/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230623.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, June 23, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 126 Headlines 48-11 VERNON BLVD: Arias Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ADDMOTOR TECH: Espinal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Haley Sues Over Deceptive Discount Scheme ALTAIS BROWN: Vaccaro Suit Removed to C.D. California AMAZON.COM INC: Bid for Dismissal in Floyd Class Suit Denied AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Izzo Can't Depose Munoz in Stockholder Suit AMERISAVE MORTGAGE: Avoki Files Suit in W.D. North Carolina APPLE INC: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Floyd Antitrust Suit ARAMARK SERVICES: Baylon Suit Removed to C.D. California BAKER TILLY: Dismissal Bid in Kamal Fraud Suit Granted BANKUNITED NA: Regan Suit Removed to N.D. Indiana BANNER HEALTH: Fails to Protect Patients' Info, McCulley Says BARCLAYS PLC: Baker Sues Over Exchange Act Violation BEIGENE LTD: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims BP EXPLORATION: Haynes Claims in B3 Case Dismissed With Prejudice BRIAN BIRKHOLZ: Trinh Files Suit in C.D. California BUDGET INNS: Bids for Class Certification Due Dec. 15 CALCHEF FOODS LLC: Lee Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CANARSIE MARKET: Faces Herrera Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. CAPITA PLC: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Data Breach CARNEGIE VALET: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, De Jesus Alleges CARNIVAL CORPORATION: Rubridge Suit Transferred to S.D. California CHEWY INC: Hernandez Sues Over Illegal Collection of Private Info COACH USA: Ayers Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois COHBAR INC: Juan Monteverde Investigates Clayton Dubilier Sale COMPUTER GENERATED: Settles FCRA Class Action for $517,000 COOPER INTERCONNECT: Ott Suit Removed to C.D. California COPALA INC: Nebieridze Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages CREDIT SUISSE: $73.95MM Class Settlement to be Heard on August 23 CREDIT SUISSE: Faces Class Suit Over RICO Violations CRUNCHBASE INC: Madrenas Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois DAN FITZGERALD: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Carmichael Alleges DAVID CARMILI: Faces Roma Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. DELTA AIR: Agrees to Settle Class Suit Over Cancelled Flights DESKTOP METAL: Building Trades Sues Over Poison Pill Adoption DISCOUNT POWER: Faces Smith Suit Over Telemarketing Calls DISH NETWORK: Garza Files Suit in D. Colorado DISH NETWORK: Vest Files Suit in D. Colorado DISTRICT PSYCHOTHERAPY: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York DOUYU INTERNATIONAL: Fernandez Sues Over 9.33% Share Price Drop DREAMFIELDS INC: Dovel & Luner Files Class Action Over THC Content DSW SHOE WAREHOUSE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Carter Alleges DZS INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due August 14 EL MILAGRO: Ruiz Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages EMORY UNIVERSITY: Class Action Over COVID-Related Closures Okayed EQUITYEXPERTS.ORG LLC: Court Narrows Claims in Lewis Class Suit EQUITYEXPERTS.ORG LLC: Court Narrows Claims in Lewis Consumer Suit EVERLYWELL INC: Spiro Files Suit in C.D. California FIRST HORIZON: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment July 21 FLIFF INC: Engages in Online Sports Gambling, Nessim Alleges FLIFF INC: Faces $5M Suit Over Illegal Sports Betting Practices FORMAN MILLS: Faces WARN Class Action Suit Over Mass Layoffs FRAME MY TV.COM: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York FUTU HOLDINGS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due August 11 GCM L.L.C.: Cain Files Suit in N.D. Georgia GENERAC POWER: Locatell Sues Over Defective Solar Panels GOOGLE INC: Agrees to Settle Google Referrer Header Class Action GOOGLE LLC: CCIA Files Amicus Brief in Google Play Class Action GORES HOLDINGS: Faces Class Action Over 2021 UWM Merger GRECIAN POOLS: Faces Reyes Suit Over Laborers' Unpaid Wages GROW CARE INC: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York HARU INVEST: Investors Prepares Class Suits for Illegal Charges HARVARD MEDICAL: Keches Law Files Class Action Over Morgue Scandal HARVARD PILGRIM: Faces Four Data Breach Class Action Suits HEADOUT INC: Reid Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York HOME PARTNERS: Class Cert Expert Disclosures Extended to August 15 HORNBLOWER CRUISES: Bid to Partially Dismiss Shaw TAC Tossed HORNBLOWER CRUISES: Loses Bid for Partial Dismissal of Shaw Suit HYUNDAI MOTOR: Sued Over Defective Tow Hitch Wiring Harness Module INTEGRATED DNA: Collins Suit Removed to S.D. California J.M. SMUCKER: Averts Class Action Video Viewer Info Sharing JBS USA: Settles Antitrust Class Action for $25 Million JIMMY G CONSTRUCTION: Faces Tzilin Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. JONES LANG LASALLE: Ramirez Suit Removed to N.D. California LAA CONSTRUCTION: Arevalo Sues Over Unpaid Compensations LABORATORY CORPORATION: Discloses Private Info, Howard et al. Claim LELE SADOUGHI: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York LENOVO INC: Lucero Sues Over Defective Legion Desktops LIFE STORAGE: Juan Monteverde Investigates Extra Space Merger LMS INTELLIBOUND: Bid to Enforce Settlement in Kutzback Suit Denied LOS ANGELES, CA: Larocque Suit Removed to C.D. California LOS PERICOS: Manuyco Sues Over Wrongful Termination MAINS'L CALIFORNIA: Linoz Files Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices MALIBU BEACH: Baeza Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. MALLINCKRODT PLC: Can't Be Named as Putative Class Action Defendant MANAGEMENT & TRAINING: Mitchell Suit Removed to C.D. California MAP COMMUNICATIONS: Brutout's $380K Class Settlement Has Prelim. OK MAP COMMUNICATIONS: Settlement Class Gets Conditional Certification MARATHON REFINING: Butel Suit Removed to C.D. California MARQUETTE MANAGEMENT: Mohamed Suit Removed to D. Minnesota MATCH GROVE: Baker Suit Transferred to Northern District of Texas MIDLAND FUNDING: Church's Bid to Vacate Arbitration Award Denied NA & SANG: Fails to Pay Packers, Cleaners' OT Wages, Moranchel Says NATION'S HEALTH: Lawson Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida NORTH CAROLINA: $725K Class Deal in Franklin v. Kinsley Approved OAKHURST INDUSTRIES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Castro Alleges OLYMPIA BEACON SQUARE: Peters Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct. PACIFICORP: Jury Awards $17MM in Punitive Damages in Wildfire Suit PARATEK PHARMA: Juan Monteverde Investigates Gurnet Point Merger PIZZA LUCE: Fails to Pay Delivery Drivers' Minimum Wages Under FLSA PROVIDENCE PLACE: Ira Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. PROXIMO SPIRITS: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York PRUDENTIAL PLC: Rosen Law Firm Probes Potential Securities Claims PRUVIT VENTURES: Lozano Sues Over Deceptive Product Labeling PURE GREEN NYC: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York REPUBLIC SERVICES: Bids for Class Certification Due Dec. 15 RESPONDUS INC: $6.25MM Class Settlement to be Heard on August 31 SADKME CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay Workers' OT Wages, Pesantez Says SAFEWAY INC: Faces Class Suit Over Buy Get One Free Promotions SAVE MART: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Goodwin Suit Alleges SEAFON INC: Fails to Pay Cooks' OT Wages Under FLSA, Roman Alleges SHIELDS HEALTH CARE: Johnson Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct. SHYFT GROUP: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Gray Suit Claims SIDEARM SPORTS: Faces Class Action Over VPPA Violations SKYFINE USA: Gonzales Files Suit in D. Utah SOUTHTOWNE MOTORS: Abeles Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wage STATE FARM: Confidentiality Designations in Wiggins Suit Confirmed SUGARED + BRONZED: Bunting Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York SYNEOS HEALTH: Juan Monteverde Investigates Proposed Elliot Sale T-MOBILE US: Clark Suit Transferred to W.D. Missouri T-MOBILE US: Dollson Suit Transferred to W.D. Missouri T-MOBILE US: Fails to Protect Customers' Info, Gonzalez Suit Says TASTEMAKERS LLC: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York TD BANK: Dou Suit Transferred to S.D. New York TDC SPECIALTY: Denial of Non-Joinder Exception in Anderson Affirmed THERMO TECH: Lopez Loses Bid for Conditional Status of Collective TINGO GROUP: Bloedorn Sues Over 48% Drop in Share Price TINGO GROUP: Faces Arbour Suit Over Drop in Share Price TRANSAMERICA PREMIER: Hearing on Bid for Class Cert Set for Nov. 2 TRIPLEPOINT VENTURE: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Naming Due Aug. 15 UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Settles Equal Pay, Harassment Suit for $10M UNILEVER UNITED: Berkley Sues Over Mislabeled Deodorant Products VALERO SERVICES: Hess Suit Removed to C.D. California VONS COMPANIES: Al-Kudsy Suit Removed to S.D. California WALMART INC: Ayala-Bland Sues Over Losses Incurred Due to Fraud WALMART INC: Lozano Sues Over Mislabeled Cereal Bar Products WEST TECHNOLOGY: Interim Co-Lead Counsel Named in Pulliam Suit WINMARK CORPORATION: Alexandria Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York WIPRO LIMITED: Bid to Bifurcate Discovery in MaClean Suit Denied XIXA LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Gil Suit Alleges YDW PRODUCE: Juarez Sues Over Labor Law Violations Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graham Corp. Faces Product Liability Claims ********* 48-11 VERNON BLVD: Arias Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------- Claudio Arias and Eugenio Flores Montiel, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. 48-11 VERNON BLVD. REST., INC. (D/B/A SLICE LIC) and ANTHONY PEREZ, Case No. 1:23-cv-04285 (E.D.N.Y., June 10, 2023), is brought for unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), and for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law (the "NYLL"), and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York Commissioner of Labor codified at (herein the "Spread of Hours Wage Order"), including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiffs worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate overtime and spread of hours compensation for the hours that they worked. Rather, Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay Plaintiffs appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. Further, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which they had to work over 10 hours a day. Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring Plaintiffs and other employees to work in excess of 40 hours per week without providing the overtime compensation required by federal and state law and regulations, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed as a pizza maker and a food preparer at the pizzeria. The Defendants own, operate, or control pizzeria, located in Long Island City, New York, under the name "Slice LIC."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Catalina Sojo, Esq. CSM LEGAL, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 ADDMOTOR TECH: Espinal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Addmotor Tech. The case is styled as Frangie Espinal, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Addmotor Tech, Case No. 1:23-cv-04857 (S.D.N.Y., June 8, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Addmotor -- https://www.addmotor.com/ -- is an ebike store making the joy of cycling accessible by offering the best electric bike & electric trike, USA shipping, fast arrival.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Haley Sues Over Deceptive Discount Scheme --------------------------------------------------------------- CALEB HALEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALBERTSONS COMPANIES, INC.; and SAFEWAY, INC., Defendants, Case 1:23-cv-02811-RMI (N.D. Cal., June 7, 2023) is a class action by the Plaintiff and the Class who overpaid for products offered by the Defendant as part of a Buy One, Get One Free," or "Buy One, Get Two Free" (collectively "BOGO") promotion. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that when Safeway stores offer grocery items under BOGO promotions, they raise the regular retail price of the BOGO grocery products, so that consumers pay substantially more for the first product to cover the cost of the second product that Safeway claims is "free." As a result, consumers making purchases under these promotions do not get a free product. Instead, they pay more for the product and buy more of the product than they otherwise would to obtain the illusory "free" product. These "free" sales are unlawful, unfair, or deceptive practices under California's Unfair Competition Law and are impermissible under California's False Advertising Law, says the suit. ALBERTSONS COMPANIES, INC. retails food and drugs products. The Company distributes fruits, vegetables, canned items, medicines, and other related goods. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Beth E. Terrell, Esq. TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC 936 North 34th Street, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98103-8869 Telephone: (206) 816-6603 Facsimile: (206) 319-5450 Email: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com - and - Sophia M. Rios, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 401 B Street, Suite 2000 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 489-0300 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 Email: srios@bm.net ALTAIS BROWN: Vaccaro Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Dave Vaccaro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Altais, Brown & Toland Physician Services Organization, LLC, Does 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 22STCV333714 was removed from the Los Angeles Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on June 8, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-04513 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. Sunnova -- https://www.sunnova.com/ -- is a leading national residential solar company.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Plaintiff is represented by: James Maxwell Cooper, Esq. KESSENICK GAMMA LLP 1 Post Street Suite 2500 San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: (415) 568-2015 Fax: (415) 362-9401 Email: mcooper@kessenick.com AMAZON.COM INC: Bid for Dismissal in Floyd Class Suit Denied ------------------------------------------------------------ Mike Scarcella of Reuters reports that Apple (AAPL.O) and Amazon.com (AMZN.O) must face a consumer antitrust lawsuit in U.S. court accusing them of conspiring to artificially inflate the price of iPhones and iPads sold on Amazon's platform, a federal judge in Seattle ruled on June 8, 2023. In his ruling, U.S. District Judge John Coughenour rejected bids from Apple and Amazon to dismiss the prospective class action on various legal grounds. Coughenour said the "validity" of the relevant market, a central issue in antitrust litigation, was a question for a jury. The lawsuit, filed in November, is among several private and government actions challenging Amazon's online price practices. Coughenour's ruling means the case will move forward to evidence-gathering and other pretrial proceedings. Lawyers for Apple and Amazon and representatives for the companies did not immediately respond to requests for comment on June 9, 2023. Steve Berman, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, called the court's ruling "a major win for consumers of Apple phones and iPads." The plaintiffs are U.S. residents who bought new iPhones and iPads on Amazon beginning in January 2019. They contend an agreement between Apple and Amazon that went into effect that year restricted the number of competitive resellers in violation of antitrust provisions. In 2018, according to the lawsuit, there were some 600 third-party Apple resellers on Amazon. Apple agreed to give Amazon a discount on its products if Amazon reduced the number of Apple resellers from its marketplace, the lawsuit alleged. Apple has argued that its agreement with Amazon limited the number of authorized resellers to help minimize counterfeit Apple goods being sold on the e-commerce platform. In a court filing, Apple's attorneys called the agreement "commonplace" and said the "Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit have routinely recognized that such agreements are procompetitive and lawful." The judge in Seattle said "countervailing" motivations for the agreement between Apple and Amazon would be addressed later in the litigation. Apple recorded $94.8 billion in sales in the second quarter, and Amazon reported $127.4 billion in its most recent quarterly earnings report. The complaint seeks unspecified triple damages and other relief. The case is Steven Floyd v Amazon.com Inc and Apple Inc, U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, No. 2:22-cv-01599-JCC. [GN] AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Izzo Can't Depose Munoz in Stockholder Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, In re AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, Consol. Civil Action No. 2023-0215-MT (Del. Ch.), Judge Morgan T. Zurn of the Court of Chancery of Delaware: a. held in abeyance the Combined Motion by Counsel to Withdraw its Appearance on behalf of Plaintiff Usbaldo Munoz and Motion by Lead Plaintiffs Allegheny County Employees' Retirement System and Anthony Franchi to Dismiss Lead Plaintiff Usbaldo Munoz; and b. denied Rose Izzo's Cross-Motion for Extension of Time and Permission to Notice Deposition. Judge Zurn addresses the Combined Motion and Izzo's Response to Combined Motion and Cross-Motion. Izzo's counsel entered their appearances on May 19 and 22, 2023. In that span, the Court adopted the Special Master's report and recommendation granting certain objectors' motions for the discovery record and approved the method of dissemination; and Izzo obtained access to the discovery database. On May 20, 2023, Izzo's counsel inquired after Munoz's affidavit referenced in the Plaintiffs' May 4 opening brief in support of the settlement. The Plaintiffs' brief cited and invoked affidavits under Court of Chancery Rule 23 from the three lead plaintiffs; the brief appended affidavits from the other two lead plaintiffs, but not from Munoz. The Plaintiffs' counsel did not respond to Izzo's counsel. On May 26, 2023, the Plaintiffs' counsel filed the Combined Motion. They did not serve Izzo's counsel. On May 28, 2023, Izzo filed a letter indicating her opposition to the Combined Motion. The next day, Memorial Day, Izzo filed her opposition to the Combined Motion and her own Cross-Motion seeking a three-day extension to submit her objection to the settlement, and an opportunity to depose Munoz. The parties promptly filed their responses and Izzo filed a reply. First, Judge Zurn addresses Izzo's request to depose Munoz. Izzo seeks to depose Munoz to determine why he has decided not to continue to litigate and investigate whether Munoz has changed his position on the proposed Settlement. Izzo estimates that if the proposed settlement is approved, Munoz is the only lead plaintiff who will suffer a financial loss that will not be offset by the requested incentive fee, speculates he may no longer support the settlement, and concludes that the class has a right to know if that is so. For their part, the remaining Plaintiffs submitted an affidavit from counsel explaining their counsel have not received any communication from Munoz since May 20, 2023, and that Munoz has not responded to multiple text messages, phone calls, and emails regarding his continued participation in this litigation. The counsel assert they do not know why Munoz is not responding but believes he has essentially withdrawn due to being the subject of online attack, evinced by a series of online posts attached to their reply. They represent that Munoz supported the settlement when it was agreed upon and has never expressed any opposition to it to them. Judge Zurn finds that Izzo is not entitled to explore Munoz's absence after he agreed to the settlement. He says none of the topics are relevant to the good faith negotiation of the settlement terms or the competency of the settlement. Even if Munoz now believes the settlement to be a bad deal, he would be free to object, and the lead counsel could still present the settlement on behalf of the other lead plaintiffs. Moreover, Izzo's request that all objectors be given an extra three days to file objections is denied. Judge Zurn says an extension would push back the briefing schedule and ultimately reduce the time the Special Master and Court must consider objections and would muddy the guidance the Court has provided to the class. Izzo's regret that her work led to a dead end does not support those consequences. Finally, the Combined Motion will be held in abeyance pending notice to Munoz and an opportunity for him to be heard. Munoz went silent only 11 days ago and the Plaintiffs' counsel has not explained why it must terminate representation at this moment. The Plaintiffs' counsel should file an updated certificate of service reflecting service on Munoz. A full-text copy of the Court's May 31, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/343y7e56 from Leagle.com. AMERISAVE MORTGAGE: Avoki Files Suit in W.D. North Carolina ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against AMERISAVE Mortgage, et al. The case is styled as Francisco K. Avoki, Ekoko K. Avoki, individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. AMERISAVE Mortgage, Freddie Mac, XXX-Does and Unknown, Case No. 3:23-cv-00342-GCM (W.D.N.C., June 8, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Truth in Lending. AmeriSave -- https://www.amerisave.com/ -- is an online lender that originates loans in 49 states and Washington, D.C.[BN] The Plaintiffs appear pro se. APPLE INC: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Floyd Antitrust Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Scarcella of Reuters reports that Apple (AAPL.O) and Amazon.com (AMZN.O) must face a consumer antitrust lawsuit in U.S. court accusing them of conspiring to artificially inflate the price of iPhones and iPads sold on Amazon's platform, a federal judge in Seattle ruled on June 8, 2023. In his ruling, U.S. District Judge John Coughenour rejected bids from Apple and Amazon to dismiss the prospective class action on various legal grounds. Coughenour said the "validity" of the relevant market, a central issue in antitrust litigation, was a question for a jury. The lawsuit, filed in November, is among several private and government actions challenging Amazon's online price practices. Coughenour's ruling means the case will move forward to evidence-gathering and other pretrial proceedings. Lawyers for Apple and Amazon and representatives for the companies did not immediately respond to requests for comment on June 9, 2023. Steve Berman, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, called the court's ruling "a major win for consumers of Apple phones and iPads." The plaintiffs are U.S. residents who bought new iPhones and iPads on Amazon beginning in January 2019. They contend an agreement between Apple and Amazon that went into effect that year restricted the number of competitive resellers in violation of antitrust provisions. In 2018, according to the lawsuit, there were some 600 third-party Apple resellers on Amazon. Apple agreed to give Amazon a discount on its products if Amazon reduced the number of Apple resellers from its marketplace, the lawsuit alleged. Apple has argued that its agreement with Amazon limited the number of authorized resellers to help minimize counterfeit Apple goods being sold on the e-commerce platform. In a court filing, Apple's attorneys called the agreement "commonplace" and said the "Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit have routinely recognized that such agreements are procompetitive and lawful." The judge in Seattle said "countervailing" motivations for the agreement between Apple and Amazon would be addressed later in the litigation. Apple recorded $94.8 billion in sales in the second quarter, and Amazon reported $127.4 billion in its most recent quarterly earnings report. The complaint seeks unspecified triple damages and other relief. The case is Steven Floyd v Amazon.com Inc and Apple Inc, U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, No. 2:22-cv-01599-JCC. [GN] ARAMARK SERVICES: Baylon Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jose Baylon and Christian Gutierrez, individuals, on behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated, and the general public v. ARAMARK SERVICES, INC. and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV04307 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on June 8, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-04510. The Plaintiff alleges eight causes of action for: Failure to Pay Wages; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Pay Reporting Time Pay; Failure to Furnish Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; Failure to Indemnify Expenses; Violation of Labor Code section 203; Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy (on behalf of Plaintiff Jose Baylon); and Unfair Business Practices.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Eric Meckley, Esq. Sarah Zenewicz, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP One Market Spear Street Tower San Francisco, CA 94105-1596 Phone: +1.415.442.1000 Fax: +1.415.442.1001 Email: eric.meckley@morganlewis.com sarah.zenewicz@morganlewis.com - and - Michelle L. Quach, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1400 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304 Phone: +1.650.843.4000 Fax: +1.650.843.4001 Email: michelle.quach@morganlewis.com BAKER TILLY: Dismissal Bid in Kamal Fraud Suit Granted ------------------------------------------------------ Greene Espel reports that Judge Michael J. Davis for the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota recently issued an order granting a complete dismissal with prejudice of all claims asserted against our client, Deloitte & Touche LLP, in a putative class action lawsuit, Kamal v. Baker Tilly US, LLP. From 2016, Deloitte served as auditor of Aspirity Holdings, a retail energy company that filed for bankruptcy in 2017. Aspirity's unpaid noteholders brought a putative class action asserting claims of negligent misrepresentation, aiding and abetting fraud, and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty against Deloitte and Aspirity's prior auditor, Baker Tilly. Judge Davis held that a plaintiff generally can't base such a claim on unaudited quarterly financial statements. In dismissing plaintiffs' negligent misrepresentation claim against Deloitte, Judge Davis specifically found that plaintiffs had failed to allege that Deloitte was the source of any false information in the unaudited quarterly financial statements. The Court's ruling is generally consistent with the treatment of unaudited quarterly reports under federal securities laws. Judge Davis also dismissed plaintiffs' aiding and abetting claims against Deloitte, holding that these claims belonged to the audit client (not to investors). As the audit client was bankrupt in this case, only the bankruptcy trustee could pursue the claims. Judge Davis also dismissed plaintiffs' aiding and abetting claims on merits, reaffirming the high bar for asserting such claims against auditors and other professionals. Greene Espel was honored to represent Deloitte, and we are proud of the exceptional result for our client. [GN] BANKUNITED NA: Regan Suit Removed to N.D. Indiana ------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Edward P. Regan, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. BankUnited N.A., Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC, Mortgage Contracting Services, LLC, Case No. 37D01-2304-CT-000317 was removed from the Jasper Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana on June 9, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:23-cv-00047 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit. BankUnited N.A. -- https://ir.bankunited.com/ -- operates as a bank. The Bank accepts deposits of current, saving, and recurring accounts, as well as offers loan facility to the investors and customers.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendants are represented by: Lindsay Llewellyn, Esq. Gregory A. Neibarger, Esq. DENTONS BINGHAM GREENEBAUM LLP - IND/IN 2700 Market Tower 10 W Market St. Indianapolis, IN 46204 Phone: (317) 968-5442 Email: lindsay.llewellyn@dentons.com greg.neibarger@dentons.com - and - Michael A. Dorelli, Esq. HOOVER HULL TURNER LLP 111 Monument Cir Ste 4400 PO Box 44989 Indianapolis, IN 46204-0989 Phone: (317) 822-4400 Fax: (317) 822-0234 BANNER HEALTH: Fails to Protect Patients' Info, McCulley Says ------------------------------------------------------------- Cheryl McCulley, Rebecca Blount, Cindy Freriks, Jill Schreidl, John Schreidl, and Demetria Ann Santiago-Laboy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Banner Health, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-00985-SPL (D. Ariz., June 1, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for common law invasion of privacy-intrusion upon seclusion, breach of confidence, and for violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the California Invasion of Privacy Act, the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, the Unfair Competition Law, the Florida Security of Communications Act, and the Colorado Consumer Protection Act. This case concerns a very serious breach of Banner's data privacy and security obligations as it installed certain tracking technologies on its digital properties to collect and to disclose to unauthorized third parties Plaintiffs' and Class Members' personally identifiable information and non-public personal health information for its own pecuniary gain. According to the complaint, Banner breached confidentiality and violated Plaintiffs' (as well as millions of other users') privacy when it unilaterally chose to embed the Pixel and other tracking technologies to share Private Information with third parties. Any representation by Defendant in its Banner Health Privacy Statement that it does not use Pixels is false, deceptive and misleading. As a result of Defendant's conduct, Plaintiffs and class members have suffered numerous injuries, including: (i) invasion of privacy; (ii) lost time and opportunity costs associated with attempting to mitigate the actual consequences of the Pixel; (iii) emotional distress and heightened concerns related to the release of Private Information to third parties; (iv) loss of the benefit of the bargain; (v) diminution of value of the Private Information; (vi) statutory damages and (vii) continued and ongoing risk to their Private Information. The Plaintiffs are Defendant's website and web-based patient account users who utilize web properties to search for a doctor, review medical conditions, treatments, and test results, and make appointments to visit healthcare providers. Banner Health is a non-profit health care system that offers hospital care, hospice care, nursing, surgical, laboratory and rehabilitation services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Hart L. Robinovitch, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 14646 North Kierland Blvd., Suite 145 Scottsdale, AZ 85254 Telephone: (480) 348-6400 Facsimile: (480) 348-6415 E-mail: hart.robinovitch@zimmreed.com - and - David S. Almeida, Esq. Elena A. Belov, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 849 W. Webster Avenue Chicago, IL 60614 Telephone: (312) 576-3024 E-mail: david@almeidalawgroup.com elena@almeidalawgroup.com BARCLAYS PLC: Baker Sues Over Exchange Act Violation ---------------------------------------------------- Kenny Baker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BARCLAYS PLC, BARCLAYS BANK PLC, JAMES E STALEY, C.S. VENKATAKRISHNAN, TUSHAR MORZARIA, STEVEN EWART, TIM THROSBY, ANNA CROSS, NIGEL HIGGINS, ALEX THURSBY, HELEN KEELAN, HÉLÈNE VLETTER-VAN DORT, JEREMY SCOTT, and MARIA RICHTER, Case No. 1:23-cv-04881 (S.D.N.Y., June 11, 2023), is brought is a federal securities class action alleging claims against Barclays and certain of its officers and directors (collectively "Defendants") for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and for violations of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") on behalf of a class (the "Class"), of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Barclays Bank PLC iPath Series B S&P 500 VIX Short-Term Futures ETN ("VXX") during the period of February 21, 2019 through September 19, 2022, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). BPLC, through its subsidiary BBPLC, is the issuer of the iPath Series B S&P 500 VIX Short-Term Futures ETN, an exchange-traded note ("ETN") designed to provide exposure to the S&P 500 VIX Short-Term Futures Index Total Return (the "Index"). On March 28, 2018, BBPLC filed an amended registration statement for over $21.3 billion (the "2018 Shelf") worth of securities, including VXX. On June 14, 2019, BBPLC filed a registration statement registering an additional $20.7 billion worth of securities, including VXX, that could be sold over the ensuing three years (the "2019 Shelf"). BBPLC 2018 Annual Report on Form 20-F, filed with the SEC on February 21, 2019 ("2018 BBPLC 20-F"), BBPLC 2019 Annual Report on Form 20-F, filed with the SEC on February 14, 2020 ("2019 BBPLC 20-F"), BBPLC 2020 Annual Report on Form 20-F, filed with the SEC on February 18, 2021 ("2020 BBPLC 20-F"), and BBPLC 2021 Annual Report on Form 20-F, filed with the SEC on February 23, 2022 ("2021 BBPLC 20-F"), which were incorporated by reference into the 2019 Shelf Registration Statement, represented to investors that BBPLC's internal controls over financial reporting were effective. BPLC 2018 Annual Report on Form 20-F, filed with the SEC on February 21, 2019 ("2018 BPLC 20-F"), BPLC 2019 Annual Report on Form 20-F, filed with the SEC on February 13, 2020 ("2019 BPLC 20-F"), BPLC 2020 Annual Report on Form 20-F, filed with the SEC on February 18, 2021 ("2020 BPLC 20-F"), and BPLC 2021 Annual Report on Form 20-F, filed with the SEC on February 23, 2022 ("2021 BPLC 20-F"), further informed investors that Barclays' internal controls over financial reporting were effective. However, the statements in the above referenced filings were materially false and misleading, or failed to disclose material information necessary to make statements in the 2019 Shelf Registration and Forms 20-F not misleading, in violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act (and Rule 10b-5), and in violation of Sections 5, 11, and 12(a) of the Securities Act. As Barclays has since admitted, at the end of the Class Period, Barclays had a material weakness in its internal controls over financial reporting, as evidenced by the fact that Barclays issued and sold approximately $17.64 billion in unregistered securities over and above the maximum amount of securities registered in the 2018 and 2019 Shelf Registrations, the over- issuance was not timely discovered, and a subsequent recission offer made by Barclays could not be carried out effectively. Given the potential exposure to the securities laws and legal liability from the issuance of unregistered securities, the failure to have controls in place to account for the number of securities issued against the number of securities registered is such an elementary failure of internal control that is so obvious as to be deliberately reckless, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased VXX ETNs on the Chicago Board Options Exchange ("CBOE"), during the Class Period. BPLC is a British universal bank, offering consumer banking and payments services in the United Kingdom, United States, and Europe, as well as global corporate and investment banking services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. Timothy J. MacFall, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. Vincent A. Licata, Esq. RIGRODSKY LAW, P.A. 825 East Gate Boulevard, Suite 300 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 683-3516 Email: sdr@rl-legal.com tjm@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com vl@rl-legal.com - and - Alan L. Rosca, Esq. ROSCA SCARLATO LLC 2000 Auburn Drive, Suite 200 Beachwood, OH 44122 Phone: (216) 946-7070 Email: arosca@rscounsel.law - and - Paul Scarlato, Esq. Kathryn Weidner, Esq. 161 Washington Street, Suite 1025 Conshohocken, PA 19428 Email: pscarlato@rscounsel.law kweidner@rscounsel.law BEIGENE LTD: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on June 17 announced an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of BeiGene, Ltd. (NASDAQ: BGNE) resulting from allegations that BeiGene may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. SO WHAT: If you purchased BeiGene securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=17184 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On June 15, 2023, before the market opened, Morningstar released an article entitled "BeiGene shares drop after AbbVie unit files patent infringement lawsuit over cancer drug." The article stated, in pertinent part, "AbbVie's (ABBV) Pharmacyclics unit filed a patent-infringement lawsuit against the biotech company. BeiGene's manufacture and sale of Brukinsa for treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia and small lymphocytic lymphoma infringe on Pharmacyclics' patent for Imbruvica, which treats the same conditions, Pharmacyclics alleged in the complaint filed on June 13 in federal court in Delaware. Brukinsa in January received U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval for treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia and small lymphocytic lymphoma." On this news, the price of BeiGene American Depositary Shares ("ADS" or "ADSs") declined by $7.08, or 3.4%, to close at $201.04. The next day, BeiGene ADS' declined by as much as $5.3, or 2.65%, in intraday trading. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] BP EXPLORATION: Haynes Claims in B3 Case Dismissed With Prejudice ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ALMETIS HAYNES v. B.P. EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL, SECTION "R" (1), Civil Action No. 17-4350 (E.D. La.), Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana grants BP Exploration & Production, Inc., BP America Production Co., and BP p.l.c.'s unopposed motion for summary judgment and dismisses the Plaintiff's complaint. The case arises from the Plaintiff's alleged exposure to toxic chemicals following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico by virtue of his presence in the environment in Moss Point, Mississippi beginning in April of 2010. The Plaintiff contends that since the alleged exposure, he has experienced, among other things: dizziness, headaches, dysuria, nocturia, hematuria, eye burning, ocular hypertension, eye irritation, sinus pain, nasal congestion, throat irritation, skin blistering, skin dryness/flaking, skin inflammation, joint pain, and "tingling sensations." The Plaintiff's case was originally part of the multidistrict litigation ("MDL") pending before Judge Carl J. Barbier. His case was severed from the MDL as one of the "B3" cases for plaintiffs who either opted out of, or were excluded from, the Deepwater Horizon Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement Agreement. The Plaintiff opted out of the settlement. After the Plaintiff's case was severed, it was reallocated to this Court. On March 11, 2022, the Court issued a scheduling order that established, among other deadlines, that the Plaintiff's expert disclosures had to be "obtained and delivered" to defense counsel by no later than April 21, 2023. The Defendants now move for summary judgment, arguing that because the Plaintiff has not identified any expert testimony, he is unable to carry his burden on causation. The Plaintiff does not oppose the Defendants' motion. The Plaintiff asserts claims for general maritime negligence, negligence per se, and gross negligence against the Defendants because of the oil spill. The Defendants contend that the Plaintiff cannot prove that exposure to oil or dispersants was the legal cause of his alleged injuries, and thus that he cannot prove a necessary element of his claims against them. Judge Vance explains that under the general maritime law, a party's negligence is actionable only if it is a legal cause of the plaintiff's injuries. Legal cause is more than but-for causation; rather, the negligence must be a 'substantial factor' in the injury. To prevail in a toxic tort case, a plaintiff must show both general causation and specific causation. Expert testimony is required to establish general causation in toxic-tort cases like this one. The Plaintiff has not disclosed any experts on either general or specific causation. As he is unable to create an issue of material fact on causation, Judge Vance grants summary judgment. The Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed with prejudice. A full-text copy of the Court's May 31, 2023 Order & Reasons is available at https://tinyurl.com/mr3xupwe from Leagle.com. BRIAN BIRKHOLZ: Trinh Files Suit in C.D. California --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brian Birkholz, et al. The case is styled as Chanh V. Trinh, Brian E. Sawyers, Dennis McPherson, Robert Wann, Derrick A. Givens, Raynard Davis, Michael D. Miller, Abraham Castro, Robert Scully, Robert E. Wallace, FCC Lompoc Inmates, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated v. Brian Birkholz, Warden; Bureau of Prisons; Law Office of Manatt, Phelps, and Phillips, LLP; Law Office Bird, Marella, PC; ACLU Foundation Southern California; Case No. 2:23-cv-04521-CAS-MAA (C.D. Cal., June 8, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Civil Rights. Bryan Birkholz is the warden at the Federal Correctional Complex Lompoc, California.[BN] The Plaintiffs appear pro se. BUDGET INNS: Bids for Class Certification Due Dec. 15 ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Buffalo Seafood House LLC, v. Budget Inns of Pensacola, et al., Case No. 7:22-cv-01242-RMG (D.S.C.). the Hon. Judge Richard Mark Gergel entered a second amended scheduling order as follows: 1. Expert Witnesses: the Plaintiff: August 1, 2023 the Defendant: September 1, 2023 2. Discovery shall be completed November 30, 2023 no later than: 3. The mediation deadline is: December 15, 2023 4. Motions for Class Certification December 15, 2023 5. This case is subject to being called February 1, 2024 for trial on or after: Republic Services provides solid waste collection services. A copy of the Court's order dated May 31, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NrNTuq at no extra charge.[CC] CALCHEF FOODS LLC: Lee Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Calchef Foods, LLC. The case is styled as Jessica Lee, an individual, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. Calchef Foods, LLC., First Tactical, LLC, INNOV8 Holdings, LLC, Nobel Equestrian Produces, LLC, Noble Rider, LLC, Sherpa Holdings, LLC, a California limited liability company, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2023-0005894 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., June 8, 2023). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." CalChef Foods, LLC doing business as Kevin's Natural Foods -- https://www.kevinsnaturalfoods.com/ -- provides food products.[BN] CANARSIE MARKET: Faces Herrera Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------- LENYN BLADERIN LANZA HERRERA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CANARSIE MARKET II CORP., LAURA ANSELMO MENESES and ERICK MENESES, as individuals, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-04043 (E.D.N.Y., June 1, 2023) is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law arising from the Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiff's overtime wages, provide wage statements, and furnish wage written notice. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from June 2015 until April 2023 as a stocker, order taker, laborer and packer while performing related miscellaneous duties. Canarsie Market II Corp. is a New York domestic business corporation, organized under the laws of the State.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 CAPITA PLC: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------- Prolific North reports that a class action law suit has been launched following what lawyers have called one of the "biggest data breaches this country has ever experienced." Capita suffered a cyber-attack in March, with up to 90 organisations reporting breaches of personal information held by the firm. Those organisations include Royal Mail and Axa meaning potentially "millions of people" could be impacted. Manchester-based Barings Law said it had now officially initiated legal proceedings against Capita. So far, it has signed up 250 people who suspect their personal data may have been compromised by the breach. They say they are now fielding "30-40 enquiries a day" including from local councils. "This could be one of the biggest data breaches this country has ever experienced," said Adnan Malik, Barings Law's Head of Data Breach. "We're receiving a staggering number of enquiries which is why we've officially launched legal action. The number of clients we're signing up is growing every day, which shows how big this is. "A lot of people who have been paying into their pension for years are really worried they'll have nothing when they retire. "The hackers have their home addresses, email addresses telephone numbers and even the amount of money they have in their pension pots. They have everything they need to gain access to accounts so it's a very serious situation. "Aside from people's pensions being affected, the testimonies from our clients reveal some very concerning details ranging from potential huge financial impact to highly sensitive details being compromised." Barings said their own investigations had shown hackers could have had access to passports, emails and home addresses, plus there was evidence of unauthorised activities such as Just Eat being placed on their bank accounts. Following the incident, The Pensions Regulator made contact with more than 300 funds, to find out whether their personal data had been compromised Malik added: "While we acknowledge that Capita were themselves victims of a cyberattack here, their financial resources are such that the £20m they're forecasting this will cost them, is not that significant in the grand scheme of things. "Unfortunately, the same can't be said for our clients, who've worked extremely hard all their lives to be told they might now lose everything. "The legal action from Barings Law sends a powerful message that data breaches carry significant consequences and that companies must prioritise it. It serves as a reminder to organisations to take appropriate measures to safeguard personal data and prevent similar incidents in the future." At the time, a spokesperson for the Information Commissioner's Office said: "We are aware of two incidents concerning Capita, regarding a cyber-attack in March and the use of publicly accessible storage. We are receiving a large number of reports from organisations directly affected by these incidents and we are currently making enquiries. "We are encouraging organisations that use Capita's services to check their own position regarding these incidents and determine if the personal data they hold has been affected. If necessary, consider reporting a data breach to the ICO and we will use this information to inform our next steps." Capita said that the "unauthorised intrusion" was interrupted and resulted in the impact of the attack being "significantly restricted." After carrying out its own forensic work and using third party providers, it said that "some data was exfiltrated from less than 0.1% of its server estate." "Capita has taken extensive steps to recover and secure the customer, supplier and colleague data contained within the impacted server estate, and to remediate any issues arising from the incident." It expected to incur exceptional costs of approximately £15m to £20m associated with the attack, this comprised of "specialist professional fees, recovery and remediation costs and investment to reinforce Capita's cyber security environment." The company added that it had taken further steps "to ensure the integrity, safety and security of its IT infrastructure to underpin its ongoing client service commitments." [GN] CARNEGIE VALET: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, De Jesus Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- JORGE DE JESUS, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CARNEGIE VALET CLEANING CORP.; CARNEGIE LINEN SERVICES, INC. (D/B/A CARNEGIE LINEN SERVICES, INC.); GOTHAM CLEANERS, INC. (D/B/A GOTHAM CLEANERS); and CORY PERLSON, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-04783 (S.D.N.Y., June 7, 2023) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, provide meals, and provide accurate wage statements. Plaintiff De Jesus was employed by the Defendants as a washer. CARNEGIE VALET CLEANING CORP. owns and operates a laundry service, located at St Bronx, NY 10454, under the name "Carnegie Linen Services, Inc.", and "Gotham Cleaners". [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Catalina Sojo, Esq. CSM LEGAL, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 CARNIVAL CORPORATION: Rubridge Suit Transferred to S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Daniel Rubridge, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Carnival Corporation, Case No. 1:23-cv-10309-WGY was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on June 8, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-01072-GPC-MSB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property. Carnival Corporation -- http://www.carnivalcorp.com/-- is a British-American cruise operator with a combined fleet of over ninety vessels across nine cruise line brands and one joint venture with China State Shipbuilding Corporation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq. Carey Alexander, Esq. Ethan S. Binder, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP The Helmsley Building 230 Park Avenue, 17th Fl. New York, NY 10169 Phone: (212) 223-6444 Email: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com calexander@scott-scott.com ebinder@scott-scott.com - and - Erin Green Comite, Esq. Anja Rusi, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP 156 South Main Street Colchester, CT 06415 Phone: (860) 537-5537 Email: ecomite@scott-scott.com - and - Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq. Michael J. Laird, Esq. Rachel K. Tack, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 1100 IDS Center 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 341-0400 Email: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com michael.laird@zimmreed.con rachel.tack@zimmreed.com CHEWY INC: Hernandez Sues Over Illegal Collection of Private Info ----------------------------------------------------------------- GABRIELA HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similar situated, Plaintiffs v. CHEWY, INC., a Delaware corporation d/b/a WWW.CHEWY.COM, Defendant, Case No. 23STCV12748 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 5, 2023) arises out of the Defendant's violations of the Video Protection and Privacy Act. Allegedly, the Defendant tracks the videos that visitors watch on its website and reports each visitor's video-watching behavior to Google via the use of a tool known as "Google Analytics", which many authorities regard as spyware. In addition, the Defendant monetizes the secretly-harvested personally identifiable Information by bombarding unsuspecting visitors with targeted marketing based upon their video viewing habits, says the suit. Chewy Inc. is a Delaware online retailer of pet food and other pet-related products that offers goods for sale throughout the US. [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 E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com COACH USA: Ayers Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ---------------------------------------------- The case styled as LaShawn Ayers, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Coach USA, Inc., Case No. 2023CH03605 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, IL - Chancery Div, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on June 9, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-03667 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Insurance Contract. Coach USA, LLC -- http://www.coachusa.com/-- is a holding company for various American transportation service providers providing scheduled intercity bus service, local and commuter bus transit, city sightseeing, tour, yellow school bus, and charter bus service across the United States and Canada. It is owned by Variant Equity Advisors.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. COHBAR INC: Juan Monteverde Investigates Clayton Dubilier Sale -------------------------------------------------------------- Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner of the class action firm Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a national securities firm rated Top 50 in the 2018-2021 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report and headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating: CohBar, Inc., relating to its proposed merger with Morphogenesis, Inc. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/cohbar-inc. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. Focus Financial Partners Inc., relating to its proposed sale to affiliates of Clayton Dubilier & Rice LLC. Under the terms of the agreement, FOCS shareholders are expected to receive $53.00 in cash per share they own. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/focus-financial-partners-inc. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. Partners Bancorp. PTRS, relating to its proposed sale to LINKBANCORP, Inc.. Under the terms of the agreement, PTRS shareholders are expected to receive 1.15 shares of LINKBANCORP stock per share they own. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/partners-bancorp. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. Arconic Corp. ARNC, relating to its proposed sale to affiliates of Apollo Global Management, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, ARNC shareholders are expected to receive $30.00 in cash per share they own. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/arconic-corp. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. About Monteverde & Associates PC We are a national class action securities and consumer litigation law firm that has recovered millions of dollars for shareholders and is committed to protecting investors and consumers from corporate wrongdoing. Monteverde & Associates lawyers have significant experience litigating Mergers & Acquisitions and Securities Class Actions, whereby they protect investors by recovering money and remedying corporate misconduct. Mr. Monteverde, who leads the firm, has been recognized by Super Lawyers as a Rising Star in Securities Litigation in 2013 and 2017-2019, an award given to less than 2.5% of attorneys in a particular field. He has also been selected by Martindale-Hubbell as a 2017-2020 Top Rated Lawyer. Our firm's recent successes include changing the law in a significant victory that lowered the standard of liability under Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act in the Ninth Circuit. Thereafter, our firm successfully preserved this victory by obtaining dismissal of a writ of certiorari as improvidently granted at the United States Supreme Court. Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian, 139 S. Ct. 1407 (2019). Also, over the years the firm has recovered or secured over a dozen cash common funds for shareholders in mergers & acquisitions class action cases If you own common stock in any of the above listed companies and wish to obtain additional information and protect your investments free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4405 New York, NY 10118 United States of America jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN] COMPUTER GENERATED: Settles FCRA Class Action for $517,000 ---------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Computer Generated Solutions (CGS) agreed to pay $517,000 to resolve claims that it violated FCRA with unlawful employee background checks. The settlement benefits current and former applicants or employees of Computer Generated Solutions who were subject to an employment background check between July 9, 2019, and Jan. 11, 2022. Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit claim Computer Generated Solutions ran employment background checks on applicants and employees without making the required disclosures. According to the plaintiffs, these background checks violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). Computer Generated Solutions is a tech solutions company that employs 7,500 people around the world. CGS hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $517,000 settlement to resolve the FCRA class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the settlement, class members can receive an equal share of the net settlement fund. Each class member is expected to receive $138, but actual payments may be lower depending on the number of claims filed. The deadline for exclusion is July 1, 2023. The deadline for objection is July 31, 2023. The final approval hearing for the Computer Generated Solutions settlement is scheduled for Aug. 3, 2023. In order to receive a settlement payment, class members must submit a valid claim form by July 31, 2023. Who's Eligible Current and former applicants or employees of Computer Generated Solutions who were subject to an employment background check between July 9, 2019, and Jan. 11, 2022 Potential Award $138 Proof of Purchase N/A Claim Form CLICK HERE TO FILE A CLAIM » NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 07/31/2023 Case Name Moore, et al. v. Computer Generated Solutions Inc., Case No. 23-CA-000856, in the 13th Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County, Florida Final Hearing 08/03/2023 Settlement Website CGSClassAction.com Claims Administrator Moore v CGS INC Class Action PO Box 23309 Jacksonville, FL 32241 800-566-0584 Class Counsel Marc R Edelman MORGAN & MORGAN PA Defense Counsel N/A [GN] COOPER INTERCONNECT: Ott Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Dalette Ott and Loira Sanchez, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. COOPER INTERCONNECT, INC., a corporation; EATON CORPORATION, a corporation.; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2023CUOE008132 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Ventura, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on June 8, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-04501. In Plaintiffs seek to recover waiting time penalties for wages Defendants’ alleged failure to pay Plaintiffs all wages. Similarly, Plaintiff Sanchez earned $20.33 per hour was expected to work at least five days a week for an average of 40 hours per week. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements as required by California Labor Code. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants failed to provide them with meal and rest periods during their employment. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants “maintained a policy and practice” of not paying for all hours worked, including minimum and straight time wages. Plaintiffs allege that they were not paid all overtime wages. Plaintiffs seek to recover unreimbursed business expenses. Plaintiffs also seek to recover attorneys’ fees.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Christian Keeney, Esq. Alis M. Moon, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 200 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 500 Irvine, CA 92618 Phone: (949) 885-1360 Facsimile: (949) 885-138 Email: christian.keeney@jacksonlewis.com alis.moon@jacksonlewis.com COPALA INC: Nebieridze Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ SHALVA NEBIERIDZE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VALERI KOPALEISHVILLI, DANIEL MISHIN, COPALA, INC., JUNE HOMES US, INC, JUNE NY, LLC, JUNE NY 1, LLC, JUNEHOME, LLC, JUNE NYC, LLC, JUNEHOMES, LLC, JUNE REAL ESTATE, LLC, JUNE SD, LLC JUNEINVEST, LLC, and JUNE HOMES HOLDINGS, LLC, jointly and severally, Defendants, Case No. 652654/2023 (N.Y. Sup., New York Cty., June 1, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for unpaid minimum wages and overtime premium pay owed to Plaintiff, unpaid spread-of-hours premiums, and failure to provide proper wage notices and wage statements, pursuant to New York Labor Law and the supporting regulations. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants to perform work for Defendants' enterprise in New York, Washington D.C., Philadelphia and Boston areas from approximately February 8, 2021 through approximately September 20, 2021. Plaintiff's duties include, but was not limited to, the purchasing and delivery of construction supplies and furniture from various construction supply stores (for example beds, desks, mattresses, and other furniture from Ikea), disposal of trash and rubbish, and assembly of furniture. Copala, Inc. is a trucking company running freight hauling business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marcus A. Nussbaum, Esq. 3059 Brighton 7th Street Fl. 1 Brooklyn, NY 11235 Telephone: (201) 956-7071 CREDIT SUISSE: $73.95MM Class Settlement to be Heard on August 23 ----------------------------------------------------------------- If you purchased, sold, held, traded, or otherwise had any interest in Swiss Franc LIBOR-Based Derivatives during the period of January 1, 2001 through December 31, 2011, your rights may be affected by pending class action settlements, and you may be entitled to a portion of the settlement fund. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK FUND LIQUIDATION HOLDINGS LLC, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CREDIT SUISSE GROUP AG, et al., Defendants. Case No.: 1:15-cv-00871 (SHS) SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENTS This Summary Notice is to alert you to proposed Settlements totaling $73,950,000 (the "Settlement Amount") reached with Credit Suisse Group AG and Credit Suisse AG (collectively "Credit Suisse"); Deutsche Bank AG and DB Group Services (UK) Ltd. (collectively, "Deutsche Bank"); JPMorgan Chase & Co. ("JPMorgan"); NatWest Markets Plc (f/k/a The Royal Bank of Scotland plc) ("RBS"); NEX Group plc, NEX International Limited (f/k/a ICAP plc), ICAP Capital Markets LLC (n/k/a Intercapital Capital Markets LLC), ICAP Securities USA LLC, and ICAP Europe Limited (together "ICAP"); TP ICAP plc (f/k/a Tullett Prebon plc and n/k/a TP ICAP Finance plc), Tullett Prebon Americas Corp., Tullett Prebon (USA) Inc., Tullett Prebon Financial Services LLC, Tullett Prebon (Europe) Limited, and Cosmorex AG (together, "TP ICAP"); Gottex Brokers SA ("Gottex"); and Velcor SA ("Velcor") (collectively, the "Settling Defendants") in a pending class action (the "Action"). The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "Court") authorized this Summary Notice and has appointed the lawyers listed below to represent the Settlement Class in this Action: Vincent Briganti Lowey Dannenberg, P.C. 44 South Broadway, Suite 1100 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 733-7221 E-mail: swissfrancliborsettlement@lowey.com Who is a member of the Settlement Class? The proposed Settlement Class consists of all Persons (including both natural persons and entities) who purchased, sold, held, traded, or otherwise had any interest in Swiss Franc LIBOR-Based Derivatives during the period of January 1, 2001 through December 31, 2011 (the "Class Period"). Excluded from the Settlement Class are the Defendants and any parent, subsidiary, affiliate or agent of any Defendant or any co-conspirator whether or not named as a Defendant, and the United States Government. "Swiss Franc LIBOR-Based Derivatives" means: (i) a three-month Euro Swiss franc futures contract on the London International Financial Futures and Options Exchange ("LIFFE") entered into by a U.S. Person, or by a Person from or through a location within the U.S.; (ii) a Swiss franc currency futures contract on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange ("CME"); (iii) a Swiss franc LIBOR-based interest rate swap entered into by a U.S. Person, or by a Person from or through a location within the U.S.; (iv) an option on a Swiss franc LIBOR-based interest rate swap ("swaption") entered into by a U.S. Person, or by a Person from or through a location within the U.S.; (v) a Swiss franc currency forward agreement entered into by a U.S. Person, or by a Person from or through a location within the U.S.; and/or (vi) a Swiss franc LIBOR-based forward rate agreement entered into by a U.S. Person, or by a Person from or through a location within the U.S. "Swiss franc LIBOR" means the London Interbank Offered Rate for the Swiss franc. The other capitalized terms used in this Summary Notice are defined in the detailed Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlements, September 27, 2023 Fairness Hearing Thereon, and Class Members' Rights ("Notice") and in the Settlement Agreements, which are available at www.swissfrancliborclassactionsettlement.com. If you are not sure if you are included in the Settlement Class, you can get more information, including the detailed Notice, at www.swissfrancliborclassactionsettlement.com or by calling toll-free 1-855-914-4639 (if calling from outside the United States or Canada, call 1-503-994-1396). What is this lawsuit about and what do the Settlements provide? Representative Plaintiffs allege that Defendants,1 including certain Settling Defendants, unlawfully and intentionally agreed, combined and conspired to manipulate Swiss franc LIBOR and to fix the prices of Swiss Franc LIBOR-Based Derivatives in violation of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, et seq., the Commodity Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. § 1, et seq., the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961, et seq., and the common law during the Class Period. Representative Plaintiffs allege that certain Defendants, as members of the panel that set Swiss franc LIBOR (the "Contributor Bank Defendants"), made artificial submissions that did not reflect the true cost of borrowing Swiss francs in the inter-bank money market but were, instead, intended to fix the prices of Swiss Franc LIBOR-Based Derivatives. Representative Plaintiffs also allege that the Contributor Bank Defendants conspired with certain interdealer broker Defendants to manipulate Swiss franc LIBOR by disseminating false pricing information to the Swiss Franc LIBOR-Based Derivatives market. Representative Plaintiffs allege that Defendants caused the profitability of their own Swiss Franc LIBOR-Based Derivatives positions to increase and caused Class Members to be overcharged or underpaid in Swiss Franc LIBOR-Based Derivatives transactions. The Settling Defendants maintain that they have good and meritorious defenses to Representative Plaintiffs' claims and would prevail if the case were to proceed. Nevertheless, to settle the claims in this lawsuit, and thereby avoid the expense and uncertainty of further litigation, JPMorgan has agreed to pay a total of $22,000,000; RBS has agreed to pay a total of $21,000,000; Credit Suisse has agreed to pay a total of $13,750,000; Deutsche Bank has agreed to pay a total of $13,000,000; ICAP has agreed to pay a total of $2,100,000; and TP ICAP has agreed to pay a total of $2,100,000 (collectively, the "Settlement Funds") in cash for the benefit of the proposed Settlement Class. If the Settlements are approved, the Settlement Funds, plus interest earned from the date they were established, less any taxes, the reasonable costs of Class Notice and administration, any Court-awarded attorneys' fees, litigation expenses and costs, Incentive Awards for Representative Plaintiffs, and any other costs or fees approved by the Court (the "Net Settlement Funds") will be divided among all Class Members who file timely and valid Proof of Claim and Release forms ("Claim Forms"). If the Settlements are approved, the Action will be resolved against the Settling Defendants and the Action will continue against the non-settling Defendant. If the Settlements are not approved, all Defendants will remain as defendants in the Action, and Representative Plaintiffs will continue to pursue their claims against Defendants. Will I get a payment? If you are a member of the Settlement Class and do not opt out, you will be eligible for a payment under the Settlements if you file a Claim Form. You may obtain more information at www.swissfrancliborclassactionsettlement.com or by calling toll-free 1-855-914-4639 (if calling from outside the United States or Canada, call 1-503-994-1396). Claim Forms must be postmarked by October 27, 2023 or submitted online at www.swissfrancliborclassactionsettlement.com on or before 11:59 p.m. Eastern time on October 27, 2023. What are my rights? If you are a member of the Settlement Class and do not opt out, you will release certain legal rights against the Settling Defendants and Released Parties as explained in the detailed Notice and Settlement Agreements, which are available at www.swissfrancliborclassactionsettlement.com. If you do not want to take part in the proposed Settlements, you must opt out by August 23, 2023. You may object to the proposed Settlements, the Distribution Plan, and/or Lead Counsel's request for attorneys' fees, payment of litigation costs and expenses, and any Incentive Awards to Representative Plaintiffs. If you want to object, you must do so by August 23, 2023. Information on how to opt out or object is contained in the detailed Notice, which is available at www.swissfrancliborclassactionsettlement.com. When is the Fairness Hearing? The Court will hold a hearing from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan U.S. Courthouse, Courtroom 23A, located at 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007, on September 27, 2023 at 10:00 A.M. Eastern Time to consider whether to finally approve the proposed Settlements, Distribution Plan, the application for an award of attorneys' fees and payment of litigation costs and expenses, and the application for Incentive Awards for the Representative Plaintiffs. You or your lawyer may ask to participate and speak at the hearing, but you do not have to. Any changes to the time and place of the Fairness Hearing, or other deadlines, will be posted to www.swissfrancliborclassactionsettlement.com as soon as is practicable. For more information, call toll-free 1-855-914-4639 (if calling from outside the United States or Canada, call 1-503-994-1396) or visit www.swissfrancliborclassactionsettlement.com. **** Please do not call the Court or the Clerk of the Court for information about the Settlements. **** 1 Defendants are: Credit Suisse Group AG; Credit Suisse AG; Deutsche Bank AG; DB Group Services (UK) Limited; JPMorgan Chase & Co.; NatWest Markets Plc (f/k/a The Royal Bank of Scotland plc); UBS AG; TP ICAP plc; Tullett Prebon Americas Corp (f/k/a Tullett Prebon Holdings Corp.); Tullett Prebon (USA) Inc.; Tullett Prebon Financial Services LLC (f/k/a Tullett Liberty Securities LLC); Tullett Prebon (Europe) Limited; ICAP Europe Limited; ICAP Securities USA LLC; Cosmorex AG; NEX Group plc; Intercapital Markets LLC (f/k/a ICAP Capital Markets LLC); Gottex Brokers SA; and Velcor SA. [GN] CREDIT SUISSE: Faces Class Suit Over RICO Violations ---------------------------------------------------- Finews.Asia reports that in a class action lawsuit, Credit Suisse and its former auditor KPMG are accused of violating a US federal law originally aimed at organized crime. Shareholders of Credit Suisse have filed a RICO lawsuit in New York, seeking damages for losses amounting to billions of dollars, which they claim are the result of collusion between the bank and its former long-time auditor KPMG. Targeting the Mafia The class action lawsuit was filed June 7, 2023 by the law firm Bottini & Bottini, the «New York Law Journal» reported (behind paywall). It alleges two RICO violations and breaches of duty to shareholders under both Swiss and New York law. The term «RICO» is often associated with racketeers and organized crime, an acronym for The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, a US federal law providing for criminal penalties as well as civil claims for acts committed within the scope of a criminal organization. It was originally directed primarily against the racketeering activities of the Mafia in the United States. It is through the RICO statute that United States Attorney Rudolph Guiliani indicted the heads of New York's five Mafia families in 1985. It crippled what was known as «The Commission», a committee that resolved disputes within the families. Deficient and Insufficient The allegations mirrored a lawsuit filed a week earlier by the same lawyers on behalf of another shareholder plaintiff, it adds. Auditor KPMG was replaced by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) as Credit Suisse's auditors in 2020. According to the statement of claim, PwC found that Credit Suisse suffered from a lack of financial and legal controls and risk management protocols, to which it attributed harm being done. Detriment to Shareholders Internal controls were deficient and inadequate for over 20 years, something KPMG was aware of when it attested to the propriety of Credit Suisse's financial statements and the adequacy and effectiveness of its controls and risk management processes in annual reports to shareholders for years, according to the report Invoking Omerta It said the long downward spiral of the Swiss bank was the result of long-term and persistent mismanagement, from which Credit Suisse insiders personally benefited at the expense of shareholders. [GN] CRUNCHBASE INC: Madrenas Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Oriol Madrenas, an individual, and on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. CRUNCHBASE, INC., Case No. 22STCV33311 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on June 9, 2023, and assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-03651. This action is a putative class action alleging Crunchbase violated the Illinois Right of Publicity Act ("IRPA") by using the Plaintiff's and the putative class members' personal identity for commercial purposes without their prior written consent. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all current and former Illinois residents who are not subscribers to CrunchBase's platform and whose is used to market paid subscriptions for CrunchBase's platform.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Bart T. Murphy #6181178 ICE MILLER LLP 2300 Cabot Dr., Ste. 455 Lisle, IL 60532 Phone: 630-955-6392 Email: bart.murphy@icemiller.com DAN FITZGERALD: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Carmichael Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- RICARDO CARMICHAEL; and SHAUN CLIFTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DAN FITZGERALD & ASSOCIATES, INC.; and DANIEL FITZGERALD, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-at-00529 (E.D. Cal., June 6, 2023) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as leak survey technicians. DAN FITZGERALD AND ASSOCIATES INC. was founded in 1979. The company's line of business includes providing professional engineering services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin M. Scott, Esq. SCOTT EMPLOYMENT LAW, P.C. 160 Clairemont Avenue, Suite 610 Decatur, GA 30030 Telephone: (678) 780-4880 Facsimile: (478) 575-2590 Email: jscott@scottemploymentlaw.com - and - Matthew Righetti, Esq. RIGHETTI GLUGOSKI, P.C. Presidio of San Francisco 220 Halleck Street, Suite 220 San Francisco, CA 94129 Telephone: (415) 983-0900 Facsimile: (415) 397-9005 Email: matt@righettilaw.com - and - John L. Mays, Esq. Evan P. Drew, Esq. PARKS, CHESIN & WALBERT, PC 75 Fourteenth Street, Suite 2600 Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (404) 873-8000 Facsimile: (404) 873-8050 Email: jmays@pcwlawfirm.com edrew@pcwlawfirm.com DAVID CARMILI: Faces Roma Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------- YVETTE ROMA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DAVID CARMILI, PHYSICIAN, P.C. and DAVID CARMILI, as an individual, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-04072 (E.D.N.Y., June 1, 2023) arises from the Defendants' alleged egregious violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants as a medical assistant while performing related miscellaneous duties from August 2002 until present. She asserts that the Defendants failed to pay overtime wages, failed to pay wages for hours worked, conducted unlawful wage deductions, and failed to furnish wage statements and wage written notice. David Carmili, Physician, P.C. is a pediatric service provider.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 DELTA AIR: Agrees to Settle Class Suit Over Cancelled Flights ------------------------------------------------------------- Kelly Yamanouchi of Leader – Telegram reports that Delta Air Lines has agreed to a settlement of a class-action lawsuit over refunds owed to customers for flights it canceled in parts of 2020 and 2021 during the COVID-19 pandemic. Atlanta-based Delta doesn't admit wrongdoing in the settlement preliminarily approved by a federal judge June 2. Documents filed in the case state that there are thousands of passengers in the proposed settlement class. The airline has agreed to pay cash refunds plus interest to certain customers whose flights were canceled by the airline from March 1, 2020, to April 30, 2021. To qualify under the settlement agreement, passengers must have requested refunds according to Delta's Customer Care database or refund database but got flight credits instead and still had unused credits as of Jan. 13 of this year. The total value of the settlement is not immediately known. The settlement also says Delta will pay about $2.3 million in attorneys fees. Attorneys for the plaintiffs include former Georgia Gov. Roy Barnes. Airlines are obligated to issue refunds to passengers who request them when the flights are canceled by the airline. The pandemic in its earliest weeks led to a near total shutdown of air travel in the U.S., and states and local governments restricted the operations of businesses and schools to try to curtail the coronavirus. Delta, for its part, said since the start of 2020 it has refunded "more than 11 million bookings totaling $6 billion." Yet some customers complained that Delta canceled their flights but would not give them refunds. According to deadlines set in the settlement, email notifications and postcard notices will be sent starting this month through Aug. 28 to those who may be in the settlement class. Those who qualify and want to get cash refunds for their unused credits plus 7% interest -- or credits plus 7% interest credit -- must submit a claim form by Sept. 15. Frustration with airlines over refunds generated thousands of customer complaints early in the pandemic. Multiple Delta customers filed lawsuits, which were consolidated into a single class action case in U.S. District Court in Atlanta. In the case, plaintiff Angela Dusko said she bought four roundtrip tickets for $2,783.24 to travel from Helena, Montana to Cancun, Mexico from March 27 to April 3, 2020. On March 25, she was notified by Delta that the flight to Cancun was canceled. The airline rebooked her and her family on a flight departing March 28, and Dusko called Delta to say she did not want to be rebooked and instead wanted a refund. "Delta's customer service representative denied Ms. Dusko's request for a full refund," and instead said she was only entitled to flight vouchers, the lawsuit says. The case alleges Delta offered many of its passengers whose flights it canceled "only two options" -- to rebook or to get a travel credit. At the time, Delta and other airlines were fighting to preserve their cash as travel volumes plummeted, few customers were booking new flights and millions of customers demanded refunds. But many consumers were also facing severe financial challenges from the pandemic, as restaurants, shops, hotels and other businesses shut down and put people out of work. Some of those whose flights were canceled needed the money back to pay rent and cover their bills. Delta and other carriers, meanwhile, got billions of dollars in federal relief funding. The funds were intended to allow airlines to continue to pay their workforce -- though Delta still slashed tens of thousands of people from its payroll via early retirements, voluntary buyouts and unpaid leaves of absence. The after-effects of the pandemic have continued, with airlines struggling over the last year to staff back up to meet demand. And travel disruptions continued with outbreaks of COVID-19 variants. Last year, Delta extended the validity of all unused flight credits to allow rebooking until the end of 2023, for travel through 2024. The settlement does not bring relief for passengers who canceled their trips because of pandemic restrictions, health concerns, canceled events or other reasons, and only got flight credits. Federal rules say consumers are entitled to refunds if the airline canceled the flight -- but not necessarily if customers cancel their trips. [GN] DESKTOP METAL: Building Trades Sues Over Poison Pill Adoption ------------------------------------------------------------- BUILDING TRADES PENSION FUND OF WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DESKTOP METAL, INC.; SCOTT DUSSAULT; RIC FULOP; DAYNA GRAYSON; STEVE PAPA; BILAL ZUBERI; JAMES EISENSTEIN; WEN HSIEH; JEFF IMMELT; STEPHEN NIGRO; TETRIS SUB INC.; STRATASYS LTD.; and CONTINENTAL STOCK TRANSFER & TRUST COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 2023-0597 (Del. Ch., June 6, 2023) is a class action against the members of the Company's board of directors (the "Board") for breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with their adoption of a preclusive poison pill "stockholder rights" plan (the "Pill"). According to the complaint, on May 25, 2023, the Company and Stratasys announced that they had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger ("Merger Agreement"), contemplating an all-stock deal valued at $1.8 billion. If consummated, Desktop Metal stockholders will receive 0.123 Stratasys shares in exchange for each Desktop Metal share they own, resulting in 41 per cent of the post-merger entity. Despite the absence of any competing offers or the presence of a controlling stockholder, the following day, as required by the Merger Agreement, the Board adopted a shareholder rights plan containing the preclusive Pill. The Board claims that the Pill "will maximize shareholder value in connection with the transaction by promoting the fair and equal treatment of all shareholders of the Company". Yet this is plainly not true. Injunctive relief in advance of a vote of Company stockholders on the Merger Agreement is needed to prevent irreparable harm to Company stockholders flowing from the Board's misconduct, as aided-and-abetted by Stratasys and Merger Sub, says the suit. DESKTOP METAL, INC. designs and markets 3D printing systems. The Company offers metal and carbon fiber 3D printing solutions to engineers, designers, and manufacturers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ned Weinberger, Esq. Michael C. Wagner, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1510 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 573-2540 - and - Domenico Minerva, Esq. John Vielandi, Esq. Nina M. Varindani, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 DISCOUNT POWER: Faces Smith Suit Over Telemarketing Calls --------------------------------------------------------- JAMES SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DISCOUNT POWER, INC. a Connecticut corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-00707-SRU (D. Conn., June 1, 2023) arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff seeks to stop Defendant's practice of placing (or having placed on its behalf) telemarketing calls using an artificial or pre-recorded voice to the telephones of consumers nationwide without their prior express written consent, including to those on the National Do Not Call Registry, and to obtain redress for all persons injured by Defendant's conduct. The Plaintiff also seeks an award of statutory damages to the members of the alleged Class, plus court costs and reasonable attorneys' fees. Discount Power, Inc. is a home energy supplier based in Connecticut.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen Taylor, Esq. LEMBERG LAW LLC 43 Danbury Road Wilton, CT 06897 Telephone: (203) 653-2250 ext. 5502 Facsimile: (203) 653-3424 E-mail: staylor@lemberglaw.com - and - Steven L. Woodrow, Esq. Patrick H. Peluso, Esq. WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC 3900 East Mexico Ave., Suite 300 Denver, CO 80210 Telephone: (720) 213-0675 Facsimile: (303) 927-0809 E-mail: swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com DISH NETWORK: Garza Files Suit in D. Colorado --------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against DISH Network, LLC. The case is styled as Elizabeth Garza, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. DISH Network, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01458-SKC (D. Colo., June 8, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Contract. DISH Network Corporation -- http://www.dish.com/-- is an American television provider and the owner of the direct-broadcast satellite provider Dish, commonly known as Dish Network, and the over-the-top IPTV service, Sling TV. Additionally, Dish offers mobile wireless service, Dish Wireless.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Colleen Therese Calandra, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN PA 999 18th Street, Suite 3000B Denver, CO 80202 Phone: (303) 264-1746 Email: ccalandra@forthepeople.com DISH NETWORK: Vest Files Suit in D. Colorado -------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against DISH Network, LLC. The case is styled as Laura Vest, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DISH Network, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01462-NYW-NRN (D. Colo., June 8, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. DISH Network Corporation -- http://www.dish.com/-- is an American television provider and the owner of the direct-broadcast satellite provider Dish, commonly known as Dish Network, and the over-the-top IPTV service, Sling TV. Additionally, Dish offers mobile wireless service, Dish Wireless.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Allen Berens, Esq. BERENS LAW LLC 2373 Central Park Boulevard, Suite 100 Denver, CO 80238 Phone: (303) 861-1764 Fax: (303) 395-0393 Email: jeff@jberenslaw.com DISTRICT PSYCHOTHERAPY: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against District Psychotherapy Group, PLLC. The case is styled as Jenny Hwang, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. District Psychotherapy Group, PLLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-04251 (E.D.N.Y., June 8, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. District Therapy Associates -- https://districttherapyassociates.com/ -- is a group psychotherapy practice serving children, adolescents, adults and families in NW Washington DC.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 14749 71st Ave. Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com DOUYU INTERNATIONAL: Fernandez Sues Over 9.33% Share Price Drop --------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID RIGO FERNANDEZ, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DOUYU INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LIMITED, SHAOJIE CHEN, and MINGMING SU, Case No. 2:23-cv-03161 (D.N.J., June 9, 2023) is a class action on behalf of persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded DouYu securities between April 30, 2021 and May 9, 2023, inclusive, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On April 25, 2023, the Company filed with the SEC its Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2022. The 2022 Annual Report contained risk disclosure regarding content moderation. This risk disclosure was materially false and misleading because it did not disclose that the Chinese government, due to concerns about issues such as video game addiction, could bring regulatory actions against DouYu regardless of how effective its moderation practices were. This was materially false and misleading because, by the time the 2022 Annual Report was filed with the SEC, the Company was already under investigation by the CyberSpace Administration of China due to allegedly inappropriate content being on the DouYu platform. On May 9, 2023, before the market opened, the Company filed a current report on Form 6-K with the SEC, which contained a press release. This press release stated, in pertinent part, that the CyberSpace Administration of China (CAC) has sent an inspection team to the Company due to certain alleged violations of content rules and regulations on its platform. The CAC team is expected to conduct a one-month on-site inspection of the Company's content platform, which DouYu will fully cooperate with. On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.098 per ADR, or 9.33%, on May 9, 2023. Had the Plaintiff and the other members of the Class been aware that the market price of DouYu securities had been artificially and falsely inflated by Defendants' misleading statements and by the material adverse information which the Defendants did not disclose, they would not have purchased Company securities at the artificially inflated prices that they did, or at all, the lawsuit says. The Plaintiff purchased DouYu securities during the Class Period and was economically damaged thereby. DouYu purports to be a leading game-centric live streaming platform in China and a pioneer in the eSports value chain. It operates its platform on both PC and mobile apps to bring users access to immersive and interactive games and entertainment livestreaming, a wide array of video and graphic contents, as well as opportunities to participate in community events and discussions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurence Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. One Gateway Center, Suite 2600 Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 313-1887 Facsimile: (973) 833-0399 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com DREAMFIELDS INC: Dovel & Luner Files Class Action Over THC Content ------------------------------------------------------------------ Vuk Zdinjak, writing for Benzinga, reports that Dovel & Luner law firm filed a class action suit in October against DreamFields Inc. and Med for America Inc., which make, sell and market the "Jeeter" brand of pre-rolls, on behalf of Jasper Centeno and Blake Wilson from California who purchased cannabis products with inaccurate THC content labels. In their complaint, plaintiffs asserted the following causes of action: violation of the Unfair Competition Law, violation of the False Advertising Law, violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, breach of express warranty, negligent misrepresentation, intentional misrepresentation and unjust enrichment. The lawsuit states, "Consumers reasonably believe that they are receiving a product that has the THC content that is listed on the label." The complaint alleges that the Jeeter products, however, substantially overstate the amount of actual THC in the product, sometimes by "70-100%." The defendants moved to dismiss the case, however, on June 15th the court held that all of claims except the unjust enrichment claim were sufficiently pled. As plaintiffs stated they will not file a first amended complaint, defendants must file and serve an answer by July 17, 2023. Cannabis Companies and Litigations Suing cannabis companies seems to be on the rise and it looks like the trend is only warming up. In June, SpringBig Inc. SBIG was sued by Kind+ Inc., a Massachusetts-based cannabis subscription service, for allegedly using its partnership to create a competing business. In May, Tilray Brands TLRY was sued by Docklight Brands Inc. for dropping out of the Bob Marley cannabis products licensing deal. In March, toy company Toys "R" Us filed a lawsuit against cannabis retailer Zaza R Us for violations of state and federal intellectual property laws, including trademark dilution and infringement. In January, Dovel & Luner filed a class action lawsuit against Lowell Farms Inc. LOWLF and Cypress Manufacturing Company on behalf of California consumers who purchased cannabis products with inaccurate THC content labels. In December, Dovel & Luner filed a lawsuit against Ironworks Collective Inc. and Stiiizy LLC, and a similar lawsuit against VO Leasing Corp. In November, George Engers, former COO of California-based cannabis company Top Shelf filed a lawsuit alleging whistleblower retaliation, wrongful termination, fraud, breach of contract and more. [GN] DSW SHOE WAREHOUSE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Carter Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- TREMAIN CARTER; and ANNEMARIE LESPINASSE, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DSW SHOE WAREHOUSE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 7:23-cv-04761 (S.D.N.Y., June 6, 2023) seeks to recover damages from the Defendant for delinquent wage payments made to workers who qualify as manual laborers. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as manual laborers. DSW SHOE WAREHOUSE, INC. offers brand name and designer dress, casual and athletic footwear and accessories. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brett R. Cohen, Esq. Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq. Michael A. Tompkins, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873-9550 DZS INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due August 14 ---------------------------------------------------------- Holzer & Holzer, LLC informs investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against DZS Inc. ("DZS," or the "Company") (NASDAQ: DZSI). The lawsuit alleges DZS made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse facts, including: (1) DZS' financial statements from March 31, 2023 to the present contained certain errors; (2) as a result, DZS would need to restate its previously filed quarterly financial statement for the period ending March 31, 2023; (3) the Company had ongoing undisclosed issues with its internal controls over financial reporting; and (4) as a result, Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. If you bought shares of DZS between March 10, 2023 and May 31, 2023, and you suffered a significant loss on that investment, you are encouraged to discuss your legal rights by contacting Corey Holzer, Esq. cholzer@holzerlaw.com or Joshua Karr, Esq. at jkarr@holzerlaw.com, by toll-free telephone at (888) 508-6832 or you may visit the firm's website www.holzerlaw.com/case/dzs/ to learn more. The deadline to ask the court to be appointed lead plaintiff in the case is August 14, 2023. Holzer & Holzer, LLC, an ISS top rated securities litigation law firm for 2021 and 2022, dedicates its practice to vigorous representation of shareholders and investors in litigation nationwide, including shareholder class action and derivative litigation. Since its founding in 2000, Holzer & Holzer attorneys have played critical roles in recovering hundreds of millions of dollars for shareholders victimized by fraud and other corporate misconduct. More information about the firm is available through its website, www.holzerlaw.com, and upon request from the firm. Holzer & Holzer, LLC has paid for the dissemination of this promotional communication, and Corey Holzer is the attorney responsible for its content. CONTACT: Corey Holzer, Esq. (888) 508-6832 (toll-free) cholzer@holzerlaw.com [GN] EL MILAGRO: Ruiz Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------- JAVIER RUIZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. EL MILAGRO, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-03474 (N.D. Ill., June 1, 2023) is a collective action claim for overtime and/or minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Chicago Minimum Wage Ordinance as well as individual and class claims under the Biometric Information Privacy Act. The Plaintiff seeks to maintain this suit as a collective on behalf of himself and all other non-exempt employees who were not fully compensated for overtime hours worked and/or at the required minimum wage for all hours worked. He further asserts that Defendant collected biometric information for use in its time clock without obtaining written consent and without maintaining a publicly available policy describing how El Milagro would store and destroy employees' biometric information. The Plaintiff works as a delivery driver for El Milagro in and around Chicago, Illinois. El Milagro, Inc. provides food products. The Company offers yellow and white corn, whole wheat and flour fajitas, corn taco shells, sated white corn tortilla, round corn tostada, seasoned white corn tortilla chips, and recipes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick Cowlin, Esq. FISH POTTER BOLANOS, P.C. 111 East Wacker Drive, Suite 2300 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 861-1800 E-mail: pcowlin@fishlawfirm.com - and - Jacqueline Villanueva, Esq. FARMWORKER AND LANDSCAPER ADVOCACY PROJECT 33 N. LaSalle St., Ste. 900 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (888) 451-3527 E-mail: litigation@flapillinois.org EMORY UNIVERSITY: Class Action Over COVID-Related Closures Okayed ----------------------------------------------------------------- Emily Garcia, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that a parent of an Emory University student can proceed with a class action against the school over COVID-related closures, a federal judge decided, partially certifying the proposed class. Marc Schultz filed a lawsuit in the US District Court for the Northern District of Georgia for breach of implied contract when the university didn't prorate tuition or provide tuition refunds when classes went online in spring 2020. He asked the court to certify his lawsuit as a class action, for anyone who paid tuition for in-person education and services at Emory but was denied access to in-person education and services during COVID. [GN] EQUITYEXPERTS.ORG LLC: Court Narrows Claims in Lewis Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIMBERLI LEWIS on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. EQUITYEXPERTS.ORG, LLC, Case No. 5:22-CV-302-FL (E.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Louise W. Flanagan entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss. -- The court dismisses the plaintiff's Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (UDPTA) and unjust enrichment claims. -- The Plaintiff's claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), the North Carolina Collection Agency Act (NCCAA), and the North Carolina Debt Collection Act (NCDCA) as well as class action allegations, are allowed to proceed. For those proceeding forward, defendant must serve a responsive pleading within 14 days of entry of this order. In this case, striking or dismissing the plaintiff's class action allegations is improper, where it is not clear from the complaint that she cannot and could not meet Rule 23's requirements for certification. Rule 23(b)(3) permits a class action if "the court finds that the questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy." The Plaintiff commenced this consumer protection action against defendant in Wake County Superior Court, April 14, 2022, asserting putative class action claims on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, based upon allegedly improper debt collection practices by defendant in connection with delinquent homeowners association dues payments. The Plaintiff seeks certification of this action as a class action; an award of actual, statutory, and trebled damages; and an award of attorneys' fees and costs. Equity Experts provides HOA and association collections solutions for community associations driven by technology and proactive outreach. A copy of the Court's order dated May 31, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3P9roM6 at no extra charge.[CC] EQUITYEXPERTS.ORG LLC: Court Narrows Claims in Lewis Consumer Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Louise W. Flanagan of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, Western Division, grants in part and denies in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss the lawsuit styled KIMBERLI LEWIS, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EQUITYEXPERTS.ORG, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:22-CV-302-FL (E.D.N.C.. The matter is before the Court on the Defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The Plaintiff commenced the consumer protection action against the Defendant in Wake County Superior Court, April 14, 2022, asserting putative class action claims on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, based upon allegedly improper debt collection practices by the Defendant in connection with delinquent homeowners association dues payments. The Plaintiff asserts claims arising under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1692 et seq. ("FDCPA"); the North Carolina Collection Agency Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. Section 58-70 et seq. ("NCCAA"); the North Carolina Debt Collection Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. Section 75-50 et seq. ("NCDCA"); the Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. Section 75-1.1 et seq. ("UDTPA"); and common law unjust enrichment. She seeks certification of the action as a class action; an award of actual, statutory, and trebled damages; and an award of attorneys' fees and costs. The Defendant filed a notice of removal Aug. 4, 2022, on the basis of federal question jurisdiction. Thereafter, it filed the instant motion to dismiss, relying upon the following: 1) a notice to the Plaintiff, dated Aug. 26, 2021; 2) a statement of the Plaintiff's account, dated Sept. 20, 2021; 3) articles of incorporation and other documents related to the Abbington Ridge Community Association, Inc.; 4) Wake County property ownership records. The Plaintiff responded in opposition and the Defendant replied. The Court stayed the parties' scheduling conference activities pending decision on the instant motion. The Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of Wake County, North Carolina, who was the owner of a home located at 6012 Herston Road, in Raleigh, North Carolina, at all times relevant to her claims. The home is subject to the covenants and restrictions filed in the Wake County Register which places the home under the management of the association. The association's covenants authorize it to charge homeowners quarterly assessment fees and purport to give the association the ability to collect 'all costs' incurred with the collection of assessment fees, without any limitation or bounds of reasonableness of those costs. The Defendant is a Michigan company with an office in Wake County, North Carolina, whose business consists of contracting with Homeowner's Associations ('HOAs') to aggressively contact and attempt to collect debt -- including allegedly arbitrary fees it imposed -- from members of HOAs. In 2019, the association referred the Plaintiff's account to the Defendant, with an originating balance of approximately $314. From March to September 2019, the Defendant called the Plaintiff repeatedly regarding the amount allegedly owed to the association. On Sept. 16, 2019, the Defendant added a $395 "Lien North Carolina" and $150 "Attorney Fee" to the Plaintiff's account. It caused a lien to be placed on the Plaintiff's home about Nov. 1, 2019, stating that the secured amount owed was $2,810. From October 2019 to August 2021, the Defendant continued to place calls to the Plaintiff and add charges to her account. During this time, the Plaintiff entered a payment plan and made a total of $782.45 in payments on her account. In January 2020, the Defendant added a $3,445 "Foreclosure Referral" fee to the Plaintiff's account. This charge later was removed on Aug. 20, 2021; however it was reinstated six days later, on Aug. 26, 2021. On that same date, the Defendant sent the Plaintiff the notice that is subject of her claims in the instant case. The notice states that the "Creditor" is the association and that the "Property" is her home. The notice is on the Defendant's letterhead. According to the complaint, the ending balance reflected on the Plaintiff's account is $6,349, meaning only $314 of the statement balance is the debt originating from the association, and the remaining $6,035 are fees from the Defendant for its debt collection services. In addition, the notice "included fees and/or costs that were incurred within 30 days" of the notice. The Defendant (i) did not seek "recoupment of unpaid fees" from the association; (ii) did not send the Plaintiff a detailed accounting of what assessments and fees were included in the alleged amount due for foreclosure, nor an itemization of fees and charges to the Plaintiff in the notice; and (iii) did not include any other notice of intent to seek recovery of attorneys' fees and costs. The notice caused the Plaintiff to believe that she would lose her home if all assessments and fees were not paid within 30 days. First, the Defendant argues that the Plaintiff fails to allege sufficient facts to support her claim under the FDCPA. Judge Flanagan disagrees. She says the Plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to state an FDCPA claim based on the contents of the notice. In addition, the Plaintiff has alleged facts giving rise to an inference of "unfair or unconscionable means" of collection, under Section 1692f. Upon consideration of additional arguments and citations raised in the Defendant's briefs concerning the FDCPA claim, Judge Flanagan finds them without merit. In sum, the Plaintiff has stated a claim for violation of the FDCPA, and the Defendant's motion in this part is denied. Next, the Defendant's grounds for dismissal of the Plaintiff's NCCAA and NCDCA claims parallel those articulated in favor of dismissal of the Plaintiff's FDCPA claim. For the reasons she stated in analyzing the Plaintiff's FDCPA claim, Judge Flanagan says the Plaintiff also has stated a claim under the NCCAA, or in the alternative, under the NCDCA. She leaves for another day a determination of whether the Defendant qualifies as a collection agency or a debt collector under North Carolina law. The Plaintiff asserts a stand-alone UDTPA based upon conduct apart from that supporting the NCCAA and NCDCA. The Defendant argues that said stand-alone claim must be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Judge Flanagan agrees. She finds that the Plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts to support a claim under the UDTPA separate from debt collection violations under the NCCAA or NCDCA. The Plaintiff's allegations are insufficient for two reasons. First, they are conclusory and not supported by any factual allegations supporting a claim of collusion. Second, the allegations do not go beyond facts necessary to state a claim under the FDCPA, NCCAA, or NCDCA, comprising the charging of excessive costs and fees directly to consumers. They do not independently give rise to an inference of "egregious or aggravating circumstances" supporting a stand-alone UDTPA claim. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's claim in this part is dismissed. In addition, Judge Flanagan says the Plaintiff fails to state a claim for unjust enrichment. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint payments made in 2019 and 2020, but none after receipt of the notice in 2021. Thus, she fails to allege that payments actually made to the Defendant constitute unjust enrichment. In sum, the Plaintiff's claim for unjust enrichment fails as a matter of law. Hence, the Defendant's motion in this part accordingly is granted. Finally, the Defendant argues that the Plaintiff's class action allegations should be stricken on the basis that they are insufficiently plead. Judge Flanagan disagrees. She says striking or dismissing the Plaintiff's class action allegations is improper, where it is not clear from the complaint that she cannot and could not meet Rule 23's requirements for certification. She leaves for another day the more "rigorous analysis" required to address issues raised by the Defendant in opposition to class certification. Therefore, that part of the Defendant's motion in seeking to strike the Plaintiff's class action allegations is denied. Based on the foregoing, the Defendant's motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part. Judge Flanagan dismisses the Plaintiff's UDPTA and unjust enrichment claims. She allows the Plaintiff's claims under the FDCPA, NCCAA, and NCDCA as well as class action allegations to proceed. For those proceeding forward, the Defendant must serve a responsive pleading within 14 days of entry of the Order. A full-text copy of the Court's May 31, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3uyf7wnh from Leagle.com. EVERLYWELL INC: Spiro Files Suit in C.D. California --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Everlywell, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Benjamin Spiro, Leah Spiro, Stephanie Rebecca Andrecs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Everlywell, Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-04539-PA-RAO (C.D. Cal., June 8, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Everlywell -- https://www.everlywell.com/ -- offers health and wellness solutions including laboratory testing for wellness monitoring, informational and educational use.[BN] The Plaintiffs is represented by: Bahar Sodaify, Esq. Alan Gudino, Esq. Ryan Ardi, Esq. Ryan J Clarkson CLARKSON LAW FIRM PC 22525 Pacific Coast Highway Malibu, CA 90265 Phone: (213) 788-4050 Fax: (213) 788-4070 Email: bsodaify@clarksonlawfirm.com agudino@clarksonlawfirm.com rardi@clarksonlawfirm.com rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com FIRST HORIZON: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment July 21 ---------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP on June 15 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against First Horizon Corporation ("FHN"), The Toronto-Dominion Bank and its subsidiaries, including wholly owned subsidiary TD Bank US Holding Company (collectively, "TD Bank" and, together with FHN, the "Companies"), and certain officers. The class action, filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, and docketed under 23-cv-03024, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired FHN securities between February 28, 2022 and May 3, 2023, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), to recover damages from the Defendants for their violations of the federal securities laws under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as detailed below. If you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired FHN securities during the Class Period, you have until July 21, 2023 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. FHN is a bank holding company headquartered in Memphis, Tennessee that, as of December 31, 2022, had consolidated assets of $79 billion. FHN provides consumer and commercial banking, wealth management, mortgage lending and other financial services primarily through its principal subsidiary, First Horizon Bank. As of December 31, 2022, FHN operated 414 banking centers in twelve states. TD Bank is a Canadian financial institution with U.S. headquarters in New Jersey. As of October 31, 2022, TD Bank had $1.9 trillion in assets. Since 2004, TD Bank has expanded its retail banking presence in the U.S. through acquisitions of regional banks. On February 28, 2022, FHN and TD Bank jointly announced that TD Bank had agreed to acquire FHN for $25.00 per share in cash ("Transaction"), which represented a 37% premium to FHN's share price from its close on the prior trading day. With respect to the timeline for closing the Transaction, a joint press release ("Feb 2022 Press Release") issued by TD Bank and FHN on February 28, 2022, announcing the deal explained that the "transaction is expected to close in the first quarter of TD's 2023 fiscal year, and is subject to customary closing conditions, including approvals from First Horizon's shareholders and U.S. and Canadian regulatory authorities." The Feb 2022 Press Release further advised that (i) if "the transaction does not close prior to November 27, 2022 [i.e., within 9 months], First Horizon shareholders will receive, at closing, an additional US$0.65 per share on an annualized basis for the period from November 27, 2022 through the day immediately prior to the closing," and (ii) "[t]he transaction will terminate, unless otherwise extended, if it does not close by February 27, 2023." On a conference call to discuss the Transaction held on February 28, 2022, an analyst observed that "there's a lot of sensitivity around regulatory approval process for M&A in the U.S.," and then asked TD Bank's senior management about their "comfort level on getting deal closing done" within the timeline announced. The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements and omissions concerning the risks to regulatory approval of the Transaction posed by TD Bank's materially deficient anti-money laundering ("AML") policies and procedures, which caused Plaintiff and other Class members to suffer significant losses when these undisclosed regulatory risks materialized and caused the market value of FHN's securities to decline precipitously. On August 25, 2022, on TD Bank's Q3 2022 earnings call, TD Bank's Group President and Chief Executive Officer ("CEO"), Defendant Bharat B. Masrani ("Masrani"), reiterated that he expected the Transaction "to close in the first fiscal quarter of 2023." When asked about any risks that may delay the Transaction from closing, Defendant Masrani responded, "[o]ur deal continues to progress in the normal course, there is nothing out there to suggest that, that is different this time around." Defendant Masrani was not the only TD Bank executive to reassure analysts concerning the timeline for closing the Transaction. On September 14, 2022, at the Barclays Global Financial Services Conference, when asked for an update on the timeline for the Transaction, Defendant Leo Salom ("Salom"), Group Head, U.S. Retail, TD Bank Group and President and CEO, TD Bank, advised that "[w]e do expect to close the transaction at the end of the fiscal first quarter. And we're tracking well against that." Defendant Salom then added: "[O]n August 18th we had the public hearing, the OCC, the Fed hosted. That is the normal part of the application process. But to your point, I'm sure there's going to be a lot of questions about how confident are we? We're extremely confident. We believe this transaction does not represent any financial stability or competitive consolidation risk. We've already announced that we will protect all the front-line staff, we will be retaining all the retail and commercial bankers. Likewise, we won't be closing any stores. So, if you look at the strength of the application, we're quite excited about getting this done in short order. Based on the repeated reassurances provided by Defendants Masrani and Salom that there were no regulatory risks that could delay the closing of the Transaction, FHN shareholders had no reason to believe that TD Bank was concealing any regulatory risks that could derail the Transaction. Unbeknownst to FHN shareholders, however, (i) TD Bank had materially deficient policies and procedures for detecting and reporting suspected money laundering, (ii) regulators at the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency ("OCC") and the Federal Reserve were refusing to approve the Transaction because of TD Bank's materially deficient AML policies and procedures, and (iii) TD Bank's materially deficient AML policies and procedures thus constituted a concealed regulatory risk to the closing of the Transaction. TD Bank's public statements concerning its risk management practices in general, and AML compliance in particular, gave no indication that TD Bank's AML policies and procedures were materially deficient. To the contrary, an investor presentation made available by TD Bank to FHN shareholders on Schedule 14A on February 28, 2022, advised that TD Bank has "a disciplined risk culture." That "disciplined risk culture" was documented in part in TD Bank's Code of Conduct and Ethics for Employees and Directors ("TD Bank Code"), which was filed on Form 6-K with the SEC on February 7, 2022. With respect to AML compliance, the TD Bank Code stated: TD is committed to taking all reasonable and appropriate steps to detect and deter persons engaged in money laundering from utilizing TD products or services to do so. Making the proceeds of criminal activity appear as if they came from legitimate sources is a criminal offence, and so is knowingly failing to report transactions or activities where it is suspected they relate to money laundering. We must not knowingly initiate or be party to money laundering and must promptly report suspected money laundering situations in accordance with the TD Bank Group Enterprise Anti-Money Laundering and Anti-Terrorist Financing Policy and the escalation procedures established for our business or region. Subsequently, in March 2022, TD Bank published its "TD Bank Statement on Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorist Financing and Sanctions" ("AML Statement"), which represented that TD Bank's commitment to detect and deter persons engaged in money laundering was formalized through "the establishment of an enterprise-wide Anti-Money Laundering/Anti-Terrorist Financing (AML/ATF) and Sanctions risk and compliance management program (Global AML Program) that is designed to detect and report suspected money laundering and terrorist financing and activity prohibited by sanctions." The AML Statement further represented that among the requirements of the Global AML Program were (i) "ongoing monitoring to detect and report suspicious transactions or activities," (ii) "regulatory reporting of prescribed transactions," and (iii) "independent testing of control effectiveness." The first inkling that regulatory issues may derail approval of the Transaction surfaced on TD Bank's Q4 2022 earnings call on December 1, 2022. Defendant Masrani advised that TD Bank was "planning to close the [Transaction] in the first half of fiscal 2023 subject to customary closing conditions, including approvals from U.S. and Canadian regulatory authorities." After observing that Defendant Masrani had previously guided on the Q3 2022 earnings call that the Transaction would close in Q1 2023, and that the timing had now slipped to the first half of 2023, an analyst inquired "[w]hat's prompting the delayed expectation of closing?" Defendant Masrani responded, "so we don't control the timing of all the regulatory approvals, but we are confident that we will get closing within the time line that we've put out." When the analyst pressed for specifics—"are they taking a closer look at anything? Are you anticipating having to make any adjustments to your product going up or your schedule in advance of the close?"—Defendant Masrani advised, "No, I'm not aware of anything of the sort you're mentioning." Yet, just over two months later, on February 9, 2023, the Companies issued a joint press release ("Feb 2023 Press Release") announcing that they had mutually agreed to extend the deadline to close the Transaction from February 27, 2023, to May 27, 2023. The Feb 2023 Press Release further stated that "[c]ustomary closing conditions, including approvals from regulatory authorities in the U.S. and Canada, are required to close the transaction." The generic disclosure, however, was insufficient to alert FHN shareholders to the existence of regulatory risks since it failed to disclose the specific risk that TD Bank's materially deficient AML policies and procedures were posing to regulatory approval of the Transaction. On March 1, 2023, in its 2022 Form 10-K, FHN advised that (i) receipt of regulatory approval of the Transaction was taking longer than originally anticipated, (ii) TD Bank had recently informed FHN that TD Bank did not expect to receive the necessary regulatory approvals in time to close the Transaction by a new deadline of May 27, 2023, and (iii) TD Bank had initiated discussions with FHN regarding a potential further extension of the new May 27, 2023 deadline. The 2022 Form 10-K also noted that "TD cannot provide a new projected closing date at this time." On this news, FHN's stock price fell $2.63 per share, or 10.62%, to close at $22.14 per share on May 1, 2023. On May 3, 2023, according to a Capital Forum report being circulated among traders, Defendant Masrani had a meeting with officials of the OCC concerning the Transaction on March 9, 2023, that was also attended by TD Bank's outside counsel. On this news, FHN's stock price fell $1.14 per share, or 7.04%, to close at $15.05 per share on May 3, 2023. On May 4, 2023, before the markets opened, TD Bank and FHN announced that they had mutually agreed to terminate the Transaction because TD Bank "does not have a timetable for regulatory approvals to be obtained for reasons unrelated to First Horizon," and "there is uncertainty as to when and if these regulatory approvals can be obtained." TD Bank and FHN, however, failed to disclose that TD Bank's materially deficient AML policies and procedures had derailed regulatory approval of the Transaction. Upon news of the termination of the Transaction, FHN's stock price fell $4.99 per share, or 33.16%, to close at $10.06 per share on May 4, 2023. The concealed regulatory risk that derailed the Transaction was finally revealed on May 8, 2023, when The Wall Street Journal (the "WSJ") published an article citing sources alleging that TD Bank's "handling of suspicious customer transactions was behind regulators' refusal to bless" the Transaction, and that the Transaction was terminated because regulators were unwilling "to give TD a clean bill of health on its anti-money laundering practices." The article's sources alleged that "regulators' concerns stemmed from the way TD handled unusual transactions in recent years, and the speed at which some of them were brought to the attention of U.S. authorities." According to the WSJ, in "recent years," TD Bank had only "flagged 28 customer transactions" as suspicious. For these reasons, the OCC and the Federal Reserve refused to approve the Transaction within the necessary time frames. Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later, Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered billions of dollars in damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomlaw.com. CONTACT: Robert S. Willoughby Pomerantz LLP rswilloughby@pomlaw.com 888-476-6529 ext. 7980 [GN] FLIFF INC: Engages in Online Sports Gambling, Nessim Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ BISHOY NESSIM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FLIFF, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:23-cv-01048 (C.D. Cal., June 6, 2023) alleges that the Defendant violates the California Unfair Competition Law by operating an illegal online sports book seeking declaratory, injunctive and equitable relief, including rescission and restitution, as well as costs and attorneys' fees. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, to avoid any regulation or legal oversight, Fliff claims to be a free sweepstakes with the chance for users to "play sports prediction games for entertainment." But, in the real world, alleged sports prediction games are nothing more than online sports gambling. Indeed, Fliff gives every user, regardless of local, state, or federal law, the option to bet with "Fliff Cash" which has a dollar-for-dollar equivalence to actual money and that can be withdrawn and wired directly to the users' bank accounts, says the suit. FLIFF, INC. a play-for-fun social sports betting platform with promotional games and loyalty rewards. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dennis Stewart GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC 600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300 San Diego, CA 92021 Telephone: (619) 595-3299 Email: dstewart@gustafsongluek.com - and - Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. Abou B. Amara, Jr., Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC 120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 333-8844 Facsimile: (612) 339-6622 Email: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com aamara@gustafsongluek.com - and - Simon Bahne Paris, Esq. Patrick Howard, Esq. SALTZ, MONGELUZZI, & BENDESKY, P.C. One Liberty Place, 52nd Floor 1650 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 575-3986 Email: sparis@smbb.com phoward@smbb.com FLIFF INC: Faces $5M Suit Over Illegal Sports Betting Practices --------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Moraine of Gambling News reports that the operator of sports prediction games for entertainment, Fliff, is facing a class action lawsuit in California after a complaint seeking $5 million in damages was filed with the US District Court for the Central District of California on June 6, 2023. Seeking Compensation for the Losses The plaintiff, Bishoy Neshim, claims he lost over $7,000 while using the Fliff app and filed a complaint alleging Fliff is operating as a sportsbook. Neshim seeks compensation for his losses and for the losses of those similarly affected by Fliff's alleged illegal sports betting operation. The lawsuit also seeks an injunction to stop Fliff from violating the federal Wire Act by offering its contests across state lines. Sportsbooks are not permitted in California after voters decided against the legalization of sports wagering in November 2022, defeating the proposition that would have allowed for retail sports betting at tribal casinos and horse racing tracks, as well as the proposition that would have opened the state to mobile and online wagering. The lawsuit states that "Fliff facilitates the ability for California residents to make online sports wagers to win real money without any approvals, regulations, oversight, or taxing," claiming "to be a free-to-play operator of sweepstakes with the chance to play 'sports prediction games' for entertainment" while "in the real world, alleged sports prediction games are nothing more than online sports gambling." The lawsuit further elaborates on the model utilized by Fliff through which the operator uses a medium, "Fliff cash," to replace real money but in practice, Fliff cash "has a dollar-for-dollar equivalence to actual money and that can be withdrawn and wired directly to the users' bank account." The plaintiff states that Fliff does not satisfy the state's definition of "sweepstakes" as its prizes are not distributed either by lot or by chance, and instead uses the sweepstakes model to entice customers with free "Fliff Coins" and then bait them into depositing US dollars and converting them into Fliff cash. Regulatory Probe in Ohio Based in Pennsylvania and with a development hub in Bulgaria, the operator that is currently available in 45 US states was one of five operators which fell under regulatory scrutiny in Ohio, following an investigation launched by the Ohio Casino Control Commission (OCCC) in May. The OCCC addressed issues that these sweepstakes operators offer markets that mimic traditional prop-type bets, while player wins and losses are dependent on their point totals resembling a spread. Following the complaint in California, the court is expected to hear arguments from both the plaintiff and defendant in the coming weeks and months. If the court finds Fliff guilty of unlawful bookmaking and wagering under Californian law, the operator will face a felony charge. [GN] FORMAN MILLS: Faces WARN Class Action Suit Over Mass Layoffs ------------------------------------------------------------ Alexandra Harrell, writing for Sourcing Journal, reports that a new lawsuit says Forman Mills violated federal and state laws when it laid off more than 50 headquarters employees without sufficient notice or severance. Former assistant buyer Noell Del Rossi filed a class action lawsuit against the 46-store off-price fashion retailer on June 7, claiming that the Pennsauken, N.J.-based company violated the federal and state Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act when it terminated 33 percent or more of its workforce via a statement that read "[b]ased on the economic circumstances and operational needs of the business, your position has been eliminated." According to New Jersey state law, the WARN Act requires employers with more than 100 full-time employees (Forman Mills had over 130) to give 90-day advance notice of a layoff of more than 50 employees. The federal WARN Act states that employers must provide a 60-day notice. Del Rossi alleges that Forman Mills failed to do so, as she claims that the affected employees were told the termination was "effective immediately," according to the complaint. She also alleged that the off-price chain store failed to pay the federal WARN class members one week of pay for each year of service as required by the New Jersey WARN Act as well as an additional four weeks of pay for not providing the requisite 90-day notice. Del Rossi is filing the class action to represent all the employees who were terminated without cause on June 6 by Forman Mills, which has a presence in nine states plus an e-commerce site. The lawsuit is seeking damages in the amount of unpaid wages and salary, commissions and bonuses, accrued holiday and vacation pay, as well as retirement benefits for a 60-day period that would have been covered and paid under the employee benefit plans had that coverage continued for that period. Forman Mills was founded in 1985 by Richard Forman, who sold the business to New York City-based private equity firm Goode Partners in 2016. Neither Forman Mills nor Goode Partners responded to Sourcing Journal's request for comment. Forman Mills isn't the only retailer accused of violating the WARN Act. Bed Bath & Beyond was sued on the same grounds after it let go of 1,300 workers. The plaintiff, one of the terminated workers, claimed the bankrupt retailer failed to provide the required advance notice and pay the full compensation owed. That lawsuit is now pending as the Chapter 11 case winds through the court system. [GN] FRAME MY TV.COM: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Frame My TV.com, LLC. The case is styled as Luis Toro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Accessories International, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-04863 (S.D.N.Y., June 9, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Frame My TV -- https://framemytv.com/ -- is a manufacturer of premium TV Frames.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com FUTU HOLDINGS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due August 11 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder rights law firm, on June 16 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Futu Holdings Limited ("Futu" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: FUTU) in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Futu securities between April 27, 2020 and May 16, 2023, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors have until August 11, 2023 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose, among other things, that: (1) Futu's business was, quite simply, illegal as it related to operations in China as a result of its failure to obtain the proper licenses; (2) it did not fully disclose to investors that it was engaging in unlawful activity and instead falsely characterized the applicable Chinese laws as ambiguous; (3) the foregoing subjected the Company to a heightened risk of regulatory enforcement; and (4) as a result, Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Futu shares and suffered a loss, are a long-term stockholder, have information, would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Brandon Walker or Melissa Fortunato by email at investigations@bespc.com, telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to you. About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.: Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country. For more information about the firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Contacts: Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Brandon Walker, Esq. Melissa Fortunato, Esq. (212) 355-4648 investigations@bespc.com www.bespc.com [GN] GCM L.L.C.: Cain Files Suit in N.D. Georgia ------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against GCM, L.L.C. The case is styled as Christina Cain, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. GCM, L.L.C. doing business as: CGM, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-02604-SEG (N.D. Ga., June 10, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Fiduciary Duty. GCM, L.L.C. are a global leader in alternative investments.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Ready Tate, Esq. PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE LLP 235 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 400 Atlanta, GA 30303 Phone: (404) 282-4806 Fax: (504) 608-1465 Email: atate@peifferwolf.com - and - Brandon Michael Wise, Esq. PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE LLP-MO 818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2 St. Louis, MO 63104 Phone: (314) 833-4825 Email: bwise@peifferwolf.com GENERAC POWER: Locatell Sues Over Defective Solar Panels -------------------------------------------------------- KATHRYN LOCATELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GENERAC POWER SYSTEMS, INC.; and GENERAC HOLDINGS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-00683-LA (E.D. Cal., June 2, 2023) seeks damages and appropriate equitable relief, including an order enjoining Generac from selling its Solar Products without disclosing the Defect to consumers. According to the complaint, Generac's Generac PWRcell systems includes components called SnapRS (Rapid Shutdown) devices. The SnapRS devices are safety devices that rapidly shut down power to individual solar panels as required by the National Electric Code ("NEC") and reduce photovoltaic ("PV") output voltage to safe levels (less than 80 volts). These critical "shutoff" devices are installed between each solar panel and are meant to protect against electrical surges. If working properly, the SnapRS devices prevent electric shock, electrocution, physical harm, equipment damage, and damage to property. However, Generac's SnapRS devices are defective and dangerous to consumers and their homes. The shutoff devices malfunction by becoming overactive, repeatedly turning off and on, causing them to overheat, bubble, burn, and explode, resulting in charring and home fires (the "Defect"). In addition, the Defect results in a loss of energy production for consumers' home energy systems by either shutting down entire panels or the entire Generac System, sometimes for prolonged periods. Malfunctions are detected through Generac's inverters and coded as "PVRSS Lockout" errors, which send the system into "lockout mode" and prevent it from producing solar energy until the lockout is cleared, says the suit. GENERAC POWER SYSTEMS, INC. produces and distributes power equipment. The Company offers portable, residential, commercial, mobile, and industrial generators, as well as light towers, pressure washers, heaters, pumps, and parts and accessories. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark P. Chalos, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 222 2nd Avenue South, Suite 1640 Nashville, TN 37201-2379 Telephone: (615) 313-9000 Facsimile: (615) 313-9965 Email: mchalos@lchb.com - and - Michael Levin-Gesundheit, Esq. Nicholas Ryan Hartmann, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 Facsimile: (415) 956.1008 Email: mlevin@lchb.com nhartmann@lchb.com GOOGLE INC: Agrees to Settle Google Referrer Header Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Hunt4Freebies reports that there is a Google Referrer Header Class Action Settlement! You are included in this Settlement as a Settlement Class Member if you used Google Search and clicked on a Search link at any time on or between October 25, 2006 and September 30, 2013. You must submit your Claim Form online no later than on July 31, 2023, or mail your completed paper Claim Form so that it is postmarked no later than on July 31, 2023. Use this registration form to receive a class member ID. A Class Member ID is necessary to file a claim. NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: You are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement website to ensure you meet all standards. [GN] GOOGLE LLC: CCIA Files Amicus Brief in Google Play Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- The Computer & Communications Industry Association filed an amicus brief on June 15 supporting a request that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reverse the District Court's order granting class certification in Mary Carr v. Google, arguing that the ruling violates both Article III and the Due Process Clause, having established a plaintiff class that likely includes a significant proportion of uninjured parties. The amicus brief, co-filed with another non-profit association, the International Association of Defense Counsel, states that: "Unless district courts employ credible models and direct evidence to make class-wide determinations, they will inevitably pull in larger and larger swaths of uninjured class members as innovative technologies continue to proliferate and class actions become more expansive." The following can be attributed to CCIA Senior Vice President and Chief of Staff Stephanie Joyce: "The U.S. Constitution requires that all plaintiffs demonstrate actual injury, and that requirement must have equal force in class actions. Certifying improperly inflated classes could have far-reaching consequences for innovation, if digital services become easy targets for large class actions, and for the legal system which will be grossly overburdened with spurious lawsuits. We ask the Ninth Circuit to reverse the lower court's order and demand that appropriately stringent analysis be conducted here and on all future requests for class treatment." About CCIA: CCIA is an international, not-for-profit trade association representing a broad cross section of communications and technology firms. For more than 50 years, CCIA has promoted open markets, open systems, and open networks. CCIA members employ more than 1.6 million workers, invest more than $100 billion in research and development, and contribute trillions of dollars in productivity to the global economy. For more, please visit: https://ccianet.org. [GN] GORES HOLDINGS: Faces Class Action Over 2021 UWM Merger ------------------------------------------------------- David Krechevsky, writing for National Mortgage Professional, reports that an investor is seeking class action status for a lawsuit he filed against a specialty purpose acquisition company (SPAC) that merged in January 2021 with United Wholesale Mortgage to take the mortgage lender public. The lawsuit, filed in the Delaware Chancery Court on March 10 by shareholder Richard Delman, accuses the defendants of "providing false and misleading" information in advance of the merger The suit was filed on behalf of Delman "and similarly situated current and former stockholders" of Gores Holdings IV Inc., which changed its name to UWM Holdings Corp. following the $16 billion merger. The lawsuit names as defendants Gores Sponsors IV LLC, AEG Holdings LLC, Alec Gores, Randall Bort, William Patton, Jeffrey Rea, Mark Stone, and Andrew McBride. The six people cited, including billionaire Alec Gores, all served as directors of Gores Sponsor IV. The lawsuit does not name UWM or its billionaire Chairman & CEO Mat Ishbia as defendants. According to the complaint, a copy of which was provided to NMP by Delman's attorney, the defendants "allowed their financial interests to override their fiduciary duties and responsibilities as controlling stockholders and directors and officers of a Delaware corporation by forcing through a value-destroying merger with Legacy UWM on the basis of false and misleading disclosures." It continues, "Those false and misleading disclosures induced Gores IV's public stockholders to invest in the merger" instead of redeeming their shares. The complaint states that, because of the way the deal was structured, the "merger was a losing proposition for Gores IV public stockholders and a tremendous windfall for the defendants. Gores IV public stockholders would have been far better off redeeming their shares for $10 plus accrued interest." A news release announcing the planned merger issued Sept. 23, 20202, states that the transaction "values UWM at approximately $16.1 billion, or 9.5x the company's estimated 2021 adjusted net income of approximately $1.7 billion." According to the complaint, while the merger agreement valued the company shares at $10 per share, "there was less than $8.25 (per share) in net cash underlying the Gores IV shares." The complaint continues, "It would reasonably follow, therefore, that in negotiating a share exchange, Legacy UWM would inflate its value commensurately to match the implied valuation. Driven by their own financial self-interests, the board fail to disclose this danger in approving the merger and recommending it to public stockholders." The lawsuit claims UWM did inflate its value with projections that "Legacy UWM would increase its pro forma tax adjusted income by 77% and its revenues by 61% by the end of 2022." The projections "failed to account for the inevitable slowdown of the refinance and origination market, a predictable rise in interest rates, and significant regulatory risks that would require substantial changes to the business," the lawsuit states. The complaint adds that, once the merger was completed, UWM "substantially downgraded its revenue projections and revealed details about its business model that made its meteoric projected growth implausible." The lawsuit adds that, instead of redeeming their shares for $10.10 per share, Gores IV stockholders saw their shares decline to $7.23 per share on April 20, 2021, just three months after the merger was completed. A year later, on Jan. 21, 2022, UWMC shares closed at $5.29 per share, and as of March 6 of this year, the stock was valued at just $4.76 per share. UWM has also reported two consecutive quarterly losses. Calling the deal "abysmal" for Gores IV stockholders, the complaint states that the merger was "a financial windfall for Gores . . . and the purportedly independent directors." It states that, on the day the merger was completed, the defendants "reaped a potential return of over $112 million." "Due to the conflicts of interest on the part of the board, which drove the board to recommend the merger, provide misleading information in the proxy, and withhold material information from public stockholders," the merger "requires judicial review for entire fairness," the complaint states. The lawsuit lists four counts, including three counts of breach of fiduciary duty and one count of unjust enrichment. It asks the court to approve the complaint as a class action and certify the class; find the defendants liable, and award class members damages in an amount to be determined at trial. [GN] GRECIAN POOLS: Faces Reyes Suit Over Laborers' Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- CRUZ ROSENDO REYES, on behalf of himself, and those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Grecian Pools International Corp., and Nick Tsoukas, jointly and severally, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-04064 (E.D.N.Y., June 1, 2023) is brought against the Defendants pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law seeking to recover unpaid minimum wage, overtime, unlawfully withheld spread of hours premium, and statutory penalties for notice-and-recordkeeping violations, for Plaintiff and all others similarly situated. Plaintiff Reyes was employed as a general laborer, delivering merchandise, picking up/dropping off employees to worksites by defendants, and cleaning and maintaining pools, from March 2022 to November 9, 2022. Grecian Pools International is a swimming pool service firm.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeanne Mirer, Esq. JULIEN MIRER SINGLA & GOLDSTEIN, PLLC 1 Whitehall St, 16th floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 231-2235 E-mail: jmirer@workingpeopleslaw.com GROW CARE INC: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Grow Care, Inc. The case is styled as Linda Slade, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Grow Care, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-04845 (S.D.N.Y., June 8, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Grow Care, Inc. doing business as Grow Therapy -- https://growtherapy.com/ -- bridges the gap between therapists and people seeking mental health care to get more people into therapy.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Phone: (917) 373-9128 Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com HARU INVEST: Investors Prepares Class Suits for Illegal Charges --------------------------------------------------------------- Varinder Singh, writing for CoinGape, reports that crypto yield platform Haru Invest suspended withdrawals and deposits and crypto lending firm Delio halts withdrawals. As a result of crypto worth billions frozen, Haru Invest and Delio investors are preparing to bring class action lawsuits against the crypto firms. South Korea is one of the largest crypto markets, with crypto assets worth billion traded daily on several crypto platforms in the country. Investors of Haru Invest and Delio Prepares Class Action Lawsuits Crypto firm Haru Invest and Delio investors preparing for class-action lawsuits after they suddenly suspended customer deposits and withdrawals, as per a local media report on June 16. Over 400 investors of crypto earn platform Haru Invest and 150 investors of crypto lending platform Delio participated in a KakaoTalk group chat to prepare for lawsuits. Investors will probably sue the crypto platforms for charges including fraud through law firm LKB & Partners. Haru Invest and Delio offer earn services that allow users to earn yields by depositing their crypto assets on the platforms. Haru Invest and Delio offered maximum yields of 12 percent and 10 percent, respectively. On June 13, Haru Invest suspended deposits and withdrawals, stating that its consignment operator B&S Holdings provided false information. In addition, Haru Invest has filed a criminal lawsuit against B&S Holdings. It followed Delio to halt withdrawals due to market volatility amid Haru Invest's suspension of deposits and withdrawals. Delio has reportedly deposited a certain amount of crypto assets in Haru Invest. The firm planned to hold an investors' meeting on Jan. 17 as the situation turns serious. "I sincerely apologize to the investors who believed in us and used our service," said Delio CEO Jung Sang-ho. "We will report our current situation to investors and discuss feasible ways to recoup investments." Haru Invest Possible Exposure to FTX Meanwhile, CryptoQuant CEO Ki Young Ju said Haru Invest could have exposure to beleaguered crypto exchange FTX. OXT Research reported that Haru Invest used FTX. If the report is true, the company has kept its investors in the dark for almost a year. According to on-chain data, Haru Invest's two transactions to FTX are the most significant transfers to its Bitcoin address. It happened during the Terra-LUNA crash in 2022. [GN] HARVARD MEDICAL: Keches Law Files Class Action Over Morgue Scandal ------------------------------------------------------------------ Keches Law Group filed a class action lawsuit on June 16 on behalf of families who suffered emotional distress due to the alleged illegal sale of human remains by the former morgue manager at Harvard Medical School. The lawsuit comes in the wake of the horrific allegations that Cedric Lodge, former morgue manager, sold body parts that had been donated to the school on the black market. Lodge was indicted, arrested, and charged with unlawful interstate transport of stolen human remains from "in or about 2018 through on or about Aug. 16, 2022," according to a statement from Harvard officials. He was one of five people charged in the scandal, none of whom were associated with the university. Investigators believe that Lodge worked without cooperation of anyone else at Harvard Medical School or Harvard University. Keches Law Partner Jeff Catalano, who specializes in medical malpractice cases, said when someone suffers the trauma of losing a loved one, "sometimes the only thing they can latch onto, is that their loved ones' remains are going to be used for an important scientific purpose. Massachusetts law allows for recovery of emotional damages when close family members traumatized by the death of a loved one experience serious mental anguish caused by harm to the decedent's remains resulting from a breach of that duty. Parties impacted can contact Keches Law. ABOUT KECHES LAW GROUP Keches Law Group is one of the largest and most well-respected personal injury and workers' compensation law firms in Massachusetts. Since opening in 1986, the group has recovered more than $2 billion for their clients and has supported unions and fights for the rights of people injured on the job throughout the greater Boston area, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, and Connecticut. Other practice areas include social security disability, employment law, class action, medical malpractice, and more. Keches Law Group also prioritizes community involvement and charitable causes through their non-profit organization, Keches Cares. For more information, visit the Keches Law website or follow them on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and LinkedIn CONTACT For general media inquiries: pr@kecheslaw.com [GN] HARVARD PILGRIM: Faces Four Data Breach Class Action Suits ---------------------------------------------------------- Marianne Kolbasuk McGee of Bank Info Security reports that a ransomware attack in April that compromised the personal information of more than 2.5 million individuals has triggered at least four proposed federal class action lawsuits against Massachusetts health insurer Harvard Pilgrim Health and its parent company, Point32Health. The lawsuits, filed over the last 10 days in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, each make similar claims against the companies, including negligence, breach of implied contract, breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment for failing to protect personal information against cyberattacks. Plaintiffs filed the first of the four lawsuits on May 30. The two most recent lawsuits came on June 7, 2023. Point32Health, Massachusetts' second-largest health insurer and parent company of nearly a dozen firms, discovered the ransomware attack on April 17. The incident affected Harvard Pilgrim Health Care's commercial and New Hampshire Medicare Advantage Stride plans (see: New England Health Plan Still Recovering From Attack). Point32Health on June 6, 2023 posted an update for health plan members indicating the company was still experiencing impacts to its IT system involving its Harvard Pilgrim Health Care commercial and Medicare Advantage Stride health plans. A Point32Health spokeswoman told Information Security Media Group the company has been making "significant progress" in bringing its systems back online and processing business transactions. That includes distributing provider payments for claims processed prior to the incident, restoring access for servicing teams and providers for member eligibility, confirming security protocols and reactivated information sharing with many trading partners, delivering broker commissions, and issuing temporary member ID cards, as needed. "Over the next few weeks, we expect more core functions and tools to come back online," she said. That includes enrolling new members, claims processing for self-insured individuals, and expanded functionality within member, provider, employer and broker servicing teams. On its website, Point32Health says it is still waiving prior authorization requirements for Harvard Pilgrim health plan members to use nonpharmacy medical and behavioral health benefits. Data Exfiltration The investigation into the incident "identified signs that data was copied and taken from our Harvard Pilgrim systems from March 28 to April 17," Harvard Pilgrim said in a breach notice posted on its website. Affected information includes names, addresses, phone numbers, birthdates, health insurance account information, Social Security numbers, provider taxpayer identification numbers and clinical information, the company said. Harvard Pilgrim is offering affected individuals two years of credit monitoring and identity theft protection services. Nonetheless, plaintiffs and class members affected by the incident face the risk of identity theft and fraud crimes, the lawsuits allege. "Defendants' failure to timely detect and report the data breach made their customers vulnerable to identity theft without any warnings to monitor their financial accounts or credit reports to prevent unauthorized use of their sensitive information," alleges the lawsuit complaint filed by plaintiff Tracy Wilson, a Harvard Pilgrim health plan member. Each proposed class action lawsuit seeks similar relief, including punitive damages and an injunctive order for Harvard Pilgrim and Point32Health to protect sensitive data against future incidents. In its last public update about the incident, Point32Health said it was already taking "several steps to further enhance the security of our organization and the data entrusted to us." That includes reviewing and enhancing user access protocols, bolstering vulnerability scanning and identifying prioritized IT security improvements, implementing a new endpoint detection and response solution, and conducting password resets for administrative accounts. Point32Health did not immediately respond to ISMG's requests for comment on the lawsuits and for additional details about the ransomware incident. [GN] HEADOUT INC: Reid Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Headout Inc. The case is styled as Nadreca Reid, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Headout Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-04846 (S.D.N.Y., June 8, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Headout Inc. -- https://www.headout.com/ -- curates the world's best experiences and things to do - tours, attractions, trips, events.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Phone: (917) 373-9128 Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com HOME PARTNERS: Class Cert Expert Disclosures Extended to August 15 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as FRANK RICHMOND et al., v. HOME PARTNERS HOLDING LLC et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-05704-DGE (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge David G. Estudillo entered an order granting stipulated motion to extend deadlines: -- The Plaintiffs' expert disclosures and August 15, 2023 reports related to class certification shall be due on or before: -- The Defendants' rebuttal expert September 30, 2023. disclosures and reports shall be due on or before: -- Expert depositions shall be completed October 15, 2023 by: -- All other deadlines set forth in the Court Class Certification Briefing Schedule shall remain in place: Home Partners provides responsible households that cannot obtain a mortgage a transparent path to home ownership. A copy of the Court's order dated May 31, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NqjkFG at no extra charge.[CC] HORNBLOWER CRUISES: Bid to Partially Dismiss Shaw TAC Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CLYVE SHAW and KENARDRO PRESS, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, v. HORNBLOWER CRUISES & EVENTS, LCC, Case No. 1:21-cv-10408-VM-OTW (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Victor Marrero entered an order: -- Denying in its entirety the motion of Hornblower Cruises to partially dismiss the Third Amended Complaint filed by the Plaintiffs Clyve Shaw and Kenardro Press pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) and Rule 12(b)(2) of the FederalRules of Civil Procedure; -- Directing the Defendant to file an Answer within 21 days of the date of this Decision and Order; and -- Adjourning case management conference currently scheduled for June 2, 2023. Accordingly, the Court finds that the Defendant did not waive its right to raise a personal jurisdiction defense with respect to the California claims as the defense is not yet available. The appropriate time to raise this challenge is when those putative class members are before the Court at the class certification stage, at which point the Court would be able to address the merits of the defense and the applicability of the Supreme Court’s decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb. The Court accordingly denies the Defendant's Motion to dismiss the claims concerning the California sites of employment for lack of jurisdiction. However, the Court recognizes that the Defendant reserves the right to raise this defense when the Plaintiffs move for class certification. The Plaintiffs bring this putative class action, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, against Hornblower. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant violated the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, the New York State Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, and the Illinois Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, by failing to provide the required notices to its employees before closing a site of employment or conducting a mass layoff. The Plaintiffs initiated this action on December 6, 2021. On July 15, 2022, the Defendant filed its first motion to partially dismiss the Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint or, in the alternative, partially deny class certification on a preemptive basis. The Court granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's motion, granting the Plaintiffs leave to amend their Second Amended Complaint. Hornblower Cruises is a San Francisco-based charter yacht, dining cruise and ferry service company. A copy of the Court's order dated May 31, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3J8AzZu at no extra charge.[CC] HORNBLOWER CRUISES: Loses Bid for Partial Dismissal of Shaw Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, CLYVE SHAW and KENARDRO PRESS, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HORNBLOWER CRUISES & EVENTS, LCC, Defendant, No. 21 Civ. 10408 (VM) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Victor Marrero of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denies the Defendant's motion to partially dismiss the Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs Shaw and Press bring the putative class action, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, against the Defendant. They allege that the Defendant violated the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (the "federal WARN Act" or "WARN Act"), the New York State Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, and the Illinois Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, by failing to provide the required notices to its employees before closing a site of employment or conducting a mass layoff. Now before the Court is the Defendant's motion to partially dismiss the Plaintiffs' TAC pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(2). The federal WARN Act prohibits employers of 100 or more employees from ordering a plant closing or mass layoff until the end of a 60-day period after the employer serves written notice of such an order. An employer who fails to provide the required notice when laying off a threshold number of employees is liable to "each aggrieved employee who suffers an employment loss" because of the plant closing or layoff. The Defendant conducted business in New York, Illinois, and other states, employing thousands of workers throughout the country. As part of the Plaintiffs' federal WARN Act claim, the TAC identifies sites of employment in Newport Beach, Marina del Rey, San Francisco, and San Diego, California where 97, 69, 139, and 65 employees of the Defendant, respectively, were allegedly laid off. The TAC alleges that at least 33% of the full-time employees of each of these locations were terminated but that the Defendant possesses the exact number of terminated employees at each of its worksites. The TAC further alleges that the Defendant's employees at these sites did not receive the required written notice at least 60 days prior to termination or with as much notice as possible. The Plaintiffs initiated the action on Dec. 6, 2021. On July 15, 2022, the Defendant filed its first motion to partially dismiss the Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint or, in the alternative, partially deny class certification on a preemptive basis. The Court granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's motion, granting the Plaintiffs leave to amend their SAC. The Plaintiffs filed their TAC on Nov. 14, 2022. Consistent with the Court's Individual Practices, Section II.B, the Defendant sent the Plaintiffs a pre-motion letter, indicating that it intended to file a motion to partially dismiss the TAC for failure to state a claim and for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Plaintiffs filed their pre-motion letter opposing the grounds for the Defendant's anticipated motion and the Defendant filed its pre-motion letter in response. The parties then filed a joint letter, indicating that they consent to the Court deeming the pre-motion letters as a fully briefed motion and ruling based on the letters. First, the Defendant moves to partially dismiss the Plaintiffs' TAC on the ground that the Plaintiffs fail to plausibly plead a claim under the federal WARN Act as it applies to the single sites of employment in California. In response, the Plaintiffs assert that they adequately pled a plausible claim with respect to the California sites of employment because the Court can reasonably infer that the WARN Act was triggered at these sites based on the alleged number of layoffs gleaned from the Defendant's filings with government authorities and allegations pled upon information and belief. Accepting all the factual allegations in the TAC as true, drawing all reasonable inferences in the Plaintiffs' favor, and having considered that the information alleged upon information and belief is within the Defendant's possession and not readily available to Plaintiffs, Judge Marrero is persuaded that the Plaintiffs plausibly pled that the WARN Act was triggered at the California sites of employment. Moreover, as the Court remarked in its prior Decision and Order on the Defendant's first motion to dismiss, should discovery establish that the WARN Act was not in fact triggered at the California sites of employment, the scope of the class and the putative class members can be further refined at the class certification stage. Judge Marrero thus denies the Defendant's Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Next, the Defendant also argues that dismissal of the claims concerning the putative class members employed at the California worksites is warranted on the ground that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over those particular claims in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, 582 U.S. 255 (2017). However, in its Reply, it admits that such a defense is premature at this stage but reserves its right to raise the defense at the class certification stage. The Plaintiffs counter that the Defendant waived its personal jurisdiction defense and that they are otherwise not required to prove personal jurisdiction for putative class members. Judge Marrero holds that the Defendant did not waive its right to raise a personal jurisdiction defense with respect to the California claims as the defense is not yet available. The appropriate time to raise this challenge is when those putative class members are before the Court at the class certification stage, at which point the Court would be able to address the merits of the defense and the applicability of the Supreme Court's decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb. Judge Marrero accordingly denies the Defendant's Motion to dismiss the claims concerning the California sites of employment for lack of jurisdiction. However, he recognizes that the Defendant reserves the right to raise this defense when the Plaintiffs move for class certification. The Defendant's Motion is therefore denied in its entirety. For these reasons, Judge Marrero denies the Defendant's motion to partially dismiss the TAC in its entirety. The Defendant is directed to file an Answer within 21 days of the date of the Decision and Order. The case management conference scheduled for June 2, 2023, is adjourned. The parties will file a joint letter, not to exceed three pages, updating the Court on the status of mediation and discovery within seven days of the date of the Decision and Order. A full-text copy of the Court's May 31, 2023 Decision & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/dtfsxazh from Leagle.com. HYUNDAI MOTOR: Sued Over Defective Tow Hitch Wiring Harness Module ------------------------------------------------------------------ Corrado Rizzi, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a proposed class action alleges 2020-2022 model year Hyundai Palisade SUVs are equipped with a defective tow hitch wiring harness module that can short circuit and catch fire. According to the 40-page lawsuit, many consumers have bought or leased a Palisade specifically for its 5,000-pound towing capacity and trailer sway control feature and paid an additional $475 to $750 for an optional tow hitch and tow wiring harness module accessories, which are necessary to operate a trailer's turn signals and brake lights. The suit alleges, however, that the tow wiring harness module is hampered by a defect that can cause it to short circuit and catch fire. Per the suit, Hyundai admitted to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in a recall letter last August that "[d]ebris and moisture accumulation" on the tow hitch harness module's printed circuit board can cause an electrical short—and potentially a fire—while a vehicle is parked or driving. The recall involved more than 245,000 Hyundai Palisades nationwide, the filing relays. In May, more than eight months after publicly acknowledging the existence of the Palisade tow hitch wiring harness module defect, Hyundai purported to dealers and drivers alike that a "permanent fix" was available, the lawsuit says. However, Palisade drivers who've contacted Hyundai dealers continue to report being told that "there were no repairs available as Hyundai had not yet supplied dealers with replacement parts," the complaint states. "To date, Hyundai has failed to repair or replace the defective tow wiring harness modules in Class Vehicles within a reasonable time," the case says. "As a result, many Class Vehicle owners have been forced to pay for after-market solutions to restore their cars' ability to tow." After informing the NHTSA last year of the tow hitch wiring harness module issue, Hyundai urged drivers to park their vehicles outside and away from structures and to return their SUVs to Hyundai dealers for a temporary fix, the suit continues. This interim remedy involved the removal of a fuse to cut the power to the tow wiring harness module, which the case stresses "merely disables rather than repairs" the module. Without power from the tow hitch wiring harness module, a trailer's turn and brake signals do not work, the filing states. "As a result, tens of thousands of Class Vehicles that were equipped with the optional tow package can no longer use their vehicles to tow, as the tow package has been rendered useless due to the ‘fix,'" the case summarizes. According to the suit, the Hyundai Palisade recall included no form of compensation for drivers, for either out-of-pocket costs or the diminished value of their vehicles, and amounted to merely "another belated repair attempt." The lawsuit looks to cover all persons or entities who bought or leased any 2020-2022 Hyundai Palisade in the United States. The case is Hageman et al. v. Hyundai Motor America (Case No. 8:23-CV-01045) [GN] INTEGRATED DNA: Collins Suit Removed to S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Christopher Collins, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. INTEGRATED DNA TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 37-2023-00016908-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 June 8, 2023, and assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-01066-LAB-WVG. The Complaint alleged causes of action for: Failure to Pay Minimum and Straight Time Wages, Failure to Pay Overtime Wages, Failure to Provide Meal Periods, Failure to Authorize and Permit Rest Periods, Failure to Timely Pay Final Wages at Termination, Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements, Failure to Indemnify Employees for Expenditures, Failure to Produce Requested Employment Records, and Violation of the Unfair Law.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Timothy M. Rusche, Esq. Peter J. Choi, Esq. Marie N. Naguib, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3300 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 270-9600 Facsimile: (213) 270-9601 Email: trusche@seyfarth.com pchoi@seyfarth.com mnaguib@seyfarth.com J.M. SMUCKER: Averts Class Action Video Viewer Info Sharing ----------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Brown, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that The J.M. Smucker Co. beat a proposed class action alleging it disclosed information about videos watched by visitors to its Folgers Coffee website to third parties in violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act. Plaintiffs Wayne Carroll and Rebeka Rodriguez failed to show that Smucker, an Ohio corporation, sufficiently directed its activities to California to allow it to be sued in federal court in the state, Judge William Alsup of the US District Court for the Northern District of California said on June 15. Alsup granted Smucker's motion to dismiss without leave to amend. [GN] JBS USA: Settles Antitrust Class Action for $25 Million ------------------------------------------------------- Joel Crews, writing for Meat+Poultry, reports that the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota announced on June 15, that JBS S.A. and three of its US-based subsidiaries agreed to pay $25 million as a settlement in a class action antitrust lawsuit filed on behalf of Commercial and Institutional Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs. According to the court's announcement, "If you purchased boxed or case-ready beef processed from fed cattle, from January 1, 2015, through May 25, 2023, for business use in commercial food preparation in the United States, excluding ground beef made exclusively from culled cows, a class action settlement may affect your rights." The defendants named in the case include JBS USA Food Co., Swift Beef Co., JBS Packerland Inc. and JBS S.A. [GN] JIMMY G CONSTRUCTION: Faces Tzilin Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. ----------------------------------------------------------------- MYNOR EDUVIN ESTRADA TZILIN and JONNY JAVIER AUQUILLA DELGADO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JIMMY G CONSTRUCTION CORP., KUNWARDEEP SINGH and BALBIR SINGH, as individuals, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-04047 (E.D.N.Y., June 1, 2023) arises from the Defendants' alleged egregious violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiffs assert that the Defendants failed to pay overtime wages, failed to pay wages for hours worked, conducted unlawful wage deductions, and failed to furnish wage statements and wage written notice. Plaintiff Tzilin was employed by the Defendants as a scaffold worker while performing related miscellaneous duties from September 2020 until March 2023. Plaintiff Delgado was employed by the Defendants as a helper while performing related miscellaneous duties from May 2022 until January 2023. Jimmy G Construction Corp. is a New York corporation engaged in the construction industry.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 JONES LANG LASALLE: Ramirez Suit Removed to N.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Javier Ramirez, as an individual and on behalf of all employees similarly situated v. JONES LANG LASALLE AMERICAS, INC., an Illinois Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV04307 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on June 8, 2023, and assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-02824. The Complaint asserts these claims on a class basis: unpaid wages, including unpaid overtime; unpaid meal period premiums; unpaid rest period premiums; final wages not paid timely; non-compliant wage statements; unreimbursed business expenses; and violation of Business and Professions Code among other claims.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Spencer C. Skeen, Esq. Marlene M. Moffitt, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92122 Phone: 858-652-3110 Facsimile: 858-652-3101 Email: spencer.skeen@ogletree.com marlene.moffitt@ogletree.com LAA CONSTRUCTION: Arevalo Sues Over Unpaid Compensations -------------------------------------------------------- Cristian Coreas Arevalo and Jose Elias Guevara Moncada, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LAA CONSTRUCTION CORP. and LUIS ACOSTA, as an individual, Case No. 1:23-cv-04275 (E.D.N.Y., June 9, 2023), is brought against the Defendant to recover unpaid compensations for Defendants' egregious violations of Federal and New York State labor laws arising out of Plaintiff's employment with the Defendants. Although the Plaintiffs regularly worked approximately 45-50 hours or more hours each week, the Defendants did not pay Plaintiff at a wage rate of time and a half for his hours regularly worked over 40 hours in a work week, a blatant violation of the overtime provisions contained in the FLSA and NYLL. The Defendants willfully failed to post notices of the minimum wage and overtime wage requirements in a conspicuous place at the location of their employment as required by both the NYLL and the FLSA. The Defendants willfully failed to keep payroll records as required by both NYLL and the FLSA. Additionally, Defendants willfully failed to provide Plaintiffs with a written notice, in English, of his applicable regular rate of pay, regular pay day, and all such information as required by NYLL, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as brick and concrete workers and foreman. LAA CONSTRUCTION CORP., is a New York domestic business corporation, organized under the laws of the State of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Phone: 718-263-9591 LABORATORY CORPORATION: Discloses Private Info, Howard et al. Claim ------------------------------------------------------------------- CONNIE HOWARD, YADIRA YAZMIN HERNANDEZ, and DEBORAH REYNOLDS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA, LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS, and META PLATFORMS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-02773 (N.D. Cal., June 5, 2023) alleges claims against the Defendants for unjust enrichment and for violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act and the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act. This is a class action against Meta for knowingly obtaining individually identifiable information (PII) alongside the contents of confidential electronic communications from Labcorp to Plaintiffs, and against Labcorp for enabling Meta to do so, in a manner that violates California and Pennsylvania law. Labcorp knowingly employed hidden tracking code on its website created by Meta, now known as the Meta Pixel, which sent Meta time-stamped, PII of Plaintiffs' and Class members' and information of their online activities, says the suit. Labcorp is a Delaware Corporation with its headquarters in Burlington, NC. Labcorp's offices are located at 531 South Spring Street, Burlington, NC. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael W. Sobol, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 E-mail: msobol@lchb.com - and - Doug I. Cuthbertson, Esq. Margaret J. Mattes, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10013 Telephone: 212.355.9500 E-mail: dcuthbertson@lchb.com mmattes@lchb.com - and - Brian Levin, Esq. LEVIN LAW, P.A. 2665 South Bayshore Drive, PH2B Miami, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 539-0593 E-mail: brian@levinlawpa.com - and - Matthew R. Wilson, Esq. MEYER WILSON, P.A. 305 W. Nationwide Blvd Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 224-6000 E-mail: mwilson@meyerwilson.com LELE SADOUGHI: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lele Sadoughi Designs, LLC. The case is styled as Jenny Hwang, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Lele Sadoughi Designs, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-04252 (E.D.N.Y., June 8, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Lele Sadoughi -- https://www.lelesadoughi.com/ -- is a jewelry designer offering statement necklaces, earrings, bracelets, rings, gifts under $150, free shipping & returns.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 14749 71st Ave. Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com LENOVO INC: Lucero Sues Over Defective Legion Desktops ------------------------------------------------------ Luis Lucero, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Lenovo (United States) Inc., Defendant, Case No. 8:23-cv-00973 (C.D. Cal., June 5, 2023) arises out of the Defendant's alleged violations of the California's Unfair Competition Law, California's False Advertising Law, and the California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and for breach of express warranty, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, and unjust enrichment. Plaintiff Lucero alleges that Lenovo made materially false representations and omissions that caused consumers to believe the Legion T5 28IMB05 desktop would function reliably, not freeze or crash, and run smoothly during operation, subject to normal and intended use. However, Plaintiff says that his device frequently froze and crashed, whether he was gaming, listening to music, or simply reading emails, significantly interrupting his use of his desktop. Lenovo (United States) Inc. is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business in Morrisville, Wake County, North Carolina. Products under the Lenovo brand have an industry-wide reputation for innovation, quality, and value. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kyle Gurwell, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF KYLE GURWELL 7755 Center Ave Ste 1100 Huntington Beach CA 92647 Telephone: (714) 372-2245 E-mail: kng@lawofficekg.com LIFE STORAGE: Juan Monteverde Investigates Extra Space Merger ------------------------------------------------------------- Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner of the class action firm Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a national securities firm rated Top 50 in the 2018-2021 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report and headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating: Life Storage, Inc. (NYSE: LSI), relating to its proposed merger with Extra Space Storage Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, LSI shareholders are expected to receive 0.8950 shares of Extra Space per share they own. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/life-storage-inc. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. CIRCOR International, Inc. (NYSE: CIR), relating to its proposed sale to funds managed by KKR. Under the terms of the agreement, CIR shareholders will receive $49.00 in cash per share they own. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/circor-international-inc. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. PDC Energy, Inc. (NASDAQ: PDCE), relating to its proposed merger with Chevron Corp. Under the terms of the agreement, PDCE shareholders are expected to receive 0.4638 shares of Chevron per share they own. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/pdc-energy-inc. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. Greenhill & Co., Inc. (NYSE: GHL), relating to its proposed sale to Mizuho Financial Group, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, GHL shareholders are expected to receive $15.00 in cash per share they own. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/greenhill-co-inc. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. About Monteverde & Associates PC We are a national class action securities and consumer litigation law firm that has recovered millions of dollars for shareholders and iscommitted to protecting investors and consumers from corporate wrongdoing. Monteverde & Associates lawyers have significant experience litigating Mergers & Acquisitions and Securities Class Actions, whereby they protect investors by recovering money and remedying corporate misconduct. Mr. Monteverde, who leads the firm, has been recognized by Super Lawyers as a Rising Star in Securities Litigation in 2013 and 2017-2019, an award given to less than 2.5% of attorneys in a particular field. He has also been selected by Martindale-Hubbell as a 2017-2020 Top Rated Lawyer. Our firm's recent successes include changing the law in a significant victory that lowered the standard of liability under Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act in the Ninth Circuit. Thereafter, our firm successfully preserved this victory by obtaining dismissal of a writ of certiorari as improvidently granted at the United States Supreme Court. Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian, 139 S. Ct. 1407 (2019). Also, over the years the firm has recovered or secured over a dozen cash common funds for shareholders in mergers & acquisitions class action cases. If you own common stock in any of the above listed companies and wish to obtain additional information and protect your investments free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4405 New York, NY 10118 United States of America jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com Tel: (212) 971-1341 Attorney Advertising. (C) 2023 Monteverde & Associates PC. The law firm responsible for this advertisement is Monteverde & Associates PC (www.monteverdelaw.com). Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome with respect to any future matter.[GN] LMS INTELLIBOUND: Bid to Enforce Settlement in Kutzback Suit Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MICHAEL KUTZBACK, individually on behalf of himself and others similarly situated Plaintiff v. LMS INTELLIBOUND, LLC, a foreign Limited Liability Company and CAPSTONE LOGISTICS, LLC, a Domestic Limited Liability Company, Defendants, Case No. 2:13-cv-02767-JTF-cgc (W.D. Tenn.), Judge John T. Fowlkes, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, Western Division, denies Kutzback's Motion to Enforce Settlement. The present motion, filed on April 14, 2023, comes seven months after the Court approved a final settlement in this 10-year long Fair Labor Standards Act collective action. The case ultimately resolved on Sept. 6, 2022, with the entry of an Order Granting Motion for Settlement Approval and Order Dismissing Case. The parties agreed to settlement in principle after a fourth mediation on March 23, 2022. Two months of negotiations over the terms of the Settlement led to the execution of a final Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") on May 23, 2022. The MOU was adapted into a final Settlement Agreement that was submitted to the Court on Aug. 25, 2022, and it was incorporated into the final Settlement Agreement. First, the Settlement Agreement defines "Opt-In Claimants," or those that will be entitled to a portion of the Settlement Fund, as "Opt-In Plaintiffs who return a claim form, which includes Form W-9, that is complete and executed and received by the Settlement Administrator and postmarked within 45 days of mailing of the notice of Settlement." The parties selected Arden Claims Services as the Settlement Administrator. Second, the Settlement Approval Process was described as such: "After the issuance of an order by the District Court approving the Settlement and dismissing with prejudice the Opt-In Plaintiffs' Claims, and within seven (7) days after the Effective Date, the Settlement Administrator will mail each Opt-In Plaintiff to his or her last known address, as determined by Defendants' records, as updated by any records maintained by Plaintiff's Counsel, and as updated through the National Change of Address database, notice of the Settlement along with a claim form and a pre-paid return envelope. The notice and claim form will provide a period of forty-five (45) days for each Opt-In Plaintiff to submit to the Settlement Administrator a claim form that contains a completed Form W-9, the Social Security Number or Individual Taxpayer Identification Number of the Opt-In Plaintiff, and an attestation to verify each Opt-In Plaintiff's identity." Later in the document, the parties agreed that Opt-In Plaintiffs who do not return a completed and executed claim form, or whose claim form is postmarked after the conclusion of the Claim Period, will waive the right to recover any portion of the Net Settlement Fund. The parties also submitted a finalized Notice of Settlement and Claim Form to the Court, which were to be sent to Opt-in Claimants to submit their claims. Relevantly, on June 20, 2022, a disagreement arose over a revised draft sent by the Plaintiff to the Defendants. In this draft, the Plaintiff changed language regarding when a potential Opt-In Claimant had timely submitted a claim for their portion of the Settlement Fund. Specifically, Plaintiff wrote in a comment that, "To the extent an Opt-in Claimant provides a Claim form within the 45-day limit yet forgets to provide a W-9 with this initial correspondence, he still timely submitted a claim." Once this draft was received by the Defendants, the Defendants counsel wrote back disagreeing. The original language from the MOU was later incorporated into the Settlement Agreement. The Settlement Agreement, Notice of Settlement, and Claim Form were all approved by the Court on Sept. 6, 2022. After this, the parties proceeded with the settlement process as outlined in the Agreement. It appears this process was not without controversy. On Nov. 15, 2022, the Defense Counsel emailed the Plaintiff's Counsel and Arden regarding certain claim submissions they had received by email which the Plaintiff's Counsel had assisted in filling out. The letter requested that the Plaintiffs' counsel immediately cease filling out claim and W-9 forms, sending pre-filled forms to the Opt-In Plaintiffs for signing via DocuSign (or other similar services), and emailing the signed claim forms to the settlement administrator. The Plaintiffs did ultimately resend the forms by mail, although later contended they did only because it was easy to do so and not worth wasting time and judicial resources litigating this issue to the extent, they could avoid additional motion practice by simply resending these forms via U.S. mail. Further, on Nov. 22, 2022, as the claims period came to an end, Arden sent out notices to those Opt-In Plaintiffs that had submitted incomplete claim forms, advising them to complete the enclosed IRS W-9 Tax Form with your information, Social Security Number, and signature and date, and re-submit to us as soon as possible. It is unclear exactly how many Opt-In Plaintiffs cured their claims after this notice. Regardless, on Dec. 5, 2022, after the claims period had ended, Arden emailed both parties with a list of identified deficient claims and a summary of what the Defendants were obligated to pay now that the claims period had closed. A final version of this information, in spreadsheet form, was sent on Dec. 23, 2022. Neither party objected to the information contained within. The dispute underlying the present motion began on Jan. 10, 2023, when a paralegal for the Plaintiff's Counsel emailed Arden inquiring about an Opt-In Plaintiff that had submitted a deficient claim form. An employee of Arden emailed back. The Plaintiff's Counsel emailed the Defense Counsel on Jan. 24, 2023, identifying certain Opt-In Plaintiffs with allegedly deficient claims that they believed were nevertheless owed a portion of the Settlement Fund. The Plaintiff's Counsel closed the correspondence by requesting that the Defendants provide the settlement payments in accordance with the settlement agreement to the following Opt-in Plaintiffs who timely submitted their claim forms, albeit with minor curable 'deficiencies,' but who were impermissibly denied their right to cure, because the Defendants improperly interfered in the claims process. The Defendants disagreed with the Plaintiffs interpretation of the Settlement Agreement and denied any charges of improper conduct. The Plaintiff then filed this "Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement" on April 14, 2023. In the motion, he argues that the Defendants have unreasonably refused to remit payment to at least 88 Opt-In Plaintiffs. They identify eight categories into which these plaintiffs fall into and contend that the Defendants prevented Arden from notifying plaintiffs of defective claims so that they may be cured, and that they are unreasonably refusing to pay five claims that were submitted by means other than U.S. mail. They request that the Court enters an Order compelling these payments or provide for an additional 14 days for those plaintiffs to cure their claims. The Plaintiff argues that the Defendants have breached the Settlement Agreement in two ways. First, they argue that the Defendants have breached by failing to remit payment to five Opt-In Plaintiffs who submitted complete, timely claims by means other than U.S. Mail. Second, they argue that the Defendants have breached by failing to remit payment to the Opt-In Plaintiffs who submitted timely claims with either incomplete or no W-9 Forms attached. First, Judge Fowlkes finds that the terms of the Settlement Agreement and Claim Form, which were approved by both parties, are clear that submission of claims was required to be done by mail. The Plaintiff advances no argument for why the mail provision above is not "material" and does not provide the Court with any reasoning for how to determine which provisions of the Agreement are "material" and which are not. They further do not point to any provision that provides for alternative means of submission, nor do they argue that the language is in some way ambiguous. The plain language of the Agreement and its related materials, approved by both parties, was phrased exclusively around physical mail and instructed the Opt-In Plaintiffs to submit in that manner. The Notice did not provide a phone number, email address, or other means by which claims may be submitted. Based on the ordinary meaning of these terms, the Defendants did not breach the settlement agreement by refusing to remit payment on these claims. Next, Judge Fowlkes finds that the Plaintiff does not cite to a portion of any approved document outlining a curative process that the Settlement Administrator would be required to implement. It is unclear how this alleged behavior would have breached the agreement at all, he says. The Defendants did not breach the Settlement Agreement by refusing to remit payment to those that had not submitted complete W-9s, for under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, those plaintiffs were not Opt-In Claimants at all. The Plaintiffs cannot plausibly say otherwise given that Defendants explicitly rejected an alternative definition of Opt-In Claimant that did not require a W-9 to be submitted. For similar reasons, Judge Fowlkes finds that the Defendants did not breach the settlement agreement by refusing to remit payment to those that submitted timely but blank Claim Forms and those that submitted complete Claim Forms late. The Opt-In Plaintiffs failed to submit valid claims under the terms of the Settlement Agreement. The Defendants did not breach the agreement by refusing to remit payment to them. Finally, the Plaintiff makes a general request for guidance on whether plaintiffs who claim to have never received the notice and claim form should be allowed to file claims. Judge Fowlkes believes that these claims must unfortunately be considered incomplete. The 45-day settlement period, agreed to by both parties, was the period during which any notice issues were required to be resolved. For these reasons, Judge Fowlkes denies the Plaintiff's Motion because the Defendants have not breached the Settlement Agreement. He acknowledges the Defendants request for attorneys' fees related to the briefing of the present motion but does not believe they are warranted at this time and on this record. A full-text copy of the Court's May 31, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4r5earkf from Leagle.com. LOS ANGELES, CA: Larocque Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jonathan Larocque, an individual, and on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES; and DOES 1 through 100, Case No. 22STCV33311 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on June 9, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-04549. The Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint to, among other things, add an alleged violation of Federal law under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff also alleges state law claims in the first and second causes of action of the First Amended Complaint as follows: Failure to Pay Wages Owed; and Violation of Business and Professions Code.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Hydee Feldstein Soto, City Attorney Denise C. Millls, Chief Deputy City Attorney Scott Marcus, Chief Assistant City Attorney Aneta Freeman, Managing Assistant City Attorney BRIAN LEVINE, Deputy City Attorney 200 North Main Street, City Hall East – 7th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90012 Phone: 213.978.8200 Fax: 213.978.8216 Email: b.levine@lacity.org LOS PERICOS: Manuyco Sues Over Wrongful Termination --------------------------------------------------- CHARLENE MANUYCO, an individual, on behalf of herself and on behalf of the State of California and other Aggrieved Employees, Plaintiff v. LOS PERICOS FOOD PRODUCTS LLC, a California limited liability company; EMPLOYEE FORCE PROVIDER, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1-50, Inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 23STCV12776 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 5, 2023) alleges claims against the Defendants for violations of the Private Attorneys General Act and the California Labor Code, and for wrongful termination in violation of public policy. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt employee in California from July 2022 to August 2022 after she was wrongfully terminated. Throughout her employment with Defendant, Plaintiff was treated differently and unfairly by Defendant and its agents, all in retaliation against Plaintiff for various protected activities. During her employment, Plaintiff complained to Defendants about their unlawful practices. Specifically, Plaintiff complained to Defendants about unsafe workplace conditions. However, the Defendants terminated her employment on or around August 22, 2022. Los Pericos is California limited liability company that manufactures food products throughout the state of California, including in the county of Los Angeles where Plaintiff worked. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jean-Claude Lapuyade, Esq. Sydney Castillo Johnson, Esq. Monnett De La Torre, Esq. JCL LAW FIRM, APC 5440 Morehouse Drive, Suite 3600 San Diego, CA 92121 Telephone: (619) 599-8292 Facsimile: (619) 599-8291 E-mail: ilapuvade@icl-lawfirm.com scastillo@icl-lawfirm.com mdelatorre@icl-lawfirm.com - and - Shani O. Zakay, Esq. ZAKAY LAW GROUP, APLC 5440 Morehouse Drive, Suite 5400 San Diego, CA 92121 Telephone: (619) 255-9047 Facsimile: (858) 404-9203 E-mail: shani@zakaylaw.com MAINS'L CALIFORNIA: Linoz Files Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices ------------------------------------------------------------------ ROBERTA JEAN LINOZ, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MAINS'L CALIFORNIA, LLC, a California limited liability company; MAINS'L SERVICES, INC., an unknown entity; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 23CV01439 (Cal. Super., Butte Cty., June 1, 2023) is brought against the Defendants for California Labor Code violations and unfair business practices stemming from their failure to pay for all hours worked (minimum, straight time, and overtime wages), failure to provide meal periods, failure to authorize and permit rest periods, failure to timely pay final wages, failure to furnish accurate wage statements, and failure to indemnify employees for expenditures. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants in Butte County, California as an hourly-paid, non-exempt employee from approximately September 2022 to approximately December 2022. Mains'l California, LLC is a mental health services provider.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin F. Marquez, Esq. Arrash T. Fattahi, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 381-9988 Facsimile: (213) 381-9989 E-mail: justin@wilshirelawfirm.com afattahi@wilshirelawfirm.com MALIBU BEACH: Baeza Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Malibu Beach Holdings, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Hortencia Baeza, Individually, And On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated v. Malibu Beach Holdings, LLC, The Orchards Post-Acute, Chesapeake Bay Holdings, LLC, Danube River Holdings, LLC, Case No. BCV-23-101808 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., June 9, 2023). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." Malibu Beach Holdings LLC is a nursing home in Bakersfield, California.[BN] MALLINCKRODT PLC: Can't Be Named as Putative Class Action Defendant ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, In re: MALLINCKRODT PLC, et al., Chapter 11, Reorganized Debtors, Case No. 20-12522 (JTD) Jointly Administered) (Bankr. D. Del.), Judge John T. Dorsey of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware denies the Reorganized Debtors' motion to enforce the discharge injunction contained in the Plan and Confirmation Order and to enjoin the Plaintiffs in a putative class action from joining Mallinckrodt as a Defendant. On Feb. 18, 2018, a group of property owners ("Plaintiffs") commenced litigation in state court in Missouri against the Cotter Corp. and others allegedly responsible for permitting radioactive material from the Manhattan Project to contaminate the local environment. While the Plaintiffs' initial complaint did discuss Mallinckrodt's involvement with this material, the Plaintiffs did not initially assert any claims directly against Mallinckrodt. The Debtors assert that the Plaintiffs intentionally left Mallinckrodt out of the litigation to avoid application of the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act ("PAA"), a federal statute enacted in 1957 to incentivize progress in atomic energy by reducing liability for entities undertaking atomic research and other related work. While the Plaintiffs were initially successful, once Cotter joined Mallinckrodt to the action by way of third-party complaint, the action was removed to federal court. Following a series of battles on the question of whether the Plaintiffs' claims were subject to the PAA, including a remand to state court, another removal, and an appeal to the Eighth Circuit, the case eventually landed in the District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. But while the appeal process was still ongoing, the Debtors filed for bankruptcy. As the parties awaited a ruling from the Eighth Circuit on the forum issue, the Debtors worked their way through their bankruptcy cases and attempted to negotiate their way to a consensual confirmation. Although the Plaintiffs did not participate, the Debtors negotiated with Cotter and other defendants regarding the post-confirmation treatment of claims arising out of the Debtors' processing of radioactive material and the negotiating parties reached an agreement on the language to be included in the confirmation order. The Confirmation Order was entered on March 2, 2022. In the meantime, the Eighth Circuit reversed the District Court's ruling regarding the applicability of the PAA to the Banks Litigation, holding that the PAA's jurisdictional grant provides federal question 'original jurisdiction' for any public liability action arising out of or resulting from a nuclear incident' to the district court located in the district where the incident occurred. The Plaintiffs were then faced with deciding between making claims under the PAA or not at all. In January of 2023, the Plaintiffs moved to amend the complaint to add Mallinckrodt as a Defendant and, for the first time, assert claims against it directly. Shortly thereafter, the Debtors filed the instant Motion. As the Plaintiffs' claims against Mallinckrodt arose prepetition, they are subject to discharge by the Debtors' bankruptcy unless a specific exception to discharge applies. The Plaintiffs assert that Paragraph 268 of the Confirmation Order is such an exception, because it carves out from discharge "any liabilities of Debtor Mallinckrodt LLC" with respect to the Debtors' processing of radioactive materials that have been asserted in writing before the Petition Date. The Debtors respond that Paragraph 268 cannot be read so broadly as to encompass the mere suggestion by someone that Mallinckrodt should be held responsible for something, but instead should be read as requiring a writing that asserts specific obligations owed to specific persons. Judge Dorsey finds that the Debtors have not met their burden of establishing that the Plaintiffs' attempt to join Mallinckrodt to the Banks Litigation violates the terms of the Plan or the Confirmation Order. However, this ruling applies only to those Plaintiffs expressly named in the Banks Litigation and does not extend to those similarly situated on whose behalf the Plaintiffs have attempted to assert claims. The Debtors also argue the Plaintiffs should be precluded from asserting their claims against Mallinckrodt under the doctrine of equitable estoppel. While the Debtors make a compelling argument on this issue, Judge Dorsey says they have failed to present any evidence to support it. He has nothing before him, other than statements of counsel, from which he could fairly conclude that the Debtors considered the statements made in the Banks Litigation at all, let alone relied on them in drafting the Confirmation Order. In fact, the evidence he does have (the emails between counsel) suggests just the opposite. Accordingly, he finds that the Debtors have not carried their burden in demonstrating that the Plaintiffs should be estopped from asserting their claims. For these reasons, the Debtors' Motion is denied. In view of his analysis, Judge Dorsey denies the Motion as it applies to the named Plaintiffs in the action captioned Banks, et al. v. Cotter Corp. et al., No. 20-CV-1227 (E.D. Mo.) (specifically Tamia Banks, Rev. Ronnie Hooks, Barbara Hooks, Joel Hogan, Kenneth Niebling, Kendall Lacy, Tanja Lacy, Willie Clay, Bobbie Jean Clay, Angela Statum, and Missouri Rentals Company, LLC). A full-text copy of the Court's May 31, 2023 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yf7j2bku from Leagle.com. MANAGEMENT & TRAINING: Mitchell Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Eduar Mitchell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MANAGEMENT & TRAINING CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Utah, and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV10062 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on June 8, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-04536. In the Complaint, Plaintiff asserts nine causes of action against Defendant for: failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay overtime owed; failure to provide lawful meal periods; failure to authorize and permit rest periods; failure to timely pay wages during employment; failure to timely pay wages owed upon separation from employment; failure to reimburse necessary expenses; knowing and intentional failure to comply with itemized wage statement provisions; violation of the unfair competition law.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Veronica T. Hunter, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 717 Texas Avenue, Suite 1700 Houston, TX 77002 Phone: (713) 650 0404 Facsimile: (713) 650-0405 Email: Veronica.Hunter@jacksonlewis.com - and - Martin P. Vigodnier, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408 Phone: (213) 689-0404 Facsimile: (213) 689-0430 Email: Martin.Vigodnier@jacksonlewis.com MAP COMMUNICATIONS: Brutout's $380K Class Settlement Has Prelim. OK ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, LEEANN BRUTOUT, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MAP COMMUNICATIONS, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21-CV-1533 TWR (JLB) (S.D. Cal.), Judge Todd W. Robinson of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California grants the Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement and Certification of Settlement Class. Presently before the Court is the Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval, along with the proposed Class Action and PAGA Settlement Agreement, and a proposed Class Notice. The Court held a hearing on the Motion on May 18, 2023. The Plaintiff and Defendant Map have reached terms of settlement for a putative class action. The Settlement between the Parties is conditioned upon, among other things, the Court's approval. The Defendant stipulates to certification of a Settlement Class, to include all Class Members, for purposes of Settlement only. The Class is: All persons employed by MAP in California and classified as non-exempt employees who worked for MAP during the Class Period. The Parties estimate that there are 760 Class Members. The Class Period is July 21, 2017, to Dec. 31, 2022. The Defendant agrees that $380,000, known as the Gross Settlement Amount, plus the employer's share of any payroll taxes related to the settlement payments, represents the maximum amount that it will pay out under the Settlement, inclusive of the following: (a) payments to the Settlement Class Members; (b) the maximum gross amount of $126,666.67 for the Class Counsel's attorneys' fees to be paid in accordance with the terms set forth in Paragraph 3.2.2 of the Settlement; (c) the maximum gross amount for all of the Class Counsel's litigation costs and associated expenses, which will not exceed $20,000; (d) the anticipated gross amount for claims administration costs, estimated at approximately $18,000; (e) the maximum gross amount of $7,500 for the service payment to be made to the Class Representative; (f) the maximum gross amount for payment to the California Labor Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) as part of the consideration for the release of all Released Claims under PAGA, which is $30,000 (75% of the $40,000 allocated to PAGA). Each Class Member who does not opt out (a Settlement Class Member) will be paid their share of the settlement, subject to certain taxes and withholdings. The Class Counsel will not seek an amount greater than $126,666.67 for attorneys' fees and greater than $20,000 for litigation costs. The Class Representative service payment requested will be $7,500. If a Class Member has not cashed his or her check(s) within 180 days of issuance, the funds representing the uncashed checks will be transmitted by the Administrator to the California State Controller's Office for Unclaimed Property in the name of each Class Member who failed to cash their Settlement Payment check prior to the void date. After reviewing the Settlement, the proposed Class Notice, and other related documents, Judge Robinson preliminarily finds that the proposed Class satisfies the requirements of a settlement class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. He preliminarily approves the Parties' Settlement. Judge Robinson further preliminarily finds that the settlement of the Plaintiff's California Labor Code Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA") claim is fair and reasonable at this stage of the proceedings but notes that the Parties must provide further explanation for the amount awarded for PAGA penalties at the Final Approval Hearing because the amount of penalties relative to the gross settlement amount is somewhat higher than in other cases. He preliminarily approves the Settlement and release of the PAGA claim and the payment to LWDA in the amount of $30,000. Judge Robinson also finds it is appropriate to notify the members of the proposed Settlement Class of the terms of the proposed Settlement. He approves, as to form and content, the proposed Notice of Settlement to the Class Members. The following persons are conditionally certified as Class Members solely for the purpose of entering a settlement in the matter: All persons employed by MAP in California and classified as non-exempt employees who worked for MAP during the Class Period (July 21, 2017 to Dec. 31, 2022). Brutout is preliminarily appointed as the Class Representative of the Settlement Class for settlement purposes. Further, Judge Robinson preliminarily approved the service payment to the Plaintiff in an amount not to exceed $7,500. The service payment will be subject to final approval of the Court. Moon & Yang, APC, is preliminarily appointed as the Class Counsel. The Settlement provides that the Class Counsel will move for attorneys' fees not to exceed $126,666.67 (33.33% of the gross settlement amount) and for costs not to exceed $20,000. While Judge Robinson preliminary approves the overall settlement, the Class Counsel is forewarned that they must present compelling evidence to grant an upward departure from the 25% Ninth Circuit benchmark for reasonable attorneys' fees given the large discounts from the original valuation of potential recovery. The Counsel should be prepared to provide supporting evidence and documents for the amount requested, including a lodestar cross-check. The Class Counsel fees award and the Class Counsel costs award will be subject to final approval of the Court. Phoenix Settlement Administrators is appointed to act as the Administrator, pursuant to the terms set forth in the Settlement. In accordance with the Settlement, the Defendant is directed to provide the Administrator, not later than 14 days after the date of the Order, the Class Data, including the name, most recent known mailing address, Social Security number, and dates during which each individual was employed by Defendant in California during the Class Period. No later than 14 days after receiving the Class Data, the Administrator is directed to mail the approved Class Notice by first-class mail to the Class Members in accordance with the Settlement. Class Members will be bound by the Settlement unless they submit a timely and valid written request to be excluded from the Settlement/Settlement Class within 60 days after mailing of the Class Notice by the Administrator, or as otherwise extended pursuant to the terms of the Settlement. They may file written objections to the Settlement within 60 days after mailing of the Class Notice by the Administrator, or as otherwise extended pursuant to the terms of the Settlement. No later than 28 days before the calendared Final Approval Hearing, the Plaintiff will file a motion for final approval of the settlement and for approval of the service payment award, and the Class Counsel will file a motion for an award of attorneys' fees and costs. Each Party retains the right to respond to any objections to the Settlement raised by a Class Member, including the right to file responsive documents with the Court no later than 14 days prior to the Final Approval Hearing. Any Class Member who wishes to comment on or object specifically to the amount of attorneys' fees requested by the Class Counsel will have until the day before the Final Approval Hearing to submit his or her written comment or objection to the Administrator or to the Court as to the amount of fees and he or she may appear at the hearing to further state any comments or objections as to the amount of fees requested. The Final Approval Hearing will be held on Oct. 26, 2023, at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 3A. At the time of the Final Approval Hearing, the Court will hear all evidence and arguments necessary to evaluate the Settlement and will consider the Plaintiff's request for an award of the Class Representative service payment and the Class Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and costs. The Court reserves the right to continue the date of the Final Approval Hearing without further notice to Class Members. Judge Robinson orders a Qualified Settlement Fund will be established to effectuate the terms of the Settlement and the Orders of the Court prior to the receipt of any monies from Defendant. Pending further Order of this Court, all proceedings in the action except those contemplated therein and in the Settlement are stayed. Judge Robinson sets the following schedule for the Final Approval Hearing and the actions that must take place before it: a. Deadline for the Defendant to Provide Administrator the Class Data - 14 days after the entry of Preliminary Approval Order (June 14, 2023) b. Deadline for Settlement Administrator to Disseminate Class Notice - 14 days after receipt of Class Data (June 28, 2023) c. Deadline for Opt Outs of the Settlement Class - 60 days after administrator mails Class Members the Class Notice (Aug. 27, 2023) d. Deadline for Written Objections to Settlement from Participating Class Members - 60 days after administrator mails the Class Members the Class Notice (Aug. 27, 2023) e. Deadline for Motion for Final Approval - At least 28 days prior to the Court's Final Approval Hearing (Sept. 28, 2023) f. Deadline for Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs - At least 28 days prior to the Court's Final Approval Hearing (Sept. 28, 2023) g. Deadline for Parties' Responses to Class Members' Objections- At least 14 days prior to the Court's Final Approval Hearing (Oct. 12, 2023) h. Deadline for Class Members' Written Objections to Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs - Day before the Court's Final Approval Hearing (Oct. 25, 2023) i. Final Approval Hearing - Oct. 26, 2023, at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 3A A full-text copy of the Court's May 31, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/mpp7dv5u from Leagle.com. MAP COMMUNICATIONS: Settlement Class Gets Conditional Certification ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEEANN BRUTOUT, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MAP COMMUNICATIONS, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 3:21-cv-01533-TWR-JLB (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Todd W. Robinson entered an order (1) conditionally certifying proposed settlement class; (2) preliminarily approving proposed class action settlement; (3) approving notice to class; and (4) setting a fairness hearing for final approval of settlement. MAP Communications is an employee-owned call center service company that provides answering services and live receptionist solutions for businesses large and small in many different industries across North America. A copy of the Court's order dated May 31, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/42JW75v at no extra charge.[CC] MARATHON REFINING: Butel Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Louis Butel and Pam Mocherniak, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated current and former employees v. MARATHON REFINING AND LOGISTICS SERVICES LLC, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV09995 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on June 9, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-04547. In their Complaint, Plaintiffs allege six causes of action against Marathon: failure to pay reporting time pay; failure to pay for travel time; failure to pay all wages earned at termination; failure to furnish accurate itemized wage statements; civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act; and violations of the California Unfair Competition Law.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Catherine A. Conway, Esq. Jesse A. Cripps, Esq. Bradley J. Hamburger, Esq. Tiffany Phan, Esq. Madeleine McKenna, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213.229.7000 Facsimile: 213.229.7520 Email: CConway@gibsondunn.com JCripps@gibsondunn.com BHamburger@gibsondunn.com TPhan@gibsondunn.com MMcKenna@gibsondunn.com MARQUETTE MANAGEMENT: Mohamed Suit Removed to D. Minnesota ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Sumeya Mohamed, Rukia Bile, Abdirisaq Sheikh, Ubah Shire, Paul Stoderl, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Marquette Management, Inc., G&I X Phoenix Apartments LLC, Kelly Delisle, DOCI Companies, Case No. 62-cv-23-2694 was removed from the State of Minnesota District Court Count of Ramsey Second Judicial District, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on June 9, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:23-cv-01740-JRT-JFD to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Accommodations Civil Rights for the Civil Rights Act. Marquette Management -- https://www.marquettemanagement.com/ -- is one of the top property management companies to work with.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James W Poradek HOUSING JUSTICE CENTER Northwestern Building 275 East Fourth Street, Ste. 590 Saint Paul, MN 55101 Phone: (612) 723-0517 Email: jporadek@hjcmn.org The Defendants are represented by: Allan S. Rubin, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS LLP 2000 Town Center Suite 1650 Southfield, MI 48322 Phone: (248) 936-1900 Fax: (248) 936-1901 Email: Allan.Rubin@jacksonlewis.com - and - Margaret R Ryan Jennifer M Zwilling JACKSON LEWIS PC 150 South Fifth Street, Ste. 3500 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 359-1762 Email: molly.ryan@jacksonlewis.com Jennifer.Zwilling@jacksonlewis.com MATCH GROVE: Baker Suit Transferred to Northern District of Texas ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MARCUS BAKER, Plaintiff v. MATCH GROVE, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 22 CV 6924 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Manish S. Shah of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division: a. denies the Defendants' motion to dismiss; and b. transfers the case is to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. Baker used the dating sites OKCupid and Tinder. He uploaded images of himself to the sites, from which the Defendants used, collected, and stored his biometric data. Alleging that the Defendants violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, Baker filed a demand for arbitration. Rather than arbitrate the dispute, however, the Defendants chose to proceed in small claims court pursuant to an exception in the parties' arbitration agreements. Baker sued the Defendants in the Circuit Court of Cook County, and the Defendants removed the case to federal court. The Defendants move to dismiss the action in favor of small claims court or, alternatively, to transfer the case to the Northern District of Texas. The Plaintiff created his Tinder account in 2016 and joined OKCupid in 2018. Baker uploaded photographs of himself to both sites. The Defendants analyzed Baker's images, collecting scans of his face and related data, such as his gender, age, race, and location. They didn't tell Baker about their use of his information, never asked for permission, and never advised Baker of any policy about their use of his data. Baker alleges that the Defendants violated BIPA and seeks damages more than $20,000 and injunctive relief. To create his accounts, Baker agreed to terms of service with Tinder and OKCupid. He promised to arbitrate claims against the Defendants and waived the right to file a class action. The arbitration clauses in the agreements included an exception: either party had the right to bring an individual claim against the other in small claims court or, if the dispute was filed in arbitration, the responding party could request that the dispute proceed in small claims court. All claims that couldn't be brought in small claims court and weren't submitted to arbitration would be litigated in the federal or state courts in Dallas County, Texas. The Plaintiff filed a demand for arbitration. The Defendants elected to proceed in small claims court pursuant to the exception in the parties' arbitration agreements and the arbitrator closed the Plaintiff's arbitration. The Plaintiff filed suit in the Circuit Court of Cook County and the Defendants removed the case to this Court. The Defendants want to litigate the case either in small claims court or in the Northern District of Texas. Baker argues that the case should stay here because the Defendants waived their right to arbitration and breached the arbitration agreement, the small claims courts in Illinois and Texas aren't available or adequate for his suit, and because the balance of private and public interest factors favors Illinois, rather than Texas. While the Defendants didn't breach their agreements, Judge Shah finds two problems with sending Baker's claims to small claims court. First, these alternative fora aren't adequate. The second problem with sending the case to small claims court is that such a dismissal would force Baker to give up his right to injunctive relief under BIPA. Considering the public interest, Judge Shah says it's reasonable to infer that Baker's claims arise from conduct in this state, and that an Illinois court would be more familiar with BIPA. But Texas law governs the contracts, and familiarity with the law isn't decisive, because federal judges routinely apply rules from another state. Baker makes no argument that that any particular witness would be burdened by the transfer, that the Northern District of Texas is more congested than this Court, or (relatedly) that his case would proceed to trial slower in that court. While some factors support retaining jurisdiction, Judge Shah says this isn't an exceptional case when the parties' chosen forum shouldn't control. Judge Shah concludes that the Plaintiff has shown that small claims court isn't the right place for the case. But Baker and the Defendants agreed to litigate claims outside of arbitration or small claims court in Texas, and the Defendants are entitled to that agreed-upon forum. The motion to dismiss is denied. The motion to transfer is granted. The Clerk will transfer the case to the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. A full-text copy of the Court's May 31, 2023 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycxu5bjf from Leagle.com. MIDLAND FUNDING: Church's Bid to Vacate Arbitration Award Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, CLIFFORD J. CHURCH, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC; MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC.; and JOHN DOES 1 to 10, Defendants, Case No. 20cv10538 (EP) (ESK) (D.N.J.), Judge Evelyn Padin of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey denies the Plaintiff's motion to vacate an arbitration award. Church alleges Midland Funding and Midland Credit violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act when the Defendants sent him a collection letter pertaining to his consumer debt. He now moves to vacate an arbitration award, arguing that the case was never arbitrable, or in the alternative, that deficiencies throughout arbitration warrant vacatur. The Defendants oppose. Judge Padin decides this motion without oral argument. In October 2016, the Plaintiff opened a Pier 1 Imports credit card account, issued, and owned by Comenity Bank. The account agreement included an arbitration provision. The Plaintiff did not respond to or reject the arbitration provision. On March 8, 2019, the Plaintiff received notice that his Pier 1 Account was closed, charged off, and sold to Midland Credit for collection. On July 3, 2019, the Defendants mailed a collection letter to the Plaintiff regarding an outstanding balance on the Pier 1 Account. The Plaintiff filed his initial putative class action complaint on July 3, 2020, alleging that the Defendants violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C.A. Section 1692 et seq. ("FDCPA"). He alleged that the Defendants violated the FDCPA when attempting to collect consumer debts from consumers by falsely threatening that "if your account goes to an attorney, the flexible options below may no longer be available to you." He claimed these threats were false because the Defendants continue to offer flexible payment options for accounts even after they are sent to attorneys or after lawsuits have been filed and never intended to make flexible payment options unavailable. The Defendants properly removed the case to federal court on Aug. 14, 2020, pursuant to federal question jurisdiction. On Oct. 9, 2020, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which asserted the same FDCPA claims relevant to the instant Opinion. On Oct. 27, 2020, the Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint or in the alternative, compel arbitration pursuant to the arbitration provision in the account agreement. Judge Claire C. Cecchi denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss but granted the motion to compel arbitration. On Aug. 11, 2021, the Plaintiff filed an arbitration demand with JAMS. JAMS proposed five possible arbitrators, but the parties could not agree on one. Each party submitted their respective "strike list" to JAMS, who then appointed the Honorable Helen E. Freedman, a retired judge, as arbitrator. Until this motion, the Plaintiff never objected to the Arbitrator's qualifications or eligibility. He, who initiated the JAMS arbitration, also never objected to JAMS as the arbitration forum. On May 6, 2022, the Arbitrator issued her final decision. Two findings are relevant in the matter. First, the Arbitrator rejected the second iteration of the Plaintiff's argument that the case is not arbitrable and decided to "abide by Judge Cecchi's well-reasoned decision in favor of arbitrability." Second, the Arbitrator dismissed the Plaintiff's FDCPA claim. In her analysis, the Arbitrator applied the "least sophisticated debtor" standard, which requires looking at alleged deceptive or misleading communications through the lens of the least sophisticated debtor, rather than a reasonable debtor. The Arbitrator dismissed the Plaintiff's FDCPA claim because the language used in the collection letter sent to the Plaintiff was neither deceptive nor can it be demonstrated to be untrue. On Sept. 7, 2022, the Plaintiff moved to vacate the Arbitrator's Opinion. First, the Plaintiff argues non-arbitrability. Judge Padin opines that Judge Cecchi's prior decision that the case is arbitrable remains the law of the case. She says the Plaintiff does not argue, nor does the Court find, that any extraordinary circumstances exist. There is: (1) no new evidence available; (2) no supervening new law; (3) no correction of an (nonexistent) earlier, ambiguous ruling; and (4) no unjust results from a prior ruling. Next, the Plaintiff asserts the Arbitrator's decision constituted the unauthorized practice of law. Arbitration is the practice of law, and because the Arbitrator was not licensed in the state of New Jersey, she committed the unauthorized practice of law, and her decision must be disregarded. Judge Padin opines that regardless of the argument's merit, the Plaintiff has waived it, as he had constructive knowledge well before the arbitration. Because the Plaintiff had constructive knowledge and failed to raise any issue as to JAMS or the Arbitrator until after he lost, his challenge is waived. The Plaintiff then argues the Arbitrator deprived him of a fair hearing because he was denied the opportunity to conduct discovery. However, Judge Padin opines that arbitrators do not need to examine all extrinsic evidence when the relevant writing is unambiguous. And even if the Arbitrator excluded any evidence in error, the award will only be vacated if this error was in bad faith or so gross as to amount to affirmative misconduct. The Arbitrator interpreted the collection letter's language and reasonably concluded that one instance contrary to the Plaintiff's bright-line position would defeat it altogether. As such, the Arbitrator's conduct was not in bad faith, let alone affirmative misconduct. Moreover, the Arbitrator did not exceed her powers or demonstrate a manifest disregard of the law. Judge Padin opines that the Plaintiff does not satisfy FAA Section 10(a)(4)'s "heavy burden" to prove the Arbitrator acted outside the scope of her contractually delegated authority. Nor do any alleged errors demonstrate a manifest disregard for the law. Finally, the Plaintiff argues the Arbitrator showed "evident partiality" because the decisions "unilaterally benefit the Defendants" and thus any reasonable person would conclude the Arbitrator was partial to the Defendants. But he points to no specific facts indicating improper motives on the part of the Arbitrator. Because the Plaintiff has not capably demonstrated any direct or definite partiality, the award will not be vacated. For these reasons stated, the Plaintiff's motion to vacate the arbitration award is denied. An appropriate Order accompanies Judge Padin's Opinion. A full-text copy of the Court's May 31, 2023 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/kh4v4u6z from Leagle.com. NA & SANG: Fails to Pay Packers, Cleaners' OT Wages, Moranchel Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- ARTURO VILCHIS MORANCHEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NA & SANG PRODUCE INC. d/b/a EDEN FARM and JOON CHUL LEE and ANN LEE, as individuals, Case No. 1:23-cv-04268 (E.D.N.Y., June 9, 2023) seeks to recover overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff was regularly required to work 53 hours or more hours each week during the relevant statutory period. He was paid by the Defendants a flat weekly rate of $740.00 per week for all hours worked from June 2017 until July 2022. The Defendants did not pay the Plaintiff at a wage rate of time and a half (1.5) for his hours regularly worked over 40 hours in a work week, the lawsuit claims. The Defendants also failed to provide the Plaintiff with wage statements, upon each payment of his Wages, the lawsuit adds. Mr. Moranchel was employed by NA & SANG as a packer and cleaner while performing related miscellaneous duties for the Defendants, from February 2010 until July 2022.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 NATION'S HEALTH: Lawson Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nation's Health Group, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Andrew Lawson, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Nation's Health Group, Inc., Case No. 9:23-cv-80893-XXXX (S.D. Fla., June 8, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Nation Health Group -- http://nationshealthgroup.org/-- is a company that operates in the Insurance industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mohammad Reza Kazerouni, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC 245 Fischer Ave, D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Phone: (949) 612-9999 Fax: (800) 520-5523 Email: mike@kazlg.com - and - Ryan L. McBride, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 301 E. Bethany Home Road, Ste. C-195 Phoenix, AZ 85012 Phone: (800) 400-6808 Email: ryan@kazlg.com NORTH CAROLINA: $725K Class Deal in Franklin v. Kinsley Approved ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ALICIA FRANKLIN and REINA GUZMAN, on behalf of herself and minor child E.L., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. KODY KINSLEY, in his official capacity as Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, Defendant, Civil Case No. 5:17-cv-00581-FL (E.D.N.C.), Judge Louise Wood Flanagan of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, Western Division, grants the Parties' Joint Motion for Approval of their Settlement Agreement Regarding Attorney's Fees and Costs. The Parties reached a Settlement Agreement regarding the amount of attorney's fees and costs to be paid to the class counsel for the period ending Jan. 13, 2023, the date of Court Approval of the Settlement of the Merits in the case. The agreement calls for payment by the Defendant of the sum of $725,000 to the Plaintiffs' Attorneys. Judge Flanagan has reviewed the summary showing the number of hours expended by attorneys and paralegals working on the case for the Plaintiffs, their positions, and their years of experience, and the hourly rates requested for each of them as well as contemporaneous time records for those working on the case for the Plaintiffs. She finds that the hourly rates requested by the Plaintiffs are reasonable and consistent with rates charged by other attorneys and paralegals of similar experience working on complex litigation in the Eastern District of North Carolina. Hence, the amount of attorney's fees agreed to is fair and reasonable. The case sought and obtained only injunctive relief. Therefore, the fees paid to the Class Counsel in no way could have reduced any monetary recovery obtained by the class members. Moreover, the settlement of the merits was completed and approved by the Court before any negotiations occurred regarding fees. Thus, there is no risk that the Class Counsel accepted a lesser settlement on the merits to obtain fees for themselves. As required by Rule 23(h)(1), notice of the joint motion was directed to the class members in a reasonable manner by prominently posting a notice at the websites of the Class Counsel, where it remained for a period of four weeks. Judge Flanagan finds that the notice met the requirements of Rule 23(h)(1). The deadline for filing objections was March 3, 2023. No written objections have been filed. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(h), Judge Flanagan approves the Parties' Settlement Agreement Regarding Attorney's Fees. A full-text copy of the Court's May 31, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3v9th7dx from Leagle.com. OAKHURST INDUSTRIES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Castro Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- LUIS A. CASTRO; and LUIS G. CASTRO-MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OAKHURST INDUSTRIES, INC. DBA FREUND BAKING CO.; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV13084 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 8, 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. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as staff. Oakhurst Industries, Inc. was founded in 1981. The Company's line of business includes the manufacturing of fresh and frozen bread, bread-type rolls, cakes, pies, and other perishable bakery products. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Nazo Koulloukian, Esq. KOUL LAW FIRM 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 761-5484 Facsimile: (818) 561-3938 Email: nazo@koullaw.com - and - Sahag Majarian, Esq. Garen Majarian, Esq. MAJARIAN LAW GROUP, APC 18250 Ventura Blvd. Tarzana, CA 91356 Telephone: (818) 609-0807 Facsimile: (818) 609-0892 Email: sahagii@aol.com garen@majarianlawgroup.com OLYMPIA BEACON SQUARE: Peters Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Olympia Beacon Square, LLC. The case is styled as Kaitlyn Peters, as individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Olympia Beacon Square, LLC, Case No. 2379CV00288 (Mass. Super. Ct., Norfolk Cty., June 9, 2023). The case type is stated as "Torts." Olympia Beacon Square, LLC is an apartment complex.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Morneau, Esq. CONNOR AND MORNEAU, LLP 273 State St., Second Floor Springfield, MA 01103 - and - Kenneth D. Quat, Esq. QUAT LAW OFFICES 373 Winch St. Framingham, MA 01701 PACIFICORP: Jury Awards $17MM in Punitive Damages in Wildfire Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ David Siegel, writing for Courtroom View Network, reports that an Oregon state court jury awarded $17 million in punitive damages on June 14 in a class action trial over electric utility company PacifiCorp's liability for widespread wildfires, bringing the total damages to at least $87 million. The Multnomah County jury's punitive damages decision came on the heels of a $70 million compensatory verdict earlier in the week. The jury sided with 17 class representatives who claimed they suffered property damage because of PacifiCorp's failure to deactivate key power lines ahead of a windstorm which sparked numerous wildfires over the Labor Day holiday in 2020. The 17 named plaintiffs in the case represented a larger class of roughly 5,000 individuals who also lost property in the fires. They accused PacifiCorp of failing to deactivate their lines even while other electric utilities int he area did so despite multiple warnings of the fire risk posed by the impending windstorms, including from the governor's office. PacifiCorp denied any liability for the fires, arguing throughout the trial that shutting down their lines would have severely impacted first responders and critical facilities like hospitals, and the company said it would appeal the jury's verdict. The full trial, believed to be the first time a jury sided with property owners against a utility company in a case involving wildfire damage, was webcast and recorded gavel-to-gavel by Courtroom View Network. Subscribers to CVN's online video library can get unlimited on-demand access to the full trial, including all witness testimony. Attorneys for the plaintiff class said after the trial the eventual total damages awarded could range into the billions, and that those amounts will be determined in subsequent phases of the litigation. Matthew Preusch, a partner at Keller Rohrback LLP, expressed relief at the verdict following a lengthy trial and years of litigation. "Finally, years after these fires, Oregonians have answers and these fire survivors have accountability. The jury confirmed what plaintiffs have long alleged: PacifiCorp is responsible for these four fires that burned thousands of properties across the state," he said. PacifiCorp expressed sympathy for the property owners but also stated they were confident their appeal efforts would be successful, and cast the issue of windstorm-driven wildfires as being far larger than one company. "Escalating climate change, challenging state and federal forest management, and population growth in the wildland-urban interface are substantial factors contributing to growing wildfire risk," the company said. The plaintiff class was also represented by Stoll Berne, Edelson PC and Johnson Lucas & Middleton PC. PacifiCorp was represented by Hueston Hennigan LLP. The case is James, et al. v. PacifiCorp., case number 20CV33885 in Multnomah County Circuit Court. [GN] PARATEK PHARMA: Juan Monteverde Investigates Gurnet Point Merger ---------------------------------------------------------------- Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner of the class action firm Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a national securities firm rated Top 50 in the 2018-2021 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report and headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating: Paratek Pharmaceuticals, Inc. PRTK, relating to its proposed sale to Gurnet Point Capital and Novo Holdings A/S. Under the terms of the agreement, PRTK shareholders are expected to receive $2.15 in cash per share they own and a contingent value right worth up to $0.85 per share. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/paratek-pharmaceuticals-inc. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. Chinook Therapeutics, Inc. KDNY, relating to its proposed sale to Novartis AG. Under the terms of the agreement, KDNY shareholders are expected to receive $40.00 in cash per share they own and contingent value rights worth up to $4.00 per share. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/chinook-therapeutics-inc. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. Bunge Limited, Inc. BG, relating to its proposed merger with Viterra Limited. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/bunge-limited-inc. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. Wireless Telecom Group, Inc. WTT, relating to its proposed sale to Maury Microwave, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, WTT shareholders are expected to receive $2.13 in cash per share they own. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/wireless-telecom-group-inc. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. About Monteverde & Associates PC We are a national class action securities and consumer litigation law firm that has recovered millions of dollars for shareholders and is committed to protecting investors and consumers from corporate wrongdoing. Monteverde & Associates lawyers have significant experience litigating Mergers & Acquisitions and Securities Class Actions, whereby they protect investors by recovering money and remedying corporate misconduct. Mr. Monteverde, who leads the firm, has been recognized by Super Lawyers as a Rising Star in Securities Litigation in 2013 and 2017-2019, an award given to less than 2.5% of attorneys in a particular field. He has also been selected by Martindale-Hubbell as a 2017-2020 Top Rated Lawyer. Our firm's recent successes include changing the law in a significant victory that lowered the standard of liability under Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act in the Ninth Circuit. Thereafter, our firm successfully preserved this victory by obtaining dismissal of a writ of certiorari as improvidently granted at the United States Supreme Court. Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian, 139 S. Ct. 1407 (2019). Also, over the years the firm has recovered or secured over a dozen cash common funds for shareholders in mergers & acquisitions class action cases. If you own common stock in any of the above listed companies and wish to obtain additional information and protect your investments free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4405 New York, NY 10118 United States of America jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com Tel: (212) 971-1341 Attorney Advertising. (C) 2023 Monteverde & Associates PC. The law firm responsible for this advertisement is Monteverde & Associates PC (www.monteverdelaw.com). Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. [GN] PIZZA LUCE: Fails to Pay Delivery Drivers' Minimum Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------------- Elizabeth Norton, On behalf of herself and those similarly situated v. Pizza Luce, Inc.; Pizza Luce II, Inc.; Pizza Luce III, Inc.; Pizza Luce IV, Inc.; Pizza Luce V, Inc.; Pizza Luce VI, Inc.; Pizza Luce VII, Inc.; Pizza Luce VIII, Inc.; Pizza Luce IX, Inc.; JJ Haywood; Laura Hansen; Joe Baier; Doe Corporation 1-10; John Doe 1-10, Case No. 0:23-cv-01746 (D. Minn., June 9, 2023) seeks appropriate monetary, declaratory, and equitable relief based on the Defendants' willful failure to compensate the Plaintiff and similarly-situated individuals with minimum wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act, Minnesota wage and hour laws, and for unjust enrichment. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants repeatedly and willfully violated the FLSA and Minnesota wage and hour laws by failing to adequately reimburse delivery drivers for their delivery-related expenses, thereby failing to pay delivery drivers the legally mandated minimum wages for all hours worked. Accordingly, the Defendants require delivery drivers to incur and/or pay job-related expenses, including automobile costs and depreciation, gasoline expenses, automobile maintenance and parts, insurance, financing charges, licensing and registration costs, and storage costs. The delivery drivers have incurred even more in expenses than those contemplated by the IRS standard business mileage rate—e.g., the increased wear and tear, accelerated depreciation, and insurance costs associated with using a car for pizza delivery, the Plaintiff claims. The Defendants also require the delivery drivers to download and use a smartphone application to track and manage all of their deliveries. As a result, the delivery drivers incurred cell phone related expenses for the benefit of the Defendants. As a result of the automobile and other job-related expenses incurred by the Plaintiff and other similarly situated delivery drivers, they were deprived of minimum wages guaranteed to them by the FLSA and Minnesota law, says the suit. The Plaintiff and the similarly situated persons Plaintiff seek to represent are current and former delivery drivers at the Defendants' Pizza Luce stores. The Plaintiff worked at the Pizza Luce located at 210 Blake Rd. N., Hopkins, Minnesota 55343 from 2019 until 2023. Pizza Luce is a pizza restaurant.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Corey W. Kobbervig, Esq. KOBBERVIG LAW LLC 1624 Harmon Pl Ste 300G Minneapolis, MN 55403 Telephone: (651) 357-0111 E-mail: corey@kobberviglaw.com - and - Andrew P. Kimble, Esq. BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC 8044 Montgomery Rd., Ste. 515 Cincinnati, OH 45209 Telephone: (513) 202-0710 Facsimile: (614) 340-4620 E-mail: akimble@billerkimble.com PROVIDENCE PLACE: Ira Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Providence Place, et al. The case is styled as Blas Ira, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Providence Place, Inc., Galina Knop, Does 1 To 50, Inclusive, Case No. CGC23607008 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., June 9, 2023). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints." Providence Place -- https://providence-place.com/ -- is a family-owned senior living company with retirement & assisted living communities across Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Ottinger, Esq. OTTINGER EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS 535 Mission St 14th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: 415-508-7786 Email: robert@ottingerlaw.com PROXIMO SPIRITS: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Proximo Spirits, Inc. The case is styled as Jenny Hwang, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Proximo Spirits, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-04259-KAM-VMS (E.D.N.Y., June 9, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. PROXIMO -- https://proximospirits.com/ -- is a global innovator of quality spirits, creating excitement with every sip.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 14749 71st Ave. Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com PRUDENTIAL PLC: Rosen Law Firm Probes Potential Securities Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues its investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Prudential plc (NYSE: PUK) (OTC: PUKPF) resulting from allegations that Prudential may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. SO WHAT: If you purchased Prudential securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=16906 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On May 31, 2023, Prudential disclosed that its Chief Financial Officer James Turner had resigned amid a probe into a "code of conduct issue" relating to a recent recruitment. On this news, the price of Prudential's American Depositary Receipts ("ADR") fell $1.71 per ADR, or 6.08%, to close at $26.43 per ADR on May 31, 2023. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] PRUVIT VENTURES: Lozano Sues Over Deceptive Product Labeling ------------------------------------------------------------ DEANA LOZANO, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PRUVIT VENTURES, INC., a Texas corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-CV-04394 (C.D. Cal., June 5, 2023) alleges claims against the Defendant for unjust enrichment, breach of express warranty, and for violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the California Business and Professions Code, and the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act. Plaintiff Lozano asserts that the Defendant's natural flavoring claims of its products--The Maui Punch, Gummy Bear, Heart Tart, Blueberry Acai, Hibiscus Lemonade, and Berry Blue flavor--are false. She adds that these products are flavored using an artificial flavoring, DL malic acid, that is derived from petrochemicals. The Defendant uses DL malic acid in the said products to create a sweet and tart flavor but pretends otherwise, conflating natural and artificial flavorings, misbranding these products and deceiving consumers, the Plaintiff asserts. Pruvit Ventures, Inc. is a Texas corporation with its principal place of business and headquarters in Melissa, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles C. Weller, Esq. CHARLES C. WELLER, APC 11412 Corley Court San Diego, CA 92126 Telephone: (858) 414-7465 Facsimile: (858) 300-5137 E-mail: legal@cweller.com PURE GREEN NYC: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pure Green NYC Wholesale Corp. The case is styled as Pedro Martinez, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Pure Green NYC Wholesale Corp., Case No. 1:23-cv-04247-NRM-MMH (E.D.N.Y., June 8, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Pure Green -- https://www.puregreen.com/ -- is one of the fastest-growing cold pressed juice companies and juice bar franchises in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Phone: (917) 373-9128 Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com REPUBLIC SERVICES: Bids for Class Certification Due Dec. 15 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as "A+ Auto Service, LLC, v. Republic Services of South Carolina, LLC., No. 2:21-cv-01492-RMG (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Richard Mark Gergel entered a second amended scheduling order in two class action suits as follows: 1. Expert Witnesses: the Plaintiff: August 1, 2023 the Defendant: September 1, 2023 2. Discovery shall be completed November 30, 2023 no later than: 3. The mediation deadline is: December 15, 2023 4. Motions for Class Certification December 15, 2023 5. This case is subject to being called February 1, 2024 for trial on or after: Republic Services provides solid waste collection services. A copy of the Court's order dated May 31, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NrLmQX at no extra charge.[CC] RESPONDUS INC: $6.25MM Class Settlement to be Heard on August 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- The following statement is being issued by Kroll Settlement Administration regarding the Respondus Settlement. A Settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit claiming that Respondus violated an Illinois law called the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA") by collecting biometric identifiers and/or biometric information through the use of its Respondus Monitor® application without complying with BIPA's requirements. Respondus denies it did anything wrong, or that it ever collected or possessed any biometric data that could be subject to BIPA. The Court has not decided who is right or wrong. Who is included? You are included in the Settlement if you took an exam using Respondus Monitor® while physically present in the state of Illinois at any time between November 11, 2015 and June 2, 2023 (the "Class Period"). If the Court approves the Settlement, members of the Class who submit Approved Claims will receive one payment of an equal, or pro rata, share of a $6,250,000 Settlement Fund that Respondus has agreed to establish, after all Settlement Administration Expenses, Service Awards, and Fee Award have been paid. Individual payments to Class Members who submit a valid Claim Form are estimated to be $50.00, depending on the number of Approved Claims submitted. What are my options? If you are an eligible Class Member, the only way to receive a payment is to submit a Claim Form either online or by mail before August 30, 2023. Claim Forms can be submitted online at BIPA-examsettlement.com, or you can download a Claim Form and mail it to: Veiga, et al. v. Respondus, Inc. c/o Kroll Settlement Administration, P.O. Box 5324, New York, NY 10150-5324. If you do nothing, you will not receive a payment under the Settlement and you will give up your rights to sue Defendant about the issues in this case. If you want to exclude yourself from the Settlement, you will receive no payment, but you will keep the right to participate in another lawsuit against Defendant about the claims at issue in this case. You must send a written request to be excluded by July 31, 2023. If you do not like the Settlement you can Object. You may file a written objection no later than July 31, 2023, to tell the Court why you believe the proposed Settlement is unfair, unreasonable, or inadequate and may appear and object at the Final Approval Hearing if you provide notice of your intent to do so in your written objection. The Court will hold the Final Approval Hearing at 9:00 a.m. (Central Time) on August 31, 2023, before the Honorable Timothy J. McJoynt in Room 2008 at the DuPage County Courthouse and Administration Building, 505 N. County Farm Road, Wheaton, Illinois 60187, or via remote means as instructed by the Court. The Court will determine whether the Settlement is fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the Class. At the hearing, the Court will hear any objections and arguments concerning the fairness of the proposed Settlement, including those related to the amount requested by Class Counsel for Fee Award and the Service Awards to the Class Representatives. You may attend the hearing at your own expense, but you do not have to. This is only a summary. For more information about the settlement and benefits, visit BIPA-examsettlement.com or call toll-free 1-833-747-6499. [GN] SADKME CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay Workers' OT Wages, Pesantez Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ SEGUNDO PESANTEZ and NELSON IVAN YANEZ AUCAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SADKME CONSTRUCTION CORP. and JORGE BUNAY ANDRANGO, as an individual, Case No. 1:23-cv-04271 (E.D.N.Y., June 9, 2023) seeks to recover overtime wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Mr. Pesantez was paid a flat weekly rate of $862.00 per week from February 2020 until March 2022. Although the Plaintiff regularly worked 64 hours or more hours each week from February 2020 until March 2022, the Defendants did not pay the Plaintiff at a wage rate of time and a half for his hours regularly worked over 40 hours in a work week, the lawsuit alleges. Additionally, the Defendants paid the Plaintiff Pesantez on a bi-weekly basis from October 2020 until March 2022, failing to timely pay Plaintiff for his first week of wages and thus violated the frequency of pay requirements of NYLL section 191, the lawsuit claims. Further, the Plaintiff was not compensated at all by the Defendants for his last 12 weeks of employment, the lawsuit adds. At all times relevant hereto, the Plaintiffs performed work for the Defendants at various locations, which include: i. 278 South 2 apt #16, Brooklyn, NY ii. 117 South 4 apt #22, Brooklyn, NY iii. 300 Palisade Avenue, Jersey City, NJ iv. 220 Skillman St, Brooklyn, NY v. 814 Knickerbocker, Brooklyn, NY vi. 716 Princeton Rd, Linden, NJ The Plaintiff was employed by Sadkme Construction Corp., as a helper, pipe and concrete worker while performing related miscellaneous duties for the Defendants, from February 2020 until March 2022. Plaintiff Aucay was employed by Sadkme Construction Corp., as a painter, wood and concrete worker while performing related miscellaneous duties for the Defendants, from August 2017 until September 2022.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 SAFEWAY INC: Faces Class Suit Over Buy Get One Free Promotions -------------------------------------------------------------- Ethan Baron of The Mercury News reports that Caleb Haley bought a pint of Ben & Jerry's ice cream at Safeway in one of the grocery giant's "Buy One, Get One Free" promotions, paying $7.49. The same tub cost $4 the day before the deal started and dropped back down to that price immediately after it ended. Alleged promotional pricing practices like these by the nationwide grocer are deceptive and illegal, according to a lawsuit Haley filed this week, claiming nearly a million California consumers have been harmed. At its 243 California stores, including dozens in the Bay Area, Safeway illegally jacks up prices on food sold in the "BOGO" and "Buy One, Get Two Free" promotions, the lawsuit in Northern California U.S. District Court claimed, contending that California's unfair-competition and false-advertising laws make such practices illegal. "Consumers making purchases under these promotions do not get a free product," the lawsuit against Safeway and its parent firm Albertsons alleged. "Instead, they pay more for the product and buy more of the product than they otherwise would to obtain the illusory 'free' product." More than 800,000 California shoppers have been duped by the alleged scheme, the lawsuit claimed, and Haley, a Eureka-area resident, is seeking class-action status to bring them into the legal action. Albertsons did not respond to requests for comment. According to the lawsuit, Haley bought the ice cream in April. Between March and May, Safeway also allegedly raised a number of prices on BOGO deals. A package of Gorton's frozen fish went from $8.99 to $11.99, while Peet's Coffee went from $8.99 to $13.99, and Oreos cookies went from $4.99 to $6.79, the lawsuit claimed. Safeway also was accused of hiking the price of other ice creams for a BOGO promotion, from $4 to $7.49 for Dreyer’s and from $5.99 to $7.49 for Häagen-Dazs. The lawsuit also cites U.S. Federal Trade Commission guidance that companies offering free goods should take "extreme care so as to avoid any possibility that consumers will be misled or deceived." The boosted pricing alleged in the lawsuit appears to contradict the agency's regulatory guidance, saying, "when the purchaser is told that an article is 'Free' to him if another article is purchased, the word 'Free' indicates that he is paying nothing for that article and no more than the regular price for the other. " "Thus, a purchaser has a right to believe that the merchant will not directly and immediately recover, in whole or in part, the cost of the free merchandise or service by marking up the price of the article which must be purchased." The lawsuit aims to include the estimated 800,000-plus Safeway customers who used their membership in the grocer's loyalty program to avail themselves of such promotions in the past four years. Haley is seeking unspecified damages and a court order barring Safeway from "inflating the prices of products offered on BOGO promotions above the regular retail price for those products." In February, Safeway agreed to pay $107 million to settle a class-action lawsuit in Oregon that made similar claims about BOGO and "Buy One Get Two Free" promotions for certain meat products. Eligible consumers were to receive up to $200 each under the settlement approved by the court in March. In 2014, Safeway agreed to pay more than $2 million to settle a lawsuit by Marin County prosecutors alleging it charged consumers more than its lowest advertised prices, misrepresented the weights of Safeway-brand products, and implied that some produce was locally grown when it came from out of the country. In September, the company agreed to pay $8 million after authorities accused it of breaking gasoline-leak prevention laws at its 71 California gas stations, including 18 in the Bay Area. [GN] SAVE MART: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Goodwin Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- SOMALIA GOODWIN, individually and on behalf of the State of California, and others similarly situated and aggrieved, Plaintiff v. SAVE MART SUPERMARKETS LLC, a California Limited Liability Company; THE SAVE MART COMPANIES, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 23CV035106 (Cal. Super., June 5, 2023) arises out of the Defendants' violations of the California Labor Code. Plaintiff Goodwin worked for Defendants as a non-exempt employee with a job title of, multi-purpose clerk, deli clerk or a similar title from in or around October 2021 through in or around April 2022 at Stockton and Pleasanton, California store locations. She regularly worked nine hours, at least five days per week. However, the Defendants allegedly failed to compensate Goodwin for all hours she worked, resulting in the underpayment of minimum and overtime wages. The Defendants have implemented an automatic deduction and time rounding policies and also failed to relieve employees of all duties/employer control during unpaid meal periods, says the Plaintiff. The Defendants are each a California limited liability company and/or California corporation and were authorized to do business within in the state of California. They own, operate, and/or manage grocery stores that operate under the names of Save Mart, Save Mart Supermarkets, Lucky, Lucky California, Food Maxx, S-Mart, Maxx Value, and/or Maxx Value Foods. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zachary m. Crosner, Esq. Jamie Serb, Esq. Samantha Smith, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, PC 9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (866) 276-7637 Facsimile: (310) 510-6429 E-mail: zach@crosnerlegal.com jamie@crosnerlegal.com samantha@crosnerlegal.com SEAFON INC: Fails to Pay Cooks' OT Wages Under FLSA, Roman Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ JOSE ROMAN individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. SEAFON INC. (DBA LIT 21), ALBANO SEABRA, AMERICO JR. SEABRA and ANTONIO SEABRA, Case No. 2:23-cv-03184 (DNJ, June 10, 2023) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law. The Plaintiff was paid $16 per hour from 2019 until 2020 and $18 per hour from 2021 until 2022 and was not paid any overtime, despite working 80 to 90 hours per week, the lawsuit claims. Accordingly, the Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring Plaintiff and the FLSA collective employees to work more than 40 hours per week without providing them with any additional compensation. The Defendants also did not provide the Plaintiff with each payment of wages an accurate statement of wages and never provided the Plaintiff with written notice of his rate of pay, employer’s regular payday, and such other information as required, the lawsuit says. The Plaintiff was employed as a cook by the Defendant at its company located at 1034 McCarter Hwy, Newark, from February 18, 2019, until November 8, 2022. Seafon is a corporate entity principally engaged in the food services industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lina Stillman, Esq. STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C. 42 Broadway, 12t Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 203-2417 E-mail: www.stillmanlegalpc.com SHIELDS HEALTH CARE: Johnson Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Shields Health Care Group, Inc. The case is styled as Amanda Johnson, Christine Cambria, Courtney Horgan, Kenneth Vandam, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Shields Health Care Group, Inc., Case No. 2382CV00526 (Mass. Super. Ct., Norfolk Cty., June 9, 2023). The case type is stated as "Contract/Business Cases." Shields Health -- https://shields.com/ -- provides MRI, PET/CT, and surgery services to patients at more than 50 locations in New England.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert J. Hartigan, Esq. Kathryne D. Masson, Esq. Kevin John McCullough, Esq. Mazow/McCullough P.C. 10 Derby Square, 4th Floor Salem, MA 01970 SHYFT GROUP: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Gray Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- DEANDRE GRAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE SHYFT GROUP USA, INC., a foreign corporation, Defendant, Case No. 5:23-cv-11336-JEL-DRG (E.D. Mich., June 5, 2023) arises out of the Defendant's violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff has worked for Defendant since approximately April 11, 2022 as a non-exempt, hourly employee at the Defendant's location at 1000 Reynolds Rd, Charlotte, MI. In addition to the base rate of pay, Defendant regularly incorporated various types of non-discretionary pay into its payment structure, such as attendance bonus. Throughout Plaintiff's employment with Defendant, on occasions where he worked the second shift, he also earned a shift differential. The Plaintiff and those similarly situated have regularly worked in excess of 40 hours a week and have been paid some overtime for those hours but at a rate that does not include Defendant's non-discretionary bonuses as required by the FLSA. He seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs, and other relief as appropriate under the FLSA. The Shyft Group USA, Inc., is a South Dakota corporation that has its principal place of business at 41280 Bridge St, Novi, Michigan. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. 141 E. Michigan Avenue, Suite 600 Kalamazoo, MI 49007 Telephone: (269) 250-7500 E-mail: jyoung@sommerspc.com - and - Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Town Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com - and - Jonathan Melmed, Esq. Laura Supanich, Esq. MELMED LAW GROUP, P.C. 1801 Century Park East, Suite 850 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 824-3828 E-mail: jm@melmedlaw.com lms@melmedlaw.com SIDEARM SPORTS: Faces Class Action Over VPPA Violations ------------------------------------------------------- Adam Doerr, Esq. of Robinson Bradshaw, in an article for JDSupra, reports that since March of this year, at least four purported class action lawsuits have been filed against universities, their affiliated athletic organizations, and the alleged operators of their athletic team websites, Sidearm Sports LLC and Learfield Communications LLC. These cases allege that websites using Meta (Facebook) Pixel and other technology to monitor website traffic or activity violate the federal Video Privacy Protection Act and state and federal wiretapping statutes. An uptick of class action litigation under the VPPA began in 2022 with cases brought against a wide range of businesses, including media outlets, movie studios, streaming services, restaurants and professional sports organizations. Well over 50 cases have been filed alleging VPPA violations arising from use of Meta Pixel since early 2022. Recent cases have been filed against the University of Florida, the University of Nebraska, the University of Texas at Austin and the University of Southern California. In the most recent case, the plaintiffs identified 173 collegiate team websites that they allege use some form of website tracking technology. This article provides an overview of the recent litigation and best practices for universities to mitigate risk related to the underlying privacy issues and potential litigation in this arena. Meta Pixel & Other Website Tracking Tools Meta Pixel is a tool that can be used to track website user activity. Depending on how Meta Pixel is configured on a particular website, the Pixel code can share certain information about a user's interaction with a website from that website to Meta. If the user has independently logged onto Facebook, it may be possible for Meta to link such activity to a Facebook user. Other website tracking tools may collect, store and/or share information about website use. Such tools may allow businesses to engage in targeted advertising, provide customized results to users or gain other insight about website activity. Video Privacy Protection Act of 1988 VPPA is one of the earliest federal privacy laws, enacted in response to concerns about brick-and-mortar video tape rental companies disclosing information about a customer's rental records. Congress passed the law after Robert Bork's VHS tape rental history leaked during his Supreme Court confirmation hearings. VPPA prohibits a "video tape service provider" from disclosing certain personally identifiable information (PII) of a consumer, including information that identifies a person as having requested specific video materials, without their consent. A video tape service provider includes any person engaged in the business of the rental, sale or delivery of video tapes or "similar audio visual materials." Despite its analog origins, plaintiffs' class-action attorneys have attempted to apply this statutory language to new technology. With the rise of online streaming services in the 2010s, those providers became a focus of VPPA claims. That litigation led to an amendment to the VPAA to allow disclosure of PII after obtaining informed, written consent from consumers. Over the past 18 months, plaintiffs' counsel have targeted other types of businesses with websites providing online video content and using Meta Pixel. These cases allege that businesses violate VPPA by using Pixel to disclose PII about a website user's video-viewing history to Meta. In a class action, with $2,500 in statutory damages per alleged VPPA violation, the potential damages could be substantial. Plaintiffs' attorneys may also seek punitive damages and attorneys' fees. The cases against universities and their team website operators are in the very earliest stages, and motions to dismiss have not yet been fully briefed or decided in the currently filed cases. A handful of federal courts have addressed VPPA claims arising from use of Pixel on other types of websites. Those cases demonstrate that outcomes on motions to dismiss are uncertain and may be highly fact-specific and dependent on jurisdiction. For example, two district courts have dismissed VPPA claims for livestream content (in contrast to prerecorded content), and one district court dismissed a VPPA claim after concluding the Pixel settings alleged in that case did not result in disclosure of PII as defined by the VPPA. Other courts have denied motions to dismiss VPPA claims based on the use of Meta Pixel, allowing cases to proceed to discovery. Wiretapping Laws In the most recent collegiate team website case, filed against the University of Southern California, plaintiffs also allege violations of state and federal wiretapping statutes. Plaintiffs cite use of Meta Pixel, as well as Google's Programmable Search Engine and other website tracking tools, as the foundation for claims under the Federal Wiretap Act and California statutes and common law theories. Plaintiffs allege that those tools impermissibly intercept electronic communications without adequate notice to users. Wiretapping claims based upon website use of Meta Pixel, Google PSE or other tools are a new variation of consumer privacy litigation. At this point, there are no published decisions on motions to dismiss these claims. Best Practices and Next Steps Universities would be well-served to assess whether any of their websites that host video content, including their team websites, use Meta Pixel, Google PSE or other website tracking technologies. If so, universities should understand and evaluate what information is collected, how any information is transmitted to third parties, and whether current website privacy notices and terms of use are adequate under the circumstances. [GN] SKYFINE USA: Gonzales Files Suit in D. Utah ------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against SkyFine USA The case is styled as Leonard Gonzales, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SkyFine USA, Case No. 2:23-cv-00380-CMR (D. Utah, June 9, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Truth in Lending for the Consumer Lease Act. Skyfine USA -- https://www.skyfineusa.com/ -- is a manufacture of the most advanced and modular Ignition Interlock Devices (IID) on the market today, offering Alcohol testers, Police testers, Breathalyzers, Instant drug testers and GPS Ankle monitoring.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jared D. Scott, Esq. Jacob W. Nelson, Esq. ANDERSON & KARRENBERG 50 W. Broadway, Ste. 600 Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Phone: (801) 534-1700 Fax: (801) 364-7697 Email: jscott@aklawfirm.com jnelson@aklawfirm.com SOUTHTOWNE MOTORS: Abeles Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wage ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ross M. Abeles, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. SOUTHTOWNE MOTORS OF NEWNAN, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-02586-ELR (N.D. Ga., June 9, 2023), is brought against the Defendant to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wage owed to the Plaintiff pursuant the Fair Labor Standards Act (hereinafter "FLSA"). The Defendant has had a uniform policy and practice of consistently requiring salespersons to work straight commission, which causes the Plaintiffs to go weeks without pay and/or not receiving minimum wage and/or overtime. The Plaintiff and other employees were required to work straight commission and not paid for some weeks and/or did not receive minimum wage pay and/or overtime compensation for their work when paid. The Defendant has intentionally failed and/or refused to pay the Plaintiff and other employees' rates according to the provisions of the FLSA. The Plaintiff and all similarly situated employees who elect to participate in this action seek unpaid compensation, an equal amount of liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was/is employed by the Defendant. Southtowne Motors of Newnan, Inc., is a corporation conducting business in the State of Georgia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William Gregory Dobson, Esq. LOBER & DOBSON, LLC 1040 Fort Stephenson Road Lookout Mountain, GA 30750 830 Mulberry Street, Suite 201 Macon, GA 31201 Phone: (478) 745-7700 Email: wgd@lddlawyers.com - and - Michael J. Lober, Esq. LOBER & DOBSON, LLC 1197 Canton Street Roswell, GA 30075 Phone: (770) 741-0700 Email: mjlober@lddlawyers.com STATE FARM: Confidentiality Designations in Wiggins Suit Confirmed ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, Kristopher Wiggins and Billy Paul Cobb, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company and State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, Defendants, C/A No. 8:21-cv-03803-DCC (D.S.C.), Judge Donald C. Coggins, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, Anderson/Greenwood Division, grants Non-Party Audatex North America, Inc.'s Motion to Confirm Confidentiality Designations. The case arises from an automobile insurance dispute in which the Plaintiffs owned vehicles that were deemed a total loss by the Defendants. The Defendants elected to pay the Plaintiffs the actual cash value of their insured vehicles pursuant to their insurance policies. The Plaintiffs allege in the Complaint that the Defendants employed a total loss settlement process, which involved obtaining a market-driven valuation report from Audatex. To arrive at the valuation of the insured vehicles, the report provided the prices of four different comparable vehicles advertised for sale online and applied a "Typical Negotiation Adjustment" of approximately 6% to each one. Using this method, the Defendants valued Wiggins' total loss claim at $12,524 and Cobb's total loss claim at $12,194 and paid the Plaintiffs those amounts as the actual cash values of their totaled vehicles. The Plaintiffs claim that the Defendants' use of the "Typical Negotiation Adjustment" to adjust their total loss claims downward violates the applicable insurance policies, is factually erroneous, and was applied solely to pay them less than the actual cash value of their total loss vehicles to which they were entitled by contract. As a result, the Plaintiffs claim that without this erroneous adjustment, the actual cash value of their vehicles would have been $848 and $749 higher, respectively. On Oct. 15, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a putative class action lawsuit against the Defendants in the Oconee County Court of Common Pleas, alleging claims for breach of contract and for a declaratory judgment. The Defendants removed the action to this Court on Nov. 19, 2021. They sent a written request for appraisal of the Plaintiffs' covered vehicles pursuant to their policies on Dec. 21, 2021. By letter dated the same day, the Plaintiffs refused to participate in the appraisal process. Thereafter, the Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Compel Appraisal and Stay. The Court held a hearing on the Motion on June 16, 2022, granted the Motion to Compel Appraisal and Stay, and denied the Motion to Dismiss with leave to refile within 30 days after the completion of the appraisal process. On March 23, 2022, the Court granted the parties' Consent Motion for Confidentiality Order. Pursuant to this Order, documents which, upon review by an attorney, are deemed to contain information protected from disclosure by statute, sensitive personal information, trade secrets, or confidential research, development, or commercial information must only be disclosed for the purposes of preparing for or conducting litigation. The reviewing attorney certifies that its designations are proper. Id. The rules governing such disclosure are delineated in detail within the Order. Moreover, the Order outlines how challenges to any information designated as confidential will be addressed. During the litigation, the Plaintiffs have subpoenaed Audatex for documents and corporate testimony. Audatex claims that they have fully complied with those subpoenas and provided the requested information pursuant to the Consent Confidentiality Order entered in this case, and Plaintiffs do not contend otherwise. By letter dated Feb. 22, 2023, the Plaintiffs challenged Audatex's designation of certain documents as confidential. After meeting and conferring about the issue, the parties were unable to resolve the dispute, and Audatex subsequently filed a Motion to Confirm Confidentiality Designations on March 23, 2023. On March 27, 2023, the Court held a telephone discovery conference with the parties to resolve their dispute regarding certain confidentiality designations that Audatex has asserted over various documents and deposition testimony produced in this case. It encouraged the parties to continue working to resolve the discovery dispute, but if they were unable to do so, then the Court would decide Audatex's motion once the briefing had been completed. Thereafter, the Plaintiffs filed a Response in Opposition and Audatex filed a Reply. The Motion is now before the Court. Audatex seeks an order confirming its prior designation of certain deposition testimony and the Plaintiffs' Expert Report of Phillip Johnson as confidential. It argues that the deposition testimony and the Johnson Report should remain confidential because they contain extensive information regarding the company's proprietary valuation methodology, which constitutes valuable intellectual property and has not previously been published to the public. In contrast, the Plaintiffs object to the designation of these documents as confidential, arguing that Audatex has made repeated and detailed public representations about its methodology because it is disclosed as an adjustment on every Audatex valuation report provided to a State Farm insured; thus, the Plaintiffs assert the documents are not deserving of protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). Having considered the arguments and submissions of the parties, Judge Coggins finds that Audatex has demonstrated good cause to uphold the confidential designation of the deposition testimony and the Johnson Report. Audatex has shown that it considers the information to be confidential commercial information that is not available to the public. It has further articulated the potential competitive harm that it could suffer if the detailed discussion of its methodology underling its Autosource(R) valuation product contained in the deposition testimony and the analysis thereof included in the Johnson Report were un-designated as confidential in this case. In addition, the Plaintiffs have not articulated any need for the confidential designation to be removed that would serve Plaintiffs' interest or the public at large. Judge Coggins finds the Plaintiffs' argument unpersuasive and that disclosure of the confidential information is not "important to public health and safety." Indeed, Audatex concedes, and he finds, that confirmation of the confidentiality designations at issue does not limit the Plaintiffs' access to the documents, as they have already been produced in discovery, nor their ability to use the information freely in their prosecution of the case. Thus, in the absence of any articulated interest to the contrary, the balance of interests favors confirmation of Audatex's confidentiality designations pursuant to the Consent Confidentiality Order entered in the case. Moreover, Judge Coggins recognizes that the parties have engaged in extensive discovery efforts, which likely would not have occurred absent the entry of the Consent Confidentiality Order. Absent any substantial need, removing the confidential designation of these documents could chill further discovery cooperation in the case. Therefore, considering all of the relevant factors and balancing the parties' respective interests, it is appropriate to confirm Audatex's confidentiality designations. For these reasons, Audatex' Motion to Confirm Confidentiality Designations is granted. A full-text copy of the Court's May 31, 2023 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/32bmem7c from Leagle.com. SUGARED + BRONZED: Bunting Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sugared + Bronzed, LLC. The case is styled as Rasheta Bunting, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Sugared + Bronzed, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-04248 (E.D.N.Y., June 8, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. SUGARED + BRONZED -- https://sugaredandbronzed.com/ -- is the nation's largest sugaring hair removal and sunless airbrush spray tan destination.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Phone: (917) 373-9128 Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com SYNEOS HEALTH: Juan Monteverde Investigates Proposed Elliot Sale ---------------------------------------------------------------- Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner of the class action firm Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a national securities firm rated Top 50 in the 2018-2021 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report and headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating: Syneos Health, Inc. (NASDAQ: SYNH), relating to its proposed sale to Elliott Investment Management, Patient Square Capital, and Veritas Capital. Under the terms of the agreement, SYNH shareholders are expected to receive $43.00 in cash per share they own. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/syneos-health-inc. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. Franchise Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: FRG), relating to its proposed sale to its CEO, Brian Kahn, members of its senior management team, and a consortium including B. Riley Financial, Inc. and Irradiant Partners. Under the terms of the agreement, FRG shareholders are expected to receive $30.00 in cash per share they own. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/franchise-group-inc. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. Arlington Asset Investment Corp. (NYSE: AAIC), relating to its proposed sale to Ellington Financial Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, AAIC shareholders will receive 0.3619 shares of Ellington and $0.09 in cash per share they own. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/arlington-asset-investment-corp. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NexTier Oilfield Solutions Inc. (NYSE: NEX), relating to its proposed sale to Patterson-UTI Energy, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, NEX shareholders are expected to receive 0.7520 shares of Patterson per share they own. Click here for more information: https://monteverdelaw.com/case/nextier-oilfield-solutions-inc. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. About Monteverde & Associates PC We are a national class action securities and consumer litigation law firm that has recovered millions of dollars for shareholders and is committed to protecting investors and consumers from corporate wrongdoing. Monteverde & Associates lawyers have significant experience litigating Mergers & Acquisitions and Securities Class Actions, whereby they protect investors by recovering money and remedying corporate misconduct. Mr. Monteverde, who leads the firm, has been recognized by Super Lawyers as a Rising Star in Securities Litigation in 2013 and 2017-2019, an award given to less than 2.5% of attorneys in a particular field. He has also been selected by Martindale-Hubbell as a 2017-2020 Top Rated Lawyer. Our firm's recent successes include changing the law in a significant victory that lowered the standard of liability under Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act in the Ninth Circuit. Thereafter, our firm successfully preserved this victory by obtaining dismissal of a writ of certiorari as improvidently granted at the United States Supreme Court. Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian, 139 S. Ct. 1407 (2019). Also, over the years the firm has recovered or secured over a dozen cash common funds for shareholders in mergers & acquisitions class action cases. If you own common stock in any of the above listed companies and wish to obtain additional information and protect your investments free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4405 New York, NY 10118 United States of America jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN] T-MOBILE US: Clark Suit Transferred to W.D. Missouri ---------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Stephan Clark, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. T-Mobile US, Inc., T-Mobile USA Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-00103 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri on June 9, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:23-cv-00378-BCW to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. T-Mobile US, Inc. -- http://www.t-mobile.com/-- is an American wireless network operator headquartered in Overland Park, Kansas and Bellevue, Washington.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Cari Campen Laufenberg, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 1201 3rd Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 623-1900 Email: claufenberg@kellerrohrback.com - and - Norman E. Siegel, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Rd., Ste. 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Phone: (816) 714-7100 Email: siegel@stuevesiegel.com - and - James J. Pizzirusso, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 888 16th St. NW, Ste. 300 Washington, DC 20006 Email: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com - and - Steven M Nathan HAUSFELD 33 Whitehall Street, Ste. 14th Floor New York, NY 10004 Phone: (646) 357-1100 Fax: (212) 202-4322 Email: snathan@hausfeld.com The Defendant is represented by: Donald Houser, Esq. Kristine McAlister Brown ALSTON AND BIRD LLP (GA) ONE ATLANTIC CENTER 1201 W Peachtree St., Ste. 4900 Atlanta, GA 30309-3432 Phone: (404) 881-7000 Fax: (404) 881-7777 Email: donald.houser@alston.com kristy.brown@alston.com - and - Lauren Jeffers Tsuji, Esq. PERKINS COIE (SEA) 1201 3rd Ave., Ste. 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Phone: (206) 359-3577 Email: LTsuji@perkinscoie.com T-MOBILE US: Dollson Suit Transferred to W.D. Missouri ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Robin Dollson, Candy Howard, and Leonardo Figueroa, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. T-Mobile US, Inc., T-Mobile USA Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-00172 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri on June 9, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:23-cv-00380-BCW to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. T-Mobile US, Inc. -- http://www.t-mobile.com/-- is an American wireless network operator headquartered in Overland Park, Kansas and Bellevue, Washington.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Manish Borde, Esq. BORDE LAW PLLC 600 Stewart St., 400 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 531-2722 Email: mborde@bordelaw.com - and - Ronald A. Marron, Esq. Alexis M. Wood, Esq. Kas L. Gallucci, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON 651 Arroyo Drive San Diego, CA 92103 Phone: (619) 696-9006 Fax: (619) 564-6665 Email: ron@consumersadvocates.com alexis@consumersadvocates.com kas@consumersadvocates.com - and - Margaret MacLean, Esq. Christian Levis, Esq. Amanda Fiorilla, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C. 44 South Broadway, Suite 1100 White Plains, NY 10601 Phone: (914) 997-0500 Facsimile: (914) 997-0035 Email: mmaclean@lowey.com clevis@lowey.com afiorilla@lowey.com - and - Anthony M. Christina, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C. One Tower Bridge 100 Front Street, Suite 520 West Conshohocken, PA 19428 Phone: (215) 399-4770 Facsimile: (914) 997-0035 Email: achristina@lowey.com The Defendant is represented by: Donald Houser, Esq. Kristine McAlister Brown ALSTON AND BIRD LLP (GA) ONE ATLANTIC CENTER 1201 W Peachtree St., Ste. 4900 Atlanta, GA 30309-3432 Phone: (404) 881-7000 Fax: (404) 881-7777 Email: donald.houser@alston.com kristy.brown@alston.com - and - Lauren Jeffers Tsuji, Esq. PERKINS COIE (SEA) 1201 3rd Ave., Ste. 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Phone: (206) 359-3577 Email: LTsuji@perkinscoie.com T-MOBILE US: Fails to Protect Customers' Info, Gonzalez Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- FRANKIE J. GONZALEZ, Individually And On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. T-MOBILE US, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:23-cv-00375-BCW (D.N.J., June 5, 2023) alleges claims against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of confidence, invasion of privacy, breach of express contract, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment. On January 19, 2023, T-Mobile revealed the company's second major breach in less than two years, admitting that a hacker was able to obtain customer's data or personally identifiable information (PII), including names, birth dates, and phone numbers, from 37 million accounts. The Plaintiff claims that T-Mobile has breached its duties owed to him by, among other things, failing to: (a) exercise reasonable care and implement adequate security systems, protocols and practices sufficient to protect the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members; (b) detect the Data Breach while it was ongoing; (c) maintain security systems consistent with industry standards during the period of the Data Breach; (d) comply with regulations protecting the PII at issue during the period of the Data Breach; and (e) disclose in a timely and adequate manner that Plaintiff's and the Class Members' PII in T-Mobile's possession had been or was reasonably believed to have been, stolen or compromised. Defendant T-Mobile US, Inc. is incorporated in the state of Delaware with its principal place of business at 12920 SE 38th Street, Bellevue, Washington. The Defendant is a national telecommunications company that provides mobile communication services, among other products and services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher A. Seeger, Esq. Christopher L. Ayers, Esq. SEEGER WEISS LLP 55 Challenger Road 6th Floor Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660 Telephone: (973) 639-9100 E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com cayers@seegerweiss.com - and - Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq. NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C. 1211 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor New York, NY 10036-8718 Telephone: (917) 438-9189 E-mail: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com - and - James E. Cecchi, Esq. Kevin G. Cooper, Esq. Jordan M. Steele, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com kcooper@carellabyrne.com jsteele@carellabyrne.com - and – Zachary S. Bower, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 2222 Ponce DeLeon Blvd. Miami, FL 33134 Telephone: (973) 422-5593 E-mail: zbower@carellabyrne.com TASTEMAKERS LLC: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tastemakers LLC Co. The case is styled as Leshawn Young, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Tastemakers LLC Co., Case No. 1:23-cv-04856 (S.D.N.Y., June 8, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Tastemakers -- https://www.tastemakersllc.com/ -- is a manufacturer of consumer electronics, games, and toys.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: danalgottlieb@aol.com TD BANK: Dou Suit Transferred to S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------- The case styled as Lina Dou, Xiuqin Xing, Geli Shi, Lihong Zhan, Emmy Go, Tingyang Shao, Shiyang Xiao, Yixuan Tao, Yanming Wang, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. TD Bank N.A., Case No. 1:23-cv-03619 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on June 11, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-04880-JPO to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Securities & Exchange Commission. TD Bank, N.A. -- https://onlinebanking.tdbank.com/ -- is an American national bank and the United States subsidiary of the multinational TD Bank Group.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Glen Joseph Dunn, Jr., Esq. Glen J. Dunn & Associates, Esq. 1 East Wacker Drive, Suite 2510 Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: (312) 546-5056 The Defendant is represented by: Michael Rachlis, Esq. RACHLIS DUFF & PEEL, LLC 542 South Dearborn, Suite 900 Chicago, IL 60605 Phone: (312) 733-3950 - and - Edward N. Moss, Esq. Lauren Wagner, Esq. Nathaniel Asher, Esq. Pamela Miller, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP Times Square Tower 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 Phone: (212) 728-5671 - and - Kevin Buckley Duff, Esq. HEDLUND, HANLEY & JOHN 233 South Wacker Drive 5700 Sears Tower Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 441-8600 - and - Nicole L Moore, Esq. KANKAKEE COUNTY STATE'S ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 450 East Court Street Kankakee, IL 60901 Phone: (815) 937-3421 TDC SPECIALTY: Denial of Non-Joinder Exception in Anderson Affirmed ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, NANCY ANDERSON, ET AL. v. BOB DEAN, JR., ET AL., Case No. 23-C-255 (La. App.), the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fifth Circuit, affirms the trial court's denial of TDC Specialty Insurance Co.'s Exception of Non-Joinder and Motion to Stay. The Appellate Panel is composed of Judges Fredericka Homberg Wicker, Jude G. Gravois, and John J. Molaison, Jr. TDC seeks review of the trial court's denial of its peremptory exceptions of no cause of action and non-joinder, and an alternative motion to stay. The underlying matter is a class action lawsuit related to nursing home evacuations that occurred during Hurricane Ida. The application before the Court shows that the original petition was filed at the Twenty-Fourth Judicial District Court on Sept. 6, 2021. In a second supplemental and amending petition filed on Aug. 4, 2022, the Plaintiffs named TDC as a defendant in its capacity as an insurer which provided policy LTP-00828-21-02 to Louisiana Healthcare Consultants, LLC and "other named Insureds." They asserted in the amending petition that they were entitled to proceed against TDC under the provisions of the Louisiana Direct Action Statute, La. R.S. 22:1269. Although a Class Action Stipulation of Settlement between the parties was executed and entered into the record on Aug. 15, 2022, TDC had filed a petition in federal district court on Aug. 2, 2022, which sought a judicial determination and declaration as to the parties' rights and obligations under Long Term Care Organizations Liability Policy No. LTP-00828-21-02, and other relief. On Feb. 22, 2023, it filed peremptory exceptions of no cause of action and non-joinder, and an alternative motion to stay pursuant to La. C.C.P. art. 532. In the instant writ application, TDC seeks review of the trial court's denial of its Exception of Non-Joinder and Motion to Stay, following a hearing on April 11, 2023. The Court of Appeal states that the burden of proving an exception is on the party asserting it. The facts, rather than allegations, must leave no doubt that complete relief cannot be accorded without the joinder of the parties alleged by the exceptor. The exception of non-joinder is a question of law and is reviewed on a de novo basis. In the instant case, the Court of Appeal finds that TDC has not demonstrated with any specificity how complete relief cannot be accorded without the joinder of additional parties as either Plaintiffs or Defendants. There has been no showing that all potential members of the class are not adequately represented, or that the Plaintiffs have failed to name a necessary party as a defendant germane to their particular causes of action as a class. By way of the Plaintiffs' amended petitions, TDC's status as a defendant in the case pre-dates its own petition in federal court. Further, the Class Action Stipulation of Settlement, which TDC has executed, clearly reserves the right to the parties to litigate the issue of policy limits in state court and indicates the desire of the parties to remain under the state court's jurisdiction. Accordingly, after a de novo review of the limited record before it, and on the particular facts presented, the Court of Appeal finds no basis upon which to disturb the rulings of the district court that denied TDC's exception of non-joinder, as well as the motion to stay. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. A full-text copy of the Court's May 31, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/mr3w8f77 from Leagle.com. Danica B. Denny -- dbenbow@frilot.com -- Kathleen P. Rice -- krice@frilot.com -- Daniel Schwank -- dschwank@frilot.com -- COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/RELATOR, TDC SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY. THERMO TECH: Lopez Loses Bid for Conditional Status of Collective ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUAN LOPEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. THERMO TECH MECHANICAL INC., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-09113-LTS-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered an order denying the plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of an Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective. -- The Plaintiff's letter-motion to compel classwide discovery is granted in part, to the extent described above. the Defendants' request for a partial discovery stay pending the outcome of the collective certification motion is denied as moot. -- The deadline for the parties to complete fact discovery, including depositions, remains December 15, 2023. The Plaintiff Juan Lopez asserts claims under the FLSA, the New York Labor Law (NYLL), and New York common law against Thermo Tech, which is in the business of installing, maintaining, and repairing heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems; Gowkarran Budhu, its president and owner; and Shanti Budhu, its accountant. Lopez worked at Thermo Tech from January 2016 to August 2018 as an HVAC installer. He usually worked five days per week, typically from 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., and was paid an average of $23 per hour, well above the minimum wage at that time. Thermo Tech is an HVAC solution company that offers commercial equipment installations, troubleshooting, repairs, and service. A copy of the Court's order dated May 31, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43UN3Mj at no extra charge.[CC] TINGO GROUP: Bloedorn Sues Over 48% Drop in Share Price ------------------------------------------------------- MARK J. BLOEDORN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TINGO GROUP INC., DARREN MERCER; HAO (KEVIN) CHEN; DOZY MMOBUOSI, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-03153 (D.N.J., June 8, 2023) is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class of all investors (the "Class") who purchased or otherwise acquired Defendant Tingo Group, Inc. ("Tingo" or the "Company") common stock between December 1, 2022 and June 6, 2023, inclusive (the "Class Period"), alleging violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Defendants misled investors by failing to disclose that: (1) the Company overstated its revenue and other accounting metrics, creating a false impression of success; (2) the Company was not meaningfully engaged in many of the business activities that it claimed would drive future growth; (3) many of the Company's supposed contracts with customers and suppliers did not exist; and (4) in light of the above, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. Tingo's share price fell $1.23 per share, or 48 per cent, to close at $1.32 per share, on high trading volume, says the suit. TINGO GROUP, INC. operates as a holding company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, designs, develops, manufactures, and sells mobile computing solutions that provide fleet operators and field workforces with computing solutions in various work environments. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Cecchi, Esq. Donald A. Ecklund, Esq. Kevin Cooper, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 Facsimile: (973) 994-1744 Email: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com decklund@carellabyrne.com kcooper@carellabyrne.com TINGO GROUP: Faces Arbour Suit Over Drop in Share Price ------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER ARBOUR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TINGO GROUP, INC.; DOZY MMOBUOSI; DARREN MERCER; and KEVIN CHEN, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-03151 (D.N.J., June 8, 2023) is a class action on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Tingo securities between March 31, 2023 and June 6, 2023, inclusive (the "Class Period"), the Plaintiff seeks to pursue claims against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint, that throughout the Class Period, 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, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the Defendant Mmobuosi fabricated biographical claims about himself; (2) that Tingo had photoshopped its logo onto pictures of airplanes it did not own; (3) that Tingo inflated its food division margins; (4) that Tingo published misleading images of its planned Nigerian food processing facility and overstated its progress on the facility's construction; (5) that Tingo inflated its food inventory; (6) that Tingo did not have relationships with the two farming cooperatives it claimed; (7) that Tingo did not generated $128 million in revenue for its handset leasing, call and data segments as it claimed; (8) that Tingo's Mobile operation in Nigeria was delinquent on its tax obligations; (9) that Tingo photoshopped its logo over pictures from a different point of sale system operator's website; (10) that Tingo did not generate $125.3 million in revenue from NWASSA; (11) that Tingo's agricultural export business was not on track to deliver $1.34 billion in exports by Q3 2023; (12) that Tingo lacked effective controls over accounting and financial reporting; and (13) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. The Company's stock price fell $1.23, or 48.2%, to close at $1.32 per share on June 6, 2023, says the suit. TINGO GROUP, INC. operates as a holding company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, designs, develops, manufactures, and sells mobile computing solutions that provide fleet operators and field workforces with computing solutions in various work environments. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Cecchi, Esq. Donald A. Ecklund, Esq. Kevin Cooper, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 Facsimile: (973) 994-1744 Email: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com decklund@carellabyrne.com kcooper@carellabyrne.com TRANSAMERICA PREMIER: Hearing on Bid for Class Cert Set for Nov. 2 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DUNG M. PHAN, Individually, and on Behalf of the Class, v. TRANSAMERICA PREMIER LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Iowa Corporation Case No. 5:20-cv-03665-BLF (N.D. Cal.), Hon. Judge Beth Labson Freeman entered an order granting the Parties' stipulation as follows: -- Last day for defendant to file opposition July 27, 2023 to motion for class certification: -- Last day for the Plaintiff to file reply Aug. 10, 2023 in support of motion for class certification: -- Hearing on motion for class certification November 2, 2023 (or any other date available Thursday on the Court’s calendar before October 19, 2023 or after October 26, 2023): Transamerica Premier is a life insurance company. A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 30, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/4647Uic at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jack B. Winters, Jr., Esq. Sarah Ball, Esq. WINTERS & ASSOCIATES 8400 NE 124th Street, Kansas City, MO 64167 Telephone: (816) 509-0170 - and - Craig M. Nicholas, Esq. Alex Tomasevic, Esq. NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP 225 Broadway UNIT 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 325-0492 The Defendant is represented by: Larry M. Golub, Esq. SACRO & WALKER LLP 700 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 610 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 721-9597 Facsimile: (818) 721-9670 E-mail: lgolub@sacrowalker.com - and - Vivian I. Orlando, Esq. MAYNARD NEXSEN LLP 10100 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 550 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 596-450 TRIPLEPOINT VENTURE: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Naming Due Aug. 15 --------------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on June 17 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of securities of TriplePoint Venture Growth BDC Corp. (NYSE: TPVG) between March 4, 2020 and May 1, 2023, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 15, 2023. SO WHAT: If you purchased TriplePoint securities during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the TriplePoint class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=15759 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 15, 2023. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants made false and/or misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) TriplePoint had overstated the strength of its various portfolio companies and loan book, as well as the viability of its overall investment strategy; (2) the foregoing, once revealed, was likely to have a material negative impact on the Company's financial position and/or prospects; and (3) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. To join the TriplePoint class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=15759 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. View source version on businesswire.com:https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20230617984497/en/ CONTACT: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Settles Equal Pay, Harassment Suit for $10M -------------------------------------------------------------- Jahan C. Sagafi of Outten and Golden reports that Outten & Golden LLP is proud to announce the $10,000,000 class action settlement on behalf of software engineers of color and female software engineers at Uber, which also requires Uber to reform its employment practices to prevent future discrimination and harassment. The lawsuit alleges that Uber has violated California and federal law by paying female, Latino, African American, and American Indian engineers less than their peers. The lawsuit also alleges that these engineers were subjected to harassment and a hostile work environment based on their race and sex. On April 19, 2018, the Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement. The settlement requires Uber to make substantial changes designed to prevent future discrimination and harassment, including an overhaul of its systems for pay and promotions, the institution of mandatory harassment training, the creation of a formal mentorship program, and three years of monitoring by Plaintiffs counsel to ensure that Uber achieves the goals set out in the settlement. To learn more about the lawsuit or to see if it applies to you, visit www.fairpayforengineers.com, or contact Jahan C. Sagafi at (415) 223-7847. [GN] UNILEVER UNITED: Berkley Sues Over Mislabeled Deodorant Products ---------------------------------------------------------------- DANA BERKLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNILEVER UNITED STATES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-00674-GLS-DJS (N.D.N.Y., June 6, 2023) alleges that the Defendant sells mislabeled antiperspirant deodorant with moisturizers containing natural oil under the Dove Advanced Care brand. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant promoted the Product as made with natural oils, but obtaining them requires chemical reactions and the use of petrochemicals. Consumers are unaware that the Product's oils are produced through chemical reactions, using chemical compounds, and are synthetic ingredients. Since one of the reasons consumers prefer natural ingredients is due to the negative health and environmental effects of synthetic ingredients, it is misleading to highlight "natural" oils made with synthetic chemical solvents known to have negative health and environmental effects, says the Plaintiff. UNILEVER UNITED STATES, INC. manufactures personal care products. The Company offers , laundry detergents, shampoos, soaps, fragrances, and body washes, as well as provides ice creams, oils, mayonnaise, spreads, sauces, tea. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412 Great Neck NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 268-7080 Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com VALERO SERVICES: Hess Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Anthony Hess, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. VALERO SERVICES, INC., an unknown business entity; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV06795 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on June 9, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-04578. The Complaint brings putative class claims for alleged: Failure to Pay Minimum and Straight Time Wages; Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Authorize and Permit Rest Periods; Failure to Timely Pay Final Wages at Termination; Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; and Unfair Business Practices.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Ryan H. Crosner, Esq. Chloe S. Chang, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213-239-9800 Facsimile: 213-239-9045 Email: ryan.crosner@ogletree.com chloe.chang@ogletree.com VONS COMPANIES: Al-Kudsy Suit Removed to S.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Martha Al-Kudsy, Griselda Rendon, Isidra Ocampo Bahena, Maria Corral, Sara Ruiz, Maricela Gonzalez, as individuals v. VONS COMPANIES INC., a California corporation; ALBERTSONS COMPANIES, INC., a corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 37-2023-00011378-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 June 8, 2023, and assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-01065-GPC-AHG. The Complaint alleges the following causes of action against Defendants: Wrongful Demotion-Termination in Violation of Public Policy; Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; Breach of Contract; Gender Discrimination; Age Discrimination; Race Discrimination; Discrimination and Retaliation in Violation of the California Fair Pay Act; Retaliation in Violation of California Labor and Government Codes; Hostile-Unsafe Working Environment; Failure to Prevent Discrimination, Harassment, and Retaliation; Defamation - Invasion of Privacy; Preventing Employment Through Misrepresentation; Violation of Labor Code “FAILURE TO PAY ALL WAGES”; Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress; Negligent Hiring, Supervision, Retention; and Unfair Business Practices.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Michael S. Kalt, Esq. Erik T. Johnson, Esq. Jennifer Solano, Esq. WILSON TURNER KOSMO LLP 402 West Broadway, Suite 1600 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 236-9600 Facsimile: (619) 236-9669 Email: mkalt@wilsonturnerkosmo.com ejohnson@wilsonturnerkosmo.com jsolano@wilsonturnerkosmo.com WALMART INC: Ayala-Bland Sues Over Losses Incurred Due to Fraud --------------------------------------------------------------- Ceci Ayala-Bland, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WALMART, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-03650 (N.D. Ill., June 9, 2023), is brought on behalf of Plaintiff and thousands of other similarly situated customers of Walmart who used Walmart's money transfer services (the "Services"), who have been the victim of fraud at Walmart, have incurred losses due to that fraud, and have not been reimbursed by Walmart, and were entitled to such reimbursement by federal regulations and the marketing representations of Walmart. Money transfers are a common vehicle for fraud. For many years, Walmart customers have reported tens of millions of dollars annually in fraud-induced money transfers processed by Walmart employees. These practices have harmed many consumers, including people struggling with debt, those threatened by imposters, and older Americans. Walmart is well aware that telemarketing and other mass marketing frauds, such as "grandparent" scams, lottery scams, and government agent impersonator scams, induce people to use Walmart's money transfer services to send money to domestic and international fraud rings. Nevertheless, Walmart has continued processing fraud--induced money transfers at its stores—funding telemarketing and other scams--without adopting policies and practices that effectively detect and prevent these transfers. In some cases, Walmart's practices have even made it easier for fraudsters to collect fraud-induced money transfers at a Walmart store. For example, for years, it was Walmart's policy or practice not to deny payouts to suspected fraudsters at its stores, but instead to have its employees complete those transactions. Even after it became illegal in June 2016 for cash-to-cash money transfers to be used to pay for telemarketing transactions, Walmart failed to take appropriate steps to prevent those types of transfers at its locations. As a result of Walmart's failure to take appropriate steps to mitigate the problem, consumers have lost substantial sums to frauds through money transfers effected at Walmart, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a resident of Skokie, Illinois and a citizen of Illinois. Walmart offers a variety of financial services to its customers at its Customer Service Desks, which are located in all of its stores, and in its MoneyCenters, which are dedicated spaces for financial services located in less than half of Walmart's stores.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 111 W. Jackson Street, Suite 1700 Chicago, IL 60604 Phone: (312) 984-0000 Fax: (212) 686-0114 Email: malmstrom@whafh.com - and - L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 N. California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Phone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 Email: ltfisher@bursor.com - and - Julian C. Diamond, Esq. Matthew A. Girardi, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the America, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Phone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 Email: jdiamond@bursor.com WALMART INC: Lozano Sues Over Mislabeled Cereal Bar Products ------------------------------------------------------------ DEANA LOZANO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WALMART, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-04500-SPG-MAR (C.D. Cal., June 8, 2023) alleging that the Defendant's Great Value Fruit and Grain Cereal Bars, and Great Value Drink Enhancer (the "Products"), manufactured, packaged, labeled, advertised, distributed, and sold by the Defendant, are misbranded and falsely advertised. According to the complaint, the front label (or "principal display panel") of the Fruit and Grain Cereal Bars, as well as the front label of each individual wrapped bar, state that they are "Naturally Flavored," emphasizing the statement with depictions of fruits. Likewise, the front labels of the Great Value Drink Enhancer state that they contain "Natural Flavor with Other Natural Flavors," emphasizing the statement with depictions of fruits. These natural flavoring claims are false. The Products are flavored using an artificial flavoring, DL malic acid, that is derived from petrochemicals, says the suit. The consumers including the Plaintiff reasonably relied on the Defendant's statements such that they would not have purchased the Products from Defendant if the truth about the Products was known, or would have only been willing to pay a substantially reduced price for the Products had they known that Defendant's representations were false and misleading, the suit alleges. Walmart Inc. operates discount stores, supercenters, and neighborhood markets. The Company offers merchandise such as apparel, house wares, small appliances, electronics, musical instruments, books, home improvement, shoes, jewelry, toddler, games, household essentials, pets, pharmaceutical products, party supplies, and automotive tools. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles C. Weller, Esq. CHARLES C. WELLER, APC 11412 Corley Court San Diego, CA 92126 Telephone: (858) 414-7465 Facsimile: (858) 300-5137 Email: legal@cweller.com WEST TECHNOLOGY: Interim Co-Lead Counsel Named in Pulliam Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the cases, MICHELLE PULLIAM, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated; Plaintiff v. WEST TECHNOLOGY GROUP, LLC, Defendant. MARINA MAULDIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; Plaintiff v. WEST TECHNOLOGY GROUP, LLC, Defendant. NICOLE PETERSEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; Plaintiff v. WEST TECHNOLOGY GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case Nos. 8:23CV159, 8:23CV163, 4:23CV3072 (D. Neb.), Magistrate Judge Michael D. Nelson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska grants the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Appointment of Interim Co-Lead Counsel. The Plaintiffs move for the appointment of David K. Lietz of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman LLC, Joseph M. Lyon of the Lyon Firm, and Mason A. Barney of Siri & Glimstad LLP as the Interim Co-Lead Counsel. Judge Nelson finds the now-consolidated actions would benefit from interim class counsel for efficient case management. As demonstrated by the brief and accompanying resumes, he finds that the proposed interim co-lead counsel are experienced and qualified attorneys, and each has knowledge of the applicable law, experience in managing and prosecuting cases involving data security and privacy, notable successes against large corporate defendants, and resources they are willing to expend to litigate these cases. And, although there is no other counsel currently vying for appointment as interim lead counsel, and the proposed interim co-lead counsel already represent all the current Plaintiffs, appointment of interim counsel at this juncture makes sense. The data breach at issue allegedly occurred between Nov. 25, 2022, and Dec. 1, 2022, and notice to affected individuals—of which there are over 100,000 -- began in April 17, 2023. Given the relatively recent notification of thousands of affected individuals, it is reasonable to assume more lawsuits with similar or same claims arising out of the same data breach are forthcoming. For these reasons, Judge Nelson finds that the appointment of the proposed interim co-lead counsel is appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g). Upon consideration, he grants the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Appointment. David K. Lietz of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman LLC, Joseph M. Lyon of the Lyon Firm, and Mason A. Barney of Siri & Glimstad LLP are appointed as the Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel. A full-text copy of the Court's May 31, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3hwu6jd3 from Leagle.com. WINMARK CORPORATION: Alexandria Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Winmark Corporation. The case is styled as Erika Alexandria, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Winmark Corporation, Case No. 1:23-cv-04866 (S.D.N.Y., June 9, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Winmark Corporation -- http://www.winmarkcorporation.com/-- is an American franchisor of five retail businesses that specialize in buying and selling used goods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com WIPRO LIMITED: Bid to Bifurcate Discovery in MaClean Suit Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, GREGORY MaCLEAN, et al., Plaintiffs v. WIPRO LIMITED, Defendant, Civil Action No. 20-03414 (GC)(JBD) (D.N.J.), Magistrate Judge J. Brendan Day of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey denies Wipro's request to bifurcate discovery. Before the Court is a dispute concerning the timing and scope of discovery. Wipro requests that the Court bifurcates discovery into individual and class phases, with the first phase limited to discovery on the Plaintiffs' individual claims and relevant defenses. The Plaintiffs oppose Wipro's request and seek individual and class-wide discovery now. Judge Day has considered the parties' submissions and, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78 and Local Civil Rule 78.1, decides the motion without oral argument. In 2020, five former Wipro employees filed this putative class action alleging that Wipro had engaged in a pattern or practice of intentional race and national origin discrimination against non-South Asians and non-Indians, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. Section 1981. The Plaintiffs also alleged that Wipro's employment practices resulted in a disparate impact on non-South Asians and non-Indians, also in violation of Title VII. [Id.] In December 2020, the Court stayed the action pending a class certification decision in Phillips v. Wipro Limited, et al., Civ. No. 18-00821 (S.D. Tex.), which predated this case and contained substantially similar allegations. When the court in Phillips denied class certification, this Court lifted the stay and Wipro thereafter sought to dismiss all of the Plaintiffs' claims. The Court granted Wipro's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' disparate impact claims under Title VII. It, however, denied Wipro's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's disparate treatment claims which, again, allege that Wipro engaged in a pattern or practice of intentional race and national origin discrimination in violation of Title VII and Section 1981. The dispute presently before the Court is how the parties should proceed with discovery on the remaining claims. The Plaintiffs have not yet moved for class certification. In this posture, Wipro asks the Court to bifurcate discovery into individual and class phases. Specifically, it seeks to limit the first phase of discovery to the named Plaintiffs' individual claims and any relevant defenses, and then proceed to dispositive motions on Plaintiffs' individual claims. After the Court's decision on the dispositive motions, Wipro says the parties can then proceed, if necessary, to class discovery. It contends that bifurcation of discovery in this manner would promote efficiency and judicial economy by postponing or limiting the scope of expensive class discovery. Furthermore, Wipro argues that International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324 (1977), does not preclude this Court from bifurcating discovery. According to it, because the pattern-or-practice evidentiary framework in Teamsters is only available in class actions -- and no class has been certified here and likely never will be -- the Court should reject the Plaintiffs' intent to rely on the Teamsters pattern-or-practice framework. The Plaintiffs disagree with Wipro's proposed approach. They argue that Wipro's request to bifurcate discovery is unworkable and contrary to the evidentiary framework established in Teamsters, and what they say is the usual practice in this District. They contend that under the Teamsters framework, the parties must litigate the pattern-or-practice issue before the individual claims, because if they succeed in proving a pattern or practice of discrimination, a rebuttable presumption of discrimination would attach to the individual claims. Consequently, the Plaintiffs believe that bifurcating discovery would prejudice them by forcing them prematurely to litigate the individual claims without the benefit of pattern-or-practice discovery. Judge Day believes that pre-certification discovery should be "sufficiently broad" to allow a thorough examination of the factual and legal allegations pertaining to class certification. But at the same time, pre-certification discovery concerning merits issues largely should be limited to determining whether class certification requirements can be met. Judge Day recognizes that there will be overlap in class certification and merits issues, and the Court does not intend to prohibit individual discovery requests just because they may touch the merits. It may well be, however, that individual discovery requests that delve too heavily into merits issues cross the line. The Plaintiffs will be permitted to obtain necessary class discovery, but they must remain mindful of the cost and burden that class discovery in this pre-certification stage will impose on Wipro. For these reasons, Judge Day denies Wipro's request to bifurcate discovery. The Plaintiffs may obtain discovery relating to their putative classes, but the parties are directed -- during the pre-certification stage -- to focus on factual and legal issues pertaining to class certification to enable a decision under Rule 23 at an early practicable time. To the extent that disputes arise regarding individual discovery requests that cannot be resolved through good faith meet-and-confers, the parties may bring them to the Court's attention pursuant to Local Civil Rule 37.1 and this Court's case management order. The parties are directed to meet and confer and submit a revised discovery schedule. The parties will file via CM/ECF a joint proposed schedule. The Court will conduct a telephone status conference on June 29, 2023, at 2:00 p.m. A full-text copy of the Court's May 31, 2023 Memorandum Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/bdedh466 from Leagle.com. XIXA LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Gil Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------- MISAEL GIL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. XIXA LLC; HEATHER HEUSER; and JASON MARCUS, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-04179 (E.D.N.Y., June 7, 2023) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Gil was employed by the Defendants as a kitchen staff. XIXA LLC owns and operates a Mexican restaurant in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 Facsimile: (718) 263-9598 YDW PRODUCE: Juarez Sues Over Labor Law Violations -------------------------------------------------- CARLOS JUAREZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. YDW PRODUCE CORP d/b/a BINGO WHOLESALE and MARAV USA LLC d/b/a BINGO WHOLESALE, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-04134 (E.D.N.Y., June 5, 2023) arises out of the Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. In or around October 2016, the Defendants hired Plaintiff to work as a supermarket worker. Throughout Plaintiff's employment with Defendant, Plaintiff's workdays, calculated from the start to end of the workday, often exceeded 10 hours, for which Plaintiff and the NYLL Class did not receive the basic minimum hourly wage rate, as required by the NYLL and the Wage Order. Moreover, the Defendants also violated the FLSA and NYLLL by failing to pay premium overtime wages for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. Among other things, they also failed to pay them spread of hours compensation of one additional hour of pay at the basic minimum hourly rate of pay when a supermarket worker's workday lasted longer than 10 hours, says the suit. The Defendants own and operate a retail full-service supermarket doing a business under the name of Bingo Wholesale located at 1245 61st Street, Brooklyn, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Fausto E. Zapata, Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF FAUSTO E. ZAPATA, JR. P.C. 277 Broadway, Suite 501 New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 766-9870 E-mail: fz@fzapatalaw.com Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graham Corp. Faces Product Liability Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Graham Corporation is a defendant in a number of lawsuits alleging illnesses from exposure to asbestos or asbestos-containing products and seeking unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "We cannot predict with certainty the outcome of these lawsuits or whether we could become subject to any similar, related or additional lawsuits in the future. In addition, because some of our products are used in systems that handle toxic or hazardous substances, any failure or alleged failure of our products in the future could result in litigation against us. For example, a claim could be made under various regulations for the adverse consequences of environmental contamination. Any litigation brought against us, whether with or without merit, could result in substantial costs to us as well as divert the attention of our management, which could have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations. A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://tinyurl.com/4fb6w7br ********* 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 ***