/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230808.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, August 8, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 158
Headlines
3M COMPANY: Hull Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: McIver Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: Naegele Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams & Chemicals
3M COMPANY: Newman Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Smith Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
A&W CONCENTRATE: Oct. 18 Settlement Claim Submission Deadline Set
ACCELERATED COMMUNICATIONS: Guidry Sues Over Failure to Pay OT
AERCAP HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Violations
ALTICE USA: Settles Class Action Suit Over Hidden Fees
AMAZON.COM INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hightie Alleges
APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Amazon Price Collusion
APPLE INC: Faces Class Suit Over 30% App Store Fee in U.K.
BEAUFORT COUNTY, SC: Sept. 11 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
BIO-MEDICAL APPLICATIONS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Azurin Says
BRITISH COLUMBIA: Judge Certifies Class Suit Over Fake Nurse
CALIFORNIA COMMERCIAL: Weizel Files Suit in Minn. Dist. Ct.
CATALINA OPERATING: Cohen Seeks Cabana Attendants' Unpaid Wages
CHARLES RIVER: Butler Sues Over Delinquent Wage Payments
CIGNA HEALTH: Faces Class Action in Calif. Over Use of PXDX Tool
CLASSPASS INC: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Chabolla Suit
COLUMBIA, SC: ABC Tenants' Class Action v. CHA Can't Proceed
CONTRACT LAND: Ebersold Sues Over Agents' Unpaid Overtime Hours
CORNERSTONE BUILDING: Faces Suit Over Securities Laws' Violations
CRITICAL PROTECTION: Cave Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
ELI KOHN: MKR Medical Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct.
EMPIRE LUGGAGE CENTER: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
ESCAPE OUTDOORS: Castro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ESSILORLUXOTTICA SA: Faces Antitrust Class Action in California
EXACT SCIENCES: Escava, Atkins Sue Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls
EXTREME WELDING: Verdin Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
FIRST ATLANTIC: Overcharges Overdraft Fees, Turner Suit Claims
FIVE STAR VALET: Cifuentes Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
FLEXIBLE JEWELRY: Mackey Sues Over Unwanted Text Message
FLORIDA: Health Agency Settles Medicaid Class Action
FLORIDA: Settles Medicaid Suit Over Incontinence Supplies
FORD MOTOR: Airbag Recall Halts Maverick Class Action Suit
FRUIT OF THE LOOM: May Face Suit Over Mislabeled Cotton Briefs
FUTU HOLDINGS: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Class Action
GENERATION TUX: Sookul Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GEORGE A. WEISS: Andrew-Berry Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
GERALD SHAPIRO: Williams Suit Transferred to N.D. Georgia
GIVAUDAN SA: Faces Antitrust Class Action in New Jersey
GKN DRIVELINE: Carson Sues Over Material Suppliers' Unpaid Wages
GOLDEN STATE: Faces Class Action Suit Over FTX Collapse
GOOGLE LLC: Faces Class Action Suit in Calif. Over Autoplay Ads
GUANTANAMERA CIGARS: Reguera Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
GYMREAPERS LLC: Sookul Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
H&R BLOCK: Caimano Sues Over Unlawfully Shared Sensitive Data
HAMPDEN-WILBRAHAM SCHOOL: Faces Wage-and-Hour Class Action Suit
HARVARD MEDICAL: Two More Suits Filed Over Cadavers' Handling
HAWAII: $328M Settlement in Breach of Trust Suit Gets Final OK
HCA HEALTHCARE INC: M.R. Files Suit in W.D. Missouri
HCA HEALTHCARE: Coats Sues Over Failure to Protect PII/PHI
HCA HEALTHCARE: Delapaz Sues Over Failure to Safeguard Information
HCA HEALTHCARE: Wallace Sues Over Inadequate Safeguarding of Data
HEADLANDS VENTURES: DiMeglio Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HILTON RESORTS: Faces Wage Class Action in California
HONOLULU, HI: Sued Over Unconstitutional Houseless Policies
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Graham Appeals Denied Bid to Intervene in Zakikhani
JB RESTAURANT: Guerrero Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
JFC INTERNATIONAL: Fletes Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
JINKOSOLAR HOLDING: Rosen Law Continues Probe for Potential Claims
JOINT CORP: Goodrich Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Florida
JPMORGAN CHASE: Forex Rigging Class Action Can Proceed
KRAFT HEINZ: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Oct. 10
LILYANA NATURALS: Cox Sues Over Mislabeled Eye Cream Products
LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Kirby McInerney File Securities Lawsuit
MACKENZIE FINANCIAL: Faces Suit Over GoAnywhere MFT Data Breach
MAIN LINE: Faces Privacy Class Action in Pennsylvania
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Faces Class Action Over "Junk Fees"
MAXAR TECHNOLOGIES: $27MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Nov. 9
META PLATFORMS: Investigated Over Alleged Privacy Violations
META PLATFORMS: Liberty Board of Education Joins Class Action
META PLATFORMS: Northwestern School Joins Suit Over Mental Health
MICHIGAN AVENUE: Settles Cornell Suit Over Unprotected Health Info
MICROSOFT CORP: Faces Class Action Over Private Data Collection
MICROVAST HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Pitts Appeals Denied Bid to Intervene in Flores
NAVIENT CORP: Settles Student Loan Borrowers' Suit for $198MM
NEW YORK, NY: Settles Suit Over George Floyd Protests for $13M
NEXT LEVEL RELIEF: Brooks Files FLSA Suit in W.D. Kentucky
NEXTGEN LEADS: Faces Class Action Over Unsolicited Robocalls
NEXTMARVEL INC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Cleveland Claims
NONSTOP ADMINISTRATION: Nicholson Suit Removed to N.D. California
NORTON HEALTHCARE: Faces Class Action Over May 9 Data Breach
NRA GROUP LLC: Soto Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona
OPPORTUNITY FINANCIAL: Dismissal Ruling in RICO Suit Discussed
PACIFIC OFFICE: Canfield Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Technicians
PDD HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Violations
PEACOCK TV: Hit With Class Action Over Sharing of Video Info
PHARMACARE US: Faces Sunderland Suit Over Mislabeled Supplements
PROGRESSIVE PHYSICAL: De La Cotera Sues Over Unsolicited Fax Ads
RAYCO LOGISTICS: Fetinci Sues Over Improper Business Practices
RESERVOIR RESTAURANT: Underpays Restaurant Servers, Dugan Says
RYANAIR HOLDINGS: $5MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Oct. 20
SCHNUCK MARKETS: Settles False Advertising Class Suit for $5.3M
SCHNUCKS MARKETS: Sept. 8 Settlement Claim Submission Deadline Set
SCRANTON CARDIOVASCULAR: Barth Sues Over Patients' Unprotected Info
SEATTLE, WA: Sued Over Mishandling of Homeless Encampments
SN SERVICING: Obtains Favorable Ruling in FDCPA Class Action
ST. MORITZ SECURITY: Fails to Pay Timely Wages, Mota Suit Alleges
STANDARD MARKET: Settles Class Suit Over BIPA violations for $1.25M
SYNAGRO WOONSOCKET: Faces Class Action Over Odor Emissions
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Bladder Cancer Suit in Quebec
TALKSPACE INC: $8.5MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Oct. 30
TAXACT INC: Pitts Files Suit in E.D. New York
TAXSLAYER LLC: Discloses Private Tax Return Info, Wright Alleges
TECHTRONIC INDUSTRIES: Bassaw Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TESLA INC: Settles Class Action Over Solar Roof Price Hike
THE 1975: Class Action Mulled Over Festival Cancellation
THROTTLE ADDICTION: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TIMOTHY B. OBRIEN: Castro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TOYOTA MOTOR SALES: Gamez Suit Removed to E.D. California
TRANS OCEAN CARRIER: Lopez Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages
TWISTED THROTTLE: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Oct. 2 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
UBIQUITI INC: Bassaw Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
UNIFI AVIATION: Berg Suit Removed to S.D. California
UNITED STATES: $125MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Oct. 12
UNIVERSOUL ENTERPRISES: Lawal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
UNIVERSOUL ENTERPRISES: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
US FOODS INC: Cruz Suit Removed to C.D. California
US FOODS INC: Trent Suit Removed to E.D. New York
VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY: Transgender Patients File Privacy Suit
VGW MALTA LTD: Suit Removed to N.D. California
WALMART INC: Silva Suit Removed to C.D. California
WALT DISNEY: Settles Magic Key Holder's Class Action for $5MM
WATTS GUERRA: Cunningham Sues Over Artificial Prerecorded Voice
WESTERN AUSTRALIA: Faces Youth Detention Class Action Suit
WHEELCO REMANUFACTURING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cruz Says
WHITE ROSE: Rivera Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Healthcare Workers
WHITWORTH UNIVERSITY: Wilson Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Washington
WW NORTH AMERICA: Monterrosa Suit Removed to C.D. California
WYNN LAS VEGAS: Little Suit Removed to N.D. California
YAN ZHI HOTEL: Faces Figueroa Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
Z&C GARDEN: Sanchez Sues Over Restaurant Servers' Unpaid Overtime
ZIPR MOBILITY: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ZUORA INC: Class Action Settlement Hearing Set for Sept. 12
ZURU LLC: Hurtado Files Suit in D. South Carolina
[*] Court Hears Evidence in Stolen Wages Class Action in Australia
[*] Fraudulent Claims Impact Settlement Administration Process
[*] Securities Class Action Filings Up in First Half 2023
*********
3M COMPANY: Hull Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
--------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Hull, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTSLP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No.
2:23-cv-03448-RMG (D.S.C., July 18, 2023), is brought for damages
for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is
not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. The Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to
AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's working career in the
military and/or as a civilian and was diagnosed with bladder
cancer, and hypothyroidism as a result of exposure to the
Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglass A. Kreis, Esq.
Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq.
Justin G. Witkin, Esq.
AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
17 East Main Street, Suite 200
Pensacola, FL 32502
Phone: (850) 202-1010
Email: dkreis@awkolaw.com
baylstock@awkolaw.com
jwitkin@awkolaw.com
3M COMPANY: McIver Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas McIver, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTSLP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No.
2:23-cv-03449-RMG (D.S.C., July 18, 2023), is brought for damages
for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is
not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. The Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to
AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's working career in the
military and/or as a civilian and was diagnosed with kidney cancer,
and bladder cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglass A. Kreis, Esq.
Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq.
Justin G. Witkin, Esq.
AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
17 East Main Street, Suite 200
Pensacola, FL 32502
Phone: (850) 202-1010
Email: dkreis@awkolaw.com
baylstock@awkolaw.com
jwitkin@awkolaw.com
3M COMPANY: Naegele Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams & Chemicals
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jared Naegele, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTSLP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No.
2:23-cv-03452-RMG (D.S.C., July 18, 2023), is brought for damages
for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is
not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. The Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to
AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's working career in the
military and/or as a civilian and was diagnosed with hypothyroidism
as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglass A. Kreis, Esq.
Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq.
Justin G. Witkin, Esq.
AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
17 East Main Street, Suite 200
Pensacola, FL 32502
Phone: (850) 202-1010
Email: dkreis@awkolaw.com
baylstock@awkolaw.com
jwitkin@awkolaw.com
3M COMPANY: Newman Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Clarence Eugene Newman, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA,
INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION;
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.;
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA,
INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a
DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM,
INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTSLP, as
successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:23-cv-03453-RMG (D.S.C., July 18,
2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to
AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's working career in the
military and/or as a civilian and was diagnosed with prostate
cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglass A. Kreis, Esq.
Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq.
Justin G. Witkin, Esq.
AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
17 East Main Street, Suite 200
Pensacola, FL 32502
Phone: (850) 202-1010
Email: dkreis@awkolaw.com
baylstock@awkolaw.com
jwitkin@awkolaw.com
3M COMPANY: Smith Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thelma Smith, as Surviving spouse of Robert J. Smith, deceased, and
other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE
EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.;
BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL
CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS,
INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.;
CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC.
(f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS
AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC;
HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; KIDDE PLC; LION GROUP, INC.;
MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC;
MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; SOUTHERN
MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION,
INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC., Case
No. 2:23-cv-03443-RMG (D.S.C., July 18, 2023), is brought for
damages for personal injury and death resulting from exposure to
aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") and firefighter turnout gear
("TOG") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per
and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not
limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. TOG is personal protective equipment
designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect
firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up
of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner
layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with
additional PFAS.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it
contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose
end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS.
Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which
contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff Thelma Smith is the Surviving Spouse of, Robert J.
Smith, who regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to AFFF
in training and during Decedent's working career in the military
and/or as a civilian and was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer as a
result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglass A. Kreis, Esq.
Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq.
Justin G. Witkin, Esq.
AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
17 East Main Street, Suite 200
Pensacola, FL 32502
Phone: (850) 202-1010
Email: dkreis@awkolaw.com
baylstock@awkolaw.com
jwitkin@awkolaw.com
A&W CONCENTRATE: Oct. 18 Settlement Claim Submission Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Brassfield, writing for The Penny Hoarder, reports that A&W
Root Beer owes you five bucks and change -- all you have to do is
claim it. And making a claim is easy. It just takes a minute or two
to fill out a brief online form.
It all has to do with a class-action lawsuit that A&W is settling.
The beverage company got sued because it was selling root beer and
cream soda with labels that said "Made With Aged Vanilla," even
though the beverages weren't really made with aged vanilla.
You're eligible for a cut of the $15 million settlement if you
bought a "Made With Aged Vanilla" A&W root beer or cream soda
anytime between February 2016 and June 2023.
But here's the kicker: You do not need to provide proof of purchase
to be eligible to receive compensation in this case. We're just
going to repeat that one more time: You don't have to provide
proof.
If you submit a claim online here --
https://secureforms.krollsettlementadministration.com/DynamicForms2/6650/Form/e59afd33-d4b3-4445-bb07-1020158f3a44
-- but don't have proof of purchase, you'll receive a payment of at
least $5.50. Also, this is important: You must submit a claim by
Oct. 18.
If you and your partner or spouse both submit claims, that's $11 in
free money that the two of you didn't have before.
What If You Have Proof of Purchase?
If you're like most people, you don't have proof of purchase of
some A&W root beer or cream soda with "aged vanilla" that you
bought months or years ago.
But if you do have proof of purchase, you can get more money from
A&W -- up to $25 per person.
Specifically, for every can or bottle you purchased above 11
"units" of A&W, you'll receive an extra 50 cents up to a total of
$25.
What Is This Lawsuit About Anyway?
Like we mentioned, this is a class-action lawsuit. Three defendants
filed the lawsuit against the corporate entity "A&W Concentrate Co.
and Keurig Dr Pepper Inc.," which manufactures these beverages.
A&W is accused of misleading customers by labeling root beer and
cream soda products as being "Made With Aged Vanilla" when the
vanilla taste is actually created by using a substance called ethyl
vanillin, which is an artificial vanilla flavoring.
In a preliminary settlement, A&W denies misleading anyone. The
company says "the labeling of the Products was truthful and
non-misleading, and that purchasers did not pay a 'premium' for the
Products as a result of any misrepresentations."
But A&W settled the case for $15 million anyway -- probably to
avoid the possibility of having to pay out even more money.
The online claim form can be found here --
https://secureforms.krollsettlementadministration.com/DynamicForms2/6650/Form/e59afd33-d4b3-4445-bb07-1020158f3a44
These Companies May Owe You Money, Too
There are a couple of other class-action lawsuit settlements going
on where you're probably eligible to receive compensation. But the
deadlines to file claims are fast approaching.
Google
If you Googled anything between 2006 and 2013, then Google owes you
money for violating your privacy. Those are the terms of a
class-action lawsuit that Google settled for $23 million.
How much money does Google owe you? It depends on how many people
come forward to claim their share of the settlement. The current
estimated payout is about $7.70 per person.
The deadline is coming up fast, though. The deadline to file a
claim is Monday, July 31.
It's pretty easy to file a claim, but it takes more than just one
step to do it. You'll have to go through a few steps. This article
will walk you through it.
Between the Google and A&W settlements, that's $13.20 in free money
that's available to you.
Facebook
If you've had a Facebook account anytime during the last 16 years,
you're eligible for a payout from a $725 million class-action
lawsuit. You have until Aug. 25 to file a claim here.
Facebook's parent company, Meta, recently settled a massive lawsuit
alleging that the social media network violated users' privacy by
allowing other companies to access users' private data without
their consent, and that it misled Facebook users about its privacy
practices.
If you had a Facebook account between May 24, 2007, and Dec. 22,
2022, in the U.S., you're eligible to submit a claim. The claim
form asks for some basic information about you and your Facebook
account, and it takes a few minutes to fill out.
The amount of settlement money you'll receive depends on a few
factors, including how many people submit claims and how long you
had an active Facebook account.
Mike Brassfield (mike@thepennyhoarder.com) is a senior writer at
The Penny Hoarder. [GN]
ACCELERATED COMMUNICATIONS: Guidry Sues Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
ROBIN GUIDRY, and all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
ACCELERATED COMMUNICATIONS AND CONSTRUCTION, LLC, JUSTIN SONNTAG,
JASON EVERT, and COLLEEN BRATLEY, Defendants, Case No.
3:23-cv-19097-TKW-ZCB (N.D. Fla., July 17, 2023) is a class action
brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendant for unpaid overtime
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act as she was misclassified
as an "exempt" employee, and not paid overtime for all hours worked
over 40 per week, and for relief pursuant to the Florida Private
Sector Whistle-Blower's Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant, Accelerated Communications
and Construction, LLC, as an AR and AP specialist, bookkeeper,
assistant controller and office manager from February 8, 2022 until
her termination on May 3, 2023.
Accelerated Communications and Construction, LLC are engaged in the
business of commercial and residential telecommunications cable
installation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Clayton M. Connors, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF CLAYTON M. CONNORS, PLLC
4400 Bayou Blvd., Suite 32A
Pensacola, FL 32503
Telephone: (850) 473-0401
E-mail: cmc@westconlaw.com
AERCAP HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces
an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of AerCap Holdings N.V. (NYSE: AER) resulting from
allegations that AerCap may have issued materially misleading
business information to the investing public, specifically as it
related to its exposure to the Russian market, and in particular
potential financial exposure resulting from escalating hostilities
in Ukraine.
SO WHAT: If you purchased AerCap 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=17599 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.
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. [GN]
ALTICE USA: Settles Class Action Suit Over Hidden Fees
------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that Optimum and Suddenlink agreed to pay
$15 million to resolve claims they charged hidden fees despite
promising a flat rate monthly payment.
The settlement benefits Optimum and Suddenlink customers who were
charged a Network Enhancement Fee, Network Access Surcharge,
Broadcast Station Programming Surcharge, TV Broadcast Fee, Sports
Programming Surcharge or Regional Sports Network Fee between July
27, 2018, and May 5, 2023.
Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit claim Optimum and Suddenlink
charged hidden, additional fees on internet and cable services
despite promising to charge a flat monthly rate for these services.
These fees allegedly raised consumers' monthly costs during
promotional periods.
Optimum and Suddenlink are internet and cable providers owned by
Altice. The providers were combined under the Optimum name when
Altice acquired the company.
Altice hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $15 million
settlement to resolve the class action lawsuit.
Under the terms of the Optimum and Suddenlink fees settlement,
class members can receive a cash payment between $10 and $27.50.
Payment amounts will vary depending on whether class members are
current or former customers and if they paid a network fee, a TV
fee or both.
Current customers who paid both a network fee and a TV fee will
receive $27.50. Former customers who paid both a network fee and a
TV fee will receive $20. Current customers will receive $15 if they
paid a TV fee only or $12.50 if they paid a network fee only.
Former customers who paid either a network fee or a TV fee will
receive $10.
The deadline for exclusion and objection is Sept. 25, 2023.
The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for Oct.
13, 2023.
In order to receive settlement benefits, class members must submit
a valid claim form by Sept. 5, 2023.
Who's Eligible
Optimum and Suddenlink customers who were charged a Network
Enhancement Fee, Network Access Surcharge, Broadcast Station
Programming Surcharge, TV Broadcast Fee, Sports Programming
Surcharge or Regional Sports Network Fee between July 27, 2018 and
May 5, 2023
Potential Award
$27.50
Proof of Purchase
N/A
Claim Form
https://optimumsuddenlinkfeesettlement.com/submit-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
09/05/2023
Case Name
Seale, et al. v. Altice USA Inc., et al., Case No. MER-L-618-23, in
the New Jersey Superior Court for Mercer County
Final Hearing
10/13/2023
Settlement Website
OptimumSuddenlinkFeeSettlement.com
Claims Administrator
Optimum Suddenlink Fee Settlement Administrator
1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210
Philadelphia, PA19103
833-549-9657
Class Counsel
DENITTIS OSEFCHEN PRINCE PC
HATTIS & LUKACS
Defense Counsel
MAYER BROWN LLP [GN]
AMAZON.COM INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hightie Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
DEVERAL HIGHTIE; JENNIFER CARTER; KHA GRAVES; BRYAN MCCLENDON; and
WHITNEY GRUBB, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. AMAZON.COM, INC.; and AMAZON LOGISTICS,
INC., Defendants, Case No. 2023LA000750 (Fla. Cir., Dupage Cty.,
July 18, 2023) is an action against the Defendants for failure to
pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal
and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse
necessary business expenses.
The Plaintiffs were employed by Courier Distribution Systems, LLC
and CDS Staffing, LLC as delivery associates, through a Delivery
Service Provider program with the Defendants.
Amazon Inc. offers online shopping services. The Company retails
products such as television, computers, shoes, jewellery, books,
toys, video games, grocery, clothing, and other products. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Bradley Manewith, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
5 Revere Drive, Suite 200
Northbrook, IL 60062
Telephone: (617) 994-5800
Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
Email: bmanewith@llrlaw.com
-and-
Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
Krysten Connon, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston St., Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (267) 256-9973
Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
Email: ssb@llrlaw.com
kconnon@llrlaw.com
-and-
Michaela L. Wallin, Esq.
Alexandra K. Piazza, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 875-3000
Facsimile: (215) 875-4620
Email: mwallin@bm.net
apiazza@bm.net
-and-
Ryan Allen Hancock, Esq.
WILLIG, WILLIAMS & DAVIDSON
1845 Walnut Street, 24th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 656-3600
Facsimile: (215) 567-2310
Email: rhancock@wwdlaw.com
APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Amazon Price Collusion
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Natasha Loma, writing for TechCrunch, reports that Apple and Amazon
are facing a class-action style damages lawsuit in the U.K.
alleging they abused their market power by colluding to increase
the price of Apple products.
The suit, which has been filed in front of the Competition Appeals
Tribunal on July 26, is seeking compensation of at least £500
million (~$645 million) on behalf of millions of U.K. consumers who
bought Apple or (Apple-owned) Beats products on Amazon's
marketplace since October 2018.
It alleges Amazon and Apple struck a secret deal in 2018 that
unlawfully increased the price of Apple products sold on Amazon's
ecommerce marketplace.
The litigants allege the deal led to the ecommerce giant
restricting sales of popular Apple products by independent
merchants on its marketplace in exchange for preferential wholesale
prices on all Apple and Beats kit -- inflating prices for U.K.
consumers buying Apple and Beats products on Amazon.
"The claim alleges that, by January 2019, almost all independent
merchants of Apple and Beats products disappeared from the Amazon
marketplace as a result of Apple and Amazon's collusion," they
wrote in a press release. "This led to a decrease in the discounts
provided to customers by the limited number of independent
merchants remaining, and a significant increase in the sales of
Apple and Beats products at undiscounted prices."
The proposed class representative for the suit is Christine Riefa,
a professor of law at the University of Reading whose academic work
focuses on consumer protection law and policy.
Commenting on the suit in a statement, she argues the pair's market
power enabled them to restrict consumer choice and drive up
prices:
Millions of consumers in the UK enjoy the services and products of
Apple and Amazon. They do not suspect that those companies collude
to make them pay more for their electronics and reduce their
choice. I believe that big businesses like Apple and Amazon should
behave fairly and compete on merits, not by using underhand
tactics.
Each company has an effective stranglehold over its market, and
they are misusing that advantage to shut out competition from
independent merchants -- unlawfully lining their wallets at the
expense of consumers. It's a betrayal of their customers' loyalty.
At a time when families are under huge financial pressure from high
inflation, mortgage and energy costs, it is more important than
ever for consumers to be treated fairly. I decided to bring the
claim because consumers individually would never have been able to
and the two Tech giants would have continued to line their pockets
with their unlawful behaviours going unchecked.
The law firm supporting Riefa to bring the representative action is
Hausfeld & Co LLP. In another supporting statement, Wessen Jazrawi,
partner at Hausfeld, added:
Apple and Amazon have worked together to exclude competitors on the
Amazon platform and to reduce the availability of discounted
products, at their customers' expense. We look forward to working
with Christine Riefa to return money to those who have lost out and
to making these companies accountable for their unlawful conduct.
The claim is being brought on an opt-out basis -- meaning all U.K.
class members are included by default (and would be in line for
compensation if the litigations prevails) unless they decide to
opt-out. Affected consumers do not have to pay costs or fees to
participate in the legal action, which is being funded by a
commercial litigation funder whose name is not being disclosed.
(But Law360 UK is reporting it's the U.K.-based litigation funder,
Asertis.)
U.K. consumers who believe they are eligible to be a member of the
claimant class can find more information via the claim website:
www.ukappleamazonclaim.co.uk.
Apple and Amazon were contacted for a response to the legal
action.
An Amazon spokesperson sent us this statement:
This claim is without merit, and we're confident that this will
become clear throughout the process. As a result of our agreement
with Apple, customers can find the latest Apple and Beats products
on our store, and they benefit from an expanded range with better
deals and faster shipping.
Apple declined to provide a public statement -- saying it has not
yet seen the lawsuit. But the company did offer some background
remarks in defense of its reseller agreements with Amazon following
legal challenges in other European markets. It argues its main
objective for the agreements was to fight counterfeit and safety
issues on the ecommerce marketplace and ensure a high quality
experience for its customers.
It suggests counterfeiting was a particular problem on Amazon prior
to the 2018 agreements, claiming to have had to dedicate
significant time and resource trying to combat fakes -- including
sending hundreds of thousands of take-down notices to Amazon. Per
Apple, the problem persisted until the 2018 agreements -- after
which it claims there was a significant reduction in the sale of
counterfeit Apple kit on Amazon's marketplaces and an improved
experience for its customers.
The U.K. litigation follows antitrust enforcements against the two
tech giants in Italy and and Spain that led to fines totalling
almost $440 million being issued in recent years.
The two countries' national competition regulators found the pair
had colluded to place unlawful restrictions on resellers of Apple
kit on Amazon's local marketplaces. Amazon and Apple dispute the
findings and filed appeals.
An appeal against the Italian decision was successful on procedural
grounds in June last year but the litigants in the U.K. suit assert
there was no criticism of the decision's factual or economic
findings, adding that they are drawing on information and economic
analysis contained in the Italian regulator's decision to support
their claim.
Over in the U.S. the two tech giants are also facing a similar
class action alleging price collusion. And just last month a
federal judge denied a motion by the companies seeking to dismiss
the consumer antitrust lawsuit -- ruling it could proceed.
In separate news, Apple was also targeted in the U.K. with another
(unrelated) class action damages claim. In that case the litigants
are seeking around $1BN in compensation on behalf of U.K.
developers who they allege have been subject to anti-competitive
behavior by the iPhone maker in relation to its App Store fees.
This report was updated with Apple's response [GN]
APPLE INC: Faces Class Suit Over 30% App Store Fee in U.K.
----------------------------------------------------------
Wesley Hilliard of AppleInsider reports that a new class action
lawsuit in the UK from over 1,500 developers calls Apple's App
Store fee excessive and a result of the company's app distribution
monopoly.
Apple charges developers up to a 30% commission on transactions
made on its platform. This fee has been long-scrutinized by world
governments and developers alike, but so far has survived such
scrutiny.
The latest attack on App Store fees comes from a group of 1,566 app
developer in the UK. According to a report from Reuters, the group
has started a class action lawsuit against Apple on the basis that
the fee is excessive and a result of Apple's monopoly on its app
distribution platform.
"Apple's charges to app developers are excessive, and only possible
due to its monopoly on the distribution of apps onto iPhones and
iPads," Sean Ennis, a professor at the Centre for Competition
Policy at the University of East Anglia and a former economist at
the OECD, said in a statement. "The charges are unfair in their own
right, and constitute abusive pricing. They harm app developers and
also app buyers."
Ennis is bringing the class action lawsuit forward to the UK
Competition Appeal Tribunal. He is being advised by the law firm
Geradin Partners.
App Store fees have always been a point of contention
Apple discussed its 30% fee during the Epic Games trial. It has
also said previously that 85% of developers on the App Store do not
pay a commission and that it helps European developers access
markets and customers in 175 countries through the App Store.
Multiple organizations and governments around the world have fought
Apple's fee structure. Currently, with few exceptions, a developer
owes Apple 30% of any transaction that occurs on its platform and
this is reduced to 15% for subscriptions that last over one year.
The Small Business Program also ensures developers that earn less
than $1 million in a year is only charged a 15% fee. The 30% fee
kicks in once a developer crosses the $1 million threshold in a
given year.
Companies have even taken up the battle, like Facebook stating that
Apple's 30% fee hurts small businesses. Also, cutouts that
seemingly help multi-billion dollar corporations increasingly
become points of contention.
Apple previously lost a $100 million lawsuit in 2022 that
originated in 2019, alleging the $100 developer fee and $0.99
increments hurt developers. The $100 fee is no longer a
requirement, as there is a free developer account tier, and the
$0.99 tiers were changed out for more granular prices.
This proves that Apple isn't immune to the influence of greater
courts. However, a class action lawsuit doesn't always guarantee
rule changes.
Apple provided a statement to AppleInsider that covers many of the
points we made above about the Small Business Program, developer
fees, and more. The company asserts that it has never increased
fees in the fifteen years of the App Store but has, in fact,
reduced fees and added exemptions.
The statement shared that Apple has created 440,000 UK jobs, and UK
developers have generated $49 billion in earnings in 2022. [GN]
BEAUFORT COUNTY, SC: Sept. 11 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Dimitrov, writing for Yahoo!News, reports that lawyers sent
out notices to 5,000 to 6,000 women in Beaufort County earlier in
July alerting them that they could be part of a class-action
lawsuit against the county.
The 2020 lawsuit alleges women detained at the Beaufort County
Detention Center were "routinely subjected to humiliating strip and
body cavity searches" in front of male guards while similar
searches were not performed on men.
Plaintiffs claim that Beaufort County violated the Equal Protection
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. While there are limits on how
much money a person can get from the state, there are no limits
when it applies to federal law claims related to the Constitution.
That means Beaufort County could potentially have to pay millions
to the plaintiffs. Beaufort County would also be required to pay
attorney's fees.
When asked to explain the county's liability insurance and how they
would potentially pay out any damages, Clerk to Council Sarah Brock
declined to comment, stating the county doesn't comment on matters
related to pending litigation.
Earlier this year in a motion for summary judgment, Beaufort County
asked the court to throw out the equal federal protection violation
claim, arguing that because the actions happened in prison they
shouldn't be held to the same standard. A summary judgment is when
the court makes a decision made based on statements and evidence
without going to trial. A district judge denied the motion in
March, writing that "Beaufort County's gender-based practice fails
-- even under a more deferential standard."
"It's hard to understand how the county could treat women like
this, especially this day and age, and then argue to the court that
it's okay," said Robert Metro, who is representing the plaintiffs,
"It's not okay."
Notified women will have until September 11 to opt out of the
lawsuit, otherwise, those that opt-in will be represented by the
plaintiffs attorney. Currently, the legal filing identifies Cheryl
Munday and Margaret Devine as plantiffs. All of the women included
in the class action stand to receive a payout if the court rules in
favor of the plaintiffs. Since the lawsuit was certified as a
class-action July 2022, the plaintiffs represent all female
detainees at BCDC who were strip searched between February 27, 2015
until May 5, 2020.
No names other than the two plaintiffs, who have already been
identified in the lawsuit, will be made public.
Munday and Devine declined to comment. Metro, their lawyer,
declined to answer questions but made comments to The Island Packet
and Beaufort Gazette.
"Imagine if your wife, daughter or mother, or someone you care
about, was forced to remove their clothing in front of a total
stranger after being charged with a traffic related offense while
men were provided a special waiting room and not strip searched,"
he said. "That's outrageous."
For women who have been notified, or haven't been notified and
believe they should be part of the lawsuit, to get more information
they can go to https://beaufortcountystripsearch.com/
What happens now?
The plaintiffs filled a motion for summary judgment June 13 asking
the court to rule that Beaufort County violated the Equal
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment without a jury trial.
It's possible that the court could grant that motion and say there
is no need for a trial. Then, a jury would decide how much Beaufort
County would have to give the plaintiffs for damages. The court
hasn't responded to the motion yet.
Beaufort County and the plaintiffs also still have the opportunity
to settle.
If the court doesn't grant the motion and the parties don't settle,
then a trial will take place in U.S. Federal Court, likely in
Charleston, pulling jurors from throughout the state. [GN]
BIO-MEDICAL APPLICATIONS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Azurin Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
JONATHAN AZURIN, individually and for others similarly situated v.
BIO-MEDICAL APPLICATIONS OF CALIFORNIA, INC. and FRESENIUS MEDICAL
CARE HOLDINGS, INC. d/b/a FRESENIUS MEDICAL CARE NORTH AMERICA,
Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-11585 (D. Mass., July 14, 2023) arises
from the Defendants' alleged unlawful labor policies and practices
in violation of the California Labor Code and the California
Business and Professions Code.
The Plaintiff filed the complaint over the Defendants' failure to
pay overtime and double time wages, failure to pay earned wages for
all hours worked, failure to authorize, permit, and/or make
available bona fide meal periods, failure to provide accurate
itemized wage statements, waiting time penalties and engagement in
unfair and unlawful business practices.
Plaintiff Azurin was employed by the Defendants as a registered
nurse at various Fresenius dialysis clinics in and around
Bakersfield and West Covina, California from approximately August
2009 until November 2021.
Bio-Medical Applications of California, Inc., d/b/a Fresenius
Medical Care North America, is a provider of products and services
for individuals with renal diseases.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Philip J. Gordon, Esq.
Kristen M. Hurley, Esq.
GORDON LAW GROUP LLP
585 Boylston Street
Boston, MS 02116
Telephone: (617) 536-1800
Facsimile: (617) 536-1802
E-mail: pgordon@gordonllp.com
- and -
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11
Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
- and -
William C. (Clif) Alexander, Esq.
Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
ANDERSON ALEXANDER PLLC
101 N. Shoreline Blvd., Suite 610
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
Telephone: (361) 452-1279
Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
austin@a2xlaw.com
BRITISH COLUMBIA: Judge Certifies Class Suit Over Fake Nurse
------------------------------------------------------------
Bethany Lindsay, writing for CBC News, reports that a judge has
certified a class action lawsuit against the Provincial Health
Services Authority over its year-long employment of fake nurse
Brigitte Cleroux at B.C. Women's Hospital.
On July 25, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Michael Stephens ruled that
a claim holding the health authority vicariously liable for
violations of privacy by Cleroux and seeking punitive damages can
proceed as a class action.
He noted that more than 1,000 people will be covered by the
lawsuit, and a large number of them would not have the money to
pursue individual claims on these grounds.
"I conclude that certifying this class action will likely overcome
barriers to litigation for the majority of class members by
providing them a procedure to advance claims for breach of privacy
and vicarious liability," Stephens wrote in his judgment.
But he declined to certify claims of negligence and battery, saying
that individual patients' experiences with Cleroux were too
different to be lumped into a class action and would be better
handled through separate lawsuits.
"Each of the class members likely had different experiences with
Ms. Cleroux, given the variety of her nursing tasks," Stephens
wrote.
"It is possible, on the evidence before me, that there would be
significant variety in the extent to which any of the class members
may have been physically or emotionally harmed by the care received
from Ms. Cleroux."
A Provincial Health Services Authority (PHSA) declined to comment
while the case is before the courts.
A class action lawsuit is a type of legal action that groups
together people who share a common claim against someone. The
judge's decision to certify the claim does not mean that the court
has ruled on whether the patients have proven their allegations
against the PHSA, only that it can proceed under the terms of the
Class Proceedings Act.
Allegations of 'wilful invasion of privacy'
Cleroux, a serial imposter with a long criminal history of
pretending to be a nurse in jurisdictions across North America,
assisted with surgeries at B.C. Women's Hospital between June 2020
and June 2021.
According to court documents filed by the PHSA, Cleroux directly
cared for 899 patients at the hospital and was indirectly involved
in the treatment of another 258 by reviewing their files.
Stephens wrote that the question of whether Cleroux's participation
in gynecological surgeries amounted to a "wilful invasion of
privacy" is something all of the patients share, and there is
enough evidence to test those claims in court.
If the patients are able to prove the health authority is
vicariously liable for privacy breaches, the judge went on, there
is a valid question about whether PHSA's actions giving Cleroux
access to vulnerable patients "was sufficiently reprehensible or
highhanded to attract a punitive damages award."
During her time at B.C. Women's Hospital, Cleroux used the name of
a real nurse, Melanie Smith. But when she was hired, she told
administrators she didn't have a registration number with the B.C.
College of Nurses and Midwives yet because she had recently
transferred from Ontario.
Miranda Massie, the representative plaintiff in the class action
lawsuit, has alleged in court documents that the PHSA "accepted a
photocopy of a personal cheque from Cleroux where she had whited
out her name at the top of the cheque and handwritten the name,
Melanie Smith, as confirmation of Cleroux's identity as Melanie
Smith."
The PHSA says it has since changed its practices to confirm both
the name and the licence number of every nurse it hires.
Other PHSA court filings have revealed that Cleroux was written up
for "inappropriate" and disrespectful conduct toward a colleague
just two weeks into her job at B.C. Women's and was later suspended
for a day in response to a long list of complaints. But despite all
this, she was allowed to work at the hospital for another six
months after the suspension.
The health authority has denied that it should have known Cleroux
wasn't a qualified nurse or that her deception should have been
discovered with due diligence. Its court filings claim PHSA was
also a victim of fraud and did not authorize any of Cleroux's
alleged crimes and misconduct.
Cleroux has never had a valid licence or completed nursing school,
but over the last two decades, she has been accused or convicted of
pretending to be a nurse in Colorado, Ontario, Alberta and B.C.
She's also posed as a teacher in Alberta and Quebec. In all,
Cleroux has amassed at least 67 criminal convictions as an adult.
In Vancouver, she is currently facing 17 criminal charges,
including allegations of assaulting 10 patients, related to her
time at B.C. Women's. She has also been charged with impersonation
and fraud against a dental surgeon in Surrey.
Cleroux currently sits in an Ontario prison, serving a seven-year
sentence for posing as a nurse at two Ottawa clinics in the summer
of 2021.
Apart from the class action, 10 people have now filed individual
lawsuits against the PHSA, Cleroux and the B.C. College of Nurses
and Midwives, Stephens wrote in the judgment. [GN]
CALIFORNIA COMMERCIAL: Weizel Files Suit in Minn. Dist. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against California Commercial
Investment Group. The case is styled as Mark Weizel, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated v. California Commercial
Investment Group, Case No. 62-CV-23-3897 (Minn. 2nd Judicial Dist.
Ct., Ramsey Cty., July 24, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Employment."
California Commercial Investment Group is a full service
acquisition, asset management, property management and development
firm.[BN]
CATALINA OPERATING: Cohen Seeks Cabana Attendants' Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
ETHAN COHEN, JESSIE COHEN, and ALEX COHEN, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CATALINA OPERATING
CORP., Defendant, Case No. 611274/2023 (N.Y. Sup., Nassau Cty.,
July 17, 2023) arises from the Defendant's violation of the New
York Labor Law by failing to pay Plaintiffs and similarly situated
lawful wages.
Plaintiff Ethan Cohen worked for the Defendant as a cabana
attendant beginning in May of 2020 and continuing each summer
through 2022. Plaintiffs Jessie Cohen and Alex Cohen are lifeguards
at the club working during the summers from 2015 to the present and
during the summers from 2018 to the present, respectively.
Throughout Plaintiff Ethan Cohen's employment as a cabana attendant
for Defendant, he worked long hours, often more than 40 hours a
week and often more than 10 hours in a single day. Despite these
long hours, Defendant paid Mr. Cohen and the other cabana, chair,
and locker attendants at the beach club illegally low wages, no
overtime premiums, and no spread of hours pay. The workers were
often not paid for all the hours they worked, says the suit.
The Defendant also failed to pay Mr. Cohen, Jessie Cohen, and Alex
Cohen, and the other attendants, bathroom attendants, maintenance
workers, and lifeguards at the beach club, all of whom performed
primarily manual labor, on a weekly basis as required by NYLL, the
suit alleges.
Catalina Operating Corp. owns and operates Catalina Beach Club, a
private club located at 2045 Ocean Boulevard, Atlantic Beach, New
York.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Patricia Kakalec, Esq.
Hugh Baran, Esq.
KAKALEC LAW PLLC
195 Montague Street, 14th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Telephone: (212) 705-8730
E-mail: patricia@kakaleclaw.com
hugh@kakaleclaw.com
- and -
Robert McCreanor, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT D. MCCREANOR, PLLC
245 Saw Mill River Road, Suite 106
Hawthorne, NY 10532
Telephone: (845) 202-1833
E-mail: rmccreanor@rdmclegal.com
CHARLES RIVER: Butler Sues Over Delinquent Wage Payments
--------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Butler, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. CHARLES RIVER LABORATORIES, INC., Case No. 611674/2023
(N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty., July 24, 2023), is brought pursuant to
New York Labor Law ("NYLL") to recover damages for delinquent wage
payments made to workers who qualify as manual laborers and who
were employed by the Defendant between January 24, 2017 and the
present (the "Relevant Period") in the State of New York.
The Defendant has compensated all its employees on a bi-weekly
(every other week) basis, regardless of whether said employees
qualified as manual laborers under the NYLL. The Defendant has at
no time during the Relevant Period been authorized by the New York
State Department of Labor Commissioner to compensate its employees
who qualify as manual laborers on a bi-weekly basis, in
contravention of NYLL, which requires that without explicit
authorization from the Commissioner, such workers must be
compensated not less frequently than on a weekly basis. The
Plaintiff has initiated this action seeking for himself, and on
behalf of all similarly situated employees, compensation owed--plus
interest, attorneys' fees, and costs--owing to Defendant's illegal
pay practice, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from July 2022 through
December 2022.
CHARLES RIVER LABORATORIES, INC., is a foreign business corporation
organized under the laws of the State of Delaware and is authorized
to, and does, business in the State of New York.[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
Phone: (516) 873-9550
CIGNA HEALTH: Faces Class Action in Calif. Over Use of PXDX Tool
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paige Minemyer, writing for Fierce Healthcare, reports that two
Cigna members have hit the insurer with a class action lawsuit,
accusing the company of using an algorithm to improperly deny
scores of patient claims.
The lawsuit, filed on July 24 in California federal court, alleges
that Cigna uses a tool called PXDX that enables its physicians to
reject claims "in batches of hundreds or thousands at a time,"
which enables the payer to dodge the state's requirements for an
individual physician review process.
Using PxDx allows the company to "instantly reject claims on
medical grounds without ever opening patient files," according to
the suit. The program first surfaced and garnered controversy
thanks to an article from ProPublica that was published in March.
ProPublica reported that across two months in 2022, the insurer
rejected 300,000 claims using PxDx, with doctors spending an
average of 1.2 seconds to review each.
The plaintiffs both had claims rejected through this system,
according to the lawsuit, one for an ultrasound and the other for a
vitamin D test.
"By engaging in this misconduct, Cigna breached its fiduciary
duties, including its duty of good faith and fair dealing, because
its conduct serves Cigna's own economic self-interest and elevates
Cigna's interests above the interests of its insureds," the
plaintiffs said in the lawsuit.
In a statement to Fierce Healthcare, Cigna said it could not
"confirm that these individuals were impacted by PxDx at all" based
on initial research. The company said that PxDx is deployed for 50
specific diagnoses where claims are often not medically necessary,
such as dermabrasion, chemical peels or vitamin D tests.
"This filing appears highly questionable and seems to be based
entirely on a poorly reported article that skewed the facts," the
insurer said.
"To be clear, Cigna uses technology to verify that the codes on
some of the most common, low-cost procedures are submitted
correctly based on our publicly available coverage policies, and
this is done to help expedite physician reimbursement," Cigna
added. "The review takes place after patients have received
treatment, so it does not result in any denials of care. If codes
are submitted incorrectly, we provide clear guidance on
resubmission and how to appeal. This is an industry-standard
review, which is similar to processes that have been used by CMS
and our peers for years."
Claims denials through PxDx represent about 1% of Cigna's total
claims, the company said, and the process does not deploy an
algorithm or artificial intelligence. Ultrasounds would also
typically not be reviewed this way, Cigna said.
In the suit, the plaintiffs argue the class that could join is
likely "so numerous that their individual joinder herein is
impracticable."
"On information and belief, members of the class number in the
hundreds of thousands or millions throughout California," they said
in the lawsuit.
The ProPublica article also triggered investigations on the Hill
into whether Cigna and its peers are indeed deploying algorithms to
deny claims for members en masse. The House Energy and Commerce
Committee opened a probe into Cigna's actions in May, and the
Senate Permanente Subcommittee on Investigations is digging into
how insurers are using AI to deny claims in Medicare Advantage.
[GN]
CLASSPASS INC: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Chabolla Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
CLASSPASS, INC., et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
denying their motion to compel arbitration in the lawsuit entitled
Katherine Chabolla, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. ClassPass, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case
No. 4:23-cv-00429-YGR, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property.
On Apr. 21, 2023, the Defendants filed a motion to compel
arbitration, which the Court denied through an Order entered by
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on June 22, 2023.
The appellate case is captioned Katherine Chabolla v. ClassPass,
Inc., et al., Case No. 23-15999, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on July 14, 2023.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellants ClassPass USA, LLC, ClassPass, Inc. and ClassPass,
LLC Mediation Questionnaire was due on July 21, 2023;
-- Appellants ClassPass USA, LLC, ClassPass, Inc. and ClassPass,
LLC opening brief is due on September 11, 2023;
-- Appellee Katherine Chabolla answering brief is due on October
11, 2023; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellee KATHERINE CHABOLLA, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Daniel Edward Birkhaeuser, Esq.
Robert M. Bramson, Esq.
Alan R. Plutzik, Esq.
BRAMSON, PLUTZIK, MAHLER & BIRKHAEUSER, LLP
2125 Oak Grove Road
Walnut Creek, CA 94598
Telephone: (925) 935-5037
(925) 945-0200
- and -
Jessica Hunter, Esq.
18 Half Mile Road
Armonk, NY 10504
Telephone: (570) 647-9815
Defendants-Appellants CLASSPASS, INC., et al. are represented by:
Christine Marie Reilly, Esq.
Justin Jones Rodriguez, Esq.
Benjamin G. Shatz, Esq.
MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP
2049 Century Park, E., Suite 1700
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 312-4237
(310) 312-4103
(310) 312-4383
COLUMBIA, SC: ABC Tenants' Class Action v. CHA Can't Proceed
------------------------------------------------------------
WLTX reports that a Richland County judge denied the request of two
former residents of Allen Benedict Court that would have allowed
their cases to be joined as a class action suit against Columbia
Housing Authority (CHA) over monetary damages incurred during the
January 2019 mass evacuation of the apartment complex.
The ruling means that former tenants must file individual claims
against CHA. Those eligible would be all tenants of Allen Benedict
Court, their household members -- including minor children -- as
shown in the tenant's written lease as of January 17, 2019.
On that date, 61-year-old Calvin Witherspoon Jr., and 30-year-old
Derrick Caldwell Roper were found dead in their individual
apartments in Building J at Allen Benedict Court (ABC). The
Richland County Coroner determined the men had died from carbon
monoxide poisoning.
On January 18, 2019, multiple gas leaks and missing smoke alarms
were discovered during an inspection of the property, leading to a
mass evacuation of the residents. 411 people were placed in area
hotels and given vouchers to find other affordable housing, without
their personal belongings that were left behind at ABC.
After an investigation by City of Columbia Code Enforcement, HUD
Inspector General, and inspectors from City of Columbia Fire and
Police departments, it was Fifth Circuit Solicitor Byron Gipson's
opinion that probable cause did not exist to pursue criminal
charges against CHA in general sessions court.
Ten months after the deaths of Witherspoon and Roper, CHA was cited
for more than 860 violations in 22 different categories by Columbia
Police's Code Enforcement Division, for a total fine of $10,340.
In February 2020, representatives from CHA plead guilty in City of
Columbia's municipal court regarding the inspection citations and
fined just under $11,000.
Allen Benedict Court was demolished in the summer of 2020 and CHA
plans to rebuild another affordable housing complex on that site.
[GN]
CONTRACT LAND: Ebersold Sues Over Agents' Unpaid Overtime Hours
---------------------------------------------------------------
BLAIR EBERSOLD, individually and for others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. CONTRACT LAND STAFF, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
3:23-cv-425 (W.D.N.C., July 14, 2023) seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and other damages from Defendant under the under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Ebersold worked for CLS under a variety of job titles,
including Land Agent and Right of Way Agent from May 2019 until
September 2020. The Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members
regularly worked more than 40 hours a week but never received
overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a single
workweek. Instead of receiving overtime as required by the FLSA,
these workers received a flat amount for each day worked without
overtime compensation, says the Plaintiff.
Contract Land Staff, LLC is a provider of Right of Way and Land
Management Consulting services in the U.S.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher Strianese, Esq.
Tamara Huckert, Esq.
STRIANESE HUCKERT, LLP
3501 Monroe Rd.
Charlotte, NC 28205
Telephone: (704) 966-2101
E-mail: chris@strilaw.com
tamara@strilaw.com
CORNERSTONE BUILDING: Faces Suit Over Securities Laws' Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney Advertising--Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, a
nationally recognized law firm, notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Cornerstone Building Brands,
Inc. ("Cornerstone" or "the Company") (NYSE: CNR) several of the
Company's officers and directors.
Class Definition:
This lawsuit seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws on behalf of all
persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired
Cornerstone common stock as of May 16, 2022, the record date for
the merger ("Merger") of Cornerstone and Clayton, Dublier & Rice,
LLC ("CD&R"), through the closing of the transaction on July 25,
2022 (the "Class"). Such investors are encouraged to join this case
by visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/cnr.
Case Details:
The Complaint alleges that the Defendants deprived the Plaintiff
and other Class members of their right to cast a fully informed
vote on the Merger. In this regard, the Defendants allegedly made
material misrepresentations and omissions of material facts in the
Proxy concerning, among other things: (1) the scope of the
Standstill Provisions and the fact that CD&R made actual offers and
proposals to acquire Cornerstone, in breach of those Provisions;
(2) the fact that Cornerstone's financial projections used by its
financial advisor in connection with the Merger negotiations were
revised downward at CD&R's direction, which helped to support a
lower per share acquisition price; and (3) Cornerstone's parallel
sales process to divest its metal coil coatings business for $500
million and the Defendants' failure to account for this sale in the
valuation of the Company.
What's Next?
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint, you can visit the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/cnr or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his
Law Clerk and Client Relations Manager, Yael Nathanson of
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered
a loss in Cornerstone, you have until August 28, 2023, to request
that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to
share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead
plaintiff.
Why Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman:
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a nationally recognized firm
that represents investors in securities fraud class actions and
shareholder derivative suits. Our firm has recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for investors nationwide.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.
Contact:
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
Peretz Bronstein or Yael Nathanson
212-697-6484 | info@bgandg.com [GN]
CRITICAL PROTECTION: Cave Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
AMBER CAVE and ANTHONY BOOTHE, on behalf of themselves and all
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs v. CRITICAL PROTECTION
SERVICES LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-02262-JLG-EPD (S.D. Ohio,
July 14, 2023) arises from the Defendant's failure to pay minimum
and overtime wages and failure to promptly pay wages in violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Constitution, the Ohio
Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, the Ohio Prompt Pay Act.
Plaintiffs Cave and Boothe were employed by Defendant as security
guards and security guard supervisors from approximately February
11, 2022 to June 2023 and from approximately February 2022 to June
2023, respectively.
Critical Protection Services, LLC is an Ohio-based private security
and investigation company.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
Jacob A. Mikalov, Esq.
BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE COX, LLP
4200 Regent Street, Suite 210
Columbus, OH 43219
Telephone: (614) 221-4221
Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
ELI KOHN: MKR Medical Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Eli Kohn, et al. The
case is styled as MKR Medical P.C., on its own behalf on behalf of
all persons similarly situated v. Eli Kohn, Elite Care LLC, 5 Towns
Jewish Times, Inc., Case No. 617524/2023 (N.Y. Super. Ct., Suffolk
Cty., July 19, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Torts."
Eli Kohn works as a Director, Geriatric Care Management Services
which personal care healthcare agency providing services to 18
counties in Arkansas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
BRACH EICHLER LLC
5 Penn Plz. Fl. 23
New York, NY 10001-1810
EMPIRE LUGGAGE CENTER: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Empire Luggage
Center, Inc. The case is styled as Jenny Hwang, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Empire Luggage Center,
Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-05499-DG-PK (E.D.N.Y., July 20, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Empire Luggage Center, Inc. -- https://www.empireluggagecenter.com/
-- carry the most comprehensive travel gear in NYC.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
14749 71st Ave.
Flushing, NY 11367
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
ESCAPE OUTDOORS: Castro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Escape Outdoors, LLC.
The case is styled as Felix Castro, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Escape Outdoors, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-06285 (S.D.N.Y., July 20, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Escape Outdoors, LLC -- https://www.escapeoutdoors.com/ -- have the
latest styles from outdoor lifestyle clothing brands for men,
women, and kids.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB
380 North Broadway, Suite 300
Jericho, NY 11753
Phone: (718) 740-5060
Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com
ESSILORLUXOTTICA SA: Faces Antitrust Class Action in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
ALM reports that EssilorLuxottica, Ferrari, Ralph Lauren, Tapestry
and a slew of other popular brands were slapped with an antitrust
class action on July 21 in California Northern District Court
concerning the market for non-prescription eyewear. The suit,
brought by Hilgers Graben PLLC, accuses the defendants of engaging
in a price-fixing scheme. Counsel have not yet appeared for the
defendants. The case is 3:23-cv-03626, Fathmath v. EssilorLuxottica
S.A. et al.
This suit was surfaced by Law.com Radar, a source for high-speed
legal news and litigation updates personalized to your practice.
Law.com Radar publishes daily updates on just-filed federal cases
like this one. Click here to get started and be first to know about
new suits in your region, practice area or client sector. [GN]
EXACT SCIENCES: Escava, Atkins Sue Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------------
RALPH ESCAVA, and CHRISTOPHER ATKINS, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. EXACT SCIENCES
CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-00448 (W.D. Wis., July 5,
2023) arises out of the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the regulations promulgated
pursuant to said Act by the Federal Communications Commission in
Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 64.
Allegedly, the Defendant initiated telemarketing calls without
prior express written consent of the called party and for no
emergency purpose. In addition, the Defendant used automatic
telephone dialing system to reach telephone numbers assigned to a
cellular telephone service and failed to abide by do-not-call
requests made to Defendant or its agents, says the suit.
Headquartered in Wisconsin, Exact Sciences is a biotechnology
corporation founded in 1995. It generates substantial profits from
soliciting potential customers through telemarketing.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael C. Lueder, Esq.
HANSEN REYNOLDS LLC
301 N. Broadway, Suite 400
Milwaukee, WI 53202
Telephone: (414) 455-7676
Facsimile: (414) 273-8476
E-mail: mlueder@hansenreynolds.com
- and -
Randall K. Pulliam, Esq.
Courtney E. Ross, Esq.
CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
519 W. 7th Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
Telephone: (501) 312-8500
Facsimile: (501)312-8505
E-mail: rpulliam@cbplaw.com
cross@cbplaw.com
EXTREME WELDING: Verdin Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tyrone Verdin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Extreme Welding Services, LLC, Case No.
2:23-cv-02649-SSV-JVM (E.D. La., July 21, 2023), is brought under
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Portal-to-Portal Act
(collectively, the "FLSA") seeking damages for Defendant's failure
to pay Plaintiff time and one half the regular rate of pay for all
hours worked over 40 during each seven-day workweek while working
for Defendant paid on an hourly basis.
The Plaintiff files this lawsuit individually and as an FLSA
collective action on behalf of all similarly situated current and
former employees of Defendant while paid on an hourly basis who,
like Plaintiff, were not paid time and one-half their respective
regular rates of pay for all hours worked over 40 in each seven-day
workweek in the time period of three years preceding the date this
lawsuit was filed and forward (the "Collective Action Members").
The Plaintiff routinely worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek
for Defendant.
Plaintiff's weekly work schedule typically encompassed 84 hours of
work for Defendant. However, Defendant did not pay Plaintiff time
and one-half the regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40
during each and every workweek, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff began working for Defendant on or about September 25,
2021.
The Defendant is a limited liability company organized under the
laws of the State of Louisiana.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kenneth W. DeJean, Esq.
Adam R. Credeur, Esq.
Natalie M. DeJean, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH W. DEJEAN
417 W. University Avenue (70506)
P.O. Box 4325
Lafayette, LA 70502
Phone: (337) 235-5294
Fax: (337) 235-1095
Email: kwdejean@kwdejean.com
adam@kwdejean.com
natalie@kwdejean.com
- and -
Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
WAGE AND HOUR FIRM
5050 Quorum Drive, Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75254
Phone: (214) 489-7653
Facsimile: (469) 319-0317
Email: marbuckle@wageandhourfirm.com
rprieto@wageandhourfirm.com
FIRST ATLANTIC: Overcharges Overdraft Fees, Turner Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS TURNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FIRST ATLANTIC FEDERAL CREDIT UNION,
Defendant, Case No. MON-L-002254-23 (N.J. Super. Ct., Monmouth
Cty., July 19, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for
breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and
fair dealing, unjust enrichment, and violation of the New Jersey
Consumer Fraud Act.
The case arises from the Defendant's practice of assessing
overdraft fees on transactions that did not actually overdraw
checking accounts and charging multiple fees on an item. As a
result of the Defendant's misconduct, the Plaintiff and similarly
situated account holders have suffered damages.
First Atlantic Federal Credit Union is a provider of retail banking
services, headquartered in Eatontown, Monmouth County, New Jersey.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bruce D. Greenberg, Esq.
LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG & AFANADOR, LLC
570 Broad Street, Suite 1201
Newark, NJ 07102
Telephone: (973) 623-3000
Facsimile: (973) 623-0858
Email: bgreenberg@litedepalma.com
- and -
Sophia G. Gold, Esq.
KALIELGOLD PLLC
950 Gilman Street, Suite 200
Berkeley, CA 94710
Telephone: (202) 350-4783
Email: sgold@kalielgold.com
- and -
Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
KALIELGOLD PLLC
1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 280-4783
Email: jkaliel@kalielgold.com
- and -
Christopher D. Jennings, Esq.
Tyler B. Ewigleben, Esq.
Winston S. Hudson, Esq.
JOHNSON FIRM
610 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 300
Little Rock, AR 72201
Telephone: (501) 372-1300
E-mail: chris@yourattorney.com
tyler@yourattorney.com
winston@yourattorney.com
FIVE STAR VALET: Cifuentes Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Alejandro Cifuentes, Carlos Cifuentes, and Sain Moreno,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FIVE
STAR VALET, LLC, BRYAN LOPEZ, and IVAN SOTO, Case No. 2:23-cv-03945
(D.N.J., July 24, 2023), is brought seeking equitable and legal
relief for the Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938 ("FLSA"); the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law ("NJWHL");
the New Jersey Wage Payment Law ("NJWPL"), and the common law of
New Jersey for unlawfully failing to compensate the Plaintiffs
minimum and overtime wages.
The Defendants neither tracked nor recorded the hours that
Plaintiffs, the FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class members
worked. Throughout their employment with Defendants, Plaintiffs,
the FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class members were not paid
any wages, including minimum wages, as required by FLSA.
Furthermore, despite routinely working in excess of 40 hours per
week, the Plaintiffs, the FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class
members were not paid overtime compensation of one and one-half
times the applicable minimum wage for all of the hours they worked
in excess of 40 per week. Instead, Plaintiffs, the FLSA Collective
Plaintiffs, and the Class members were only allowed to keep the
tips provided by guests and/or customers during their shifts, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as valet
attendants.
Five Star provides valet parking services to corporate clients such
as hotels, restaurants, nightclubs, golf clubs, and concert halls,
as well as to private clients for special events such as birthdays,
weddings, and graduations that take place either at private
residences or commercial establishments.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicole Grunfeld, Esq.
KATZ MELINGER PLLC
370 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1512
New York, NY 10017
Phone: (212) 460-0047
Email: ndgrunfeld@katzmelinger.com
FLEXIBLE JEWELRY: Mackey Sues Over Unwanted Text Message
--------------------------------------------------------
Hunter Mackey, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. FLEXIBLE JEWELRY, LLC, doing business as, ENSO RINGS,
Case No. CACE-23-016002 (Fla. 17th Judicial Cir. Ct., Broward Cty.,
July 21, 2023), is brought for injunctive and declaratory relief,
and damages for violations Of the Caller ID Rules Of the Florida
Telephone Solicitation Act ("FTSA") as a result of unwanted text
message solicitations.
The FTSA's Caller ID Rules apply to solicited and consented to
Telephonic Sales Calls, and as such, claims for Caller ID Rules
violations, which requires notice and an opportunity to cease
sending unwanted text message solicitations, before claims for
"text message solicitations the called party does not consent to
receive" can be brought. The FTSA's Caller ID Rules require that
persons making Telephonic Sales Calls transmit--to the consumer's
caller identification service--a telephone number that is capable
of receiving telephone calls.
In direct contravention of the Caller ID Rules, however, many
callers, such as Defendant, make Telephonic Sales Calls a central
part of their marketing strategy, and in doing so, intentionally
transmit telephone numbers to recipient's Caller ID services that
do not connect to the call or seller, because the transmitted
telephone number is not configured for two-way communication. As
such, Plaintiff, brings this action alleging that Defendant
violated the FTSA's Caller ID Rules by transmitting a phone number
that was not configured for two-way communication when it made
Telephonic Sales Calls by text message ("Text Message Sales
Calls").
As such, Plaintiff, brings this action alleging that Defendant
violated the FTSA's Caller ID Rules by transmitting a phone number
that was not capable of receiving phone calls and does not connect
to either the telephone solicitor or the Defendant when it made
Telephonic Sales Calls by text message ("Text Message Sales
Calls"). Specifically, Defendant made Text Message Sales Calls that
promoted Pura Vida ("Pura Vida Text Message Sales Calls") and
violated the Caller ID Rules when it transmitted to the recipients'
caller identification services a telephone number that was not
capable of receiving telephone calls and that did not connect the
recipient to either the caller or the Defendant (collectively, the
"Enso Rings Callers"), says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is the regular user of a cellular telephone number
that receives Defendant's telephonic sales calls ("Plaintiffs Cell
Phone").
Flexible Jewelry LLC doing business as, Enso Rings, is a Foreign
Limited Liability Company, which sells various goods to persons
throughout Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua A. Glickman, Esq.
Shawn A. Heller, Esq.
SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL
974 Howard Ave.
Dunedin, FL 34698
Phone: (202) 709-5744
Fax: (866) 893-0416
Email: josh@sjlawcollective.com
shawn@sjlawcollective.com
FLORIDA: Health Agency Settles Medicaid Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
News Service Florida reports that the state Agency for Health Care
Administration has reached a settlement in a class-action lawsuit
that is expected to lead to the Medicaid program providing
incontinence supplies to adults with disabilities, according to
court documents.
Lawyers for the state, two women with disabilities and the advocacy
group Disability Rights Florida asked a federal judge to approve
the settlement and put the lawsuit on hold while the Agency for
Health Care Administration moves forward with a rule-making
process. The lawsuit would be dismissed if the rule-making process
results in incontinence supplies being provided.
"The central thrust of the agreement is that AHCA (the Agency for
Health Care Administration) agrees to engage in rule-making with
the intention of amending its policies and any other administrative
rules necessary such that coverage will be extended to
medically-necessary incontinence supplies for Medicaid State Plan
recipients age 21 years and older," said the motion filed on July
20 in Jacksonville.
The lawsuit, filed in July 2022, alleged the Medicaid program
violated federal laws by denying coverage of incontinence supplies
to adults with disabilities. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of
Duval County resident Blanca Meza and St. Johns County resident
Destiny Belanger, who are incontinent and unable to care for
themselves. Disability Rights Florida also is a plaintiff.
U.S. District Judge Marcia Morales Howard on March 27 certified the
case as a class action. Morales Howard's decision cited one
estimate that at least 480 Medicaid beneficiaries a year turn 21
and lose coverage for incontinence supplies that they received as
children. The state provides the supplies, such as briefs, diapers
and underpads, for Medicaid beneficiaries under age 21 and for
certain adults, including people in nursing homes.
During an appearance before a Senate committee in April, AHCA
Secretary Jason Weida said the agency did not believe providing
incontinence supplies was required by the federal Centers for
Medicare & Medicaid Services, which oversees Medicaid regulations.
But he also indicated AHCA had discussed the possibility of
changing the policy.
"I can tell you that from lawsuits in the past when we have been
sued and we're in the middle of litigation, sometimes we decide to
change a policy which would essentially give the plaintiffs some or
all of what they wanted, and sometimes those lawsuits tend to
become moot or just go away," Weida, an attorney, told the Senate
committee. "I can't tell you exactly how we're going to shake out
on that right now. But what I can tell you is that we're looking at
it not just from a litigation strategy of how we're going to defend
ourselves, but also from a perspective of, is it the right thing to
do? And if we ultimately decide that it is the right thing to do,
we'll do it."
The motion filed on July 20 said the agreement came after informal
talks and settlement discussions through a mediator.
The lawsuit alleged that the state's policy on incontinence
supplies violated federal Medicaid law and laws including the
Americans with Disabilities Act. It said the state stopped
providing the supplies to Meza and Belanger after they turned 21,
though they are incontinent and unable to care for themselves.
As an example of their disabilities, the lawsuit said Meza "is
diagnosed with spastic quadriplegic cerebral palsy, muscle
spasticity, neuromuscular scoliosis and partial epilepsy."
"Plaintiffs are medically fragile adults each with bladder and
bowel incontinence," the lawsuit said. "As low-income Florida
residents with significant disabilities, they receive their health
services through Florida's Medicaid program. Plaintiffs' physicians
have prescribed certain incontinence supplies, including briefs and
underpads, as medically necessary to treat plaintiffs'
incontinence, keep their skin dry and clean, prevent skin
breakdowns and infections and maintain their ability to live in the
community." [GN]
FLORIDA: Settles Medicaid Suit Over Incontinence Supplies
---------------------------------------------------------
Jim Saunders of WGCU reports that the state Agency for Health Care
Administration has reached a settlement in a class-action lawsuit
that is expected to lead to the Medicaid program providing
incontinence supplies to adults with disabilities, according to
court documents.
Lawyers for the state, two women with disabilities and the advocacy
group Disability Rights Florida last week asked a federal judge to
approve the settlement and put the lawsuit on hold while the Agency
for Health Care Administration moves forward with a rule-making
process.
The lawsuit would be dismissed if the rule-making process results
in incontinence supplies being provided.
"The central thrust of the agreement is that AHCA (the Agency for
Health Care Administration) agrees to engage in rule-making with
the intention of amending its policies and any other administrative
rules necessary such that coverage will be extended to
medically-necessary incontinence supplies for Medicaid State Plan
recipients age 21 years and older," said the motion filed July 20,
2023 in Jacksonville.
The lawsuit, filed in July 2022, alleged the Medicaid program
violated federal laws by denying coverage of incontinence supplies
to adults with disabilities. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of
Duval County resident Blanca Meza and St. Johns County resident
Destiny Belanger, who are incontinent and unable to care for
themselves. Disability Rights Florida also is a plaintiff.
U.S. District Judge Marcia Morales Howard on March 27 certified the
case as a class action. Morales Howard's decision cited one
estimate that at least 480 Medicaid beneficiaries a year turn 21
and lose coverage for incontinence supplies that they received as
children. The state provides the supplies, such as briefs, diapers
and underpads, for Medicaid beneficiaries under age 21 and for
certain adults, including people in nursing homes.
During an appearance before a Senate committee in April, AHCA
Secretary Jason Weida said the agency did not believe providing
incontinence supplies was required by the federal Centers for
Medicare & Medicaid Services, which oversees Medicaid regulations.
But he also indicated AHCA had discussed the possibility of
changing the policy.
"I can tell you that from lawsuits in the past when we have been
sued and we're in the middle of litigation, sometimes we decide to
change a policy which would essentially give the plaintiffs some or
all of what they wanted, and sometimes those lawsuits tend to
become moot or just go away," Weida, an attorney, told the Senate
committee. "I can't tell you exactly how we're going to shake out
on that right now. But what I can tell you is that we're looking at
it not just from a litigation strategy of how we're going to defend
ourselves, but also from a perspective of, is it the right thing to
do? And if we ultimately decide that it is the right thing to do,
we'll do it."
The motion filed on July 20, 2023 said the agreement came after
informal talks and settlement discussions through a mediator.
The lawsuit alleged that the state's policy on incontinence
supplies violated federal Medicaid law and laws including the
Americans with Disabilities Act. It said the state stopped
providing the supplies to Meza and Belanger after they turned 21,
though they are incontinent and unable to care for themselves.
As an example of their disabilities, the lawsuit said Meza "is
diagnosed with spastic quadriplegic cerebral palsy, muscle
spasticity, neuromuscular scoliosis and partial epilepsy."
"Plaintiffs are medically fragile adults each with bladder and
bowel incontinence," the lawsuit said. "As low-income Florida
residents with significant disabilities, they receive their health
services through Florida's Medicaid program. Plaintiffs' physicians
have prescribed certain incontinence supplies, including briefs and
underpads, as medically necessary to treat plaintiffs'
incontinence, keep their skin dry and clean, prevent skin
breakdowns and infections and maintain their ability to live in the
community." [GN]
FORD MOTOR: Airbag Recall Halts Maverick Class Action Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Brett Foote, writing for Ford Authority, reports that back in
August 2022, FoMoCo issued a recall for select Ford Maverick
pickups over a problem with the side curtain airbags as those
particular units weren't deploying properly. To rectify this issue,
Ford instructed dealers to replace those airbags with new ones that
feature a revised design, though a class-action lawsuit -- John
Solak v. Ford Motor Company -- was later filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan claiming that these
proposed repairs don't actually fix the problem. However, a judge
has now ruled in favor of the automaker in this particular case,
according to Car Complaints.
The plaintiff in this case -- John Solak --- owns a 2022 Ford
Maverick, but hasn't experienced an airbag failure in his compact
pickup. However, he claims that the side curtain airbags in the
Maverick are defective, as they "allow for displacement of as much
as approximately 112 millimeters," according to the lawsuit, which
exceeds the federal standards of 100 millimeters. Solak also argued
that the government-approved repairs that are completed as part of
the recall aren't sufficient and don't fix actually the problem.
Ford quickly filed a motion to dismiss the case, which was promptly
shut down by Judge Bernard A. Friedman, who noted that its
allegations "are sufficient to plausibly demonstrate that Solak and
the putative class members suffered an injury-in-fact." After Ford
announced that it was recalling these pickups, the judge did change
his opinion on the matter, however. "These remedial measures,
coupled with NHTSA's authority to ensure they are fully
implemented, renders Solak's claims prudentially moot," he said.
"That position is difficult to fathom when Ford's recall measures
would remediate the very same 'defect upon which' the
diminished-value injury claim[s] [are] based," Freidman said in
response to Solak's argument that the recall doesn't moot claims
for potential monetary damages. "Instead, the speculation about the
recall's effectiveness raised 'a hypothetical possibility that the
plaintiffs' vehicle was not adequately repaired' -- well short of a
'cognizable danger.'" [GN]
FRUIT OF THE LOOM: May Face Suit Over Mislabeled Cotton Briefs
--------------------------------------------------------------
A report says that this alert affects anyone who purchased Fruit of
the Loom's Men's Tag-Free Cotton Briefs from Amazon.com, Target.com
or Fruit of the Loom's website since 2020.
What's Going On?
Attorneys working with ClassAction.org have reason to believe
certain varieties of Fruit of the Loom's Men's Tag-Free Cotton
Briefs may contain polyester despite being advertised as 100
percent cotton. They're now looking into whether a class action
lawsuit can be filed over possible false advertising and need to
hear from consumers who bought the underwear as part of their
investigation.
What You Can Do
If you've purchased Fruit of the Loom's Men's Tag-Free Cotton
Briefs from Amazon.com, Target.com or Fruit of the Loom's website
since 2020, fill out the form on this page today. You may be able
to help get a class action lawsuit started.
How Could a Class Action Lawsuit Help?
If filed and successful, a class action lawsuit could help Fruit of
the Loom customers recover some of the money they spent on the
Men's Tag-Free Cotton Briefs. It could also force the manufacturer
to change the way the underwear is made or advertised.
Attorneys working with ClassAction.org would like to speak to
anyone who purchased Fruit of the Loom's Men's Tag-Free Cotton
Briefs from Amazon.com, Target.com or Fruit of the Loom's website
since 2020.
They have reason to suspect that certain varieties of the
underwear, which is sold in six-packs of assorted colors and
assorted stripes and solids, may contain polyester despite being
labeled as 100 percent cotton.
It's now being investigated whether a class action lawsuit can be
filed alleging Fruit of the Loom mislabeled and falsely advertised
the products, which would allow consumers the chance to get some of
their money back.
Did you buy Fruit of the Loom Men's Tag-Free Cotton Briefs? Did you
believe the underwear was 100 percent cotton? If so, fill out the
form on this page and share your story. You may be able to help get
a class action lawsuit started.
Class Action Lawsuits Filed Over Cotton Products
This investigation into certain Fruit of the Loom men's underwear
comes on the heels of several proposed class actions filed over
other manufacturers' cotton claims.
For instance, in July 2021, Perry Ellis was hit with a proposed
class action alleging some of its shirts do not contain as much
Pima cotton (a softer and more durable type of cotton) as
advertised and therefore did not warrant their $36 price tags. In
November 2022, Brooks Brothers was sued over claims its Fitted
Non-Iron Stretch Supima Cotton dress shirt, which was advertised as
containing 97 percent Supima cotton, consists of less than 52
percent of the fine-weaved material. Macy's was also hit with a
proposed class action lawsuit in June 2023 alleging its Oake-brand
comforter sets, duvet sets, coverlets, quilts and shams were
falsely advertised as "100% Cotton" given that the items contain a
polyester filling.
What Could I Get From a Class Action Lawsuit?
If filed and successful, a lawsuit could allow Fruit of the Loom
customers the chance to get back some of the money they spent on
Men's Tag-Free Cotton Briefs.
Attorneys believe consumers potentially wouldn't have bought the
underwear -- or paid as much as they did -- if they knew it wasn't
made with 100 percent cotton.
Plus, a successful case could force the manufacturer to change the
way the underwear is made or advertised.
If you bought Fruit of the Loom's Men's Tag-Free Cotton Briefs from
Amazon.com, Target.com or Fruit of the Loom's website since 2020,
fill out the form on this page and help this investigation.
After you get in touch, an attorney or legal representative may
reach out to you directly to ask you a few questions. It costs
nothing to get in touch, and you're not obligated to take legal
action after learning more about this investigation. [GN]
FUTU HOLDINGS: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP (www.ktmc.com)
informs investors that a securities class action lawsuit has been
against Futu Holdings Limited ("Futu") (NASDAQ: FUTU). The action
charges Futu with violations of the federal securities laws,
including omissions and fraudulent misrepresentations relating to
the company's business, operations, and prospects. As a result of
Futu's materially misleading statements and omissions to the
public, Futu's investors have suffered significant losses.
CLICK HERE TO SUBMIT YOUR FUTU LOSSES. YOU CAN ALSO CLICK ON THE
FOLLOWING LINK OR COPY AND PASTE IN YOUR BROWSER:
https://www.ktmc.com/new-cases/futu-holdings-limited?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=futu&mktm=r
LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE:AUGUST 11, 2023
CLASS PERIOD: APRIL 27, 2020 THROUGH MAY 16, 2023
CONTACT AN ATTORNEY TO DISCUSS YOUR RIGHTS:
Jonathan Naji, Esq. at (484) 270-1453 or via email at
info@ktmc.com
Kessler Topaz is one of the world's foremost advocates in
protecting the public against corporate fraud and other wrongdoing.
Our securities fraud litigators are regularly recognized as leaders
in the field individually and our firm is both feared and respected
among the defense bar and the insurance bar. We are proud to have
recovered billions of dollars for our clients and the classes of
shareholders we represent.
FUTU'S ALLEGED MISCONDUCT
On October 28, 2021, The Wall Street Journal published an article
stating that "[a] senior official at China's central bank said
cross-border online brokerages operating in mainland China were
acting illegally," and specified that Futu "[directs] prospective
clients in mainland China to open trading accounts in Hong Kong."
Following this news, Futu's stock price fell $8.55, or 12.8%, to
close at $58.47 per American Depositary Share ("ADS") on October
28, 2021.
Then, on December 17, 2021, after market hours, Reuters reported
that "Chinese officials are planning to ban online brokerages such
as Futu . . . from offering offshore trading services to mainland
clients, the latest development in a broad regulatory crackdown
that has roiled a wide range of sectors over the past year."
Following this news, Futu's stock price fell $0.45, or 1.2%, to
close at $38.18 per ADS on December 18, 2021.
On December 30, 2022, The Wall Street Journal published another
article stating that the China Securities Regulatory Commission had
determined that Futu's "act of offering offshore securities-trading
services to clients in mainland China doesn't comply with the
country's laws and regulations." Following this news, Futu's stock
price fell $18.26, or 31%, to close at $40.65 per ADS on December
20, 2022.
Finally, on May 16, 2023, Reuters reported that Futu would be
removing its app in mainland China. Following this news, Futu's
stock price fell $1.91, or 4.4%, to close at $41.24 per ADS on May
16, 2023.
WHAT CAN I DO?
Futuinvestors may, no later than August 11, 2023, move the Court to
serve as lead plaintiff for the class, through Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose to do nothing
and remain an absent class member. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check,
LLP encourages Futu investors who have suffered significant losses
to contact the firm directly to acquire more information. The class
action complaint against Futu, captioned Jennifer Henry v. Futu
Holdings Limited, et al and docketed under 23-cv-03222, is filed in
the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
before the Honorable Brian R. Martinotti.
CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR THE CASE
WHO CAN BE A LEAD PLAINTIFF?
A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of
all class members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff
is usually the investor or small group of investors who have the
largest financial interest and who are also adequate and typical of
the proposed class of investors. The lead plaintiff selects counsel
to represent the lead plaintiff and the class and these attorneys,
if approved by the court, are lead or class counsel. Your ability
to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether
or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.
ABOUT KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in
state and federal courts throughout the country and around the
world. The firm has developed a global reputation for excellence
and has recovered billions of dollars for victims of fraud and
other corporate misconduct. All of our work is driven by a common
goal: to protect investors, consumers, employees and others from
fraud, abuse, misconduct and negligence by businesses and
fiduciaries. The complaint in this action was not filed by Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For more information about Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP please visit www.ktmc.com.[GN]
GENERATION TUX: Sookul Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Generation Tux, Inc.
The case is styled as Sanjay Sookul, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Generation Tux, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-06298-VSB (S.D.N.Y., July 20, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Generation Tux -- https://www.generationtux.com/ -- is a
first-of-its-kind 'high tech, high touch' online tuxedo and suit
rental platform.[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
GEORGE A. WEISS: Andrew-Berry Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
------------------------------------------------------------------
Beth Andrew-Berry, individually and as a representative of the GWA,
LLC 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan and a class of similarly situated
persons v. George A. Weiss and GWA, LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-00978 (D.
Conn., July 24, 2023), is brought by the Plaintiff, who is a
participant in the GWA, LLC 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan (the
"Plan"), on behalf of the Plan and all participants and
beneficiaries in the Plan during the Class Period, pursuant to the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended
("ERISA") for violations of ERISA's fiduciary duties and prohibited
transactions provisions.
This action presents a paradigmatic case of conflicted fiduciaries
and their misuse of retirement plan assets to further their own
pecuniary interest, in violation of ERISA. The Defendants are the
fiduciaries responsible for managing the Plan and the employee
retirement assets held in the Plan. The Defendants violated ERISA's
fiduciary duties and its prohibitions on self-dealing by using the
Plan and its assets to advance the business interests of GWA, LLC
("GWA" or the "Company") and its founder, George A. Weiss, over
those of Plan participants—which are current and former employees
of the Company.
The Company is a hedge fund manager that offers investment
products, including its flagship hedge fund: the "Weiss
Multi-Strategy Partners (Cayman) Ltd." (the "Weiss Hedge Fund").
The Company created a mutual fund named the "Weiss Alternative
Multi-Strategy Fund" (the "Weiss Mutual Fund") in December 2015 and
the Company markets the Mutual Fund as deploying a neutral strategy
which generally "replicates" its Hedge Fund's strategy. Together
the Weiss Hedge Fund and Weiss Mutual Fund are referred to as the
"Weiss Funds."
Both Weiss Funds are considered "alternative investments" and are
designed to be used as alternatives to fixed income investments,
and fixed income is generally accepted as a minority allocation for
a "traditional portfolio" as reflected in the Company's marketing
materials.
The Defendants' portfolio allocation entirely to the Weiss Funds,
both of which used alternative strategies, is highly unprecedented.
Indeed, retirement industry studies have observed that only 0.1% of
defined contribution plan (i.e., 401(k) plan) assets are invested
in "alternative investments." Yet, 100% of the Plan's investments
(all of which are 401(k) assets) were and continue to be invested
in this niche category.
The Plaintiff is aware of no other retirement plan that maintains a
similar asset allocation as GWA's plan allocation. That
non-conflicted fiduciaries did not adopt Defendants' outlier
strategy is no accident. The Weiss Funds' alternative strategies
are not designed to be used for an entire retirement portfolio
because such portfolios must have substantial exposure to capital
appreciation asset, such as stocks/equities, and grow sufficiently
to provide for employees during the decades they may live after
retirement. By contrast, the Weiss Funds are intended to serve as
an alternative to a traditional fixed income fund, which is
generally only a minority allocation within a well-diversified
retirement portfolio.
The Defendants' conduct significantly impaired participants'
retirement savings. The Plan's portfolio bears no resemblance to
other retirement portfolios managed by non-conflicted fiduciaries.
And, because employees' retirement savings were used to prop up the
Weiss Funds, the Plan significantly underperformed a well-balanced
retirement portfolio.
Further, unlike the majority of defined contribution plans (i.e.,
401(k) plans), which provide a menu of fund options from which
employees can choose to invest their retirement savings, here the
Company retained all control over how employees' retirement savings
would be invested and directed those savings entirely into its own
investment products.
The Defendants abused their control over their employees'
retirement savings. Ultimately, Defendants invested 100% of the
Plan's assets in its own proprietary products (the 1 Weiss Funds,
both deploying alternative strategies) throughout the Class
Period.1 And, as a result, the employee retirement savings
Defendants managed are not invested in a single non-Weiss,
non-alternative strategy.
Further the Plan's investment expenses—mostly paid to Defendants
swelled substantially above average. As a result, Plan
participants' accounts are worth at least 30% less than they would
have been had the Plan been managed prudently, loyally, and in
strict conformance with ERISA's prohibited transaction rules.
Plaintiff brings this action to remedy these wrongs, restore all
losses suffered by the Plan and its participants, and obtain other
equitable relief as provided by ERISA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was an employee of George Weiss Associates, Inc. or
one of its affiliates from 2016 until 2022.
George A. Weiss is the Company's founder and CEO of the Company's
investment advisory subsidiary, Weiss Multi-Strategy Advisers
LLC.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michelle C. Yau, Esq.
Daniel R. Sutter, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
1100 New York Ave. NW, Fifth Floor
Washington, DC 20005
Phone: (202) 408-4600
Email: myau@cohenmilstein.com
dsutter@cohenmilstein.com
- and -
Kai H. Richter, Esq.
Caroline E. Bressman, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
400 South 4th Street, #401-27
Minneapolis, MN 55415
Phone: (202) 408-4600
Email: krichter@cohenmilstein.com
cbressman@cohenmilstein.com
GERALD SHAPIRO: Williams Suit Transferred to N.D. Georgia
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Eboni Williams, Debbie Shoemaker, Paula Mays,
Tina Kovelesky, and Shadrin Herring, as representatives of a class
of similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the A360, Inc.
Profit Sharing Plan, formerly known as the A360, Inc. Employee
Stock Ownership Plan v. Gerald Shapiro, Scott Brinkley, Jamie
Zelvin, Argent Trust Company, A360 Holdings LLC, and John and Jane
Does 1-10, Case No. 1:22-cv-04868 was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on July 21,
2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-03236-VMC to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as E.R.I.S.A. for Labor.
Gerry Shapiro is a co-founder of the LOGS Network of law
firms.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert E. Harrington III, Esq.
DUNN HARRINGTON LLC
22 W. Washington St., Suite 1500
Chicago, IL 60602-4086
Phone: (312) 548-7221
Email: reh@dunnharrington.com
- and -
Jennifer K. Lee, Esq.
Carl F. Engstrom, Esq.
ENGSTROM LEE MCDONOUGH THOMPSON & THOMSON LLC
1330 Lagoon Ave, 4th Fl
Minneapolis, MN 55408
Phone: 612-699-4703
Email: jlee@engstromlee.com
cengstrom@engstromlee.com
- and -
Paul J. Lukas, Esq.
NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
4700 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Phone: 612-256-3200
Email: lukas@nka.com
- and -
Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
WENZEL, FENTON, CABASSA, P.A.
1110 N. Florida Avenue, Suite 300
Tampa, FL 33602
Phone: 813-224-0431
Email: bhill@wfclaw.com
- and -
Marc Edelman, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Phone: (813) 223-5505
Email: medelman@forthepeople.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Bryan House, Esq.
Eileen Regina Ridley, Esq.
FOLEY & LARDNER-MILWAUKEE
777 East Wisconsin Avenue
Milwaukee, WI 53202-5367
Phone: (414) 271-2400
- and -
Chelsea McCarthy
HOLLAND & KNIGHT-CHICAGO
150 N. Riverside Plaza
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 263-3600
- and -
Todd David Wozniak
HOLLAND & KNIGHT, LLP
1180 W. Peachtree St., N.W., Suite 1800
Atlanta, GA 30309
Phone: (404) 817-8431
Fax: (404) 881-0470
Email: todd.wozniak@hklaw.com
GIVAUDAN SA: Faces Antitrust Class Action in New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------
Julia Wray, writing for Cosmetics Business, reports that a
prospective class action filed in a New Jersey, US court has become
the latest case mounted against fragrance giants Givaudan,
Firmenich, International Flavors & Fragrances (IFF) and Symrise.
The lawsuits follow the announcement of investigations by antitrust
authorities in Switzerland, Europe, the UK and the US into
suspected pricing collusion earlier this year.
This latest case was filed on 20 July on behalf of Texas-based
Crimson Candle Supplies and other US businesses selling scented
products, such as candles and soaps.
The complaint from Crimson Candle's lawyers read: "Defendants'
conspiracy to inflate the price of fragrances by allocating
products and customers harmed plaintiff and members of the class.
"Plaintiff and the class are the direct purchasers of fragrances
and fragrance ingredients from defendants."
Crimson Candle's case is represented by law firms Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart & Sullivan and Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, but other
plaintiffs' firms have filed cases, including Hausfeld, Berger
Montague, Gustafson Gluek and Korein Tillery, according to
Reuters.
On 7 March, Switzerland's Firmenich and Givaudan, US-headquartered
IFF and Germany's Symrise were subjected to dawn raids at various
locations by the Swiss Competition Commission (COMCO) working in
consultation with the European Commission, the US Department of
Justice Antitrust Division and the UK Competition and Markets
Authority (CMA).
At the time, all the companies in question told Cosmetics Business
that they were cooperating with the authorities, while a COMCO
representative confirmed that the investigation would examine
whether there had indeed been restrictions of competition
prohibited by cartel law.
They added that, given its complexity, the investigation would
probably last for two or three years.
In May, meanwhile, Symrise asked the Luxembourg-based General Court
to annul the European Commission's decision ordering the raids.
The German company argued the Commission "did not have sufficient
indicia providing reasonable grounds for suspecting the applicant's
involvement in any competition law infringement".
Sign up for your free email newsletter
It also took issue with the raid decision's wording, saying it "did
not place the applicant in a position to understand the scope of
the inspection, and thus exercise its rights of defence". [GN]
GKN DRIVELINE: Carson Sues Over Material Suppliers' Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN CARSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GKN DRIVELINE NORTH AMERICA, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-00583 (M.D.N.C., July 14, 2023) is a
class action against the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act for Plaintiff's unpaid
overtime compensation, unpaid wages, and related penalties and
damages.
Plaintiff Carson worked for the Defendant in its Sanford, North
Carolina, location as a non-exempt, hourly paid material supplier
from approximately February 6, 2014 to January 11, 2019.
GKN Driveline North America, Inc. designs, manufactures and
services systems and components for aircraft, vehicle and machinery
manufacturers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gilda A. Hernandez, Esq.
Hannah B. Simmons, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF GILDA A. HERNANDEZ, PLLC
1020 Southhill Drive, Ste. 130
Cary, NC 27513
Telephone: (919) 741-8693
Facsimile: (919) 869-1853
E-mail: ghernandez@gildahernandezlaw.com
hsimmons@gildahernandezlaw.com
GOLDEN STATE: Faces Class Action Suit Over FTX Collapse
-------------------------------------------------------
Katherine Ross, writing for Blockworks, reports that NBA's Golden
State Warriors and Stephen Curry are facing a class action lawsuit
over the collapse of FTX.
The class action lawsuit claims that both the Golden State Warriors
and Curry engaged in a conspiracy that "substantially assisted or
encouraged the wrongdoing conducted by the FTX Group."
"The FTX Group and Defendants made numerous misrepresentations and
omissions to Plaintiffs and Class Members about the deceptive FTX
platform in order to induce confidence and to drive consumers to
invest in what was ultimately a Ponzi scheme," the lawsuit claims.
They also claim that the Warriors "did not disclose that they were
being compensated by FTX for promoting the sale of unregistered FTX
securities."
The basketball franchise also allegedly "had a financial incentive
to induce Plaintiffs to invest with FTX" because it was an
international rights partner.
In 2021, the team announced a partnership with FTX. Sam
Bankman-Fried's exchange started as the official cryptocurrency
platform and NFT marketplace of the Golden State Warriors.
In April 2022, the Warriors offered an NFT collection in
partnership with FTX. Because the collection was minted on FTX,
fans "must have had a FTX US account to mint and participate in the
1-of-1 auction."
In addition, the partnership with Shaquille O'Neal and the Astrals
NFT project he developed with his son, Myles O'Neal, required
investors to have a "funded FTX account" in order to participate in
the sale.
Stephen Curry, one of the stars on the team, notched a global
ambassador deal with FTX in September 2021.
The lawsuit claims that Curry was "paid, at least in part, in FTX
stock and/or stock options – the value of which depended on the
financial success of FTX." Therefore, he had incentive to promote
the former crypto exchange.
After FTX declared bankruptcy in November of last year, the Golden
State Warriors axed their deals with FTX.
The Golden State Warriors aren't the only sports team to be
targeted in crypto-related lawsuits. Mark Cuban and his team, the
Dallas Mavericks, faced a lawsuit from Voyager customers after the
crypto lender also declared bankruptcy.
The lawsuit also claims that Voyager was a "massive Ponzi scheme."
The suit alleges that the Mavericks and Cuban "teamed up" with
Voyager and made "false representations and [employed] other means
of deception. As a result, the Voyager plaintiffs and Voyager class
members all sustained losses in excess of $5 billion."
Curry has been mentioned in another class action lawsuit involving
FTX, which was made infamous by Shaquille O'Neal after he managed
to evade process servers for months before being served in the
former FTX Arena. [GN]
GOOGLE LLC: Faces Class Action Suit in Calif. Over Autoplay Ads
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Haring, writing for Deadline, reports that a potential class
action lawsuit has been filed against Google, claiming it
overcharges advertisers for the "privilege of autoplaying their
advertisements into the void."
The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern
District in California. At issue is whether Google overcharged
advertisers by playing ads on sites that are not publicly indexed
or listed by search. The plaintiffs contend that results in
"autoplaying their advertisements into the void."
The action stems from Google's "TrueView" ad program. The
contention is that by autoplaying ads served to unlisted webpages,
it inflates metrics. The progam serves YouTube and other apps
across the web, charging advertisers for actual views rather than
impressions. The ads ask users if they want to skip the video after
five seconds.
The ads allegedly served to bots and that play out don't meet the
promised standards of actual views, the plaintiffs contend.
Analytics firm Adalytics claims that roughly 80 percent of Google's
video-ad placements on third-party sites violated its standards.
"This means that rather than requiring a consumer to actually click
on a video to see the advertisement, the video would effectively
play on its own," states the complaint. "This has the material
effect of downgrading the value of each 'view,' as some of these
views would not be a view at all. "So, rather than paying for
actual plays from actual potential customers, Google deceived
advertisers into paying for advertisement views by Google bots
itself."
Google didn't immediately issue a comment. [GN]
GUANTANAMERA CIGARS: Reguera Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Jose Enrique Reguera, and all others
similarly situated v. GUANTANAMERA CIGARS COMPANY, a Florida
Corporation, JOSE MONTAGNE, individually MARGARITA MONTAGNE,
individually, Case No. 2023-014974-CA-01 was removed from the
Circuit Court of the 11th Judicial District of Florida, to the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
on July 20, 2023, and assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-22718-XXXX.
The VGW Group specializes in the development and publication of
casino-themed social games for play on mobile apps and traditional
internet browsers. The Anonymous Plaintiff alleges that the VGW
Group's Luckyland Slots and Chumba Casino games violate Georgia
law.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Michael A. Pancier, Esq.
MICHAEL A. PANCIER
9000 Sheridan Street - Suite 93
Pembroke Pines, FL 33024
Phone: 954-862-2217
Email: mpancier@pancierlaw.com
GYMREAPERS LLC: Sookul Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against GYMREAPERS LLC. The
case is styled as Sanjay Sookul, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. GYMREAPERS LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-06295
(S.D.N.Y., July 20, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
GYMREAPERS LLC -- https://www.gymreapers.com/ -- offers
high-quality fitness gear, equipment, and apparel built for intense
workouts.[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
H&R BLOCK: Caimano Sues Over Unlawfully Shared Sensitive Data
-------------------------------------------------------------
Roni Sue Caimano, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated v. H&R BLOCK, INC., HRB Digital LLC, HRB Tax Group, Inc.,
Case No. 230702196 (Pa. Ct. of Common Pleas, Philadelphia Cty.,
July 21, 2023), is brought on behalf of Pennsylvania residents
against H&R Block for sharing sensitive taxpayer data with Meta
Platforms, Inc. ("Meta") and Google LLC and its affiliates
("Google") without the taxpayers' knowing and voluntary consent.
The confidential tax return information H&R Block unlawfully
intercepted, disclosed, disseminated, and transmitted to third
parties, including Meta and Google, included taxpayers' names;
personal identifiers, health savings account contributions; college
tuition grants, scholarships, and educational expenses; and the
specific pages visited by the taxpayers, such as those relating to
dependents, certain types of income, and certain tax credits and
deductions.
An investigative journalism website, The Markup, first disclosed in
2022 that H&R Block and several other major tax preparation
companies unlawfully used "pixels"--a piece of code that can be
installed on websites and which can send massive amounts of user
data to technology companies--to intercept and disclose tax return
information to Meta and Google. The report also revealed that H&R
Block used Google Analytics, which is a data-tracking tool offered
by Google to the same end.
Since The Markup first published its report, a congressional
investigation has confirmed that H&R Block's use of pixels and
Google Analytics has resulted in the disclosure, use dissemination,
transmission, and release of confidential tax return information to
Meta and Google. By intercepting, using, and sharing sensitive
taxpayer data, including tax return information, with Meta and
Google, H&R Block violated the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and
Electronic Surveillance Control Act ("Pennsylvania Wiretap Act"),
says the complaint.
The Plaintiff Caimano used H&R Block's online tax preparation and
filing services from 2020 to 2022.
H&R Block, Inc. is a publicly traded tax return preparer
corporation, incorporated in Missouri.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James P. Goslee, Esq.
Michael Coren, Esq.
Eric S. Pasternack, Esq.
COHEN, PLACITELLA & ROTH, P.C.
Two Commerce Square, Suite 2900
2001 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: 215-567-3500
Email: jgoslee@cprlaw.com
mcoren@cprlaw.com
epasternack@cprlaw.com
HAMPDEN-WILBRAHAM SCHOOL: Faces Wage-and-Hour Class Action Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Barry at masslive.com reports that the Wilbraham-Hampden
Regional School District is facing a class action lawsuit leveled
by up to 200 employees whose attorneys argue the district violated
the state's wage-and-hour laws and shorted workers on pay.
The lawsuit, filed earlier this month in Hampden County Superior
Court, says the district arbitrarily lengthened a two-week pay
period to three weeks over the spring and, thus, made employees
lose out on at least a week's worth of pay. [GN]
HARVARD MEDICAL: Two More Suits Filed Over Cadavers' Handling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Claire Yuan, writing for The Harvard Crimson, reports that families
affected by the mishandling of human remains donated to Harvard
Medical School filed two more class-action lawsuits earlier in July
month against the University.
Cedric Lodge, who worked in the Anatomical Gift Program's morgue,
was accused by federal prosecutors of stealing and transporting
human remains and indicted on charges of conspiracy and aiding and
abetting the interstate transport of stolen goods.
These are not the first class-action lawsuits to hit Harvard in the
aftermath of the federal investigation and Lodge's indictment. In
June, Keches Law Group filed a class action lawsuit against the
University and Lodge, alleging negligence, breach of fiduciary
duty, and infliction of emotional distress.
University spokesperson Jonathan L. Swain and Harvard Medical
School spokesperson Ekaterina D. Pesheva declined to comment on the
ongoing litigation.
The second class-action lawsuit, filed on July 13 against Harvard
College and Harvard Medical School, presents new details on Lodge's
behavior during his employment at the morgue, pointing to his car's
"flippant vanity" license plate that read "Grim-R" -- a reference
to the grim reaper, the suit argues -- and public Facebook posts
depicting Lodge dressed as an undertaker.
"This ghoulish black market was allowed to flourish in plain sight
operated by an HMS morgue employee whose lack of respect for the
dead was obvious to anyone who scrutinized his behavior," the
filing reads.
"Harvard became aware or should have become aware of problems with
Lodge indicating his unfitness to serve in his position," it
continues.
Anne Weiss, the lead plaintiff in the second class-action suit,
sought legal action against the Medical School and the University
after receiving a letter from Harvard Medical School Dean George Q.
Daley '82 indicating that her father's remains may have been among
those mishandled.
The lawsuit alleges that Harvard and Harvard Medical School
breached a duty to preserve the rights and dignity of donated
remains, thus inflicting "severe emotional distress" on the
plaintiffs.
Harvard's "actions were outrageous in character, go beyond all
possible bounds of decency, and are to be regarded as atrocious and
utterly intolerable in a civilized community," the suit reads.
Filed in the Massachusetts Suffolk County Superior Court by Sauder
Schelkopf and Bochetto & Lentz, the lawsuit sets forth four counts,
alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence,
interference with a corpse, and negligent hiring, supervision, and
retention.
The suit also cited a similar incident at the University of
California, Los Angeles Medical School in 2004 -- in which cadavers
were mishandled and sold -- resulting in new, more stringent
guidelines at the West Coast school.
The public nature of the UCLA case, the lawsuit argues, should have
led Harvard Medical School to be more diligent in taking "basic
precautions."
"Managers at Harvard Medical School -- which solicits and accepts
donated human remains -- would have been aware of the risks
revealed by the UCLA case," the filing reads. "Here, HMS either did
not have strict auditing practices which would have detected
Lodge's malfeasance before it was allowed to persist for a period
of years, or if they did have such guidelines, they failed to
follow them."
Lodge is not currently a defendant in this class action, but Joseph
G. Sauder -- one of the attorneys behind the second suit --
confirmed in a written statement that more parties may be added.
Sauder and Bryan R. Lentz -- another lawyer on the case -- said in
a press release that they "look forward to litigating this case on
behalf of our client, whose father's remains were entrusted to
Harvard Medical School."
"Harvard Medical School failed him, his family, and everyone
impacted by these horrific acts," they added.
The second lawsuit filed in July marks the third faced by Harvard
and the second by Lodge.
The first suit filed in federal court, the third class-action
lawsuit, filed against Harvard College and Lodge, alleges nine
counts, including negligence, reckless infliction of emotional
distress, breach of contract, and tortious interference with
remains.
Robert Johnson -- the lead plaintiff in the third suit, which was
filed by Mazow | McCullough -- is the son of Anne Weaver, who
donated her body to the Harvard Medical School morgue following her
death in 2017. Now, Johnson believes his mother's remains to be
among those mishandled.
Harvard's "reckless disregard of the consequences" constituted a
"gross dereliction of their duties," the filing reads.
Lodge could not be reached for comment. [GN]
HAWAII: $328M Settlement in Breach of Trust Suit Gets Final OK
--------------------------------------------------------------
kauainownews.com reports that after more than 20 years of
litigation, including two trials and two appeals to the Hawai'i
Supreme Court, Native Hawaiians who have waited decades to receive
a homestead award guaranteed to them under the Hawaiian Home Lands
Trust will finally be compensated.
Hawai'i 1st Circuit Court Judge Lisa W. Cataldo gave final approval
to the $328 million settlement with the state of Hawai'i in the
Kalima et al. v. State of Hawai'i class action breach of trust
lawsuit brought by 2,515 beneficiaries against the Department of
Hawaiian Home Lands. The lawsuit was filed in 1999 after the state
suspended a claims process set up under a 1991 statute.
The settlement compensates the beneficiaries for delays in
homestead awards and other harm resulting from the Department of
Hawaiian Home Lands' failures to manage the Home Lands Trust
properly.
"We and our clients are grateful that the court has approved our
plan to move forward to finally and fairly end this dispute by
distributing the payments to all class members who have valid
claims," said class co-counsel Carl Varady.
The Hawaiian Home Lands Trust was established in 1923. After the
state assumed the trust obligations as a condition of statehood in
1959, it sold trust lands to private parties, leased trust lands at
below market rates, removed trust lands to use for public purposes
and failed to properly fund the trust. As a result, more than
30,000 Native Hawaiians are currently waiting for homestead
awards.
During the 24 years of litigation since 1999, more than 1,100 class
members died waiting without receiving any relief, while the state
fought against their claims for compensation.
"We want to recognize and thank our class members and their
families for their commitment to resolve these long-standing
claims," said class co-counsel Tom Grande. "This has been a long
struggle and the resolution of this case has only been possible
through our collective efforts."
Varady said the settlement will provide an economic buffer for many
Hawaiian families struggling because they were denied the benefits
of a homestead award, which is their birthright.
"Our appreciation is tempered by the knowledge that nearly half of
the class members will not be with us to witness or celebrate the
court's ruling," he said.
Grande said the case sets up a unique probate process that will
allow for group resolution of the claims of the deceased class
members estates.
"This process will distribute approximately $100 million to the
heirs of the 1,100 deceased class members," he said.
Payments are expected to begin being distributed after Sept. 1.
Class members and relatives of those deceased members can get more
information by calling the claims administrator at 808-650-5551 or
1-833-639-1308 or online.
The state currently has nearly 10,000 beneficiaries on Hawaiian
homestead lands with another 27,000 on the waitlist.
In June 2020, the Hawai'i Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the
state breached its trust duty to Native Hawaiian beneficiaries of
the Hawaiian Home Lands Trust program by not awarding homestead
lots in a timely manner. The class action lawsuit was filed on
behalf of all beneficiaries who filed claims with the Hawaiian
Claims Panel between 1991 and 1995.
Then-Gov. David Ige announced the $328 million settlement in April
2022. [GN]
HCA HEALTHCARE INC: M.R. Files Suit in W.D. Missouri
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against HCA Healthcare, Inc.
The case is styled as M.R. and D.S. individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. HCA Healthcare, Inc.; Midwest
Division RMC, LLC doing business as: Research Medical Center;
Centerpoint Medical Center of Independence, LLC d/b/a Centerpoint
Medical Center; Case No. 4:23-cv-00496-BP (W.D. Mo., July 18,
2023).
The nature if suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
HCA Healthcare -- http://www.hcahealthcare.com/-- is an American
for-profit operator of health care facilities that was founded in
1968.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Maureen M. Brady, Esq.
MCSHANE & BRADY LLC
1656 Washington Street, Suite 140
Kansas City, MO 64108
Phone: (816) 888-8010
Fax: (816) 332-6295
Email: mbrady@mcshanebradylaw.com
HCA HEALTHCARE: Coats Sues Over Failure to Protect PII/PHI
----------------------------------------------------------
Michon Coats, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. HCA HEALTHCARE, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-00723 (M.D.
Tenn., July 20, 2023), is brought against the Defendant for their
breach by failing to implement and maintain reasonable safeguards
to protect patients' PII/PHI and failing to comply with
industry-standard data security practices
On July 10, 2023, HCA announced that it suffered a serious data
breach whereby an unauthorized party gained access to and extracted
patients' Personally Identifiable Information ("PII") and Personal
Health Information ("PHI") and made it available on an online forum
(the "Data Breach"). HCA admitted that it learned about the Data
Breach only after an unauthorized person(s) posted a list of
certain patient PII/PHI on an online forum.
The data exposed is comprised of approximately 27 million rows of
patient information. The stolen information includes at least
patients' names, cities, states, zip codes, emails, telephone
numbers, dates of birth, dates of service, location of service and
dates of next appointments. HCA also confirmed that information
used for email messages, such as reminders that patients may wish
to schedule an appointment and education on healthcare programs and
services was also accessed, extracted, and made available online.
Those individuals impacted by the Data Breach are now at serious
risk. Their most sensitive personal PII/PHI is in the possession of
cybercriminals seeking to profit from it and is now available on
underground websites for anyone to access.
As a result of HCA's failure to protect the sensitive information
it was entrusted to safeguard, Plaintiff and Class Members did not
receive the benefit of their bargain with HCA and now face a
significant risk of identity theft and fraud now and into the
indefinite future.
HCA is responsible for the breach by failing to implement and
maintain reasonable safeguards to protect patients' PII/PHI and
failing to comply with industry-standard data security practices.
Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and those
similarly situated to seek redress for the lifetime of harm they
will now face, including but not limited to reimbursement of losses
associated with identity theft and fraud, out-of-pocket costs
incurred to mitigate the risk of future harm, compensation for time
and effort spent responding to the Data Breach, the costs of
extended credit monitoring services and identity theft insurance,
and injunctive relief requiring HCA to implement and maintain
reasonable data security practices going forward, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is a resident and citizen of Missouri and a current
healthcare patient of HCA who is a victim of the Data Breach.
HCA Healthcare, Inc. is a Tennessee based for-profit operator of
health care facilities.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tricia Herzfeld, Esq.
Joe P. Leniski, Jr., Esq.
Benjamin A. Gastel, Esq.
Anthony Orlandi, Esq.
HERZFELD, SUETHOLZ, GASTEL, LENISKI and WALL PLLC
The Freedom Center
223 Rosa Parks Avenue, Suite 300
Nashville, TN 37203
Phone: (615) 800-6225
Email: tricia@hsglawgroup.com
joey@hsglawgroup.com
ben@hsglawgroup.com
tony@hsglawgroup.com
- and -
Norman E. Siegel, Esq.
Barrett J. Vahle, Esq.
J. Austin Moore, Esq.
Abby E. McClellan, Esq.
Brandi S. Spates, Esq.
STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
Kansas City, MO 64112
Phone: (816) 714-7100
Email: siegel@stuevesiegel.com
vahle@stuevesiegel.com
moore@stuevesiegel.com
spates@stuevesiegel.com
mcclellan@stuevesiegel.com
HCA HEALTHCARE: Delapaz Sues Over Failure to Safeguard Information
------------------------------------------------------------------
Laura Delapaz and Joshua Tuttle-Maceina, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. HCA HEALTHCARE, INC., Case No.
3:23-cv-00718 (M.D. Tenn., July 19, 2023), is brought against the
Defendant because Defendant collected but failed to secure and
safeguard the valuable Personal Information of patients.
On July 5, 2023, HCA detected hackers infiltrating its systems (the
“Data Breach”). These unauthorized attackers intentionally
compromised HCA’s systems and made off with 27 million rows of
data, including Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ names, dates of
birth, email addresses, phone numbers, and appointment information
(the “Personal Information”)--in short, much of the information
about Plaintiffs and Class Members a health services company would
have regarding its patients. On information and belief, the
information relates to both adult and child patients of HCA.
Troubling, HCA did not inform patients that their personal
information was compromised until on or about July 10, 2023. The
company has offered no assurance that it has adequately enhanced
its data security practices in the wake of the breach or that the
compromised data was recovered.
On July 5, 2023, DataBreaches.net broke the news that HCA
Healthcare data was up for sale on a deep web forum if the HCA did
not meet certain demands. HCA, however, has been minimally
forthcoming about the details of the Data Breach. HCA has a duty to
safeguard and protect members’ information entrusted to it and
could have prevented this theft by implementing adequate security
measures.
The Plaintiffs and Class Members entrusted HCA with, and allowed
HCA to gather, highly sensitive information relating to their
health and other matters as part of seeking medical treatment. They
did so in confidence, with the legitimate expectation that HCA
would respect their privacy and act appropriately.
The Defendant’s intentional, willful, reckless, unfair, and
negligent conduct--failing to prevent the breach, failing to limit
its severity, and failing to detect it in a timely fashion--harmed
the Plaintiffs and Class Members uniformly. For this reason, the
Defendant should pay for monetary damages and appropriate identity
theft protection services, as well as reimburse the Plaintiffs for
the costs caused by Defendant’s substandard security practices
and failure to timely disclose the same. The Plaintiffs are
likewise entitled to injunctive and other equitable relief that
safeguards their information, requires Defendant to improve its
data security significantly, and provides independent, expert
oversight of Defendant’s security systems, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs received medical services at HCA facilities.
HCA Healthcare Inc. is a Nashville-based health care company with
182 hospitals and approximately 2,300 sites of care in 20
states.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark P. Chalos, Esq.
Kenneth S. Byrd, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
222 2nd Ave S #1640
Nashville, TN 37201
Phone: 615-313-9000
Email: mchalos@lchb.com
kbyrd@lchb.com
- and -
Jason L. Lichtman, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLC
250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10013-1314
Phone: 212-355-9500
Email: jlichtman@lchb.com
- and -
Michael W. Sobol, Esq.
Jalle H. Dafa, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLC
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
Phone: 415-956-1000
Email: msobol@lchb.com
jdafa@lchb.com
- and -
John Spragens, Esq.
SPRAGENS LAW PLC
311 22nd Ave. N.
Nashville, TN 37203
Phone: (615) 983-8900
Fax: (615) 682-8533
Email: john@spragenslaw.com
HCA HEALTHCARE: Wallace Sues Over Inadequate Safeguarding of Data
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Suzanne Wallace, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. HCA HEALTHCARE, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-00738 (M.D.
Tenn., July 21, 2023), is brought arising out of the recent,
targeted cyberattack and data breach where unauthorized third-party
criminals retrieved and exfiltrated personal data from HCA's
network that resulted in unauthorized access to the highly
sensitive consumer data1 of Plaintiff, and, according to HCA, at
least 11 million Class Members ("Data Breach") and to address
Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Plaintiff's and Class
Members' Private Information that Defendant collected and
maintained.
Information compromised in the Data Breach includes personally
identifying information ("PII") and protected health information
("PHI") such as patient names, city, state, zip code, email,
telephone number, date of birth, and gender, as well as patient
service date, location, and next appointment (collectively, "PII"
and "PHI" is "Private Information").
The Defendant maintained the Private Information in a negligent
and/or reckless manner. In particular, the Private Information was
maintained on Defendant's computer system and network in a
condition vulnerable to cyberattacks. Upon information and belief,
the mechanism of the cyberattack and potential for improper
disclosure of Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information
was a known risk to Defendant, and thus Defendant was on notice
that failing to take steps necessary to secure Private Information
from those risks left that Private Information in a vulnerable
condition. In addition, HCA and its employees failed to properly
monitor the computer network and IT systems that housed the Private
Information.
As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff and Class Members face a
substantial risk of imminent and certainly impending harm.
Plaintiff and Class Members have and will continue to suffer
injuries associated with this risk, including but not limited to a
loss of time, mitigation expenses, and anxiety over the misuse of
their Private Information, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff recalls receiving the Email Notice from Defendant HCA
on July 17, 2023.
Nashville-based HCA is "one of the nation's leading providers of
healthcare services comprising 180 hospitals and approximately
2,300 ambulatory sites of care, including surgery centers,
freestanding ERs, urgent care centers, and physician clinics, in 20
states and the United Kingdom."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark P. Chalos, Esq.
Kenneth S. Byrd, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
222 2nd Ave S #1640
Nashville, TN 37201
Phone: 615-313-9000
Email: mchalos@lchb.com
kbyrd@lchb.com
- and -
Jason L. Lichtman, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLC
250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10013-1314
Phone: 212-355-9500
Email: jlichtman@lchb.com
- and -
Michael W. Sobol, Esq.
Jalle H. Dafa, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLC
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
Phone: 415-956-1000
Email: msobol@lchb.com
jdafa@lchb.com
- and -
James J. Pizzirusso, Esq.
Amanda V. Boltax, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
888 16th Street N.W., Suite 300
Washington, D.C. 20006
Phone: 202.540.7200
Email: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com
mboltax@hausfeld.com
- and -
Steven M. Nathan, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
33 Whitehall Street
Fourteenth Floor
New York, NY 10004
Phone: 646.357.1100
Email: snathan@hausfeld.com
- and -
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq.
Steven Sukert, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: 954-525-4100
Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com
cardoso@kolawyers.com
sukert@kolawyers.com
HEADLANDS VENTURES: DiMeglio Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Headlands Ventures,
LLC. The case is styled as Maria DiMeglio, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Headlands Ventures, LLC doing
business as: Mike's Bikes, Case No. 1:23-cv-06217-JPC (S.D.N.Y.,
July 19, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Headland Ventures LP -- https://www.headlandventures.com/ -- is a
Venture Partnership focused on early stage company investing.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ara Vahe Naljian, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 584-5575
Email: analjian@steinsakslegal.com
HILTON RESORTS: Faces Wage Class Action in California
-----------------------------------------------------
The San Diego labor law attorneys at Zakay Law Group, APLC and JCL
Law Firm, APC, filed a class action complaint against Hilton
Resorts Corporation, Hilton Grand Vacations Company, LLC and Hilton
Grand Vacations Management, LLC (collectively, hereinafter, "Hilton
Resorts & Hilton Grand Vacations") for allegedly failing to provide
meal and rest breaks. The class action lawsuit, Case No.
37-2023-00024664-CU-OE-CTL, is currently pending in the San Diego
County Superior Court of the State of California. A copy of the
Complaint can be read here --
https://zakaylaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Hilton-Grand-Resorts_Conformed-Complaint-1.pdf
According to the lawsuit, Hilton Resorts & Hilton Grand Vacations
allegedly violated California Labor Code Sections §§ 201, 202,
203, 204, 210, 226, 226.7, 246, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1,
1198 and 2802 by failing to: (1) pay minimum wages; (2) pay
overtime wages; (3) provide required meal and rest periods; (4)
provide accurate itemized wage statements; (5) provide wages when
due; and (6) reimburse for required business expenses.
As a result of their rigorous work schedules, Hilton Resorts &
Hilton Grand Vacations' employees were allegedly unable to take off
duty meal breaks and were not fully relieved of duty for meal
periods. Specifically, the lawsuit alleges employees were from time
to time interrupted during their off-duty meal breaks to complete
tasks for Hilton Resorts & Hilton Grand Vacations. Employees were
allegedly required to perform work as ordered by Hilton Resorts &
Hilton Grand Vacations for more than five (5) hours during a shift
without receiving an off-duty meal break. Further, the lawsuit
alleges Hilton Resorts & Hilton Grand Vacations failed to provide
employees with a second off-duty meal period each workday in which
these employees were required by Hilton Resorts & Hilton Grand
Vacations to work ten (10) hours of work. Hilton Resorts & Hilton
Grand Vacations' policy allegedly caused employees to remain
on-call and on duty during what was supposed to be their off-duty
meal periods. Employees therefore allegedly forfeited meal breaks
without additional compensation and in accordance with Hilton
Resorts & Hilton Grand Vacations' strict corporate policy and
practice.
If you would like to know more about the Hilton Resorts & Hilton
Grand Vacations lawsuit, please contact Attorney Jackland Hom today
by calling (619) 255-9047.
Zakay Law Group, APLC, and JCL Law Firm, APC are labor and
employment law firms with offices located in California that
dedicate their practices to fighting for employees who have been
wronged by their employers due to unfair employment practices.
Contact one of their attorneys today if you need help with
workplace issues regarding wage and hour, wrongful termination,
retaliation, discrimination, and harassment.[GN]
HONOLULU, HI: Sued Over Unconstitutional Houseless Policies
-----------------------------------------------------------
Candace Cheung, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that a
group of five houseless individuals in Honolulu have sued the city
over unconstitutional houseless policies and widespread "sweeps" of
encampments that they say violate their civil rights.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Hawaii filed the class action
on July 26 in Oahu Circuit Court on behalf of the five plaintiffs
and other houseless people who have been subject to what ACLU
called "a campaign of criminalization, harassment, displacement,
and property dispossession targeted exclusively at the houseless
community" in the suit.
"People experiencing houselessness have the same fundamental rights
under the U.S. and Hawaii Constitutions as those who are lucky
enough to have housing and shelter, yet the day-to-day reality
regarding the exercise of those rights is much different for our
houseless neighbors," said ACLU of Hawaii Legal Director Wookie Kim
in a statement. "Our plaintiffs and houseless neighbors are denied
these fundamental rights, and other constitutional guarantees, far
more flagrantly and far more often than housed people. The city is
essentially penalizing houseless people for their very existence."
According to Kim and the ACLU, ordinances and laws have unfairly
punished houseless people for their visibility in a state that
relies on an image of paradise.
The ACLU of Hawaii, along with Ginger Grimes of California's
Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian & Ho, note in the suit that there are
over 2000 unhoused individuals on Oahu and fewer than 50 vacancies
in shelters across the island. The plaintiffs say that this lack of
shelter space conflicts with city ordinances and laws that prohibit
camping, sitting or sleeping in public space.
These prohibitions have prompted the city to conduct regular sweeps
of houseless encampments, where personal belongings and shelters
are seized and Honolulu Police Officers make arrests and issue
citations without warning, and without recourse to recover personal
property. The plaintiffs say in the suit that they have lost
essential identification materials, medication and medical
equipment, clothing, cookware and sentimental items in these
sweeps.
"We believe there is no legal justification for continuing to deny
houseless people their fundamental rights when they have no other
choice but to live outdoors. Far from promoting sanitation and
safety, the sweeps perpetuate the cycle of poverty," ACLU of Hawaii
Staff Attorney Taylor Brack said. in a July 26 morning press
conference.
Breck said that these constant sweeps ensnare houseless individuals
— many of whom have faced significant traumas, often police-based
— into the criminal justice system with a cycle of arrests,
unpaid fines, missed court appearances and arrest warrants.
These sweeps and the ordinances are, according to the ACLU, a cruel
and unusual punishment in violation of the Aloha State's
Constitution. The organization is also pursuing due process claims
for restricting free movement, state-created danger and vagueness
against the city.
"The legal foundation for all of these sweeps are the overbroad,
vaguely written, selectively enforced web of city ordinances and
state laws aimed at criminalizing the innocent conduct that
houseless people have no other choice but to do in public spaces,"
Kim said, saying that the language of the policies could apply,
though they usually won't be, to a tourist napping on Waikiki Beach
or even to a business man stopping to take a phone call on the
sidewalk.
The ACLU was joined at the press conference by two of the lawsuit's
named plaintiffs.
Jared "Spider" Castro called the sweeps "stressful". According to
the ACLU, Castro has been issued over 200 citations associated with
his public living.
"Oahu is my home, I'm not homeless, I'm houseless," Faimafili
"Fili" Tupuola said, tearfully explaining that she has been trying
to save up for a year for permanent housing but has been stymied by
the constant sweeps.
"Starting over again every time, it really really takes a toll,"
she said.
Though housing insecurity has grown exponentially throughout all of
the U.S., especially after the Covid-19 pandemic, Hawaii stands
out. According to the National Low Income Housing Coalition, Hawaii
ranks as one of the least affordable states in the nation, trailing
only California in the largest gap between hourly wages and market
rental prices.
The ACLU has also reported that Hawaii is often one of the states
with the highest rate of houselessness per capita in the U.S, with
Native Hawaiians and other Pacific Islanders making up a
disproportionate portion of the houseless population.
According to an ACLU report, this spate of houseless ordinances
arose following former Honolulu mayor Kirk Caldwell's "War on
Homelessness" around 2014. Current Hawaii Governor Josh Green has
recently allocated funds intended for building affordable housing
throughout the islands.
A representative for the city and county of Honolulu said, "The
city is aware that a lawsuit has been filed. The Department of
Corporation Counsel is reviewing the allegations and cannot comment
at this time." [GN]
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Graham Appeals Denied Bid to Intervene in Zakikhani
------------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL A. GRAHAM is taking an appeal from a court order denying
his motions for reconsideration, intervention, and attorney's fees
and a service award in the lawsuit entitled Ramtin Zakikhani, et
al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Hyundai Motor Company, et al., Defendants, Case No.
8:20-cv-01584-SB-JDE, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
brought to redress the Defendants' misconduct of unfair, deceptive,
and fraudulent business practices, which result to ascertainable
loss of money, property, and loss in value, with regard to certain
defective vehicles.
The defective Class Vehicles include: 2007-2010 Hyundai Elantra;
2009-2011 Hyundai Elantra Touring; 2007-2008 Hyundai Entourage;
2007 Hyundai Santa Fe; 2006-2011 Hyundai Azera; 2006 Hyundai
Sonata; 2006 2010 Kia Sedona; 2007-2009 Kia Sorento; and 2008-2009
Kia Sportage.
According to the complaint, the Defendants knowingly failed to
recall hundreds of thousands of Class Vehicles containing a
potentially deadly defect-putting countless lives at risk from
approximately 2006 to this day. In April 2011, a public complaint
was filed with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
("NHTSA") by an owner of a 2010 Hyundai Elantra. The owner reported
that his or her "6-month-old Hyundai Elantra Touring caught fire
after sitting in his or her driveway for nine hours." Unable to
identify a cause for why a brand-new vehicle would spontaneously
erupt in flames, a forensic engineer was retained to determine the
cause of the vehicle-fire.
On August 15, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary
approval of a Class Action Settlement.
On October 17, 2022, the Plaintiff filed an Amended Settlement
Agreement which gained the Court's preliminary approval on October
20, 2022.
After considering the parties Amended Settlement Agreement, the
Plaintiffs' motions for final approval and attorneys' fees, costs,
and service awards, all supporting papers, the arguments of the
counsel, and all objections to the Settlement, Judge Stanley
Blumenfeld, Jr., granted final approval of the Settlement on May 5,
2023.
On May 10, 2023, Judge Blumenfeld entered Final Judgment in the
case.
On May 19, 2023, Objector Michael Graham filed motions for
reconsideration, to intervene, and attorney's fees and a service
award, which the Court denied on June 14, 2023.
The appellate case is captioned Ramtin Zakikhani, et al. v. Hyundai
Motor Company, et al., Case No. 23-55621, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on July 14, 2023.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant Michael A. Graham Mediation Questionnaire was due
on July 21, 2023;
-- Appellant Michael A. Graham opening brief is due on October
23, 2023;
-- Appellees Kimberly Elzinga, Hyundai Motor America, Hyundai
Motor Company, Melody Irish, Theodore Maddox Jr., Ana Olaciregui,
Steven Osterman, Elaine Peacock, Michael Summa, Patti Talley, Kecia
Taylor, Donna Tinsley, Jacqueline Washington, and Ramtin Zakikhani
answering brief is due on November 24, 2023; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees RAMTIN ZAKIKHANI, et al., on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Steve Berman, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN
1301 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-7292
- and -
Todd David Carpenter, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
1234 Camino del Mar
Del Mar, CA 92014
Telephone: (619) 762-1900
- and -
Katrina Carroll, Esq.
LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
Two Gateway Center, Suite 1201
Newark, NJ 07102
Telephone: (973) 623-3000
- and -
Elizabeth Anne Fegan, Esq.
FEGAN SCOTT LLC
150 S. Wacker Drive, 24th Floor
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 741-1019
- and -
John Barton Goplerud, Esq.
HUDSON MALLANEY SHINDLER AND ANDERSON PC
5015 Grand Ridge Dr., Suite 100
West Des Moines, IA 50265
Telephone: (515) 223-4567
- and -
Jennifer Lenze, Esq.
LENZE LAWYERS, PLC
1300 Highland Avenue, Suite 207
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
Telephone: (310) 322-8800
- and -
Rosanne L. Mah, Esq.
Rosemary Medellin Rivas, Esq.
David K. Stein, Esq.
GIBBS LAW GROUP, LLP
1111 Broadway, Suite 2100
Oakland, CA 94607
Telephone: (510) 350-9700
Defendants-Appellants HYUNDAI MOTOR COMPANY, et al. are represented
by:
John H. Beisner, Esq.
SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM, LLP
1440 New York Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 371-7410
- and -
Lance Etcheverry, Esq.
SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM, LLP
525 University Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Telephone: (650) 470-3170
- and -
Michael C. Minahan, Esq.
SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM, LLP
525 University Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Telephone: (650) 470-3128
- and -
Caroline Williams Van Ness, Esq.
SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM, LLP
300 S. Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 687-5000
Objector-Appellant MICHAEL A. GRAHAM is represented by:
Paul S. Rothstein, Esq.
626 NE 1st Street
Gainesville, FL 32601
Telephone: (352) 376-7650
JB RESTAURANT: Guerrero Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
----------------------------------------------------------
OLIVIA GUERRERO, individually, and on behalf of other members of
the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JB RESTAURANT
#4365, INC., a California corporation; JB RESTAURANT #401, INC., a
California corporation; JB RESTAURANT #438, INC., a California
corporation; JB RESTAURANT #476, INC., a California corporation; JB
RESTAURANT #483, INC., a California corporation; JB RESTAURANT
#3419, INC., a California corporation; JB RESTAURANT #3425, INC., a
California corporation; JB RESTAURANT #3462, INC., a California
corporation; JB RESTAURANT #3464, INC., a California corporation;
JB RESTAURANT #4388, INC., a California corporation; LJ & MW
ENTERPRISES, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 23CV418940 (Cal. Super., Santa
Clara Cty., July 17, 2023) arises from the Defendants' alleged
violations of the California Labor Code and the California Business
& Professions Code.
The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants' failure to pay minimum and
overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to
authorize and permit rest periods, non-compliant wage statements
and failure to maintain payroll records, failure to timely pay
wages upon termination, failure to timely pay wages during
employment, failure to reimburse business expenses, and engagement
in unlawful and unfair business practices.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an hourly paid,
non-exempt cook from approximately December 2015 to March 2023.
JB Restaurant is a California-based restaurant company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bevin Allen Pike, Esq.
Daniel S. Jonathan, Esq.
Trisha K. Monesi, Esq.
CAPSTONE LAW APC
1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 556-4811
Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
E-mail: Bevin.Pike@capstonelawyers.com
Daniel.Jonathan@capstonelawyers.com
Trisha.Monesi@capstonelawyers.com
JFC INTERNATIONAL: Fletes Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
JORGE FLETES, an individual, on behalf of himself, all aggrieved
employees, and the State of California as a Private Attorneys
General, Plaintiff v. JFC INTERNATIONAL, INC., a California
corporation and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendant, Case No.
23STCV16676 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 17, 2023) is a
class action brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendant for
civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act, Labor
Code.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has had a consistent
policy and/or practice of: (1) failing to comply with California
Law concerning payment of lawful wage for all hours worked,
including overtime hours worked; (2) failing to pay minimum wage;
(3) failing to provide timely meal breaks and second meal breaks;
(4) failing to provide rest breaks; (5) failing to pay accrued
vacation upon separation; (6) failing to provide accurate itemized
wage statements.
Plaintiff Fletes worked for Defendant as a local driver and
warehouse worker on an hourly, non-exempt basis until May 20,
2022.
JFC International, Inc. is a wholesaler and distributor of Asian
foods in California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is 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
E-mail: 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
E-mail: sahagii@aol.com
garen@majarianlawgroup.com
JINKOSOLAR HOLDING: Rosen Law Continues Probe for Potential Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues
to investigate potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of JinkoSolar Holding Co., Ltd (NYSE: JKS) resulting
from allegations that JinkoSolar may have issued materially
misleading business information to the investing public.
SO WHAT: If you purchased JinkoSolar 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=16025 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 9, 2023, before trading hours, the
Jacksonville Daily Record published an article entitled "Federal
agents issue search warrant at JinkoSolar plant in Cecil Commerce
Center: Homeland Security said it is part of an ongoing
investigation; the factory, whose parent company is in China,
opened in Jacksonville in 2018." The Jacksonville Daily Record
reported that "[a]ccording to the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
federal agents were assisting the Department of Homeland Security
with the execution of a search warrant." Further, the article cited
WJXT News4Jax, stating that JinkoSolar is one of several companies
under investigation by the U.S. Commerce Department for
circumventing trade rules by sending products to other countries
before moving them to the U.S.
On this news, JinkoSolar's American depositary receipt ("ADR")
price fell $3.91 per ADR, or 8%, to close at $43.47 per ADR on May
9, 2023, on unusually heavy trading volume.
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. [GN]
JOINT CORP: Goodrich Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Joint Corp. The
case is styled as George Goodrich, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. The Joint Corp. d/b/a The Joint
Chiropractic, Case No. 3:23-cv-19442-MCR-ZCB (N.D. Fla., July 18,
2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
The Joint Corp. -- https://ir.thejoint.com/ -- is a franchisor of
chiropractic clinics that operates on a non-insurance, cash-based
model.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq.
EGGNATZ PASCUCCI P.A.
7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230
Davie, FL 33314
Phone: (954) 889-3359
Fax: (954) 889-5913
Email: jeggnatz@justiceearned.com
- and -
Alexander Jan Yura Korolinsky
LAW OFFICE OF ALEXANDER J KOROLINSKY - SUNRISE FL
1580 Sawgrass Corporate Parkway, Suite 130
Sunrise, FL 33323
Phone: (877) 448-8404
Email: korolinsky@ajklegal.com
JPMORGAN CHASE: Forex Rigging Class Action Can Proceed
------------------------------------------------------
Katharine Gemmell, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that banks
including JPMorgan Chase & Co, Barclays Plc and Citigroup Inc will
face a class action suit over allegations of foreign exchange
manipulation after a London judge gave a full trial the go-ahead.
The FX collusion claim, which is also being brought against NatWest
Group Plc, UBS Group AG and Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group Inc,
could be worth as much as £2.7 billion ($3.5 billion), according
to estimates from lawyers Hausfeld running the suit.
The claims stem from the banks' participation in unlawful FX spot
trading cartels between 2007 and 2013. The lenders subsequently
admitted the behavior to the European Commission and were fined
EUR1.1 billion ($1.2 billion).
Traders' manipulation of benchmark foreign-exchange rates was
exposed in 2013, triggering regulatory probes in the US, the UK and
Switzerland. More than a dozen financial institutions have paid
over $12 billion in fines and penalties globally, with billions
more spent to compensate customers and investors.
A spokesperson from Barclays didn't respond to a request for
comment. Spokespeople from the other five banks declined to
comment.
Judges at London's Court of Appeal ruled on July 25 that a class
action case against the lenders could proceed on what's known as a
"opt-out basis." This means that the suit is filed brought on
behalf of potentially thousands of market participants impacted by
the collusion without needing their permission to proceed.
The UK's opt-out class action regime, known as collective
proceedings, began to gain traction in 2021. No claims were allowed
to go ahead in the five years the process came into effect in 2015,
but in 2021 the first batch of suits were given the green light.
There are several pending claims against Big Tech's market
dominance in the Competition Appeal Tribunal.
"This ruling acknowledges the practical difficulties of opt-in
legal proceedings and confirms the access to justice principle
which underpins the collective action regime," Phillip Evans, the
representative of the group, said. "The opt-out approach is crucial
to ensure that claims may be pursued on behalf of all affected
individuals and businesses." [GN]
KRAFT HEINZ: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Oct. 10
------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky informs shareholders of KHC, WFC, EXC, TV that a
settlement has been reached in a pending class action lawsuit
against each of these companies. To receive a pro-rata share of the
settlement proceeds, members of the class must file a claim form by
the designated dates as listed below:
The Kraft Heinz Company (Nasdaq: KHC) - A settlement was reached in
the class action settlement against The Kraft Heinz Company in
which a settlement fund of $450,000,000 was created for the benefit
of class members. The deadline for submitting a claim is October
10, 2023. To find out more, please go to
https://zlk.com/settlement/the-kraft-heinz-company.
Wells Fargo & Company (NYSE: WFC) - A settlement was reached in the
class action settlement against Wells Fargo & Company in which a
settlement fund of $1,000,000,000 was created for the benefit of
class members. The deadline for submitting a claim is October 5,
2023. To find out more, please go to
https://zlk.com/settlement/wells-fargo-company.
Exelon Corporation (Nasdaq: EXC) - A settlement was reached in the
class action settlement against Exelon Corporation in which a
settlement fund of $173,000,000 was created for the benefit of
class members. The deadline for submitting a claim is September 28,
2023. To find out more, please go to
https://zlk.com/settlement/exelon-corporation.
Grupo Televisa, S.A.B. (NYSE: TV) - A settlement was reached in the
class action settlement against Grupo Televisa in which a
settlement fund of $95,000,000 was created for the benefit of class
members. The deadline for submitting a claim is August 8, 2023. To
find out more, please go to
https://zlk.com/settlement/grupo-televisa-s-a-b.
Levi & Korsinsky did not act as lead counsel or otherwise
participate in litigating the above class actions and provides this
information to remind class members of the deadlines to submit a
claim for a share of any of these settlement funds.
Over the past 20 years, the team at Levi & Korsinsky has secured
hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders and
built a track record of winning high-stakes cases. Our firm has
extensive expertise representing investors in complex securities
litigation and a team of over 70 employees to serve our clients.
For seven years in a row, Levi & Korsinsky has ranked in ISS
Securities Class Action Services' Top 50 Report as one of the top
securities litigation firms in the United States.
CONTACT:
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
Ed Korsinsky, Esq.
55 Broadway, 4th Floor Suite #427
New York, NY 10006
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
www.zlk.com [GN]
LILYANA NATURALS: Cox Sues Over Mislabeled Eye Cream Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
JAIME COX; and VICENTE BACA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LILYANA NATURALS, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 4:23-cv-03568 (N.D. Cal., July 18, 2023) is an
action regarding the Defendant's false and misleading labeling and
marketing of its LilyAna Eye Cream and Face Cream products.
The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendant knows
that the Products contain ingredients that are not natural, but are
actually synthetic. Even so, the Defendant continues to make
natural misrepresentations because the Defendant is aware that
consumers choose LilyAna Naturals skincare products over other
skincare products based on natural labeling statements and
branding.
The complaint asserts that LilyAna Naturals Eye Cream contains
Propylene Glycol or Polysorbate 60, two synthetic ingredients, and
the LilyAna Face Cream contains Polysorbate 60. These said
substances are both unnatural, laboratory made ingredients, says
the suit.
The Plaintiffs and Class Members would not have paid to purchase
the Defendant's Products, or would not have paid as much as they
did to purchase them, had they known they are not, in fact,
natural.
LILYANA NATURALS, LLC is an American family-run company that
manufactures skincare products for women. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
Jenna L. Gavenman, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 N. California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
jgavenman@bursor.com
LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Kirby McInerney File Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
Kirby McInerney LLP on July 26 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District
of Northern Ohio on behalf of persons and entities that purchased
or otherwise acquired against Lordstown Motors Corp. ("Lordstown"
or the "Company") (NASDAQ: RIDE) securities during the period from
August 4, 2022 through and including June 26, 2023 (the "Class
Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims against certain Lordstown
officers under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").
Investors have 60 days from the date of this notice to move the
Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in this action.
The lawsuit alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Lordstown
represented publicly that it had been working collaboratively with
Hon Hai Technology Group ("Foxconn") in the context of the
companies' joint venture. However, on June 27, 2023, Lordstown
revealed in a court filing that, contrary to Lordstown's Class
Period representations, the Company's vital partnership with
Foxconn had long been in jeopardy and Foxconn's conduct toward
Lordstown had been anything but collaborative. Lordstown filed
litigation against Foxconn and several of its subsidiaries in the
U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware alleging
Foxconn's fraud, bad faith, and failure to live up to its
commercial and financial commitments to the Company.
On this news, the Company's stock price fell $0.54 per share, over
21%, to close at $2.29 per share on June 27, 2023.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants repeatedly made and/or caused
Lordstown to make false and/or misleading statements about
Lordstown's relationship with Foxconn suggesting, or in some
instances, representing that Foxconn was working cooperatively with
Lordstown when in fact, the partnership had stalled soon after the
execution of a joint venture agreement and quickly soured.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Lordstown securities during
the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than 60 days from
the date of this notice to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a
member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you
may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an
absent member of the Class. If you purchased or otherwise acquired
Lordstown securities, have information, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact Lauren K. Molinaro of
Kirby McInerney LLP by email at investigations@kmllp.com, to
discuss your rights or interests with respect to these matters
without any cost to you. If you inquire by email please include
your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares
purchased.
Kirby McInerney LLP is a New York-based plaintiffs' law firm
concentrating in securities, antitrust, whistleblower, and consumer
litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in
securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling billions
of dollars. Additional information about the firm can be found at
Kirby McInerney LLP's website: http://www.kmllp.com.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contacts
Kirby McInerney LLP
Lauren K. Molinaro, Esq.
212-699-1180
https://www.kmllp.com
investigations@kmllp.com [GN]
MACKENZIE FINANCIAL: Faces Suit Over GoAnywhere MFT Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Sellers, writing for Wealth Professional, reports that
multiple class action lawsuits have already been launched in the
United States following the massive data breaches and exploitation
related to Fortra's GoAnywhere MFT file transfer software in
January.
Now those lawsuits may be piling up north of the border. A law firm
in Saskatchewan, Canada - Merchant Law Group, has launched a
nationwide class action suit. The claimants in this suit are
Canadian investors in Mackenzie Financial who allege their personal
information was compromised in a hack linked to GoAnywhere.
The defendants in this case include Mackenzie Financial and Edward
Jones; Investor.com, a company responsible for managing information
provided to clients of investment firms; and Fortra.
For a class action suit to move forward, it needs the approval of a
judge.
The lawsuit brought forth on behalf of Mackenzie investors residing
in B.C., Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Newfoundland and Labrador,
asserts that Mackenzie and Edward Jones enlisted the services of
Investor.com for data transfer. This included the exchange of
personal and financial details between employees and partners.
Investor.com and Edward Jones purportedly utilized the cloud
version of GoAnwhere (named GoAnywhere MFTaaS) for this purpose.
According to the lawsuit, hackers took advantage of a zero-day flaw
in GoAnywhere MFTaaS in late January. This allowed them to set up
unauthorized accounts in the systems of certain public and private
sector clients and proceed to duplicate data. Fortra confirmed this
incident in a public statement later.
On March 28, Investor.com allegedly informed Mackenzie and Edward
Jones about the breach in GoAnywhere MFTaaS and revealed that
names, addresses, and Social Insurance numbers of Mackenzie's
customers had been exposed.
The Cl0p ransomware group has publicly claimed responsibility for
the breach. The lawsuit attempts to link this recent attack to a
similar incident that occurred in 2021, where the Cl0p gang
exploited a vulnerability in the Accellion file transfer
application.
"The Defendants failed to take precautionary steps despite the
well-documented history of Clop attackers employing similar
strategies to steal data from over 100 companies using Accellion
FTA," says the lawsuit. It further claims that despite numerous
advisories published in 2021 detailing the cause of the previous
attack and suggesting prevention methods, the defendants didn't
show due diligence in thwarting potential attacks on GoAnywhere.
These accusations are yet to be substantiated in court.
In May, Mackenzie Financial assured InvestmentExecutive.com that
customers' financial details, such as account balances and
holdings, were not impacted by the breach.
Several organizations have disclosed that they fell prey to the
GoAnywhere vulnerability, including Hitachi Energy, Cineplex, Onex,
and Charles Schwab/TD Ameritrade.
In the United States, various class actions have been filed against
both Fortra and its clients. DataBreachToday.com reports that
NationsBenefits Holdings, a third-party benefits administrator, and
health insurance provider Aetna are among the implicated parties.
The allegations in these lawsuits are yet to be confirmed in court.
[GN]
MAIN LINE: Faces Privacy Class Action in Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------
ALM reports that Main Line Fertility, an operator of a fertility
clinics in the greater Philadelphia area, was hit with a privacy
class action on July 21 in Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas for
Philadelphia County. The lawsuit is part of a string of cases
accusing health care providers of intercepting and disclosing
patients' private information through the use of website tracking
pixels. The case is backed by Salz, Mongeluzzi, & Bendesky; Cohen &
Malad; Stranch, Jennings & Garvey; and Turke & Strauss. Counsel
have not yet appeared for the defendants. The case is 230702146,
Doe Vs Main Line Fertility Ltd Etal.
This suit was surfaced by Law.com Radar, a source for high-speed
legal news and litigation updates personalized to your practice.
Law.com Radar publishes daily updates on just-filed federal cases
like this one. Click here to get started and be first to know about
new suits in your region, practice area or client sector. [GN]
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Faces Class Action Over "Junk Fees"
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey McCroskey, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a
proposed class action lawsuit claims Marriott has charged hotel
guests unfair and unlawful nightly "junk fees" under the pretense
that the revenue goes toward the cost of complying with a Los
Angeles city ordinance.
The 14-page lawsuit says that after the Hotel Worker Protection
Ordinance (HWPO) went into effect in August 2022—requiring hotels
in the city of Los Angeles to implement specific policies to
protect employees from exploitation, sexual harassment and sexual
assault—Marriott began to impose a so-called "Hotel Worker
Protection Ordinance Costs Surcharge" on guests staying at select
Los Angeles hotels.
Although Marriott represents to guests that the nightly HWPO
surcharge is a "local fee" that goes toward the cost of complying
with the city ordinance, the total revenue brought in by the fee
"far exceeds" these costs, the suit alleges.
Further, the HWPO fee Marriott charges guests is not mandated by
the City of Los Angeles, the case relays. Rather, it is a surcharge
that the hotel chain elects to assess "at its sole discretion," the
complaint explains.
"The HWPO Fee is nothing more than a 'junk fee' under the guise of
'worker protection,' directly benefiting Marriott at the expense of
their guests," the filing argues.
Defendants Marriott International, Inc. and subsidiaries Courtyard
Management, LLC and Marriott Hotel Services, LLC operate a number
of hotels in Los Angeles, the lawsuit says. Per the case, the HWPO
fee assessed by select Marriott-owned hotels in the area is
disclosed to guests via a banner on the booking website and ranges
from roughly $10 to $14 per room per night, depending on the
location.
According to the suit, the Los Angeles Airport Marriott alone
generates more than $10,000 per night and over $3.6 million
annually by charging guests HWPO fees.
The complaint contends that the surcharge gives Marriott an unfair
advantage over its competition by allowing it to advertise rooms at
a lower price than it actually charges, as the "hidden" HWPO fee is
only added to the total during booking.
One of the plaintiffs, a California resident, stayed at a Residence
Inn by Marriott hotel in June 2023 and was assessed an $11.92 HWPO
fee during her stay, the filing states. Another California-based
plaintiff stayed at the Los Angeles Airport Marriott around the
same time and says she was charged an HWPO fee of $13.87 per
night.
The lawsuit looks to represent any current and former Marriott
hotel guests in Los Angeles who were charged a hotel worker
protection fee or surcharge at any time since August 12, 2022. [GN]
MAXAR TECHNOLOGIES: $27MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Nov. 9
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP issued a statement regarding the
Maxar Securities Litigation:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-00124-WJM-SKC
Consolidated with Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-00758-WJM-SKC
OREGON LABORERS EMPLOYERS PENSION TRUST FUND, Individually and On
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
MAXAR TECHNOLOGIES INC.,
HOWARD L. LANCE, and
ANIL WIRASEKARA,
Defendants.
SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND PLAN OF ALLOCATION;
(II) SETTLEMENT HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF
ATTORNEYS' FEES AND LITIGATION EXPENSES
O: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED
MAXAR TECHNOLOGIES, INC. ("MAXAR") COMMON STOCK DURING THE PERIOD
FROM MAY 9, 2018 THROUGH OCTOBER 30, 2018, INCLUSIVE, AND WERE
DAMAGED THEREBY (THE "CLASS" OR "CLASS MEMBERS"), AND ARE NOT
OTHERWISE EXCLUDED FROM THE CLASS
THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT. IT IS NOT A LAWYER
SOLICITATION. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS
ENTIRETY.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the District of Colorado (the "Court"), that the
Court-appointed Class Representative, Oregon Laborers Employers
Pension Trust Fund, on behalf of itself and all members of the
certified Class, and defendants Maxar, Howard L. Lance, and Anil
Wirasekara (collectively, "Defendants"), have reached a proposed
settlement of the claims in the above-captioned action (the
"Action") in the amount of $27 million (the "Settlement").
A hearing will be held on November 9, 2023, at 10:00 a.m. MST,
before the Honorable William J. Martinez, United States District
Judge, in person, in Courtroom A801, at the United States District
Court for the District of Colorado, Alfred A. Arraj United States
Courthouse, 901 19th Street, Denver, CO 80294 to determine, among
other things, whether: (1) the proposed $27 million Settlement
should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate;
(2) the Judgment as provided under the Stipulation of Settlement
(the "Stipulation") should be entered dismissing the Action with
prejudice; (3) Lead Counsel's application for an award of
attorneys' fees of 30% of the Settlement Fund and expenses not to
exceed $1,000,000, plus an award to Lead Plaintiff for its time and
expenses in representing the Class, should be approved; and (4) the
Plan of Allocation should be approved by the Court as fair and
reasonable.1 The Court reserves the right to approve the
Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, and Lead Counsel's motion for
an award of attorneys' fees and expenses and/or consider any other
matter related to the Settlement at or after the Settlement Hearing
without further notice to the Members of the Class.
To determine whether the date and time of the Settlement Hearing
have changed, it is important that you monitor the Court's docket
and the Settlement website before making any plans to attend the
Settlement Hearing. Any updates regarding the Settlement Hearing,
including any changes to the date or time of the hearing, will also
be posted to the Settlement website,
www.MaxarSecuritiesClassLitigation.com.
If you are a Member of the Class, your rights will be affected by
the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be entitled to
share in the Settlement Fund. If you have not yet received the
Notice of (I) Proposed Settlement and Plan of Allocation; (II)
Settlement Hearing; and (III) Motion for an Award of Attorneys'
Fees and Litigation Expenses (the "Settlement Notice") and Proof of
Claim and Release Form ("Claim Form"), you may obtain copies of
these documents by visiting the Settlement Website,
www.MaxarSecuritiesClassLitigation.com, or by contacting the Claims
Administrator at:
Maxar Securities Litigation
Claims Administrator
c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC
P.O. Box 301133
Los Angeles, CA 90030-1133
1-888-756-7518
info@MaxarSecuritiesClassLitigation.com
Copies of the Settlement Notice and Claim Form are also available
by accessing the Court docket in this case, for a fee, through the
Court's Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system at
https://ecf.cod.uscourts.gov, or by visiting the Office of the
Clerk, Alfred A. Arraj United States Courthouse, 901 19th Street,
Denver, CO 80294, during normal business hours.
Inquiries, other than requests for the Settlement Notice or a Claim
Form or for information about the status of a claim, may be made to
Lead Counsel:
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
ELLEN GUSIKOFF STEWART
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: 1-800-449-4900
settlementinfo@rgrdlaw.com
If you are a Class Member, to be eligible to share in the
distribution of the Settlement Fund, you must submit a Claim Form
postmarked or submitted online no later than October 20, 2023. If
you are a Class Member and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you
will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the net
proceeds of the Settlement but you will nevertheless be bound by
any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action.
If you are a Class Member and wish to exclude yourself from the
Class, you must submit a written request for exclusion in
accordance with the requirements set by the Court and the
instructions set forth in the Settlement Notice so that it is
postmarked no later than September 25, 2023. If you properly
exclude yourself from the Class, you will not be bound by any
judgments or orders entered by the Court, whether favorable or
unfavorable, and you will not be eligible to share in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund.
Any objections to the proposed Settlement, Lead Counsel's motion
for attorneys' fees and litigation expenses, and/or the proposed
Plan of Allocation must be filed with the Court by September 25,
2023, either by mail or in person, and be mailed to counsel for the
Settling Parties in accordance with the instructions in the
Settlement Notice, such that they are postmarked no later than
September 25, 2023.
PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL
REGARDING THIS NOTICE
DATED: June 5, 2023
BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF COLORADO
META PLATFORMS: Investigated Over Alleged Privacy Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are investigating whether a
class action lawsuit can be filed on behalf of Us Weekly magazine
subscribers and newsletter recipients over potential privacy
violations.
It's believed that the magazine's owner may have used a tracking
tool called the Meta pixel on its website to secretly gather data
about these individuals -- specifically, their Facebook IDs and
details about the videos they've watched on UsMagazine.com -- and
passed this data along to Meta without each person's informed,
written consent.
Attorneys suspect that the website's operator may have violated the
federal Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) by sharing consumers'
private information without permission.
If you're a Facebook user who subscribed to Us Weekly (print or
digital) or received one of its newsletters (including Us Daily,
Stylish by Us or Shop with Us) and watched videos on UsMagazine.com
within the past two years, fill out the form on this page. You may
be able to help get a class action lawsuit started.
How Could Us Weekly Be Sharing Data with Facebook?
Many website operators gather data about the people who visit their
websites by using an invisible tracking tool called the Meta
(formerly known as Facebook) pixel.
The pixel, which can be embedded on any webpage, can be programmed
to record every action a visitor takes, such as the buttons they
click, the searches they perform and the content they view.
In the case of UsMagazine.com, attorneys are specifically looking
into whether the website is tracking which videos its users have
watched and sending that information to Meta along with each
person's Facebook ID. A Facebook ID is a unique identifier linked
to an individual's Facebook profile and could potentially be used
to match up a specific person with the videos they've watched on Us
Weekly's website.
In general, the data collected by a website through the Meta pixel
can be used by both the website operator and the social media giant
to better target advertisements to their users.
It's believed that Us Weekly's suspected data sharing practices may
violate the federal Video Privacy Protection Act, which prohibits
"video tape service providers" from disclosing to third parties any
information that identifies the video materials a person has
requested or watched without their consent.
How Could a Class Action Lawsuit Help?
A class action lawsuit, if filed and successful, could help Us
Weekly subscribers and newsletter recipients get back money for
potential privacy violations.
Though there are no guarantees as to how much money each person
could get through a class action lawsuit, the VPPA provides that
companies may be responsible for paying consumers $2,500 for
violations of the law.
A lawsuit could also potentially force Us Weekly's owner to change
its data privacy practices.
What You Can Do
If you have a Facebook account, subscribed to Us Weekly magazine
(either print or digital) or signed up for one of its newsletters,
and watched videos on UsMagazine.com within the past two years,
fill out the form on this page.
After you get in touch, an attorney or legal representative may
reach out to you directly to tell you more about how you may be
able to help get a class action lawsuit started. It costs nothing
to fill out the form or talk to someone about your legal options,
and you're not obligated to take legal action if you don't want to.
[GN]
META PLATFORMS: Liberty Board of Education Joins Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hailey Rogenski, writing for Tribune Chronicle, reports that the
Liberty Board of Education joined a class-action lawsuit against
Meta, TikTok, YouTube and Snapchat at the July 24 board meeting
upon establishing an attorney-client fee contract.
The contract is with attorneys Peters, Kalail and Markakis Co.,
LPA, and Frantz Law Group. The school district will not be charged
attorney fees or pay any money that isn't earned in the lawsuit.
The lawsuit originally was filed by Frantz Law Group, a
professional law corporation that was suing on behalf of several
California schools. The two firms have entered into a co-counsel
agreement to bring Ohio schools into the lawsuit.
Board President David Malone said social media is negatively
impacting the students.
"They have a lot of bullying and harassment that goes on (online),"
he said. "Social media has affected every school in America in a
negative way because it's not monitored by parents and that's where
most of your bullying and harassment takes place, through social
media, not necessarily directly in the schools."
The agenda, written by the school board, states that social media
is an "epidemic" among students and that it "has led to issues that
jeopardize student development."
In other business, the board:
-- Approved placing a 0.90-mill, five-year permanent improvement
levy renewal on the November ballot. The owner of a $100,000 home
would continue paying $21 per year, and it would raise $169,000
annually;
-- Approved placing a five-year, emergency tax levy renewal on
the November ballot. The owner of a $100,000 home would continue
paying $119 per year, and it would raise $839,531 annually;
-- Approved transfers for fiscal year 2024 from the general
fund: $45,000 will go toward the athletic fund, $100,000 will go
toward turf replacement, and $165,000 will go into the energy
conservation bond fund;
-- Approved the resignation of Liberty Elementary School
Principal Andrew Scarmack, effective Aug. 1, and the retirement of
intervention assistant Rosalie Emanuel, effective Jan. 4, 2024,
after 24 years with the district;
-- Approved a two-year administrative contract to new Liberty
Elementary School Principal Jason Yemma, effective Aug. 1 to July
31, 2025, at an annual salary of $87,967;
-- Approved a one-year limited contract to Mary DelColle as
intervention specialist at a salary of $40,393;
-- Approved a one-year limited contract to new bus driver Jeremy
Morris at a rate of $20.50 per hour;
-- Approved hiring long-term second-grade substitute teacher
Allie Gumont, substitute custodian Lori Shobel and substitute bus
drivers Mike Thompson, Darlene Sierra and Bob Catchpole. [GN]
META PLATFORMS: Northwestern School Joins Suit Over Mental Health
-----------------------------------------------------------------
finance.yahoo.com reports that Northwestern School Corporation is
adding its name to a class action lawsuit that alleges social media
platforms are detrimental to children's mental health and cause
self-destructive behaviors.
Social media users and families claim excessive exposure to apps
like Facebook lead to suicide and other actual and attempted self
harm.
Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, is a defendant
in the lawsuit, as are Google, Snapchat and TikTok.
United States Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy issued an advisory
in May calling for action by legislators, technology companies,
families and children to better understand the harms of social
media and create safer online environments for children.
"There is growing evidence that social media use is associated with
harm to young people's mental health," Murthy said in a prepared
statement. "Children are exposed to harmful content on social
media, ranging from violent and sexual content, to bullying and
harassment.
The Northwestern School Board approved joining the lawsuit.
"Social media . . . has such a negative effect on our students,"
said Superintendent Kristen Bilkey.
The case is in the early stages, but if the court finds for the
plaintiffs or a settlement is reached, Northwestern will be
entitled to compensation. How much is unknown.
Bilkey said any funds will likely be put toward educating students
about the dangers of social media.
Joining the lawsuit will not cost the school district any money,
regardless of outcome.
This is the second class action lawsuit the Northwestern has joined
in the past year.
Northwestern entered a lawsuit against electronic cigarette
manufacturer Juul in 2022. The lawsuit alleged Juul purposefully
marketed its products, which contain nicotine, to minors.
Juul settled the lawsuit late last year, resulting in payouts for
schools that joined onto the lawsuit. Kokomo, Northwestern and
Western all received settlement payments.
The lawsuit against social media companies will test if the
websites and their algorithms -- how social media posts are
filtered on one's feed -- are products, according to an Axios
report. If they can be considered products, there's the question of
if companies can be held liable for contributing harm.
Previn Warren, an attorney at the law firm representing the
plaintiffs, told Axios the lawsuit aims to put pressure on social
media companies to make changes, given inadequate legislation on
the issue.
Bilkey said the case is expected to take longer than the one with
Juul.
The legal filings against tech companies follows allegations by
Frances Haugen, former Facebook employee and whistleblower, who
disclosed thousands of internal documents. These documents have led
to numerous allegations, including Facebook knew of its impact on
children's mental health.
It remains to be seen if other area school districts will also join
the suit.
Spencer Durham can be reached at 765-454-8598, by email at
spencer.durham@kokomotribune.com or on Twitter at @Durham_KT. [GN]
MICHIGAN AVENUE: Settles Cornell Suit Over Unprotected Health Info
------------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that Michigan Avenue Immediate Care
agreed to a class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims that
it failed to protect patients from a 2021 data breach.
The settlement benefits individuals whose personally identifiable
information, protected health information and/or protected
biometrics were compromised in the Michigan Avenue Immediate Care
(MAIC) data breach in May 2022.
In May 2021, cybercriminals allegedly hacked MAIC and gained access
to the identifiers, health information and biometrics of 144,104
patients. According to five class action lawsuits against the
healthcare provider, MAIC failed to take reasonable cybersecurity
measures to protect this sensitive information.
Michigan Avenue Immediate Care is an urgent care system in Chicago
that specializes in small medical urgencies and non-emergencies.
MAIC hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay an
undisclosed sum to resolve the data breach class action lawsuit.
Under the terms of the Michigan Avenue Immediate Care settlement,
class members can receive a flat rate cash payment of $50 or they
can make specific claims for data breach losses. Claimable data
breach losses include bank fees, communication charges, credit
costs, identity theft expenses, fraudulent charges and more.
Class members who experienced other documented losses as a result
of the data breach can receive up to $2,500 for these losses.
Class members can also claim up to four hours of lost time
compensated at a rate of $25 per hour for a maximum lost time
payment of $100.
The deadline for exclusion and objection was June 19, 2023.
The final approval hearing for the Michigan Avenue Immediate Care
settlement was scheduled Aug. 15, 2023.
Who's Eligible
Individuals whose personal identifiable information, protected
health information and/or protected biometrics were compromised in
the Michigan Avenue Immediate Care (MIAC) data breach in May 2022
Potential Award
$2,500
Proof of Purchase
Documentation of data breach-related expenses and losses
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.
Case Name
Lhota, et al. v. Michigan Avenue Immediate Care S.C., Case No.
2022CH06616; Chen, et al. v. Michigan Avenue Immediate Care S.C.,
Case No. 2022CH07101; Newberry v. Michigan Avenue Immediate Care
S.C., Case No. 2022CH07128; and Fagla, et al. v. Michigan Avenue
Immediate Care S.C., Case No. 2022CH07692, all in the Circuit Court
for Cook County
Cornell v. Michigan Avenue Immediate Care S.C., Case No.
1:22-cv03885, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois
Settlement Website
MAICIncident.com
Claims Administrator
MAIC Settlement Administrator
c/o RG/2 Claims Administration LLC
P.O. Box 59479
Philadelphia, PA 19102-9479
info@rg2claims.com
800-266-1652
Class Counsel
Kenneth A Wexler
Bethany R Turke
Eaghan S Davis
WEXLER BOLEY & ELGERSMA
Samuel J Strauss
Raina C Borrelli
TURKE & STRAUSS
Carl V Malmstrom
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERT LLC
Thomas A Zimmerman Jr
Matthew C De Re
ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES PC
Marc E Dann
Brian D Flick
DANNLAW
Gary E Mason
Danielle L Perry
MASON LLP
Daniel O Herrera
Nickolas J Hagman
Olivia Lawless
CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
Gary M Klinger
David K Leitz
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
Defense Counsel
Mark Olthoff
Brisa Wolfe
Kevin Hogan
POLSINELLI PC [GN]
MICROSOFT CORP: Faces Class Action Over Private Data Collection
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Mehorter, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a
proposed class action claims Microsoft Corporation has failed to
adequately inform Microsoft Edge users that it programmed certain
versions of the web browser to intercept and collect a wide range
of private data relating to their internet activity.
The 92-page case alleges the tech behemoth, which first released
Edge in 2015 to succeed Internet Explorer, has designed versions
90, 92 and 93 of the browser (as well as earlier and later
iterations) to track users' internet browsing activities, searches
and online shopping behavior, even when they're using an
"InPrivate" window to browse in Microsoft's supposedly incognito
mode. According to the complaint, Microsoft uses this data to
improve its software, services and devices, provide targeted
advertising and develop its artificial intelligence and
machine-learning systems, such as ChatGPT.
The plaintiffs, four individuals who use Edge to search the
internet, say they were completely unaware of -- and therefore,
could not consent to -- Microsoft's interception, collection and
use of their private data.
What data does Microsoft allegedly collect?
The suit contends that versions 90, 92 and 93 of Edge, all of which
were released in 2021, intercept the text users type into a
website's search bar and the URLs of each webpage they visit. Edge
then sends this data to the Microsoft Bing server, the filing
says.
In addition, version 92 Edge users who set Yahoo as their default
search engine and don't use an InPrivate window have data about
their search engine queries collected and sent to Microsoft's
SmartScreen server, the case claims.
The lawsuit alleges that the three versions of Edge also intercept,
collect and send to the Microsoft-controlled servers "a plethora"
of data associated with users' shopping habits, including on
Amazon.com, eBay.com, Walmart.com and BestBuy.com.
Specifically, the defendant intercepts and collects "the URLs users
visit, the search terms they input, the contents of the product
pages they view (e.g., product reviews, product images), and the
contents of their shopping carts," the complaint says, claiming
that Edge tracks this data "with no regard for the nature of the
product a user browses or purchases, even those items for intimate
use."
According to the suit, Microsoft is able to identify individual
users and link them with their internet activities by installing
unique user identifiers and/or cookies on their devices as it
intercepts their data.
"By associating the collected private data with the unique user
identifiers and cookies, Defendant can and does determine
individual users' precise internet browsing activities and habits,"
the case states. "Defendant thus utilized and configured Versions
90, 92, and 93, and earlier and later versions of the Edge browser
to intercept, collect and process personally identifiable private
data."
The lawsuit stresses that Edge can link a specific user to their
internet browsing data even when they are using an InPrivate window
-- despite Microsoft's claims that its private browsing window
deletes users' browsing information when they close it and
"prevents Microsoft Bing searches from being associated with
[users]."
Further, earlier and later versions of Edge also collect and store
on Microsoft servers "a wide range of data" about users' internet
browsing and online shopping activities, including "at least some
of the same categories of data" collected by versions 90, 92 and
93, the suit claims.
Microsoft's alleged misconduct constitutes a "serious invasion of
privacy" in violation of several federal and state laws that
require companies to transparently disclose their data collection
practices to users, the suit charges. The filing further chides the
defendant over its alleged use of consumers' data for commercial
profit "without providing anything of value" to Edge users in
exchange for their private information.
Edge users are unaware of Microsoft's data collection practices,
lawsuit says
The lawsuit explains that because Edge comes pre-installed as the
default browser on most new Windows devices, this "massive swath"
of Microsoft's user base who had Edge "forced upon them" are given
no notice of the company's "highly intrusive" data collection
practices.
Consumers who download the software on their own must scroll
through Microsoft's software license terms and click a separate
link to view its "flawed and deficient" privacy statement, the case
contends. What's more, Microsoft does not require consumers to
scroll through its terms or click on the privacy statement before
they can download the web browser, the suit says.
As the case tells it, these electronic documents have "no legal
effect" because the company's interception and use of consumers'
data is "not conspicuously, immediately or directly presented" to
users.
Who does the case look to cover?
The lawsuit looks to represent anyone in the United States who, at
any time since July 29, 2015, used Microsoft's Edge browser to
browse, enter keyword searches or visit URLs and whose
communications, including personal information, online browsing
activity, keyword searches, or visited URLs were intercepted,
received, or collected by Microsoft Corporation.
How do I join the lawsuit?
There's usually nothing you need to do to join or be included in a
proposed class action lawsuit when it's first filed. It's only if
and when the case settles that those who have been affected, i.e.,
the "class members," may be notified directly and will likely need
to fill out and file a claim form online or by mail.
If you've used Microsoft Edge within the past several years, or
simply want to stay in the loop on class action lawsuit and
settlement news, sign up for ClassAction.org's free weekly
newsletter. [GN]
MICROVAST HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues
to investigate potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of Microvast Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: MVST, MVSTW)
resulting from allegations that Microvast may have issued
materially misleading business information to the investing
public.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Microvast 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=16538 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 22, 2023, Reuters reported that the U.S.
Department of Energy (DoE) canceled a $200M grant to lithium
battery manufacturer, Microvast, citing lawmakers' concerns over
Microvast's alleged links to the Chinese Communist Party. Microvast
has been in talks with the DoE over the grant to help build a plant
in Tennessee to support its work with General Motors developing
specialized electric vehicle batteries.
On this news, Microvast's stock price fell $0.80 per share, or
36.36% to close at $1.40 per share on May 23, 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. [GN]
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Pitts Appeals Denied Bid to Intervene in Flores
------------------------------------------------------------------
DR. JAQUEL PITTS, Ph.D., an interested party, is taking an appeal
from a court order denying his motion to intervene and become a
plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled Brian Flores, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. The National Football League et al., Defendants, Case
No. 1:22-cv-00871, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.
The class action complaint seeks an award of injunctive relief to
address discriminatory policies and practices, award of
compensatory damages for, including, but not limited to, loss of
reputation, loss of opportunity and mental anguish, punitive
damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest on all amounts due,
award of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and such other and
further relief resulting from discrimination under Section 1981 of
the U.S. Constitution, New York State Human Rights Law, New York
City Human Rights Law and the New Jersey Law Against
Discrimination.
The Defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration and to stay the
current proceedings, which the Court granted in part and denied in
part through an Order entered by Judge Valerie Caproni.
Dr. Jaquel Pitts, Ph. D., an interested party, filed a motion to
intervene, which the Court denied through an Order entered by Judge
Caproni. The Court ruled that Mr. Pitts has not adequately pled
sufficient, non−conclusory facts to establish that he has an
interest in the subject of this lawsuit, a statutory right to
intervene, or a common claim or defense with the parties as
required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24.
The appellate case is captioned Flores v. The National Football
League et al., Case No. 23-1027, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on July 14, 2023. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees BRIAN FLORES, et al., on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, are represented by:
David Evan Gottlieb, Esq.
WIGDOR LLP
85 Fifth Avenue, 5th fl.
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 257-6800
Facsimile: (212) 257-6845
E-mail: dgottlieb@wigdorlaw.com
- and -
John Elefterakis, Esq.
ELEFTERAKIS & ELEFTERAKIS P.C.
112 Madison Ave
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 532-1116
Facsimile: (212) 532-1176
E-mail: john@elefterakislaw.com
- and -
Johnson Lassiter Atkinson, Esq.
ELEFTERAKIS, ELEFTERAKIS & PANEK
80 Pine Street, 38th Floor
Woodside, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 532-1116
E-mail: jatkinson@elefterakislaw.com
- and -
Michael John Willemin, Esq.
WIGDOR LLP
85 Fifth Avenue, 5th fl.
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 257-6829
Facsimile: (212) 257-6845
E-mail: mwillemin@wigdorlaw.com
- and -
Douglas Holden Wigdor, Esq.
WIGDOR LLP
85 Fifth Avenue, 5th fl.
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 239-9292
Facsimile: (212) 239-9001
E-mail: dwigdor@wigdorlaw.com
Defendants-Appellees THE NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE, et al. are
represented by:
Brad Scott Karp, Esq.
PAUL WEISS (NY)
1285 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 373-2384
Facsimile: (212) 373-2384
E-mail: bkarp@paulweiss.com
- and -
Brette Morgan Tannenbaum, Esq.
PAUL WEISS (NY)
1285 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 373-3852
Facsimile: (212) 492-0852
E-mail: btannenbaum@paulweiss.com
- and -
Loretta Lynch, Esq.
PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP
1285 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 373-3000
E-mail: lelynch@paulweiss.com
- and -
Lynn Beth Bayard, Esq.
PAUL WEISS (NY)
1285 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 373-3054
Facsimile: (212) 373-2730
E-mail: lbayard@paulweiss.com
- and -
Maia Usui, Esq.
PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP
1285 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 373-3000
E-mail: musui@paulweiss.com
NAVIENT CORP: Settles Student Loan Borrowers' Suit for $198MM
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Blumenthal, writing for Philadelphia Business Journal, reports
that student loan servicer Navient Corp. agreed to a class action
settlement worth $198 million with private student loan borrowers
who claimed their bills should have been discharged in bankruptcy.
It provides relief to roughly 4,600 student borrowers whose loans
exceeded college tuition costs. The plaintiffs alleged Navient
violated their legal rights by continuing efforts to collect on
debts that were discharged in bankruptcy. [GN]
NEW YORK, NY: Settles Suit Over George Floyd Protests for $13M
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Nartey at face2faceafrica.com reports that in a
significant development, New York City has reached a settlement to
pay over $13 million to resolve a civil rights lawsuit representing
approximately 1,300 individuals who faced arrests or violence at
the hands of the police during the racial injustice demonstrations
that swept the city in the summer of 2020. The settlement, filed in
Manhattan federal court, is expected to be one of the largest
payouts ever awarded in a lawsuit involving mass arrests.
The lawsuit specifically focused on 18 of the numerous protests
that erupted in New York City following the killing of George Floyd
by a police officer in Minneapolis. Under the terms of the
settlement, except for certain cases, each person arrested or
subjected to force by the NYPD officers during those events will be
eligible for compensation of $9,950.
The agreement comes as a relief for the city as it enables it to
avoid a potentially costly and politically contentious trial. Many
other cities across the United States are also in the process of
negotiating their settlements with protesters who participated in
the Black Lives Matter protests, during which approximately 10,000
people were arrested within a few days to protest racist police
brutality after Floyd's death, according to Associated Press.
The plaintiffs in the New York lawsuit were represented by the
National Lawyers Guild, who accused NYPD leaders of violating the
protesters' First Amendment rights through a coordinated campaign
of indiscriminate brutality and unlawful arrests. On the other
hand, the city's attorneys argued that the police were responding
to chaotic and unprecedented situations, citing incidents of unruly
protests where police vehicles were set on fire, and officers were
attacked with rocks and plastic bottles.
During the 2020 protest marches, NYPD officers employed the crowd
control tactic known as kettling, where peaceful protesters were
corralled into tight spaces and subjected to attacks with batons
and pepper spray before being mass-arrested. One of the named
plaintiffs, Adama Sow, described how their group of marchers was
trapped by the police without warning, leading to their
mistreatment and traumatization.
Throughout the litigation, the city relied on qualified immunity,
which shields police officers from lawsuits arising from lawful
actions performed in the line of duty. The city defended the
decision to arrest medics and legal observers, asserting that it
was within the department's rights.
The lawsuit targeted former Mayor Bill de Blasio, retired NYPD
Commissioner Dermot Shea, and other police leaders as defendants,
though the settlement does not require any admission of wrongdoing
from either the city or the NYPD.
However, the settlement does not seek to change the NYPD's
practices, unlike some other lawsuits related to the 2020 protests,
which aim for injunctive relief.
Another class action settlement was also announced earlier in the
year, awarding $21,500 to those arrested during a demonstration in
the Bronx, potentially costing the city around $10 million,
including legal fees. Additionally, over 600 individuals have
brought individual claims against New York City concerning police
actions during the 2020 protests, with approximately half of them
resulting in settlements and resolutions, amounting to nearly $12
million. [GN]
NEXT LEVEL RELIEF: Brooks Files FLSA Suit in W.D. Kentucky
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Next Level Relief,
LLC, et al. The case is styled as Dwan Brooks, individually and on
behalf of those similarly-situated v. Next Level Relief, LLC,
Brandon Cain, Justin Bowie, Case No. 3:23-cv-00365-DJH (W.D. Ky.,
July 18, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Acts for the Denial of Overtime Compensation.
Next Level Relief -- https://www.nextlevelrelief.us/ -- provide
short and long term response and recovery services to communities
impacted in the Mid-Atlantic and South Eastern United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark N. Foster, Esq.
P.O. Box 869
Madisonville, KY 42431
Phone: (270) 213-1303
Fax: (270) 821-3158
Email: mfoster@marknfoster.com
- and -
Philip Bohrer, Esq.
Scott E. Brady, Esq.
BOHRER LAW FIRM
8712 Jefferson Hwy., Ste. B
Baton Rouge, LA 70809
Phone: (225) 925-5297
Fax: (225) 231-7000
NEXTGEN LEADS: Faces Class Action Over Unsolicited Robocalls
------------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey McCroskey, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a
proposed class action lawsuit has been filed against NextGen Leads,
LLC by a consumer who claims to have received numerous unsolicited
robocalls from the company in July 2023.
The 12-page lawsuit says the company, which generates health
insurance and Medicare leads, violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA)—which aims to protect citizens from
unwanted telemarketing contact—when it made repeated robocalls to
the plaintiff, an Alabama resident with whom the defendant had no
prior relationship.
The suit alleges the company also breached the TCPA by placing
prerecorded calls to phone numbers on the National Do Not Call
Registry.
According to the case, the plaintiff received a prerecorded
telemarketing call from NextGen on July 7 of this year, despite
never seeking the company's services. The woman claims she did not
provide consent to be contacted, as required under the TCPA.
Though the plaintiff said she was not interested in the defendant's
services, NextGen called her four more times that day, the
complaint shares.
The plaintiff says she was "annoyed and harassed" and felt the
calls were an invasion of her privacy.
Other consumers have lodged similar complaints about NextGen's
telemarketing tactics, the filing explains. In fact, one consumer
-- who claims to have been listed on the National Do Not Call list
since 2015 -- posted on the Better Business Bureau's website that
they had "received 12+ calls" from NextGen in one week, despite
"firmly request[ing]" that the calls cease, the case states.
The lawsuit looks to represent anyone in the United States who,
within the past four years, received one or more prerecorded calls
on their cell phone from NextGen Leads using the same, or
substantially similar, message used to contact the plaintiff. The
suit also looks to cover anyone in the United States whose phone
number has been listed on the National Do Not Call Registry for at
least 30 days and who, since July 20, 2019, received more than one
telemarketing call from NextGen within a 12-month period. [GN]
NEXTMARVEL INC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Cleveland Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
NIA CLEVELAND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NEXTMARVEL INC. D/B/A VOOGLAM, Defendant,
Case No. 8:23-cv-01918-GLS (D. Md., July 18, 2023) seeks to stop
the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls.
NEXTMARVEL INC. D/B/A VOOGLAM is engaged in the business as an
online eyeglass retailer. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sergei Lemberg, Esq.
LEMBERG LAW, L.L.C.
43 Danbury Road, 3rd Floor
Wilton, CT 06897
Telephone: (203) 653-2250
Facsimile: (203) 653-3424
NONSTOP ADMINISTRATION: Nicholson Suit Removed to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Natalie Nicholson, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Nonstop Administration and
Insurance Services, Inc., Case No. 23STCV05512 was removed from the
Los Angeles Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California on July 18, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:23-cv-03567-KAW to the
proceeding.
The nature Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Nonstop Wellness -- https://www.nonstophealth.com/ -- is a health
insurance solution for nonprofit organizations.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
Mona Amini, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
245 Fischer Avenue Suite D1
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Phone: (800) 400-6808
Fax: (800) 520-5523
Email: ak@kazlg.com
mona@kazlg.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Carolyn Taylor, Esq.
Michelle Lynn Bains, Esq.
Roger Gallic Perkins, Esq.
CLARK HILL PLC
600 West Broadway, Ste. 500
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (619) 557-0404
Fax: (619) 557-0460
Email: ctaylor@clarkhill.com
mbains@clarkhill.com
rperkins@clarkhill.com
NORTON HEALTHCARE: Faces Class Action Over May 9 Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
Valerie Chinn, writing for WDRB, reports that a federal class
action lawsuit was filed against Norton Healthcare on behalf of
employees and patients whose personal information was stolen from
Norton's servers in a cyber attack earlier this year.
The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court on Friday, July 21, by
Lanisha Malone, a former employee who worked at Norton Healthcare
from 2015-22 and a longtime patient of the network. But as a class
action lawsuit, it is filed on behalf of anyone affected by the
data breach.
To date, Norton Healthcare has been tight-lipped about the May 9
data breach, which it refers to as a "cyber event." That breach has
been the subject of speculation for weeks as the company works to
recover its information and patients struggle to obtain
prescriptions and schedule appointments.
Despite having knowledge of what Norton calls a "cyber event" on
May 9, the lawsuit accuses the network of failing to notify the
people affected or the state attorneys general offices in the
affected areas.
"We intend to vigorously defend ourselves in any litigation
associated with the cyber event we experienced earlier this year,"
Norton spokeswoman Renee Murphy said on July 25 "However, it is our
practice not to comment on any pending litigation."
The lawsuit claims that a wide range of victims' personal data was
stolen by hackers, including, "names, addresses, dates of birth,
email addresses, Social Security numbers, government identification
information/driver's license numbers, payment/financial institution
information, health insurance providers, medical treatment
information, medical diagnoses, medications, medical images, and
lab results."
As a result of of illegally obtaining this private data, the
lawsuit lists a number of opportunities for hackers to further
exploit victims' personal information, including, "opening new
financial accounts in Class Members' names, taking out loans in
Class Members' names, using Class Members' information to obtain
government benefits, filing fraudulent tax returns using Class
Members' information, filing false medical claims using Class
Members' information, obtaining driver's licenses in Class Members'
names but with another person's photograph, and giving false
information to police during an arrest."
Since the May 9 event, the lawsuit said an online group of
cybercriminals going by the name "BlackCat" has taken
responsibility for the cyber attack and publicly leaked stolen
information as proof.
According to the lawsuit, Norton notified the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services about the data breach around July 7. The
lawsuit says Norton was only able to include a "placeholder" of
having affected 501 individuals. The lawsuit says, to date, Norton
has not provided the actual number of affected people to HHS.
Norton said it has reported the breach to HHS, but there is not a
list of individuals, as the case is under investigation.
The lawsuit states that Malone, the plaintiff, found out that her
private information was on the so-called "dark web" sometime in
June, when she was contacted by her bank about a suspicious $1,500
charge on her debit card. The bank was able to block it, but she's
also been getting letters and phone calls about car payments she
does not owe. She has since had to get new credit and debit cards
and spends two hours a week monitoring her transactions and credit
reports for suspicious activity.
"Having to do this every week not only wastes her time as a result
of Norton's negligence, but it also causes her great anxiety," the
lawsuit states. "She is constantly worried about the adverse impact
of this Data Breach on her personal and financial safety."
To date, the lawsuit says Malone and other victims have not been
notified by Norton that their personal information was hacked.
"Norton knew of the breach since May 9, 2023 and as of July 21,
2023, has not yet notified the victims," the lawsuit states.
"Norton offers no explanation of purpose for the long delay on its
website. This delay violates HIPAA and other notification
requirements and increases the injuries to Plaintiff(s) and
Class."
Norton says on its website that the "cyber event" remains under
investigation, adding that they "continue to bring systems back
online and are close to resuming all operations."
The class action lawsuit accuses Norton of -- among other things --
negligence in failing to properly protect patient data (including
protections recommended by the Federal Trade Commission), breach of
contract and unjust enrichment.
The lawsuit is seeking a jury trial, compensatory damages, 10 years
of credit monitoring for each affected victim, judgements requiring
that Norton properly notify victims and provide ongoing protection
for their personal information, as well as other remedies. [GN]
NRA GROUP LLC: Soto Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against NRA Group LLC. The
case is styled as Theresa Soto, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated v. NRA Group LLC doing business as: National
Recovery Agency, Case No. 2:23-cv-01411-DLR (D. Ariz., July 18,
2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
NRA Group, LLC doing business as National Recovery Agency --
https://nationalrecovery.com/ -- is a nationwide provider of
accounts receivable management.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Lee Davidson, Esq.
Michael L. Greenwald, Esq.
GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
5550 Glades Rd., Ste. 500
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Phone: (561) 826-5477
Email: jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com
mgreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com
OPPORTUNITY FINANCIAL: Dismissal Ruling in RICO Suit Discussed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mindy Harris, Ronald K. Vaske & Mark J. Levin, Esq., of Ballard
Spahr LLP in January 2023, on July 26 disclosed that a federal
district court in Texas dismissed Michael v. Opportunity Financial,
LLC, a putative class action filed in June 2022 claiming that
fintech Opportunity Financial, LLC (OppFi), not its out-of-state,
state-chartered bank partners, is the "true lender" on loans with
interest rates permitted under the laws of the banks' home states,
but higher than allowed in the plaintiffs' states. OppFi's
marketing and servicing arrangements on behalf of the state banks
that made the loans were characterized in the complaint as a
"rent-a-bank scheme." The complaint also raised Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO) claims and other
claims against OppFi. The court compelled individual arbitration
and dismissed the action based on the arbitration clause.
In March 2023, in Johnson v. Opportunity Financial, LLC, a second
federal district court (this time in Virginia) also compelled
individual arbitration and dismissed a putative class action filed
by the same plaintiffs' counsel that asserted the same claims as in
Michael. As in Michael, the Virginia court held that the
arbitration clause was neither substantively nor procedurally
unconscionable. In particular, it disagreed with the plaintiff's
argument that the length of the agreement and its font size
rendered it unconscionable, agreeing instead with OppFi's position
that the documents were provided electronically and the plaintiff
could have zoomed in on her computer to see the wording of the
arbitration clause:
This argument is really an attempt to excuse the fact that Johnson
did not read the contract before signing. . . . Virginia courts are
not sympathetic to parties who do not read contracts before signing
them. A party "having the capacity to understand a written
document" is "bound by his signature" unless he can prove "fraud,
duress, or mutual mistake." This applies even if the complaining
party did not read the contract. In this case, Johnson had access
to the contract by way of her computer and could have read the
contract, but she chose not to read it. The [arbitration clause] is
referenced in numerous places throughout the contract, including in
bold text. The [arbitration clause] is hardly hidden—it takes
multiple pages and is formatted as a table. Each of the
[arbitration clause's] provisions are defined in plain English.
Though the text is small, the questions and plain English answers
are bolded. The fact that Johnson did not read the contract does
not mean that she could not read it.
Nevertheless, the same plaintiffs' counsel had better success in
Carpenter v. Opportunity Financial, LLC, in which a California
federal district court, later in March 2023, denied OppFi's motion
to compel arbitration in another putative class action raising the
same claims as in Michael and Johnson. Unlike the Michael and
Johnson courts, the Carpenter court found the arbitration clause to
be "procedurally unconscionable due to legibility and technological
issues, and substantively unconscionable because it impermissibly
waives Plaintiff's substantive rights under the California
Financial Code."
In support of its unconscionability findings, the Carpenter court
cited the small font and length of the arbitration clause, coupled
with the plaintiffs' declaration that "they accessed the Agreements
through their smartphones, and when they tried to "zoom in" to read
the small font, the website glitched, refreshed, and reset the
application to the beginning." OppFi argued that the plaintiffs did
"not dispute they could read the agreement despite the purported
technical glitches" and that the plaintiffs appeared to have
"simply decided it was not worth their effort to zoom in" and
"decided to just sign it without reviewing it in full or asking for
technical assistance." The court rejected OppFi's argument and
held:
That Plaintiffs may have been able to read the terms after making
multiple attempts to overcome technological glitches and/or seeking
technical assistance does not overcome the fact that they were
presented with the arbitration clause in a form that challenged the
limits of legibility and could not be easily and readily viewed.
Accordingly, the court finds this factor establishes a strong
degree of procedural unconscionability.
OppFi has appealed the denial of its motion to compel arbitration
to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
In April 2023, the same plaintiff's counsel filed a fourth putative
class action, Fama v. Opportunity Financial, LLC, in federal
district court in Washington state stating the same claims against
OppFi. Once again OppFi filed a motion to compel arbitration, which
summarizes the status of the other three "materially identical
actions" discussed above. In particular, in commenting on the
Carpenter opinion, OppFi argues:
The plaintiffs in Carpenter claimed, in opposition to OppFi's
motion to compel arbitration, that their arbitration agreements
were in 4.5 size font. Those allegations, which the Carpenter court
accepted as established fact, are untrue and meaningless in the
context of an electronic document where the size of the text scales
to the size of the viewing window and can be enlarged or shrunken.
Should Plaintiff in this case make similar allegations, OppFi will
establish that they are meritless.
We will continue to monitor developments in these actions since an
outcome favorable to the plaintiffs on the merits would pose
serious concerns for bank-fintech partnerships and the
enforceability of consumer arbitration clauses in electronic
contracts -- subjects we have counseled clients about and published
articles on for many years. [GN]
PACIFIC OFFICE: Canfield Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Technicians
----------------------------------------------------------------
SHAWN CANFIELD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PACIFIC OFFICE AUTOMATION, INC., an Oregon
corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
5:23-cv-01418 (C.D. Cal., July 19, 2023) is a class action against
the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code and the
Unfair Competition Law including failure to pay all minimum,
regular, and overtime wages; failure to provide meal breaks or
compensation in lieu thereof; failure to authorize and permit rest
breaks or compensation in lieu thereof; failure to provide accurate
wage statements; failure to pay all wages due upon termination; and
for unlawful business practices.
The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants as a service technician
from in or around December 27, 2021 until the present.
Pacific Office Automation, Inc. is an office technology company
doing business in California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ben Travis, Esq.
BEN TRAVIS LAW, APC
4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 100
San Diego, CA 92122
Telephone: (619) 353-7966
Email: ben@bentravislaw.com
PDD HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues
to investigate potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of PDD Holdings Inc. f/k/a Pinduoduo Inc. (NASDAQ:
PDD) resulting from allegations that PDD may have issued materially
misleading business information to the investing public.
SO WHAT: If you purchased PDD 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=15586 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On March 21, 2023, CNN published an article
entitled "Google suspends Chinese shopping app Pinduoduo over
malware." The CNN report stated "Google has suspended Pinduoduo, a
popular Chinese budget shopping app, from its Play Store after
finding malware in versions of the app. In a statement, Google said
versions of the app that are not in the Play Store have been found
to contain malware."
On this news, PDD's stock price fell $3.35 per share, or 4%, to
close at $75.58 per share on March 22, 2023.
Then on April 3, 2023, CNN published an article entitled "'I've
never seen anything like this:' One of China's most popular apps
has the ability to spy on its users, say experts." The article
stated, "[i]n a detailed investigation, CNN spoke to half a dozen
cybersecurity teams from Asia, Europe and the United States -- as
well as multiple former and current Pinduoduo employees -- after
receiving a tipoff. Multiple experts identified the presence of
malware on the Pinduoduo app that exploited vulnerabilities in
Android operating systems. Company insiders said the exploits were
utilized to spy on users and competitors, allegedly to boost
sales."
On this news, PDD's stock price fell $1.64 per share, or 2%, to
close at $73.20 per share on April 4, 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. [GN]
PEACOCK TV: Hit With Class Action Over Sharing of Video Info
------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Brown at news.bloomberglaw.com reports that Peacock TV
LLC illegally disclosed the video viewing histories of website
visitors to Facebook in violation of the Video Privacy Protection
Act, a new proposed federal class action said.
Scott Shapiro, Corey Amundson, and Tanya Marshall alleged that
Peacock installed the Facebook pixel on its website, a snippet of
computer code allowing Facebook to collect information that
personally identifies subscribers and the videos they request or
obtain.
The lawsuit is the latest in a wave of litigation against media
companies that provide video content on their websites and
allegedly disclose the viewing history of visitors to Facebook,
Google, etc.[GN]
PHARMACARE US: Faces Sunderland Suit Over Mislabeled Supplements
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class
action lawsuit claims the makers of Sambucol dietary supplements
have falsely labeled some of their black elderberry products as
containing a unique, proprietary black elderberry extract.
The 28-page lawsuit says that Australian pharmaceutical company
PharmaCare Laboratories Pty Ltd and U.S.-based subsidiary
PharmaCare U.S., Inc. have falsely claimed on the labeling of
certain Sambucol products that the supplements contain a "unique
black elderberry extract" that was "[d]eveloped by a world renowned
virologist." Per the suit, this representation is a reference to
Dr. Madeleine Mumcuoglu, who originally trademarked the Sambucol
brand—which is now owned by PharmaCare Laboratories—roughly
seven years after she patented an elderberry extract formula in
1988 that isolated the lectins found in elderberries for their
anti-viral properties.
However, independent testing revealed that the dietary supplements
at issue contain no elderberry lectins, meaning that the products
do not use Dr. Mumcuoglu's proprietary formulation as advertised,
which was specifically designed to retain lectins, the case
alleges.
The representation that the supplements are "virologist developed"
is "demonstrably false," the complaint argues, adding that the
products "contain[] simply elderberry juice"
The filing relays that the products at issue include Sambucol Black
Elderberry Original Syrup, Black Elderberry Sugar Free Syrup, Kids
Black Elderberry Syrup, Black Elderberry Effervescent Tablets,
Black Elderberry Chewable Tablets, Black Elderberry Pastilles,
Black Elderberry Daily Immune Drink Powder and Black Elderberry
Advanced Immune Syrup.
Though the defendants originally included Dr. Mumcuoglu's name on
some of the product labeling, it has since been removed, the suit
shares. The case explains that "there is currently no connection
between Dr. Mumcuoglu and [the defendants] or the current version
of the Elderberry Products."
Nevertheless, the companies continue to mislabel the supplements as
"virologist developed," the complaint contends.
As the lawsuit tells it, the pharma companies intentionally misled
consumers about the contents of the supplements in an effort to
capitalize on the growing demand for black elderberry products.
The lawsuit looks to represent anyone in the United States who
purchased any of the products listed on this page for personal use
during the applicable statute of limitations period. [GN]
PROGRESSIVE PHYSICAL: De La Cotera Sues Over Unsolicited Fax Ads
----------------------------------------------------------------
FRED J. DE LA COTERA, D.D.S., an Illinois resident, individually
and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons,
Plaintiff v. PROGRESSIVE PHYSICAL THERAPY, INC., an Illinois
corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-04606 (N.D. Ill., July 17,
2023) challenges Defendant's practice of sending unsolicited
facsimile advertisements in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant sent Plaintiff an
unsolicited fax advertisement on April 11, 2023. The fax is a
generic advertising template suitable for mass transmission to
numerous recipients. On this basis, Plaintiff alleges that
Defendant, or persons and/or entities acting on behalf of
Defendant, in violation of the TCPA, sent the same fax to the
proposed Class. On information and belief, Plaintiff further
alleges that Defendant has sent other unsolicited advertisements
via facsimile transmission in violation of the TCPA during the four
years preceding the filing of this lawsuit.
Progressive Physical Therapy, Inc. is an out-patient physical
rehabilitation and wellness company with its principal place of
business in Hinsdale, Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
ANDERSON + WANCA
3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
Telephone: (847) 368-1500
Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com
RAYCO LOGISTICS: Fetinci Sues Over Improper Business Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
AZIZ FETINCI; ARMADA TRUCKING SERVICES, LLC; MUHAMED FETIC; EXPRESS
LINE LOGISTICS, INC.; and KENAN HUJDUR, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. RAYCO LOGISTICS,
LLC; BRAVO LOGISTICS, LLC; and RAY LAAMARI, Defendants, Case No.
2:23-cv-11720-SFC-KGA ECF (E.D. Mich., July 18, 2023) seeks to
challenge the unlawful violations of the Defendants' payment
practices, including the violation of Federal commercial
transportation laws and regulations.
The Plaintiffs alleges in the complaint, the Defendants'
Independent Contractor Agreements (the "Leases") and payment
practices unlawfully require the Plaintiffs and Class Members to
accept reduced compensation based on false or misleading
information regarding the gross revenue paid for the loads hauled.
The Defendants' Leases and payment practices unlawfully require the
Plaintiffs and Class Members to provide escrow payments for
unsupported and improper purposes. Defendants' Leases and payment
practices unlawfully fail to provide Plaintiffs and Class Members
with written terms that comply with Federal laws and regulations in
addressing receipts for equipment, insurance costs and
documentation, charge back items and documentation, escrow payments
and refunds, and compensation and shipment revenue information,
says the suit.
RAYCO LOGISTICS LLC is a licensed and DOT registered trucking
company running freight hauling business based in Michigan. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Steve J. Weiss, Esq.
Daniel W. Rucker, Esq.
HERTZ SCHRAM PC
1760 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 300
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302
Telephone: (248) 335-5000
RESERVOIR RESTAURANT: Underpays Restaurant Servers, Dugan Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Annaliese Dugan and Eline Bandy, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Reservoir Restaurant Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-01582-S (N.D. Tex., July 14, 2023)
arises from the Defendant's underpayment of wages owed to its
employees, including Plaintiffs and other employees like
Plaintiffs, and Defendant's failure to pay the minimum wage
required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiffs Dugan and Bandy were employed by the Defendant as
servers from August 2021 to March 2023 and from March 2021 to March
2022, respectively.
Reservoir Restaurant Inc. owns and operates the dining
establishment commonly known as Reservoir in Fort Worth,
Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Pamela G. Herrmann, Esq.
Drew N. Herrmann, Esq.
HERRMANN LAW, PLLC
801 Cherry St., Suite 2365
Fort Worth, TX 76102
Telephone: (817) 479-9229
Facsimile: (817) 840-5102
E-mail: pamela@herrmannlaw.com
drew@herrmannlaw.com
RYANAIR HOLDINGS: $5MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Oct. 20
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP issued a statement regarding the
Ryanair Securities Litigation:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
CITY OF BIRMINGHAM FIREMEN'S AND
POLICEMEN'S SUPPLEMENTAL PENSION
SYSTEM, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff,
vs.
RYANAIR HOLDINGS PLC and MICHAEL
O'LEARY,
Defendants.
CLASS ACTION
SUMMARY NOTICE
TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED AMERICAN
DEPOSITARY SHARES OF RYANAIR HOLDINGS PLC ("RYANAIR" OR THE
"COMPANY") DURING THE PERIOD FROM MAY 30, 2017 TO SEPTEMBER 28,
2018, INCLUSIVE
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, that a
hearing will be held on October 20, 2023, at 12:30 p.m. EDT, before
the Honorable J. Paul Oetken, United States District Judge, at the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, New
York, NY 10007, Courtroom 706, for the purpose of determining: (1)
whether the proposed Settlement of the above-captioned Action, as
set forth in the settlement agreement reached between the parties,
consisting of Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000.00) in cash, should
be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Members of the
Class; (2) whether the release by Class Members of claims as set
forth in the settlement agreement should be authorized; (3) whether
the proposed plan to distribute the Settlement proceeds (the "Plan
of Allocation") is fair, reasonable, and adequate; (4) whether the
application by Plaintiff's counsel for an award of attorneys' fees
and expenses and any awards to Plaintiff pursuant to 15 U.S.C. SEc.
78u-4(a)(4) should be approved; and (5) whether the Judgment, in
the form attached to the settlement agreement, should be entered.
Please note that the date, time and location of the Settlement
Hearing are subject to change without further notice. If you plan
to attend the hearing, you should check the docket or contact Lead
Counsel (identified below) to be sure that no change to the date,
time or location of the hearing has been made.
IF YOU PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED ANY OF THE AMERICAN DEPOSITARY SHARES
OF RYANAIR DURING THE PERIOD FROM MAY 30, 2017 TO SEPTEMBER 28,
2018, INCLUSIVE, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF
THIS LITIGATION.
If you have not received a detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed
Settlement of Class Action ("Notice") and a copy of the Proof of
Claim and Release form ("Proof of Claim"), you may obtain copies by
writing to Ryanair Securities Settlement, Claims Administrator, c/o
Gilardi & Co. LLC, P.O. Box 301133, Los Angeles, CA 90030-1133, or
on the internet at www.RyanairSecuritiesSettlement.com.
If you are a Class Member, in order to share in the distribution of
the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim by mail
(postmarked no later than October 17, 2023) or submitted
electronically (received no later than October 17, 2023),
establishing that you are entitled to recovery. Unless the deadline
is extended, your failure to submit your Proof of Claim by the
above deadline will preclude you from receiving any payment from
the Settlement.
If you are a Class Member and you desire to be excluded from the
Class, you must submit a request for exclusion such that it is
postmarked no later than September 29, 2023, in the manner and form
explained in the detailed Notice, referred to above. All Members of
the Class who do not timely and validly request exclusion from the
Class will be bound by any judgment entered in the Action pursuant
to the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement.
Any objection to the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, or the fee
and expense application must be mailed to each of the following
recipients, such that it is received no later than September 29,
2023:
Clerk of the Court:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
THURGOOD MARSHALL
UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE
40 Foley Square
New York, NY 10007
Lead Counsel:
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
& DOWD LLP
ROBERT R. HENSSLER
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Defendants' Counsel:
CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON LLP
JARED GERBER
One Liberty Plaza
New York, NY 10006
PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, THE CLERK'S OFFICE OR DEFENDANTS
REGARDING THIS NOTICE. If you have any questions about the
Settlement, you may contact Lead Counsel at the address listed
above or by an email to Lead Counsel at settlementinfo@rgrdlaw.com.
Copies of certain pleadings and other documents filed in the Action
can also be found at www.RyanairSecuritiesSettlement.com.
DATED: July 5, 2023
BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
SCHNUCK MARKETS: Settles False Advertising Class Suit for $5.3M
---------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy Inklebarger of Winsight Grocery Business reports that
Schnuck Markets has agreed to a $4 million settlement in a
class-action lawsuit filed in 2021, claiming the grocer misled its
customers by publishing misleading price comparisons for alcohol
products sold at its stores between 2015 and 2023.
The grocer has admitted no wrongdoing in the case but has agreed to
the settlement, which also includes $1.32 million to pay the
plaintiff attorney's fees. Leonard Perry, the plaintiff, will
receive $5,000.
The lawsuit asserts that St. Louis-based Schnucks ran afoul of
Missouri state law by advertising some alcoholic beverages as on
sale, while failing to sell the items at their original price for a
mandated length of time.
The settlement has received preliminary approval from a St. Louis
Circuit Court, and Perry's legal team is currently soliciting
Missouri residents to join the class.
The lawsuit claims that Perry purchased Meiomi Rose Wine and La
Crema Rose Wine, both of which were advertised online, in stores
and in print ads as on sale for 20% off, but he argued that the two
brands had never been sold at the original price.
Perry's attorneys noted in the original lawsuit that Missouri state
law "prohibits a seller, such as Schnucks, from advertising former
price comparisons unless the comparative price is actual . . . and
not illusory or fictitious."
Schnucks sought a preliminary and permanent writ prohibiting
further action on the case on Nov. 2, 2021, but the petition was
denied by the Eastern District Court of Appeals. The grocer
appealed further to the Missouri Supreme Court 10 days later but
that request was also denied.
Scnhucks denied wrongdoing in the settlement agreement and
maintained that the lawsuit "is not appropriate for class-action
treatment."
In an email response to Winsight Grocery Business, the company said
it "strongly denies the allegations in this lawsuit."
"However, after over two and a half years of contested litigation,
Schnucks believes it is in its and its customers', including its
Rewards Members', best interest to bring the litigation to a close
and in a way that benefits those who purchased Schnucks' wine and
alcohol products over the years in Missouri," a company
spokesperson said in the email.
The law firm representing the plaintiff could be reached for an
official comment on the matter.
Those interested in joining the class are divided into three
groups, based on amount purchased. Any Missouri resident who
purchased between one and 24 units of alcohol of any kind at a
Missouri Schnucks between the class period of Dec. 3, 2015 and Feb.
15 of this year is eligible to join the class without proof of
purchase. The payout for the class is $11.
Those who bought between 25 and 60 units of alcohol must provide
proof of purchase and are eligible to receive $25. Those who
purchased more than 60 units of alcohol and have the receipts to
prove it will receive $72 as a member of the class.
People interested in joining the class must submit a claim form by
Sept. 8.
It's unclear whether any similar lawsuits have been filed against
grocers in Missouri or other states where similar price-comparison
laws exist. But the law has been used in several class-action
lawsuits in California against other retail businesses.
For example, The Children's Place Inc. agreed to a settlement of
$6.8 million in 2021 for a similar case in which a retailer was
deemed to have falsely listed items as on sale. And in 2016, Kohl's
Department Stores, Inc. settled a price-comparison class action
lawsuit for $6.15 million. [GN]
SCHNUCKS MARKETS: Sept. 8 Settlement Claim Submission Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Clancy, writing for KSDK, reports that Missouri residents who
bought alcohol at Schnucks in the last seven years could be owed
money.
Schnucks reached a settlement in a class-action lawsuit that
alleged the company used misleading price comparisons on alcohol in
print ads, circulars, in-store shelf signs and on its website. The
company denied the claims but agreed to pay a $4 million
settlement.
As part of the settlement, Schnucks customers who purchased alcohol
any time between Dec. 3, 2015, and Feb. 15, 2023, are eligible for
at least $11 and up to $72 depending on how many purchases they
made.
Anyone who files a valid claim will be eligible for the minimum
payout of $11. A second payout tier for $25 will require applicants
to provide proof that they purchased between 25 and 55 alcohol
products in the timeframe. A $72 payout is for applicants that
prove they purchased more than 56 units of alcohol.
If you think you fall into the higher-payout groups, the FAQ page
for the settlement provides tips on how to find old receipts.
The deadline to submit a claim, exclude yourself from the
settlement or object to the settlement is Sept. 8.
Click here to see more information and make your claim. You can
also download a form and mail it in, or call 1-877-664-9133 to have
a form mailed to you.
A fairness hearing on the settlement will be held on Oct. 10 to
review the agreement. The court can then decide whether to approve
or deny the settlement. [GN]
SCRANTON CARDIOVASCULAR: Barth Sues Over Patients' Unprotected Info
-------------------------------------------------------------------
EDWARD BARTH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SCRANTON CARDIOVASCULAR PHYSICIAN SERVICES,
LLC d/b/a GREAT VALLEY CARDIOLOGY, Defendant, Case No.
3:23-cv-01170-MEM (M.D. Pa., July 14, 2023) is a class action
brought against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure
and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated GVC
patients' personally identifiable information and protected health
information, asserting claims for negligence, negligence per se,
breach of contract, breach of implied contract, and unjust
enrichment.
On June 12, 2023, GVC filed official notice of a hacking incident
with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office for
Civil Rights. Around that same time, GVC also sent out data breach
letters to individuals whose information was compromised as a
result of the hacking incident. GVC's investigation revealed that
an unauthorized party had access to certain files that contained
sensitive patient information, and that such access took place
between February 2 and April 14, 2023. Yet, two months passed
before Plaintiff received notice that his Private Information was
at risk, says the suit.
The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit to address GVC's
inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' private information that
it collected and maintained, and its failure to provide timely and
adequate notice to Plaintiff and Class Members of the types of
information that were accessed, and that such information was
subject to unauthorized access by cybercriminals.
Based in Scranton, Pennsylvania, Scranton Cardiovascular Physician
Services, LLC, d/b/a Great Valley Cardiology GVC, is a healthcare
services provider to patients across Northeastern Pennsylvania,
specifically in Luzerne, Lackawanna, and Wayne Counties.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicholas Sandercock, Esq.
Mason Barney, Esq.
Tyler Bean, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD, LLP
745 Fifth Ave., Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Telephone: (212) 532-1091
E-mail: nsandercock@sirillp.com
mbarney@sirillp.com
tbean@sirillp.com
- and -
Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq.
Fernando Valle, Jr., Esq.
BRADLEY/GROMBACHER LLP
31365 Oak Crest Dr., Suite 240
Westlake Village, CA 91361
Telephone: (805) 270-7100
E-mail: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com
kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com
fvalle@bradleygrombacher.com
SEATTLE, WA: Sued Over Mishandling of Homeless Encampments
----------------------------------------------------------
Lynnanne Nguyen, writing for KOMO News, reports that changes could
be coming in how the city of Seattle handles removing homeless
encampments. A judge declared parts of the city's rules for removal
unconstitutional.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Washington sued the
city on behalf of multiple people they said were constantly swept
from place to place during the city's encampment removals with
their personal property destroyed without warning.
The city attorney's office told KOMO News this case is not over,
and they plan to appeal the court's order.
In the meantime, it's unclear if much will be immediately changing
with how the city currently removes encampments.
In the lawsuit filed, the ACLU said "the City has criminalized
living on virtually every parcel of City-owned land despite a
severe lack of shelter availability in Seattle."
According to the ACLU, if an encampment is considered an
obstruction under the city's rules, city officials are not required
to give 72 hours' notice for removals or provide outreach and
offers of shelter.
"Basically, the city exempts itself from having to do those
things," Senior Staff Attorney with the ACLU of Washington John
Midgley said, "In many many cases, they have not done those things
for people."
The ACLU accuses the city of using that "obstruction rule"
regarding encampment removals far too broadly, and a judge agreed
parts of the rule are unconstitutional.
"Based on the court's ruling, the city is going to be required to
give greater notice and offers of shelter to lots more people
they're intending to sweep than the record shows they have been,"
Midgley said, "It should change what the city is doing."
"There was a period three years ago when 96% of the city's sweeps
were done under the obstruction rule, and it's simply not plausible
that all of those were true obstructions or hazards," Midgley
added.
The city attorney's office clarifies that the court's order does
not prohibit the removal of encampments.
The Mayor's Office also shared:
"The City's Unified Care Team will continue to offer shelter during
encampment removals, document obstructions, and comply with state
and federal laws as we advance our efforts to bring more people
indoors on a pathway to recovery and ensure public spaces remain
open and accessible to all."
Other matters in the lawsuit are still to be decided, like if the
city unlawfully destroyed personal property in these encampment
removals.
"This is what they have in the world, and when those things are
taken, it's enormously disruptive to them and ends up creating real
havoc in people's lives, lives that are already difficult," Midgley
said.
A trial is scheduled for September regarding other matters in the
lawsuit, like property destruction issues. The ACLU has accused the
city of unlawfully destroying property without any notice,
compensation, or way to get the items back.
According to the city's procedures posted online, personal
belongings "have apparent value to people, as long as they are not
hazardous and can be collected safely." The city said those items
are stored for at least 70 days from the date they were collected
and may be recovered by calling (206) 459-9949 and providing an
accurate description of the items.
However, according to the ACLU lawsuit, the plaintiffs did so and
"were told their irreplaceable possessions were gone, and the city
had not saved or stored any of their belongings." The lawsuit
alleges people lost their medication, work clothing and tools,
wedding ring and photos, and other irreplaceable family heirlooms.
[GN]
SN SERVICING: Obtains Favorable Ruling in FDCPA Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP on July 25 disclosed that in a case
defended by Hinshaw partners Justin Penn and David Schultz, an
Illinois state court judge granted their motion for judgment on the
pleadings in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) Hunstein
class action case. The suit claimed that the use by Hinshaw's
client of a third-party vendor to print and mail communications
violated Section 1692a(3) of the FDCPA. Obtaining a ruling on the
merits in this type of case has been exceedingly difficult for
accounts receivable defendants.
In Quaglia v. SN Servicing, McCalla Raymer Leibert Pierce, the
Circuit Court of Cook County ruled that the communication between
the defendants and their letter vendor were not an attempt to
collect a debt and therefore not within the purpose of the FDCPA.
In her analysis, Judge Clair Quish stated, "Even construing the
facts in a light most favorable to Plaintiff, it is clear that SN
and McCalla's communication to the letter vendor was not, itself,
an attempt to collect the debt and thus, was not made in connection
with the collection of a debt."
The case received media coverage, including the following
articles:
"Ill. State Court Judge Issues Ruling on Merits in Granting MJOP
for Defendant in Hunstein Class Action," AccountsRecovery.net, July
5, 2023.
"Quaglia v. SN Servicing: Illinois State Court Tosses Hunstein
Claims," ACA International, July 6, 2023.
Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP is a U.S. based law firm with offices
nationwide. The firm's national reputation spans the insurance
industry, the financial services sector, and other highly regulated
industries. Hinshaw also serves as counsel to the professional
services sector, and provides business advisory and transactional
services to clients of all sizes. [GN]
ST. MORITZ SECURITY: Fails to Pay Timely Wages, Mota Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SERGIO MOTA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ST. MORITZ SECURITY SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 611434/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty., July
19, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure
to pay timely wages in violation of the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as an hourly-paid worker
since approximately April 2019.
St. Moritz Security Services, Inc. is a security provider,
headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian S. Schaffer, Esq.
David J. Sack, Esq.
FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 300-0375
STANDARD MARKET: Settles Class Suit Over BIPA violations for $1.25M
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that A lawsuit alleging The Standard
Market LLC violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act
(BIPA) by disclosing biometric identifiers to third parties has
resulted in a $1.25 million settlement.
The settlement benefits all 2,082 individuals working for The
Standard Market in Illinois who had their fingerprints or finger
scans collected, captured, received, obtained, maintained, stored,
transmitted or disclosed by Standard Market between May 9, 2014,
and Feb. 22, 2020.
The lawsuit alleged Standard Market violated BIPA by asking
employees to provide their fingerprints to clock in and clock out
without the required disclosures and consent.
Standard Market could not afford to pay the full settlement, so its
insurer West Bend Mutual Insurance Co. is paying the settlement
fund.
The Standard Market is a fresh food market that also provides
events and catering. The Standard Market is based in Westmont,
Illinois, and employs more than 300 people.
Each member of the settlement class that does not opt out and who
submits an approved claim form will be mailed a check for $750,
subject to pro rata reduction if total claims would otherwise
exhaust the settlement fund.
To claim your share of the settlement fund, you must complete and
return to the settlement administrator a signed claim form or
submit a claim online no later than Oct. 18, 2023.
On the claim form, you must certify that you worked at a Standard
Market facility at some point during the class period and scanned
your finger on a timeclock.
The deadline for exclusion and objection was Aug. 21, 2023.
The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for Oct.
2, 2023.
In order to receive a settlement payment, class members must submit
a valid claim form by Oct. 18, 2023.
Who's Eligible
The settlement benefits all 2,082 individuals working for The
Standard Market in Illinois who had their fingerprints or finger
scans collected, captured, received, obtained, maintained, stored,
transmitted or disclosed by Standard Market between May 9, 2014,
and Feb. 22, 2020.
Potential Award
$750
Proof of Purchase
The claim number and PIN found on the notice mailed to the class
member.
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
10/18/2023
Case Name
West Bend Mutual Insurance Co. v. The Standard Market LLC, et al.,
Case No. 2020MR000276 in the Circuit Court of the Eighteenth
Judicial Circuit DuPage County, Illinois, Chancery Division
Final Hearing
10/02/2023
Settlement Website
StandardMarketBIPASettlement.com
Claims Administrator
West Bend v The Standard Market
c/o Analytics Consulting LLC
P.O. Box 2002
Chanhassen, MN 55317-2002
info@StandardMarketBIPASettlement.com
888-686-8920
Class Counsel
David Fish
FISH POTTER BOLAÑOS PC
Defense Counsel
Daniel J Cunningham
TRESSLER LLP [GN]
SYNAGRO WOONSOCKET: Faces Class Action Over Odor Emissions
----------------------------------------------------------
GoLocalProv News Team reports that years of failure at the
Woonsocket wastewater treatment facility and the adjacent Synagro
waste incinerator have now sparked a class action lawsuit filed in
federal court in Providence on July 26.
The lawsuit comes after rampant odor complaints and improper
discharges into the Blackstone River tied to the operation of the
facilities.
Named in the suit are Synagro Woonsocket, LLC, and Jacobs
Engineering Group, Inc. -- Synagro is the operator of the
incinerator facility and Jacobs operates the waste treatment
facility for the City of Woonsocket. Woonsocket is not named in the
lawsuit.
A series of GoLocal stories identified violations in 2022 and 2023
that showed how Attorney General Peter Neronha and the RI
Department of Environmental Management failed to take enforcement
action to ensure compliance with the Clean Water Act.
After years of delay, the Neronha and the state announced
enforcement action in mid-March.
The law firm that brought the class action suit is the
Detroit-based Liddle Sheets Coulson P.C, a firm that specializes in
environmental litigation.
According to the lawsuit, the law firm has "more than 75 households
within the proposed Class Area have contacted Plaintiffs' counsel
reporting and documenting the noxious odors they attribute to
Defendants' Facility."
Neighbors: "Smell is so bad you cannot have your windows open"
The lead plaintiffs in the class action suit are neighbors to the
facility.
"Plaintiff Maurice Doire reported that because of Defendant's odor
emissions, '[o]ur whole neighborhood smells like an open cesspool
or at times like chemicals in the air.' Mr. Doire reported that
when the odors are present, '[w]e cannot enjoy our home.' He
further reported that '[a]t night, can't sleep, during the day must
go elsewhere to breathe. Also affects our eyes and throats at
times,'" states the lawsuit.
"Plaintiff Joshua Hoye reported that because of Defendants' odor
emissions, '[t]he odors that are smelled on a daily basis smell
like I live across from a large city dump on a 90-degree day.' He
further reported that he 'cannot walk outside w/o wanting to throw
up.' He also reported that as a result of the offensive odors from
Defendants' Facility, '[o]n a daily basis from around 9 am - 11 am
& 7 pm - 3 am, the smell is so bad that you cannot have your
windows open to enjoy fresh air, even with brand new windows being
closed you still cannot breathe fresh air. He "can't even think
about going outside during those times,'" according to the
lawsuit.
Jacobs is a Texas-based firm that claims $15 billion in annual
revenue and 60,000 employees. Synagro is a Baltimore-based
corporation.
The lawsuit cites, "Through their operation and maintenance of the
Facility, Defendants have a duty to take reasonable steps to
control and prevent noxious odors from being emitted off-site into
Plaintiffs' homes and community. Defendant is required to control
its odorous emissions by, among other things, utilizing adequate
odor mitigation and control technologies at the Facility;
adequately operating and maintaining its odor mitigation and
control technologies to prevent off-site odors; adequately and/or
timely disposing of the waste, wastewater, and sludge produced
through the Facility's industrial processes to prevent off-site
odor emissions; ensure that the Facility has adequate capacity to
receive, store, handle, and process the waste received at the
Facility; and undertaking other reasonably odor mitigation,
elimination, and control systems available to Defendants."
The lawsuit further states, "By failing to properly maintain and
operate the Facility, Defendants failed to exercise the duty of
ordinary care and diligence, which they owe to Plaintiffs, so
noxious odors would not physically invade Plaintiffs' private
properties. A properly operated and maintained facility will not
emit noxious odors into neighboring residential areas.
When reached on July 26, a spokesperson for Synagro stated that he
was unaware of the lawsuit. [GN]
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Bladder Cancer Suit in Quebec
-----------------------------------------------------------
Felecia L. Stern of Cision PRWeb reports that an Actos class action
lawsuit was filed in Quebec on behalf of individuals in the
province who developed bladder cancer after using Actos, Bernstein
Liebhard LLP reports. The lawsuit alleges that Actos manufacturers
Takeda Pharmaceuticals and Eli Lilly were responsible for failing
to warn consumers about the risks of Actos bladder cancer. The
complaint was filed by lead plaintiff Jimmy Whyte, who took Actos
to treat his type-2 diabetes in November 2008, and developed
bladder cancer in April 2012. Actos is a popular diabetic drug that
has been linked to an increased risk of bladder cancer. In June
2011, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration added a warning label
for Actos, advising consumers that using the drug for longer than a
year may increase the risk of developing bladder cancer. Health
regulators in France removed Actos from the market, essentially
issuing an Actos recall, in June 2011 after identifying the
increased incidences of bladder cancer in Actos users.
Actos Bladder Cancer Lawsuits Proceeds In U.S.
Claims in the Actos bladder cancer class action lawsuit are similar
to the complaints filed in the U.S. Actos bladder cancer lawsuits.
Actos lawsuits in the U.S. are part of a multidistrict litigation,
referred to as an MDL. Unlike a class action lawsuit, in an MDL,
each claim remains an individual lawsuit. However, the court
coordinates proceedings such as pre-trial discovery. Plaintiffs in
the Actos lawsuits allege that the drug caused them to develop
bladder cancer. Bernstein Liebhard LLP, a nationwide law firm
representing clients who have been injured by dangerous drugs and
defective medical devices, is currently evaluating and
investigating potential Actos claims.
Actos bladder cancer lawsuits are moving towards trial in the
federal action, In re: Actos (Pioglitazone) Products Liability
Litigation ("MDL No. 2299"), currently pending before the Honorable
Rebecca Doherty in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Louisiana.
Those who developed bladder cancer as a result of taking Actos may
be able to collect compensation for medical expenses, lost wages,
pain and suffering, and more. Learn more about Actos bladder cancer
lawsuits by visiting our website,
http://www.consumerinjurylawyers.com/Actos/.Contact a lawyer at
Bernstein Liebhard LLP for a free case review (877) 779-1414.
About Bernstein Liebhard LLP
Bernstein Liebhard LLP is a New York-based law firm exclusively
representing injured persons in complex individual and class action
lawsuits nationwide since 1993, including those who have been
harmed by dangerous drugs, defective medical devices and consumer
products. The firm has been named by The National Law Journal to
the "Plaintiffs' Hot List," recognizing the top plaintiffs' firms
in the country, for the past nine consecutive years. Only two firms
in the country have been selected for the Hot List nine years in a
row.
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
10 East 40th Street
New York, New York 10016
(877) 779-1414
Contact Information:
Felecia L. Stern, Esq.
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
info(at)consumerinjurylawyers(dot)com
http://www.consumerinjurylawyers.com[GN]
TALKSPACE INC: $8.5MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Oct. 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP and Rolnick Kramer Sadighi LLP
issued a statement regarding the Talkspace Securities Litigation:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
In re TALKSPACE, INC. SECURITIES
LITIGATION
Civil Action No. 1:22-cv-00163-PGG
CLASS ACTION
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTIONS
TO: (1) ALL PERSONS THAT PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED TALKSPACE,
INC. F/K/A HUDSON EXECUTIVE INVESTMENT CORP. ("TALKSPACE" OR THE
"COMPANY") SECURITIES BETWEEN JUNE 11, 2020 AND NOVEMBER 15, 2021,
INCLUSIVE; AND (2) ALL HOLDERS OF TALKSPACE COMMON STOCK AS OF THE
RECORD DATE FOR THE SPECIAL MEETING OF SHAREHOLDERS HELD ON JUNE
17, 2021 TO CONSIDER APPROVAL OF THE MERGER BETWEEN TALKSPACE AND
HUDSON EXECUTIVE INVESTMENT CORP. (THE "MERGER") OR WHO WERE
ENTITLED TO VOTE ON THE APPROVAL OF THE MERGER ("CLASS" OR "CLASS
MEMBER")
THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT. IT IS NOT A LAWYER
SOLICITATION. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS
ENTIRETY.
OU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a hearing will be held on October 30,
2023, at 10:00 a.m., before Judge Paul G. Gardephe at the United
States District Court, Southern District of New York, in Courtroom
705 of the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley
Square, New York, NY 10007 to determine whether: (1) the proposed
settlement (the "Settlement") of the above-captioned action (the
"Action") as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement
("Stipulation")1 for $8,500,000 in cash should be approved by the
Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate;2 (2) the Judgment as
provided under the Stipulation should be entered dismissing the
Action with prejudice; (3) to award Lead Counsel attorneys' fees
and expenses out of the Settlement Fund (as defined in the Notice
of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Actions ("Notice"),
which is discussed below) and to award Plaintiffs reimbursement of
their time and expenses pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(4) in
connection with their representation of the Class, and, if so, in
what amounts; and (4) the Plan of Allocation should be approved by
the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate.
The Court may decide to conduct the Settlement Hearing by video or
telephonic conference, or otherwise allow Class Members to appear
remotely at the hearing, without further written notice to the
Class. In order to determine whether the date and time of the
Settlement Hearing have changed, or whether Class Members must or
may participate by phone or video, it is important that you monitor
the Court's docket and the Settlement website,
www.TalkspaceSecuritiesSettlement.com, before making any plans to
attend the Settlement Hearing. Updates regarding the Settlement
Hearing, including any changes to the date or time of the hearing
or updates regarding in-person or remote appearances at the
hearing, will be posted to the Settlement website,
www.TalkspaceSecuritiesSettlement.com. Also, if the Court requires
or allows Class Members to participate in the Settlement Hearing by
remote means, the information for accessing the hearing will be
posted to the Settlement website.
IF YOU PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED TALKSPACE SECURITIES BETWEEN
JUNE 11, 2020 AND NOVEMBER 15, 2021, INCLUSIVE, OR IF YOU HELD
TALKSPACE COMMON SHARES ON MAY 19, 2021, THE RECORD DATE FOR THE
VOTE ON THE MERGER, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT
OF THE ACTIONS.
To share in the distribution of the Settlement Fund, you must
establish your rights by submitting a Proof of Claim and Release
form ("Proof of Claim") by mail (postmarked no later than October
23, 2023) or electronically (no later than October 23, 2023). Your
failure to submit your Proof of Claim by October 23, 2023, will
subject your claim to rejection and preclude your receiving any of
the recovery in connection with the Settlement of the Actions. If
you are a Member of the Class, and do not request exclusion from
the Class, you will be bound by the Settlement and any judgment and
release entered in the Actions, including, but not limited to, the
Judgment, whether or not you submit a Proof of Claim.
If you have not received a copy of the Notice, which more
completely describes the Settlement and your rights thereunder
(including your right to object to the Settlement), and a Proof of
Claim, you may obtain these documents, as well as a copy of the
Stipulation (which, among other things, contains definitions for
the defined terms used in this Summary Notice) and other Settlement
documents, online at www.TalkspaceSecuritiesSettlement.com, or by
writing to:
Talkspace Securities Settlement
Claims Administrator
c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC
P.O. Box 301171
Los Angeles, CA 90030-1171
Inquiries should NOT be directed to Defendants, the Court, or the
Clerk of the Court.
Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice or for a Proof of
Claim, may be made to Lead Counsel:
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
Ellen Gusikoff Stewart
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: 1-800-449-4900
settlementinfo@rgrdlaw.com
- OR -
ROLNICK KRAMER SADIGHI LLP
Marc B. Kramer
1251 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Telephone: 1-212-597-2838
IF YOU DESIRE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE CLASS, YOU MUST SUBMIT A
REQUEST FOR EXCLUSION SUCH THAT IT IS POSTMARKED BY OCTOBER 9,
2023, IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE. ALL CLASS
MEMBERS WILL BE BOUND BY THE SETTLEMENT EVEN IF THEY DO NOT SUBMIT
A TIMELY PROOF OF CLAIM.
IF YOU ARE A CLASS MEMBER, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO OBJECT TO THE
SETTLEMENT, THE PLAN OF ALLOCATION, THE REQUEST BY LEAD COUNSEL FOR
AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES ON BEHALF OF ALL PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL
NOT TO EXCEED 30% OF THE $8,500,000 SETTLEMENT AMOUNT AND EXPENSES
NOT TO EXCEED $75,000 AND AWARDS TO PLAINTIFFS NOT TO EXCEED
$25,000 IN THE AGGREGATE IN CONNECTION WITH THEIR REPRESENTATION OF
THE CLASS. ANY OBJECTIONS MUST BE FILED WITH THE COURT AND SENT TO
LEAD COUNSEL AND DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL BY OCTOBER 9, 2023, IN THE
MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE.
DATED: June 30, 2023
BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
1 The Stipulation can be viewed and/or obtained at
www.TalkspaceSecuritiesSettlement.com.
2 The action entitled Valdez v. Braunstein, et al., No.
2022-1148-KSJM (Del. Ch.) (the "Delaware Action") is also being
resolved. The Action and the Delaware Action are referred to as the
"Actions."
TAXACT INC: Pitts Files Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against TaxAct Inc. The case
is styled as Dawn Pitts, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. TaxAct Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-05516-LDH-CLP
(E.D.N.Y., July 20, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
TaxAct Holdings, Inc. -- https://www.taxact.com/ -- is an American
tax preparation software company based in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raymond C. Silverman, Esq.
PARKER WAICHMAN LLP
6 Harbor Park Drive
Port Washington, NY 11050
Phone: (516) 466-6500
Fax: (516) 723-4711
Email: rsilverman@yourlawyer.com
TAXSLAYER LLC: Discloses Private Tax Return Info, Wright Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
ADAM WRIGHT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TAXSLAYER LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:23-cv-05481-HG (E.D.N.Y., July 19, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the New York Consolidated
Laws, 26 U.S.C. Secs. 7431 and 6103, the Electronic Communications
Privacy Act, the New York Penal Law, and the New York General
Business Laws, and for invasion of privacy, negligence, and
negligence per se.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has been transmitting
customers' private tax return information to major technology
companies, including Meta and Google, without consent. TaxSlayer
maintained and operated online tax preparation software through
https://www.taxslayer.com and mobile platforms for the purpose of
electronic tax filing. The Plaintiff and other putative Class
members utilized TaxSlayer's online tax preparation software to
prepare and file federal and state income tax returns. To utilize
TaxSlayer's online services, a customer must agree to its License
Agreement, Privacy Policy, and Terms of Service. TaxSlayer did not
obtain valid consent for its disclosure of confidential customer
TRI data to Meta and Google. As a result of TaxSlayer's actions,
the Plaintiff and Class members have suffered harm including, but
not limited to, an invasion of their privacy rights, says the
suit.
TaxSlayer LLC is an operator of an online tax preparation software,
with its principal place of business located at 945 Broad Street
Augusta, Georgia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raymond C. Silverman, Esq.
Jerrold S. Parker, Esq.
Melanie H. Muhlstock, Esq.
PARKER WAICHMAN LLP
6 Harbor Park Drive
Port Washington, NY 11050
Telephone: (516) 466-6500
Facsimile: (516) 466-6665
E-mail: rsilverman@yourlawyer.com
jparker@yourlawyer.com
mmuhlstock@yourlawyer.com
TECHTRONIC INDUSTRIES: Bassaw Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Techtronic Industries
Factory Outlets, Inc. The case is styled as Shivan Bassaw,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Techtronic Industries Factory Outlets, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-06241-KPF (S.D.N.Y., July 19, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Techtronic Industries (TTI) -- https://www.ttigroup.com/ -- is a
world-class leader in power tools, accessories, hand tools, outdoor
power equipment, as well as floorcare & cleaning.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ian Piasecki, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor
New York, NY 10007
Phone: (347) 745-0445
Email: ipiasecki@mizrahikroub.com
TESLA INC: Settles Class Action Over Solar Roof Price Hike
----------------------------------------------------------
Fred Lambert, writing for electrek, reports that Tesla has
officially settled a class-action lawsuit over a steep price hike
on its solar roof that even affected signed contracts.
Back in March 2021, Tesla added a new "roof complexity" factor to
its solar roof prices that resulted in drastically increasing the
price of its solar roof. The price of solar roof projects increased
between 30% to 150% for some.
That's an incredible price increase in itself, but the strangest
part of the situation is that Tesla even applied the new price hike
to customers who already had a signed contract for their upcoming
solar roof project.
In some cases, customers who had signed a contract for Tesla a year
prior were asked to fork as much as 100% more for their new roof,
even though they had a signed contract with Tesla. Unsurprisingly,
this resulted in several legal actions, which were consolidated
into a class action.
Amid the class action, Tesla launched a new program to revert some
of the price changes with people who had signed contracts, but the
legal action moved forward nonetheless.
Two years later, Tesla has agreed to settle the solar roof lawsuit
for $6 million, which should be distributed among the affected
solar roof buyers.
During these few years, Tesla has had issues gaining momentum with
the solar roof.
In 2022, Electrek obtained figures for solar roof installations for
the first time and confirmed that Tesla deployed 2.5 MW of solar
roofs during the second quarter of 2022, or about 23 roofs per week
-- not even close to its goal.
But Tesla is still ramping up the product and signing new
installers.
The product has received praise from new homebuilders in the higher
end of the market. It remains a highly expensive product, but it
makes sense in luxurious houses. Hopefully, the price goes down as
production and deployment increase -- like what happens with most
technology.
In the meantime, regular solar panels and battery packs remain the
best option for most houses to reduce or even eliminate their
electric utility bill. [GN]
THE 1975: Class Action Mulled Over Festival Cancellation
--------------------------------------------------------
Karen Gwee, writing for NME, reports that a class action lawsuit is
being readied against The 1975 over the cancellation of Good Vibes
Festival in Kuala Lumpur by Malaysian artists and festival
vendors.
The British band's frontman Matty Healy criticised the Malaysian
government and its anti-LGBTQ laws onstage and then kissed bassist
Ross MacDonald during their headlining set at Good Vibes last
Friday (July 21), which was afterwards cut short. The next day, the
remainder of the three-day festival was ordered cancelled by the
authorities and the band banned from performing in the country. As
of Tuesday, July 25, 18 police reports have been filed over the
incident.
The class action lawsuit, which is being readied by Malaysian law
firm Thomas Philip, will name all four members of The 1975 and seek
compensation over losses suffered as a result of the incident,
which the firm's founder and managing partner Matthew Thomas Philip
labelled a "deliberate reckless act done knowing well [sic] of the
consequences".
"My view is that The 1975 must be held responsible and accountable
for the losses suffered by the artists and vendors," he said at a
town hall meeting in the Hartamas area in Kuala Lumpur Tuesday
(July 25) evening, which was attended by 70 people, mainly
comprising artists, vendors and members of the media.
Philip first offered his firm's services in a class action lawsuit
to local artists seeking "to sue the band The 1975 for causing
loss" in social media posts over the weekend. As of Tuesday evening
five artists and five vendors are on board the class action, he
told NME, which seeks general damages as well as exemplary and
aggravated damages. It is not yet known how much in damages the
lawsuit will seek.
The firm, which is acting pro bono, said that it aims to gather its
first batch of plaintiffs for the lawsuit within 7-14 days and to
file suit in Malaysia.
Good Vibes Festival organiser Future Sound Asia is not involved in
the class action lawsuit by Thomas Philip, a representative told
NME, but is "happy to assist them in any way needed". Philip said
that he has reached out to the festival organiser and invited them
to "have a dialogue".
Asked if Future Sound Asia is preparing to take legal action of its
own against The 1975 and/or Healy, the representative said the
company "is currently exploring legal options".
NME has approached The 1975 for comment on the impending class
action lawsuit. The band have yet to issue an official statement on
the incident and its aftermath, though a source close to the band
told NME and other publications on Saturday, July 22, that "Matty
has a long-time record of advocating for the LGBTQ+ community, and
the band wanted to stand up for their LGBTQ+ fans and community".
Healy has since referred to the incident on his Instagram stories,
at one point sharing the festival's statement on the cancellation
and writing: "Ok well why don't you try and not make out with Ross
for 20 years. Not as easy as it looks".
Healy's onstage speech, in which he said "I do not see the point of
inviting The 1975 to a country and then telling us who we can have
sex with", was criticised by LGBTQ+ Malaysians as "performative
activism" and disruptive of work by local activists.
Healy's actions were also criticised for the chilling effect some
claimed it would have on the Malaysian live music industry, where
it could become more difficult for international artists to perform
in the country. "We fear it will erode the confidence of music
promoters and various stakeholders in the live entertainment
industry across the nation," said Good Vibes organiser Future Sound
Asia, "and threaten the stability of our burgeoning live arts
scene."
Malaysia's communications and digital minister Fahmi Fadzil has
since called on Puspal, the government agency responsible for
approving filming and performance applications by foreign artists,
to "re-examine all the existing processes regarding Puspal,
including the artist screening issue".
International artists booked for Good Vibes were paid in full prior
to the event as per the terms of their contracts, which is "a
standard practice in the industry", said Future Sound Asia.
However, "payment terms differ for local artists who are usually
paid within a certain time frame after the event in order to manage
cash flow due to the enormous costs of booking big-name
international artists," the representative added.
"Unfortunately, the unforeseen cancellation of the festival does
throw a spanner in the works. It's a very regrettable situation and
we fully acknowledge the impact on our local talent -- all of whom
have been immensely supportive in these challenging times."
The cancellation of Good Vibes also reportedly affected 28 food
vendors who spent thousands in Malaysian ringgit to purchase stock
for the festival -- at least RM15,000 (£2,500), according to one
vendor -- on top of paying upfront to rent a stall on site, among
other costs. Calls to support affected vendors have been
circulating in local media.
MyCreativeVentures, an investment arm of Malaysia's government to
support the country's creative industry, has begun to look into
assisting local artists and food vendors, said communications
minister Fahmi Fadzil.
In a prior statement, Future Sound Asia had called the cancellation
of Good Vibes, which marked its 10th year in 2023, a "catastrophic
financial blow". The company's founder Ben Law said the festival
was "a brand built from the ground up on Malaysian soil, cultivated
by unyielding dedication, resilience, and financial risk.
"Now, this decade-long labour of love faces an unprecedented threat
due to the actions of a single individual. This is a very
challenging time for us." [GN]
THROTTLE ADDICTION: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Throttle Addiction,
LLC. The case is styled as Luis Toro, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Throttle Addiction, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-06280-JHR (S.D.N.Y., July 20, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Throttle Addiction -- https://www.throttleaddiction.com/ -- is a
source for custom motorcycle parts.[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
TIMOTHY B. OBRIEN: Castro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Timothy B Obrien,
LLC. The case is styled as Felix Castro, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Timothy B Obrien, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-06314 (S.D.N.Y., July 21, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Timothy B. O'Brien LLC owns a vitamin store called Apple
Wellness.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB
380 North Broadway, Suite 300
Jericho, NY 11753
Phone: (718) 740-5060
Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com
TOYOTA MOTOR SALES: Gamez Suit Removed to E.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Arecely Gamez, Jeffry Takili, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Toyota Motor Sales,
U.S.A., Inc., Toyota Motor North America, Inc., Case No.
23STCV14327 was removed from the Sacramento County Superior Court,
to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
on July 21, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-01464-DAD-KJN to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Motor Vehicle Prod. Liability for
Personal Injury.
Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc. -- http://www.toyota.com/usa/-- is
the North American Toyota sales, marketing, and distribution
subsidiary devoted to the United States market.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Trinette Gragirena Kent, Esq.
LEMBERG LAW, LLC
3219 E. Camelback Rd. #558
Phoenix, AZ 85018
Phone: (480) 247-9644
Fax: (480) 717-4781
Email: tkent@lemberglaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Robert James Herrington, Esq.
GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP
2450 Colorado Avenue, Suite 400E
Santa Monica, CA 90404
Phone: (310) 586-7700
Fax: (310) 586-7800
Email: herringtonr@gtlaw.com
TRANS OCEAN CARRIER: Lopez Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Rosa Lopez, an individual, and similarly situated employees v.
TRANS OCEAN CARRIER INC., a California Corporation; and DOES 1-10,
Inclusive, Case No. 23LBCV01349 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty.,
July 19, 2023), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime wages; failure to pay minimum wages; failure to provide
proper meal periods; failure to provide proper rest breaks; failure
to provide proper wage statements; failure to timely pay wages upon
termination; unfair competition; failure to reimburse for business
expenses.
The Defendant paid the Plaintiff on a weekly basis with a check,
but no taxes were even taken out. She also did not receive any
corresponding paystubs. the Plaintiff'S job duties consisted of
cleaning the offices, cleaning various homes of the owners, Melvin
and Anna Lin. the Plaintiff regularly worked 5 days a week, 9 to 10
hours per day. However, there are no accurate records of the hours
she worked. She was also not paid for her overtime hours. She was
paid a set amount regardless of how many hours she worked per
week.
the Plaintiff's husband worked for the Defendants as a driver back
in the early 2000s. He had borrowed money from the owners. When he
left the job, the owners began deducting $100 per month from the
Plaintiff's paycheck until the husband's debt was paid off. Once
the debt was paid off, the client's pay stayed at the reduced $250
per week rate. As a result, she earned $1,000 per month.
the Plaintiff was required to use her phone for work, use her own
vehicle to travel to work sites and buy cleaning supplies. the
Plaintiff was not reimbursed for phone usage, mileage or cleaning
supplies. the Plaintiff would tum in her cleaning supply receipts
to the secretary. Sometimes she would get some reimbursements back
and other times the Defendants would think she spent too much and
refuse to pay her anything. In 2021 and 2022, the owners passed
away. The company was passed on to their son, Richard Lin.
In February 2023, Richard told the Plaintiff she needed to resign.
He offered her $2,000 in exchange for her resignation letter. He
offered the same thing to the husband as he periodically did some
work for the company. the Plaintiff refused to sign. Since then,
the Plaintiff has not been permitted to return to work. She never
received a final paycheck, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant for many years as a
janitor and/or house cleaner.
TOC, was an employer whose employees are engaged throughout this
county, and the State of California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brent S. Buchsbaum, Esq.
Laurel N. Haag, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF BUCHSBAUM & HAAG, LLP
100 Oceangate, Suite 1200
Long Beach, CA 90802
Phone: (562)733-2498
Fax: (562)628-5501
Email: brent@buchsbaumhaag.com
laurel@buchsbaumhaag.com
TWISTED THROTTLE: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Twisted Throttle,
LLC. The case is styled as Luis Toro, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Twisted Throttle, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-06282 (S.D.N.Y., July 20, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Twisted Throttle -- https://twistedthrottle.com/ -- is your
one-stop-shop for motorcycle accessories in the United States and
Canada.[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
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Oct. 2 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
The NSW Taxi Council disclosed that as you may be aware, Maurice
Blackburn is conducting a class action against Uber on behalf of
participants in the taxi, hire-car, limousine, and charter vehicle
industry (Uber Class Action).
The Supreme Court of Victoria has ordered that the deadline for
group members to register their claim or to opt out of the Uber
Class Action, is 4pm on 2 October 2023.
If are a group member in the Uber Class Action and you wish to be
eligible to receive compensation from any settlement of the Uber
Class Action, you must register your claim with Maurice Blackburn
by 2 October 2023.
If you do not wish to participate in the Uber Class Action, then
you must opt out of the Uber class action by 2 October 2023.
To register your claim or find further information about how to opt
out, please go to the Maurice Blackburn Uber Class Action webpage.
Alternatively, if you have any questions, please feel free to
contact Maurice Blackburn by email at Uber@mauriceblackburn.com.au
or call the Uber Class Actions Hotline on 1800 291 047.
Further information can also be found in the below notice from the
Supreme Court of Victoria. [GN]
UBIQUITI INC: Bassaw Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ubiquiti Inc. The
case is styled as Shivan Bassaw, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Ubiquiti Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-06240
(S.D.N.Y., July 19, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Ubiquiti Inc. -- http://www.ui.com/-- is an American technology
company founded in San Jose, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Patrick William Gallagher, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor
New York, NY 10007
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: pgallagher@mizrahikroub.com
UNIFI AVIATION: Berg Suit Removed to S.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Leiv Berg, an individual, on behalf of
himself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. UNIFI
AVIATION, LLC, a limited liability company; and DOES 1 to 50,
inclusive, Case No. 37-2023-00019287-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 July 20, 2023, and assigned Case No.
3:23-cv-01334-DMS-DEB.
The Complaint alleges eight causes of action: Unfair Competition in
violation of California Business & Professions Code; Failure to Pay
Minimum Wages in violation of Labor Code; Failure to Pay Overtime
Wages in violation of Labor Code; Failure to Provide Required Meal
Periods in violation of Labor Code and the applicable IWC wage
order; Failure to Provide Required Rest Periods in violation of
Labor Code and the applicable IWC wage order; Failure to Provide
Accurate Itemized Statements in violation of Labor Code; Failure to
Reimburse Employees for Required Expenses in violation of Labor
Code; and Failure to Pay Sick Pay Wages in violation of Labor
Code.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Andrew P. Frederick, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
1400 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304
Phone: +1.650.843.4000
Fax: +1.650.843.4001
Email: andrew.frederick@morganlewis.com
- and -
Joseph Lewis, Esq.
Taylor D. Horn, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
One Market, Spear Street Tower
San Francisco, California 94105-1596
Phone: +1.415.442.1000
Facsimile: +1.415.442.1001
Email: joseph.lewis@morganlewis.com
taylor.horn@morganlewis.com
UNITED STATES: $125MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Oct. 12
-------------------------------------------------------------
United States District Court for the District of Columbia
If you paid fees to access federal court records on PACER at any
time between April 21, 2010 and May 31, 2018, a proposed class
action settlement may affect your rights.
A court authorized this notice. This is not a solicitation from a
lawyer.
Nonprofit groups have sued the United States government alleging
that the United States government has unlawfully charged users of
the Public Access to Court Electronic Records ("PACER") system more
than necessary to cover the costs of providing public access to
federal court records.
The Court has allowed the lawsuit to be a class action on behalf of
all persons or entities that paid PACER fees between April 21, 2010
and May 31, 2018, excluding Class Counsel in this case, federal
agencies, and persons or entities who have opted out.
The parties have decided to settle the case for $125,000,000.
If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your legal rights are
affected whether or not you act. Read this notice carefully.
If you paid PACER fees between April 21, 2010 and April 21, 2016,
you were previously provided an opportunity to exclude yourself.
You have two options now:
LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPTIONS IN THIS LAWSUIT IF YOU PAID PACER FEES
BETWEEN APRIL 21, 2010 AND APRIL 21, 2016
DO NOTHING You do not have to do anything to receive money from the
settlement. You will automatically receive a share of the
settlement, assuming the Court grants final approval of the
settlement.
OBJECT
You may object to any aspect of the proposed settlement. Your
written objection must be
submitted by Tuesday, September 12, 2023.
If you object, you may also request in writing to appear at the
Fairness Hearing.
Your options are further explained in this notice.
If you first paid PACER fees between April 22, 2016 and May 31,
2018, you have three options:
LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPTIONS IN THIS LAWSUIT IF YOU PAID PACER FEES FOR
THE FIRST TIME BETWEEN APRIL 22, 2016 AND MAY 31, 2018
DO NOTHING
By doing nothing, you remain part of the class action settlement
and will automatically receive a share of the common fund assuming
the Court grants final approval of the settlement. By doing
nothing, you give up any rights to sue the United States separately
about the same claims in this lawsuit.
ASK TO BE EXCLUDED
You have the right to not be part of this settlement by excluding
yourself or "opting out" of the settlement and the Class. If you
exclude yourself, you cannot get any money from the settlement, but
you will keep your right to separately sue the United States over
the legal issues in this case.
You must ask to be excluded by August 20, 2023.
OBJECT
If you do not opt out of the settlement, you may object to any
aspect of the settlement.
Your written objection must be submitted by Tuesday, September 12,
2023. If you object, you may also request in writing to appear at
the Fairness Hearing.
Your options are further explained in this notice. Any questions?
Read on or call 866-952-1928
Why did I receive notice?
According to the records of the Administrative Office of the United
States Courts, which runs PACER, PACER fees were paid for your
PACER account between April 21, 2010 and May 31, 2018, inclusive.
This notice explains that the parties have entered into a proposed
class action settlement that may affect you. You may have legal
rights and options that you may exercise before the Court decides
to grant final approval of the settlement. Judge Paul Friedman of
the United States District Court for the District of Columbia is
overseeing this class action. The lawsuit is known as National
Veterans Legal Services Program, et al. v. United States, Civil
Action No. 1:16-cv-00745-PLF.
What is this lawsuit about?
This lawsuit alleges that the government has unlawfully charged
users of Public Access to Court Electronic Records ("PACER") system
more than necessary to cover the costs of providing public access
to federal court records. In the lawsuit, the Plaintiffs say that
Congress authorized the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts to
charge PACER fees only to the extent necessary to cover the costs
of providing the service, but that the federal courts are charging
more than that. You can read the Plaintiffs' Class Action Complaint
and the Defendant's Answer on the settlement website.
How will the settlement money be divided?
The United States has agreed to pay $125,000,000 to settle the
lawsuit. This is referred to as the common fund. All attorneys'
fees, expenses, incentive awards, and claims administration costs
will be deducted from the common fund. Combined, this amount will
be no more than 20% of the common fund. The remaining amount will
be distributed to the Class as follows:
Each Class Member (i.e., payer of PACER fees) will receive a
minimum payment amount equal to the lesser of $350 or the total
amount paid in PACER fees by that Class Member for use of PACER
during the Class Period (April 21, 2010 through and including May
31, 2018). The remainder will be allocated pro rata (based on the
amount of PACER fees paid in excess of $350 during the Class
Period) to all Class Members who paid more than $350 in PACER fees
during the Class Period
When and where will the Court decide whether to approve the
settlement?
On October 12, 2023, the Court will hold a public Fairness Hearing
to determine whether the settlement is fair, adequate, and
reasonable and should be finally approved, with judgment entered
accordingly. The Court will also consider the application for an
award of attorneys' fees and expense reimbursement. The location
and format of this hearing has yet to be determined, and this
hearing may be continued or rescheduled by the Court without
further notice to the Settlement Class Members, so you should check
the website for updates. If there are objections, the Court will
consider them at that time. After the hearing, the Court will
decide whether to approve the settlement. It is unknown how long
this decision will take.
Do Settlement Class Members have a lawyer in this case?
Yes, the Court decided that the law firms of Gupta Wessler PLLC of
Washington, D.C. and Motley Rice LLC of Mount Pleasant, South
Carolina are qualified to represent all Class Members. These law
firms are called Class Counsel. They are experienced in handling
other class actions. More information about Gupta Wessler and
Motley Rice, their practices, and their lawyers' experience is
available at www.guptawessler.com and www.motleyrice.com.
GETTING MORE INFORMATION
Are more details available?
On the website -- https://www.pacerfeesclassaction.com/ -- you will
find the documents filed in this case, including the Court's Order
Certifying the Class, Plaintiffs' Complaint, Defendant's Answer to
the Complaint, a copy of the Settlement Agreement, and the Court's
order preliminarily approving the settlement. You may also obtain
more information by calling 866-952-1928, or by writing to: PACER
Fees Class Action Administrator, P.O. Box 301134, Los Angeles, CA
90030-1134. You may speak to one of the lawyers by calling
800-934-
2792.
DATED: May 8, 2023
BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNIVERSOUL ENTERPRISES: Lawal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against UniverSoul
Enterprises, Inc. The case is styled as Rafia Lawal, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. UniverSoul
Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-06327 (S.D.N.Y., July 21,
2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
UniverSoul Enterprises, Inc. -- https://www.usaopps.com/ --
specialize in African American art, gifts and collectibles.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
UNIVERSOUL ENTERPRISES: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against UniverSoul
Enterprises, Inc. The case is styled as Warren Zinnamon, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated v. UniverSoul
Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-06328 (S.D.N.Y., July 21,
2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
UniverSoul Enterprises, Inc. -- https://www.usaopps.com/ --
specialize in African American art, gifts and collectibles.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
US FOODS INC: Cruz Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Florencio Cruz, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. US FOODS, INC.; and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV12869 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 July 19, 2023, and assigned Case No.
2:23-cv-05851.
The Plaintiff brings various wage-and-hour claims stemming from his
alleged employment with US Foods. The Complaint asserts causes of
action on a class-wide basis for: failure to pay minimum wages;
failure to pay overtime compensation; failure to provide meal
periods; failure to authorize and permit rest breaks; failure to
indemnify necessary business expenses; failure to timely pay final
wages at termination; failure to provide accurate itemized wage
statements; and unfair business practices.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Joseph C. Liburt, Esq.
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & STUCLIFFE LLP
1000 Marsh Road
Menlo Park CA 94025
Phone: +1 650 614 7400
Facsimile: +1 650 614 7401
Email: jliburt@orrick.com
- and -
Katie E. Briscoe, Esq.
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
400 Capitol Mall, Suite 3000
Sacramento, CA 95814-4497
Phone: +1 916 447 9200
Facsimile: +1 916 329 4900
Email: kbriscoe@orrick.com
- and -
Annie H. Chen, Esq.
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2700
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: +1 213 629 2020
Facsimile: +1 213 612 2499
Email: annie.chen@orrick.com
US FOODS INC: Trent Suit Removed to E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as David Trent, individually and on behalf of
similarly situated individuals v. US FOODS, INC., Case No.
2023-LA-613 was removed from the Circuit Court of DuPage County,
Illinois, Eighteenth Judicial Circuit, to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on July 19,
2023, and assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-04681.
The Complaint seeks relief under the Illinois Biometric Information
Privacy Act ("BIPA"), including, among other things, "statutory
damages of $5,000 for each intentional and/or reckless violation of
BIPA..." More specifically, Plaintiff claims that US Foods
unlawfully collected his and other class members' voiceprints
through certain biometric headset technology without first
obtaining their consent, providing notice, or publishing a publicly
available data retention policy.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Danielle M. Kays, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 8000
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 460-5000
Facsimile: (312) 460-7000
Email: dkays@seyfarth.com
VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY: Transgender Patients File Privacy Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Mattise, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
Vanderbilt University Medical Center is being sued by its
transgender clinic patients, who accuse the hospital of violating
their privacy by turning their records over to Tennessee's attorney
general.
Two patients sued on July 24 in Nashville Chancery Court, saying
they were among more than 100 people whose records were sent by
Vanderbilt to Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti. His office has
said it is examining medical billing in a "run of the mill" fraud
investigation that isn't directed at patients or their families.
Vanderbilt has said it was required by law to comply.
The patients say Vanderbilt was aware that Tennessee authorities
are hostile toward the rights of transgender people, and should
have removed their personally identifying information before
turning over the records.
Tennessee has stood out among conservative-led states pushing
myriad laws targeting transgender people, enacting some of the
nation's most anti-LGBTQ restrictions, even as families and
advocates have voiced objections that such policies are harmful.
The lawsuit seeks class-action status on behalf of everyone at the
clinic whose private medical records were released to Skrmetti.
"Against that backdrop, its failure to safeguard the privacy of its
patients is particularly egregious," the lawsuit says.
The attorney general's office has said the hospital has been
providing records of its gender-related treatment billing since
December 2022, and that the records have been kept confidential.
Elizabeth Lane Johnson, an attorney general's office spokesperson,
noted on July 24 that the office isn't a party to the lawsuit, and
directed questions to Vanderbilt.
VUMC spokesperson John Howser said on July 24 that it's common for
health systems to get such requests in billing probes and audits,
and "the decision to release patient records for any purpose is
never taken lightly, even in situations such as this where VUMC was
legally compelled to produce the patient records."
Many of the patients involved are state workers, or their adult
children or spouses; others are on TennCare, the state's Medicaid
plan; and some were not even patients at the transgender clinic,
according to the lawsuit. It says that records for more than 100
current and former patients were sent without redacting their
identities.
The lawsuit says that since the patients learned that their
information was shared, they've been "terrified for their physical
safety, have had significant anxiety and distress that has impacted
their ability to work, has caused them to increase home security
measures, and drop out of activities in which they normally would
participate."
The lawsuit accuses Vanderbilt of negligence that inflicted
emotional damage and violated patient privacy protection and
consumer protection laws. It seeks monetary damages, improved
security procedures, an injunction blocking further release of
their records without notice, an acknowledgement by Vanderbilt that
it violated its own privacy policy, and an admission that the
policy inadequately informs patients of their rights regarding
disclosures.
The hospital waited months before telling patients their medical
information was shared, acting only after the existence of the
requests emerged as evidence in another court case. Howser said
that at that point, hospital officials thought patients should hear
it from them instead of media reports or other ways.
The attorney general also requested a slew of additional
information, including the names of everyone referred to the
transgender clinic who made at least one office visit, as well as
people who volunteer for the hospital's Trans Buddy initiative,
which aims to increase access to care and improve outcomes by
providing emotional support for the clinic's patients.
Howser said Vanderbilt's lawyers are in discussion with the
attorney general's office "about what information is relevant to
their investigation and will be provided by VUMC."
The attorney general's office made the requests several months
after conservative commentator Matt Walsh surfaced videos last
September that include a medical center doctor saying
gender-affirming procedures are "huge money makers" for hospitals.
Vanderbilt paused all gender-affirming surgeries for minors for
this month under pressure from Republican lawmakers and Gov. Bill
Lee, who demanded an investigation.
Vanderbilt said it had provided about five gender-affirming
surgeries to minors each year since its clinic opened in 2018, all
to people over 16 who had parental consent. None received genital
procedures.
Tennessee lawmakers then passed a ban on gender-affirming care for
minors. A federal appeals court recently let it take effect after a
lower court judge blocked it. [GN]
VGW MALTA LTD: Suit Removed to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------
The case captioned as John Doe, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. VGW MALTA LTD. and VGW LUCKYLAND, INC., Case
No. 2023CV381348 was removed from the Superior Court of Fulton
County, Georgia, to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia on July 20, 2023, and assigned Case
No. 1:23-cv-03226-TWT.
The VGW Group specializes in the development and publication of
casino-themed social games for play on mobile apps and traditional
internet browsers. The Anonymous Plaintiff alleges that the VGW
Group's Luckyland Slots and Chumba Casino games violate Georgia
law.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Michael A. Sullivan, Esq.
Nicole Archambault, Esq.
FINCH MCCRANIE, LLP
229 Peachtree St. NE, Suite 2500
Atlanta, GA 30303
Phone: (404) 658-9070
Email: msullivan@finchmccranie.com
narchambault@finchmccranie.com
WALMART INC: Silva Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Valeria Silva, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. WALMART INC., a Delaware
corporation; WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., a Delaware corporation; and
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2309165 was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County
of San Bernardino, to the United States District Court for the
Central District of California on July 24, 2023, and assigned Case
No. 5:23-cv-01451.
The Plaintiff brings the following causes of action on behalf of
herself and the putative class members: failure to provide meal
periods; failure to provide rest breaks; failure to pay minimum
wages; failure to pay overtime wages; failure to pay all wages upon
termination; failure to provide accurate wage statements; failure
to maintain required records; failure to reimburse business
expenses; unfair competition.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Paloma P. Peracchio, 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: paloma.peracchio@ogletree.com
- and -
Mitchell A. Wrosch, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
Park Tower, Fifteenth Floor
695 Town Center Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Phone: 714-800-7900
Facsimile: 714-754-1298
Email: mitchell.wrosch@ogletree.com
- and -
Alexandra M. Asterlin, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
500 Capitol Mall, Suite 2500
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-840-3150
Facsimile: 916-840-3159
Email: alexandra.asterlin@ogletree.com
- and -
Andrew B. Levin, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
Esplanade Center III, Suite 800
2415 East Camelback Road
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Phone: 602-778-3700
Facsimile: 602-778-3750
Email: andrew.levin@ogletree.com
WALT DISNEY: Settles Magic Key Holder's Class Action for $5MM
-------------------------------------------------------------
Iman Palm, writing for KTLA 5 News, reports that Disneyland has
reached a settlement with a Magic Key Holder who claimed in a
class-action lawsuit that the theme park misled and deceived Magic
Key holders who bought the most expensive yearly passes into
thinking they would get unlimited access to the theme parks only to
be unable to secure reservations for certain days.
The motion for court approval of the class-action settlement is due
on Aug. 31, multiple media outlets reported.
"Details about the settlement and what it means for pass holders
will be announced by Aug. 31," theme park blog Mice Chat reported.
"We're keeping an eye on it, but don't expect to get rich on your
payout."
"We are satisfied that this matter has been resolved." a Disneyland
official told KTLA.
KTLA also reached out to attorneys for Nielsen but did not hear
back in time for publication
The $5 million lawsuit was filed by Jenale Nielsen of Santa Clara
County in 2021 after she bought the $1,399 Dream Key, the highest
tier pass, shortly after the company launched the Magic Key
program.
In the lawsuit, Nielsen claimed that Disney's advertising of the
Dream Key having no blackout dates made her think she could go to
the Anaheim theme park any day she wanted.
However, not long after her purchase Nielsen noticed that she
couldn't make a reservation for most days in November, including
each weekend date that month, according to the lawsuit.
"As a frequent Disneyland visitor, Ms. Nielsen thought it was
unlikely that all tickets and/or reservations for both Disneyland
and California Adventure had already been sold for 17 of the 30
calendar days in November 2021," the lawsuit said.
Instead of using her pass, the Magic Key holder tried to buy a
single-day admission ticket and found that reservations were
available for both parks for single-day visitors in November 2021.
"The problem was that Disney had decided to block out reservations
so that they were only available to new purchases and not available
to Dream Key pass holders," court documents said.
The Dream Key has since been replaced with the Inspire Key, the
resort's most expensive pass that offers the fewest blackout
dates.
Disneyland launched the Magic Key program in August 2021 after
retiring the popular annual passport program during a yearlong
shutdown of Disneyland and Disney California Adventure Park due to
the COVID-19 pandemic.
The keys give park guests access to the parks on select dates,
depending on availability and pass type, along with select
discounts on food, merchandise and Genie+, the park's paid
line-skipping service that replaced the Fast Pass program. [GN]
WATTS GUERRA: Cunningham Sues Over Artificial Prerecorded Voice
---------------------------------------------------------------
Craig Cunningham, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Watts Guerra, LLP, Watts Guerra, LLC, Henson Fuerst,
P.A., Law Office of Douglas Boxer, and Biltmore Law Group, PLLC,
Case No. 5:23-cv-00910-OLG (W.D. Tex., July 20, 2023), is brought
by the Defendants violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act ("TCPA") by using an artificial or prerecorded voice in
connection with non-emergency calls they placed, or caused to be
placed, to Plaintiff's cellular telephone number, without prior
express consent.
In late 2021, Plaintiff began receiving a series of calls,
delivered using an artificial or prerecorded voice, from a rotating
series of phone numbers for the purpose of soliciting Plaintiff to
submit a claim regarding the pending Zantac mass tort litigation.
In or around December 2022 and continuing through April 2023,
Plaintiff again began receiving a series of calls, delivered using
an artificial or prerecorded voice, from a rotating series of phone
numbers.
The Plaintiff did not recognize the phone numbers associated with
these calls. Each of these calls was made for the purpose of
soliciting Plaintiff to submit a claim regarding the pending Camp
Lejeune water contamination mass tort litigation. The Plaintiff did
not previously inquire regarding submitting a claim for injury
related to Camp Lejeune. The Plaintiff is not, and was not,
interested in submitting a claim for injury related to Camp
Lejeune. The Plaintiff did not serve at Camp Lejeune and did not
live in the vicinity of Camp Lejeune during the relevant time
period. The Plaintiff estimates that he has received in excess of
two dozen calls from these phone numbers related to Camp Lejeune
claims, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a natural person who at all relevant times resided
in Plano, Texas.
Watts Guerra is a national law firm that practices, among other
things, mass tort litigation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bryan A. Giribaldo, Esq.
Alex D. Kruzyk, Esq.
PARDELL, KRUZYK & GIRIBALDO, PLLC
501 Congress Avenue, Suite 150
Austin, TX 78701
Phone: (561) 726-8444
Email: akruzyk@pkglegal.com
bgiribaldo@pkglegal.com
- and -
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21031 Ventura Blvd, Ste. 340
Woodland Hills, CA 91364
Phone: (323) 306-4234
Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
WESTERN AUSTRALIA: Faces Youth Detention Class Action Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Naomi Neilson, writing for LawyersWeekly, reports that two
teenagers inside a unit attached to a maximum security prison in
Western Australia alleged they were discriminated against because
of their disabilities and age, according to an affidavit from a
solicitor hoping to add the proceeding to the WA youth detention
class action.
Casuarina Prison, the main maximum-security prison for adult men in
Western Australia, contains a juvenile detention centre known as
Unit 18, where 10 current and former detainees alleged they were
unlawfully discriminated against by the minister, chief executive,
superintendent and officers.
Two boys, both under the age of 18, have alleged they were
subjected to lengthy solitary confinement periods and were kept
from education programs, social opportunities with other detainees,
psychological assessments and, in the case of one boy, hygiene
products.
In an affidavit filed with the Federal Court, Levitt Robinson
Solicitors senior partner Stewart Alan Levitt said they have
suffered "loss and damage, including physical injury, psychiatric
injury, economic loss, deprivation of liberty, discomfort, fear and
distress, and loss of dignity".
The applicants and group members also made tortious claims relating
to battery, assault, false imprisonment and breaches of duty of
care.
As there are similar allegations being run in the WA youth
detention class action, Mr Levitt submitted to the court that it
would be "most efficient if these proceedings were run together".
In the affidavit, Mr Levitt explained the boys were transferred
from the Banksia Hill Detention Centre as they had "exhibited
complex needs, had significant offending histories and for months
had been destroying infrastructure, assaulting staff and harming
themselves".
In the case of one of the boys, who suffers from a neurological
injury and severe claustrophobia, he alleged he spent an average of
20 hours and 50 minutes in solitary confinement -- including the
overnight lockdown period -- between 21 July and 19 August 2022.
While held in Unit 18, he alleged he was frequently subjected to
"routine and excessive use of force", subjected to strip searches
and was kept from education programs, welfare checks and
psychological assistance.
Part of his punishments allegedly included restrictions on
telephone calls with family, the opportunity to shower, and a lack
of hygiene products, including body wash, toothbrush and shampoo.
The other boy, who suffers from ADHD and AOCD, alleged he was
routinely handcuffed even when visiting family members,
strip-searched and watched by officers while he was showering.
A complaint was lodged on behalf of both boys but then dismissed by
the Australian Human Rights Commission in March 2023.
The applicants have claimed the state of Western Australia failed
to ensure there were appropriate treatment, programs and services
for group members with a disability. They alleged they were also
restricted from education services and facilities within the adult
detention centre.
In addition to compensation, the applicants and group members are
seeking a declaration that the minister, CEO, superintendents
and/or officers engaged in unlawful disability and age
discrimination. [GN]
WHEELCO REMANUFACTURING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cruz Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
GALDINO SANTIAGO CRUZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WHEELCO REMANUFACTURING, LLC,
d/b/a ELITE RIM REPAIRS LLC; and CHARLES R. WHEELEY III,
Defendants, 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 Cruz was employed by the Defendants as a laborer and
repair man.
WHEELCO REMANUFACTURING, LLC, d/b/a ELITE RIM REPAIRS LLC is an
automotive detail and repair shop in Plainview, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew J. Farnworth, Esq.
Peter A. Romero, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC
490 Wheeler Road, Suite 250
Hauppauge, NY 11788
Telephone: (631) 257-5588
WHITE ROSE: Rivera Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Healthcare Workers
---------------------------------------------------------------
SUSAN RIVERA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WHITE ROSE HOME CARE AGENCY, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 3:23-cv-00961 (D. Conn., July 19, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for its failure to pay wages, including
overtime wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act.
The Plaintiff has been employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt
healthcare worker from approximately Summer 2019 through the
present.
White Rose Home Care Agency, LLC is a home health agency
headquartered in Fairfield, Connecticut. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew C. Sorokin, Esq.
THE SOROKIN LAW FIRM
9 Lewis Street
Hartford, CT 06103
Telephone: (860) 776-6017
E-mail: mat@sorokinlaw.com
- and -
Edmund C. Celiesius, Esq.
Nicholas Conlon, Esq.
BROWN, LLC
111 Town Square Place, Suite 400
Jersey City, NJ 07310
Telephone: (877) 561-0000
Facsimile: (855) 582-5297
E-mail: ed.celiesius@jtblawgroup.com
nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com
WHITWORTH UNIVERSITY: Wilson Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Washington
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Whitworth University.
The case is styled as Rachel Wilson, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. NRA Group LLC doing business as:
Whitworth University, Case No. 2:23-cv-00203-SAB (E.D. Wash., July
18, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property.
Whitworth University -- https://www.whitworth.edu/ -- is a private,
Christian university affiliated with the Presbyterian Church and
located in Spokane, Washington.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason T. Dennett, Esq.
Kaleigh Nicole Boyd, Esq.
Kim D Stephens, Esq.
TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
1200 5th Avenue, Suite 1700
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 682-5600
Email: jdennett@tousley.com
kboyd@tousley.com
kstephens@tousley.com
WW NORTH AMERICA: Monterrosa Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Keni Monterrosa, and other similarly situated
v. WW NORTH AMERICA HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware Corporation; WW
NORTH AMERICA HOLDINGS, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company;
and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. CIV SB 2313324 was
removed from the San Bernardino County Superior Court, to the
United States District Court for the Central District of California
on July 21, 2023, and assigned Case No. 5:23-cv-01442.
The Complaint alleges causes of action for failure to pay wages,
waiting time penalties, failure to provide accurate wage
statements, association-based disability discrimination, work
environment harassment, retaliation, failure to prevent harassment,
discrimination and retaliation, retaliation, failure to provide
reasonable accommodation, failure to engage in good faith
interactive process, unfair and unlawful business practices, and
wrongful termination in violation of public policy.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Carrie A. Gonell, Esq.
Samuel S. Sadeghi, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1800
Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7653
Phone: +1.714.830.0600
Fax: +1.714.830.0700
Email: carrie.gonell@morganlewis.com
sam.sadeghi@morganlewis.com
WYNN LAS VEGAS: Little Suit Removed to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Sheila Little, individually and on behalf of
all individuals similarly situated v. WYNN LAS VEGAS, LLC, et al.,
Case No. A-23-869353-C was removed from the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of Contra Costa, to the United
States District Court for Northern District of California on July
21, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-01150.
On April 20, 2023, Plaintiff filed a collective and class action
Complaint arising out of allegations that Wynn Las Vegas' tip
pooling policy for slot employees violated the Fair Labor Standards
Act ("FLSA").[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Michelle D. Alarie, Esq.
ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP
7160 Rafael Rivera Way, Suite 320
Las Vegas, NV 89113
Phone: 702.678.5070
Facsimile: 702.878.9995
Email: malarie@atllp.com
- and -
Michael Freimann, Esq.
ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP
4643 S. Ulster Street, Suite 800
Denver, CO 80237
Phone: 720.200.0676
Facsimile: 720.200.0679
Email: mfreimann@atllp.com
YAN ZHI HOTEL: Faces Figueroa Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
JEANNETTE FIGUEROA, on her own behalf and on behalf of others
similarly situated Plaintiff v. YAN ZHI HOTEL MANAGEMENT INC. d/b/a
Howard Johnson Hotel, MAYFLOWER INTERNATIONAL HOTEL GROUP INC d/b/a
Mayflower Hotel, d/b/a Wyndham Garden, and d/b/a Howard Johnson
Hotel; MAYFLOWER BUSINESS GROUP, LLC d/b/a Mayflower Hotel, and
d/b/a Wyndham Garden; MAYFLOWER INN CORPORATION d/b/a Howard
Johnson Hotel; MAYFLOWER WENYU LLC d/b/a Mayflower Hotel, and d/b/a
Wyndham Garden; MAYFLOWER 1-1 LLC d/b/a Howard Johnson Hotel,
WEIHONG HU a/k/a Wei Hong Hu; XIAOZHUANG GE a/k/a Xiao Zhuang Ge;
and HENLEY LIANG, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-05405 (E.D.N.Y.,
July 17, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Wage Theft
Prevention Act and the Minimum Wage Act incorporated in the New
York Labor law, and the Minimum Wage Order for Miscellaneous
Industries and Occupations, arising from Defendants various
willful, malicious, and unlawful employment policies, patterns
and/or practices.
The Plaintiff alleges pursuant to the FLSA, NYLL and the Wage Order
that she is entitled to recover from the Defendants: (1) unpaid
overtime wages; (2) liquidated damages; (3) up to $5,000.00 for
failure to provide wage statements compliant with Section 195.3 of
the NYLL with each payment of wages, reasonable attorney fees, and
costs, pursuant to Section 198.1-d of the NYLL; (4) pre-judgement
and post-judgement interest, and (5) attorneys' fees and costs.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants to work as an assistant
manager at the Howard Johnson Hotel, located at 3859 12th Street
Long Island City, New York from April 2, 2021 to September 15,
2021.
Yan Zhi Hotel Management Inc., d/b/a Howard Johnson Hotel, is a
domestic business corporation organized under the laws of the State
of New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John Troy, Esq.
Aaron Schweitzer, Esq.
Tiffany Troy, Esq.
TROY LAW, PLLC
41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 110
Flushing, NY 11355
Telephone: (718) 762-1324
Z&C GARDEN: Sanchez Sues Over Restaurant Servers' Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
REYANNA SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Z&C GARDEN LLC d/b/a UMIYA SUSHI SEAFOOD
GRILL and YIXING ZHENG, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-00183 (S.D.
Tex., July 19, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for
failure to pay minimum wages and overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff has been employed as a server at Umiya Sushi Seafood
Grill since approximately June of 2022.
Z&C Garden LLC is the owner and operator of a restaurant under the
name Umiya Sushi Seafood Grill, located at 4101 S. Padre Island
Dr., Ste. C Corpus Christi, Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Trang Q. Tran, Esq.
TRAN LAW FIRM
2537 S. Gessner Road, Suite 104
Houston, TX 77063
Telephone: (713) 223-8855
Email: trang@tranlf.com
ZIPR MOBILITY: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Zipr Mobility LLC.
The case is styled as Milton Williams, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Zipr Mobility LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-06249 (S.D.N.Y., July 19, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Zip'r Mobility -- https://zipr.com/ -- is the premier manufacturer
of mobility scooters and electric wheelchairs.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18th St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
ZUORA INC: Class Action Settlement Hearing Set for Sept. 12
-----------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
IN RE ZUORA, INC. DERIVATIVE LITIGATION
This Document Relates To:
ALL ACTIONS.
Lead Case No. 3:19-cv-05701-SI
(Consolidated with Case No. 3:19-cv-05702-SI)
NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF DERIVATIVE MATTERS
TO: ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES WHO HOLD OR BENEFICIALLY OWN,
DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, ZUORA, INC. ("ZUORA" OR THE "COMPANY")
COMMON STOCK AS OF MAY 9, 2023 ("CURRENT ZUORA
SHAREHOLDERS").
PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. THIS
NOTICE RELATES TO A PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSAL OF THE
ABOVE-CAPTIONED CONSOLIDATED SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE
ACTION (THE "ACTION") BY ENTRY OF THE JUDGMENT BY THE COURT
AND CONTAINS IMPORTANT INFORMATION REGARDING YOUR RIGHTS.
YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THESE LEGAL PROCEEDINGS. IF
THE COURT APPROVES THE SETTLEMENT, YOU WILL BE FOREVER
BARRED FROM CONTESTING THE APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT AND FROM PURSUING THE RELEASED CLAIMS.
IF YOU HOLD ZUORA COMMON STOCK FOR THE BENEFIT OF ANOTHER,
PLEASE PROMPTLY TRANSMIT THIS DOCUMENT TO SUCH BENEFICIAL
OWNER.
THE RECITATION OF THE BACKGROUND AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE
SETTLEMENT CONTAINED HEREIN DOES NOT CONSTITUTE THE
FINDINGS OF THE COURT. IT IS BASED ON REPRESENTATIONS MADE TO
THE COURT BY COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES.
THIS ACTION IS NOT A "CLASS ACTION." THUS, THERE IS NO COMMON FUND
UPON WHICH YOU CAN MAKE A CLAIM FOR A MONETARY
PAYMENT.
Notice is hereby provided to you of the proposed settlement (the
"Settlement") of the above-referenced shareholder derivative
lawsuit as well as related suits. This Notice is provided by Order
of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
(the "Court"). It is not an expression of any opinion by the Court.
It is to notify you of the terms of the proposed Settlement, and
your rights related thereto.
WHY THE COMPANY HAS ISSUED THIS NOTICE
Your rights may be affected by the Settlement of the following
actions:
* In re Zuora, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Lead Case No.
3:19-cv-05701-SI (N.D. Cal.);
* DeRycke v. Tzuo, et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-2775-SI (N.D.
Cal.);
* In re Zuora, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Lead Case
No. 1:20-cv-00714-CFC (D. Del.); and
* In re Zuora, Inc. Stockholder Derivative Litigation,
Case No. 2021-0147-SG (Del. Ch.).
Plaintiffs in these actions (the "Litigation"), Andrew Lichter,
Keith Beaven, Theresa DeRycke (Sbarra), Ahtesham Ahmed, Kenneth
Schuster, Aleta Thompson, and Matthew Harney (on behalf of
themselves and derivatively on behalf of Zuora) (collectively
"Plaintiffs"); individual defendants Marc Diouane, Peter Fenton,
Kenneth A. Goldman, Timothy Haley, Jason Pressman, Tyler Sloat,
Tien Tzuo, Michelangelo Volpi, and Magdalena Yesil ("Individual
Defendants"); and nominal defendant Zuora have agreed upon terms to
settle the Litigation, through counsel, and have signed a written
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement ("Stipulation") setting
forth those settlement terms. Together, the Individual Defendants
and nominal defendant Zuora are referred to as "Defendants."
On September 15, 2023, at 10:00 a.m., San Francisco Courthouse,
Courtroom 1 – 17th Floor, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco,
CA 94102, the Honorable Judge Susan Illston will hold a hearing
(the "Settlement Hearing") in this action. The purpose of the
Settlement Hearing is to determine, pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23.1: (i) whether the terms of the Settlement are
fair, reasonable, and adequate and should be approved; (ii) whether
the notice of the Settlement to Current Zuora Shareholders fully
satisfied the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.1
and the requirements of due process; (iii) whether a final judgment
should be entered; (iv) whether the agreed-to Fee and Expense
Amount and Service Awards to Plaintiffs should be approved; and (v)
such other matters as may be necessary or proper under the
circumstances.
The Court may: (i) approve the Settlement, with such modifications
as may be agreed to by counsel for the Settling Parties consistent
with such Settlement, without further notice to Current Zuora
Shareholders; (ii) continue or adjourn the Settlement Hearing from
time to time, by oral announcement at the hearing or at any
adjournment thereof, without further notice to Current Zuora
Shareholders; and (iii) conduct the Settlement Hearing remotely
without further notice to Current Zuora Shareholders. If you intend
to attend the Settlement Hearing, please consult the Court's
calendar and/or the website of Zuora (http://investor.zuora.com)
for any change in date, time or format of the Settlement Hearing.
This Notice summarizes the Stipulation. It is not a complete
statement of the events of the Action or the Stipulation. For
additional information about the claims asserted in the Action and
the terms of the proposed Settlement, please refer to the documents
filed with the Court in the Action, the Stipulation and its
exhibits (they are filed as an exhibit to the Company's Current
Report on Form 8-K, or in a Form 10-Q or Form 10-K, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission and available at www.sec.gov),
and this Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Derivative
Matters. The "Investor Relations" section of Zuora website
(http://investor.zuora.com)provides hyperlinks to the Notice and
to the Stipulation and its exhibits.
You may obtain further information by contacting Plaintiffs'
counsel at: Timothy Brown, The Brown Law Firm, P.C., 767 Third
Avenue, Suite 2501, New York, NY 10017, Telephone: (516) 922-5427,
E-mail: tbrown@thebrownlawfirm.net; or Phillip Kim, The Rosen Law
Firm, P.A., 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor, New York, NY 10016,
Telephone: (212) 686-1060, E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com
PLEASE DO NOT CALL, WRITE, OR OTHERWISE DIRECT QUESTIONS TO
EITHER THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE.
BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
DATED: July 14, 2023
ZURU LLC: Hurtado Files Suit in D. South Carolina
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Zuru LLC. The case is
styled as Matthew Hurtado, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Zuru LLC, Case No. 4:23-cv-03482-RBH (D.S.C.,
July 19, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Personal
Injury.
ZURU -- https://zuru.com/ -- is a disruptive and award-winning
company that designs, manufactures and markets innovative toys and
consumer products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Paul J. Doolittle, Esq.
Blake Garrett Abbott, Esq.
POULIN WILLEY ANASTOPOULO LLC
32 Ann Street
Charleston, SC 29403
Phone: (843) 834-4712
Email: pauld@akimlawfirm.com
blake@akimlawfirm.com
[*] Court Hears Evidence in Stolen Wages Class Action in Australia
------------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Mackay, writing for ABC News, reports that Cecily Nixon was
around three months old when she was taken from her family in
Borroloola -- almost 1,000 kilometres south-east of Darwin -- to be
raised at the Garden Point catholic mission on the Tiwi Islands to
Darwin's north, a class action court case has heard.
"I was told my mother didn't want me because of the colour of my
skin," Ms Nixon said.
"That's why the welfare people took me and half-caste children off
their mums."
It was not until she was 24, in the mid-1970s, that Ms Nixon said
she returned to Borroloola and learned about her family.
"I grew up hating my mother because I thought she was the one who
gave me away and didn't want me, but that wasn't the case," she
said.
Ms Nixon's emotional story was one of about 25 heard by Federal
Court Justice Bernard Murphy, as he travelled through the Northern
Territory.
The Federal Court conducted evidence preservation hearings in
Central Australia and Darwin, as part of an ongoing class action
over allegedly stolen wages of Aboriginal people before 1971.
Shine Lawyers - the firm leading the class action - said it
estimated that millions of dollars in stolen or unpaid wages could
be owed by the Commonwealth government.
Class action practise leader, Sarah Thomson, told the ABC the
evidence preservation hearings were a crucial part of proceedings,
as class actions often take years to reach a trial or resolution.
"Group members are ageing and deserve to see justice in their
lifetimes," Ms Thomson said.
"We need to make the struggles they endured worth something to them
and their families."
The class action was filed in the Federal Court in June 2021 on
behalf of First Nations people who worked in the Northern Territory
between 1933 and 1971.
Shine Lawyers said many of the potential claimants worked as
stockmen, farmhands, laundry assistants and kitchen hands.
"It has almost been a full week of evidence about the horrific
treatment of Indigenous [people] in the decades prior to the
1970s," Ms Thomson said.
"[The court heard] workers were given food rations and treated
appallingly on the properties they worked."
Domestic work and life on the mission
In Darwin, the court heard several stories from women raised at the
Garden Point mission between 1941 and 1969, who described working
on a "rotation" of different jobs, such as cleaning, looking after
the little children, baking, and sewing once they finished school.
Maybelle Bourke recalled being beaten if the work was not finished
quickly, or if the Aboriginal children spoke in their native
languages.
"The head nun there was good, she made a rule that the other nuns
couldn't touch us," Ms Bourke said.
"But she left and then they started hoeing in."
She told the court she felt "like a punching bag" and still has
problems walking after suffering an ankle injury when she was
beaten with a stick as a child.
Ms Bourke told the court she recalled receiving her first pay in
1966, when she was 16 years old, at $1 per week.
"With the dollar I got there . . . you put it in the bank. The
priest used to have the Commonwealth Bank books," Ms Bourke said.
Some of the women said by the time they left the mission after
several years of work, in their late teens, they had about $14 to
$15 to their name.
Another witness, Nora Sullivan, told the court she had "a good
time" growing up, but that when she left at 19 for a domestic job
with a Darwin family, her "nightmares began".
"I worked and I worked and I worked and I worked, I had no time for
myself," Ms Sullivan said.
"I had to get up cook their breakfast, make their bed, clean their
house and do their washing . . . I had no time for anything."
Ms Sullivan said she was paid three pounds a week, working from 6am
to 11pm.
Surviving World War II and the stolen generation
Sister Barbara Tippolay told the court she couldn't remember how
old she was when she was taken to the Garden Point mission but was
"about hip height" when the "boats used to come around and pick up
children".
"As a child, I remember playing around on the beach but then I was
taken away," she said.
Sister Tippolay was born on Melville Island in 1936 and raised in
the mission when it was established in 1941.
There, she described sleeping in dormitories with other girls, nuns
and babies, before the mission was evacuated when the Japanese
started bombing the Northern Territory in February 1942.
"We were here when the first bombs fell," Sister Tippolay said.
"The kids were outside when the Japanese started dropping their
bombs . . . when the priest told us to get inside, we were confused
and didn't know what was happening."
The court heard the children spent several years in Melbourne,
before returning to the Garden Point mission after the war.
Sister Tippolay said whilst she had happy memories of living at the
mission, she also described working on the "rotation" of jobs at
Garden Point.
"We had the children and then the chooks to look after, cleaning
the refectory, then the upstairs to get the school ready, then you
had also the church you had to clean every day, and also, we had to
bake, do our own bread, and the ones that left school were in
charge of the kitchen too," she said.
While the court heard evidence that some women raised on the
mission received pocket money, Sister Tippolay said she had no
memory of being paid for her work.
The July 26 proceedings were scheduled to be held on the Tiwi
Islands, where the witnesses' stories came from, but were moved to
Darwin due to sorry business - funeral ceremonies - being held in
the community.
The class action proceedings will continue with an administrative
hearing in Melbourne this week. [GN]
[*] Fraudulent Claims Impact Settlement Administration Process
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ross Weiner, writing for ALM, reports that there is a new insidious
trend affecting consumer product class action settlements:
fraudulent claims on a heretofore unseen level. Following are three
recent class action settlements that were impacted by fraudulent
claims and describe one third-party administrator's prescription
for remedying this risk.
Godiva
In January 2019, plaintiff Steve Hesse sued Godiva Chocolatier over
its line of products bearing "Belgium 1926" on the label. According
to Hesse, that label was deceptive because Godiva Chocolates are
not made in Belgium (the chocolate capital of the world); rather,
they are made in Reading, Penn.
After years of litigating, the parties agreed on a $15 million
claims-made settlement. Consumers who submitted a claim with proof
of purchase were entitled to $1.25 per product, up to a maximum of
$25. Those who submitted a claim without proof of purchase were
entitled to $1.25 per product, up to a maximum of $15.
So far, a pretty unremarkable settlement. But then the claims
started pouring in. In plaintiff's motion for final approval of the
settlement, the settlement administrator filed a declaration
stating that while there had been 827,676 claims, an incredible
317,723 of them (38%) were "not valid." This number was startling
enough. But the story does not end there.
The administrator informed the court that, on its own volition, it
"continued to review approved claims to ensure that they were
valid." It turns out: they weren't. The administrator "discovered
that a bot stemming from a foreign country had been used to
manufacture fraudulent claims." And it acknowledged discovering
this defect "because this same type of fraud…had occurred in
another settlement it was administering."
After further review, the administrator determined that an
additional 74,273 claims were invalid, meaning that at the end of
the day, 47% of all filed claims were fraudulent.
Celsius
Two individuals sued Celsius Holdings, Inc. in 2021, alleging that
its Celsius Live Fit drinks were mislabeled as "No Preservatives"
when, in actuality, they contained the preservative citric acid. In
late 2022, the parties announced a $7.8 million non-reversionary
settlement, through which those who submitted a claim with proof of
purchase would be capped at $250, while those who submitted a claim
without proof of purchase would be entitled to up to $1 for every
can (so a 12-pack would be worth up to $12) and up to $5 for every
14-unit package of powdered drinks, capped at a maximum of $20.
While the $250-with-proof benefit was higher than average for a
consumer product settlement, the $20-without-proof benefit was in
no way remarkable. But what happened next was.
After a 60-day-claims-period, there were 1,774,900 claims: a
staggering figure. Yet, of those claims, 209,642 were duplicates,
while 658,719 were invalid, which the settlement administrator
defined as "multiple claims from a single internet protocol
address," "claims from known fraudulent email domains, claims that
appear to be unrelated to each other with a request to be paid
using the same digital payment account information, and claims with
outlier product quantities that have deficient or suspect
documentation." This left only 906,539 valid claims, meaning a full
49% of submitted claims were fraudulent.
Anheuser-Busch
The third settlement to discuss involved the King of Beers,
Anheuser-Busch (A-B). Except this lawsuit did not concern beer;
rather, it was about A-B's "Ritas" brand Margarita, Sprits, and
Fizz products. According to the named plaintiff, these canned
cocktails evoked drinks traditionally made with distilled spirits
or wine, but allegedly, the Ritas brand of products contained
neither.
In July 2022, the parties agreed to an uncapped settlement, through
which those who submitted a claim with proof of purchase would
receive a maximum of $21.25, while those who submitted a claim
without proof of purchase would receive a refund of up to $9.75.
Two days before the claim period ended, the settlement
administrator reported having received 784,534 claim forms.
The settlement administrator, however, noted that it had detected
"unusual claim filing activity," which led it to conduct an
"extensive investigation into the filing of potentially invalid
[c]laims." In the final report to the court before the settlement
was approved, the settlement administrator noted that this
extensive investigation had uncovered 33,771 invalid claims out of
the 269,944 it had reviewed (12.5%).
A Settlement Administrator's Assessment
One settlement administrator active in the consumer product class
action space was willing to speak on background about what he's
seeing. Top of mind for him was the incredible influx of fraudulent
claims and what a strain it puts on the settlement administration
process. He noted that while individuals lying in claim forms to
obtain "no proof" benefits have always been a problem, the newest
iteration of fraud, including sophisticated bots, is much harder to
fight. And he said that there is a lot of discussion among
administrators about how best to combat this phenomenon.
Because most administrators charge on a per filed claim basis, the
more fraudulent claims there are, the more expensive administration
becomes for the parties. Accordingly, it has become imperative to
try to create claim filing processes that discourage the scammers
and stop the fraudulent claims before they cross the transom.
But for those fraudulent claims that are submitted, all hope is not
lost. According to the administrator, there are anti-fraud devices
that help stem the damage. Any time you can require claimants to
provide a physical address or email address, instead of just a
mobile phone number, the better off you will be.
While the administrator conceded that he cannot stop third-party
sites from publicizing settlements nor stop bad international
actors from filing fraudulent claims, his shop is constantly
working on technological advances to create firewalls to head them
off. But he lamented that technology that works for a time, e.g.,
Captcha, eventually falls prey to even more sophisticated
fraudsters.
Finally, according to the administrator, for litigants that need to
collaborate on a settlement process, it is critical that both
parties be on the same page about fighting fraud and empowering the
case's settlement administrator to do so. He said that if he was
such a litigant, he would want to know what his options were to
weed out fraud, what has been successful in other cases, and how
much each option costs.
If litigants fail to take this threat seriously and simply hire the
cheapest administrator with the least amount of fraud controls, the
result will always be the same: more money spent on administration,
while less money goes to the class, a result that nobody (except
maybe the administrators!) should want.
While defendants will have to decide for themselves which option is
best for their situation, the most important thing is that they are
aware that many of the claims made on a settlement may be
fraudulent and they have a plan in place to detect the issue.
Ross Weiner is the legal director at Certum Group. [GN]
[*] Securities Class Action Filings Up in First Half 2023
---------------------------------------------------------
The number of securities class action filings increased in the
first half of 2023, according to a report released on July 25 by
Cornerstone Research and the Stanford Law School Securities Class
Action Clearinghouse.
The report, Securities Class Action Filings -- 2023 Midyear
Assessment, found that plaintiffs filed 114 securities class
actions in federal and state courts in the first half of 2023, a
23% increase from the second half of 2022 and in line with the
semiannual average between 1997 and 2022. Six securities class
actions related to the recent turbulence in the banking sector were
filed (five in the first half of 2023 and one in the second half of
2022). There were 11 cryptocurrency-related filings in 2023. Of
these, over half included allegations related to cryptocurrency
exchanges.
"We continue to see a high level of cryptocurrency-related
securities class action filings," said Alexander "Sasha" Aganin,
the report's coauthor and a Cornerstone Research senior vice
president. "If this pace continues through the rest of the year, it
is likely that the total number of cryptocurrency filings will near
the record high seen in 2022."
Federal Section 11 and state claims under the Securities Act of
1933 are on pace to decrease substantially in 2023, from a combined
total of 50 filings in 2022 to an annualized total of 28 filings in
2023. Much of this decline is attributable to a drop in state 1933
Act filings, but federal Section 11 filing activity was down as
well.
The Maximum Dollar Loss (MDL) Index™ increased sharply to a
record high of $2,245 billion in the first half of 2023, more than
four times the 1997–2022 semiannual average of $548 billion and a
152% increase from the second half of 2022. Mega MDL filings (those
with an MDL of at least $10 billion) represented 92% of total MDL.
The Disclosure Dollar Loss (DDL) Index™ rose to $170 billion, an
increase of 45% compared to $117 billion in the second half of
2022, but was well below the record high of $505 billion in the
first half of 2022.
"The next few months could witness important developments in the
world of securities litigation," according to Joseph Grundfest,
professor at Stanford Law School and a former SEC Commissioner.
"The Supreme Court's remand in Pirani opens the door to new
interpretations of Section 12 liability, and to new learning about
the mechanics of Section 11 tracing. A district court's very recent
decision holding that Ripple's XRP token is a legal shape-shifter
-- sometimes it is a security subject to federal securities law and
sometimes it isn't -- will likely be appealed and is sure to
generate important appellate precedent."
Securities Class Action Filings -- 2023 Midyear Assessment
Read the Report
Key Trends
* Filings in the Financial sector tripled relative to the number
of such filings in 2022 H2, partially driven by filings in the 2023
Banking Turbulence trend category.
* Core federal filings against non-U.S. issuers (20) are on pace
to remain well below the recent high in 2020 (73).
* MDL in the Ninth Circuit increased by over 500%, while MDL in
the Second Circuit increased by 3%.
* The likelihood of a core filing against a U.S. exchange-listed
company is on pace to increase slightly to an annualized rate of
3.2%.
* The Dollar Loss on Offered Shares Index(TM) (DLOS Index(TM))
for federal Section 11 claims declined significantly compared to
2022. DLOS from filings in California state courts increased
substantially, surpassing New York state court filings as the main
source of DLOS.
* Core federal SPAC filings have remained low, with seven
filings in 2023 so far.
* The number and total index value of mega MDL filings are on
pace to reach historical highs in 2023.
About the Stanford Law School Securities Class Action
Clearinghouse
The Securities Class Action Clearinghouse is an authoritative
source of data and analysis on the financial and economic
characteristics of federal securities fraud class action
litigation. The SCAC maintains a database of more than 6,400
securities class action lawsuits filed since the passage of the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The database also
contains copies of complaints, briefs, filings, and other
litigation-related materials filed in these cases. [GN]
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2023. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.
*** End of Transmission ***