 2023, closing at $246.46 per share--down $5.66 per
share from its closing price of $252.12 per share on Friday,
February 3, 2023--inflicting significant losses on Norfolk Southern
shareholders.
On March 15, 2023, the price of Norfolk Southern stock fell to a
low of less than $203 per share--19% below the price of the stock
prior to the East Palestine train derailment--as a result of the
numerous disclosures and revelations regarding the East Palestine
and Springfield derailments and other revelations regarding Norfolk
Southern's true operations, which stood in contrast to defendants'
Class Period representations.
As a result of defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous declines in the market value of Norfolk Southern stock,
plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses
and damages for which they seek redress through this action, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased Norfolk Southern common stock during the
Class Period.
Norfolk Southern is a rail transportation company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
One Gateway Center, Suite 2600
Newark, NJ 07102
Phone: (973) 313-1887
Fax: (973) 833-0399
Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
PARK APARTMENTS: Western Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Western, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. THE PARK APARTMENTS LLC and JNB CONSULTING SERVICES,
INC. d/b/a JNB PLATINUM PROPERTIES, Case No. 2:23-cv-00126 (S.D.
Tex., May 12, 2023), is brought to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA").
Although the Plaintiff and the Putative Collective Members
routinely worked (and continue to work) in excess of 40 hours per
workweek, Plaintiff and the Putative Collective Members were not
paid overtime of at least one and one-half their regular rates of
pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. The
decision by Defendants not to pay overtime compensation to
Plaintiff and the Putative Collective Members was neither
reasonable nor in good faith. The Defendants knowingly and
deliberately failed to compensate Plaintiff and the Putative
Collective Members overtime of at least one and one half their
regular rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
workweek. The Plaintiff and the Putative Collective Members seek to
recover all unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, and other damages
owed under the FLSA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an hourly
maintenance employee at The Park location from October of 2020 to
December of 2022.
The Park Apartments LLC, owns and operates an apartment complex
located in Corpus Christi, Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Clif Alexander, Esq.
Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
T. Locke Henry, Esq.
ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
101 N. Shoreline Blvd., Ste. 610
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
Phone: (361) 452-1279
Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
Email: clif@a2xlaw.com
austin@a2xlaw.com
locke@a2xlaw.com
PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Drori & Wilson Suit Settlement for Court OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
Peloton Interactive Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2023, that the consolidated Drori
and Wilson class suit settlement is subject to the approval of the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
Additionally on April 29, 2021, Ashley Wilson filed a putative
securities class action lawsuit against the Company and certain of
its officers, captioned Wilson v. Peloton Interactive, Inc., et
al., Case No. 1:21-cv-02369-CBA-PK, in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York (the "Wilson Action"),
and on May 24, 2021, Leigh Drori filed a related putative
securities class action lawsuit, captioned Drori v. Peloton
Interactive, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-02925-CBA-PK, also in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York (the "Drori Action").
On November 16, 2021, the district judge consolidated the Wilson
and Drori Actions under the caption In re Peloton Interactive, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Master File No. 21-cv-02369-CBA-PK, and
appointed Richard Neswick as lead plaintiff.
On January 21, 2022, lead plaintiff filed an amended consolidated
complaint in the action purportedly on behalf of a class consisting
of those individuals who purchased or otherwise acquired our common
stock between September 11, 2020 and May 5, 2021.
Lead plaintiff alleges that the Company and certain of its officers
made false or misleading statements in violation of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") regarding
the Company's Tread and Tread+ products and the safety of those
products.
Defendants served their motion to dismiss the amended consolidated
complaint on March 7, 2022, and briefing was complete on April 26,
2022.
A hearing on the motion to dismiss was held on June 8, 2022.
On December 15, 2022, the parties reached a settlement-in-principle
and on December 16, 2022, the court stayed the action in light of
that settlement-in-principle.
On April 17, 2023, the parties entered into a settlement agreement
to resolve the action for $14.0 million, for which the Company had
previously taken a reserve, and submitted the agreement to the
court for approval. Under the terms of this agreement, defendants
continue to deny any liability or wrongdoing.
The settlement remains subject to court approval.
Peloton Interactive, Inc. is an American exercise equipment and
media company based in New York City.[BN]
PHARMERICA CORP: Sued Over Data Breach Affecting 6-Mil. Customers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Lyons Hardcastle of The Register reports that PharMerica,
one of the largest pharmacy service providers in the US, has
revealed its IT systems were breached - and it's feared the
intruders stole personal and healthcare data belonging to more than
5.8 million past customers
The cyber heist happened around March 12, when "an unknown third
party" gained access to computer systems and may well have grabbed
patients' info including names, dates of birth, Social Security
numbers, medication lists and health insurance information,
according to a notice on PharMerica's website.
A sample breach notification letter [PDF] submitted to the Maine
Attorney General is addressed to "Administrator/Executor of the
Estate of" - meaning at least some of the sensitive information
stolen in the breach belonged to people who are dead. This, of
course, won't stop cyber criminals from stealing their identities
and using their names and personal identifiers to commit fraud.
PharMerica, which operates more than 180 long-term care and
specialty pharmacies in 50 states, said it and parent company
BrightSpring Health Services first spotted the suspicious network
activity on March 14.
It's unclear whether BrightSpring patient data was also compromised
in the breach, or if the crooks only stole PharMerica's files.
Neither company immediately responded to The Register's questions
about the incident, but we will update this story if and when we
hear back from the organizations.
"Upon discovering the incident, PharMerica promptly began an
internal investigation and engaged cybersecurity experts to
investigate and secure its computer systems," the notice said.
"At this point, PharMerica is not aware of any fraud or identity
theft to any individual as a result of this incident, but is
nonetheless notifying potentially affected individuals to provide
them with more information and resources."
A ransomware gang called Money Message claimed responsibility for
the intrusion, and added both PharMerica and BrightSpring to its
leak site.
The miscreants claimed to have two million PharMerica and
BrightSpring Health records - including Social Security numbers
from 400 databases. At the time, DataBreaches said it was able to
validate four Social Security numbers (out of four attempts) as
actual people. However, it could not determine if the stolen data
was current.
Lawyers cough up $200k after health data stolen in Microsoft
Exchange pillaging
Cancer patient sues hospital after ransomware gang leaks her nude
medical photos
Ransomware crooks steal 3m+ patients' medical records, personal
info
'Strictly limit' remote desktop - unless you like catching BianLian
ransomware
More recently, TechCrunch reported that it had seen samples of the
data that appear to be protected health information belonging to at
least 100 patients. It included allergy information, Medicare
numbers, and diagnoses that could be damaging to patients if leaked
- such as details about alcohol, drug, and mental health-related
illnesses.
Regardless, the lawyers are circling overhead, so we'd anticipate
another class action lawsuit to be filed in the near future.
And as extortionists increasingly target hospitals and other
healthcare organizations entrusted with protecting very sensitive
and private information, it's probably a good idea for those in the
medical field to stress test their IT systems, lock down protected
data, run some tabletop exercises and otherwise ensure their cyber
security is up to snuff. [GN]
PINNACLE GROUP: Conditional Certification of FLSA Action Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDGAR FERNANDEZ, on behalf
of himself, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated, v. PINNACLE GROUP NY LLC, and JOEL WIENER,
individually, Case No. 1:21-cv-10702-AT (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff
Edgar Fernandez and the eight opt-in Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order:
1. Conditionally certifying the case as a Fair Labor Standards
Act
(FLSA) collective action consisting of "current and former
employees of the Defendants, who at any time between December
14, 2018, and the present, performed any work for the
Defendants
as a superintendent and who consent to file a claim to
recover
damages for unpaid overtime compensation and liquidated
damages
that are legally due to them;"
2. Requiring the Defendants, within fourteen days of the Court's
Order, to produce a computer-readable data file containing
the
names, last known mailing addresses, all last known home and
mobile telephone numbers, all known email addresses, primary
language spoken, and dates of employment of all potential
collective action members;
3. Permitting the Plaintiffs to disseminate to the potential
collective action members the Notice of Lawsuit and Consent
to
Join Form in English, Serbian, Spanish, and any other
identified
primary language of potential collective action members, in
the
form attached to the Declaration of Sharan R. Abraham, Esq.
as
Exhibits R and T, via regular mail and text message, and
permitting a sixty-day opt-in period;
4. Permitting the Plaintiffs to disseminate the proposed
Reminder
Notice to the potential collective action members in English,
Serbian, Spanish, and any other identified primary language
of
potential collective action members, in the form attached to
the
Abraham Decl. as Exhibit S, via regular mail and text
message,
thirty days after sending the initial Notice;
5. Equitably tolling the FLSA statute of limitations from March
22,
2022, until this motion is decided; and
6. Granting any other further relief that the Court deems just
and
proper.
The opt-in Plaintiffs are Julio Concepcion, Franklin Lara, Igor
Wilebaldo Turcios, Juan Mena, Fernando Mercado, Tony Fernandez,
Juan Montoya, and Zumreta Toskic
Pinnacle Realty is an independent full-service commercial real
estate brokerage firm in the outer boroughs of New York City.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 10, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41YFrad at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Sharan R. Abraham, Esq.
Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
910 Franklin Avenue, Suite 200
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (516) 248-5550
Facsimile: (516) 248-6027
PIROZZI ENTERPRISES: Marquez Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN ALVAREZ MARQUEZ, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PIROZZI ENTERPRISES, LLC; CHEF
ALESSANDRO PIROZZI, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, Defendants, Case
No. 30-2023-01324104-CU-OE-CXC (Cal. Super., May 9, 2023) arises
from the Defendants' unlawful labor policies and practices in
violation of the California Labor Code and the California Business
and Professions Code.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt
employee in California. He asserts that the Defendants failed to
pay minimum wage, provide meal and rest periods, and furnish
accurate wage statements; and engaged in unfair competition.
Pirozzi Enterprises, LLC owns and operates several restaurants in
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justian Jusuf, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIAN JUSUF, APC
17011 Beach Blvd., Suite 900
Huntington Beach, CA 92647
Telephone: (714) 274-9815
E-mail: jjusuf@jusuf-law.com
RESURGENT CAPITAL: Dismisses Winter FDCPA Suit for Lack of Standing
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Accounts Recovery reports that a win is a win, right? Regardless of
how it's accomplished? A District Court judge in New Jersey has
dismissed a plaintiff's Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
class-action lawsuit over the contents of a letter responding to a
debt verification request on the grounds the plaintiff lacked
standing to sue, never getting to the merits of a motion to dismiss
that was filed by the defendants.
A copy of the ruling in the case of Winter v. Resurgent Capital
Services et al. can be accessed by clicking here.
The plaintiff received a letter in response to a request she sent
seeking verification of the debt. The response also included a
validation notice and an account summary. The plaintiff filed suit,
alleging the letter failed to indicate that the statute of
limitations on the debt would restart if a payment was made, that
the account summary failed to note why the balance had increased,
and that the validation notice contained conflicting statements
about whether the validation of the debt was completed.
The defendant filed a motion to dismiss, arguing, among other
reasons, that the plaintiff failed to state a claim because the
letter was not a communication in connection with the collection of
a debt and that it did not include contradictory statements. But
before he could get to the merits, Judge Zahid N. Quraishi of the
District Court for the District of New Jersey decided to look at
whether the plaintiff had standing to sue in the first place.
Where the plaintiff alleged that a statutory violation alone is
sufficient to have standing, while also claiming to have suffered
from confusion about how to handle the debt or exercise her
statutory authority while also wasting time and money, none of that
is enough for her to have standing to sue, Judge Quraishi ruled.
"Here, Plaintiff does not allege that she failed to take advantage
of her dispute rights under the FDCPA because of the alleged
confusion that the Letter's deceptive, misleading and unfair
representations caused," the judge wrote. "Further, while Plaintiff
has established her inaction following receipt of the Letter, she
fails to allege or explain how her inability to act was a direct
consequence of the Letter itself." [GN]
RON NEAL: Mayberry Files Suit in N.D. Indiana
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ron Neal, et al. The
case is styled as Timothy Marcus Mayberry, and all other similarly
situated prisoners v. Ron Neal, in his individual and official
capacity as ISP Warden; Christina Reagle, in her individual and
official capacity as IDOC Commissioner; Case No.
3:23-cv-00406-DRL-MGG (N.D. Ind., May 12, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Civil Rights.
Ron Neal is the warden of Indiana State Prison (ISP).[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
RUST-OLEUM CORP: June 14 Continuance to Present Experts Sought
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY BUSH, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. RUST-OLEUM
CORPORATION, an Illinois corporation, Case No. 3:20-cv-03268-LB
(N.D. Cal.), the Parties stipulate and jointly move the Court to
continue the deadline for the Defendant to present experts offered
in opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification
approximately 30 days from May 15, 2023 to June 14, 2023, to
accommodate scheduling conflicts and allow the Plaintiff to
complete the depositions of the Defendant's experts Jacob Persky
and Ran Kivetz, currently scheduled on mutually agreeable dates of
May 25, 2023 and June 6, 2023, respectively, to accommodate
scheduling conflicts, as follows.
On May 13, 2020, the Plaintiff filed this action Class Action
Complaint against the Defendant, the manufacturer, marketer, and
seller of Krud Kutter brand cleaning products that the Plaintiff
alleges are deceptively labeled and advertised as "non-toxic" and
"earth friendly" in violation of California consumer protection
statutes, including the Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising
Law, and Consumer Legal Remedies Act and for breach of warranty and
unjust enrichment.
On January 29, 2021, this Court entered a stipulated Case
Management and Pretrial Order, setting dates and deadlines in this
case through trial.
On September 27, 2021, this Court entered a stipulated Second
Amended Case Management Scheduling Order continuing deadlines
approximately four months to allow the Parties to further explore
settlement negotiations, including the exchange of substantive
discovery and information necessary to evaluate the scope and
economic value of this action.
On March 31, 2023, the Defendant filed its Opposition to the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification, which relied on the
Defendant's experts Dr. Ran Kivetz and Jacob Persky's
Reports.
Rust-Oleum is a manufacturer of protective paints and coatings for
home and industrial use.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 10, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BMgoMO at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq.
Katherine A. Bruce, Esq.
Kelsey J. Elling, Esq.
CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
22525 Pacific Coast Highway
Malibu, CA 90265
Telephone: (213) 788-4050
Facsimile: (213) 788-4070
E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
kbruce@clarksonlawfirm.com
kelling@clarksonlawfirm.com
- and -
Christopher D. Moon, Esq.
Kevin O. Moon, Esq.
MOON LAW APC
228 Hamilton Ave., 3rd Fl
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Telephone: (619) 915-9432
Facsimile: (650) 618-0478
E-mail: chris@moonlawapc.com
kevin@moonlawapc.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Karen M. Sullivan, Esq.
MANNING GROSS + MASSENBURG LLP
400 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 1450
Irvine, CA 92618
Telephone: (949) 892-4700
Facsimile: (949) 892-4701
E-mail: ksullivan@mgmlaw.com
- and -
Anthony J. Monaco, Esq.
P. Stephen Fardy, Esq.
William D. Patterson, Esq.
Bryan E. Rogers, Esq.
Madison C. Shepley, Esq.
SWANSON, MARTIN & BELL, LLP
330 N. Wabash, Suite 3300
Chicago, IL 60611
Telephone: (312) 321-9100
Facsimile: (312) 321-0990
E-mail: amonaco@smbtrials.com
sfardy@smbtrials.com
wpatterson@smbtrials.com
berogers@smbtrials.com
mshepley@smbtrials.com
SANDERSON FARMS: Announces Proposed Settlement In Broiler Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Angeion Group of Cision PR NewsWire reports that Sanderson Farms,
Inc. (Food Division), Sanderson Farms, Inc. (Processing Division),
and Sanderson Farms, Inc. (Production Division) (together
"Sanderson") have agreed to settle a class action lawsuit brought
against them by Broiler chicken growers who allege that Sanderson
unlawfully conspired to artificially reduce the amounts they paid
to Broiler chicken growers for Broiler Grow-Out Services. Sanderson
denies that they did anything wrong and have asserted defenses to
the claims against them.
Plaintiffs are Broiler chicken growers that raised broilers for
Sanderson ("Defendant"). Plaintiffs represent a class of Broiler
chicken growers who have similar claims against Defendants and the
Alleged Co-Conspirators.
What does the Settlement provide?
Sanderson will pay $17.75 million into a Settlement Fund to settle
the class action antitrust, and PSA claims against them and to
provide certain cooperation to Plaintiffs in this litigation
against the remaining Defendants (the "Sanderson Settlement"). In
addition, Sanderson has agreed to certain restrictions on its
ability to enforce arbitration provisions against Broiler chicken
growers and on its ability to enforce provisions restricting
collective or class actions brought by Broiler chicken growers
against Koch. Koch Settlement § 10.e.
Am I eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement?
You may be eligible to receive a payment if you reside in the U.S.
or its territories and were paid by any Defendant or any Alleged
Co-Conspirator to provide Broiler Grow-Out Services at any time
between January 27, 2013, and December 31, 2019. To learn who the
Defendants and Alleged Co-Conspirators are, visit
www.BroilerGrowersAntitrustSettlement.com.
How do I get a payment from the Settlement?
If you received a Pre-Populated Claim Form and the information
contained therein is correct, you do not need to do anything
further to receive a payment. If you disagree with the information
contained in the Pre-Populated Claim Form you received, you may
submit the Claim Form with corrected information and documentation.
If you received an Unpopulated Claim Form, you must complete and
submit that Claim Form by December 13, 2023, to receive a payment
from the Settlement Fund. You may access a Claim Form from the
website and submit it online or download and mail it to the address
on the Claim Form. Claim Forms are also available by calling
1-833-907-3700 or emailing
Info@BroilerGrowersAntitrustSettlement.com.
What are my rights?
If you are a Class member and do nothing, you will be bound by the
Settlement and will give up any right to sue Sanderson in a
separate lawsuit related to the legal claims in this lawsuit. If
you want to keep your right to separately sue Sanderson, you must
exclude yourself from the Settlement by July 31, 2023. If you do
not exclude yourself, you may object to the Settlement and/or ask
for permission to appear and speak at the Fairness Hearing but only
if you do so by July 31, 2023. Complete information is available at
www.BroilerGrowersAntitrustSettlement.com.
The Court's hearing.
The Court will hold a hearing at 2:00 p.m. CT on August 25, 2023 to
decide whether to approve the Settlement, grant the requested
attorneys' fees of up to one-third of the gross Settlement amount,
unreimbursed litigation costs and expenses not to exceed $2.5
million, and the proposed plan of allocation and distribution. You
or your own lawyer may appear and speak at the hearing at your own
expense, but there is no requirement that you or your own lawyer do
so. The hearing may occur remotely, over a Zoom platform, or it may
occur in person, at the United States District Court for the
District of Oklahoma, located at 101 N. 5th St., Muskogee, OK
74401. Please check www.BroilerGrowersAntitrustSettlement.com for
updates as to the location of the hearing.
This notice is only a summary.
For more information, including the full Notice and Settlement
Agreement, visit www.BroilerGrowersAntitrustSettlement.com, email
Info@BroilerGrowersAntitrustSettlement.com, or call
1-833-907-3700.
Media Contact:
Angeion Group
Shiri Lasman
(215) 563-4116 [GN]
STEM INC: Petersen Sues Over Exchange Act Violation
---------------------------------------------------
Scott Petersen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. STEM, INC. f/k/a STAR PEAK ENERGY TRANSITION CORP.,
JOHN CARRINGTON, ERIC SCHEYER, WILLIAM BUSH, MICHAEL D. WILDS,
MICHAEL C. MORGAN, ADAM E. DALEY, ALEC LITOWITZ, DESIRÉE ROGERS,
and C. PARK SHAPER, Case No. 3:23-cv-02329 (N.D. Cal., May 12,
2023), is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that
purchased or otherwise acquired Stem securities: pursuant and/or
traceable to the Offering Documents issued in connection with the
merger ("Merger") consummated on April 28, 2021 by and among the
Company, STPK Merger Sub Corp. ("Merger Sub"), and Stem, Inc., a
private Delaware corporation ("Legacy Stem"); and/or between March
4, 2021 and February 16, 2023, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period"), and pursues claims against the Defendants under the
Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") and the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").
The Company offers energy storage systems sourced from original
equipment manufacturers ("OEMs") and provides an artificial
intelligence ("AI") platform called Athena, which offers battery
hardware and software-enabled services to operate the energy
storage systems. The Company's management has asserted that Stem's
services revenue line is purportedly comprised entirely of software
revenue. Prior to the Merger, the Company operated as a publicly
traded special purpose acquisition company ("SPAC").
The Offering Documents were negligently prepared and, as a result,
contained untrue statements of material fact or omitted to state
other facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading
and were not prepared in accordance with the rules and regulations
governing their preparation. Additionally, throughout the Class
Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operations, and compliance
policies.
Specifically, the Offering Documents and Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: Legacy
Stem suffered from material weaknesses in internal control over
financial reporting related to accounting for deferred cost of
goods sold and inventory, certain revenue recognition calculations,
and internal-use capitalized software calculations; the Company had
overstated Legacy Stem's and its own post-Merger business and
financial prospects; Stem's software revenue did not make up 100%
of the Company's services revenue; Stem had overstated the benefits
expected to flow from its AP partnership; and as a result, the
Offering Documents and Defendants' public statements throughout the
Class Period were materially false and/or misleading and failed to
state information required to be stated therein.
On March 15, 2021, in an SEC filing, the Company revealed that
Legacy Stem suffered from various previously undisclosed material
weaknesses in its internal control over financial reporting related
to, inter alia, "accounting for deferred cost of goods sold and
inventory," "the review of certain revenue recognition
calculations," and "the review of internal use capitalized software
calculations." On this news, Stem's stock price fell $1.19 per
share, or 3.36%, to close at $34.24 per share on March 15, 2021.
On February 24, 2022, Stem reported its fourth quarter ("4Q") and
full year ("FY") 2021 financial results. Among other items, Stem
reported FY 2021 earnings per share ("EPS") of -$0.96, missing
consensus estimates by $0.05, as well as FY 2021 revenue of $127.37
million, missing consensus estimates by $19.58 million. On this
news, Stem's stock price fell $2.43 per share, or 21.62%, to close
at $8.81 per share on February 25, 2022.
On January 5, 2023, Stem released an investor presentation deck
that it had prepared in connection with its attendance at the
Goldman Sachs Global Energy and Clean Technology Conference,
wherein the Company revealed that its 2022 bookings backlog was
"partially offset by a Stem-initiated contract cancellation
(~$130M) due to partner non performance on an agreed timeline".
Following release of the investor presentation deck, Stem's stock
price fell $0.75 per share, or 8.78%, to close at $7.79 per share
on January 5, 2023.
Then, on February 16, 2023, Stem reported its 4Q 2022 results and
2023 guidance. Among other items, the Company reported 4Q revenue
of $156 million, versus consensus estimates of $166 million, and
issued disappointing FY 2023 revenue guidance of $550 million to
$650 million, which was mostly below consensus estimates of $647
million. On this news, Stem's stock price fell $1.44 per share, or
14.78%, to close at $8.30 per share on February 17, 2023—a 69.32%
decline from the Company's first post-Merger closing stock price of
$27.05 per share on April 29, 2021 (the "Initial Closing Price").
As of the time this Complaint was filed, Stem's common stock was
trading significantly below its Initial Closing Price and continues
to trade below its initial value from the Merger, damaging
investors.
As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased or otherwise acquired Stem securities
pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering Documents issued in
connection with the Merger, and/or during the Class Period, and
suffered damages.
Stem purports to operate as a digitally connected and intelligent
energy storage network provider in the U.S. and
internationally.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Phone: (310) 405-7190
Email: jpafiti@pomlaw.com
TESLA INC: Monopolizes Maintenance & Repair Services, Ragone Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW RAGONE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TESLA, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-02352 (N.D. Cal., May 15,
2023) is an antitrust class action, brought pursuant to Sections 1
and 2 of the Sherman Act, Section 4 of the Clayton Act, and
Sections 102(c) and 110(d) of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act,
seeking relief for all persons who, like the Plaintiff, have been
forced to pay supracompetitive prices and suffer exorbitant wait
times to maintain and repair their Tesla vehicles as a result of
Tesla's monopolization, attempted monopolization, exclusionary
conduct, and restraint of the markets for compatible replacement
parts and maintenance and repair services for Tesla vehicles.
The Plaintiff contends that Tesla's unlawful monopoly of the Tesla
Repair Services and Tesla-Compatible Parts markets should be
enjoined and dismantled, Tesla should be ordered to make its repair
manuals and diagnostic tools available to individuals and
independent repair shops at a reasonable cost, and the Plaintiff
and the proposed Class should be reimbursed by Tesla for the
amounts they overpaid for Tesla Repair Services and Tesla
Compatible Parts.
Tesla's anticompetitive conduct had the following effects:
(a) Competition has been restrained or eliminated with
respect to Tesla Repair Services and Tesla-Compatible
Parts, thus depriving purchasers of Tesla Repair Services
and Tesla-Compatible Parts of the benefits of free and
open competition;
(b) The prices paid for Tesla Repair Services and Tesla-
Compatible Parts have been fixed, raised, stabilized, or
maintained at artificially inflated levels; and
(c) In addition to paying artificially inflated prices,
purchasers of Tesla Repair Services and Tesla-Compatible
Parts have suffered long wait times to receive parts and
services.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, treble
damages, costs, and attorneys' fees.
The Plaintiff brings this lawsuit as representative of the
following Class:
All persons or entities in the United States who paid Tesla
for Tesla Repair Services or Tesla-Compatible Parts March
2019 to the present.
Excluded from the Class are Tesla, any entity in which
Tesla has an interest, any of Tesla’s parents,
subsidiaries, affiliates, officers, directors, legal
representatives, successors and assigns, as well as any
judge, justice, or judicial officer presiding over this
matter and the members of their immediate families and
judicial staff.
The Plaintiff is a citizen of the state of Colorado who resides in
Jefferson County, Colorado. He owns a Tesla Model S and has paid
Tesla for Tesla Repair Services and/or Tesla-Compatible Parts.
Tesla is a multinational automotive and clean energy company
founded in Palo Alto, California in 2003.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew S. Weiler, Esq.
SCHNEIDER WALLACE
COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
Emeryville, CA 94608
Telephone: (415) 421-7100
E-mail: MWeiler@schneiderwallace.com
TEXAS CAPITAL: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues
its investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of Texas Capital Bancshares, Inc. (NASDAQ: TCBI)
resulting from allegations that Texas Capital may have issued
materially misleading business information to the investing
public.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Texas Capital 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=2747 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On March, 29, 2021, shares of Texas Capital
stock dropped 13% on unusually heavy trading volume as prime
brokers associated with now-defunct family office, Archegos Capital
Management, unwound large U.S. stock positions linked to the fund.
A Bloomberg article published on November 16, 2021 detailed how
Archegos built up a previously undisclosed position equal to 20% of
Texas Capital prior to the margin calls that forced Archegos'
liquidation. According to the article, Texas Capital was aware of
the large position held by Archegos while it raised additional
capital from investors in February 2021.
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 has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. 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
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
VIATRIS INC: Taylor Sues Over Securities Exchange Act Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Taylor, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. VIATRIS INC., MICHAEL GOETTLER, RAJIV MALIK, SANJEEV
NARULA, ANTHONY MAURO, and WALT OWENS, Case No. 2:23-cv-00812 (W.D.
Pa., May 12, 2023), is brought as a securities class action on
behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired Viatris common stock between March 1, 2021 and February
25, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking remedies under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").
At the outset of the Class Period, Viatris announced a multi-phase
plan, the first phase of which that would allow it to, inter alia:
create a stable revenue base; realize $1 billion in cost synergies
by 2024; and improve cash conversion and free cash flow generation.
The Defendants claimed that Viatris would achieve its first phase
goals through, inter alia, its strong pipeline of new products,
including those in its biosimilars business. Defendants further
represented that Viatris' strong pipeline and business development
would offset erosion of the Company's base business.
Throughout the Class Period, the Company falsely represented that:
2021 was a "trough year" for Viatris; $6.2 billion was the adjusted
EBITDA "floor" for Viatris; its biosimilars business was a core
part of the Company's long-term investment strategy; it was
managing resource allocation to meet its phase one objectives and
manage Viatris' base business erosion; base business erosion was
being and would continue to be offset by new product launches,
including those in its biosimilars business; and base business
erosion was in line with Defendants' expectations.
However, contrary to Defendants representations, the Company was
experiencing significantly more competition in its United States
complex generics business than disclosed. As a result, the Company
was not able to effectively manage its base business erosion or
create a stable revenue base. Instead, throughout 2021, Viatris
total revenues were declining quarter-over-quarter.
On February 28, 2022, before the market opened, Defendants revealed
that, in light of the prolonged failure of Viatris' Class Period
plan, the Company had decided to undertake yet another significant
global reshaping of its business. Indeed, Defendants unexpectedly
announced that Viatris had entered into an agreement to sell its
biosimilars business to Biocon Biologics Limited, which was
anticipated to close in the second half of 2022. The Company also
divulged that it was seeking to divest additional business assets
and focus on developing products in three core therapeutic areas as
a part of its global reshaping.
Contrary to Defendants repeated representations, 2021 was far from
the Company's "trough year" and an adjusted EBITDA of $6.2 billion
was not its "floor." Indeed, that same day, Defendants announced
lower-than expected guidance for fiscal year 2022 with total
revenues expected to be between $17.0 to $17.5 billion, adjusted
EBITDA expected to be $5.8 to $6.2 billion, and free cash flow
expected to be $2.5 to $2.9 billion. Viatris attributed the
lower-than expected guidance, in part, to competition around key
core products and price deterioration in certain markets, including
the United States. On this news, Viatris' stock price declined
$3.53 per share of common stock, or approximately 24%, from a
closing price of $14.54 per share on February 25, 2022, to a close
of $11.01 on February 28, 2022, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased Viatris common stock during the Class
Period.
Viatris is a global healthcare corporation, organized under the
laws of the State of Delaware.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq.
Gregory Potrepka, Esq.
Morgan M. Embleton, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
1111 Summer Street, Suite 403
Stamford, CT 06901
Phone: 203-992-4523
Facsimile: 212-363-7171
Email: shopkins@zlk.com
gpotrepka@zlk.com
membleton@zlk.com
VIRTU FINANCIAL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due July 18
----------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson Fistel, LLP, a shareholder rights law firm, announces that
a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of Virtu Financial,
Inc. ("Virtu" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: VIRT) investors who
acquired securities between March 1, 2019 and April 28, 2023,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you are a shareholder who
incurred losses during this period, you have until July 18, 2023,
to move the court to become a lead plaintiff in this action.
Join Class Action Here:
https://www.cognitoforms.com/JohnsonFistel/VirtuFinancialInc
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the
defendants failed to disclose that: (i) the Company maintained
deficient policies and procedures with respect to its information
access barriers; (ii) accordingly, Virtu had overstated the
Company's operational and technological efficacy as well as its
capacity to block the exchange of confidential information between
departments or individuals within the Company; (iii) the foregoing
deficiencies increased the likelihood that the Company would be
subject to enhanced regulatory scrutiny; and (iv) as a result,
Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading
at all relevant times.
A lead plaintiff will act on behalf of all other class members in
directing the class-action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a
law firm of its choice to litigate the class-action lawsuit. An
investor's ability to share any potential future recovery of the
class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.
Johnson Fistel, LLP is a shareholder rights law firm representing
individual and institutional investors in shareholder derivative
and securities class action lawsuits. For more information, visit
their website http://www.johnsonfistel.com.[GN]
WALT DISNEY: Alleges Execs of Giving Analysts Inaccurate Guidance
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Derek Baine of Forbes reports that anyone who owns stock knows that
guidance is just a rough estimates and companies often miss or beat
estimates and then change them quite often. In the recent Class
Action suit filed against Walt DisneyDIS +0.1%, however, management
at the division which previously housed the company's streaming
division are being accused of putting out forecasts that they
didn't believe they would meet.
The lawsuit alleges the company put out Disney+ subscriber numbers
they couldn't reach and then shifted marketing and production costs
to linear networks to reduce losses at the streaming division,
something that Disney denies. In a statement to The Hollywood
Reporter, Disney replied "We are aware of the complaint and intent
to defend vigorously against it in court."
In fact, it's common in Hollywood when you own multiple
distribution platforms to change your mind and put a movie or TV
show on a platform that it wasn't initially planned for. And in the
lawsuit, they even quote from Kareem Daniel, a defendant in the
lawsuit who headed the division housing the streaming division
under former CEO Bob Chapek. "One of the primary benefits of our
new organizational structure is our ability to quickly reevaluate
and adjust our plans in light of changes in the marketplace, and we
will continue to shift and optimize our mix of window theatrical,
day-and-date, and D2C exclusive offerings according to what is best
for the consumer and our business.
The news that the Local 272 Labor-Management Pension Fund filed
this lawsuit against the Walt Disney Company, Bob Chapek, Christine
McCarthy (who was likely targeted due to a story in The Wall Street
Journal saying she was aware of and concerned about the Company's
accounting) and Kareem Daniel comes as no surprise as plaintiffs
allege that then CEO Bob Chapek decided to "go all in" on Disney's
direct-to-consumer (DTC) service. In fact, even current CEO Bob
Iger now admits that a better strategy than focusing on subscriber
growth is to focus on streaming profitability.
This was prudent as COVID-19 came on just about a month after
Chapek was promoted to CEO, so the timing couldn't be worse for an
incoming CEO which relies on selling people products which, in many
cases causes them to leave their house and be in close proximity to
other people (i.e. theme parks, movie theaters, etc.). [GN]
WELLS FARGO: Civil Rights Lawyer Joins Mortgage Lender Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Zach Fuentes of ABC7News reports that Civil rights attorney
Benjamin Crump joins the fight against San Francisco-based Wells
Fargo as allegations against the nation's largest mortgage lender
grow.
A class action lawsuit is accusing Wells Fargo of racism for
denying mortgage loans to non-white applicants.
Former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown also joined the fight May
17, 2023.
"I told him 'I am going to sue you. I don't know how I am going to
do it,'" said choked up plaintiff Aaron Braxton, remembering what
he told a Wells Fargo representative, "'I am going to sue you
because I know I'm not the only one.'"
Braxton is one of the named plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit
against Wells Fargo.
Braxton says he's one of many who wanted to refinance their homes
during the early stages of the pandemic. But, instead, Braxton was
given the run-around.
Braxton, the other plaintiffs and attorneys say they were
discriminated against, citing a Bloomberg news report as evidence.
"Black people, in particular, were trying to refinance their home,
and they were being approved at a rate of 47%. Other banks were
approving Black Americans for refinance during the early stages of
the pandemic and 2020 at a rate of 71%," said lead attorney Dennis
Elllis, "White Americans at Wells Fargo were being approved for
loans at a rate of 72%. And so, there was this dynamic where Black
Americans who are attempting to refinance their homes to lower
interest rates were being denied at record rates. And that was
concerning."
Ellis says more than 750,000 customers may have similar
experiences.
Former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown and Civil Rights Attorney
Ben Crump announced their support in front of the San Francisco
Federal Courthouse where the lawsuit is filed.
"The first demonstration on the issue of housing in San Francisco,
I conducted -- that was more than six decades ago," Brown said,
"You would think that things would have been learned by one of the
premier institutions in San Francisco."
In a statement to ABC7 News, San Francisco-based Wells Fargo said:
"We are confident that we follow relevant government-sponsored
enterprise (GSE) guidelines in our decision-making and that our
underwriting practices are consistently applied regardless of a
customer's race or ethnicity. These allegations against Wells Fargo
stand in stark contrast to the company's significant and long-term
commitment to closing the minority homeownership gap."
Ellis and the other big-named attorneys say the statement is empty
and that they will continue to demand that Wells Fargo takes
responsibility.
"We are here on this day, the 69th anniversary of Brown versus the
Board of Education, the seminal civil rights case in the 20th
century," Crump said, "Now we're fighting the 21st-century civil
rights struggle."
Ellis says a case management conference before a judge is set for
May 25. [GN]
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Constellation Energy Has $91MM Est. Liabilities
----------------------------------------------------------------
Constellation Energy Corporation, at March 31, 2023 and December
31, 2022, has recorded estimated liabilities of approximately $91
million and $95 million, respectively, in total for
asbestos-related bodily injury claims, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "As of March 31, 2023, approximately $23
million of this amount related to 257 open claims presented to us,
while the remaining $68 million is for estimated future
asbestos-related bodily injury claims anticipated to arise through
2055, based on actuarial assumptions and analyses, which are
updated on an annual basis. On a quarterly basis, we monitor actual
experience against the number of forecasted claims to be received
and expected claim payments and evaluate whether adjustments to the
estimated liabilities are necessary."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3By6dLE
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitex Int'l. Defends Product Liability Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Manitex International, Inc., has been named as a defendant in
several multi-defendant asbestos related product liability
lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Manitex states, "In the remaining cases the plaintiff has, to date,
not been able to establish any exposure by the plaintiff to the
Company's products. The Company is uninsured with respect to these
claims but believes that it will not incur any material liability
with respect to these claims.
"On May 5, 2011, Company entered into two separate settlement
agreements with two plaintiffs. As of March 31, 2023, the Company
has a remaining obligation under these agreements to pay the
plaintiffs $855 without interest in 9 annual installments of $95 on
or before May 22 of each year. The Company has recorded a liability
for the net present value of the liability. The difference between
the net present value and the total payment will be charged to
interest expense over the payment period.
"It is reasonably possible that the estimated reserve for product
liability claims may change within the next 12 months. A change in
estimate could occur if a case is settled for more or less than
anticipated, or if additional information becomes known to the
Company.
"The Company has accrued $335 for settling a litigation matter
involving a product liability case. In addition, the Company has
recorded a charge of $487 for the estimated withdrawal liability
for pension payments that it may owe under a collective bargaining
agreement with the unions. These amounts are recorded in other
expense in the Statement of Operations for the quarter ended March
31, 2023."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3BENLRy
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MetLife Receives 587 New Personal Injury Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc., for the three months ended March 31, 2023 and 2022,
has received approximately 587 and 721 new asbestos-related claims,
respectively, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "MLIC is and has been a defendant in a large
number of asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state courts.
These suits principally allege that the plaintiff or plaintiffs
suffered personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos and
seek both actual and punitive damages. MLIC has never engaged in
the business of manufacturing or selling asbestos-containing
products, nor has MLIC issued liability or workers' compensation
insurance to companies in the business of manufacturing or selling
asbestos-containing products. The lawsuits principally have focused
on allegations with respect to certain research, publication and
other activities of one or more of MLIC's employees during the
period from the 1920s through approximately the 1950s and allege
that MLIC learned or should have learned of certain health risks
posed by asbestos and, among other things, improperly publicized or
failed to disclose those health risks. MLIC believes that it should
not have legal liability in these cases. The outcome of most
asbestos litigation matters, however, is uncertain and can be
impacted by numerous variables, including differences in legal
rulings in various jurisdictions, the nature of the alleged injury
and factors unrelated to the ultimate legal merit of the claims
asserted against MLIC.
"MLIC's defenses include that: (i) MLIC owed no duty to the
plaintiffs; (ii) plaintiffs did not rely on any actions of MLIC;
(iii) MLIC's conduct was not the cause of the plaintiffs' injuries;
and (iv) plaintiffs' exposure occurred after the dangers of
asbestos were known. During the course of the litigation, certain
trial courts have granted motions dismissing claims against MLIC,
while other trial courts have denied MLIC's motions. There can be
no assurance that MLIC will receive favorable decisions on motions
in the future. While most cases brought to date have settled, MLIC
intends to continue to defend aggressively against claims based on
asbestos exposure, including defending claims at trials."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3o2Vm9H
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MSA LLC Records $395.1MM Product Liability Reserve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MSA Safety Incorporated's former subsidiary, Mine Safety Appliances
Company, LLC ("MSA LLC"), was named as a defendant in various
lawsuits related to cumulative trauma product liability claims
which mainly involves respiratory protection products allegedly
manufactured and sold by MSA LLC or its predecessors, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.
MSA Safety states, "Management previously established a reserve for
MSA LLC's potential exposure to cumulative trauma product liability
claims. Prior to its divestiture, MSA LLC's total cumulative trauma
product liability reserve was $395.1 million, including $13.4
million for claims settled but not yet paid and related defense
costs, as of December 31, 2022. The reserve includes estimated
amounts related to asserted and IBNR asbestos, silica, and coal
dust claims expected to be resolved through the year 2075. The
reserve was not discounted to present value and did not include
future amounts which will be spent to defend the claims. Defense
costs were recognized in the unaudited Condensed Consolidated
Statements of Operations as incurred.
"At December 31, 2022, $65.1 million of the total reserve for
cumulative trauma product liability claims was recorded in the
Insurance and product liability line within other current
liabilities in the Consolidated Balance Sheet and the remainder,
$330.0 million, is recorded in the Product liability and other
noncurrent liabilities line.
"Cumulative trauma product liability claims involve alleged
exposures to harmful substances (e.g., silica, asbestos and coal
dust) that occurred years ago and may have developed over long
periods of time into diseases such as silicosis, asbestosis,
mesothelioma, or coal worker's pneumoconiosis."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3OiYDMx
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Paramount Global Has 21,640 Cases as of March 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Paramount Global is a defendant in lawsuits claiming various
personal injuries related to asbestos and other materials, which
allegedly occurred as a result of exposure caused by various
products manufactured by Westinghouse, a predecessor, generally
prior to the early 1970s, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "As of March 31, 2023, we had pending
approximately 21,640 asbestos (Tabular dollars in millions, except
per share amounts) claims, as compared with approximately 21,580 as
of December 31, 2022. During the first quarter of 2023, we received
approximately 650 new claims and closed or moved to an inactive
docket approximately 590 claims. We report claims as closed when we
become aware that a dismissal order has been entered by a court or
when we have reached agreement with the claimants on the material
terms of a settlement. Settlement costs depend on the seriousness
of the injuries that form the basis of the claims, the quality of
evidence supporting the claims and other factors. Our total costs
for the years 2022 and 2021 for settlement and defense of asbestos
claims after insurance recoveries and net of tax were approximately
$57 million and $63 million, respectively. Our costs for settlement
and defense of asbestos claims may vary year to year and insurance
proceeds are not always recovered in the same period as the insured
portion of the expenses.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/42ISJZv
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Co-defends 112 Personal Injury Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
Park-Ohio Industries, Inc., is a co-defendant in 112 cases
asserting claims on behalf of 162 plaintiffs alleging personal
injury as a result of exposure to asbestos, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
The Company states, "These asbestos cases generally relate to
production and sale of asbestos-containing products and allege
various theories of liability, including negligence, gross
negligence and strict liability, and seek compensatory and, in some
cases, punitive damages.
"In every asbestos case in which we are named as a party, the
complaints are filed against multiple named defendants. In
substantially all of the asbestos cases, the plaintiffs either
claim damages in excess of a specified amount, typically a minimum
amount sufficient to establish jurisdiction of the court in which
the case was filed (jurisdictional minimums generally range from
$25,000 to $75,000), or do not specify the monetary damages sought.
To the extent that any specific amount of damages is sought, the
amount applies to claims against all named defendants.
"There are four asbestos cases, involving 20 plaintiffs, that plead
specified damages against named defendants. In each of the four
cases, the plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive damages
based on a variety of potentially alternative causes of action. In
two cases, the plaintiff has alleged three counts at $3.0 million
compensatory and punitive damages each; one count at $3.0 million
compensatory and $1.0 million punitive damages; one count at $1.0
million. In the third case, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory
and punitive damages, each in the amount of $20.0 million, for
three separate causes of action, and $5.0 million compensatory
damages for the fifth cause of action. In the fourth case, the
plaintiff has alleged compensatory and punitive damages, each in
the amount of $10.0 million, for ten separate causes of action.
"Historically, we have been dismissed from asbestos cases on the
basis that the plaintiff incorrectly sued one of our subsidiaries
or because the plaintiff failed to identify any asbestos-containing
product manufactured or sold by us or our subsidiaries. We intend
to vigorously defend these asbestos cases, and believe we will
continue to be successful in being dismissed from such cases.
However, it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of
asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings due to the
unpredictable nature of personal injury litigation. Despite this
uncertainty, and although our results of operations and cash flows
for a particular period could be adversely affected by
asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings, management
believes that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not
have a material adverse effect on our financial condition,
liquidity or results of operations. Among the factors management
considered in reaching this conclusion were: (a) our historical
success in being dismissed from these types of lawsuits on the
bases mentioned above; (b) many cases have been improperly filed
against one of our subsidiaries; (c) in many cases the plaintiffs
have been unable to establish any causal relationship to us or our
products or premises; (d) in many cases, the plaintiffs have been
unable to demonstrate that they have suffered any identifiable
injury or compensable loss at all or that any injuries that they
have incurred did in fact result from alleged exposure to asbestos;
and (e) the complaints assert claims against multiple defendants
and, in most cases, the damages alleged are not attributed to
individual defendants. Additionally, we do not believe that the
amounts claimed in any of the asbestos cases are meaningful
indicators of our potential exposure because the amounts claimed
typically bear no relation to the extent of the plaintiff's injury,
if any."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/41FdfsM
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sempra Energy's Subsidiaries Faces PI Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sempra Energy's indirect subsidiaries which were acquired as part
of the merger of EFH, were defendants in personal injury lawsuits
brought in state courts throughout the U.S., according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
The Company states, "These cases alleged illness or death as a
result of exposure to asbestos in power plants designed and/or
built by companies whose assets were purchased by predecessor
entities to the EFH subsidiaries, and generally assert claims for
product defects, negligence, strict liability and wrongful death.
They sought compensatory and punitive damages. As of April 28,
2023, two lawsuits are pending. Additionally, approximately 28,000
proofs of claim were filed, but not discharged, in the EFH
bankruptcy proceeding on behalf of persons who allege exposure to
asbestos under similar circumstances and assert the right to file
such lawsuits in the future. The costs to defend or resolve such
claims and the amount of damages that may be incurred could have a
material adverse effect on Sempra's results of operations,
financial condition, cash flows and/or prospects."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3Mh2U0z
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Faces 1,485 Exposure Cases
----------------------------------------------------------
Standard Motor Products, Inc., at March 31, 2023, has reported an
approximately 1,485 outstanding cases for which they may be
responsible for any related liabilities, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Since inception in September 2001 through
March 31, 2023, the amounts paid for settled claims and awards of
asbestos-related damages, including interest, were approximately
$67 million. We do not have insurance coverage for the indemnity
and defense costs associated with the claims we face.
"In 1986, we acquired a brake business, which we subsequently sold
in March 1998 and which is accounted for as a discontinued
operation in the accompanying statement of operations. When we
originally acquired this brake business, we assumed future
liabilities relating to any alleged exposure to asbestos-containing
products manufactured by the seller of the acquired brake business.
In accordance with the related purchase agreement, we agreed to
assume the liabilities for all new claims filed on or after
September 2001. Our ultimate exposure will depend upon the number
of claims filed against us on or after September 2001, and the
amounts paid for settlements, awards of asbestos-related damages,
and defense of such claims.
"In evaluating our potential asbestos-related liability, we have
considered various factors including, among other things, an
actuarial study of the asbestos related liabilities performed by an
independent actuarial firm, our settlement amounts and whether
there are any co-defendants, the jurisdiction in which lawsuits are
filed, and the status and results of such claims. As is our
accounting policy, we consider the advice of actuarial consultants
with experience in assessing asbestos-related liabilities to
estimate our potential claim liability; and perform an actuarial
evaluation in the third quarter of each year and whenever events or
changes in circumstances indicate that additional provisions may be
necessary. The methodology used to project asbestos-related
liabilities and costs in our actuarial study considered: (1)
historical data available from publicly available studies; (2) an
analysis of our recent claims history to estimate likely filing
rates into the future; (3) an analysis of our currently pending
claims; (4) an analysis of our settlements and awards of
asbestos-related damages to date; and (5) an analysis of closed
claims with pay ratios and lag patterns in order to develop average
future settlement values. Based on the information contained in
the actuarial study and all other available information considered
by us, we have concluded that no amount within the range of
settlement payments and awards of asbestos-related damages was more
likely than any other and, therefore, in assessing our asbestos
liability we compare the low end of the range to our recorded
liability to determine if an adjustment is required."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3pLHyAO
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trane Tech. Faces Product Liability Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Trane Technologies plc's wholly-owned subsidiaries, and its former
companies, have been named as defendants in asbestos-related
lawsuits in state and federal courts, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "In virtually all of the suits, a large number
of other companies have also been named as defendants. The vast
majority of those claims were filed against predecessors of Aldrich
and Murray and generally allege injury caused by exposure to
asbestos contained in certain historical products sold by
predecessors of Aldrich or Murray, primarily pumps, boilers and
railroad brake shoes. None of the Company's existing or
previously-owned businesses were a producer or manufacturer of
asbestos.
"On June 18, 2020, Aldrich and Murray filed voluntary petitions for
relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code to resolve equitably
and permanently all current and future asbestos related claims in a
manner beneficial to claimants and to Aldrich and Murray. As a
result of the Chapter 11 filings, all asbestos-related lawsuits
against Aldrich and Murray have been stayed due to the imposition
of a statutory automatic stay applicable in Chapter 11 bankruptcy
cases. In addition, at the request of Aldrich and Murray, the
Bankruptcy Court has entered an order temporarily staying all
asbestos-related claims against the Trane Companies that relate to
claims against Aldrich or Murray (except for asbestos-related
claims for which the exclusive remedy is provided under workers'
compensation statutes or similar laws). On August 23, 2021, the
Bankruptcy Court entered its findings of facts and conclusions of
law and order declaring that the automatic stay applies to certain
asbestos related claims against the Trane Companies and enjoining
such actions. As a result, all asbestos-related lawsuits against
Aldrich, Murray and the Trane Companies remain stayed.
The goal of these Chapter 11 filings is to resolve equitably and
permanently all current and future asbestos-related claims in a
manner beneficial to claimants and to Aldrich and Murray through
court approval of a plan of reorganization that would create a
trust pursuant to section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code, establish
claims resolution procedures for all current and future
asbestos-related claims against Aldrich and Murray and channel such
claims to the trust for resolution in accordance with those
procedures. Aldrich and Murray intend to seek an agreement with
representatives of the asbestos claimants on the terms of a plan
for the establishment of such a trust.
"Prior to the Petition Date, predecessors of each of Aldrich and
Murray had been litigating asbestos-related claims brought against
them. No such claims have been paid since the Petition Date, and it
is not contemplated that any such claims will be paid until the end
of the Chapter 11 cases.
"From an accounting perspective, the Company no longer has control
over Aldrich and Murray as of the Petition Date as their activities
are subject to review and oversight by the Bankruptcy Court.
Therefore, Aldrich and its wholly-owned subsidiary 200 Park and
Murray and its wholly-owned subsidiary ClimateLabs were
deconsolidated as of the Petition Date and their respective assets
and liabilities were derecognized from the Company's Condensed
Consolidated Financial Statements. Amounts derecognized in the
second quarter of 2020 primarily related to the legacy
asbestos-related liabilities and asbestos-related insurance
recoveries and $41.7 million of cash.
"Simultaneously, the Company recognized a liability of $248.8
million within Other noncurrent liabilities in the Condensed
Consolidated Balance Sheet related to its obligation under the
Funding Agreements. The liability was based on asbestos related
liabilities and insurance related assets balances previously
recorded by the Company prior to the Petition Date.
"As a result of the deconsolidation, the Company recognized an
aggregate loss of $24.9 million in its Condensed Consolidated
Statements of Earnings during the year ended December 31, 2020. A
gain of $0.9 million related to Murray and its wholly-owned
subsidiary ClimateLabs was recorded within Other income /
(expense), net and a loss of $25.8 million related to Aldrich and
its wholly-owned subsidiary 200 Park was recorded within
Discontinued operations, net of tax. Additionally, the
deconsolidation resulted in an investing cash outflow of $41.7
million in the Company’s Condensed Consolidated Statements of
Cash Flows, of which $10.8 million was recorded within continuing
operations during the year ended December 31, 2020."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/4515YGy
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean's Subsidiary Defends 235 PI Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Transocean Ltd.'s subsidiary was named as a defendant, along with
numerous other companies, in lawsuits arising out of the
subsidiary's manufacture and sale of heat exchangers, and
involvement in the construction and refurbishment of major
industrial complexes alleging bodily injury or personal injury as a
result of exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "As of March 31, 2023, the subsidiary was a
defendant in approximately 235 lawsuits with a corresponding number
of plaintiffs. For many of these lawsuits, we have not been
provided sufficient information from the plaintiffs to determine
whether all or some of the plaintiffs have claims against the
subsidiary, the basis of any such claims, or the nature of their
alleged injuries. The operating assets of the subsidiary were sold
in 1989. In December 2021, the subsidiary and certain insurers
agreed to a settlement of outstanding disputes that provide the
subsidiary with cash. An earlier settlement, achieved in September
2018, provided the subsidiary with cash and an annuity that begins
making payments in 2024. Together with a coverage in place
agreement with certain insurers and additional coverage issued by
other insurers, we believe the subsidiary has sufficient resources
to respond to both the current lawsuits as well as future lawsuits
of a similar nature. While we cannot predict or provide assurance
as to the outcome of these matters, we do not expect the ultimate
liability, if any, resulting from these claims to have a material
adverse effect on our condensed consolidated statement of financial
position, results of operations or cash flows."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3IhWP2H
*********
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 2023. 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 ***