/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230530.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, May 30, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 108
Headlines
1-800-GOT-JUNK?: Torres Files Suit in C.D. California
3M COMPANY: Campbell Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams
3M COMPANY: Cannan Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Chambers Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: Cichecki Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
3M COMPANY: Connolly Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams
3M COMPANY: Freeman Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Settlement in Stewart Suit for Court Nod
ALICO INC: Continues to Defend Sinder Class Suit in Florida
ALIGNMENT HEALTHCARE: Continues to Defend Dabney Class Suit
ALLBIRDS INC: Faces Delgado Suit Over Drop in Share Price
ALLSTATE FIRE: Ayanbadejo Seeks More Time to File Review Petition
AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Cross Class Suit Over Labor Laws' Violations
ANTHEM INSURANCE: A.S. Sues Over Reckless Violations of Privacy
APACHE CORP: Continues to Defend Kulp Minerals Class Suit
APACHE CORP: Continues to Defend PCRS Class Suit in Texas
ASTEC IND: Taylor Employees Shareholder Suit in Discovery Period
AUSTRALIA: Farmers Mull Class Action Over Live Export Ban
AVIS BUDGET GROUP: Williams Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
BEN.ETH: PSYOP Early Investors Sue Over Losse, Racketeering
BUCCANEERS LIMITED: Fax Suit Incites 'Never-Ending' Legal Fees Feud
CHW GROUP: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Cameron Suit Claims
CLOVER HEALTH INVESTMENTS: To Settle Bond Securities Suit
COMPANION PET: Faces Adary Wage-and-Hour Suit in Calif.
CONAGRA BRANDS: Settles Wesson Oil False Advertising Class Action
CONSOLIDATED WASTE: Dudley Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
CVS HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over AI-Assisted Video Interview
D-MARKET ELEKTRONIK: $13.9MM Settlement to be Heard on Aug. 1
DOCUSIGN INC: Must Face California Securities Class Action
DOORDASH INC: Predatory Pricing Class Action Suit Discussed
DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Kane Lawsuit
DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Kannard Lawsuit
DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Kolev Lawsuit
DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Kudrick Lawsuit
DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Leineke Lawsuit
DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Lovetere Lawsuit
DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Stalcup Lawsuit
ELERAS GROUP: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, McGuire Suit Alleges
FIVE POINT HOLDINGS: Faces Class Suit Over Pollution Tests Results
FIVERR INC: Moffett Sues Over Illegal Collection of Biometrics
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action Over Faulty Transmissions
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Product Liability Suit Over Fuel Pump
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Product Liability Suits Over Oil Consumption
HILL PHOENIX: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Manning Claims
HP INC: $10.5MM Class Settlement to be Heard on July 28
IBM CORP: Faces Class Suit Over Annuity Pension Benefits
IBM CORP: Shareholder Suit in New York Voluntarily Dismissed
INDEPENDENT BANK: Faces Fraud Charges in Texas Court
KINDER MORGAN: Faces Pederson, Leutloff Class Action
KPMG LLP: Rossi Securities Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
LATITUDE FINANCIAL: Investigated Over Alleged Security Breaches
LEPRINO FOODS: Vasquez Appeals Ruling in Labor Suit to 9th Cir.
MDL 2972: Opposition to Faszczewski Class Cert. Bid Due June 9
MDL 2972: Opposition to Glasper Class Cert. Bid Due June 9
MDL 2972: Opposition to Graifman Class Cert. Bid Due June 9
MDL 2972: Opposition to Imhof Class Cert. Bid Due June 9
MDL 2972: Opposition to Jobe Class Cert. Bid Due June 9
META PLATFORMS: Location Services Suit Claim Filing Due Aug. 11
MILLENNIUM SEARCH: Boulton Seeks Recruiting Managers' Unpaid OT
NEW YORK, NY: Deide Sues Over Executive Orders Barring Migrants
NEXTGEN HEALTHCARE: Sued Over Data Breach Involving Patients' Info
NIKE RETAIL: Cruz Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to S.D. Cal.
NISOURCE INC: Hardy Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to N.D. Okla.
ODS CAPITAL: July 13 Class Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
PATTERN ENERGY: July 31 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Averts California Securities Class Action
PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Miller Sues Over Defective Exercise Bikes
PHARMERICA CORP: Berger Montague Investigates Possible Class Action
RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Shareholder Suit Over SEC Misfilings
RON HIBACHI: Faces Chen Suit Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
RUGSUSA LLC: Advertises False Discounts and Sales on Web, Lee Says
SEPHORA USA: Faces Byars Suit Over Illegal Wiretapping
SMARTE CARTE: Camposeco Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
SPIRIT PHARMACEUTICALS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Rios Alleges
TD BANK: Faces Class Suit Over Failure of First Horizon Deal
TESLA INC: Faces Antitrust Suit Over Warranty/Service Issues
TICKETMASTER ENTERTAINMENT: Sued Over Drake Tour Ticket Prices
TOLER APPRAISAL: Faces Gregory Class Suit Over Appraisal Violation
TOTAL RELOCATION: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Jackson Suit Alleges
TRIDENT ACQUISITIONS: Knolls Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duty
TYRO PAYMENTS: Settles Class Suit Over January 2021 Extended Outage
U-HAUL INTERNATIONAL: Records Telephonic Communications, Klein Says
UPONOR INC: Sells Defective Polyethylene Tubing, Carrico Alleges
VERIDIAN GROUP: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Lopez Suit Alleges
WORKHORSE GROUP: Court Sets June 21 Settlement Hearing
YOUTUBE LLC: Court Denies Schneider Bid for Class Certification
*********
1-800-GOT-JUNK?: Torres Files Suit in C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 1-800-GOT-JUNK? LLC.
The case is styled as Valerie Torres, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. 1-800-GOT-JUNK? LLC, Case No.
2:23-cv-02916-FMO-MRW (C.D. Cal., April 14, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
1-800-GOT-JUNK? -- https://www.1800gotjunk.com/us_en -- is a
full-service junk removers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lawrence Timothy Fisher, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Phone: (925) 300-4455
Fax: (925) 407-2700
Email: ltfisher@bursor.com
3M COMPANY: Campbell Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams
------------------------------------------------------
Mark Campbell, 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-01451-RMG (D.S.C., April 10,
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 non-Hodgkin's
lymphoma 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: Cannan Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
-----------------------------------------------------------------
James Cannan, 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-01453-RMG (D.S.C., April 10,
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 kidney cancer and
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: Chambers Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Chambers, 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-01455-RMG (D.S.C., April 10,
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: Cichecki Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
----------------------------------------------------------
Walter Cichecki, 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-01457-RMG (D.S.C., April 10,
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: Connolly Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams
------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Connolly and Diane Connolly, his wife, 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.; BUCK EYE 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; KIDDIE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDIE 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.); and ABC
CORPORATIONS (1-50), Case No. 2:23-cv-01398-RMG (D.S.C., April 6,
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 military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
prostate cancer, testicular cancer and/or other medical conditions
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:
Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq.
John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq.
WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER P.A.
125 Half Mile Road, Suite 100
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Phone: 732-855-6060
Facsimile: 732-726-4860
3M COMPANY: Freeman Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bret Allen Freeman and Erika Renee Jaen as heirs to Forrest Ronald
Freeman, deceased, 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.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER
GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.;
CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; 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 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.); ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; FIRE-DEX, LLC; GLOBE
MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.;
LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY
APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC. PBI
PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA,
INC.; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-02089-RMG
(D.S.C., May 16, 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 Plaintiffs Bret Allan Freeman, Erika Renee Jaen, are children
of, and heirs to, Forrest Ronald Freeman, who regularly used, and
was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish
fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian
firefighter and was diagnosed with kidney cancer and 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 Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Phone: 205-328-9200
Facsimile: 205-328-9456
ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Settlement in Stewart Suit for Court Nod
--------------------------------------------------------------
Albertsons Companies, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K for the
fiscal year ended February 25, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 25, 2023, that a settlement of a class
action lawsuit entitled "Schearon Stewart and Jason Stewart v.
Safeway Inc." is pending in Circuit Court, County of Multnomah,
State of Oregon.
Plaintiffs have alleged that Safeway engaged in unfair trade
practices, in violation of Oregon's Unlawful Trade Practices Act
(ORS 646.608), regarding the sale of certain meat products in 2015
and 2016 in the state of Oregon with its "Buy One, Get One Free"
and similar promotions.
On February 17, 2023, plaintiffs and Safeway executed an agreement
that settled all claims in the lawsuit for approximately $107
million, which agreement received preliminary approval by the court
on March 6, 2023. The settlement includes a claim administration
process whereby affected customers, who do not elect to opt out of
the settlement, file a claim to participate in the settlement. The
court has scheduled a hearing for July 10, 2023, at which it will
decide whether to grant final approval of the settlement.
Albertsons is a food and drug retailer based in Idaho.
ALICO INC: Continues to Defend Sinder Class Suit in Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
Alico 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 Sinder class suit in the Middle District of
Florida.
On February 17, 2023, a class action complaint was filed in the
Middle District of Florida captioned Sinder v. Alico, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 2:23-cv-00107 (the "Sinder" matter) asserting violations
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act of 1934 against the
Company and certain of its current and former officers on behalf of
a putative class of investors who purchased the Company's common
stock between February 4, 2021 and December 13, 2022.
The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company and
certain of its current and former officers made false and
misleading statements and failed to disclose certain information
regarding the Company's financial reporting and December 13, 2022
restatement of the Company's previously issued financial
statements.
Plaintiff seeks damages, interest, costs, expenses, attorneys'
fees, and other unspecified relief.
The Company believes that the claims in Sinder are without merit.
Alico, together with its subsidiaries, operates as an agribusiness
and land management company in the U.S.[BN]
ALIGNMENT HEALTHCARE: Continues to Defend Dabney Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Alignment Healthcare 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 Dabney class suit in the Orange County
Superior Court.
On April 27, 2022, a former employee of the Company filed a
purported class action lawsuit (Dabney v. Alignment Healthcare USA,
LLC, Orange County Superior Court) alleging that the Company failed
to provide hourly employees with required meal and rest breaks or
pay such workers a premium equal to an hour of pay for missed meal
or rest breaks.
Discovery in the matter commenced on June 8, 2022.
On September 2, 2022, the court granted a stay of proceedings and
discovery in anticipation of mediation scheduled for August 2023.
The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in the above
action, but there can be no assurance that it will be successful in
any defense.
Alignment Healthcare, Inc. designs and develops application
software. The Company offers continuous care programs that handle
clinical care coordination, risk management capabilities, and
information technology for healthcare providers. Alignment
Healthcare serves customers in the United States. [BN]
ALLBIRDS INC: Faces Delgado Suit Over Drop in Share Price
---------------------------------------------------------
GILBERTO DELGADO JR., individually andon behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALLBIRDS, INC.; JOSEPH ZWILLINGER;
TIMOTHY BROWN; MICHAEL BUFANO; NEIL BLUMENTHAL; DICK BOYCE; MANDY
FIELDS; NANCY GREEN; DAN LEVITAN; and EMILY WEISS, Defendants, Case
No. 3:23-cv-02372 (N.D. Cal., May 16, 2023) is a class action on
behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons and entities that purchased
or otherwise acquired: (a) Allbirds Class A common stock pursuant
and traceable to the registration statement and prospectus
(collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in connection
with the Company's November 2021 initial public offering ("IPO" or
the "Offering"); and (b) Allbirds securities between November 4,
2021 and March 9, 2023, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to
pursue claims against the Defendants under the Securities Act of
1933 ("Securities Act") and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that in the Registration
Statement and throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made
materially false and misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Defendants failed to
disclose to investors: (i) that Allbirds was overemphasizing
products that extended beyond the Company's core offerings; (ii)
that the Company's non-core products had a narrower appeal and were
not resonating with customers as well as the Company's core
products; (iii) that Allbirds was underinvesting in its core
consumers' favorite products to push the Company's newer products
with narrower appeal; (iv) that underinvesting in Allbirds' core
products was negatively impacting the Company's sales; and (v)
that, as a result of the foregoing, the Defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
were materially misleading and lacked a reasonable basis, says the
suit.
By the commencement of this action, the Company's stock price had
closed as low as $1.06 per share, a 92.9% decline from the
Company's $15.00 per share IPO price. As a result of the
Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous
decline in the market value of the Company's securities, the
Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses
and damages, the suit alleges.
ALLBIRDS, INC. manufactures and retails footwear products. The
Company offers shoes made from merino wool for men, women, and
kids. Allbirds serves clients worldwide.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Telephone: (310) 405-7190
Email: jpafiti@pomlaw.com
- and -
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
ALLSTATE FIRE: Ayanbadejo Seeks More Time to File Review Petition
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff JOHN-HENRY AYANBADEJO filed an appeal from a court ruling
issued in his lawsuit styled John-Henry Ayanbadejo, individually
and on behalf of similarly situated persons v. Chanel Goosby, and
Allstate Fire & Casualty Insurance Co., Case No. 2019-18186, in the
Texas District Court.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
brought against the Defendants for violations of the Texas
Insurance Code and the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act when
after being engaged in false, misleading, or deceptive acts or
practices that Mr. Ayanbadejo relied on.
Mr. Ayanbadejo had switched insurance providers from his full
coverage Farmers Insurance Co. to full coverage Allstate Indemnity
Co. due to the Defendants' advertising and the lower rates offered.
The Defendants violated DTPA when the Defendants withdrew money
from the Plaintiff's Wells Fargo Account and used the illegally
obtained funds to pay a 6-month policy of another customer. The
Defendants have also failed to pay any claim due to the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff previously filed an appeal challenging the trial
court's summary judgment dismissal of his lawsuit based on
allegations of an unauthorized withdrawal and alleged failure to
pay a covered claim following his collision with a deer. That
appellate case was captioned as John-Henry Ayanbadejo,
individually, and on behalf of similarly situated persons v. Chanel
Goosby, Allstate Fire & Casualty Insurance Co., Case No.
14-20-00264-CV, in the Texas Court of Appeals, Fourteenth Court of
Appeals.
Having overruled all issues properly raised and preserved for
review, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's
final summary judgment.
The Plaintiff now files this First Motion for Extension of Time to
File Petition for Review under Tex. R. App. P. 10.1, 10.5(b), and
53.7(f). He requests an extension of time of 30 working days, to
[June 20, 2023 or June 30, 2023, whichever is later]. This is
Plaintiff's first request for an extension of time in this case.
The new appellate case is captioned as John-Henry Ayanbadejo,
Petitioner v. Chanel Goosby and Allstate Fire & Casualty Insurance
Company, Respondents, Case No. 23-0343, in the Supreme Court of
Texas, filed on May 11, 2023.[BN]
Plaintiff-Petitioner John-Henry Ayanbadejo, individually, and on
behalf of similarly situated persons, appears pro se.
AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Cross Class Suit Over Labor Laws' Violations
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jaleesia Fobbs of KRDO reports that three Amazon delivery drivers
in Colorado are filing a class action lawsuit against the
e-commerce giant following allegations that the company is
violating Colorado's labor laws.
The suit highlights Amazon's failure to provide adequate bathroom
breaks and details how the company is creating an illegal disparate
impact on people with typical female anatomy, Public Justice
states.
In the complaint, workers allege that they have been forced to
urinate in bottles in the back of delivery vans and reported having
to defecate in dog waste bags in order to maintain Amazon's
delivery schedules and profit efforts.
According to the drivers, Amazon's policies make it "virtually
impossible" for drivers to pause from work without facing
discipline.
The drivers also state the company allegedly maintains tight
control over its drivers to keep them on track through workplace
surveillance while also monitoring their locations and movements at
all times.
The three drivers are now being represented by Towards Justice,
Terrell Marshall Law Group LLC, and Public Justice and they are
seeking damages and changes to Amazon's policies on behalf of
themselves and a class of current and former Amazon delivery
drivers across Colorado.
In a recent statement sent to KRDO, Amazon spokesperson, Sam
Stephenson, commented on the suit stating, "We want to make it
clear that we encourage our Delivery Service Partners to support
their drivers. That includes giving drivers the time they need for
breaks in between stops, providing a list within the Amazon
Delivery app of nearby restroom facilities and gas stations, and
building in time on routes to use the restroom or take longer
breaks." [GN]
ANTHEM INSURANCE: A.S. Sues Over Reckless Violations of Privacy
---------------------------------------------------------------
A.S., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. ANTHEM INSURANCE COMPANIES, INC. and NATIONSBENEFITS, LLC, Case
No. 1:23-cv-00693-TWP-MG (S.D. Ind., April 21, 2023), is brought
seeking to redress Defendants' willful and reckless violations of
her privacy rights.
The Plaintiff and the other Class Members are customers of
Defendant Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Sheild, a health insurance
provider, who entrusted their Protected Health Information ("PHI")
and Personally Identifiable Information ("PII") to Anthem. The
Defendant formed a Business Associate Agreement with
NationsBenefits to provide its customers with life essential
benefits with their health insurance company. As a part of the
relationship between Anthem and NationsBenefits, Anthem has shared
Plaintiff's PHI and PII with NationsBenefits who were entrusted to
protect it and keep it from wrongful disclosure.
On January 30, 2023, an unauthorized third party or person accessed
and downloaded Plaintiff's and the Class Members' PHI and PII. Both
Defendants Anthem and NationsBenefits have independent,
non-delegable duties to its customers to safeguard their PHI and
PII and are responsible for the wrongful disclosure of Plaintiff's
and the Class Members' PHI and PII. This action pertains to
Defendants' unauthorized disclosure of the Plaintiff's PHI and PII
that occurred on or around January 30, 2023 (the "Breach").
The Defendants disclosed Plaintiff's and the other Class Members'
PHI and PII to unauthorized persons as a direct and/or proximate
result of Defendants' failure to safeguard and protect their PHI
and PII. The wrongfully disclosed PHI and PII included, inter alia,
Plaintiff's and the other Class Members' first name, last name,
Social Security Number, physical address, date of birth, health
plan subscriber numbers, gender, and phone numbers.
The Defendants flagrantly disregarded Plaintiff's and the other
Class Members' privacy and property rights by intentionally,
willfully and recklessly failing to take the necessary precautions
required to safeguard and protect Plaintiff's and the other Class
Members' PHI and PII from unauthorized disclosure. Plaintiff's and
the other Class Members' PHI and PII was improperly handled,
inadequately protected, readily able to be copied by anyone with
nefarious intent and not kept in accordance with basic security
protocols. Defendants' obtaining of the information and sharing of
same also represent a flagrant disregard of Plaintiff's and the
other Class Members' rights, both as to privacy and property, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a customer of the Defendants and, as a result,
provided their PHI and PII to the Defendant.
Anthem is a national health insurance company pursuant to state and
federal law, providing health insurance and medical services to the
general public.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John A. Love, Esq.
LOVE CONSUMER LAW
2500 Northwinds Parkway, Suite 330
Alpharetta, GA 30009
Phone: 404.855.3600
Fax: 404.301.2300
Email: tlove@loveconsumerlaw.com
- and -
Maureen M. Brady, Esq.
MCSHANE & BRADY, LLC
1656 Washington Street, Suite 120
Kansas City, MO 64108
Phone: (816) 888-8010
Facsimile: (816) 332-6295
Email: mbrady@mcshanebradylaw.com
- and -
Sharon J. Zinns, Esq.
ZINNS LAW, LLC
4243 Dunwoody Club Drive, Suite 104
Atlanta, GA 30350
Phone: (404) 882-9002
Email: sharon@zinnslaw.com
APACHE CORP: Continues to Defend Kulp Minerals Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Apache 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 Kulp Minerals purported class suit in the Fifth
Judicial District.
On or about April 7, 2023, Apache was sued in a purported class
action in New Mexico styled Kulp Minerals LLC v. Apache
Corporation, Case No. D-506-CV-2023-00352 in the Fifth Judicial
District.
The Kulp Minerals case has not been certified and seeks to
represent a group of owners allegedly owed statutory interest under
New Mexico law as a result of purported late oil and gas payments.
The amount of this claim is not yet reasonably determinable.
The Company intends to vigorously defend against the claims
asserted in this lawsuit.
Apache Corporation is an independent energy company, which
explores
for, develops, and produces natural gas, crude oil, and natural
gas
liquids. The company is based in Houston, Texas.
APACHE CORP: Continues to Defend PCRS Class Suit in Texas
---------------------------------------------------------
Apache 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 Plymouth County Retirement System class suit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
On February 23, 2021, a case captioned Plymouth County Retirement
System v. Apache Corporation, et al. was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Houston
Division) against the Company and certain current and former
officers.
The complaint, which is a shareholder lawsuit styled as a class
action, alleges that (1) the Company intentionally used unrealistic
assumptions regarding the amount and composition of available oil
and gas in Alpine High; (2) the Company did not have the proper
infrastructure in place to safely and/or economically drill and/or
transport those resources even if they existed in the amounts
purported; (3) certain statements and omissions artificially
inflated the value of the Company's operations in the Permian
Basin; and (4) as a result, the Company's public statements were
materially false and misleading.
The Company believes that plaintiffs’ claims lack merit and
intends to vigorously defend this lawsuit.
Apache Corporation is an independent energy company, which
explores
for, develops, and produces natural gas, crude oil, and natural
gas
liquids. The company is based in Houston, Texas.
ASTEC IND: Taylor Employees Shareholder Suit in Discovery Period
----------------------------------------------------------------
Astec Industries 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 Taylor Employees
shareholder class suit is in discovery period.
The Company and certain of its former executive officers were named
as defendants in a putative shareholder class action lawsuit filed
on February 1, 2019, as amended on August 26, 2019, in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee.
The action is styled City of Taylor General Employees Retirement
System v. Astec Industries, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:19-cv-24-CEA-CHS.
The complaint generally alleges that the defendants violated the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"),
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by making allegedly false
and misleading statements and that the individual defendants were
control persons under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The
complaint is filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased stock of
the Company between July 26, 2016 and October 22, 2018 and seeks
monetary damages on behalf of the purported class.
On October 25, 2019, the defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss.
On February 19, 2021, the Motion to Dismiss was granted with
prejudice and judgment was entered for the defendants.
On March 19, 2021, plaintiff filed a Motion to Alter or Amend the
Judgment and For Leave to File the Proposed Amended Complaint,
which was denied on May 5, 2021.
Plaintiff appealed the Motion to Dismiss and denial of its Motion
to Alter or Amend the Judgment and For Leave to File the Proposed
Amended Complaint to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Sixth Circuit.
On March 31, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit issued an opinion reversing the dismissal of the Company
and one former executive officer, affirming the dismissal of
certain other former executive officers and remanding the action to
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Tennessee for proceedings consistent with the opinion.
On July 11, 2022 Defendants filed an answer to the complaint, and
the action is now in discovery.
Astec Industries, Inc. designs, engineers, manufactures, and
markets equipment and components for the road building, aggregate
processing, geothermal, water, oil and gas, and wood processing
industries in the United States and internationally. The company
was founded in 1972 and is based in Chattanooga, Tennessee.
AUSTRALIA: Farmers Mull Class Action Over Live Export Ban
---------------------------------------------------------
Oliver Peterson, writing for 6pr, reports that calls for the
Federal Government to reconsider its position to ban live export as
farmers are considering a class action lawsuit.
Corrigin Stud Merino Breeder Steven Bolt told Oliver Peterson on
6PR Perth Live the government is destroying a really significant
part of the Western Australian agricultural system.
"People are looking to exit the sheep industry all together now
because they don't want to have to deal with the reality of not
having a market for their sheep," Mr Bolt said. [GN]
AVIS BUDGET GROUP: Williams Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Avis Budget Group,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Curtis Lemann Williams, Jr., and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Avis Budget Group,
Inc., AB Car Rental Services, Inc., Does 1-20, Case No. 23CV000043
(Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., April 18, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case."
Avis Budget Group -- https://avisbudgetgroup.com/ -- is American
car rental agency holding company headquartered in Parsippany, New
Jersey.[BN]
BEN.ETH: PSYOP Early Investors Sue Over Losse, Racketeering
-----------------------------------------------------------
Oluwapelumi Adejumo, writing for BeinCyrpto, reports that early
investors in PSYOP tokens are losing over half of their investment.
Several crypto community members have labeled the asset a scam.
Lookonchain reported how several traders who participated in the
PSYOP presale received airdrops now worth half of their
investment.
Early Investors in Loss
One address, 0xf4ae, spent 29 ETH on presale, getting over 5
million units of PSYOP as an airdrop. These airdropped tokens are
worth less than 3 ETH, representing an over 90% loss for the
investor.
The same is true for other top participants in the presale. Veg.eth
sent 21 ETH and received 3.7 PSYOP million worth 2.15 ETH and
hot.izebel.eth sent 20 ETH and received 3.5 million PSYOP worth
2.05 ETH.
Interestingly, the problem is not just about those participating in
the presale, as trading the token is also not profitable.
Hot.izebel.eth bought 3.97 million PSYOP for 2.28 ETH but sold for
2.2659 ETH and paid a gas fee of 0.052 ETH.
While Ben.eth has promised more airdrops, how that will help
investors cover their losses is unclear. After a second round of
airdrop, the address that participated in the presale with 29 ETH
received 25.5 million PSYOP worth 14 ETH, Lookonchain said.
PSYOP Dubbed a Scam
A media studio Psyop distanced itself from the memecoin after
several community members linked the asset to the firm. The studio
described the PSYOP token as a complete scam, adding that it has no
relation to it.
ZachXBT has warned the community about the token, tweeting about
the unreliability of the project's founder. Several other community
members have also described the token as a scam.
Meanwhile, the hype surrounding the token led to the launch of
several similarly named assets. On May 18, Ben.eth was forced to
issue a disclaimer that he was yet to release a token.
PSYOP Creator Threatened With Lawsuit
On May 20, Mike Kanovitz, a partner at the law firm Loevy & Loevy,
revealed his firm would be filing a class-action lawsuit against
the PSYOP token founder if he failed to refund participants of the
token's presale.
The letter said Ben.eth could face racketeering charges, wire
fraud, and misleading investors. Kanovitz added that investors
could receive up to $21 million in damages.
Ben.eth made over $7 million from the presale and made several
claims about the PSYOP token, including linking it to Andrew Tate.
[GN]
BUCCANEERS LIMITED: Fax Suit Incites 'Never-Ending' Legal Fees Feud
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Ebert of Bloomberg Law reports that a law firm accused by a
federal court of a "Machiavellian plan" to undercut a competitor's
settlement with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers is crashing the party
again -- objecting to a settlement similar to one the firm tried to
ink with the team years ago.
The objection last month is the latest twist in a 13-year class
action drama that has played out across state and federal courts.
It's been a legal soap opera with allegations of espionage and
tactical blunders -- and a laptop full of law firm documents that
went missing.
Claimants are still waiting after a decade to collect their chunk
of the nearly $20 million proposed settlement with the football
franchise. Class action law firms are battling over which lawyers
will get a cut of the roughly $5 million in fees.
"My cost in stress and time in this never-ending saga in the eight
or nine years that my wife went through this has been quite an
emotional toll," said Gregory Williams, a chiropractor who took
over as a class representative in one of the cases after his wife
-- the former representative -- died from breast cancer.
The Williams family chiropractic business, like other businesses,
joined a suit after receiving unwanted faxed ticket advertisements
from the Buccaneers. Williams estimates he's spent more than 100
hours in depositions and court hearings without seeing any
payment.
"I just know this has gone on a ridiculous amount of time," he
said.
'Get Back At the Man'
Litigators usually take cases to make money. Tampa attorney Michael
Addison started filing Telephone Consumer Protection Act suits
because he was mad. The act allows fax machine owners to sue over
unwanted messages that waste paper and ink.
"It was more for the fun of it because all you could get was $500,
and you couldn't even get your attorneys fees, but I got tired of
getting faxes from people using up my paper and my ink," said
75-year-old Addison, who is now mostly retired. "I was trying to
get back at the man."
In 2009 he received a pair of unwanted faxes from the Bucs
advertising tickets. A separate attorney referred him to an auto
repair shop owner more than 100 miles away in Gainesville, Florida,
who had received the same faxes.
Addison knew there was a potential horde of illegal faxes. So he
filed a lawsuit in state court.
The auto repair shop, Cin-Q Automobiles Inc., and Williams's
business, Medical and Chiropractic Clinic Inc., would become two of
the lead plaintiffs in the disputes Addison helped steer.
The Buccaneers responded to the suit that the faxes were run
through a company that claimed it had consent from fax number
owners to receive the ads.
Addison said, "How many people do you think would sign up for a
list to be faxed various and sundry ads from people you don't know
of? Nobody wanted this."
The team's lawyer, Mark Mester, a partner in Latham & Waktins'
Chicago office, declined to comment because of ongoing litigation.
In a ruling illuminating the murkiness of the fax marketing
industry at the center of the spam messages, US Magistrate Judge
Anthony E. Porcelli said it wasn't clear that the Bucs could be
held liable in the case due to a "complicated web of conflicting
facts."
A Costly Mistake
Addison unwittingly kicked off years of squabbling and backbiting
when he sought the help of two law firms to aid in his initial
lawsuit -- The Bock Law Firm and Anderson + Wanca.
While Phillip Bock declined his invitation to partner, Addison
said, Brian Wanca joined on.
Addison and Wanca's firm refiled the case in federal court. Motions
in the new case went into the mid-2010s. The court sent the matter
through multiple rounds of mediation.
Addison realized, however, that he had made a mistake.
"We published a list of the fax numbers that messages were sent
to," he said. "We should have kept that under seal."
The publishing of the numbers made the case vulnerable to poaching.
Bock's firm, which had previously declined Addison's invitation to
join the case, now filed its own case. Bock was now going after the
same pot of Buccaneers’ gold.
On two occasions, mediators inadvertantly tipped off Addison that
Bock's team was scheduling mediation with the Bucs.
Around that same time one of the Anderson + Wanca attorneys who had
been working on the matter jumped ship to join Bock.
The attorney, David Oppenheim, had copied his computer hard drive
-- including briefs, pleadings, and a year's worth of email -- to a
laptop before his planned departure. Before Oppenheim was to turn
over the hard drive for examination by the Anderson + Wanca firm,
he reported it stolen from his unlocked car while it was parked in
his driveway.
Anderson + Wanca then sued Oppenheim, alleging he had stolen firm
secrets. Oppenheim said he didn't use his prior firm's information
to compete on the Bucs case, and he won in Illinois state court.
'Machiavellian Plan'
Months after Oppenheim made the jump to Bock, Addison said he
received a call from the Buccaneers' attorney. The team's lawyer
canceled a planned mediation session because the franchise had
reached a deal with Bock's team.
Addison's team challenged the Bock team's settlement in federal
court.
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Addison's team
could intervene in Bock's case after emails showed, in the court's
words, a "'Machiavellian' plan to undercut the movants' negotiating
position."
The court said Bock's team undercut the Wanca and Addison team in a
move to "deliberately underbid the movants in an effort to collect
attorney's fees while doing a fraction of the work that the
movants' counsel did."
That dispute spurred more litigation between the firms. A separate
Eleventh Circuit ruling said Oppenheim didn't owe a duty to
Williams as a representative of the class -- the duty was owed to
the class overall -- and Bock's team couldn't be kept out of the
overall litigation against the Bucs.
Bock's class action case eventually closed. A federal court ruled
that case was filed after the statute of limitations had passed,
opening the window for Addison's team, which struck a similar,
roughly $20 million deal with the Bucs.
Bock declined to comment. However, in court records his firm argued
that they needed to step into the litigation to save the class from
unreasonable expectations, which bogged down negotiations and could
have led to the class getting nothing if the Bucs weren't found
liable at trial.
Tables Turned
Now the tables have turned. Addison's team, which now also includes
Loftus & Eisenberg Ltd., is facing a Bock team objection to the
settlement.
Bock argues the deal is too favorable to the Buccaneers because
class members wouldn't be notified of their claims via fax -- a
step the district court judge wouldn't allow.
They also argue a requirement that class recipients sign under
penalty of perjury that they received a fax will limit claims --
greatly reducing the amount of money the Bucs will end up paying.
Addison said the heart of matter is an attorney fee fight.
"Bock needs to make a case to the judge, 'I did something good for
the class, and I'm entitled to be paid money,'" Addison said.
"Otherwise, he's just an intervenor who is along for the ride."
Williams looks back at the messy string of lawsuits with a mix of
frustration and pride.
He claims that at one point his wife was offered $30,000 from
Bock's firm to walk away from the case -- a move that could have
hurt the Addison team. He said he was given the same offer after
she died -- something that would have gone a long way to help pay
down the $50,000 in medical debt the family took on for her cancer
treatment.
He turned down the offers to preserve the class action and give
thousands of other class members a crack at claiming $625.
Now, due to an appellate court ruling, it's possible Willams won't
receive any "incentive payment" for his time helping with the
case.
"It would have been a windfall," Williams said of the Bock offers.
"But at what cost? At whose cost?"
A fairness hearing on the settlement is set for December in Cin-Q
Automobiles, Inc. v. Buccaneers Limited Partnership et al., M.D.
Fla., No. 8:13-cv-01592.[GN]
CHW GROUP: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Cameron Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
JORDAN CAMERON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CHW GROUP, INC. dba CHOICEHOME WARRANTY,
Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-320 (D. Utah, May 15, 2023) seeks to
stop the Defendant's practice of making unsolicited calls.
CHW GROUP, INC., dba CHOICE HOME WARRANTY, offers comprehensive
protection against the high cost of repair or replacement of
properly maintained major systems and appliances. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James E. Magleby, Esq.
Jennifer Fraser Parrish, Esq.
MAGLEBY CATAXINOS & GREENWOOD, PC
141 West Pierpont Avenue
Salt Lake City, UT 84101-1902
Telephone: (801) 359-9000
Email: magleby@mcg.law
parrish@mcg.law
CLOVER HEALTH INVESTMENTS: To Settle Bond Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Clover Health Investments, Corp. disclosed in its Form 8-K for the
current report dated April 24, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 24, 2023, that Clover Health
Investments, Corp. announced that the company has reached an
agreement to resolve the securities class action captioned "Bond v.
Clover Health Investments, Corp., et al.," Case No. 3:21-CV-00096
(M.D. Tenn.) which was filed in the wake of its de-SPAC
(special-purpose acquisition company) transaction.
The proposed settlement contains no admission of liability or
wrongdoing by any of the defendants, including the company, and is
subject to definitive documentation and final court approval.
Clover Health Investments, Corp. is a healthcare company based in
Tennessee.
COMPANION PET: Faces Adary Wage-and-Hour Suit in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------
TALIN ADARY, individually and on behalf of all other Aggrieved
Employees; Plaintiff v. COMPANION PET PARTNERS US, LLC, COMPANION
PET PARTNERS CALIFORNIA, LLC, COMPANION PET PARTNERS, LLC, and DOES
1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 23BBCV01067 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., May 12, 2023) arises from the Defendants'
unlawful labor policies and practices in violation of the
California Labor Code.
The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants' failure to provide employment
records; failure to pay overtime and double time; failure to
provide rest and meal periods; failure to pay minimum wage; failure
to keep accurate payroll records and provide itemized wage
statements; failure to pay reporting time wages; failure to pay
split shift wages; failure to pay all wages earned on time; failure
to pay all wages earned upon discharge or resignation; failure to
reimburse necessary, business-related expenses; and failure to
provide notice of paid sick time and accrual.
The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants with the job title of
Customer Service Representative since March 20, 2022.
Companion Pet Partners US, LLC is an general practice veterinary
hospital in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq.
Melissa Robinson, Esq.
HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN LAWYERS, APC
801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 970
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 696-2306
Facsimile: (818) 696-2307
CONAGRA BRANDS: Settles Wesson Oil False Advertising Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Fields, writing for WBUF, reports that a new class action
lawsuit could end up putting some money into your pocket.
A $3 million dollar class action lawsuit has been settled with
ConAgra over its former brand, Wesson Oil, and if you bought any of
the products you could be entitled to a part of the settlement.
WHY DID CONAGRA GET SUED?
The lawsuit filed alleged that Wesson Oil was marketed as all
"natural" falsely. The lawsuit claims the oil was made from GMOs
and was not all-natural as it was advertised.
WAS CONAGRA GUILTY OF THE CHARGES?
Conagra has not admitted to any wrongdoing or accepted the
accusations of falsely advertising GMO products as "Natural". The
settlement was arrived at to avoid further court costs, and the
judge in the case did not rule anyone as being wrong or right
WHAT PRODUCTS ARE PART OF THE LAWSUIT?
The Wesson Oil products that are included were marketed as
"Natural"
-- Wesson Vegetable Oil,
-- Wesson Corn Oil,
-- Wesson Best Blend
HOW MUCH IS THE LAWSUIT SETTLEMENT FOR?
ConAgra has agreed to settle the lawsuit out of Court for $3
Million.
HOW MUCH MONEY AM I OWED?
If you qualify to be part of the settlement, the estimated payout
is at $0.15 per item qualified Wesson Oil product that you
purchased. The payout will be adjusted depending on the amount of
qualified claims.
HOW DO I SUBMIT A CLAIM?
If you purchased Wesson Oil between January 12th, 2008, and July
1st, 2017 you are able to file a claim. You can file a claim at:
https://secure.wessonoilsettlement.com/Deadline?deadline=ClaimFilingDeadline
WHEN IS THE DEADLINE TO FILE A CLAIM?
If you think you qualify for part of the settlement, you need to
file a claim by Monday, May 22nd, 2023. [GN]
CONSOLIDATED WASTE: Dudley Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
PETER DUDLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. CONSOLIDATED WASTE SERVICES, LLC d/b/a TWIN
BRIDGES WASTE AND RECYCLING, and SCOTT EARL, Defendants, Case No.
1:23-cv-00592-FJS-TWD (N.D.N.Y., May 17, 2023), arises out of the
Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938, the New York Labor Law, and the supporting New York State
Department of Labor Regulations.
Plaintiff Dudley worked exclusively for Defendants in New York from
approximately September 2020 until December 2020 as a driver.
Allegedly, Dudley did not receive overtime compensation for all
hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. He also claims
that the Defendants failed to maintain accurate record-keeping of
his hours worked and to compensate him for the proper amount of
overtime compensation.
Twin Bridges is full-service waste and recycling company providing
residential, commercial, and roll-off services to its customers
throughout New York. Its headquarters are located in Clifton Park,
New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael C. Conway, Esq.
CONWAY, DONOVAN & MANLEY, PLLC
SO State Street, 2nd Floor,
Albany, NY
Telephone: (518) 436-1661
Facsimile: (518) 432-1996
E-mail: MConway@lawcdm.com
- and –
Clif Alexander, Esq.
Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
101 N. Shoreline Blvd., Ste. 610
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
Telephone: (361) 452-1279
Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
E-mail: clifC@a2xlaw.com
austin@.a2xlaw.com
CVS HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over AI-Assisted Video Interview
---------------------------------------------------------------
Katie Johnston, writing for Boston Globe, reports that it's illegal
for employers in Massachusetts to use a lie detector to screen job
applicants, but what if a company uses artificial intelligence to
help assess a candidate's honesty?
Does it fall into the same category as old-school polygraph tests,
pinpointing increased perspiration and skittering heart rates?
And is it unfair for employers to use machines to help evaluate a
person's integrity? Or is it more fair than relying solely on the
subjective judgment of humans?
These are the questions surrounding a class-action lawsuit filed
last month in Suffolk Superior Court against CVS Health Corp. by
Milton resident Brendan Baker, who failed to get a job at the Rhode
Island-based drugstore chain after completing an AI-assisted video
interview conducted using the platform HireVue, according to the
complaint. Baker is the named plaintiff "on behalf of all others
similarly situated."
The use of artificial intelligence is spreading through the
employment landscape, fueling questions about the role emerging
technology plays in the workplace, and the potential harm it could
cause. Calls for more rigorous testing and regulations have begun,
and government officials are scrambling to get ahead. The White
House and several other federal agencies recently announced their
commitment to scrutinizing artificial intelligence at work, and the
US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is urging employers to
analyze technology used to make employment decisions to ensure it's
not discriminatory, warning that they may be responsible for
actions recommended by those tools, such as who is hired, promoted,
or fired.
It's unclear how laws that have been on the books for decades apply
to these technological advances, and the more cases that emerge to
test these laws the better, said Courtney Hinkle, an employment
lawyer in Washington D.C., who has studied AI in hiring.
"We're always looking for new ways to improve the hiring process,
to make it more fair, to reduce subjective bias," Hinkle said.
"Employers are always concerned about the inflating of past
experiences."
But just how much artificial intelligence can help -- or hinder --
remains to be seen.
Like a number of other organizations, including T-Mobile, Delta Air
Lines, and the Boston Red Sox, CVS has used the video-interviewing
platform HireVue to screen job seekers. In about a third of its
interviews, HireVue uses AI technology to analyze applicants'
"integrity and honor," according to the HireVue blog, to help
companies "scale your lie detection" and "screen out
embellishers."
At the time Baker applied for a supply chain job at CVS around
January 2021, HireVue's AI-enhanced interviews analyzed facial
expressions, eye contact, tone of voice, and inflection, according
to the complaint, relying on technology developed by the Boston
company Affectiva, which was spun out of the MIT Media Lab. Visual
and audio analysis have since been eliminated, HireVue said, but
machine learning is still used to score applicants' abilities
through their transcribed answers.
Federal law has prohibited most private employers from using lie
detectors to select employees since 1988, and the Massachusetts law
goes even further, forbidding all employers from using a polygraph
or any other device, mechanism, or instrument to "assist in or
enable the detection of deception" as a condition of employment.
CVS's use of HireVue's AI-assisted screening of Massachusetts
applicants violates state law, according to the complaint, which
notes that HireVue records candidates responding to a list of
questions that could include ones pertaining to honesty, such as:
"Tell me about a time that you acted with integrity" and "What
would you do if you saw someone cheating on a test?"
Baker's lawyers declined to comment, as did CVS.
In a statement, HireVue's chief data scientist Lindsey Zuloaga
said: "Our assessments are not, and have never been, designed to
assess the truthfulness of a candidate's response." Instead,
Zuloaga said, HireVue uses tools based on "validated industrial
organizational psychology" to help human hiring managers evaluate
whether an applicant's answers are "statistically linked to
important work-related competencies" while mitigating human biases.
This is a more reliable and scientific way to focus on skills than
"simply believing what is written in a CV as they could be inflated
by the writer," the company said.
The AI understands the meaning of candidates' answers, according to
HireVue's explanation of its assessments, and considers the
relative weight of words; job seekers who use the word "team," for
example, boost their scores on teamwork. The program can also score
responses against specific competencies identified for each job,
like problem-solving and communication.
HireVue was also named in a recent lie detection lawsuit filed
against Framingham-based TJX Companies, a nearly identical claim to
the CVS case filed by the same lawyers, which was voluntarily
dismissed by the plaintiff. TJX declined to comment.
Lie detectors were in widespread use by employers in the 1980s,
with an estimated 2 million job applicants and employees forced to
take polygraph tests by 1985, according to Hinkle's law school
research paper, ″The Modern Lie Detector," published in the
Georgetown Law Journal in 2021. The Massachusetts law barring these
tests has a broad definition of what constitutes a lie detector,
said Monica Shah, an employment lawyer at Zalkind Duncan &
Bernstein in Boston, which could lead to more challenges as the use
of AI grows. Shah is especially worried that employers could use AI
as a way to deflect responsibility for decisions involving
workers.
"There's a concern that there's going to be a lack of
accountability and ownership for decision-making that is done
through an AI technology," she said.
And for all the non-subjective, unbiased analysis AI is supposed to
provide, it's only as fair as the data behind it. In 2018, for
instance, it was reported that Amazon had scrapped an AI recruiting
tool after discovering that the system for rating candidates for
technology jobs favored men over women. It turned out the resumes
the machines had been trained to analyze, from candidates who had
previously applied for those types of roles, were predominantly
from men.
Still, AI employment companies are popping up all over, promising
fast, efficient, unbiased talent acquisition from recruiting to
hiring. It's important that employers who use these services invest
in the proper compliance and training and are transparent with job
candidates, said Tracy Westcott, founder of the Swampscott
recruiting consulting firm Talent Track Solutions. Westcott also
cautioned against using AI too early in the process, before a human
has determined if the candidate is a good fit based on an
application and resume -- though she thinks those initial
screenings will soon also largely be automated.
Naveen Bhateja, chief human resources officer at the New York life
science platform Medidata Solutions who speaks frequently about AI
in the workplace, cautioned that companies need to proceed with
caution to avoid concerns over privacy, accuracy, and fairness,
especially when it comes to assessing "complex and multifaceted"
human emotions.
When it comes to evaluating truthfulness, the science simply
doesn't exist, said Leonard Saxe, a social psychologist at Brandeis
University whose work on lie detection aided Congress before the
passage of the 1988 Employee Polygraph Protection Act. There's no
"smoke alarm" that goes off in the brain when you lie, he said, and
based on what we know, there's no way for an automated system to
distinguish a falsehood from the truth.
Assessing honesty also involves understanding context, he said.
Take George Santos and Donald Trump: "They've told the lies that
they tell so many times that I think you'd be hard-pressed to
figure out whether there's any sign that they're deceptive."
The one-way nature of recorded video interviews also eliminates
human interaction, Hinkle noted. Without social cues and
conversational banter, candidates may come across as awkward or
unnerved, which could be misinterpreted by AI.
"You're kind of talking into a void a bit," she said. "Are they
going to pick up on that uncertainty? Is that looking dishonest or
deceptive in a way?"
"There's just something lost in terms of the human element." [GN]
D-MARKET ELEKTRONIK: $13.9MM Settlement to be Heard on Aug. 1
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
issued a statement regarding the Hepsiburada Securities
Litigation:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
IWA-FOREST INDUSTRY PENSION PLAN, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
D-MARKET ELEKTRONIK HIZMETLER VE TICARET ANONIM ŞIRKETI a/k/a
D-MARKET ELECTRONIC SERVICES & TRADING d/b/a/ HEPSIBURADA, MEHMET
MURAT EMIRDAG, HALIL KORHAN OZ, HANZADE VASFIYE DOGAN BOYNER, ERMAN
KALKANDELEN, MEHMET EROL ÇAMUR, CEMAL AHMET BOZER, VUSLAT DOGAN
SABANCI, MUSTAFA AYDEMIR, TOLGA BABALI, COLLEEN A. DE VRIES,
COGENCY GLOBAL INC., MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, J.P. MORGAN
SECURITIES LLC, GOLDMAN, SACHS & CO. LLC, BOFA SECURITIES INC., UBS
SECURITIES LLC, and TURKCOMMERCE B.V.,
Defendants.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK: COMMERCIAL DIVISION
JAMES BENSON, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
D-MARKET ELEKTRONIK HIZMETLER VE TICARET ANONIM ŞIRKETI, HANZADE
VASFIYE DOGAN BOYNER, MEHMET MURAT EMIRDAG, HALIL KORHAN OZ, ERMAN
KALKANDELEN, MEHMET EROL ÇAMUR, CEMAL AHMET BOZER, VUSLAT DOGAN
SABANCI, MUSTAFA AYDEMIR, TOLGA BABALI, TAYFUN BAYAZIT, COLLEEN A.
DE VRIES, COGENCY GLOBAL INC., TURKCOMMERCE B.V., MORGAN STANLEY &
CO. LLC, J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, GOLDMAN, SACHS & CO. LLC, BOFA
SECURITIES, INC., and UBS SECURITIES LLC,
Defendants.
Index No. 655701/2021
CLASS ACTION
The Honorable Robert R. Reed, J.S.C.
Part 43
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
TO:
ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED HEPSIBURADA
AMERICAN DEPOSITORY SHARES ("ADSs") PURSUANT AND/OR TRACEABLE TO
HEPSIBURADA'S JULY 1, 2021 INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING ("IPO") THROUGH
NOVEMBER 23, 2021, INCLUSIVE
THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT. IT IS NOT A LAWYER
SOLICITATION. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS
ENTIRETY.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a hearing will be held on August 1,
2023, at 2:00 p.m., before the Honorable P. Kevin Castel, U.S.
District Court, Southern District of New York, Daniel Patrick
Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl St., New York, NY
10007, to determine whether: (1) the proposed settlement (the
"Settlement") of the above-captioned action (the "Action") as well
as the action pending in the Supreme Court of the State of New
York, County of New York, styled as Benson v. D-MARKET Elektronik
Hizmetler ve Ticaret Anonim Şirketi, et al., Index No. 655701/2021
(Sup. Ct. N.Y.) ("State Court Action"), as set forth in the
Stipulation of Settlement ("Stipulation")1 for $13,900,000 in cash
should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate;
(2) the Judgment as provided under the Stipulation should be
entered; (3) to award Plaintiffs' Counsel attorneys' fees and
expenses out of the Settlement Fund (as defined in the Notice of
Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Actions ("Notice"), which
is discussed below), and, if so, in what amount; (4) to award
Plaintiffs for representing the Settlement Class out of the
Settlement Fund and, if so, in what amount; and (5) the Plan of
Allocation should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and
adequate. The Court reserves the right to hold the Settlement
Fairness Hearing telephonically or by other virtual means.
This Action and the State Court Action are securities class actions
brought on behalf of those persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired D-MARKET Elektronik Hizmetler ve Ticaret Anonim Şirketi
a/k/a D-MARKET Electronic Services & Trading d/b/a Hepsiburada
("Hepsiburada" or the "Company") ADSs pursuant and/or traceable to
the Registration Statement for Hepsiburada's IPO, against
Hepsiburada, certain of its officers, directors, pre-IPO
shareholder, agent for service of process, and the underwriters of
Hepsiburada's IPO (collectively, "Defendants") for allegedly
misstating and omitting material facts from the Registration
Statement filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in
connection with the IPO. Plaintiffs allege that these purportedly
false and misleading statements inflated the price of the Company's
ADSs, resulting in damage to Settlement Class Members when the
truth was revealed. Defendants expressly deny all of Plaintiffs'
allegations.
IF YOU PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED HEPSIBURADA ADSs PURSUANT AND/OR
TRACEABLE TO HEPSIBURADA'S JULY 1, 2021 IPO THROUGH AND INCLUDING
NOVEMBER 23, 2021, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF
THIS ACTION AND THE STATE COURT ACTION.
To share in the distribution of the Settlement Fund, you must
establish your rights by submitting a Proof of Claim and Release
form by mail (postmarked no later than September 27, 2023) or
electronically (no later than September 27, 2023). Your failure to
submit your Proof of Claim and Release by September 27, 2023, will
subject your claim to rejection and preclude your receiving any of
the recovery in connection with the Settlement of this Action and
the State Court Action. If you are a member of the Settlement Class
and do not request exclusion therefrom as instructed, you will be
bound by the Settlement and any judgment and release entered in the
Action and the State Court Action, including, but not limited to,
the Judgment, whether or not you submit a Proof of Claim and
Release.
If you have not received a copy of the Notice, which more
completely describes the Settlement and your rights thereunder
(including your right to object to the Settlement), and a Proof of
Claim and Release, you may obtain these documents, as well as a
copy of the Stipulation (which, among other things, contains
definitions for the defined terms used in this Summary Notice) and
other settlement documents, online at
www.HepsiburadaSecuritiesLitigation.com, or by writing to:
Hepsiburada Securities Litigation
Claims Administrator
c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC
P.O. Box 6181
Novato, CA 94948-6181
Inquiries should NOT be directed to Defendants, the Court, or the
Clerk of the Court.
Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice or for a Proof of
Claim and Release, may be made to:
Plaintiffs' Counsel:
Frederic S. Fox
KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
800 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 687-1980
Michael G. Capeci
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
58 South Service Road, Suite 200
Melville, NY 11747
Telephone: (800) 449-4900
IF YOU DESIRE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOU MUST
SUBMIT A REQUEST FOR EXCLUSION SUCH THAT IT IS POSTMARKED BY JULY
10, 2023, IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE. ALL
MEMBERS OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS WHO HAVE NOT REQUESTED EXCLUSION
FROM THE SETTLEMENT CLASS WILL BE BOUND BY THE SETTLEMENT EVEN IF
THEY DO NOT SUBMIT A TIMELY PROOF OF CLAIM AND RELEASE.
IF YOU ARE A SETTLEMENT CLASS MEMBER, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO OBJECT
TO THE SETTLEMENT, THE PLAN OF ALLOCATION, THE REQUEST BY
PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES,
AND/OR THE AWARD TO LEAD PLAINTIFF FOR REPRESENTING THE SETTLEMENT
CLASS. ANY OBJECTIONS MUST BE FILED WITH THE COURT AND SENT TO
PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL AND DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL BY JULY 18, 2023, IN
THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE.
DATED: April 20, 2023
BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
1 The Stipulation can be viewed and/or obtained at
www.HepsiburadaSecuritiesLitigation.com.
DOCUSIGN INC: Must Face California Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for Mondaq, disclosed that
on April 18, 2023, Judge William H. Orrick of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California denied a
motion to dismiss a putative securities class action alleging a
software company (the "Company") and several of its officers (the
"individual defendants") violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act (the "Exchange Act"). Weston v. DocuSign,
Inc. et al., No. 22-cv-00824 (Apr. 18, 2023). Plaintiff claimed
that defendants made false and misleading statements to investors
about the sustainability of the Company's COVID-19 pandemic-driven
growth. The Court denied defendants' motion to dismiss, holding
that at least some of the alleged material misstatements or
omissions were not protected by the safe-harbor provision of the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA"), and that
plaintiff had sufficiently pled falsity, scienter, and loss
causation as it related to those statements.
According to the First Amended Complaint ("FAC"), the Company's
flagship product is an "electronic signature" or "eSignature"
application that allows users to sign and send documents digitally,
without needing paper copies or "wet" signatures. Plaintiff alleged
that after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, demand for the
eSignature product "skyrocket[ed] to unprecedented levels" between
March and June 2020, with revenue up 27% and billings-allegedly the
"primary metric that the Company used to track performance and
growth"-up 59% from a year earlier. The Company allegedly used a
"land and expand" business model to grow its business, whereby the
Company would first "land" with a customer-typically by selling its
eSignature product for a specific use-and then "expand" by selling
additional eSignature products or other products to that customer.
Plaintiff filed suit in February 2022, after the Company's stock
price had fallen precipitously since March 2020.
Plaintiff alleged that throughout the pandemic, defendants "assured
investors that the Company would continue on the same growth
trajectory even after the pandemic subsided," but defendants
allegedly "knew and concealed from investors numerous adverse
material facts indicating that this COVID-19-fueled demand was
unsustainable." Specifically, the FAC alleged that the Company knew
that "much of this new business influx was for one-time"
COVID-related uses. The FAC alleged that the Company made numerous
false and misleading statements or omissions in press releases, on
earnings calls, at conferences, at the Company's Analyst Day, and
in tweets between June 4, 2020, and September 8, 2021.
The FAC further alleged that the Company knew of internal warning
signs that the pandemic-related boom would not last. First, the FAC
alleged that between March and June 2020, customers advised the
Company that they did not intend to renew their eSignature
contracts once the pandemic waned and they could return to their
offices. Second, the FAC alleged that near the end of 2020, as
COVID-19 vaccines began to roll out, customer and sales data
tracked through a database called "Salesforce" confirmed those
initial warning signs, which the FAC alleged with statements from
confidential witnesses. Third, the FAC alleged that the Company
knew of-but failed to disclose-increased competition from other
companies, further reducing demand for the Company's eSignature
product. Finally, the FAC alleged that statements made during the
Company's earning calls between December 2, 2021, and June 9, 2022,
revealed that the Company was "experiencing dramatically slowed
billings growth as a result of waning demand for its products as
customers began returning to their offices and resumed in-person
signature processes." The "full truth" was allegedly revealed in
the June 9, 2022, earnings call, when one of the individual
defendants stated that much of the demand that the Company
experienced during the pandemic was the result of single use cases
that no longer existed.
In considering defendants' arguments that the FAC failed to allege
any actionable misrepresentation because the challenged statements
were shielded by the PSLRA's safe-harbor provision, were not shown
to be false, and/or amounted to opinions, puffery, or corporate
optimism, the Court first considered whether the statements were
forward-looking. The Court held that some of these statements were
more clearly about "current or past facts," and were not
forward-looking. This included, for example, an individual
defendant's alleged statement that one-time COVID use cases were
"the extreme minority," because he was speaking about the current
impact of such cases on the Company's billings growth. But the
Court determined that certain alleged statements were
forward-looking, such as alleged statements that were more akin to
predictions about customer behavior and served as assumptions
underlying or relating to the Company's future revenue and
earnings.
The Court next considered whether the otherwise forward-looking
statements were "accompanied by meaningful cautionary statements,"
thereby making such statements inactionable under the PSLRA safe
harbor. The Court held that the FAC sufficiently alleged that the
Company had actual knowledge during the pandemic that its
pandemic-related risk disclosures were inadequate because the
purported risks had already come to fruition. The Court noted that
although the safe harbor protects statements that were made without
actual knowledge, the FAC sufficiently set forth allegations that
supported both an inference of falsity and scienter.
The Court also rejected defendants' argument that certain alleged
statements were inactionable opinions, finding that even if
statements about customer demand could arguably constitute
opinions, plaintiff plausibly alleged facts going to the basis of
statements about customer demand, that, when omitted, made any
opinions misleading. The Court further found that, to the extent
any of the alleged statements expressed corporate optimism or
puffery, "even general statements of optimism, when taken in
context, may form a basis for a securities fraud claim when those
statements address specific aspects of a company's operation that
the speaker knows to be performing poorly."
Turning to the issue of scienter, the Court held that the FAC
provided sufficient information to establish the reliability and
personal knowledge of the confidential witnesses, pointing to
allegations describing the witnesses' roles within the Company, how
long they were employed by the Company, the nature of their
responsibilities, and, in some circumstances, their exact titles
and line of reporting. The Court also found that the confidential
witness allegations supported a showing of scienter by the
individual defendants, as it related to their alleged statements
about customer demand, noting that plaintiff plausibly alleged that
the individual defendants had access to and monitored data
indicating the Company's decline in customer demand. The Court also
observed that alleged stock sales by some of the individual
defendants were further indicia of scienter when coupled with the
confidential witness statements. In particular, the Court found
that "[t]he amount and percentage of shares sold, along with the
timing and novelty of those sales, plausibly support that the sales
were 'dramatically out of line' with [the individual defendants']
prior trading practices." The Court also disagreed with defendants'
argument that it was more reasonable to conclude that the Company
acted in good faith during unprecedented circumstances, instead
holding that "viewed holistically, the statements from multiple
confidential witnesses about the internal information available to
the defendants, which allegedly showed that demand for [the
Company] was lagging, and [the individual defendants'] stock sales,
support an inference of scienter that is 'more than merely
reasonable or permissible.'"
Finally, the Court rejected defendants' argument that plaintiff's
allegations that the Company missed its billings guidance were
insufficient to establish loss causation. Citing Ninth Circuit
precedent, the Court held that plaintiff could "show loss causation
by showing that [the Company's] stock price fell upon the
revelation of an earnings miss," which is what the Court determined
the FAC alleged. The Court further held that it was plausible at
the motion to dismiss stage that the final purported corrective
disclosure revealed that the Company's statements about customer
demand were fraudulent and misleading and caused the Company's
stock price to drop. The Court, therefore, held that the
allegations in the FAC "plausibly show[] loss causation."
Having found that plaintiff sufficiently alleged an underlying
Section 10(b) claim, the Court held that plaintiff's Section 20(a)
claim could also proceed. [GN]
DOORDASH INC: Predatory Pricing Class Action Suit Discussed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Phil West of Daily Dot reports that a lawyer recently explained to
her TikTok followers the news surrounding a $1 billion class-action
lawsuit against DoorDash. According to various news reports, the
food delivery app allegedly charged iPhone users more than those on
an Android.
In a video with over 3.2 million views as of May 23, 2023 morning,
Angela (@thelawyerangela) elaborated on the allegations against
DoorDash's "predatory pricing."
"If you and your roommate order the exact same DoorDash order, from
the exact same place, at the exact same time, you might get charged
differently," she explained. That's because DoorDash allegedly
knows that "iPhone users are in a higher income bracket."
Using screenshots from the complainant, Angela showed viewers
identical orders where the iPhone user was charged more. In one
instance, an iPhone user who purchased Chick-Fil-A was charged $1
more than the Android user. Another test, from a Chipotle customer,
saw the iPhone user charged $27.52, while the Android user was
billed $25.53.
"The difference is in the delivery fee," Angela said.
The lawsuit also raised concerns over DashPass, a paid monthly
service which gives users free delivery on orders over $12.
"They get you to buy DashPass by saying it'll reduce your fees.
But, allegedly, they just charge you an 'expanded range fee' that
they don't tack onto non-DashPass users," Angela explained.
According to Business Insider, Ross Hecox, "who uses DoorDash and
subscribes to DashPass" filed the lawsuit. The complaint also named
Hecox's two children, Reid and a minor listed as "R.E.H."
But in a statement, a spokesperson for DoorDash claimed that the
allegations are "baseless and simply without merit."
"We ensure fees are disclosed throughout the customer experience,
including on each restaurant storepage and before checkout," the
spokesperson told Business Insider. "Building this trust is
essential, and it’s why the majority of delivery orders on our
platform are placed by return customers. We will continue to strive
to make our platform work even better for customers, and will
vigorously fight these allegations."
However, many commenters were convinced that they, too, were
affected by the price hikes—and potentially eligible for a
payout.
"For once I'm actually personally a victim of one of these class
action lawsuits," one viewer said.
"If the class action is based on how much you use DoorDash, I'd be
getting a fat check," another echoed.
"I'm so ready for this class action cause I've definitely been
scammed by them," a third commenter wrote.
The Daily Dot has reached out to Angela via TikTok comment and
DoorDash by email. [GN]
DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Kane Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS KANE v. DST
SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 4:21-09167-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/3pyDQud at no extra charge.[CC]
DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Kannard Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANET KANNARD, v. DST
SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 4:21-09035-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/3Mn3QBO at no extra charge.[CC]
DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Kolev Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEFAN KOLEV, v. DST
SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 4:21-09126-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/3W1Ke9u at no extra charge.[CC]
DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Kudrick Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LISA KUDRICK, v. DST
SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 4:21-09033-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/42zGfU8 at no extra charge.[CC]
DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Leineke Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PEGGY LEINEKE, v. DST
SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 4:21-09155-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/3O8uGio at no extra charge.[CC]
DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Lovetere Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVE LOVETERE, v. DST
SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 4:21-9170-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/3I88iSm at no extra charge.[CC]
DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Stalcup Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DOUG STALCUP v. DST
SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 4:21-09127-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/42zwh4W at no extra charge.[CC]
ELERAS GROUP: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, McGuire Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL MCGUIRE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ELERAS GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
4:23-cv-00658 (E.D. Mo., May 17, 2023) arises out of the
Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the Missouri Minimum Wage Law.
The Defendant employed Plaintiff and all similarly situated
individuals as sales representatives or other similar job titles
all of whom worked at or through Defendant's call center, located
at 1708 South 5th Street, Saint Charles, Missouri, selling extended
car warranties by phone. During their initial period of employment,
they were classified as FLSA overtime non-exempt and were paid
overtime at 1.5 times their base hourly rate for all hours worked
over 40 in a workweek. After their initial period of employment,
they were transitioned to a compensation plan wherein they received
a draw, commissions, and bonuses. However, under this compensation
plan, they were misclassified by Defendant as FLSA exempt and were
not paid overtime, says the suit.
Eleras Group, LLC is a domestic limited liability company with its
principal place of business located at 1708 South 5th Street, Saint
Charles, Missouri. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Philip Bohrer, Esq.
Scott E. Brady, Esq.
BOHRER BRADY, LLC
8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B
Baton Rouge, LA 70809
Telephone: (225) 925-5297
Facsimile: (225) 231-7000
E-mail: phil@bohrerbrady.com
scott@bohrerbrady.com
-and-
George A. Hanson, Esq.
Caleb Wagner, Esq.
STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 714-7115
Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
E-mail: hanson@stuevesiegel.com
FIVE POINT HOLDINGS: Faces Class Suit Over Pollution Tests Results
------------------------------------------------------------------
Five Point Holdings, LLC disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2023, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 24, 2023, that in May 2018,
residents of the Bayview Hunters Point neighborhood in San
Francisco filed a putative class action in San Francisco Superior
Court naming Tetra Tech, Inc. and Tetra Tech EC, Inc., an
independent contractor hired by the U.S. Navy to conduct testing
and remediation of toxic radiological waste at The San Francisco
Shipyard (Tetra Tech), Lennar and the company as defendants.
The plaintiffs allege that, among other things, Tetra Tech
fraudulently misrepresented its test results and remediation
efforts.
The plaintiffs are seeking damages against Tetra Tech and the
Company and have requested an injunction to prevent the company and
Lennar from undertaking any development activities at The San
Francisco Shipyard.
Five Point Holdings, LLC is a holding company based in California.
FIVERR INC: Moffett Sues Over Illegal Collection of Biometrics
--------------------------------------------------------------
WILL MOFFETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FIVERR, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2023LA000509 (Ill. Cir., 18th Judicial, DuPage Cty., May 17, 2023)
arises out of the Defendant's violations of the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act.
Plaintiff Moffett registered an online account on Defendant's
online platform in January of 2020. During the account verification
process, Defendant required Plaintiff to upload a photo of his
government identification as well as a real-time selfie, at which
point Defendant scanned and collected, and stored in an electronic
database, digital copies of Plaintiff's face geometry. When
Plaintiff uploaded his real-time selfie, Defendant required him to
turn his face to the left and to the right in order to capture his
face geometry. However, the Defendant lacked retention schedules
and guidelines for permanently destroying Plaintiff's biometric
data.
The Plaintiff brings this action for damages and other legal and
equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of Defendant
in collecting, storing and using his and other similarly situated
individuals' biometric identifiers and biometric information
without obtaining informed written consent or providing the
requisite data retention and destruction policies, in direct
violation of BIPA.
Fiverr, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business at 38 Greene St., New York, New York. The company owns and
operates the Fiverr online platform to connect freelance workers
with people and/or businesses seeking their services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq.
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC
111 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1700
Chicago, IL 60604
Telephone: (312) 984-0000
Facsimile: (212) 686-0114
E-mail: malmstrom@whafh.com
- and -
Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com
- and -
Stephen A. Beck, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
701 Brickell Ave., Suite 1420
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 330-5512
Facsimile: (305) 679-9006
E-mail: sbeck@bursor.com
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action Over Faulty Transmissions
------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Company (GM) disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2023, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 25, 2023, that a putative class
action and one certified class action pending against GM in federal
court in the U.S. alleging that various 2015-2022 model year
vehicles are defective because they are equipped with faulty
8-speed transmissions.
In March 2023, the judge overseeing the class action concerning
2015-2019 model year vehicles certified 26 state subclasses. The
putative class action concerning 2020-2022 model year vehicles is
pending in front of a different judge that has not yet addressed
class certification.
General Motors Company is an automotive manufacturing company based
in Michigan.
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Product Liability Suit Over Fuel Pump
-----------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Company (GM) disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2023, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 25, 2023, that a class action
pending against GM in federal court in the U.S., and a putative
class action in provincial court in Canada, alleging that 2011-2016
model year Duramax Diesel Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra
vehicles are equipped with defective fuel pumps that are prone to
failure. In March 2023, the federal court certified seven state
subclasses.
General Motors Company is an automotive manufacturing company based
in Michigan.
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Product Liability Suits Over Oil Consumption
------------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Company (GM) disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2023, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 25, 2023, that there are several
putative class actions and one certified class action pending
against GM in federal courts in the U.S. alleging that various
2011-2014 model year vehicles are defective because they
excessively consume oil.
In October 2022, the company received an adverse jury verdict in
the certified class action proceeding involving three states.
General Motors Company is an automotive manufacturing company based
in Michigan.
HILL PHOENIX: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Manning Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
DENNIS MANNING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HILL PHOENIX, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:23-cv-00332 (E.D. Va., May 17, 2023) arises out of the
Defendant's violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the
Virginia Wage Payment Act, and the Virginia Overtime Wage Act.
Plaintiff Manning worked for Hill Phoenix as an Automation
Manufacturing Integration Specialist in Chesterfield County, VA
from February 2021 until October of 2022. The Plaintiff typically
worked over 70 hours a week during his employment with Hill
Phoenix. Although it is well-known that blue-collar workers like
Plaintiff are not exempt from overtime, Hill Phoenix did not pay
Plaintiff the additional overtime premium required by the FLSA for
hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek, says the suit.
Hill Phoenix, Inc. is a foreign corporation doing business in the
State of Virginia and may be served through its registered agent
for service, Corporation Service Company, 100 Shockoe Slip Fl 2,
Richmond, Virginia. The company is a leading manufacturer of
display cases, specialty products, commercial refrigeration
systems, alternative refrigerants, CO2 refrigeration, power systems
and comprehensive support services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Harris D. Butler, III, Esq.
Craig J. Curwood, Esq.
Zev H. Antell, Esq.
Paul M. Falabella, Esq.
BUTLER CURWOOD, PLC
140 Virginia Street, Suite 302
Richmond, VA 23219
Telephone: (804) 648-4848
Facsimile: (804) 237-0413
E-mail: harris@butlercurwood.com
craig@butlercurwood.com
zev@butlercurwood.com
paul@butlercurwood.com
- and -
Clif Alexander, Esq.
Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
Carter T. Hastings, Esq.
ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
101 N. Shoreline Blvd., Ste. 610
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
Telephone: (361) 452-1279
Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
austin@a2xlaw.com
carter@a2xlaw.com
HP INC: $10.5MM Class Settlement to be Heard on July 28
-------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
IN RE HP INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION
Case No. 3:20-cv-01260-SI
CLASS ACTION
NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT;
(II) SETTLEMENT HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES
AND LITIGATION EXPENSES
NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION: Please be advised that your
rights will be affected by the above-captioned securities class
action ("Action") if you purchased or otherwise acquired the common
stock of HP Inc. ("HP") between February 23, 2017 and October 3,
2019, inclusive ("Class Period"), and were damaged thereby
("Settlement Class").
NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT: Please also be advised that the
Court-appointed Lead Plaintiffs the State of Rhode Island, Office
of the General Treasurer, on behalf of the Employees' Retirement
System of Rhode Island, and Iron Workers Local 580 Joint Funds
(together, "Lead Plaintiffs"), on behalf of themselves and the
Settlement Class, and Defendants HP, Dion J. Weisler, Catherine A.
Lesjak, Steven J. Fieler, and Enrique Lores (collectively,
"Defendants") have reached a proposed settlement of the Action
for $10,500,000 in cash ("Settlement"). The Settlement resolves
Lead Plaintiffs' claims that Defendants violated the federal
securities laws by making materially false and misleading
statements to investors concerning HP's supplies business during
the Class Period.
WHAT IS THIS CASE ABOUT?
HP is a global provider of personal computers, printers, and
related supplies and services. In this Action, Lead Plaintiffs
allege that, during the Class Period (i.e., the period between
February 23, 2017 and October 3, 2019, inclusive), HP and certain
of its executive officers at the time (i.e., Dion J. Weisler,
Catherine A. Lesjak, Steven J. Fieler, and Enrique Lores) made
materially false and misleading statements to investors concerning
HP's printing supplies business and HP's purported stabilization of
printing supplies revenue. Lead Plaintiffs further allege that the
price of HP common stock was artificially inflated during the Class
Period as a result of Defendants' allegedly false and misleading
statements and that the Settlement Class suffered damages when the
alleged truth regarding these matters was publicly disclosed
through a series of partial disclosures beginning on February 27,
2019. Please Note: As discussed below, Lead Plaintiffs' Complaint
and Amended Complaint have been dismissed by the Court and, at the
time of settlement, Lead Plaintiffs' appeal of this Court's
dismissal of the Action was pending. As such, at the time of
settlement, the claims asserted in the Action and the claims being
resolved by the Settlement were dismissed and the outcome of this
case was dependent on the pending appeal.
The Action was commenced on February 19, 2020, with the filing of a
putative securities class action complaint, styled Electrical
Workers Pension Fund, Local 103, I.B.E.W. v. HP Inc., et al., Case
No. 3:20-cv-01260-SI. By Order dated May 20, 2020, the Court
appointed the State of Rhode Island, Office of the General
Treasurer, on behalf of the Employees' Retirement System of Rhode
Island, and Iron Workers Local 580 Joint Funds as Lead Plaintiffs,
and approved Lead Plaintiffs' selection of Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check, LLP and Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP as Lead
Counsel for the class.
On July 20, 2020, Lead Plaintiffs filed the Complaint for
Violations of the Federal Securities Laws ("Complaint"). The
Complaint asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Secs.78j(b) and 78t(a),
and SEC Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. Sec. 240.10b-5, promulgated
thereunder, against Defendants.
Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint on October 2, 2020. On
the same day, Defendants also filed a request for judicial notice.
On December 11, 2020, Lead Plaintiffs opposed Defendants' motion to
dismiss and request for judicial notice and filed their own request
for judicial notice.
Defendants filed a reply in support of their motion to dismiss and
a response/reply to the requests for judicial notice on January 20,
2021. The Court held a hearing on Defendants' motion to dismiss the
Complaint on February 5, 2021.
On March 19, 2021, the Court issued an Order granting Defendants'
motion to dismiss the Complaint. By the same Order, the Court
granted the requests for judicial notice. The Court also provided
Lead Plaintiffs until April 9, 2021, to amend the Complaint. This
deadline was subsequently extended to May 3, 2021.
In accordance with the Court's ruling on Defendants' motion to
dismiss the Complaint, Lead Plaintiffs filed the Amended Complaint
for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws on May 3, 2021
("Amended Complaint"). The Amended Complaint asserted claims under
Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, 15 U.S.C. Secs.78j(b), 78t(a), and 78t-1(a), and SEC Rule
10b-5, 17 C.F.R. Sec. 240.10b-5, promulgated thereunder, against
Defendants.
Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint on June 4, 2021.
On the same day, Defendants also filed a request for judicial
notice. On June 25, 2021, Lead Plaintiffs opposed Defendants'
motion to dismiss and request for judicial notice. On July 9, 2021,
Defendants filed a reply in support of their motion to dismiss and
a response to their request for judicial notice. The Court held a
hearing on Defendants' motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on
September 9, 2021.
On September 15, 2021, the Court issued an Order granting
Defendants' motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint ("MTD Order").
On the same day, the Court issued its Judgment.
12. On October 14, 2021, Lead Plaintiffs appealed the Court's MTD
Order and Judgment to the Ninth Circuit. See State of Rhode Island,
et al. v. HP, Inc., et al., No. 21-16718 (9th Cir.). The Parties
fully briefed Lead Plaintiffs' appeal and oral argument was
scheduled for December 5, 2022.
While Lead Plaintiffs' appeal was pending, the Parties agreed to
discuss the possibility of resolving the Action. After some
back-and-forth discussions, the Parties engaged Jed D. Melnick,
Esq. of JAMS to assist them as a mediator. The Parties provided Mr.
Melnick with letters addressing their views on liability and
damages and continued to engage in settlement discussion with the
assistance of Mr. Questions? Call 1-877-388-1759 or visit
www.HPSecuritiesSettlement.com.
Melnick. Mr. Melnick eventually issued a mediator's proposal to
resolve the Action for $10.5 million, which both sides accepted on
November 18, 2022.
On November 28, 2022, the Parties jointly notified the Ninth
Circuit that they had reached an agreement in principle to resolve
the Action and requested the Ninth Circuit to: (i) vacate the oral
argument scheduled for December 5, 2022 and stay the pending
appellate proceedings; and (ii) remand the
case back to the District Court to consider preliminary and final
approval of the Settlement. On November 29, 2022, the Ninth Circuit
granted the Parties' request.
Thereafter, the Parties memorialized their agreement in principle
to settle the Action in a term sheet executed on December 20, 2022.
After additional negotiations regarding the specific terms of their
agreement, the Parties entered into the Stipulation on March 2,
2023. The Stipulation, which sets forth the terms and conditions of
the Settlement, can be viewed at www.HPSecuritiesSettlement.com.
On April 7, 2023, the Court preliminarily approved the Settlement,
authorized notice of the Settlement to be provided to potential
Settlement Class Membbers, and scheduled the Settlement Hearing to
consider whether to grant final approval of the Settlement.
HOW DO I PARTICIPATE IN THE SETTLEMENT? WHAT DO I NEED TO DO?
To be eligible for a payment from the Settlement, you must be a
member of the Settlement Class and you must timely complete and
return a Claim Form with adequate supporting documentation
postmarked (if mailed), or submitted online at
www.HPSecuritiesSettlement.com, no later than August 14, 2023. You
can obtain a copy of the Claim Form on the website,
www.HPSecuritiesSettlement.com, or you may request that a Claim
Form be mailed to you by calling the Claims Administrator toll-free
at 1-877-388-1759, or by emailing the Claims Administrator at
info@HPSecuritiesSettlement.com. Please retain all records of your
ownership of and transactions in HP common stock, as they may be
needed to document your Claim. The Parties and Claims Administrator
do not have information about your transactions in HP common
stock.
If you request exclusion from the Settlement Class or do not submit
a timely and valid Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in
the Net Settlement Fund.
WHAT PAYMENT ARE THE ATTORNEYS FOR THE SETTLEMENT CLASS SEEKING?
HOW WILL THE LAWYERS BE PAID?
Lead Counsel have not received any payment for their services in
pursuing claims against the Defendants on behalf of the Settlement
Class, nor have Lead Counsel been reimbursed for their out-ofpocket
expenses. Before final approval of the Settlement, Lead Counsel
will apply, on behalf of Plaintiffs' Counsel, to the Court for an
award of attorneys' fees in an amount not to exceed 18% of the
Settlement Fund. At the same time, Lead Counsel also intend to
apply for payment of Litigation Expenses in an amount not to exceed
$250,000, which amount may include a request for reimbursement of
the reasonable costs and expenses incurred by Lead Plaintiffs
directly related to their representation of the Settlement Class in
accordance with 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78u-4(a)(4).
WHAT IF I DO NOT WANT TO BE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS? HOW
DO I EXCLUDE MYSELF?
Each Settlement Class Member will be bound by all determinations
and judgments in this lawsuit, whether favorable or unfavorable,
unless such person or entity mails or delivers a letter requesting
exclusion addressed to: HP Securities Litigation, EXCLUSIONS, c/o
A.B. Data, Ltd., P.O. Box 173001, Milwaukee, WI 53217. The request
for exclusion must be received no later than July 7, 2023. You will
not be able to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class after
that date. Each letter requesting exclusion must: (i) state the
name, address, and telephone number of the person or entity
requesting exclusion, and in the case of entities, the name and
telephone number of the appropriate contact person; (ii) state that
such person or entity "requests exclusion from the Settlement Class
in In re HP Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:20-cv-01260-SI
(N.D. Cal.)"; (iii) state the number of shares of HP common stock
that the person or entity requesting exclusion (A) owned as of the
opening of trading on February 23, 2017 and (B) purchased/acquired
and/or sold during the Class Period (i.e., between February 23,
2017 and October 3, 2019, inclusive), as well as the dates, number
of shares, and prices of each such purchase/acquisition and/or
sale; and (iv) be signed by the person or entity requesting
exclusion or an authorized representative. A letter requesting
exclusion shall not be valid and effective unless it provides all
the information called for in this paragraph and is received within
the time stated above, or is otherwise accepted by the Court.
WHEN AND WHERE WILL THE COURT DECIDE WHETHER TO APPROVE THE
SETTLEMENT? DO I HAVE TO COME TO THE HEARING? MAY I SPEAK AT THE
HEARING IF I DON'T LIKE THE SETTLEMENT?
The Settlement Hearing will be held on July 28, 2023, at 10:00 a.m.
Pacific Time, before the Honorable Susan Illston, United States
District Court Judge for the Northern District of California,
either in person at the Phillip Burton Federal Building & United
States Courthouse, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102,
in Courtroom 1 – 17th Floor, or by telephone or videoconference
(at the discretion of the Court). The Court reserves the right to
approve the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, Lead Counsel's
request for attorneys' fees and Litigation Expenses, and/or any
other matter related to the Settlement at or after the Settlement
Hearing without further notice to the members of the Settlement
Class.
Any Settlement Class Member may object to the proposed Settlement,
the proposed Plan of Allocation, or Lead Counsel's request for
attorneys' fees and Litigation Expenses. You can ask the Court to
deny approval by filing an objection. You cannot ask the Court to
order a different settlement. The Court can only approve or reject
the Settlement. If the Court denies approval of the Settlement, no
payments from the Settlement will be sent out and the Action will
continue. If that is what you want to happen, then you must object.
Any objection to the proposed Settlement must be in writing and
submitted only to the Court. If you submit a timely written
objection, you may, but are not required to, appear at the
Settlement Hearing, either in person or through your own attorney.
If you appear through your own attorney, you are responsible for
hiring and paying that attorney. All written objections and
supporting papers must: (i) clearly identify the case name and
number (In re HP Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
3:20-cv-01260-SI (N.D. Cal.)); (ii) be submitted to the Court
either by mailing them to the Clerk of the Court at the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California,
Phillip Burton Federal Building & United States Courthouse, 450
Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102, or by filing them in
person at any location of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California; and (iii) be filed or postmarked
no later than July 7, 2023.
Additionally, any objection must: (i) identify the name, address,
and telephone number of the person or entity objecting and be
signed by the objector; (ii) state with specificity the grounds for
the Settlement Class Member's objection, including any legal and
evidentiary support the Settlement Class Member wishes to bring to
the Court's attention and whether the objection applies only to the
objector, to a specific subset of the Settlement Class, or to the
entire Settlement Class; and (iii) must include documents
sufficient to prove membership in the Settlement Class, including
the number of shares of HP common stock that the objecting
Settlement Class Member (A) owned as of the opening of trading on
February 23, 2017 and (B) purchased/acquired and/or sold during the
Class Period, as well as the dates, number of shares, and prices of
each such purchase/acquisition and sale.3 You may not object to the
Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or Lead Counsel's request for
attorneys' fees and Litigation Expenses if you exclude yourself
from the Settlement Class or if you are not a Settlement Class
Member.
If you wish to appear and speak about your objection at the
Settlement Hearing, you must state that you intend to appear at the
hearing in your objection or send a letter stating that you intend
to appear at the Settlement Hearing in In re HP Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 3:20-cv-01260-SI (N.D. Cal.) to the Clerk of
Court at the address set forth in ¶ 56 above so that it is
postmarked on or before July 7, 2023. Persons who intend to object
and desire to present evidence at the Settlement Hearing must
include in their written objection or notice of appearance the
identity of any witnesses they may call to testify and exhibits
they intend to introduce into evidence at the hearing. Such persons
may be heard orally at the discretion of the Court.
WHAT IF I DO NOTHING?
If you do nothing, all of your Released Plaintiffs' Claims against
Defendants and the other Defendants' Releasees will be released,
and you will not receive any payment from the Settlement because it
is necessary that you submit a Claim Form in order to be eligible
to share in the Settlement proceeds.
CAN I SEE THE COURT FILE? WHO SHOULD I CONTACT IF I HAVE
QUESTIONS?
This Notice summarizes the proposed Settlement. For the full terms
and conditions of the Settlement, please review the Stipulation at
www.HPSecuritiesSettlement.com. A copy of the Stipulation and
additional information regarding the Settlement can also be
obtained by contacting Lead Counsel at the contact information set
forth below, by accessing the Court docket in this case, for a fee,
though the Court's PACER system at https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov,
or by visiting the office of the Clerk of the Court for the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California,
Phillip Burton Federal Building & United States Courthouse, 450
Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102, between 9:00 a.m. and
4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Court holidays.
Additionally, copies of any related orders entered by the Court and
certain other filings in this Action will be posted on the website,
www.HPSecuritiesSettlement.com.
All inquiries concerning this Notice and the Claim Form should be
directed to:
HP Securities Litigation
c/o A.B. Data, Ltd.
P.O. Box 173010
Milwaukee, WI 53217
1-877-388-1759
info@HPSecuritiesSettlement.com
www.HPSecuritiesSettlement.com
and/or
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
Jennifer L. Joost, Esq.
Stacey M. Kaplan, Esq.
One Sansome Street, Suite 1850
San Francisco, CA 94104
1-415-400-3000
info@ktmc.com
www.ktmc.com
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP
John J. Rizio-Hamilton, Esq.
Jeremy P. Robinson, Esq.
1251 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
1-800-380-8496
settlements@blbglaw.com
www.blbglaw.com
PLEASE DO NOT CALL OR WRITE THE COURT, THE COURT'S CLERK'S OFFICE,
DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL REGARDING THE SETTLEMENT, THIS
NOTICE, OR THE CLAIMS PROCESS.
DATED: May 5, 2023
BY ORDER OF THE COURT
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Questions? Call 1-877-388-1759 or visit
www.HPSecuritiesSettlement.com.
IBM CORP: Faces Class Suit Over Annuity Pension Benefits
--------------------------------------------------------
International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) disclosed in its
Form 10-Q for the fiscal year ended February 25, 2023, filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 25, 2023, that on
June 2, 2022, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
alleging that the IBM Pension Plan miscalculated certain joint and
survivor annuity pension benefits by using outdated actuarial
tables in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974.
IBM, the Plan Administrator Committee, and the IBM Pension Plan are
named as defendants.
International Business Machines Corporation is a technology company
based in New York.
IBM CORP: Shareholder Suit in New York Voluntarily Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) disclosed in its
Form 10-Q for the fiscal year ended February 25, 2023, filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 25, 2023, that on
April 5, 2022, a putative securities law class action was commenced
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York alleging that during the period from April 4, 2017,
through October 20, 2021, certain strategic imperatives revenues
were misclassified.
On September 21, 2022, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the
case, without prejudice.
The company, two current IBM senior executives, and two former IBM
senior executives are named as defendants. In June 23, 2022, the
court entered an order appointing Iron Workers Local 580 Joint
Funds as the lead plaintiff.
International Business Machines Corporation is a technology company
based in New York.
INDEPENDENT BANK: Faces Fraud Charges in Texas Court
----------------------------------------------------
Independent Bank Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2023, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 25, 2023, that certain individuals
who had purchased certificates of deposit from Stanford
International Bank, Ltd. (SIBL) filed a class action lawsuit
against several banks, including BOH, on August 23, 2009, in Texas
state court, alleging, among other things, that the plaintiffs were
victims of fraud by SIBL and other Stanford Entities and seeks to
recover damages and alleged fraudulent transfers by the defendant
banks.
SIBL had deposit accounts at the Bank of Houston (BOH) which is
owned by Independent Bank Group.
The plaintiffs seek recovery from the bank and other defendants for
their losses. On May 1, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion
requesting permission to file a Second Amended Class Action
Complaint in this case, which motion was subsequently granted. The
Second Amended Class Action Complaint presents previously
un-asserted claims, including aiding and abetting or participating
in a fraudulent scheme based upon the large number of deposits that
the Stanford Entities held at BOH and the alleged knowledge of
certain BOH officers.
The case was then inactive due to a court-ordered discovery stay
issued on March 2, 2015, pending the court's ruling on the
plaintiff’s motion for a class certificate and designation of
class representatives and counsel. On November 7, 2017, the court
issued an order denying the plaintiff's motion. In addition, the
Court lifted the previously ordered discovery stay. On January 11,
2018, the court entered a scheduling order providing that the case
be ready for trial on January 27, 2020. Due to agreed-upon
extensions of discovery on July 25, 2019, the court amended the
scheduling order to provide that the case be ready for trial on
January 11, 2021.
In light of additional agreed-upon extensions of discovery
deadlines, the court entered a new scheduling order on March 9,
2020, which provided that the case be ready for trial on March 15,
2021. In light of delays in discovery associated with the COVID-19
pandemic, the parties agreed to amend the scheduling order with a
new ready-for-trial date of May 6, 2021. The Defendants filed a
motion to remand the case. The Bank also filed its motion for
summary judgment on February 12, 2021. On the same day, the bank
also joined in on an omnibus motion for summary judgment based on
procedural issues common to all Defendants.
On March 19, 2021, the plaintiffs filed a notice of abandonment of
five of the seven causes of action against the Bank. On March 11,
2021, the defendants filed a motion to amend the scheduling order,
which was granted, effectively vacating the May 6, 2021 trial date.
On January 20, 2022, the court issued an opinion and order denying
the motion for summary judgment by the Bank and the other
defendants. On the same date, the court issued a suggestion to
remand the case to the Southern District of Texas. As of March 11,
2022, the case has been officially remanded to the Southern
District of Texas. On January 2-3, 2023, the bank attended
court-ordered mediation which did not result in a resolution. The
trial was scheduled to begin on February 27, 2023.
Independent Bank Group, Inc., based in Texas, provides a full range
of banking services to individual and corporate customers in the
North, Central, and Southeast Texas areas and along the Colorado
Front Range, through its various branch locations in those areas.
KINDER MORGAN: Faces Pederson, Leutloff Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Kinder Morgan, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 21, 2023, that on February 22, 2021, Kinder
Morgan Retirement Plan A participants Curtis Pedersen and Beverly
Leutloff filed a purported class action lawsuit under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).
The named plaintiffs were hired initially by the ANR Pipeline
Company (ANR) in the late 1970s. Following a series of corporate
acquisitions, plaintiffs became participants in pension plans
sponsored by the Coastal Corporation (Coastal), El Paso Corporation
(El Paso) and the company by virtue of its acquisition of El Paso
in 2012 and its assumption of certain of El Paso's pension plan
obligations. The lawsuit, which was filed initially in federal
court in Michigan and then transferred to the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Texas (Civil Action No. 4:21-3590),
alleges that the series of foregoing transactions resulted in
changes to plaintiffs' retirement benefits which are now contested
on a purported class-wide basis in the lawsuit.
The complaint asserts six claims that fall within three primary
theories of liability. Claims I, II, and III all seek the same plan
modification as to how the plans calculate benefits for former
participants in the Coastal plan. These claims challenge plan
provisions which are alleged to constitute impermissible
"backloading" or "cutback" of benefits. Claims IV and V allege that
former participants in the ANR plans should be eligible for
unreduced benefits at younger ages than the plans currently
provide. Claim VI asserts that actuarial assumptions used to
calculate reduced early retirement benefits for current or former
ANR employees are outdated and therefore unreasonable.
Kinder Morgan, Inc. is an energy infrastructure company based in
Texas.
KPMG LLP: Rossi Securities Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled STEPHEN ROSSI, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GREG W. BECKER, DANIEL J.
BECK, ROGER F. DUNBAR, KAREN HON, ERIC A. BENHAMOU, JOHN S.
CLENDENING, RICHARD D. DANIELS, ALISON DAVIS, JOEL P. FRIEDMAN,
JEFFREY N. MAGGIONCALDA, BEVERLY KAY MATTHEWS, MARY J. MILLER, KATE
D. MITCHELL, JOHN F. ROBINSON, GAREN K. STAGLIN, KPMG LLP, BENHAMOU
GLOBAL VENTURES, LLC, FIFTH ERA, LLC, AND SCALE VENTURE PARTNERS,
Defendants, Case No. 23-cv-414120, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on May 12, 2023.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:23-cv-02335 to the proceeding.
The complaint relates to the registration statement and prospectus
filed on March 17, 2021 and March 18, 2021 in connection with
shares to be issued for a transaction in which Silicon Valley Bank,
a wholly-owned subsidiary of SVBFG, acquired and merged with Boston
Private. The complaint alleges that former Boston Private
shareholders received approximately 1.9 million shares of the
Subject Security pursuant to offering documents that contained
false and misleading statements of material fact and omitted
material facts necessary to make the statements not misleading in
violation of Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933.
KPMG LLP operates as an audit firm.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Michael A. Mugmon, Esq.
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
One Front Street, Suite 3500
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (628) 235-1000
Facsimile: (628) 235-1001
E-mail: michael.mugmon@wilmerhale.com
- and -
Michael G. Bongiorno, Esq.
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
7 World Trade Center
250 Greenwich Street
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 230-8800
Facsimile: (212) 230-8888
E-mail: michael.bongiorno@wilmerhale.com
- and -
Timothy J. Perla, Esq.
Erika M. Schutzman, Esq.
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
60 State Street
Boston, MA 02109
Telephone: (617) 526-6000
Facsimile: (617) 526-5000
E-mail: timothy.perla@wilmerhale.com
erika.schutzman@wilmerhale.com
LATITUDE FINANCIAL: Investigated Over Alleged Security Breaches
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Sharples, writing for news.com.au, reports that the law firm
investigating one of Australia's biggest security breaches which
saw a whopping 14 million records stolen -- has claimed Latitude
had uncovered "real risks" to its security environment before the
hack but failed to act.
Gordon Legal is currently investigating a class action against
Latitude after the breach was revealed in March.
The non bank lender said 7.9 million drivers licences, 53,000
passport numbers and records with personal information such as a
customers' names, addresses, telephone numbers and dates of birth
was obtained by hackers.
Now the law firm has had 55,000 affected customers sign up to
participate in a potential class action with many expressing "great
concern" over their stolen data.
Gordon Legal said it had uncovered some disturbing information in
relation to the security breach -- with Latitude also receiving a
ransom demand from hackers that it has refused to pay.
"We have uncovered some concerning evidence that Latitude may not
have taken adequate steps to properly protect its customers'
personal information, that it was collecting information it should
not have, that it did not adequately explain to consumers why it
was collecting their information (and what if anything) it was
going to be used for, and that it kept the information it collected
for too long," the law firm revealed in an email to impacted
customers.
"The evidence has also identified that Latitude had uncovered
'real' risks to its security environment, before the data breach
took place, but that it appears to not have adequately acted to
protect its customers."
Another disturbing aspect of the breach was the number of former
customers who were affected which included historic personal data
from retailers that had teamed up with the lender.
Coles Financial Services has confirmed historic data of credit card
holders had been affected by the cyber-attack, while retailers
Myer, Harvey Norman, JB Hi-Fi and The Good Guys, were also likely
affected in the breach.
Gordon Legal said it was investigating why Latitude kept the
personal and private information of some customers for many years
-- "exposing those older customer accounts to the data breach,
years after those people stopped being customers of Latitude".
Latitude revealed earlier this year 6.1 million records dating back
to at least 2005 had been obtained by the hackers.
From the 7.9 million driver's licences exposed, approximately 3.2
million or 40 per cent were provided in the past 10 years.
The 6.1 million records stolen dated back to at least 2005,
revealed the company, of which approximately 5.7 million or 94 per
cent were provided before 2013.
Gordon Legal said it had filed with complaint with the Australian
Privacy Ombudsman regarding the data breach and it was still
accepting impacted customers to register for the class action.
Latitude previously said it would reimburse customers who choose to
replace their stolen ID document and said it maintains insurance
policies to covers risks, including cyber security incidents, and
as a result it had informed its insurers.
A Latitude spokesman told news.com.au that these are unfounded
assertions which the company categorically rejects.
"Latitude is delivering a free and comprehensive customer care
program for affected individuals, including reimbursing the cost of
replacement IDs, hardship assistance, mental health and wellbeing
support, and specialist advice via not-for-profit IDCARE," he
said.
"We encourage all affected individuals to visit the cyber response
page on the Latitude website for further information."
The Latitude hack came after Optus and Medibank had the details of
millions of customers stolen in two separate sophisticated cyber
attacks that included ransom demands which were not paid.
The attack is now bigger than the one that impacted Optus, which
saw 9.8 million customers data stolen from the telco. [GN]
LEPRINO FOODS: Vasquez Appeals Ruling in Labor Suit to 9th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Isaias Vasquez, et al., filed an appeal from the
District Court's Judgment dated April 7, 2023, entered in the
lawsuit entitled ISAIAS VASQUEZ and LINDA HEFKE, on behalf of all
other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs v. LEPRINO FOODS
COMPANY, a Colorado Corporation; LEPRINO FOODS DAIRY PRODUCTS
COMPANY, a Colorado Corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00796-AWI-BAM, in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of California, Fresno.
The class action lawsuit, brought before the Court pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(2), involves an employment dispute between
Plaintiff class representatives Isaias Vasquez and Linda Hefke and
Defendants Leprino Foods Co. and Leprino Foods Dairy Products Co.
On March 30, 2020, the Court certified the Plaintiffs' claim that
the Defendants required their non-exempt workers to remain
"on-call" during their meal and rest breaks in violation of
California law.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Court entered an
Order on Feb. 22, 2023 that (1) the Defendants' motions in limine
are granted in part and denied in part; and (2) the Plaintiffs'
motions in limine are granted in part and denied in part.
On March 29, 2023, Plaintiff class representatives Isaias Vasquez
and Linda Hefke's filed a motion for reconsideration of Plaintiffs'
Trial Brief dated March 16, 2023, which requested that the Court
instruct the jury to disregard Defendant Leprino Foods Company's
representations that there is no evidence of class members being
disciplined for not responding to their supervisors or radios
during breaks. The Plaintiffs' Motion requests that the Court (1)
strike from evidence Leprino's Senior Director of Production Human
Resources & Safety Steven Schmidt's statements about any of the
personnel records he did not personally review for lack of
foundation; (2) issue a curative instruction informing the jury
that Leprino failed to produce and meaningfully review 6,000
disciplinary records of Class Member to determine whether anyone
was disciplined for not responding to a supervisor or radio during
a break; and (3) order immediate production of the some 6,000
records Schmidt mentioned in his testimony.
On April 4, 2023, District Judge Anthony W. Ishii entered an Order
that Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of trial brief
regarding curative instruction is granted in part and denied in
part.
On April 7, 2023, judgment was entered in favor of Defendants
against Plaintiffs pursuant to an order signed by Judge Ishii on
April 6, 2023 regarding trial exhibits. The Order states that
pursuant to Local Rule 138(f), the Court orders that custody of all
exhibits used, referenced and/or admitted at trial be returned to
the party who initially marked the exhibit, irrespective of who
used, referenced or admitted the exhibit at trial. The parties
shall retrieve the original exhibits from the Courtroom Deputy
following the verdict in the case. Joint Exhibits will be returned
to Plaintiff unless otherwise agreed to by the parties in writing
or on the record. The parties' counsel shall retain possession of
and keep safe all exhibits until final judgment and all appeals are
exhausted or the time for filing an appeal has passed.
The appellate case is captioned as Isaias Vasquez, et al. v.
Leprino Foods Company, Case No. 23-15721, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on May 11, 2023.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellants Linda Hefke and Isaias Vasquez Mediation
Questionnaire was due on May 18, 2023;
-- Transcript shall be ordered by June 5, 2023;
-- Transcript is due on July 5, 2023;
-- Appellants Linda Hefke and Isaias Vasquez opening brief is
due on August 14, 2023;
-- Appellee Leprino Foods Company answering brief is due on
September 13, 2023; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants ISAIAS VASQUEZ and LINDA HEFKE, on behalf of
all other similarly situated individuals, are represented by:
Ryan Andrew Crist, Esq.
Kitty Szeto, Esq.
PARRIS LAW FIRM
43364 10th Street, W
Lancaster, CA 93534
Telephone: (661) 949-2595
Defendant-Appellee LEPRINO FOODS COMPANY, a Colorado corporation,
is represented by:
Winston Hu, Esq.
Lisa M. Pooley, Esq.
Sandra Lynn Rappaport, Esq.
HANSON BRIDGETT, LLP
425 Market Street, 26th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 955-6483
MDL 2972: Opposition to Faszczewski Class Cert. Bid Due June 9
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Faszczewski v. Blackbaud
Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-00012 (D.S.C. Filed Jan. 4, 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 Faszczewski 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.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 9, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BxXqJT at no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 2972: Opposition to Glasper Class Cert. Bid Due June 9
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Glasper, et al., v.
Blackbaud Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-04393 (D.S.C. Filed Dec. 18,
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 Glasper 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.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 9, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BvrdD2 at no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 2972: Opposition to Graifman Class Cert. Bid Due June 9
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Graifman v. Blackbaud
Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-04512 (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 Graifman 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.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 9, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3W6tKgc at no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 2972: Opposition to Imhof Class Cert. Bid Due June 9
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Imhof v. Blackbaud, Inc.,
Case No. 3:21-cv-00003 (D.S.C., Filed Jan. 4, 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 Imhof 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.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 9, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nZjFW3 at no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 2972: Opposition to Jobe Class Cert. Bid Due June 9
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jobe v. Community Medical
Centers, Case No. 3:21-cv-02461 (D.S.C. Filed Aug. 5, 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 Jobe 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.
Community Medical Centers, Inc. (CMC) is a non-profit network of
neighborhood health centers serving San Joaquin, Solano and Yolo
counties.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 9, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3M7Ra0f at no extra charge.[CC]
META PLATFORMS: Location Services Suit Claim Filing Due Aug. 11
---------------------------------------------------------------
Colton of Julie's Freebies reports that if you were a Facebook user
and turned off Location Services setting for the Facebook app
between January 30, 2015 and April 18, 2018, inclusive, you may be
eligible for a cash payment from a Class Action Settlement.
Who's Eligible
You are included in this Settlement as a Settlement Class Member if
you were a Facebook user and Location Services turned off for the
Facebook application on your iOS or Android-based device(s) at any
point in time between January 30, 2015 and April 18, 2018,
inclusive.
Award Amount - Will be determined at a later time.
Proof of Purchase - Not Required.
Claim Deadline - The deadline for submitting the Claim Form is
August 11, 2023 at 11:59 PM PT. [GN]
MILLENNIUM SEARCH: Boulton Seeks Recruiting Managers' Unpaid OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXANDER BOULTON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MILLENNIUM SEARCH, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 2:23-cv-02304-SHL-CGC (W.D. Tenn., May 12, 2023) arises
from the Defendant's violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act by
failing to pay Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members overtime
compensation at rates not less than one and a half their regular
rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek.
Plaintiff Boulton worked for Millennium Search as a recruiting
manager from approximately September 2020 until February 2022. He
asserts that Millennium Search classified him as exempt throughout
his employment to avoid paying him overtime compensation.
Millennium Search is an employment agency in Memphis,
Tennessee.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bryce W. Ashby, Esq.
DONATI LAW, PLLC
1545 Union Ave.
Memphis, TN 38104
Telephone: (901) 278-1004
Facsimile: (901) 278-3111
E-mail: bryce@donatilaw.com
- and -
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
NEW YORK, NY: Deide Sues Over Executive Orders Barring Migrants
---------------------------------------------------------------
SIDI MOUHAMED DEIDE, ADAMA SY, ABDALLAHI SALEM, MOUHAMED SAID
MALOUM DIN, and JHONNY NEIRA, on behalf of himself and a class of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. EDWIN J. DAY as
Rockland County Executive; STEVEN M. NEUHAUS as Orange County
Executive, Defendants, Case No. 7:23-cv-03954-NSR (S.D.N.Y., May
11, 2023) arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Due
Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the United States
Constitution, the Supremacy Clause of the United States
Constitution, Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Sections 24
and 296(2)(a) of the New York Executive Law, and 42 U.S.C. Section
1981.
The suit is a civil-rights action challenging aggressive and
plainly unlawful efforts by Rockland and Orange Counties in New
York to block migrants from traveling to and residing within their
borders. Having welcomed tens of thousands of migrants over the
last year, New York City recently made arrangements to house a
small number of migrants in Rockland County and nearby Orange
County. In response, the two counties immediately issued executive
orders that expressly seek to bar "migrants" and "asylum seekers"
from coming to the counties from New York City and that further
seek to bar local hotels from making their rooms available to
migrants for any period of time. In conjunction with these orders,
Rockland County Executive Edwin Day and Orange County Executive
Steven Neuhaus have made racist and incendiary accusations about
immigrants and have threatened to deploy local law enforcement to
physically block buses bring migrants to their counties, the suit
says.
The Plaintiffs are a class of migrants and asylum seekers who are
participating in or will participate in New York City's program
that provides transportation to Rockland and Orange Counties and
temporary lodging, meals, and social services for migrants and
asylum seekers in the program. They seek declaratory and injunctive
relief requiring the Defendants to comply with these constitutional
and statutory mandates and barring them from enforcing their
unlawful executive orders.
Defendants EDWIN J. DAY and STEVEN M. NEUHAUS are the chief
executives of Rockland County and Orange County, respectively
within the meaning of section 24 of the New York Executive Law and
are sued in their official capacities.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Amy Belsher, Esq.
Antony Gemmell, Esq.
Guadalupe Victoria Aguirre, Esq.
Ifeyinwa Chikezie, Esq.
Christopher Dunn, Esq.
NEW YORK CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
125 Broad Street, 19th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 607-3300
E-mail: abelsher@nyclu.org
agemmell@nyclu.org
laguirre@nyclu.org
ichikezie@nyclu.org
NEXTGEN HEALTHCARE: Sued Over Data Breach Involving Patients' Info
------------------------------------------------------------------
JESSICA EMERY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NEXTGEN HEALTHCARE, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:23-cv-02238-TWT (N.D. Ga., May 17, 2023) alleges claims
against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se,
declaratory judgment, and violation of the Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act and the Federal Trade Commission
Act in connection with the data breach on April 18, 2023.
On the said date, Defendant NextGen notified the patients of its
Customer-Healthcare providers that their personally identifying
information (PII) and protected health information stored on
Defendant's NextGen Office System, a cloud-based electronic health
records and practice management solution had been accessed by
unauthorized third-party. Based on the public statements of NextGen
to date, a wide variety of PII and PHI was implicated in the data
breach, including but not limited to patient names, dates of birth,
addresses, and Social Security numbers. The Plaintiff seeks damages
and injunctive relief, including the adoption of reasonably
sufficient practices to safeguard PII and PHI in Defendant's
custody in order to prevent incidents like the data breach from
reoccurring in the future.
NextGen is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of
business located at 3525 Piedmont Road NE, Building 6, Suite 700,
Atlanta, Georgia. This software and services company provides
software and related support to ambulatory healthcare providers,
including practice management, revenue cycle management, patient
experience, value-based care, analytics & reporting, and data
platforms. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
Nicholas A. Colella, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
1133 Penn Ave., Fl. 5
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 322-9243
Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
E-mail: gary@lcllp.com
nickc@lcllp.com
NIKE RETAIL: Cruz Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to S.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ADRIANA CRUZ, an individual, on behalf of herself
and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NIKE
RETAIL SERVICES, INC., a Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 37-2023-00012353-CU-OE-CTL, was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of San Diego, to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California on May 11, 2023.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:23-cv-00874-L-KSC to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff's complaint asserts 11 causes of action against Nike,
including: (1) unfair competition; (2) failure to pay minimum
wages; (3) failure to pay overtime wages; (4) failure to provide
required meal periods; (5) failure to provide required rest
periods; (6) failure to provide accurate, itemized wage statements;
(7) failure to reimburse employees for requirements expenses; (8)
failure to provide wages due; (9) failure to pay sick pay wages;
(10) discrimination and retaliation; and (11) wrongful
termination.
Nike Retail Services, Inc. was founded in 1985. The Company's line
of business includes the retail sale of men's, women's and
children's footwear.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Matthew A. Tobias, Esq.
Heather L. Plocky, Esq.
Bryanne J. Lewis, Esq.
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
333 South Hope Street, 43rd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-1422
Telephone: (213) 620-1780
Facsimile: (213) 620-1398
E-mail: mtobias@sheppardmullin.com
hplocky@sheppardmullin.com
blewis@sheppardmullin.com
NISOURCE INC: Hardy Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to N.D. Okla.
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JOSHUA HARDY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NISOURCE INC., Defendant,
Case No. 2:22-cv-00322, was removed from the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Indiana to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma on May 12,
2023.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma assigned
Case No. 4:23-cv-00204-TCK-SH to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff brings this lawsuit to recover unpaid overtime wages
and other damages from Defendant NiSource Inc. under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Kentucky Wage and Hour Act.
NiSource Inc. is an energy holding company operating through two
segments, gas distribution operations and electric operations.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew Dunlap, Esq.
Carl A. Fitz, Esq.
Ryan Steinhart, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
11 Greenway Plz Ste 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
- and -
Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
WERMAN SALAS PC
77 W Washington St Ste 1402
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 419-1008
Facsimile: (312) 419-1025
The Defendant is represented by:
Bianca V. Black, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON PC
111 Monument Cir Ste 702
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Telephone: (317) 287-3600
Facsimile: (317) 636-0712
- and -
Jessica L. Craft, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON
1301 McKinney Street, Suite 1900
Houston, TX 77010
Telephone: (713) 652-4765
Facsimile: (713) 951-9212
E-mail: jcraft@littler.com
ODS CAPITAL: July 13 Class Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP and Labaton Sucharow LLP issued a statement regarding
the JA Solar Securities Litigation:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
ODS CAPITAL LLC, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JA SOLAR HOLDINGS CO., LTD.,
BAOFANG JIN, and SHAOHUA JIA,
Defendants
Case No. 1:18-cv-12083-ALC
CLASS ACTION
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS
ACTION AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES
To: All Persons who sold JA Solar Holdings Co., Ltd. ADS, ordinary
shares and/or long position cash-settled equity swaps referencing
JA Solar ADSs ("JA Solar Securities"), and were damaged thereby,
during the period from November 20, 2017 through July 16, 2018 (the
effective date of the Merger), inclusive, (the "Class Period")
and/or all Persons whose JA Solar Securities were cancelled or
tendered in exchange for the right to receive the Merger
consideration ("Settlement Class").
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, that Court-appointed Co-Lead
Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all members of the proposed
Settlement Class, and JA Solar, Baofang Jin and Shaohua Jia
(collectively, "Defendants"), have reached a proposed settlement of
the claims in the above-captioned class action (the "Action") in
the amount of $21 million (the "Settlement").
A hearing will be held before the Honorable Andrew L. Carter, Jr.,
remotely on July 13, 2023, at 11:00 a.m. (the "Settlement Hearing")
to determine whether the Court should: (i) approve the proposed
Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) dismiss the
Action with prejudice as provided in the Stipulation and Agreement
of Settlement, dated January 23, 2023; (iii) approve the proposed
Plan of Allocation for distribution of the proceeds of the
Settlement (the "Net Settlement Fund") to Settlement Class Members;
and (iv) approve Co-Lead Counsel's Fee and Expense Application. To
join, please contact the Court at 1-888-363-4749 and enter 3768660
for the access code. The Court may change the date of the
Settlement Hearing, or hold it remotely, without providing another
written notice. Information about the hearing will be posted at
www.JASolarSecuritiesSettlement.com. You do NOT need to attend the
Settlement Hearing to receive a distribution from the Net
Settlement Fund.
IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE
AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A
MONETARY PAYMENT. If you have not yet received a full Notice and
Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these documents by visiting
www.JASolarSecuritiesSettlement.com or by contacting the Claims
Administrator at:
JA Solar Holdings Co., Ltd. Securities Settlement
c/o KCC Class Action Services
P.O. Box 301133
Los Angeles, CA 90030-1133
info@JASolarSecuritiesSettlement.com
(833) 632-0286
Inquiries, other than requests for information about the status of
a claim, may also be made to Co-Lead Counsel:
LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
Carol C. Villegas, Esq.
140 Broadway
New York, NY 10005
www.labaton.com
settlementquestions@labaton.com
(888) 219-6877
POMERANTZ LLP
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
www.pomlaw.com
(212) 661-1100
If you are a Settlement Class Member, to be eligible to share in
the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a
Claim Form postmarked or submitted online no later than July 8,
2023. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not timely
submit a valid Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, but you will nevertheless
be bound by all judgments or orders entered by the Court relating
to the Settlement, whether favorable or unfavorable.
If you are a Settlement Class Member and wish to exclude yourself
from the Settlement Class, you must submit a written request for
exclusion in accordance with the instructions set forth in the
Notice such that it is received no later than June 22, 2023. If
you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will
not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court
relating to the Settlement, whether favorable or unfavorable, and
you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net
Settlement Fund.
Any objections to the proposed Settlement, Co-Lead Counsel's Fee
and Expense Application, and/or the proposed Plan of Allocation
must be filed with the Court, either by mail or in person, and be
mailed to counsel for the Parties in accordance with the
instructions in the Notice, such that they are received no later
than June 22, 2023.
PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL
REGARDING THIS NOTICE.
DATED: May 2, 2023
BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
PATTERN ENERGY: July 31 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
IN RE PATTERN ENERGY GROUP INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION
C.A. NO. 20-cv-275-MN-JLH
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION
TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES, WITH CERTAIN EXCLUSIONS DESCRIBED
BELOW, WHO HELD CLASS A COMMON STOCK OF PATTERN ENERGY GROUP INC.
AS OF THE JANUARY 31, 2020 RECORD DATE FOR THE MERGER WITH CANADA
PENSION PLAN INVESTMENT BOARD, WERE ENTITLED TO VOTE ON THE MERGER,
AND WHO RECEIVED MERGER CONSIDERATION.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware (the "Court") to inform you: (a) of a
class action lawsuit that is now pending in the Court under the
above caption (the "Action") against (i) Pattern Energy Group Inc.
("Pattern Energy" or the "Company"); (ii) former members of Pattern
Energy's Board of Directors Alan R. Batkin, Edmund John Philip
Browne, Richard A. Goodman, Douglas G. Hall, Patricia M. Newson and
Mona K. Sutphen (the "Board" or "Board Defendants"); and (iii) the
Company's executives Michael Garland, Hunter Armistead, Daniel
Elkort, Michael Lyon, Esben Pedersen, and Christopher Shugart (the
"Officer Defendants," and collectively "Defendants"); and (b) that
the Action has been certified by the Court to proceed as a class
action on behalf of the Class. This Notice is not a settlement
notice and you are not being asked to submit a claim.
This is a securities class action against Defendants for alleged
violations of the federal securities laws. Class Representatives
allege that Defendants made material misrepresentations and
omissions of material facts in the Definitive Proxy Statement
("Proxy") issued in connection with the Merger. Defendants deny the
allegations of wrongdoing asserted in the Action and deny any
liability whatsoever to any members of the Class.
Members of the Class are all persons and entities who held Class A
common stock of Pattern Energy Group Inc. as of the January 31,
2020 record date for the merger with Canada Pension Plan Investment
Board ("Merger"), were entitled to vote on the Merger, and received
the Merger consideration; excluding Defendants, their immediate
families and trusts and investment vehicles operated by them or for
their benefit, and excluding Riverstone Holdings LLC and its
affiliates, CBRE Caledon Capital Management and its affiliates, the
Public Sector Pension Investment Board and its affiliates, and any
person or entity that received a legal or beneficial ownership
interest in the surviving new entity that emerged from the Merger.
IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
THIS ACTION. A full printed Notice of Pendency of Class Action (the
"Notice") is currently being mailed to persons who have been
identified as potential members of the Class ("Class Members"). If
you have not yet received the full printed Notice, you may obtain a
copy of the Notice by downloading it from
www.PatternEnergySecuritiesLitigation.com or by contacting the
Notice Administrator, Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions, at:
Pattern Energy Securities Litigation
c/o Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions, Inc.
P.O. Box 6577
Portland, OR 97228-6577
Info@PatternEnergySecuritiesLitigation.com
1-855-252-9408
If you are a Class Member, you have the right to decide whether to
remain a Class Member. If you want to remain a Class Member, you do
not need to do anything at this time other than to retain your
documentation reflecting your transactions and holdings in Pattern
Energy Group, Inc. common stock. If you are a Class Member and do
not exclude yourself from the Class, you will be bound by the
proceedings in the Action, including all past, present, and future
orders and judgments of the Court, whether favorable or
unfavorable. If you move, or if the Notice was mailed to an old or
incorrect address, please send the Notice Administrator written
notification of your new address.
As a member of the Class you will be represented by Class Counsel,
who are listed below. Alternatively, you may remain a member of the
Class and elect to be represented by counsel of your own choosing.
If you do retain separate counsel, you will be responsible for that
attorney's fees and expenses and that attorney must enter an
appearance on your behalf by filing a Notice of Appearance with the
Court and mailing it to Class Counsel at the addresses below on or
before July 31, 2023.
ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCI LLP
Andrew J. Entwistle
500 W. 2nd Street, Suite 1900
Austin, TX 78701
Tel.: (512) 710-5960
Fax: (212) 894-7272
ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCI LLP
Vincent R. Cappucci
230 Park Avenue, 3rd Floor
New York, NY 10169
Tel.: (212) 894-7200
Fax: (212) 894-7272
SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
Marc M. Seltzer
1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Tel.: (310) 789-3100
Fax: (310) 789-3150
If you ask to be excluded from the Class, you will not be bound by
any order or judgment of this Court in this Action, however you
will not be eligible to receive a share of any money which might be
recovered for the benefit of the Class. To exclude yourself from
the Class, you must submit a written request for exclusion
postmarked no later than July 31, 2023 in accordance with the
instructions set forth in the full printed Notice.
Further information regarding this notice may be obtained by
writing to the Notice Administrator at the address provided above.
PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT REGARDING THIS NOTICE.
Date: May 2, 2023
BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Averts California Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for Mondaq, disclosed that
on April 27, 2023, Judge Charles R. Breyer of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California granted a
motion to dismiss a proposed securities class action suit against a
financial technology company (the "Company") and four executives,
including its CEO and CFO, alleging violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule
10b-5(b). Huei-Ting Kang v. PayPal Holdings Inc., No. 3:21-cv-06468
(N.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2023). The Court dismissed the complaint with
prejudice for failure to plead falsity and failure to plead a
strong inference of scienter. The Court had previously dismissed
plaintiffs' prior complaint without prejudice, in a decision
covered here.
Plaintiffs alleged that the Company, which offers products and
services for consumers and merchants to send and receive digital
payments, misled investors about its compliance with regulatory
obligations, including its compliance with a consent order (the
"Consent Order") entered into with the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau (the "CFPB") in 2015. According to plaintiffs,
the Consent Order, which resolved claims that the Company enrolled
students at for-profit colleges in the Company's credit product
without their knowledge, prohibited the Company from enrolling
customers in its credit product without their affirmative consent.
Plaintiffs alleged that the Company made false statements about its
compliance with the Consent Order such as statements that the
Company "continue[d] to cooperate and engage with the CFPB and work
to ensure compliance with the Consent Order." Plaintiffs also
alleged that the Company's executives falsely stated that they took
allegations that for-profit educational institutions were
misrepresenting the Company's credit product "very seriously."
According to plaintiffs, the Company's stock price dropped after
the Company disclosed that it was under investigation by the SEC
and CFPB for potential compliance failures.
Although plaintiffs attempted to buttress the allegations in their
complaint with evidence from a number of confidential witnesses
("CWs"), the Court did not find the additional facts to be
persuasive. First, the Court held that the Company "had no
obligation or requirement to elaborate on any alleged
non-compliance because it had not yet been found to be
noncompliant." Second, the Court held that plaintiffs failed to
plausibly plead that the Company actually violated a regulatory
obligation. The Court noted that the CWs only "recall[ed]
unsubstantiated and vague customer complaints, not actual
violations." And, although plaintiffs alleged that some third-party
merchants misrepresented the Company's credit product, "they never
allege[d] that [the Company] did so." Moreover, with respect to the
Company's affirmative statements about its compliance with
regulatory obligations, the Court held these statements to be "the
kind of corporate puffery that are rarely (if ever) actionably
misleading."
With respect to scienter, the Court rejected plaintiffs' argument
that Company executives had knowledge of the alleged compliance
failures, again pointing to the inadequacy of the CWs' allegations.
Specifically, the Court noted that "no CW attest[ed] to having
first-hand knowledge of [the executives] knowing about a specific
regulatory violation; instead, [the] allegations only show that
[the executives] were aware of unsubstantiated and unspecified
customer complaints."
Because plaintiffs failed to cure the deficiencies identified in
the Court's previous dismissal order, the Court held that further
amendments would be futile and dismissed plaintiffs' claims with
prejudice. [GN]
PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Miller Sues Over Defective Exercise Bikes
--------------------------------------------------------------
BRANDY MILLER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff v. PELOTON INTERACTIVE, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 3:23-cv-02101-MGL (D.S.C., May 17, 2023) alleges claims against
the Defendant for, among other things, breach of express warranty,
negligence, manufacturing defect, unjust enrichment, breach of
contract, and breach of implied warranty of merchantability in
connection with a defective Peloton exercise bike model.
Plaintiff Miller purchased a Peloton Bikes Model PL01 directly from
the Peloton website on or around late 2021. On May 11, 2023, the
United States Consumer Product Safety Commission issued a recall of
certain Peloton equipment. Specifically, this recall involves
Peloton Bikes with model number PL01. Among other things, Miller
claims that the said product does not conform to the express
representations because the seat post assembly could break during
use, posing both fall and injury risk to the consumer/user.
Peloton is a Delaware corporation, with its corporate headquarters
and principal place of business located in New York City, New York.
The company markets and sells its apparel, hardware and hardware
accessories, and Subscription Service throughout the U.S. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Blake G. Abbott, Esq.
Paul J. Doolittle, Esq.
POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO, LLC
32 Ann Street
Charleston, SC 29403
Telephone: (803) 222-2222
E-mail: pauld@akimlawfirm.com
blake@akimlawfirm.com
PHARMERICA CORP: Berger Montague Investigates Possible Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Berger Montague advises any individual who received a data breach
notice from PharMerica, the long-term care pharmacy services
provider, about a potential class action lawsuit.
If you received a data breach notice, you may learn more about this
investigation and sign up for a potential lawsuit by visiting:
https://investigations.bergermontague.com/pharmerica-data-breach/
Berger Montague is investigating a potential class action lawsuit
against PharMerica Corporation and its parent company, BrightSpring
Health Services, following PharMerica's announcement that it
experienced a large data breach impacting the protected health
information and other sensitive information of over 5.8 million
individuals.
In a notice PharMerica posted on the Maine Attorney General's
website, the company listed the total number of individuals
affected as 5,815,591. PharMerica also published notice of the data
breach on its own website, which states that the protected health
and sensitive information compromised in the data breach includes
individuals' "names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers,
medication lists and health insurance information."
Any individual who received a data breach notice from PharMerica is
encouraged to contact Berger Montague to join a possible class
action lawsuit.
Berger Montague PC is a national, full-spectrum plaintiffs' law
firm that litigates complex civil cases and class actions in
federal and state courts throughout the United States. For 53
years, Berger Montague has played lead roles in consequential,
precedent-setting cases and has recovered more than $36 billion for
its clients and the classes they have represented. A pioneer in the
use of class actions in antitrust and securities litigation, the
firm has since expanded into consumer, employment, environmental,
and insurance litigation. Today, Berger Montague has more than 75
lawyers across six offices, including Philadelphia, Minneapolis,
San Diego, San Francisco, Washington, D.C., Chicago, and
Toronto.[GN]
RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Shareholder Suit Over SEC Misfilings
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Raytheon Technologies Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2023, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 25, 2023, that a
putative securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Arizona against the
company and certain of its executives alleging that the defendants
violated federal securities laws by making material misstatements
in regulatory filings regarding internal controls over financial
reporting.
Raytheon Technologies Corporation is a provider of high-technology
products and services to the aerospace and defense industries based
in Virginia.
RON HIBACHI: Faces Chen Suit Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Dan Chen, Yan Zhao, Mei Feng Lin, Xue Ran Huang, and Chujun
Zheng, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. RON HIBACHI GRILL SUPREME BUFFET INC. d/b/a Hibachi
Grill and Supreme Buffet, He Ping Chen, Qi Yun Chen a/k/a "Qi
Chen," and Yun Qin Li a/k/a "Yuki," Defendants, Case No.
1:23-cv-02591 (D.N.J., May 12, 2023) arises from the Defendants'
unlawful labor policies and practices in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law.
The Plaintiffs assert that the Defendants violated the federal and
state laws by engaging in a pattern and practice of failing to pay
its employees, including Representative Plaintiffs, minimum wage
for all hours worked, overtime compensation for all hours worked
over 40 each workweek, and unlawfully deducting employees' tips.
The Plaintiffs were former employees of the Defendants working as
servers and waitresses.
Ron Hibachi Grill Supreme Buffet Inc. owns, operates, and controls
Hibachi Grill & Supreme Buffet restaurant located in Mays Landing,
New Jersey.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Yuezhu Liu, Esq.
HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 10G
Flushing, NY 11354
Telephone: (718) 353-8588
Facsimile: (718) 353-6288
E-mail: yliu@hanglaw.com
RUGSUSA LLC: Advertises False Discounts and Sales on Web, Lee Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXANDRIA LEE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RUGSUSA, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
3:23-cv-02412 (N.D. Cal., May 17, 2023) alleges claims for
quasi-contract/unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation,
intentional misrepresentation, and for violations of California's
False Advertising Law, Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and Unfair
Competition Law.
RugsUSA, LLC makes, sells, and markets rugs and home accessory
products. These products are sold online through Defendant's
website, www.rugsusa.com, which prominently advertises purportedly
time-limited, sitewide sales. These advertisements include
purported regular prices and purported discounts. However,
Plaintiff Lee alleges that these advertisements are false and that
the Defendant offers sitewide discounts and does not sell any of
its products at the purported regular price. In addition, Lee
claims that the sales being advertised the website are not limited
in time, but instead continue to be available.
RugsUSA, LLC is a Delaware company with its principal place of
business at 286 Prospect Plains Road, Cranbury, NJ. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christin Cho, Esq.
Simon Franzini, Esq.
Grace Bennett, Esq.
DOVEL & LUNER, LLP
201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Telephone: (310) 656-7066
Facsimile: (310) 656-7069
E-mail: christin@dovel.com
simon@dovel.com
grace@dovel.com
SEPHORA USA: Faces Byars Suit Over Illegal Wiretapping
------------------------------------------------------
ARISHA BYARS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SEPHORA USA INC. d/b/a WWW.SEPHORA.COM,
Defendant, Case No. 5:23-cv-00883 (C.D. Cal., May 16, 2023) alleges
Defendant's violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant secretly
enables and allows a third-party spyware company to wiretap and
eavesdrop on the private conversations of everyone who communicates
through the chat feature at www.sephora.com (the "Website"). The
spyware company then exploits and monetizes that data by sharing it
with other third parties, who use the private chat data to bombard
the unsuspecting visitor with targeted marketing, says the
Plaintiff.
SEPHORA USA, INC. operates as a cosmetics and beauty stores. The
Company offers foundation sets, moisturizer, face powder, blush,
contour, eyeliner, nail polish, lipstick, face brushes, makeup
remover, face wash, toners, eye cream, face masks, perfume, body
lotion, hand cream, sunscreen, and other related products. [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
Telephone: (949) 706-6464
Facsimile: (949) 706-6469
Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com
SMARTE CARTE: Camposeco Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JESUS M. CAMPOSECO, as an individual and on behalf
of all employees similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SMARTE CARTE,
INC., a Minnesota Corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 23STCV07897, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California on May 12, 2023.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 5:23-cv-00862 to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff asserts seven causes of action against the Defendants
including: (1) failure to pay all wages and provide paid sick
leave; (2) failure to provide meal periods; (3) failure to provide
rest breaks; (4) failure to keep accurate itemized wage statements;
(5) failure to pay wages upon termination of employment; (6)
failure to reimburse for necessary expenditures; and (7) unfair
business practices.
Smarte Carte, Inc. is a provider of self-serve vended luggage
carts, electronic lockers, commercial strollers and massage
chairs.[BN]
Defendant Smarte Carte, Inc. is represented by:
Eric J. Gitig, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500
Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408
Telephone: (213) 689-0404
Facsimile: (213) 689-0430
E-mail: Eric.Gitig@jacksonlewis.com
- and -
David V. Carson, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
171 17th Street NW, Suite 1200
Atlanta, GA 30363
Telephone: (404) 586-1838
Facsimile: (404) 525-1173
E-mail: David.Carson@jacksonlewis.com
SPIRIT PHARMACEUTICALS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Rios Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
LORENA ABARZA RIOS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SPIRIT PHARMACEUTICALS LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-03637 (E.D.N.Y., May 16, 2023) is an
action against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages,
overtime compensation, provide meals and rest periods, and provide
accurate wage statements.
Plaintiff Rios was employed by the Defendant as a machine
operator.
SPIRIT PHARMACEUTICALS LLC distributes pharmaceutical medicines.
The Company specializes in the commercialization of prescription
pharmaceuticals, as well as offers analgesics, laxative, sleep aid,
cough and cold, allergy, and nutritional supplement products.
Spirit Pharmaceuticals serves customers worldwide. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Louis Pechman, Esq.
Galen C. Baynes, Esq.
Camille A. Sanchez, Esq.
PECHMAN LAW GROUP PLLC
488 Madison Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 583-9500
Email: pechman@pechmanlaw.com
baynes@pechmanlaw.com
sanchez@pechmanlaw.com
TD BANK: Faces Class Suit Over Failure of First Horizon Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
PYMNTS reports that a class-action lawsuit has reportedly been
filed against TD Bank following its failed attempt to acquire First
Horizon Bank.
The Arbitrage Fund, which is a First Horizon shareholder, is suing
TD Bank, alleging that it made misleading statements and omissions
about the planned purchase, Seeking Alpha reported May 23, 2023.
The Arbitrage Fund and TD Bank did not immediately reply to PYMNTS'
request for comment.
The class-action lawsuit is on behalf of certain First Horizon
shareholders and "concerns statements made by, or on behalf of, TD
Bank to the investing public regarding TD Bank's ability to timely
close a business combination with First Horizon -- a combination
that was ultimately abandoned," the complaint said, according to
the report.
In a statement provided to Seeking Alpha, TD Bank said: "TD's
public disclosures are accurate. The lawsuit is without merit and
TD will vigorously defend it."
TD Bank and First Horizon Bank called off their planned $13.4
billion merger on May 4, saying in a joint statement that the
decision came after TD told First Horizon that TD didn't have a
timetable for regulatory approvals.
"Because there is uncertainty as to when and if these regulatory
approvals can be obtained, the parties mutually agreed to terminate
the merger agreement," the banks said in the statement.
The planned merger -- which would have created America's
sixth-largest bank -- was announced about 14 months earlier, in
February 2022.
Four days after the deal was called off, on May 8, it was reported
that the merger was ended by regulators' concerns about TD Bank's
anti-money laundering (AML) practices.
The concerns of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC)
and the Federal Reserve centered on TD Bank's handling of unusual
transactions and its timeliness in reporting suspicious activity to
them, The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported May 8, citing unnamed
sources.
A TD Bank spokesperson told the WSJ: "TD works diligently to
prevent criminals from using the bank for illegal activity, to
strengthen its risk management programs on an ongoing basis, and to
protect the interests of our customers, the bank and the financial
system." [GN]
TESLA INC: Faces Antitrust Suit Over Warranty/Service Issues
------------------------------------------------------------
Tesla, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 24, 2023, that on March 14, 2023 a proposed
class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California. Several similar complaints have also been
filed in the same court.
These complaints allege that Tesla violated federal antitrust and
warranty laws through its repair, service, and maintenance
practices and seeks, among other relief, damages for persons who
paid Tesla for repairs services or Tesla-compatible replacement
parts from March 2019 to March 2023.
Tesla, Inc. is an automotive company based in Texas.
TICKETMASTER ENTERTAINMENT: Sued Over Drake Tour Ticket Prices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Aya Tsintziras, writing for TheThings, reports that fans of Drake's
popular music were excited when he announced his 2023 tour. The
singer hasn't gone out on the road since his 2018 Aubrey & the
Three Migos Tour. Thanks to Drake's many famous relationships, it
seems like he is always in the news. This time, the focus is on his
live performances.
Every time Drake tours, he definitely adds to his net worth.
According to Celebrity Net Worth, he has $250 million. So it's safe
to say that he's raking it in with every single concert. How much
money did Drake make from his 2023 tour? And why is there a
class-action lawsuit against him?
How Much Money Did Drake Make From His 2023 Tour?
Since Drake's 2023 tour includes 29 dates, it's possible that he
has made a great profit. And as seems to be the case these days,
the tickets aren't cheap. This definitely makes sense given Drake's
high profile. And although the singer tried to hide who he is, he's
always going to be a major star who grabs attention everywhere that
he goes.
The first night of the tour will be in New Orleans in June. After
that, the singer will travel to Memphis, Chicago, Detroit, Boston,
Montreal, Brooklyn, Philadelphia, and more. He will also play two
concerts at the Scotiabank Arena in Toronto in October 2023. Ticket
prices do vary depending on the venue. But it's fair to say that
Drake is doing well as a result of the tour.
According to Seathub.com, tickets for Drake's Toronto shows will
cost fans several hundred dollars. The cheapest tickets start at
$356. The most expensive tickets are almost $2,000.
If fans want to see Drake in Memphis, they can find a ticket for
$156. That is a little more reasonable. But it still might not be
in everyone's budget.
The final figures for Drake's 2023 tour aren't available since it's
happening this summer and fall. However, fans can guess what he
will earn based on his 2018 tour.
Drake's Aubrey And The Migos Tour made $79 million, according to
Forbes. Fans purchased 678,410 tickets and Drake performed in 43
cities. When Drake toured in 2016, he went to 54 cities and made
$84 million.
Forbes reported that several other artists made more money from
their tours than Drake did. Beyoncé and Jay Z's tour earned $254
million, Taylor Swift's earned $345 million, and Ed Sheeran's
earned $432 million. Still, $79 million is a lot of money.
Although Drake last toured in 2018, he has continued to record
albums. In September 2021, his album "Certified Loverboy" came out.
And "Honestly, Nevermind" came out in June 2022. Fans loved the
songs "Massive" and "Sticky from Drake's most recent album and it
will be fun to hear him play these tunes live.
In a 2023 interview with Yachty that fans can see on YouTube, Drake
talked about the future of his music career. He talked about how it
can be easy to fall into the "competition" of this kind of career.
And it sounds like he doesn't want to compete anymore.
Drake said, "what's left for me is just to find a way to gracefully
continue making projects that are extremely interesting, and
hopefully cherished by people, and then to find the right time to
say 'I can't wait to see what the next generation does.' I will
still be around to work with people or do a show here or there, but
I'm not going to force myself to compete."
Since Drake is going on tour in the summer and fall months of 2023,
it seems that performing is still part of his plan.
What Is The Class-Action Lawsuit That Was Filed Against Drake?
Although many fans were thrilled to buy tickets to Drake's 2023
tour, not everyone was pleased. There is currently a class-action
lawsuit against Drake. According to NME.com, LPC Avocat Inc. is
representing a fan from Montreal, Quebec.
The Toronto Star reported on the lawsuit, which is about
Ticketmaster selling expensive Drake concert tickets. LPC Avocat
Inc. wrote, "Ticketmaster unilaterally decides which tickets it
advertises and sells as ‘official platinum' based on a given
event."
The lawsuit continued, "The result is that most, if not all, of the
tickets advertised and sold as ‘official platinum' are neither
‘premium tickets' nor ‘some of the best seats in the house' and
are, in fact, just regular tickets sold by Ticketmaster at an
artificially inflated premium in bad faith."
It's definitely upsetting to buy expensive tickets... and then
learn that the seats are super high up. It's also upsetting to
spend a lot of money on tickets and then find out that it was
possible to get a deal. And that is exactly what happened to one
fan.
The Star reported that when the fan purchased two Drake tickets,
they spent $789.54 per ticket. They were called "official
platinum." The fan said that a day later, the tickets were several
hundred dollars cheaper.
In April 2023, the lawyer working on the class-action lawsuit, Joey
Zukran, was interviewed by Toronto Life. He talked about whether
musicians actually want ticket prices to be this high.
Zukran said, "I want to be very careful what I say—obviously I
don't want to get sued by Drake. Do I suspect that the artist gets
a percentage of sales and that they would have an interest in the
tickets selling for as much as possible? Yes, but I don't know for
certain. That is something we will find out as the case
continues."
Zukran also told Toronto Life, "When we launched the class action,
we tweeted about it and tagged Drake, but so far he hasn't said a
word, which is disappointing, especially when you look at recent
comparable examples with prominent artists."
Zukran mentioned that when Taylor Swift fans were upset about
Ticketmaster selling high ticket prices, Swift did talk about it.
She was honest about how problematic she thought this trend was.
Drake, however, doesn't appear to have spoken about the subject.
[GN]
TOLER APPRAISAL: Faces Gregory Class Suit Over Appraisal Violation
------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Christensen of AppraisersBlogs reports that when a mortgage
lender seeks to make a Veterans Administration-backed home loan,
the lender requests an appraisal from the VA's appraiser panel by
using a form entitled Request for Determination of Reasonable
Value. For many years, until it was revised in July 2022, this form
had a box labelled "Refinancing-Amount of Proposed Loan." This box
asked the lender to fill in the proposed loan amount for
refinances. Once submitted, the form begins the appraisal process
and is provided to the appraiser assigned by the VA to perform the
appraisal.
A lawsuit - Gregory v. Toler Appraisal Group and Gateway Mortgage
Group - filed on behalf of a proposed class of borrowers in West
Virginia alleges there's problem here. The lead plaintiff contends
that the mortgage lender's provision of the proposed loan amount to
an appraiser via use of this form violated federal Appraisal
Independence Requirements ("AIR") that are part of the Truth in
Lending Act (in 15 U.S.C. Section 1639e). These requirements make
it unlawful for a creditor to seek "to influence an appraiser or
otherwise to encourage a targeted value in order to facilitate the
making or pricing of the transaction." While the statute doesn't
explicitly mention that providing a loan amount is an AIR
violation, the lawsuit complaint points to guidance in the Federal
Interagency Appraisal and Evaluation Guidelines. That guidance
states that inappropriate actions violating valuation independence
include: "Communicating a predetermined, expected, or qualifying
estimate of value, or a loan amount or target loan-to-value ratio
to an appraiser or person performing an evaluation."
Accordingly, in this case, the plaintiff borrower alleges that
Gateway Mortgage violated federal Appraisal Independence
Requirements when it included the proposed loan amount in the
appraisal request for her loan back in 2018 and in the appraisal
request forms for other VA borrowers. On behalf of other Gateway
Mortgage borrowers in West Virginia, the action seeks, among other
potential remedies:
-- Restitution to borrowers of the appraisal fees;
-- Statutory damages of up to $4,000 per borrower; and
-- Other damages that may stem from the alleged AIR violations.
The case also includes an individual claim by the plaintiff that
the appraisal for her loan was inflated - and she is suing the
appraisal firm for alleged professional negligence on that basis. A
central problem alleged with the appraisal is that the home
described in the appraisal is not located on the real property
appraised.
While this case is currently pending in U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of West Virginia, it was first filed in April
2020. Why am I writing about it now? Because the District Court has
just ruled on an important issue.
Gateway Mortgage sought to have the AIR violation claims dismissed,
asserting in a motion for judgment on the pleadings that AIR
violations could not be pursued by private plaintiffs. In legal
jargon, Gateway Mortgage contended that 15 U.S.C. Section1639e does
not create a "private right of action." On May 17, 2023, however,
the Court ruled against Gateway Mortgage on that fundamental point.
As the Court wrote: "Looking at the language of the statute, the
Court finds no ambiguity - Congress intended to create a private
right of action for violations of Section 1639e."
The Court's unambiguous ruling shines a light on an opening for
other claims by borrowers alleging AIR violations. [GN]
TOTAL RELOCATION: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Jackson Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL L. JACKSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TOTAL RELOCATION SERVICES, LLC, CHRISTOPHER
MARZO, and SUZANNE NOORMAN, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-04118
(S.D.N.Y., May 16, 2023) arises out of the Defendants' violations
of, among other things, the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as an IT hardware technician
from on or about July 1, 2020 and continues to work for the
Defendants. The Defendants allegedly misclassified its IT hardware
technicians, including Plaintiff, as independent contractors
despite exercising extensive control over the manner in which they
conducted work. Throughout Plaintiff's tenure, Defendants failed to
pay its IT hardware technicians any overtime premium when they
worked over 40 hours in a single week. Further, throughout the
statutory period Defendants failed to pay Mr. Jackson and similarly
situated employees on a weekly basis as required under the NYLL,
says the Plaintiff.
Total Relocation Services, LLC (TRS) was and is a domestic limited
liability company created under the laws of the state of New York.
The company has its principal place of business located at 17
Camptown Road, Irvington, NJ. TRS is a full service move management
firm. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Amit Kumar, Esq.
108 West 39th Street, Suite 602
New York, NY 10018
Telephone: (212) 583-7400
E-mail: AKumar@CafaroEsq.com
TRIDENT ACQUISITIONS: Knolls Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duty
--------------------------------------------------------------
EDWARD KNOLLS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MARAT ROSENBERG, VADIM KOMISSAROV, THOMAS
GALLAGHER, GENNADII BUTKEVYCH, ILYA PONOMAREV, EDWARD S. VERONA,
OLEKSII TYMOFIEV, MICHAEL WILSON, VK CONSULTING, INC., LAWRENCE
ANTHONY DIMATTEO III, MATTHEW CLEMENSON, RYAN DICKINSON, and
CHARDAN CAPITAL MARKETS LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2023-0518-MTZ
(Del. Ch., May 11, 2023) is a verified stockholder class action
complaint brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated current and former stockholders of Trident
Acquisitions, asserting claims for breach of fiduciary duty against
Defendants.
Trident was formed as a special purpose acquisition company --
commonly known as a "blank check company" or "SPAC" -- with the
sole purpose of "entering into a merger, share exchange, asset
acquisition, stock purchase, recapitalization, reorganization or
other similar business combination with one or more businesses or
entities." Following its initial public offering, Trident
concentrated on "oil and gas or other natural resources companies
in Eastern Europe or interested in expanding into Eastern Europe”
as potential SPAC targets -- an intuitive approach for a Board and
management team comprised of executives with energy and investment
banking backgrounds.
The complaint arises from the business combination between Trident
and AutoLotto, Inc. pursuant to a business combination agreement
executed on February 21, 2021. The transaction was unfair to
Trident's public stockholders including Plaintiff, reflecting an
unfair price and an unfair process, with material facts thereto
failing to be disclosed in the Oct. 18, 2021 proxy statement. With
an authority over the disclosures made to all stockholders, the
Officer Defendants knew that the disclosures were false and
misleading yet purposefully allowed such disclosures to be
promulgated to enhance the chances that the Transaction would be
approved, with minimal redemptions, says the suit.
Through the events and actions alleged herein, the Officer
Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Plaintiff by failing
to disclose key issues regarding Legacy Lottery to Trident's public
stockholders prior to the Transaction and by impairing their right
to make an informed decision regarding whether to redeem their
shares, the suit asserts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph L. Christensen, Esq.
CHRISTENSEN & DOUGHERTY LLP
1000 N. West Street, Suite 1200
Wilmington, DE 19801
- and -
Maxwell R. Huffman, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300
San Diego, CA 92101
- and -
Justin O. Reliford, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
The Helmsley Building
230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10169
- and -
Michael K. Yarnoff, Esq.
KEHOE LAW FIRM, P.C.
Two Penn Center Plaza
1500 JFK Blvd., Suite 1020
Philadelphia, PA 19102
TYRO PAYMENTS: Settles Class Suit Over January 2021 Extended Outage
-------------------------------------------------------------------
BankingDay reports that payments company Tyro has settled a class
action that came about as a result of an extended outage in January
2021. Close to 20 per cent of its merchant customers were fully
affected and another 10 per cent partially affected by a terminal
connectivity problem that went on for weeks. The Federal Court
approved a settlement on May 19. The terms of the settlement were
not disclosed and Tyro made no admission of liability. [GN]
U-HAUL INTERNATIONAL: Records Telephonic Communications, Klein Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
KAMREN KLEIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. U-HAUL INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 2:23-cv-03788 (C.D. Cal., May 17, 2023) arises out of the
Defendant's violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act.
The Defendant allegedly fails to disclose to Plaintiff that it is
recording telephonic communications at the outset of the call in or
about May 2023. As a result, Plaintiff brings this action on behalf
of himself and a class of all persons whose telephonic
communications were surreptitiously recorded by Defendant.
U-Haul International, Inc. is a Nevada corporation headquartered in
Phoenix, AZ. It is a moving and storage company that provides
trucks, trailers, and other moving rentals and services to
residential customers. Since its inception in 1945, U-Haul has
become one of the largest moving companies in California and
throughout the US. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
L. Timothy Fisher, 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: ltfisher@bursor.com
UPONOR INC: Sells Defective Polyethylene Tubing, Carrico Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN CARRICO; KACIE CARRICO; DON GATLIN; and DORA GATLIN;
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. UPONOR, INC.; UPONOR NORTH AMERICA, INC.; and DOES 1
through 100, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-00497 (M.D. Tenn., May
16, 2023) is a class action for damages in relation to the blue and
red colored cross-linked polyethylene tubing ("PEX") manufactured
and distributed by the Defendants which suffers from design and
manufacturing defects that cause premature damage, degradation,
deterioration, and failure (hereinafter "Uponor PEX").
According to the complaint, on 2021, the Defendants designed,
manufactured, advertised, marketed, distributed, and sold the
Uponor PEX, where the Defendants advertised that its Uponor PEX was
the highest quality PEX tubing available, and that its cross
chemical bonding process gave it "superior characteristics."
Contrary to the affirmative statements made by the Defendants the
Uponor PEX suffers from design and manufacturing defects causing
damage. Specifically, and as a result of such defects, the Uponor
PEX is predisposed to premature oxidative failure, micro cracking,
through wall cracking, leaks, loss of use, and other failure and
damages. These defects cause the Uponor PEX to crack, fail to
perform when put to its intended use, leak, and substantially
reduce its normal useful life, says the suit.
The Defendants failed to disclose this material information about
defects in Uponor PEX to the Plaintiffs, members of the Class, and
the public. The Defendants knew or should have known that Uponor
PEX was not suitable for use within water plumbing systems and that
Uponor PEX suffered from the defects and caused damages as alleged
herein.
UPONOR, INC. provides plumbing, indoor climate, and infrastructure
systems. The Company offers residential radiant floor heating,
commercial heating, residential plumbing, commercial plumbing,
residential fire safety, and pre-insulated pipes. Uponor operates
worldwide.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew J. Pulliam, Esq.
James C. Bradshaw III, Esq.
J. Graham Matherne, Esq.
Ann Weber Langley, Esq.
WYATT, TARRANT & COMBS, LLP
333 Commerce Street, Suite 1050
Nashville, TN37201
Telephone: (615) 244-0020
Facsimile: (615) 256-1726
Email: apulliam@wyattfirm.com
jbradshaw@wyattfirm.com
gmatherne@wyattfirm.com
alangley@wyattfirm.com
VERIDIAN GROUP: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Lopez Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS VASQUEZ LOPEZ, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VERIDIAN GROUP INC. and MICHAEL
MUSACCCHIO, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-03692 (E.D.N.Y., May 17,
2023) arises out of the Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, and the New York Labor Law Articles 6 and 19, and
the supporting New York State Department of Labor Regulations.
Plaintiff Lopez was employed by Defendants as a laborer from in or
2021 to in or about February 2023. Lopez and similarly situated
employees regularly worked Monday through Saturday, 6 days per
workweek or more than 40 hours in a single workweek. However, the
Defendants allegedly failed to pay Lopez and similarly situated
employees overtime at a rate not less than one and one-half times
their regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in
a single workweek in violation of the FLSA and NYLL.
Veridian Group Inc. is a domestic business corporation with a place
of business located at 1585 Smithtown Avenue, Bohemia, New York.
The company is engaged in landscape construction, including but not
limited to the installation of stone and masonry walkways, steps,
patios, and outdoor kitchens. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter A. Romero, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC
490 Wheeler Road, Suite 250
Hauppauge, NY 11788
Telephone: (631) 257-5588
E-mail: Promero@RomeroLawNY.com
WORKHORSE GROUP: Court Sets June 21 Settlement Hearing
------------------------------------------------------
NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF DERIVATIVE ACTION, PROPOSED AGREEMENT OF
SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE, AND SETTLEMENT HEARING
TO: ALL CURRENT RECORD HOLDERS AND BENEFICIAL OWNERS OF COMMON
STOCK OF WORKHORSE GROUP INC. ("WORKHORSE" OR THE "COMPANY") AS OF
APRIL 10, 2023 (THE "RECORD DATE") ("CURRENT WORKHORSE
STOCKHOLDERS").
PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. THIS NOTICE
RELATES TO A PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF IN RE WORKHORSE GROUP INC.
STOCKHOLDER DERIVATIVE LITIGATION, LEAD CASE NO. A-21-833050-B, A
SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTION, AND CONTAINS IMPORTANT INFORMATION
REGARDING YOUR RIGHTS. IF THE COURT APPROVES THE SETTLEMENT, YOU
WILL BE FOREVER BARRED FROM CONTESTING THE APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT AND FROM PURSUING THE "RELEASED CLAIMS," AS DEFINED
HEREIN.
THIS ACTION IS NOT A "CLASS ACTION." THUS, THERE IS NO COMMON FUND
UPON WHICH YOU CAN MAKE A CLAIM FOR A MONETARY PAYMENT
Notice is hereby provided to you of the proposed settlement (the
"Settlement") of this shareholder derivative lawsuit. This Notice
is provided by Order of the Eighth Judicial District Court of the
State of Nevada in and for Clark County (the "Court"). It is not an
expression of any opinion by the Court. It is to notify you of the
terms of the proposed Settlement, and your rights related thereto.
WHY THE COMPANY HAS ISSUED THIS NOTICE
On April 10, 2023, Workhorse, in its capacity as a nominal
defendant, as well as certain current and former officers and
directors of Workhorse who were named as individual defendants,
entered into a Stipulation of Settlement (the "Stipulation") in the
shareholder derivative action pending before the Court, styled In
Re Workhorse Group Inc. Stockholder Derivative Litigation, Lead
Case No. A-21-833050-B (the "Nevada State Court Action"). This
Stipulation also settles derivative actions pending in other
jurisdictions, including: (i) In re Workhorse Grp. Inc. Derivative
Litig., Lead Case No. 2:21-cv-04202-CJC-PVC (C.D. Cal.)
("California Demand Futility Action"); (ii) Cohen, et al. v.
Hughes, et al., No. 2:21-cv-08734-CJC-PVC (C.D. Cal.) ("California
Demand Refused Action"); (iii) Lomont, et al. v. Hughes, et al.,
No. 2:22-cv-00980-CDS-VCF (D. Nev.) ("Nevada Federal Court
Action"); and (iv) Abughazaleh v. Meehan, et al., No. A 2203019
(Ohio Ct. Common Pleas – Hamilton Cnty.) ("Ohio Action") and
Litigation Demands.
The terms of the Settlement are set forth fully in the Stipulation,
which can be viewed and downloaded at https://ir.workhorse.com/.
This Notice is a summary only and does not describe all of the
details of the Stipulation and terms of the Settlement. For full
details of the matters discussed in this Notice, please review the
Stipulation and visit https://ir.workhorse.com/.
On June 21, 2023, at 10:00 a.m. PDT, in Courtroom 16A of the
Regional Justice Center located at 200 Lewis Avenue, Las Vegas,
Nevada 89155, the Court will hold a hearing (the "Settlement
Hearing") in the Nevada State Court Action, either in person,
telephonically or via video. The purpose of the Settlement Hearing
is to determine: (i) whether the terms of the Settlement are fair,
reasonable, and adequate and should be approved; (ii) whether a
final judgment should be entered; (iii) whether to approve
Plaintiffs' application for their attorneys' fees and reimbursement
of expenses; and (iv) such other matters as may be necessary or
proper under the circumstances.
SUMMARY OF THE ACTION
On April 16, 2021, plaintiff Romario St. Clair filed a stockholder
derivative action in this Court on behalf of Workhorse and against
the Individual Defendants for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust
enrichment styled as St. Clair v. Hughes, et al., No. A-21-833050-B
(the "St. Clair Action"). On June 24, 2021, plaintiff Andre Everson
filed a shareholder derivative action in this Court on behalf of
Workhorse and against the Individual Defendants for breach of
fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, and unjust enrichment
styled as Everson v. Hughes, et al., No. A-21-836888-B (the
"Everson Action"). Several other stockholder derivative actions
were filed on behalf of Workhorse: (i) the California Demand
Futility Action (filed May 19, 2021); (ii) the California Demand
Refused Action (filed November 5, 2021); (iii) the Nevada Federal
Court Action (filed June 22, 2022); and (iv) the Ohio Action (filed
August 19, 2022).
On January 7, 2022, the Court signed an order that consolidated the
St. Clair Action and the Everson Action into this Nevada State
Court Action. In the same order, the Court appointed
the law firms Robbins LLP and Gainey McKenna & Egleston as Co-Lead
Counsel for the Nevada State Court Action and the law firms The
O'Mara Law Firm P.C. and Matthew L. Sharp, Ltd. as
Co-Liaison Counsel (collectively, with counsel for Plaintiffs in
the related derivative actions listed above, "Plaintiffs'
Counsel").
On January 24, 2022, the Consolidated Verified Stockholder
Derivative Complaint (the "Complaint") was filed alleging two
causes of action against the Individual Defendants: (1) breach of
fiduciary duty; and (2) unjust enrichment. The Complaint further
alleged that Workhorse suffered injury as a result of the
Individual Defendants' conduct.
On March 22, 2022, the Defendants filed motions to dismiss the
Complaint. On August 4, 2022, the Court held a hearing on the
motions. On August 23, 2022, the Court entered an order denying a
motion to dismiss the Complaint for failure to plead demand
futility, finding that the Complaint adequately alleged that a
pre-suit litigation demand on the Company's Board of Directors (the
"Board") would be futile. The Court further ordered that the Nevada
State Court Action should be temporarily stayed pending
developments in a related federal securities class action lawsuit,
captioned Farrar v. Workhorse Group, Inc., No. CV2102072CJCPVCX
(C.D. Cal.) (the "Securities Action").
SETTLEMENT
On April 10, 2023, the Plaintiffs5 and Defendants entered into the
Stipulation to resolve the Action.
Pursuant to the Stipulation, the Defendants shall cause Workhorse
to be paid $12.5 million by the Company's relevant Side A/B/C
Directors and Officers Liability Insurance policies.
PLAINTIFFS' ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES
After negotiating the financial recovery and the corporate
governance reforms, Plaintiffs' Counsel, the Company and
Defendants, began negotiating the attorneys' fees that Workhorse or
Defendants' insurance carrier(s) would pay to Plaintiffs' Counsel.
Those negotiations are ongoing. In the event agreement is not
reached, and in light of the substantial benefits secured for
Workhorse by Plaintiffs and their respective counsel in connection
with the Settlement and the litigation leading up to it,
Plaintiffs' Counsel have reserved the right to seek an aggregate
award from the Court of no more than $6.75 million for attorneys'
fees and expenses, subject to Court approval.
The aggregate award will include expenses not to exceed $150,000,
subject to Court approval. In addition, Plaintiffs' Counsel will
request the payment to Plaintiffs of service awards in an amount
not to exceed $3,000 each, subject to Court approval, which will be
funded from the Fee and Expense Award.
SETTLEMENT HEARING
On June 21, 2023, at 10:00 a.m. PDT, in Courtroom 16A of the
Regional Justice Center located at 200 Lewis Avenue, Las Vegas,
Nevada 89155, the Court will hold the Settlement Hearing. At the
Settlement Hearing, the Court will consider whether the terms of
the Settlement are fair, reasonable, and adequate and thus should
be finally approved, and whether the Action should be dismissed
with prejudice pursuant to the Stipulation.
RIGHT TO ATTEND SETTLEMENT HEARING
Any Current Workhorse Shareholder may, but is not required to,
appear in person at the Settlement Hearing. If you want to be heard
at the Settlement Hearing, then you must first comply with the
procedures for objecting, which are set forth below. The Court has
the right to change the hearing dates or times without further
notice. Thus, if you are planning to attend the Settlement Hearing,
you should confirm the date and time before going to the Court.
CURRENT WORKHORSE SHAREHOLDERS WHO HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THE
SETTLEMENT DO NOT NEED TO APPEAR AT THE SETTLEMENT HEARING OR TAKE
ANY OTHER ACTION.
RIGHT TO OBJECT TO SETTLEMENT AND PROCEDURES FOR DOING SO
You have the right to object to any aspect of the Settlement. You
must object in writing, and you may request to be heard at the
Settlement Hearing. If you choose to object, then you must
follow these procedures.
You Must Make Detailed Objections in Writing
Any objection must be presented in writing and must contain the
following information.
The Court may not consider any objection that does not
substantially include the following information:
(1) Your name, legal address, and telephone number;
(2) The case name and number (Workhorse Group Inc. Stockholder
Derivative Litigation, Lead Case No. A-21-833050-B);
(3) Proof of being a current Workhorse stockholder as of the
Record Date, April 10, 2023;
(4) The date(s) you acquired your Workhorse shares;
(5) A statement of your position regarding the matters to be
heard the Settlement Hearing, including the grounds for
each objection or the reasons you desire to appear and
be heard;
(6) Notice of whether you intend to appear at the Settlement
Hearing (though attendance is not required if you have
lodged your objection);
(7) Copies of any papers you intend to submit to the Court,
along with the names of any witness(es) you intent to call
to testify at the Settlement Hearing and the subject(s) of
any expected testimony;
(8) The identities of any cases, by name, court, and docket
number, in which the objector or his, her, or its attorney
has objected to a settlement in the last three years.
8.2 You Must Timely Deliver Written Objections to the Court,
Plaintiffs' Counsel, and Defendants' Counsel
YOUR WRITTEN OBJECTIONS MUST BE ON FILE WITH THE CLERK OF THE
COURT NO LATER THAN 20 CALENDAR DAYS BEFORE THE SETTLEMENT
HEARING.
The Court Clerk's Address is:
The Clerk of the Court,
Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada
in and for Clark County,
200 Lewis Avenue,
Las Vegas, NV 89155
YOU ALSO MUST DELIVER COPIES OF THE MATERIALS TO COUNSEL FOR
PLAINTIFFS AND COUNSEL FOR WORKHORSE SO THEY ARE RECEIVED NO LATER
THAN 20 CALENDAR DAYS BEFORE THE SETTLEMENT HEARING.
Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs:
ROBBINS LLP
BRIAN J. ROBBINS
STEPHEN J. ODDO
ERIC M. CARRINO
5060 Shoreham Place, Suite 300
San Diego, CA 92122
Telephone: (619) 525-3990
Facsimile: (619) 525-3991
GAINEY MCKENNA & EGLESTON
GREGORY M. EGLESTON
THOMAS J. McKENNA
501 Fifth Ave., 19th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 983-1300
Facsimile: (212) 983-0383
Attorneys for Nominal Defendant Workhorse Group Inc.:
MORRIS LAW GROUP
STEVE MORRIS
ROSA SOLIS-RAINEY
801 S. Rancho Drive, Suite B4
Las Vegas, NV 89106
Telephone: (702) 474-9400
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
JOHN P. STIGI III
BRIDGET RUSSELL
1901 Avenue of the Stars, 16th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 228-3700
Facsimile: (310) 228-3701
HOW TO OBTAIN MORE INFORMATION
This Notice summarizes the Settlement. It is not a complete
statement of the events of the Action, the Settlement, or the
Stipulation.
You may inspect the Stipulation and other papers in the Action at
the Clerk of the Court, Eighth Judicial District Court of the State
of Nevada in and for Clark County, 200 Lewis Ave, Las Vegas, NV
89155 at any time during regular business hours of each business
day. You may also visit https://ir.workhorse.com/
PLEASE DO NOT CALL, WRITE, OR OTHERWISE DIRECT QUESTIONS TO EITHER
THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE. Any questions you have about
matters in this Notice should be directed by telephone to Gregory
Egleston at (212) 983-1300 or in writing to Gainey McKenna &
Egleston, 501 Fifth Ave., 19th Floor, New York, New York 10017.
DATED: APRIL 21, 2023
BY ORDER OF THE COURT DISTRICT COURT OF NEVADA CLARK COUNTY
YOUTUBE LLC: Court Denies Schneider Bid for Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
Raha Ali of Digital Music News reports in the long-running David
vs. Goliath courtroom confrontation, Goliath scored another win.
Federal Judge James Donato ruled in favor of YouTube, writing,
"Every copyright claim turns upon facts which are particular to
that single claim of infringement. Every copyright claim is also
subject to defenses that require their own individualized
inquiries."
With a trial date set for June 12, attorneys for Schneider had
urged the Judge to let the case proceed as a class action, claiming
that the class would include at least 10,000 to 20,000 aggrieved
copyright owners. "A class action is the superior method through
which YouTube's participation in, and facilitation of copyright
infringement, can be held to account."
But in May 22, 2023 ruling, Judge Donato said the claims against
YouTube would require "highly individualized inquiries into the
merits," adding, "Whether YouTube has a license for a particular
work will be a matter of intense inquiry at trial. The answer to
this inquiry will depend upon facts and circumstances unique to
each work and copyright claimant."
The now highly-publicized courtroom battle began in July 2020.
Grammy-winning composer Maria Schneider had alleged -- among other
things -- that YouTube had denied 'ordinary' copyright owners like
her full access to Content ID, thereby exposing her works to repeat
infringement.
Her lawsuit claimed that YouTube is a 'known hotbed of copyright
piracy,' and even though it has developed a premier anti-piracy
tool, Content ID, the platform denies copyright owners 'without
economic clout' access to it.
YouTube denied any wrongdoing, claiming it spent 'over $100 million
to pioneer industry-leading copyright management tools' to prevent
piracy. The video-sharing platform argued that access to Content ID
is limited because these tools could cause 'serious harm' in the
wrong hands.
As long as content is being monetized properly, the battle for
users is less relevant to artists. On that front, companies like
Identify (owned by HAAWK) are focused on assisting creators to
match and monetize their content across Facebook, Instagram, and
YouTube using Content ID, regardless of the specific sub-platform.
The last biggest development in the case occurred in January when
Youtube won partial summary judgment against Maria Schneider for 27
of the works that Schneider originally claimed had been infringed
upon, citing a lack of evidence.
Although May 22, 2023 order doesn't conclude the proceedings, the
ruling is another twist that tilts the courtroom drama in favor of
YouTube. The case will now proceed to trial solely based on
copyrights owned by Schneider and two other plaintiffs (Uniglobe
Entertainment and AST Publishing). The trial date is set for June
12. [GN]
*********
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 ***