/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230811.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, August 11, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 161 Headlines 1ST SOURCE BANK: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Edwards Alleges 1ST SOURCE CORP: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Funk Says 22ND CENTURY: Settlement Hearing in Noto Class Suit Sets October 3 3M COMPANY: Peffer Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams A1A TRANSPORTATION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, De La Rosa Alleges ACCREDITATION COMMISSION: Dry Files Suit in N.D. Georgia ALEJANDRO N. MAYORKAS: Al Otro Files Suit in S.D. California ALLIED CEMENT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hornick Alleges AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Maestas Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices AMERICAN EXPRESS: Faces Class Suit Over Illegal Interest Rates ANHEUSER-BUSCH: Lira Suit Removed to C.D. California ASHLEY FURNITURE: Herrera ADA Suit Removed to D. New Jersey AT&T INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due September 26 ATRIUM HEALTH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Harris Alleges BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Suit Over Illegal Interest Rate Charges BARKBOX INC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York BENTO BOX ENTERPRISE: Al-Bazirgan Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. BLACK CLOVER: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York BLUE APRON: Hayes Suit Removed to N.D. California BUFFALO WILD: Sued Over Misleading Boneless Wings' Marketing BYTEDANCE INC: Faces Privacy Lawsuit Over TikTok Video-Editing App CCFI COMPANIES: Lovette Suit Removed to N.D. California CIGNA HEALTH: Faces Class Suit Over Automatic Claim Rejections COINBASE INC: Faces Reeves Suit Over Cryptocurrency Scheme COMPLETE COLLECTION: Boyd FDCPA Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania CONCOURSE TEAM EXPRESS: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CONSUMER ADJUSTMENT: Summary Judgment in FCRA Suit Granted CORAL RIDGE: Ospina Suit Removed to S.D. Florida CORPORATION OF MERCER: Kilkus Suit Transferred to M.D. Georgia CULPRIT UNDERWEAR: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York DELL TECHNOLOGIES: $266.7M Went to Attorneys in $1B Suit Deal DENSO INTERNATIONAL: Wins Worker Class Action Over 401(k) Fees DOLCE VITA FOOTWEAR: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York EDUCATION WORKS: Richards Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Employees ELANCO ANIMAL: Court of Appeals Affirms Dismissal TCPA Class Suit ENWILD INC: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York EQUINAVIA LLC: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York EVERLASTING MOBILITY: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York FANATICS INC: Castro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York FANTASIA TRADING: Munoz Suit Removed to C.D. California FARWEST SPORTS: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York FLORA AND HENRI: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York FOREST LABORATORIES: Settles Antitrust Class Suit for $750M FOURSQUARE LABS: Sells Customers' Geolocation Data, Proskin Says GENERAL STORE: Castro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York GODADDY.COM LLC: Holds Unsolicited Text Message Sufficient Injury GOOGLE LLC: Bid to Dismiss Remaining Claim in Divino Suit Granted GREAT LAKES WELLNESS: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York HCA HEALTHCARE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Suit Alleges HOTEL 57: Bid to Compel Arbitration in Staley Class Suit Denied HOVG LLC: Pickett Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Texas HUB CYBER: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due September 4 J. M. SMUCKER COMPANY: Arellano Suit Removed to E.D. California JBR INC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York JOLIE SKIN COMPANY: Bassaw Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York KARMAN HEALTHCARE: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York KEURIG GREEN: Groff Suit Removed to C.D. California KINDEVA DRUG: Kinney Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages KINGS LOGISTICS: Approval of Horta's Revised Agreement Recommended KIXTERS INC: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York KRAFT HEINZ: Suit Over False Preparation Time of Products Dismissed LANCASHIRE GROUP: Evans Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. LEHIGH HANSON: Raines Suit Removed to E.D. California LEHIGH VALLEY HEALTH: Sued Over Patients' Personal Info Exposure LIFE LINE SCREENING: Toy Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. LIMESTONE BANK: Cooper Suit Removed to W.D. Kentucky LIPSEY COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Moharer Wage-and-Hour Suit in Colorado MAC PIZZA: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Elliott Suit Says MAINTENANCE SUPPLY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Lopez Alleges MDL 1871: TPPs Bid to Unseal Class Certification Exhibits OK'd META PLATFORMS: Faces Hartman Class Suit Over Privacy Violations MICHAEL MAHENDRA PAL: Oliver Suit Removed to S.D. Georgia MILBERG COLEMAN: Schirano Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages, Ads MISSOURI: Jones-Williams Files Suit in E.D. Missouri MOONEY INCORPORATED: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York MOSAIC DENTAL: Delgado Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. MOTOMUMMY LLC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York MUSKOGEE COUNTY EMS: Underpays Medical Technicians, Sherley Says NATIONAL READY MIXED: Anderson Suit Removed to C.D. California NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Bids to Dismiss Train Derailment MDL Suit NUTRIVO LLC: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York OCELCO INC: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ORANGE COUNTY, NC: Summary Judgment in Zander Suit Affirmed in Part PACESETTER PERSONNEL: Removes Duran Suit to M.D. Florida PAYPAL INC: 7th Cir. Revives Suit Over Charitable Contributions PAYPAL INC: Court of Appeals Vacated & Reprimanded Kass Class Suit PETALUMA HEALTH: Johnson Suit Removed to N.D. California PHARMACARE US: Sunderland Sues Over Elderberry Products' False Ad PHOENICIAN MEDICAL: Murray Files Suit in D. Arizona PIZZA PETE'S: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Flores Suit Alleges PROFESSIONAL SECURITY: Jasani Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices RC ECOMMERCE: Yamini Sues Over Deceptive Ads on Bargained Items RED ROBIN: McInerny Suit Transferred to E.D. California ROBERT ADAMS: Mathis Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct. ROOSEVELT UNIVERSITY: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Coy Says RPKG HOLDINGS: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York S & G DISCOUNT: Marquez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SACRAMENTO CREDIT: Lee Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SADDLE RAGS INC: Jones Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York SCHWAN'S CONSUMER: Hammock Sues Over Mislabeled Apple Pies SEGERDAHL CORP: Faces Carvajal Suit Over BIPA Violations SHOES-N-FEET: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York SIMILASAN CORPORATION: Hernandez Suit Removed to C.D. California SITEONE LANDSCAPE: Caballero Suit Removed to E.D. California SMITH AND EDWARDS: Castro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York SOUTH TEXAS TACK: Castro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York SPACE EXPLORATION: Faces Padilla Class Suit Over Unpaid Wages STANLEY KORSHAK LP: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York STARR WESTERN WEAR: Castro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York STAY GREEN: Garcia Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Gardeners in Calif. SYNAGRO WOONSOCKET: Doire Sues Over Noxious Odor to Facility SYNEOS HEALTH: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due September 25 SYSTEM ONE: Faces Rodriguez Wage-and-Hour Suit in California TACO BELL: Faces Siragusa Class Suit Over Crunchwraps' False Ads TAKE 5 LLC: Moore Sues Over Shop Managers' Unpaid Overtime TAMARA LICH: Moves to Quash $300M Suit Over 2022 Convoy Protests TARGET CORP: Wilkins Sues Over Illegal Employment Practices TENET HEALTHCARE: Faces Suit Over Data Privacy Violations TIMESHARE HELP: Perrong TCPA Suit transferred to W.D. Texas TRADEHOME SHOE STORES: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York TWITTER INC: Woodfield Sues Over Refusal to Provide Severance Pay UNITED PARCEL: Bid to Certify Class in Baker Suit Granted in Part UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA: SCOTUS to Take Up COVID Shutdown Suit VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Encourages Investors to Join Class Suit VERIZON CONNECT: Underpays Business Development Reps, Tucker Claims VESSEL FWP LLC: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York VIRGINIA: Court Dismisses Chaplick Class Suit Over Disability Law WALGREEN CO: Miller Suit Removed to C.D. California WARNER BROS: Durantas Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York WAWA INC: Temple Sues Over Fair Workweek Law Violations WEST TEXAS WESTERN: Castro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York WESTSIDE APPAREL: Durantas Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York YVES SAINT LAURENT: Sabzerou Suit Removed to C.D. California Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Faces 4,066 Exposure Claims at June 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l. Defends 3,601 Claims at June 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Has $437MM Asbestos Litigation Reserve ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carlisle Cos. Faces Numerous PI Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carrier Global Reports $223MM Asbestos Liabilities ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dow Inc. Has US$819MM Liabilities at June 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hartford Financial Still Defends A&E Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Still Faces Personal Injury Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: IDEX Corp. Defends Personal Injury Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Electric Faces 1,458 Pending Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Otis Worldwide Has $21MM Estimated Liabilities ASBESTOS UPDATE: TriMas Has 443 Pending PI Cases as of June 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Reports $904MM Total Liabilities ASBESTOS UPDATE: Zurn Elkay Co-Defends 6,000 Exposure Lawsuits ********* 1ST SOURCE BANK: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Edwards Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- PATRICIA EDWARDS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 1ST SOURCE BANK, Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-00701-DRL-MGG (N.D. Ind., July 26, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for their failure to properly secure and safeguard personally identifiable information including, but not limited to, the Plaintiff's and Class Members' name, Social Security number, driver's license or state identification card number, other government-issued identification number, and date of birth (collectively, "Private Information" or "Personally Identifiable Information" or "PII"). The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that despite their duties to the Plaintiff and Class Members, the Defendant stored their Private Information on a database that was negligently and/or recklessly configured. This misconfiguration allowed files on the database to be accessed without a password or any form of multifactor authentication. As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff and Class Members suffered ascertainable losses, including but not limited to, a loss of privacy, the loss of the benefit of their bargain, out-of-pocket monetary losses and expenses, the value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the attack, the diminished value of their Private Information, and the substantial and imminent risk of identity theft, says the suit. 1ST SOURCE BANK provides banking services. The Company accepts deposits, makes loans, and provides various financial services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Email: gklinger@milberg.com - and - Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq. Philip J. Krzeski, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-7300 Facsimile: (612) 336-2940 Email: bbliechner@chestnutcambronne.com pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com - and - Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC 10800 Financial Centre, Pkwy., Ste. 510 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 787-2040 Email: josh@sanfordlaw.com 1ST SOURCE CORP: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Funk Says -------------------------------------------------------- ROY FUNK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 1ST SOURCE CORPORATION; and 1ST SOURCE BANK, Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-00697 (N.D. Ind., July 25, 2023) is a class action seeking to redress the Defendant's unlawful failure to protect the personal identifiable information of approximately 450,000 current and former customers whose PII was exposed in a major data breach of involving the MOVEit tool. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant betrayed the trust of the Plaintiff and the other Class Members by failing to properly safeguard and protect their personal identifiable information and thereby enabling cybercriminals to steal such valuable and sensitive information. The Plaintiff and the Class Members have had their personal identifiable information exposed as a result of Defendant's alleged inadequate data security. 1ST SOURCE CORPORATION is a financial services company headquartered in South Bend, Indiana. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Email: gklinger@milberg.com - and - A. Brooke Murphy, Esq. MURPHY LAW FIRM 4116 Will Rogers Pkwy, Suite 700 Oklahoma City, OK 73108 Telephone: (405) 389-4989 Email: abm@murphylegalfirm.com 22ND CENTURY: Settlement Hearing in Noto Class Suit Sets October 3 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Pomerantz LLP of Cision PR Newswire reports that a hearing will be held on October 3, 2023 at 11:00 a.m., before the Honorable Michael J. Roemer, United States Magistrate Judge, at the United States District Court for the Western District of New York, Robert H. Jackson United States Courthouse, 2 Niagara Square, Buffalo, New York 14202, or by telephonic, video conferencing or other electronic means, as posted on the website of the Claims Administrator. The hearing will determine (i) whether the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants, and the Releases specified and described in the Stipulation And Agreement Of Settlement (and in the Notice) should be granted; (iii) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; (iv) whether Lead Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of Litigation Expenses should be approved, and (v) whether to award Lead Plaintiff for reimbursement of Lead Plaintiffs' time and expenses out of the Settlement Fund and pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Sections 78u-4(a)(4) in connection with their representation of the Settlement Class and, if so, in what amount. If you are a member of the Settlement 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 and Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these documents by contacting the Claims Administrator at 22nd Century Securities Litigation, c/o Epiq, P.O. Box 3839, Portland, OR 97208-3839. Copies of the Notice and Claim Form can also be downloaded from the website maintained by the Claims Administrator, www.22ndCenturySecuritiesLitigation.com. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be potentially eligible to receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you must submit a Claim Form either online at the Settlement website, www.22ndCenturySecuritiesLitigation.com, by October 10, 2023, or by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail postmarked no later than October 10, 2023. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not timely 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 member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for exclusion such that it is received no later than September 12, 2023, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action and you will not be eligible to share in the proceeds of the Settlement. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses, must be filed with the Court and delivered to representatives of Lead Counsel and Defendants' counsel such that they are received no later than September 12, 2023, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, 22nd Century, or Defendants' counsel regarding this notice. All questions about this notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to Lead Counsel or the Claims Administrator. Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to: 22nd Century Securities Litigation c/o Epiq P.O. Box 3839 Portland, OR 97208-3839 Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form, should be made to Lead Counsel: POMERANTZ LLP Jeremy A. Lieberman Brian Calandra 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 jalieberman@pomlaw.com bcalandra@pomlaw.com Dated: August 7, 2023 By Order of the Court United States District Court Western District of New York URL: www.22ndCenturySecuritiesLitigation.com SOURCE Pomerantz LLP [GN] 3M COMPANY: Peffer Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ----------------------------------------------------------------- Douglas Peffer, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co.; BASF CORPORATION, individually and as successor in interest to Ciba Inc.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL; CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS INC.; CLARIANT CORPORATION, individually and as successor in interest to Sandoz Chemical Corporation; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS; INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, L.L.C.; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS L.P., Case No. 2:23-cv-03656-RMG (D.S.C., July 28, 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") and/or their chemical precursors. 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 containing PFAS and/or their chemical precursors, and/or designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, and/or sold the fluorosurfactants and/or perfluorinated chemicals ("PFCs") contained in AFFF (collectively, "AFFF/Component Products") with knowledge that their products contained highly toxic and biopersistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the products to the risks associated with PFAS. 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' AFFF/Component Products were used by the Plaintiff Douglas Peffer in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF/Component 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/Component Products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF/Component Products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF/Component Products in training exercises and in live fire emergencies during his working career as a firefighter in the fire Brigade at NALCO in Ellwood City, PA and was diagnosed with testicular cancer in August 2021 as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF/Component Products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of AFFF/Component Products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lawrence R. Cohan, Esq. Joshua C. Cohan, Esq. SALTZ MONGELUZZI BENDESKY One Liberty Place 1650 Market St., 52nd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 575-3887 Fax: (215) 496-0999 Email: lcohan@smbb.com jcohan@smbb.com A1A TRANSPORTATION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, De La Rosa Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- CARLOS DE LA ROSA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. A1A TRANSPORTATION GROUP INC.; and RICK VERSACE, Defendants, Case No. 9:23-cv-81081-XXXX (S.D. Fla., July 26, 2023) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff De La Rosa was employed by the Defendants as a bus driver. A1A TRANSPORTATION GROUP INC. is a transportation company located at 1990 NW Boca Raton Blvd. in Boca Raton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nolan Klein, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF NOLAN KLEIN, P.A. 5550 Glades Rd., Ste. 500 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (954) 745-0588 Email: klein@nklegal.com amy@nklegal.com melanie@nklegal.com ACCREDITATION COMMISSION: Dry Files Suit in N.D. Georgia -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Accreditation Commission for Education in Nursing, Inc. The case is styled as Amanda Dry, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated and on behalf of the general public v. Accreditation Commission for Education in Nursing, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-03337-LMM (N.D. Ga., July 27, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Fiduciary Duty. The Accreditation Commission for Education in Nursing (ACEN) -- https://www.acenursing.org/ -- is one of three program accrediting agencies for nursing education in the US and its territories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian P. Adams, Esq. Mary Beth Hand, Esq. ADAMS LAW FIRM Post Office Box 142 598 D.T. Walton Sr. Way Macon, GA 31202 Phone: (478) 238-0231 Email: brian@brianadamslaw.com mbhand@brianadamslaw.com - and - William B. Federman, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma, OK 73120 Phone: (405) 235-1560 Fax: (405) 239-2112 Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com ALEJANDRO N. MAYORKAS: Al Otro Files Suit in S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alejandro N. Mayorkas, et al. The case is styled as Al Otro Lado, Inc., Haitian Bridge Alliance, Diego Doe, Elena Doe, Guadalupe Doe, Alexander Doe, Laura Doe, Luisa Doe, Michelle Doe, Natasha Doe, Pablo Doe, Somar Doe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Alejandro N. Mayorkas, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, in his official capacity; Troy A. Miller, Senior Official Performing the Duties of Commissioner, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, in his official capacity; Diane J. Sabatino, Acting Executive Assistant Commissioner, Office of Field Operations, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, in her official capacity; Case No. 3:23-cv-01367-AGS-BLM (S.D. Cal., July 28, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights. Alejandro Nicholas Mayorkas is a Cuban-American lawyer and politician who has been serving as the seventh United States Secretary of Homeland Security since February 2, 2021.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew H. Marmolejo, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 333 S. Grand Ave., Ste. 4700 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 621-9465 Fax: (213) 625-0248 Email: mmarmolejo@mayerbrown.com - and - Neela O. Chakravartula, Esq. UC HASTINGS COLLEGE OF THE LAW 200 McAllister Street San Francisco, CA 94102 Phone: (415) 565-4877 Fax: (415) 581-8824 Email: neela@uclawsf.edu ALLIED CEMENT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hornick Alleges --------------------------------------------------------- MATTHEW HORNICK, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALLIED CEMENT LLC; and NIMA BEHROOZIAN, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-22746-RKA (S.D. Fla., July 24, 2023) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Hornick was employed by the Defendants as a warehouse worker. ALLIED CEMENT LLC is a distributor of cement and clinker with warehouse & office in Miami, FL. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary A. Costales, Esq. GARY A. COSTALES, P.A. 1533 Sunset Drive, Suite 150 Miami, FL 3343 Telephone: (786) 446-7288 Facsimile: (786) 323-7274 AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Maestas Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices --------------------------------------------------------------- SHANE MAESTAS, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff V. AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-00607 (D.N.M., July 18, 2023) is a class action lawsuit brought by the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, to recover unpaid wages, penalties, and attorneys' fees and costs under the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant implemented an illegal policy requiring its non-exempt workers to undergo a COVID-19 screening each shift without pay and a security screening without pay. The COVID-19 screening is a physical and medical examination that constitutes compensable time that was worked by the Plaintiff. Similarly, the security screening constitutes compensable time that was worked by the Plaintiff. By failing to pay for this time worked, Amazon has violated New Mexico law. In addition to the Plaintiff, Amazon has failed to pay for the time spent undergoing COVID-19 screenings and security screenings by thousands of other workers across the State of New Mexico, says the suit. The Plaintiff worked for Amazon as an hourly, non-exempt employee at the fulfilment center in Albuquerque, New Mexico as a packer from approximately December 2021 to March 2022. Amazon.com Services operates an international online retail shopping business that allows customers to order goods online and have those orders fulfilled and delivered through Amazon's fulfillment network.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Don J. Foty, Esq. HODGES & FOTY, L.L.P. 2 Greenway Plaza, Suite 250 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 523-0001 Facsimile: (713) 523-1116 E-mail: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com - and - Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq. THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC 920 Rockefeller Building 614 W. Superior Avenue Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 696-5000 Facsimile: (216) 696-7005 E-mail: anthony@lazzarolaw.com AMERICAN EXPRESS: Faces Class Suit Over Illegal Interest Rates -------------------------------------------------------------- Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that two proposed class action lawsuits claim Bank of America and American Express have since March 2022 unlawfully imposed excessive interest rates on cardholders. The lawsuits say that in direct violation of the federal Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and its 2009 amendment, the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure (CARD) Act, the two banks have repeatedly raised credit card interest rates without providing consumers 45 days' notice and retroactively applied the increased rates to cardholders' existing balances. According to the suits, the CARD Act amendments preclude credit card companies such as Bank of America and American Express from raising interest rates without advanced notice and only allow rate increases to be applied to future transactions rather than to consumers' existing, or "protected," balances. However, the cases explain, a limited "variable rate" exception to the CARD Act allows credit card companies to raise interest rates in accordance with a publicly available, third-party published index outside the control of the creditor. Per the suits, the defendants use the prime rate index for this purpose. In this case, the banks' respective fixed interest rate is combined with the prime rate to calculate a total variable annual percentage rate of interest, the complaints relay. Importantly, the prime rate -- which the defendants use to directly calculate the interest rates cardholders are charged -- has "more than doubled since March 2022 and is now at 8.25%, the highest in more than a decade," the filings share. The lawsuits argue that since March 2022, the banks have used the rising prime rate as an excuse to illegally assess hefty interest rates on credit cards. "These unlawful interest rate increases have generated untold millions for Bank of America," one suit contends, "which has so far imposed ten interest rate increases on its cardholders over the period." In addition, the cases allege that since March 2022 the banks have recalculated daily interest rates before the prime rate has even risen and applied the higher rates to cardholders' protected balances, in direct violation of the TILA. "In other words, rather than raise its rates 'according to operation of an index,' American Express retroactively imposes its own proprietary operation for interest rate increases upon a cardholder balance for the entire billing period, even imposing daily interest charges on days when the new rate did not yet exist," one complaint claims. The filings stress that, as a result, millions of cardholders have been wrongfully charged excessive interest rates on transactions to which the increases were improperly applied. The lawsuits look to respectively represent any Bank of America or American Express consumer credit cardmember who has carried a card balance from at least one billing period to another since March 2022 on a variable rate credit card. [GN] ANHEUSER-BUSCH: Lira Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Carlos Lira, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ANHEUSER-BUSCH, LLC and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 37-2023-00027013 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on July 28, 2023, and assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-01373-LL-DEB. The Complaint asserts the following claim on a class-wide basis: failure to pay all overtime wages; meal period violations; rest period violations; paid sick leave violations; untimely payment of wages; wage statement violations; waiting time penalties; and violation of the unfair competition law.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Spencer C. Skeen, Esq. Tim L. Johnson, Esq. Andrew J. Deddeh, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92122 Phone: 858-652-3100 Facsimile: 858-652-3101 Email: spencer.skeen@ogletree.com tim.johnson@ogletree.com andrew.deddeh@ogletree.com ASHLEY FURNITURE: Herrera ADA Suit Removed to D. New Jersey ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Carlos Herrera, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc., Case No. HUD-L-002142-23 was removed from the Superior Court of Hudson County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on July 28, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-04053-ES-MAH to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc. -- http://www.ashleyfurniture.com/-- is an American home furnishings manufacturer and retailer, headquartered in Arcadia, Wisconsin.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Zemel, Esq. ZEMEL LAW LLC 660 Broadway Paterson, NJ 07514 Phone: (862) 227-3106 Fax: (973) 525-2552 Email: dz@zemellawllc.com The Defendants is represented by: Amber M. Spataro, Esq. David S. Ostern, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON PC One Newark Center 1085 Raymond Blvd., 8th Floor Newark, NJ 07102 Phone: (973) 848-4700 Email: aspataro@littler.com dostern@littler.com AT&T INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due September 26 -------------------------------------------------------------- GlobeNewswire of Newswires reports that Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a securities class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased the securities of AT&T Inc. between March 1, 2020 and July 26, 2023, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) AT&T owns cables around the country that are highly toxic due to their being wrapped in lead, and which harm Company employees and non-employees alike; (2) it faces potentially significant litigation risk, regulatory risk, and reputational harm as a result of its ownership of these lead-covered cables and the health risks stemming from their presence around the United States; (3) it was warned about the damage and risks presented by these cables but did not disclose them as a potential threat to employee safety or to everyday people and communities; and (4) as a result, Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of AT&T should contact the Firm prior to the September 26, 2023 lead plaintiff motion deadline. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com. Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more information about the firm. [GN] ATRIUM HEALTH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Harris Alleges -------------------------------------------------------- AMISSA HARRIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ATRIUM HEALTH, INC.; and THE CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG HOSPITAL AUTHORITY d/b/a ATRIUM HEALTH, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-00456 (W.D.N.C., July 24, 2023) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Harris was employed by the Defendants as a medical assistant. Atrium Health System provides general medical services. The Hospital offers cancer treatment, cardiology, diabetes services, emergency, surgery, behavioral health, laboratory facilities, rehabilitation center, stroke program, medical imaging, and other health care services. [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 Email: chris@strilaw.com tamara@strilaw.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 Email: 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 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 Email: 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 Email: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Suit Over Illegal Interest Rate Charges -------------------------------------------------------------- Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that two proposed class action lawsuits claim Bank of America and American Express have since March 2022 unlawfully imposed excessive interest rates on cardholders. The lawsuits say that in direct violation of the federal Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and its 2009 amendment, the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure (CARD) Act, the two banks have repeatedly raised credit card interest rates without providing consumers 45 days' notice and retroactively applied the increased rates to cardholders' existing balances. According to the suits, the CARD Act amendments preclude credit card companies such as Bank of America and American Express from raising interest rates without advanced notice and only allow rate increases to be applied to future transactions rather than to consumers' existing, or "protected," balances. However, the cases explain, a limited "variable rate" exception to the CARD Act allows credit card companies to raise interest rates in accordance with a publicly available, third-party published index outside the control of the creditor. Per the suits, the defendants use the prime rate index for this purpose. In this case, the banks' respective fixed interest rate is combined with the prime rate to calculate a total variable annual percentage rate of interest, the complaints relay. Importantly, the prime rate -- which the defendants use to directly calculate the interest rates cardholders are charged -- has "more than doubled since March 2022 and is now at 8.25%, the highest in more than a decade," the filings share. The lawsuits argue that since March 2022, the banks have used the rising prime rate as an excuse to illegally assess hefty interest rates on credit cards. "These unlawful interest rate increases have generated untold millions for Bank of America," one suit contends, "which has so far imposed ten interest rate increases on its cardholders over the period." In addition, the cases allege that since March 2022 the banks have recalculated daily interest rates before the prime rate has even risen and applied the higher rates to cardholders' protected balances, in direct violation of the TILA. "In other words, rather than raise its rates 'according to operation of an index,' American Express retroactively imposes its own proprietary operation for interest rate increases upon a cardholder balance for the entire billing period, even imposing daily interest charges on days when the new rate did not yet exist," one complaint claims. The filings stress that, as a result, millions of cardholders have been wrongfully charged excessive interest rates on transactions to which the increases were improperly applied. The lawsuits look to respectively represent any Bank of America or American Express consumer credit cardmember who has carried a card balance from at least one billing period to another since March 2022 on a variable rate credit card. [GN] BARKBOX INC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Barkbox, Inc. The case is styled as Luis Toro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Barkbox, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-06594 (S.D.N.Y., July 28, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. BarkBox -- https://www.barkbox.com/ -- is the dog toy subscription box.[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 BENTO BOX ENTERPRISE: Al-Bazirgan Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bento Box Enterprise, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Ghena Al-Bazirgan, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated, Petitioner v. Bento Box Enterprise, Inc., Does 1-10, Respondents, Case No. 23CV005682 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., July 28, 2023). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." BentoBox gives restaurant owners and operators direct control of the tools they need to drive sales, build diner relationships, and improve efficiency.[BN] BLACK CLOVER: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Black Clover Enterprises, LLC. The case is styled as Janelys Hernandez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Black Clover Enterprises, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-06572 (S.D.N.Y., July 28, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Black Clover -- https://blackcloverusa.com/ -- is your choice in Premium Lifestyle Apparel and Headwear.[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 BLUE APRON: Hayes Suit Removed to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Stevie A. Hayes, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. BLUE APRON, LLC; and DOES 1-20, Inclusive, Case No. C23-01531 was removed from the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Contra Costa, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on July 27, 2023, and assigned Case No. 4:23-cv-03745. In the Complaint, Plaintiff asserts seven causes of action arising out of his employment with Defendant: failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay overtime wages; failure to provide meal periods; failure to permit rest periods; failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; failure to pay all wages due upon separation of employment; and violations of California Business & Professions Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Ellen M. Bronchetti, Esq. Priya E. Singh, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 101 Second Street, Suite 2200 San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: 415.655.1300 Facsimile: 415.707.2010 Email: Ellen.bronchetti@gtlaw.com Priya.singh@gtlaw.com BUFFALO WILD: Sued Over Misleading Boneless Wings' Marketing ------------------------------------------------------------ Kenneth Niemeyer of Yahoo! News reports that Buffalo Wild Wings said it "doesn't give a s---" when people say its boneless wings aren't wings. Aimen Halim is suing, claiming its boneless wings are "more akin in composition to a chicken nugget." His attorneys asked a judge not to throw out the case and reward the company's "hubris". Buffalo Wings Wings doesn't "give a s---" that people say its boneless wings aren't really wings. The man suing the restaurant -- because he thinks its boneless wings are basically chicken nuggets -- says that's enough reason for a judge to hear him out. Aimen Halim filed a class-action lawsuit against Buffalo Wild Wings in March, saying the company's marketing of boneless wings is misleading because they are "more akin in composition to a chicken nugget rather than a chicken wing." Halim's lawsuit claims customers are being misled to believe they are actually eating meat from a chicken wing, because Buffalo Wild Wing's boneless wings are actually made from chicken breast. In an Instagram post on May 25, Buffalo Wild Wings said the restaurant chain "doesn't give a s---" when people say that its boneless wings aren't wings. The company also said that its hamburgers don't contain ham and that its buffalo wings are "o% buffalo" in a tweet seeming to make fun of the lawsuit in March. On July 28, 2023, Halim's attorneys filed a response to Buffalo Wild Wings' motion to dismiss the lawsuit. The response said the company could have adjusted its marketing to indicate that its boneless wings are not made with wing meat. "Instead, BWW decided to go low, issuing a brazen official response: 'We don't give a s---.,'" the lawsuit says. "Such hubris should not be rewarded, especially when BWW's motive is quite simple: profits." Buffalo Wild Wings did not immediately return Insider's request for comment on July 28, 2023. 'Have you really suffered any damage?' Halim's response reiterates his complaint that Buffalo Wild Wings makes its boneless chicken wings out of chicken breast meat because it's cheaper. "A profit motive does not justify false advertising that puts the onus on consumers to ascertain whether the 'Boneless Wings' are actually boneless wings," the filing says. Halim has also filed other lawsuits against the makers of Tom's Mouthwash, KIND granola, and Hefty recycling bags. In June, Halim sued Berkshire Blanket & Home Company, the makers of a blanket that sells at Walmart and Costco, and accused them of improperly marketing the blanket as eco-friendly. Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor, previously told Insider that Halim's claim against Buffalo Wild Wings is weak because in order to justify a class action lawsuit, damages have to be "substantial." "You're getting all white meat chicken breast," Rahmani said. "Have you really suffered any damage?" [GN] BYTEDANCE INC: Faces Privacy Lawsuit Over TikTok Video-Editing App ------------------------------------------------------------------ Christopher Brown of Bloomberg Law reports that TikTok Inc. parent company ByteDance Inc. collects and profits from the personal information of users of its CapCut video-editing app without their consent in violation of federal and state consumer protection laws, a new proposed class action said. Evelia Rodriguez, Erikka Wilson, and A.N. alleged that the CapCut app allows ByteDance to surreptitiously collect a wide range of users' personal information, including their biometric information, images, video and digital recordings, audio recordings, clipboard data, geolocations, email addresses, passcodes, telephone numbers and other unique identifying information. The company profits from the information by using it to target users with advertising. [GN] CCFI COMPANIES: Lovette Suit Removed to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Mahogany Lovette, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. CCFI COMPANIES, LLC, dba CHECKSMART FINANCIAL LLC., a corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 23CV036028 was removed from the Alameda County Superior Court, State of California, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on July 27, 2023, and assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-03755. In the Complaint, the Plaintiff alleges nine causes of action against the Defendant: Unpaid Overtime; Unpaid Meal Period Premiums; Unpaid Rest Period Premiums; Unpaid Minimum Wages; Final Wages Not Timely Paid; Wages Not Timely Paid During Employment; Failure to Provide Accurate Wage Statements; Failure to Reimburse Necessary Business Expenses; all in violation of Cal. Labor Code and the Cal. Business & Professions Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Michael J. Nader, Esq. Alexandra M. Asterlin, Esq. Kyle A. Wende, 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: michael.nader@ogletree.com alexandra.asterlin@ogletree.com kyle.wende@ogletree.com CIGNA HEALTH: Faces Class Suit Over Automatic Claim Rejections -------------------------------------------------------------- Monique Merrill of TheMessenger News reports that insurance giant Cigna has been accused of rejecting hundreds of thousands of claims using an algorithm, according to a class action lawsuit filed on July 24, 2023. The suit takes aim at Cigna's algorithm PxDx and accuses the company of saving money by automating claim rejections rather than conducting a "thorough, fair and objective" investigation into each claim as is required by California state law, CBS News reported. The lawsuit claims one Cigna customer in California was left with $723 in medical bills after a doctor-ordered ultrasound and follow-up procedure to scan for ovarian cancer were denied coverage by the insurer for not being medically necessary, according to the suit, per the outlet. Another Cigna customer said their doctor-ordered procedure was denied by Cigna with no explanation, according to the suit. "Relying on the PXDX system, Cigna's doctors instantly reject claims on medical grounds without ever opening patient files, leaving thousands of patients effectively without coverage and with unexpected bills," the suit claims, per the station. "The scope of this problem is massive. For example, over a period of two months in 2022, Cigna doctors denied over 300,000 requests for payments using this method, spending an average of just 1.2 seconds 'reviewing' each request." The lawsuit comes on the heels of a ProPublica investigative report into Cigna's algorithm-based claim denials, in which similar claim denials were highlighted. Cigna told the station that "based on our initial research, we cannot confirm that these individuals were impacted by PxDx at all." "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 said to the news outlet. [GN] COINBASE INC: Faces Reeves Suit Over Cryptocurrency Scheme ---------------------------------------------------------- JOSIAH REEVES; and ALISON CALHOUN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. COINBASE, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, Inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CGC-23-607888 (Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty., July 24, 2023) is a class action arising out of the Defendants' deceptive advertising and marketing of its Coinbase Application. The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendants perpetuated deceptive marking about the Product's benefits and engages in illegal drip pricing tactics. Furthermore, after tricking consumers into purchasing the Product, the Defendants continues to reap ill-gotten gains by implementing unlawful autorenewal schemes in connection with its "Coinbase One" version of the Product, the Plaintiffs assert. At all relevant times, the Defendants designed, advertised and marketed, the Product to consumers and profited from the Product throughout California and the United States based on the misrepresentations about the Product's purported value and price. COINBASE, INC. branded Coinbase, is an American publicly traded company that operates a cryptocurrency exchange platform. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Shalini Dogra, Esq. DOGRA LAW GROUP PC 2219 Main Street, Unit 239 Santa Monica, CA 90405 Telephone: (747) 234-6673 Facsimile: (310) 868-0170 Email: shalini@dogralawgroup.com COMPLETE COLLECTION: Boyd FDCPA Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Jermaine Boyd, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. Complete Collection Service, Case No. 23-04553-TT was removed from the Chester County Court of Common Pleas, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on July 27, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-02877 to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Complete Collection Services, Inc. -- http://www.completecollectionservices.net/-- is a collection agency located in Springfield, Virginia.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendant is represented by: Patrick J. Doran, Esq. ARCHER & GREINER PC Three Logan Square, Suite 3500 1717 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 963-3300 Fax: (215) 963-9999 Email: pdoran@archerlaw.com CONCOURSE TEAM EXPRESS: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Concourse Team Express, LLC. The case is styled as Luis Toro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Concourse Team Express, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-06595 (S.D.N.Y., July 28, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Concourse Team Express, LLC -- https://www.teamexpress.com/ -- is a one stop shop for all of team sports needs.[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 CONSUMER ADJUSTMENT: Summary Judgment in FCRA Suit Granted ---------------------------------------------------------- Mikegibb of AccountsRecovery reports that in a case that was defended by Martin Golden Lyons Watts Morgan, a Magistrate Court judge in Alabama has granted a defendant's motion for summary judgment in a Fair Credit Reporting Act and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act class-action, ruling that the defendant did exactly as it should when it sought to have a tradeline deleted because it could not verify the information from the original creditor within 30 days after the plaintiff filed a dispute. A copy of the ruling in the case of Brittingham v. Consumer Adjustment Co., Inc. can be accessed at https://shorturl.at/clwxR. The defendant acquired the assets of another collection operation, including a contractual relationship with a collection law firm and debt buyer. The defendant reported information about a debt that the plaintiff owed to the debt buyer to the credit reporting agencies. The plaintiff disputed the debt, at which point the defendant marked the account as disputed in its system, and checked that the information provided by the credit reporting agency matched what was in its system. Then, it sought supporting documentation from the current creditor. When that information was not provided, the defendant asked the credit reporting agencies to delete the tradeline — 27 days after the dispute was filed. "Here, CACi has demonstrated that it followed its set procedures to the letter regarding Plaintiff's dispute and did everything required by the FCRA in response to Plaintiff's dispute," wrote Judge P. Bradley Murray. "This included, as a debt collector, rather than an original creditor, an attempt to obtain documents from its client, OBW, in the course of the investigation. When that attempt failed, because of OBW's lack of response, CACi requested deletion of the account from Plaintiff's credit reporting -- 27 days after receiving notice of the dispute. Plaintiff has failed to establish how this investigation was not reasonable and how CACi violated the FCRA." The suit also accused the defendant of violating Sections 1692c and 1692f of the FDCPA by furnishing information about the debt before communicating with the plaintiff, but that did not go into effect until November 30, 2021 with the enactment of Regulation F. "Plaintiff has further failed to put forth evidence showing CACi had any knowledge the debt reported was not accurate, and CACi has shown the account was placed for collection after the acquisition of Midwest, and no evidence regarding the account reflects the debt was previously disputed or invalid," wrote Judge Murray. [GN] CORAL RIDGE: Ospina Suit Removed to S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Hernando Ospina, and all others similarly situated v. CORAL RIDGE GOLF COURSE, INC. d/b/a CORAL RIDGE COUNTRY CLUB and KELLERMEYER BERGENSONS SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 2023-058080-CC-24 was removed from the County Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Miami-Dade County, Florida, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on July 28, 2023, and assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-22830-XXXX. This is a civil action brought in a state court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction because Plaintiff has alleged a violation of federal law in his Complaint. The Plaintiff has pled that Defendants failed to properly pay his wages.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Angelique Groza Lyons, Esq. David P. Steffen, Esq. CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE, LLP 100 North Tampa Street, Suite 3350 Tampa, FL 33602 Phone: (813) 223-7166 Fax: (813) 223-2515 Email: alyons@constangy.com dsteffen@constangy.com Secondary Email: tampa@constangy.com CORPORATION OF MERCER: Kilkus Suit Transferred to M.D. Georgia -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Jennifer Kilkus, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. THE CORPORATION OF MERCER UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:23-cv-02499 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia on July 28, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:23-cv-00272-CAR to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated Other Contract for Breach of Fiduciary Duty. Mercer University -- https://www.mercer.edu/ -- is a private research university with its main campus in Macon, Georgia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jared William Connors, Esq. Matthew Ryan Wilson, Esq. MEYER WILSON CO., LPA 305 W. Nationwide Blvd. Columbus, OH 43215 Phone: (630) 224-6000 Fax: (614) 224-6066 Email: mwilson@meyerwilson.com - and - Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. TURKE & STRAUSS, LLP-WI 613 Williamson Street, Suite 201 Madison, WI 53703 Phone: (608) 237-1775 Fax: (608) 509-4423 CULPRIT UNDERWEAR: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Culprit Underwear LLC. The case is styled as Vanessa Jimenez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Culprit Underwear LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-06556 (S.D.N.Y., July 27, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Culprit Underwear -- https://culpritunderwear.com/ -- is a men's and women's clothing company based in Southern California that primarily manufactures and sells underwear.[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 DELL TECHNOLOGIES: $266.7M Went to Attorneys in $1B Suit Deal ------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Leonard of Bloomberg Law reports that The shareholder attorneys who negotiated a $1 billion settlement with Dell Technologies Inc. over a controversial 2018 stock conversion will take home more than a quarter of that enormous total. Vice Chancellor J. Travis Laster awarded $266.7 million on July 31, 2023 to lawyers leading the litigation, which targeted Dell founder Michael Dell and other members of the tech company's controlling bloc of investors at the time, including affiliates of private equity giant Silver Lake Group LLC. The class action settlement, announced in November, is the largest ever in Delaware's Chancery Court. The payout in legal fees is the second-largest, according to the 92-page court ruling. The attorneys had requested $285 million, an amount that would have equaled the largest. Although the fee is huge, it's in line with precedents reflecting Delaware's policy of rewarding entrepreneurial attorneys for keeping major corporations honest by taking risks on complex cases and litigating them until they have enough leverage to get "real results," the judge said. Such lawyers "perform a valuable service by pursuing litigation in a world where stockholders are rationally apathetic," he wrote. "Plaintiff's counsel brought a real case, invested over $4 million of real money, and obtained a real and unprecedented result." Windfall Litigation Profits? The lawsuit, filed in 2018, took aim at a $23.9 billion transaction earlier the same year that consolidated Dell's control of VMWare Inc. by converting one class of shares into another and capping the number that could be redeemed for cash. The suit by a group of shareholders accused Dell and Silver Lake of coercing investors into approving the deal by dangling the constant threat of a forcible conversion to make a negotiated deal seem like the better of two bad options. Laster let those claims move forward in 2020, saying those alleged threats could have undermined the protections for minority investors -- a special transaction committee and a shareholder vote -- that the company put in place. In his ruling on July 31, 2023, the judge rejected a challenge to the fee award by eight investment funds that are collectively entitled to more than a quarter of the settlement fund. They had argued that he should award only about $100 million, which would have given the funds another $45 million or so. They cited a federal policy of handing out a smaller percentage of legal fees in cases involving huge settlements to guard against windfall profits for lawyers who do roughly the same amount of work whether a settlement is worth $500 million or $1 billion. 'Challenging and Complex' Laster declined their invitation to adopt the federal rule, saying it would be incompatible with a seminal ruling by the state's top court. "Delaware law deals with the problem of overcompensation differently," he wrote, citing a multi-factor test judges in the state use to ensure legal fees are fair. The factors include the case's complexity, the experience and ability of the attorneys, the time and effort they spent, the stage of the litigation they fought to, and the extent to which any contingency arrangement left them at risk of no payment at all, the judge noted. None of them "warrant an upward or downward adjustment," Laster found. The case was "challenging and complex," it didn't settle until 19 days before trial, and "plaintiff's counsel litigated on a fully contingent basis," he wrote. "If they lost, they would get nothing." Labaton Sucharow LLP and Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP were lead counsel for the shareholders, who were also represented by Andrews & Springer LLC, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, and Friedman Oster & Tejtel PLLC. Michael Dell and certain other board members were represented by Richards, Layton & Finger PA and Alston & Bird LLP. Silver Lake was represented by Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor LLP and Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP. The special transaction committee was represented by Abrams & Bayliss LLP and Latham & Watkins LLP. The case is In re Dell Techs. Inc. Class V S'holders Litig., Del. Ch., No. 2018-0816, 7/31/23. To contact the reporter on this story: Mike Leonard in Washington at mleonard@bloomberglaw.com To contact the editors responsible for this story: Carmen Castro-Pagan at ccastro-pagan@bloomberglaw.com; Rob Tricchinelli at rtricchinelli@bloombergindustry.com [GN] DENSO INTERNATIONAL: Wins Worker Class Action Over 401(k) Fees -------------------------------------------------------------- Shweta Watwe of Bloomberg Law reports that Automotive component manufacturer Denso International America Inc. convinced a federal judge to dismiss a proposed class action from workers who said the company mismanaged its billion-dollar retirement fund. The US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan dismissed the suit in its entirety on July 28. The court said allegations that Denso paid excessive record-keeping fees or made imprudent investment decisions weren't sufficiently supported. Current and former workers filed the proposed class action in May 2022 and said the plan lost more than $4 million because of overly expensive investment choices. [GN] DOLCE VITA FOOTWEAR: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dolce Vita Footwear, Inc. The case is styled as Vanessa Jimenez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Dolce Vita Footwear, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-06546 (S.D.N.Y., July 27, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Dolce Vita Footwear Inc. -- https://www.dolcevita.com/ -- wholesale and distributes footwear. The Company offers flats, sandals, boots, wedges, sneakers, and heels shoes for men and women.[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 EDUCATION WORKS: Richards Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Employees -------------------------------------------------------------- SOLEDAD RICHARDS and KENYA BALDWIN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. EDUCATION WORKS INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-02809 (E.D. Pa., July 24, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act and for failure to pay wages owed under the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law. Ms. Richards and Ms. Baldwin were employed by the Defendant as a compliance and data manager and as an assistant director of learning and impact, respectively. Education Works Inc. is an educational services company headquartered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiffs are 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 ELANCO ANIMAL: Court of Appeals Affirms Dismissal TCPA Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Wisconsin Law Journal Staff of Wisconsin Law Journal reports that Elanco Animal Health sent two unsolicited faxes to Ambassador Animal Hospital, extending invitations to their veterinarians and owner for two free dinner programs: "Canine and Feline Disease Prevention Hot Topics" and "Rethinking Management of Osteoarthritis." The faxes stated that both programs were approved for continuing education credits and provided details about the presenters. The "Elanco" logo was displayed in the corners of each invitation, and a notice at the bottom advised recipients to review state or federal regulations or ethics laws regarding industry-provided educational and food items. Ambassador Animal Hospital filed a lawsuit, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. 227. They argued that the faxes constituted unsolicited advertisements since the free dinner programs were a marketing tool for Elanco's animal health products and services. However, the Seventh Circuit upheld the dismissal of the complaint. The court pointed out that the TCPA employs an objective standard that focuses specifically on the content of the faxed document. In this case, the faxes did not explicitly or implicitly convey to a reasonable recipient that Elanco was promoting or selling any goods, services, or property, as required by the TCPA. Consequently, the court rejected the argument that the faxes were a "pretext" for advertising purposes. Affirmed. Decided 07/24/23 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Case Name: Ambassador Animal Hospital, Ltd. v. Elanco Animal Health Incorporated Case No.: 22-1304 Officials: Scudder, Kirsch, and Jackson - Akiwumi , Circuit Judges Focus: TCPA Class Action-Unsolicited Advertisements [GN] ENWILD INC: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Enwild, Inc. The case is styled as Vanessa Jimenez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Enwild, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-06555 (S.D.N.Y., July 27, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Enwild -- https://www.enwild.com/ -- is an e-commerce platform that sells a variety of items such as backpacks and camping equipment, footwear and clothes.[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 EQUINAVIA LLC: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equinavia LLC. The case is styled as Vanessa Jimenez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Equinavia LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-06552-JMF (S.D.N.Y., July 27, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Equinavia -- https://www.equinavia.com/ -- is dedicated to nurturing the bond between horse and rider.[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 EVERLASTING MOBILITY: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Everlasting Mobility LLC. The case is styled as Milton Williams, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Everlasting Mobility LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-06590 (S.D.N.Y., July 28, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Everlasting Mobility -- https://www.everlastingmobility.com/ -- offers a wide collection of affordable mobility scooters, power wheelchairs and portable lifts by the top brands in the industry.[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 FANATICS INC: Castro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fanatics, Inc. The case is styled as Felix Castro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Fanatics, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-06544 (S.D.N.Y., July 27, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Fanatics, Inc. -- https://fanaticsinc.com/ -- is an American manufacturer and online retailer of licensed sportswear, sports collectibles, NFTs, trading cards, and sports merchandise, as well as sports betting and iGaming.[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 FANTASIA TRADING: Munoz Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Cieara Munoz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FANTASIA TRADING LLC, a Delaware entity d/b/a WWW.SOUNDCORE.COM, Case No. 23STCV12871 was removed from the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on July 28, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-06154. The only cause of action in the Class Action Complaint is for alleged violation of the federal Video Privacy Protection Act.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jacob M Heath, Esq. Aravind Swaminathan, Esq. Rebecca Harlow, Esq. ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 1000 Marsh Road Menlo Park, CA 94025-1015 Phone: +1 650 614 7400 Facsimile: +1 650 614 7401 Email: jheath@orrick.com aswaminathan@orrick.com rharlow@orrick.com FARWEST SPORTS: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Farwest Sports, Inc. The case is styled as Luis Toro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Farwest Sports, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-06596 (S.D.N.Y., July 28, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Farwest Sports, Inc. is a sporting goods corporation that offers the largest selection of outdoor related products in Washington State.[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 FLORA AND HENRI: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Flora and Henri, Inc. The case is styled as Vanessa Jimenez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Flora and Henri, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-06553 (S.D.N.Y., July 27, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Flora and Henri -- https://florahenri.com/ -- is an apparel manufacturer of unique and inspiring creations for children and women.[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 FOREST LABORATORIES: Settles Antitrust Class Suit for $750M ----------------------------------------------------------- Berger Montague reports that Berger Montague served as co-lead counsel and obtained a $750 million settlement on behalf of a class of direct purchasers of branded and/or generic Namenda IR and/or branded Namenda XR, from Forest or its successors in interest, Actavis and Allergan, and/or from any generic manufacturer at any time during the period from June 2012 to September 2015. Led by David F. Sorensen of Berger Montague, the case was litigated in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and captioned In re Namenda Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation, No. 15-cv-7488 (S.D.N.Y.). This is the largest single-defendant settlement in U.S. history for a case alleging delayed generic competition. If you or your company has been harmed by anticompetitive conduct or any conduct that you believe violates the antitrust laws, please contact Berger Montague. About Berger Montague Berger Montague is a national law firm focusing on complex civil litigation in federal and state courts throughout the United States. For over half a century, Berger Montague has played lead roles in consequential, precedent-setting cases and has recovered over $50 billion for its clients and the classes they have represented. Berger Montague is headquartered in Philadelphia and has offices in Chicago, Minneapolis, San Diego, San Francisco, Toronto, and Washington, D.C. [GN] FOURSQUARE LABS: Sells Customers' Geolocation Data, Proskin Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- KARI PROSKIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FOURSQUARE LABS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-30078 (D. Mass., July 24, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for unjust enrichment and violation of the Massachusetts Unfair and Deceptive Business Practices Act. The case arises from the Defendant's practice of selling customers' geolocation data without obtaining prior consent. The Defendant collects location data from cell phones by using spyware called Movement SDK, which is pre-installed on third party mobile apps such Uber ride-sharing app, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and non-restitutionary disgorgement of all profits Foursquare obtained by the sale of the geolocation data of Massachusetts residents. Foursquare Labs, Inc. is a technology company, headquartered in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Julian C. Diamond, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: jdiamond@bursor.com - and - Joel D. Smith, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: jsmith@bursor.com GENERAL STORE: Castro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The General Store and Trading Post Company. The case is styled as Felix Castro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. The General Store and Trading Post Company, Case No. 1:23-cv-06533 (S.D.N.Y., July 27, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The General Store in the Historic Fort Worth Stockyards has become the destination for fine western gifts and Texas souvenirs Since 1983.[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 GODADDY.COM LLC: Holds Unsolicited Text Message Sufficient Injury ----------------------------------------------------------------- Nathan L. Garroway, Bety Javidzad, Mark A. Silver and Leanne Sunderland of Dentons report that uprooting much of the court's precedent in Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") class actions, the Eleventh Circuit sitting en banc unanimously held that a plaintiff who receives one unwanted, automated telemarketing text message has standing to sue under the TCPA because they have suffered a concrete injury. This injury reflects an intrusion into the peace and quiet in a realm that is private and personal. In Drazen v. Pinto, et al., the underlying case was brought as a putative class action against GoDaddy.com, LLC ("Go-Daddy") alleging the class received unwanted text messages from Go-Daddy via unlawful telemarketing campaigns using prohibited automatic telephone dialing systems. Following consolidation with two related actions, the parties reached a settlement and plaintiffs moved for preliminary approval. However, the consolidation resulted in additional plaintiffs who only received a single text message. Preliminary approval was granted, dependent upon removal of the named plaintiff who lacked standing under Salcedo v. Hannah, which held that one text message is not enough to establish a concrete injury for federal standing. One class member, Pinto, objected to final approval of the settlement based on the attorney fees clause. The settlement class was certified over these objections, and Pinto appealed to the 11th Circuit. Without addressing Pinto's objections, the 11th Circuit in a three-panel decision vacated and remanded the matter because the class definition did not meet Article III standing. On August 17, 2022, Drazen filed a petition for rehearing en banc as to whether a person suffers a concrete injury sufficient for Article III standing if they only received on text message in violation of the TCPA. The 11th Circuit granted the petition and vacated the panel's decision. After outlining established Article III law, the Eleventh Circuit held that "the Constitution empowers Congress to decide what degree of harm is enough so long as that harm is similar in kind to a traditional harm. And that's exactly what Congress did in the TCPA when it provided a cause of action to redress the harm that unwanted telemarketing texts and phone calls cause." The court cited to the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, which states, " [i]n looking to whether a plaintiff's asserted harm has a 'close relationship' to a harm traditionally recognized as providing a basis for lawsuit in American courts, we do not require an exact duplicate." Stated another way, the injury need not be identical but share a close relationship in kind, not degree. The court analyzed whether the harm of receiving one unwanted text message resembled the harm associated with intrusion upon seclusion, which requires the intentional intrusion into another's solitude or seclusion which would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. The court held that the harm associated with an unwanted text message shares a close relationship with the harm underlying the tort of intrusion upon seclusion. "Both harms represent 'an intrusion into peace and quiet in a realm that is private and personal.' For that reason, the harms are similar in kind, and the receipt of an unwanted text message causes a concrete injury." The Eleventh Circuit now follows the majority of jurisdictions that hold that one text message is sufficient for Article III standing. Van Patten v. Vertical Fitness Group, LLC, 847 F.3d 1037 (9th Cir. 2017); Cranor v. 5 Star Nutrition, LLC, 998 F.3d 686 (5th Cir. 2021); Gadelhak v. AT&T Services, Inc., 950 F.3d 458 (7th Cir. 2020); Melito v. Experian Mktg. Sols., Inc., 923 F.3d 85 (2nd Cir. 2019). We expect the volume of cases filed in this Circuit to increase following this ruling, in addition to successful removal actions by defendants. [GN] GOOGLE LLC: Bid to Dismiss Remaining Claim in Divino Suit Granted ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, DIVINO GROUP LLC, et al., Plaintiffs v. GOOGLE LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-04749-VKD (N.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division: a. grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' sole remaining claim without further leave to amend; b. denies as moot the Defendants' motion to strike certain portions of the Plaintiffs' fourth amended class action complaint; and c. denies the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend their pleading. Defendants Google and YouTube LLC move pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss the Plaintiffs' sole remaining claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. They also move pursuant to Rule 12(f) to strike certain portions of the Plaintiffs' fourth amended class action complaint. The Plaintiffs oppose those motions. They also separately move for leave to amend their pleading to, among other things, assert additional fact allegations. Plaintiffs Divino Group LLC, Chris Knight, Celso Dulay, Cameron Stiehl, BriaAndChrissy LLC d/b/a "BriaAndChrissy," Bria Kam, Chrissy Chambers, Chase Ross, Brett Somers, Lindsay Amer, Stephanie Frosch, Sal Cinquemani (also known as "SalBardo"), Tamara (Sheri) Johnson, and Greg Scarnici are Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Transsexual or Queer ("LGBTQ+") content creators, viewers, users, and consumers who filed this putative class action against Google and YouTube. The Plaintiffs claim that despite YouTube's purported viewpoint neutrality, the Defendants have discriminated against them based on their sexual or gender orientation, identity, and/or viewpoints by censoring, demonetizing, or otherwise interfering with certain videos that plaintiffs uploaded to YouTube. The Plaintiffs filed their original complaint on Aug. 13, 2019. They have amended their pleading several times since then. The Court granted two prior motions to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims. In its most recent order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss the third amended class action complaint, the Court dismissed, without leave to amend, the Plaintiffs' claim for a declaratory judgment, as well as their claims under the Lanham Act and the California Constitution. While the Court found that the Plaintiffs pled plausible claims under the California Unruh Act and California's unfair competition law, those claims were dismissed without leave to amend, as barred by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act ("CDA"), 47 U.S.C. Section 230(c). The Court also dismissed the Plaintiffs' claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, finding that their allegations did not clearly identify the applicable underlying agreement(s) or contract term(s). The Plaintiffs were given leave to amend their implied covenant claim to clearly identify which Terms of Service and other agreement(s) and other contract(s) form the basis for their claim. The Court reserved judgment as to whether any such claim may be barred by CDA Section 230. The Plaintiffs filed their operative fourth amended class action complaint, reasserting their sole remaining claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Defendants move pursuant to Rule 12(f) to strike portions of that pleading, arguing that some of the Plaintiffs' allegations concern matters that have been dismissed, and are immaterial and inflammatory. They maintain that the Plaintiffs' implied covenant claim must be dismissed, in any event, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), on the grounds that their amended complaint still fails to allege sufficient facts supporting a plausible claim for relief. They also argue that the claim is barred by a one-year contractual limitations provision, a contractual limitation of liability provision, and by CDA Section 230. Focusing first on the Defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the implied covenant claim, Judge DeMarchi finds that the Plaintiffs have not asserted a plausible claim for relief and dismisses that claim without further leave to amend. She says the Plaintiffs do not argue or contend that the subject text in the Community Guidelines should or could be applied retroactively to their claim, which is based on allegations concerning events that predate the 2019 filing of their original complaint. Nor do they seriously dispute the Defendants' assertion that the Community Guidelines concern content that is not allowed on YouTube and pertain to circumstances in which YouTube may remove videos, but do not govern other challenged features of YouTube's service, i.e., Restricted Mode and monetization. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs have not sufficiently or plausibly alleged the existence of agreement(s) or contract term(s) supporting their implied covenant claim. The claim therefore is dismissed. The Plaintiffs contend that they can amend their allegations to state a viable implied covenant claim based on conduct that reportedly continued into 2021 and after. Specifically, they request leave to amend their complaint to (1) include a chart showing that as of January 2023, the Defendants continue to restrict and demonetize many of their videos that are identified in their current complaint; (2) allege that the Defendants continue to limit and censor at least 8 promotional ads purchased by Divino between Jan. 26 and Feb. 7, 2023; (3) allege that at some time, on Jan. 30, 2023, the Defendants removed a BriaandChrissy video without notice, and the video has not been reinstated; (4) allege that one of Sal Cinquemani's videos was removed from the platform in July 2017, and later was reinstated, but currently remains restricted and designated as unsuitable for advertising; and (5) include another chart purporting to show that for a number of the same videos identified in their current complaint that remain "restricted" as of January 2023, the Defendants did not restrict other purportedly similar videos posted on YouTube by other users. Judge DeMarchi holds that the Plaintiffs have already amended their complaint at least four times. The fourth amended complaint fails to state a claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and the Plaintiffs' proposed further amendments to that complaint would not cure the deficiencies in their pleading. Accordingly, further amendment would be futile and the Plaintiffs' claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is dismissed, without further leave to amend. Based on the foregoing, Judge DeMarchi grants the Defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' sole remaining claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is granted. That claim is dismissed without further leave to amend. The Clerk of the Court will enter judgment accordingly and close this file. A full-text copy of the Court's July 5, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y6u2h3db from Leagle.com. GREAT LAKES WELLNESS: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Great Lakes Wellness Company, LLC. The case is styled as Vanessa Jimenez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Great Lakes Wellness Company, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-06554 (S.D.N.Y., July 27, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Great Lakes Wellness Company, LLC -- https://greatlakeswellness.com/ -- offers premium collagen and grass-fed gelatin provides clean, high quality nutrition that supports a healthy lifestyle.[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 HCA HEALTHCARE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- B.W.; J.W.; and A.B., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HCA HEALTHCARE INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-00748 (M.D. Tenn., July 25, 2023) seeks to redress the Defendant's willful and reckless violations of privacy rights of the Plaintiff and the other Class Members who are patients of HCA who entrusted their Protected Health Information and Personally Identifiable Information to the Defendant. The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendant flagrantly disregarded the Plaintiffs' and the other Class Members' privacy and property rights by intentionally, willfully and recklessly failing to take the necessary precautions required to safeguard and protect the Plaintiffs' and the other Class Members' PHI and PII from unauthorized disclosure. The Plaintiffs' and the other Class Members' private information was improperly handled, inadequately protected, readily able to be copied by anyone with nefarious intent and not kept in accordance with basic security protocols. Defendant's obtaining of the information and sharing of same also represent a flagrant disregard of Plaintiffs' and the other Class Members' rights, both as to privacy and property, says the suit. HCA HEALTHCARE, INC. offers health care services. The Hospital provides diagnosis, treatments, consultancy, nursing, surgeries, and other services, as well as medical education, physician resource center, and training programs. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Maureen M. Brady, Esq. Lucy McShane, Esq. MCSHANE & BRADY, LLC 1656 Washington Street, Suite 120 Kansas City, MO 64108 Telephone: (816) 888-8010 Facsimile: (816) 332-6295 Email: mbrady@mcshanebradylaw.com lmcshane@mcshanebradylaw.com - and - Lori G. Feldman, Esq. Michael Liskow, Eqs. GEORGE FELDMAN MCDONALD, PLLC 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (917) 983-9321 Facsimile: (888) 421-4173 Email: lfeldman@4-Justice.com mliskow@4-Justice.com eservice@4-Justice.com HOTEL 57: Bid to Compel Arbitration in Staley Class Suit Denied --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Selena Staley, Vivian Holmes, and Olive Ivey, Plaintiffs v. Hotel 57 Services, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-6781 (JSR) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York: a. denies the Defendants' motions to compel arbitration and to strike the class allegations; b. and lifts the stay previously granted. By Order dated May 5, 2023, Judge Rakoff denied the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration of the Plaintiffs' claims and to strike the class allegations in the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint. He stayed all proceedings in the case until he rendered an opinion explaining the reasons for his decision. The instant Opinion sets forth Judge Rakoff's reasons and releases the stay. Plaintiffs Vivian Holmes, Olive Ivey, and Selena Staley worked for over a decade at the Four Seasons Hotel, which is owned by Hotel 57, and, as alleged by the Plaintiffs, also owned or operated by Ty Warner Hotels and Resorts, LLC and its Chief Executive, Ty Warner. In 2020, coinciding with the COVID-19 pandemic, the defendants placed the plaintiffs and other employees on an indefinite furlough and closed the Four Seasons Hotel until further notice. As of the time of this writing, the hotel has not reopened nor have the Plaintiffs returned to work. On Aug. 9, 2022, the Plaintiffs brought the action on behalf of themselves, and others similarly situated, to challenge the hotel's decision to furlough them and to close the hotel for an indefinite period. They allege that their furlough -- because it has lasted longer than six months -- amounts to a "permanent layoff" and that being subject to such a layoff entitles them to no-fault separation pay and notice of termination. They further allege that the hotel declined to make these payments and failed to provide the requisite notice. In response, the Defendants say that, because the furlough is temporary, they owe no legal obligations to the Plaintiffs. Indeed, even if the Plaintiffs are subject to a permanent layoff, they contend that they fulfilled all their legal obligations to the Plaintiffs by providing notice of the furlough. Judge Rakoff's Opinion deals with two motions brought by the Defendants within the broader litigation. First, in their motion to compel arbitration, the Defendants claim that the Plaintiffs must arbitrate their claims because, when they began working for the hotel, they signed an employment contract that mandates arbitration of all employment claims that are not related to a "permanent layoff." Because the Plaintiffs are, in the Defendants' view, subject to a temporary furlough -- not a permanent layoff -- they must arbitrate all claims related to their furlough. Second, the Defendants seek to strike from the Amended Complaint all claims brought on behalf of the putative class, asserting that the employment agreement also prohibits the Plaintiffs from pursuing class claims in federal court. In their first motion, the Defendants assert that the case belongs in arbitration, not in the Court. The parties disagree over whether the Plaintiffs' claims qualify as ones related to a "permanent layoff," and therefore, whether these claims fall within the ambit of the EmPact Agreement's arbitration provisions. As the Plaintiffs see it, they are subject to a permanent layoff because their furlough has lasted longer than six months and has no definite end. By contrast, the Defendants assert that no permanent layoff has occurred. Judge Rakoff opines that the relevant statutes and the contract itself make clear that the parties intended the term "permanent layoff" to refer to any discharge of employment that lasts longer than six months and has no definite end. As such, the factual allegations in the Amended Complaint suggest that the Defendants were subject to such a layoff and, thus, that their claims are exempt from mandatory arbitration. The Defendants' motion to compel this case to arbitration is therefore denied. Separately, the Defendants argue that the EmPact Agreement contains a class-action waiver that bars the Plaintiffs from bringing claims on behalf of a putative class of similarly situated employees. Construing the nearly identical class-action waiver in the same way as the general-litigation waiver would render other important contractual provisions -- each of which reflect careful tradeoffs made during negotiations between employees and employers -- null and void. And even if, contrary to the foregoing, Judge Rakoff were to interpret the provisions apart from one another this would do violence to another axiom of contractual interpretation, the one requiring that the "same words found in different sections" be given "the same meaning." Because he sees no reason to depart from either of these well-founded principles of contractual interpretation, he rejects the Defendants' view of the class-action waiver. Judge Rakoff therefore denies the Defendants' motion without prejudice to its being re-raised at the class certification stage, where the Court may benefit from additional discovery on this issue. In conclusion, Judge Rakoff denies the Defendants' motions to compel arbitration and to strike the class allegations. The stay previously granted is now lifted and the parties should jointly call chambers to work out new case-management dates. The Clerk is directed to close the entries at docket numbers 35 and 59. A full-text copy of the Court's July 5, 2023 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/5dh877dp from Leagle.com. HOVG LLC: Pickett Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Texas ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against HOVG, LLC. The case is styled as Lori Pickett, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HOVG, LLC doing business as: Bay Area Credit Service (BACS), Case No. 4:23-cv-00789-O (N.D. Tex., July 28, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. HOVG, LLC is an international recovery services organization.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Muhammad Hasan Siddiqui, Esq. STEIN SAKS PLLC 1 University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: hsiddiqui@steinsakslegal.com HUB CYBER: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due September 4 -------------------------------------------------------------- MarketScreener reports that Robbins LLP informs investors that a shareholder filed a class action on behalf of investors who (1) acquired HUB Cyber Security Ltd. (NASDAQ: HUBC) securities pursuant to/or traceable to the Offering Documents issued in connection with the merger with Mount Rainier or (2) acquired Mount Rainier or HUB Cyber Security Ltd. securities between March 23, 2022 and June 13, 2023. Legacy HUB was founded in 2017 by veterans of the elite Unit 8200 and Unit 81 of the Israeli Defense Forces and described itself as having "developed unique technology and products in the field of Confidential Computing, and it intends to be a significant player providing effective cybersecurity solutions for a broad range of government entities, enterprises and organizations." For more information, submit a form, email Aaron Dumas, Jr., or give us a call at (800) 350-6003. What is this Case About: HUB Cyber Security Ltd. (HUBC) Made Misleading Statements in its Offering Documents Regarding its Business Prospects According to the complaint, Mount Rainier was a special purpose acquisition company that merged with HUB Cyber Security (Israel) Ltd. The Company consummated the merger with Mount Rainier on February 28, 2023, Mount Rainier became a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, and the Company's shares closed at $4.99 per share. On March 1, 2023, the combined Company's securities began trading on NASDAQ, with a first post-merger closing stock price of $1.59 per share. After a series of disclosures, on July 5, 2023, the price of HUB's stock closed at $0.3918 per share - a 75.26% decline from its initial closing price. The complaint alleges that the Offering Documents and defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) PIPE financing in connection with the merger was not committed; (ii) HUB would not be led by Legacy Hub's then-current management team, including defendant Moshe; (iii) the Company had downplayed the full scope and severity of deficiencies in its compliance controls and procedures, including its disclosure controls and procedures and internal controls over financial reporting; (iv) the Company overstated its remediation of, and/or ability to remediate, the foregoing deficiencies; (v) accordingly, the Company had hundreds of thousands of dollars of unexplained expenses incurred, and/or funds misappropriated or otherwise fraudulently obtained, by a senior officer of the Company; (vi) the foregoing increased the risk that the Company would be unable to timely file one or more of its periodic financial reports with the SEC, as required by the NASDAQ's listing rules; (vii) as a result, the Company was also at an increased risk of being delisted from the NASDAQ; What Now: Similarly situated shareholders may be eligible to participate in the class action against HUB Cyber Security Ltd. Shareholders who want to act as lead plaintiff for the class must file their motion with the court by September 4, 2023. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. You do not have to participate in the case to be eligible for a recovery. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. For more information, click here. All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay no fees or expenses. About Robbins LLP: Some law firms issuing releases about this matter do not actually litigate securities class actions; Robbins LLP does. A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, the attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been dedicated to helping shareholders recover losses, improve corporate governance structures, and hold company executives accountable for their wrongdoing since 2002. Since our inception, we have obtained over $1 billion for shareholders. To be notified if a class action against HUB Cyber Security Ltd. settles or to receive free alerts when corporate executives engage in wrongdoing, sign up for Stock Watch on July 31, 2023. [GN] J. M. SMUCKER COMPANY: Arellano Suit Removed to E.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jose Arellano, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE J. M. SMUCKER COMPANY, a corporation; SMUCKER NATURAL FOODS, INC., a corporation; SMUCKER NATURAL FOOD, LLC, a limited liability company; SMUCKER FOODSERVICE, INC., a corporation SMUCKER FRUIT PROCESSING CO., a corporation; SMUCKER RETAIL FOODS, INC., a corporation; SMUCKER SALES AND DISTRIBUTION COMPANY, a corporation, FIDELITY INVESTMENTS INSTITUTIONAL OPERATIONS COMPANY LLC, a limited liability company; FIDELITY INVESTMENTS INSTITUTIONAL OPERATIONS COMPANY, INC. a corporation; SMUCKER FRUIT PROCESSING COMPANY, a corporation; TRUROOTS, LLC, a limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 23CV01090 was removed from the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Butte, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on July 27, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-at-00721. The Complaint asserts the following eight causes of action: Failure to Pay Minimum and Straight Time Wages; Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Authorize and Permit Rest Periods; Failure to Timely Pay Wages at Termination; Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; Failure to Produce Requested Employment Records; and Unfair Business Practices.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Shiva Shirazi Davoudian, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON P.C. 2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107 Phone: 310.553.0308 Fax: 800.715.1330 Email: sdavoudian@littler.com - and - James Payer, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 633 West 5th Street, 63rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213.443.4300 Fax: 213.443.4299 Email: jpayer@littler.com JBR INC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against JBR, Inc. The case is styled as Jasmine Toro, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. JBR, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-06602 (S.D.N.Y., July 28, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. J.B.R., Inc. of California, doing business as San Francisco Bay Coffee Company -- https://sfbaycoffee.com/ -- has offered premium roasts, organic blends, specialty single-origins, and flavored coffees.[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 JOLIE SKIN COMPANY: Bassaw Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jolie Skin Company, Inc. The case is styled as Shivan Bassaw, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Jolie Skin Company, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-06560 (S.D.N.Y., July 28, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Jolie -- https://jolieskinco.com/ -- is a beauty wellness company focused on purifying the quality of your water for better skin, hair, and wellbeing.[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 KARMAN HEALTHCARE: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Karman Healthcare, Inc. The case is styled as Milton Williams, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Karman Healthcare, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-06591 (S.D.N.Y., July 28, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Karman Healthcare -- https://www.karmanhealthcare.com/ -- is a manufacturer and distributor of medical products.[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 KEURIG GREEN: Groff Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Christina Groff, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. KEURIG GREEN MOUNTAIN, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. CIVSB2228148 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on July 28, 2023, and assigned Case No. 5:23-cv-01492. The Plaintiff asserts two claims under California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Nicholas J. Hoffman, Esq. McGUIREWOODS LLP Wells Fargo Center - South Tower 355 S. Grand Ave., Suite 4200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213.627.2268 Facsimile: 213.627.2579 Email: nhoffman@mcguirewoods.com KINDEVA DRUG: Kinney Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Marvin Kinney, an individual, on behalf of himself, all aggrieved employees, and the State of California as a Private Attorneys General v. KINDEVA DRUG DELIVERY, a Delaware Limited Partnership, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV17839 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., July 28, 2023), is brought pursuant to the Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA") and California Labor Code as a result of the Defendants failure to pay minimum and overtime wages. The Defendant has had a consistent policy and/or practice of: failing to pay wages, including overtime wages; failing to pay minimum wage; failing to provide timely meal breaks; failing to provide rest breaks; failure to provide potable water; failing to provide safe working conditions; failing to reimburse for required business expenses; failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements. Defendant is therefore liable for civil penalties under the Cal. Labor Code, including the Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA"), Labor Code, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked as an employee for the Defendant. The Defendant is a drug delivery company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nazo Koulloukian, Esq. KOUL LAW FIRM 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Phone: (213) 761-5484 Facsimile: (818) 561-3938 Email: nazo@koullaw.com KINGS LOGISTICS: Approval of Horta's Revised Agreement Recommended ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, HECTOR HORTA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KINGS LOGISTICS, L.L.C., GRAND MARKET INTERNATIONAL CORP., and SAIDABROR KHODJAEV, in his professional and individual capacities, Defendants, Case No. 22 Civ. 2508 (MKB) (VMS) (E.D.N.Y.), Magistrate Judge Vera M. Scanlon of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York recommends that the Revised Agreement be approved with removal of the non-assistance provision at paragraph 2(g) and non-publication provision at paragraph 3 of the Revised Agreement. Plaintiff Horta commenced the action against the Defendants asserting claims for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA"), and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"). Upon receiving notification from the Plaintiff and Grand Market that they had reached a settlement, the Court scheduled a hearing pursuant to Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., 796 F.3d 199 (2d Cir. 2015). In anticipation of the hearing, the Plaintiff and Grand Market filed a motion for settlement approval. During the hearing, the Court identified certain issues with the original settlement agreement. The Plaintiff and Grand Market submitted a revised motion for settlement approval in response to the Court's concerns. The revised settlement agreement provides for a total settlement amount of $13.5 million, to be paid by Grand Market within 30 days of approval of the Revised Agreement by the Court, with $8,055.37 to be paid to the Plaintiff and with $5,444.63 to be paid to his counsel for attorneys' fees and costs. In exchange, pursuant to the Revised Agreement, the Plaintiff would release his claims. Judge Scanlon explains that in conducting a Cheeks review, courts address (1) whether a settlement agreement is fair and reasonable, in view of the factors set forth in Wolinsky v. Scholastic Inc., 900 F.Supp.2d 332 (S.D.N.Y. 2012); (2) whether the attorneys' fees and costs sought are reasonable; and (3) whether a settlement agreement runs afoul of any of the Cheeks concerns. Because the non-assistance provision at paragraph 2(g) and the non-publication provision at paragraph 3 of the Revised Agreement run afoul of Cheeks, she respectfully recommends that the District Court approves the Revised Agreement only upon removal of such provisions. She opines that the Wolinsky factors weigh in favor of approving the Revised Agreement pursuant to Cheeks, with the exception of the two paragraphs noted. A reviewing court must also assess the reasonableness of attorneys' fees and costs where applicable. Here, Judge Scanlon finds that the Plaintiff's counsel's costs of $1,416.95, or the sum of the filing fee and fees for service of process, and attorneys' fees of $4,027.68, or one-third of the settlement amount, less costs, are reasonable. She does not find the difference between the retainer and the settlement to be problematic. Next, Judge Scanlon must ensure that the settlement agreement does not run afoul of any of the Cheeks concerns, which include, inter alia, highly restrictive confidentiality provisions, overbroad releases, unsupported attorneys' fee awards, and restrictions on attorneys' future representations. She opines that the three provisions in the Revised Agreement, namely the non-assistance provision, the non-publication provision, and the mutual non-disparagement provision, implicate confidentiality concerns and require further review. Upon consideration, she respectfully recommends that the Revised Agreement not be approved with paragraphs 2(g) and 3. Finally, Judge Scanlon finds that Kings Logistics and Mr. Khodjaev have not appeared in this action. The Plaintiff has been unable to establish contact with any representative of Kings Logistics, and he has similarly been unable to establish contact with Mr. Khodjaev or any representative of his. As a result, Grand Market is the only defendant in this matter with which the Plaintiff has been able to discuss settlement. If the Revised Agreement were to be approved, the Plaintiff would dismiss the entire action with prejudice, including against Kings Logistics and Mr. Khodjaev. As these three parties have not reached a settlement, under Cheeks, the proposed dismissal of the action against Kings Logistics and Mr. Khodjaev with prejudice, without Cheeks review, is permissible under the precise language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41. Based on the foregoing, Judge Scanlon respectfully recommends that the Revised Agreement be approved as fair and reasonable pursuant to Cheeks with removal of the non-assistance provision at paragraph 2(g) and non-publication provision at paragraph 3 of the Revised Agreement. If the Plaintiff and Grand Market remove the aforementioned provisions from the Revised Agreement, she respectfully recommends dismissal of the action with prejudice and in its entirety, including as against Kings Logistics and Mr. Khodjaev, in accordance with the proposed stipulation of dismissal filed. In light of this recommendation, the Plaintiff and Grand Market are to apprise the Court, via the filing of a joint letter, of whether they intend to remove the two offending provisions from the Revised Agreement and file a second amended settlement agreement for approval, to litigate the action, or to object to the report and recommendation. The report and recommendation will be posted on the docket. Any written objections to this report and recommendation must be filed with the Clerk of the Court within 14 days of service of this report. Any requests for an extension of time for filing objections must be directed to the District Judge assigned to the action prior to the expiration of the 14-day period for filing objections. Failure to file objections within fourteen days will preclude further review of this report and recommendation either by the District Court or the Court of Appeals. A full-text copy of the Court's July 5, 2023 Report & Recommendation is available at https://tinyurl.com/246wauja from Leagle.com. KIXTERS INC: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kixters, Inc. The case is styled as Vanessa Jimenez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Kixters, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-06557 (S.D.N.Y., July 27, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Kixters -- https://kixters.com/ -- features trending apparel, footwear and accessories.[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 KRAFT HEINZ: Suit Over False Preparation Time of Products Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------------- Food and Drug Law at Keller and Heckman of The National Law Review reports that a proposed class action filed last year in the Southern District of Florida alleges that Kraft Heinz Co. falsely markets microwavable single serve cups of Velveeta mac and cheese as "Ready in 3½ minutes" and consumers are misled to expect the product will be ready for consumption in a shorter amount of time than it really takes to prepare. In support of her claims, the plaintiff points to the directions on the back of the packaging that show 3½ minutes is the length of time for microwaving, which is only one of several steps to prepare the product. On July 27, 2023, the judge ordered the Velveeta lawsuit dismissed without prejudice but also without leave to amend for lack of standing to bring claims for damages and injunctive relief. The plaintiff's initial complaint, stating that she purchased the product "between October and November 2022, among other times," was found to contradict her allegation that she paid a premium price due to the misrepresentation of the required preparation time. The court reasoned that these multiple purchases demonstrate that the plaintiff continued to pay the alleged price premium knowing that the product was not actually capable of being ready for consumption in 3½ minutes and, as such, show she was not deprived of the benefit of her bargain. This case exemplifies the importance of the threshold jurisdictional question of standing when a plaintiff alleges not to have received the benefit of the bargain. A court cannot otherwise consider the merits of the claims if the plaintiff lacks standing. [GN] LANCASHIRE GROUP: Evans Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against It Works Marketing, Inc. The case is styled as Michael Evans, as an individual and on behalf of others similarly situated v. The Lancashire Group, Inc., TLG Security, TLG, Inc., Case No. 23CV039533 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., July 27, 2023). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." It Works! Marketing -- https://www.itworks.com/ -- is a health & wellness company specializing in body wraps and weight loss products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter M. Hart, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PETER M HART 12121 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 525 Los Angeles, CA 90025-1176 Phone: 310-439-9298 Fax: 509-561-6411 Email: hartpeter@msn.com LEHIGH HANSON: Raines Suit Removed to E.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Walter L. Raines, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated v. LEHIGH HANSON SERVICES, LLC; CALAVERAS MATERIALS, INC.; MARTIN MARIETTA MATERIALS, INC.; HEIDELBERG CEMENT GROUP; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2023-0005726 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Joaquin, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on July 27, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-at-00719. In his Complaint, Plaintiff asserts the following causes of action: failure to pay wages for all hours worked at minimum wage in violation of Labor Code; failure to pay reporting time pay in violation of Labor Code; failure to authorize or permit meal periods in violation of Labor Code; failure to provide complete and accurate wage statements in violation of Labor Code; failure to timely pay all earned wages and final paychecks due at time of separation of employment in violation of Labor Code; and unfair business practices in violation of Business and Professions Code Sections.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Mike Birrer, Esq. Jordan R. Brownlow, Esq. CARRINGTON, COLEMAN, SLOMAN & BLUMENTHAL, L.L.P. 901 Main Street, Suite 5500 Dallas, TX 75202 Phone: 214-855-3000 Facsimile: 214-580-2641 Email: mbirrer@ccsb.com jbrownlow@ccsb.com - and - Cassandra M Ferrannini, Esq. Daria A Gossett, Esq. Cameron P Haynes, Esq. DOWNEY BRAND LLP 621 Capitol Mall, 18th Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: 916-444-1000 Facsimile: 916-444-2100 Email: cferrannini@downeybrand.com dgossett@downeybrand.com chaynes@downeybrand.com LEHIGH VALLEY HEALTH: Sued Over Patients' Personal Info Exposure ---------------------------------------------------------------- Terrie Morgan-Besecker of Yahoo! News reports that attorneys for Lehigh Valley Health Network allege lawyers suing the provider over a cyberattack that exposed patients' personal information to the dark web improperly downloaded the data from a website run by the hackers. In a court motion, attorney Phyillis Sumner, of Atlanta, alleges attorneys who filed a class-action lawsuit obtained the stolen data in an attempt to gain a strategic advantage in the case. She asks a judge to issue a protective order that would limit who can see the information. Patrick Howard, of Philadelphia, one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs, acknowledged they obtained the information. He vehemently denies the action was improper, noting LVHN also downloaded the data. "It's a totally frivolous allegation and likely unethical to lob at counsel who are upstanding members of the bar," Howard said in an email. Attempts to reach Sumner for comment were unsuccessful. The motion is the latest filing in a lawsuit relating to a cyberattack by the Russian ransomware group BlackCat that targeted the Lackawanna County-based Delta Medix Group, which is part of LVHN's network. LVHN reported in February that hackers posted sensitive photos and information on the dark web after the organization refused to pay the ransom the hackers demanded. The lawsuit seeks damages for the lead plaintiff, identified as Jane Doe to protect her privacy, and all other patients impacted by the breach. The suit was initially filed in March in Lackawanna County Court, but LVHN transferred the case to federal court. A federal judge recently returned the case to county court. In her motion, Sumner criticizes the plaintiffs' attorneys for downloading the data, alleging they are "furthering BlackCat's goal in stealing the data." She says she asked the attorneys to destroy or return the data, but they refused. The motion seeks a protective order that would classify the information as "highly confidential," which means it could be shared only with a limited number of people, including attorneys, experts and the court. "Plaintiff's position is that they have the right to publicly disseminate any information stolen . . . simply because her counsel took the extraordinary step of actually acquiring that information from the Russian cyber-criminal organization," Sumner says in the motion. In a reply, Howard said LVHN is misstating their position. He said the attorneys agreed to keep the information confidential, but they oppose LVHN's request because it is overly broad and would forbid them from sharing information with the affected parties. "LVHN's counsel is knowingly asserting misleading and false statements to the court," Howard said in court papers. "To be clear, plaintiffs have no intent, now or ever, of publicly disseminating any of the downloaded data." Sumner also filed a separate motion that seeks dismissal of the case, arguing in part that the plaintiffs have failed to identify specific shortcomings in LVHN's security network that led to the breach. Howard will have an opportunity to respond to that motion. A county judge will review that motion and the motion seeking a protective order and rule at a later date.[GN] LIFE LINE SCREENING: Toy Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Life Line Screening of America, LLC. The case is styled as Jennifer K. Toy, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Life Line Screening of America, LLC, Case No. CGC23607935 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., July 27, 2023). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints." Life Line Screening of America Ltd. -- https://www.lifelinescreening.com/ -- provides health screening services. The Company offers screening services for heart stroke, abdominal aortic aneurysm, high cholesterol, diabetes, and kidney diseases.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 401 W. Broadway, Suite 1760 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (858) 209-6941 Fax: (865) 522-0049 Email: jnelson@milberg.com LIMESTONE BANK: Cooper Suit Removed to W.D. Kentucky ---------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Robin Cooper, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Limestone Bank, Inc., Peoples Bank, Case No. 23-CI-002712 was removed from the Jefferson Circuit Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky on July 28, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-00389-GNS to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. Limestone Bank -- https://www.limestonebank.com/ -- is a Kentucky-based bank holding company offering a wide range of personal and business banking products and services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew E. Mize, Esq. J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Phone: (615) 254-8801 Email: amize@stranchlaw.com gstranch@stranchlaw.com - and - Lynn Toops, Esq. COHEN & MALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Phone: (317) 636-6481 Fax: (317) 636-2593 Email: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com The Defendant is represented by: Carol Anne Stewart, Esq. Joseph N. Tucker, Esq. DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP 101 South Fifth Street, Suite 2500 Louisville, KY 40202 Phone: (502) 540-2364 Email: annie.stewart@dinsmore.com joseph.tucker@dinsmore.com LIPSEY COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Moharer Wage-and-Hour Suit in Colorado ------------------------------------------------------------------- Niema Moharer, on behalf of himself and all other plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiff v. Lipsey Communications, LLC, a Louisiana Limited Liability Company d/b/a Connectivity Source, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-01822 (D. Colo., July 18, 2023) is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Colorado Minimum and Pay Standards Order, and the Colorado Wage Act arising from the Defendant's alleged wage and hour violations. Allegedly, Plaintiff and members of the Plaintiff Class were improperly denied overtime pay for work in excess of 40 hours in a work week. During Plaintiff's employment, Lipsey implemented and executed wage deductions for the costs of uniforms or related special apparel Lipsey required Plaintiff and members of the Plaintiff Class to wear during shifts. These uniform-related wage deductions imposed by Lipsey violated state wage laws, says the suit. Plaintiff, Niema Moharer, was employed by the Defendant from approximately February 2022 to March 2023. She was initially hired as an hourly sales associate before being transitioned to a salary-exempt SM position on approximately July 1, 2022. Lipsey Communications, LLC owns and operates a chain of authorized T-Mobile retail stores with principal place of business in Houston, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel D. Engelson, Esq. John William Billhorn, Esq. BILLHORN LAW FIRM 53 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1137 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312)-853-1450 MAC PIZZA: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Elliott Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------- ARRIANA ELLIOTT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MAC PIZZA MANAGEMENT, INC. d/b/a DOMINO'S PIZZA, Defendant, Case No. 4:23-cv-02708 (S.D. Tex., July 24, 2023) alleges that the Defendant failed to prevent data breach. According to the complaint, between April 14, 2023, and April 22, 2023, Defendant MAC Pizza, a Texas company that "owns and operates 98 Domino's Pizza stores in and around southeast Texas", lost control over its former and current applicants' and employees' highly sensitive personal information in a data breach perpetrated by cybercriminals. On information and belief, over 39,000 individuals were impacted by the Data Breach The Defendant's failure to timely detect and report the Data Breach made its applicants and employees vulnerable to identity theft without any warnings to monitor their financial accounts or credit reports to prevent unauthorized use of their PII. The Defendant knew or should have known that each victim of the Data Breach deserved prompt and efficient notice of the Data Breach and assistance in mitigating the effects of PII misuse. In failing to adequately protect applicants' and employees' information, adequately notify them about the breach, and obfuscating the nature of the breach, the Defendant violated state and federal law and harmed an unknown number of its former and current applicants and employees, says the suit. Mac Pizza Management, Inc. was founded in 1985. The Company's line of business includes the retail sale of prepared foods and drinks for on-premise consumption. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joe Kendall, Esq. KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 1450 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 744-3000 Facsimile: (214) 744-3015 Email: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli , Esq. TURKE & STRAUSS LLP 613 Williamson St., Suite 201 Madison, WI 53703 Telephone: (608) 237-1775 Facsimile: (608) 509-4423 Email: sam@turkestrauss.com raina@turkestrauss.com MAINTENANCE SUPPLY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Lopez Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ IGNACIO GRACIAN LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MAINTENANCE SUPPLY HEADQUARTERS, LP; LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, LLC; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 23STCV17380 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 21, 2023) is an action against the Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods. Plaintiff Lopez was employed by the Defendants as a driver. MAINTENANCE SUPPLY HEADQUARTERS, LP is a distributor of maintenance, repair and operation products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marcus Bradley, Esq. Kiley Grombacher, Esq. Lirit King, Esq. BRADLEY/GROMBACHER, LLP 31365 Oak Crest Drive, Suite 240 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Telephone: (805) 270-7100 Facsimile: (805) 618-2939 Email: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com lking@bradleygrombacher.com - and - Garen Majarian, Esq. Sahag Majarian, II, Esq. MAJARIAN LAW GROUP APC 18250 Ventura Boulevard Tarzana, CA 91356 Telephone: (818) 263-7343 Facsimile: (818) 609-0892 Email: garen@majarianlawgroup.com sahagii@aol.com MDL 1871: TPPs Bid to Unseal Class Certification Exhibits OK'd -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as IN RE: AVANDIA MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, Case No. 2:07-md-01871-CMR (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Cynthia M. Rufe entered an order granting the Third Party Payors' (TPPs') Unopposed Motion to Unseal Exhibits of TPPs' Motion for Class Certification and the Memorandum in support thereof: 1. The class certification exhibits attached to TPPs' Motion [Doc. Nos. 5509-10 through 5509-15] shall be filed publicly on the docket. 2. The parties shall jointly file a public version of TPPs' class certification brief, with appropriate redactions where necessary, to be placed on the docket. A copy of the Court's order dated July 14, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QgGLTQ at no extra charge.[CC] META PLATFORMS: Faces Hartman Class Suit Over Privacy Violations ---------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Carroll of Madison – St. Clair Record reports that a class action lawsuit filed in St. Clair County accuses Meta Platforms Inc. of violating provisions of Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) through the social media company's use of facial identifiers. The July 5 complaint filed in the state's 20th Judicial Circuit Court argues that Meta's Facebook Messenger and Messenger Kids apps violate the privacy law because Meta did not inform the plaintiffs of its collection of biometric data through its augmented reality (AR) filters and photographic effects. Neither did Meta obtain written consent from the parties, according to the lawsuit. The class action suit was filed on behalf of two East St. Louis residents - Rebecca Hartman and Joseph Turner - as well as two minor children, identified only as R.H. and E.T. The size of the class is estimated to be in the thousands or millions. "When an Illinois resident downloads an app, [the] defendant does not inform them that biometric data will be collected from every person who uses the AR filters and effects on said app, including the user and any other person whose hands or face appears in front of the application and is subject to any AR filters or effects," the complaint states. Members of the class whose privacy rights were allegedly violated should receive actual damages caused by the alleged BIPA violations, $5,000 for each "intentional and reckless" violation, damages of $1,000 for each negligent violation, an order enjoining Meta from similar future actions, and reasonable attorney fees and litigation expenses. Illinois lawmakers passed BIPA in 2008 as a way to protect Illinois residents from having their biometrics data stolen or used inappropriately. Biometric identifiers are defined as physiological components and can include fingerprints, voice prints, DNA, iris patterns, hand geometry, retina scans and facial geometry, according to the lawsuit. "Once compromised, the individual has no recourse, is at a heightened risk for identity theft and is likely to withdraw from biometric-facilitated transactions," the Illinois General Assembly reports. Business groups, including the Illinois Manufacturing Association, have criticized the impact of the thousands of BIPA lawsuits, arguing that the law is outdated and that abuses of the law can lead to businesses having to shut down, resulting in job losses. Meta has already paid $400 each to Illinois Facebook users and agreed to pay $68.5 million to settle claims regarding its Instagram platform. [GN] MICHAEL MAHENDRA PAL: Oliver Suit Removed to S.D. Georgia --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Anthony Oliver, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Michael Mahendra Pal doing business as: Hook Recovery and Towing, Case No. SPCV23-00653-MO was removed from the Superior Court of Chatham County, Georgia, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia on July 27, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:23-cv-00209-WTM-CLR to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights. Michael Mahendra Pal doing business as Hook Recovery and Towing -- https://hookrecoveryandtowing.com/ -- offer 24/7 roadside assistance including lockout service, tire changes, jumpstarts, and fuel delivery.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: McNeill Stokes, Esq. MCNEILL STOKES, ATTORNEY AT LAW 5372 Whitehall Place S.E. Mableton, GA 30126 Phone: (404) 352-2144 Fax: (678) 742-7559 Email: mcstokes@bellsouth.net The Defendant is represented by: Robert Brian Tanner, Esq. GRIFFIN DURHAM TANNER & CLARKSON P.O. Box 10244 Savannah, GA 31412 Phone: (912) 867-9140 Fax: (912) 867-9140 Email: btanner@griffindurham.com MILBERG COLEMAN: Schirano Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages, Ads ------------------------------------------------------------------ Michael Schirano, and Gadi Flores, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, LLC, Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, PLLC and Douglas H. Sanders Law Group, PLLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-05435 (E.D.N.Y., July 18, 2023) arises from the Defendants' conduct of delivering more than one advertisement or marketing text message to Plaintiffs' residential or cellular telephone numbers registered with the Do-Not-Call Registry without the prior express invitation or permission. Beginning in November 2022, the Plaintiffs allegedly began receiving a series of text messages from a rotating series of phone numbers, attempting to solicit Plaintiffs to submit a claim regarding the pending Camp Lejeune water contamination mass tort litigation. The Plaintiffs did not serve at Camp Lejeune and did not live in the vicinity of Camp Lejeune during the relevant time period. Upon information and good faith belief, the Defendants placed, or caused to be placed, materially identical phone calls and delivered materially identical text messages to numerous other persons across the country in an effort to generate additional leads or claims for submission in the pending Camp Lejeune mass tort litigation, says the suit. Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, LLC, a Tennessee professional limited liability company, is a national law firm that practices, among other things, mass tort litigation.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alex D. Kruzyk, Esq. Bryan A. Giribaldo, Esq. PARDELL, KRUZYK & GIRIBALDO, PLLC 501 Congress Avenue, Suite 150 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (561) 726-8444 E-mail: 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 Telephone: (323) 306-4234 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com MISSOURI: Jones-Williams Files Suit in E.D. Missouri ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Missouri State, et al. The case is styled as Rozina Rhonda Jones-Williams, Benificiary of Johnie Frank Jones, Beneficiary of Rozina-Kimani Muthoka, in her sovereign immunity capacity and all themselves similarly situated v. Missouri State; County of St. Louis; City of Clayton; City of St. Louis; State of Missouri; St. Louis County; Citizens of St. Louis County; People of the City of Clayton; St. Louis County Government; St. Louis County Justice Services; Citizens Council of St. Louis County; State of Missouri St. Louis County Circuit Courts; Timothy Ware; Matthew Hearne; Steven DeGeider; Mark Harder; Randolph Reinker; Sgt. Unknown O'Hare; Bonnie Clair; Ronnie White; Jane Doe, Commission Acrediation Agency of Prisons ACA Commissions Texas; St. Louis County Justice Services et al Employees; Janice Laycob; Ms. Unknown Shaw; Lt. Unknown Pittman; Lt. Unknown Arthur; Captain Unknown Lewis; Officer Unknown Grant; Officer Unknown; Lt. Unknown; Major Unknown Kraemmer; Captain Unknown; Housing Manager Unknown; Director Unknown Andews; Medical Staff Jane and John Doe Jailer and Deputies; Missouri State Public Defender and Employees; Beverly Harbor; III Isaac L. Dodd; Andrew Bailey, Attorney General of Missouri; Unit Manager Arthur Unknown, Justice Services; Major Unknown Krammer, Justice Services; Wesley Bell; Bank of New York Mellon Trust, et al, all trustees; Gordon Ramsay, St. Louis County Sheriff; Jon M. Belllmor, Chief of Police; Avery Westley, St. Louis County Sheriff; Mary T. Barton; Sheriff Mondale Estele; St. Louis County Animal Shelter; St. Louis County Animal Control; Karen Schmitt; Zachary Schmitt; Joseph Wolf; Barbarah Wolf; Judge Medler; Calvin McClain; Thomas Tate, Detective; Detective Unknown Etzell; Healthlink, Inc., et al; Rockdale County Hospital; Dr. John Doe and Jane Doe; Georgia Department of Vital Statistics; Houston Child Protective Services; Houston Texas Family Court; Houston Texas Family Children Services; Trey Barnett; John N. Borbonus, III; Nancy Watkins McGaughlin, Judge; Nicole Botchway; Heather Cunningham; Clerk Managers on 1st Floor of St. Louis County Circuit Court State of Missouri; Cathlene Hubble; Judge Unknown Green; Beverly Barnett Parker also known as: Beverly Parker; DeKalb County Family Children Services; Henry County Police; Henry County Jail, et al; DeKalb County Medical Hospital, et al; DeKalb County Family Court; Judge John Doe; Guardian ad litem Jane Doe; DeKalb County Child Protective Services; Sts. Louis County Police Department North Precinct, John Doe Captain and Officers; St. Louis County Internal Affairs; Governor Brian Kemp; Sheriff Patrick Labait; Judge Unknown Lethridge; Atlanta, Georgia; Deputy Unknown Richey; Fulton County Sheriff Jail January 7, 2023-March 28, 2023 All Employees "Officers"; City of Clayton Police; Matt Murry; Glenn Unknown; Female Unknown, St. Louis County Police Department; John Doe, St. Louis County Police Department; Lt. Michael Parks; Clayton Presyberterian Church, et al, staff and employees and agents and members, Janes Does 1-100; City of Decatur Police; Thomas Kimani-Muthoka; United States Social Security Admin; Child Protective Services; Child Welfare Services; Jane Doe, (PSSF) Promoitng Safe and Stable Familes; Governmental Accountability Office; Children Family Services Registration; Inspector General; Darlene Green, St. Louis Comptroller; Kenneth Gregory, Chief of Police; Federal Reserve Bank, et al; St. Louis County Collector of Revenue, et al All Staff; Primedica Heartland Hospice; Missouri North, South, East, West; SLU Care, et al, all staff and agents; VA Medical North John Cochran Building; Dr. James Sheperd, VA doctor; Unknown Parker; Sgt Corey Blalock; Officer John Doe, Fulton County Police; Atlanta City Detention Center, et al; Farmers Insurance; St. Louis County Assessor Office; Merridian Survey Company; United States Treasury, et al plus all agents, staff; District of Columbia, et al plus all agents and staff; Vatican Pope, or John Doe et al and all members and agents; House of Lords, all inherent members; Lord Doe; International Court of Justice; Hague Convention, et al, all staff and agents; Hampton Convention, et al, all staff and agents; Thomas Eagleton; United States Trustee, et al, all staff; United States Department of Justice; United States Bankruptcy of Eastern District Missouri Clerk; Missouri Medicaid Medicare; Veteran Affairs, et al; Veteran Affairs in Toledo; Christian Northeast, et al, Dr. John Doe, Dr. Jane Doe Nurse Jane Doe, staff; Meadow Glen Apartments; Eagle Point Reality Management Group, et al; Eagle Point Reality, et al; Randolph John Reinker; Molly Daughtery; Ultimate Parent, unknown, et al, all staff and agents; Federal Trade Commission, et al all agents, agencies; Security Exchange Commission, et al, all staff, agents, agencies; Share Holders, unknown, et al, all agents, agencies, Rozina Rhonda; Jones Williams, mortgagee; Detective Unknown Love; St. Louis County Domestic Violence Department Staff Family Court, et al, Judges Jane and John Doe; Channel 4 News; Channel 5 News; Channel 2 News; St. Louis County Missing Persons Unit, et al, all staff; Christopher Carter; St. Charles County, State of Missouri, plus all employees; City of St. Charles, State of Missouri, plus all employees; Boyd Gaming Commission, et al, plus all employees; Ameristar Casino, et al, plus all employees; Missouri Gaming Commision, et al, plus all staff; Sheriff Vernon Betts; Joseph Walsh, III; Mayor Tishaura Jones; Missouri Department of Revenue, et al, plus all staff; Missouri Department of Vital Statistics, et al, plus all staff; U.S. Bank National Association, et al, plus all agents; Unknown Eagan; U.S. Bank Trust, et al, plus all trustees, agents; U.S. Bank Home Mortgage, et al, plus all mortgagees; American UE Missouri, et al, plus all staff; Ultimate Parent, et al, all agents, agencies; Reinker, Hamilton & Fenley, LLC; Millsap & Singer, LLC; Charles Riske; St. Louis County Police Department City of Wildwood Precinct, et al, all staff; Jane Doe Captain; John Doe Patrol Van; John Doe Patrol Car; John Doe Patrol Car; John Doe Helicopter; Unknown Realty Company; Unknown Real Estate Agent; Unknown Broker; Case No. 4:23-cv-00947-JMB (S.D.N.Y., July 27, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Civil Rights. Missouri is a state in the Midwestern region of the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. MOONEY INCORPORATED: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mooney, Incorporated. The case is styled as Janelys Hernandez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Mooney, Incorporated, Case No. 1:23-cv-06576-LJL (S.D.N.Y., July 28, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Mooney -- https://www.mooney.com/ -- has a dedicated team of engineers, industrial designers, and professionals who research, design, build, and test innovative aircraft.[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 MOSAIC DENTAL: Delgado Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mosaic Dental Collective, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Jessie Delgado, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Petitioner v. Mosaic Dental Collective, LLC, Does 1-50, Respondents, Case No. 23CV005660 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., July 28, 2023). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Mosaic Dental Collective -- https://mosaicdentalcollective.com/ -- is a premier dental partnership where our patients are always first.[BN] MOTOMUMMY LLC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against MotoMummy, LLC. The case is styled as Luis Toro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. MotoMummy, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-06598 (S.D.N.Y., July 28, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. MotoMummy -- https://motomummy.com/ -- is a veteran, family and women owned & operated company, dedicated to providing an exceptional customer experience and online destination for all things powersports related.[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 MUSKOGEE COUNTY EMS: Underpays Medical Technicians, Sherley Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- JERRY SHERLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MUSKOGEE COUNTY EMS, Defendant, Case No. 6:23-cv-00241-GLJ (E.D. Okla., July 18, 2023) is a class action brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act arising from MCEMS' non-payment of overtime wages to Plaintiff and similarly situated workers. Plaintiff Sherley was employed by the Defendant as an emergency medical technician since September 2018. He asserts that MCEMS violated the FLSA's overtime provisions by failing to pay him and the Class Members overtime at one-and-one-half times their regular rates. Muskogee County EMS is an emergency medical services provider.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. David I. Moulton, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com dmoulton@brucknerburch.com NATIONAL READY MIXED: Anderson Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jeffrey Anderson, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NATIONAL READY MIXED CONCRETE CO., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV13782 was removed from the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on July 27, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-06111. The Complaint pursues causes of action for: failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest periods, inaccurate itemized wage statements, and unfair or unlawful business practices.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Spencer C. Skeen, Esq. Jesse C. Ferrantella, Esq. Cameron O. Flynn, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92122 Phone: 858-652-3100 Facsimile: 858-652-3101 Email: spencer.skeen@ogletree.com jesse.ferrantella@ogletree.com cameron.flynn@ogletree.com NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Bids to Dismiss Train Derailment MDL Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Nils P. Johnson Jr. of The Business Journal reports that the accident was caused by the failure of a wheel bearing in car 23, which was a hopper car carrying plastic pellets. The hot bearing caused the axle to heat up, which ignited the pellets. Traveling though Columbiana County, the train passed three "wayside detectors," which serve to provide warnings of a problem to Norfolk Southern. The detectors showed the build-up of dangerous temperature levels. When the train conductors finally applied the brakes, the axle of car 23 failed and the train derailed. Some older tank cars carrying hazardous chemicals breached and a fire resulted, to which firefighters responded and mitigated. Several days later, as some fires continued at a relatively low level, a decision was made to vent and burn five more modern tank cars carrying vinyl chloride that had survived the crash intact. Norfolk Southern contended this was warranted by a temperature increase in one of the five cars, believing the temperature increase to be evidence of the car's contents undergoing a dangerous, possibly explosive chemical reaction. Though only one car of vinyl chloride appeared to be increasing in temperature, all five cars were vented and burned on Feb. 6, creating a conflagration of over 115,000 gallons of vinyl chloride monomer, a liquefied, compressed flammable gas. This caused an enormous black, viscous plume that traveled miles from the site and across state lines into Pennsylvania and West Virginia. Runoff spilled into local creeks and killed thousands of fish; agricultural animals perished. After the burn, many area residents complained of breathing difficulties, skin irritation and other ailments. The byproducts of burning vinyl chloride and the other chemicals involved include hydrogen chloride, phosgene gas (used by the Germans on the British in World War I) and various volatile organic compounds, as well as dioxin. Thus, the community generally suffered from anxiety, not knowing the effect of these chemicals on themselves, their children, their property values and local jobs. Moreover, many residents incurred expenses and aggravation in being forced to leave their homes for nearly a week, only to return to houses that had not been tested for safety. As a result, dozens of class action lawsuits were quickly filed by plaintiff law firms from around the country. U.S. Judge Benita Pearson ordered the suits to be consolidated and appointed four large national law firms to act as lead counsel in pursuing class action status and claims. Attorney Nick Amato and I were named by the court as community liaisons between the team of plaintiff attorneys and persons affected by the derailment who may end up participating as plaintiff class members. Recently, Norfolk Southern filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated class action complaint. In this filing, Norfolk Southern contends the claims for negligence, nuisance and strict liability are preempted by federal law. Here, Norfolk Southern contends that, because an existing body of federal laws governs both railroad operation and the transportation of hazardous materials, state laws (such as negligence, nuisance and strict liability) are inapplicable or pre-empted by the federal laws. In this, Norfolk Southern attempts to escape liability for the derailment with a shield made from a patchwork of federal laws concerning railroads. Inherent in this argument is Norfolk Southern's position that such laws are wholly comprehensive (they are not), that such laws regulate every aspect of possible liability here (they do not), and that Norfolk Southern unwaveringly adheres to such laws (they do not). Many of these themes were the subject of the National Transportation Safety Board's two days of hearings at East Palestine High School. The first day featured extensive testimony concerning the decision to breach the vinyl chloride cars. Norfolk Southern contended that it could not easily move the cars and that siphoning out the vinyl chloride content would have taken days. Norfolk Southern contractors reported being afraid that a poly-merization reaction was occurring that might cause a violent explosion. Norfolk Southern and its contractors presented this fear to the governor and fire chief, who, under these pretenses -- and the belief that the burning should be completed before nightfall for atmospheric reasons -- were given only minutes to decide. The company that manufactured the vinyl chloride testified next. Its representatives indicated being contacted several times by Norfolk Southern and its contractors in the hours leading up to the decision to vent and burn the cars to better understand if the vinyl chloride could be undergoing a polymerization reaction. Each time it was contacted, the chemical company gave the same answer: its representatives did not believe the contents were undergoing a polymerization reaction. Subsequent expert testimony explained that the vinyl chloride was wholly stabilized for railway transportation purposes by affirmatively removing oxygen from the chemical in its manufacturing process. In other words, only by adding oxygen to the monomer would it undergo a polymerization reaction. Exposure to heat simply would not cause a polymerization reaction to occur. Despite this input, Norfolk Southern recommended all five of the cars be vented and burned. Norfolk Southern contractors candidly admitted that venting and burning are also frequently among the fastest methods to clear a set of tracks. A train passes through East Palestine on average every nine minutes. The second day of NTSB hearings concerned the operation on the rail line of antiquated tank cars, the ones that burst upon derailment. The vice chairman of the NTSB panel remarked to the effect "those old cars should only be used to haul corn syrup." Yet there are no federal regulations that require hauling dangerous chemicals in modern, safer cars. Unlike the airline industry, most regulations for railroad operations appear to have been developed and enforced, not by the federal government, but by the railroads and its trade organization. Several witnesses testified about other safety features that might be implemented in railroading to improve safety. The railroad industry has resisted stricter regulation. Moreover, the NTSB pointed out that Norfolk Southern had drastically reduced the number of its employees over recent years and implemented inspection rules that reduced the time of per-car inspection before a train departs from three minutes to 30 seconds. The second day of hearings also revealed the wayside detectors that picked up increasing temperatures - as the train passed from Leetonia, through Salem and Columbiana - delivered its signals, not to the train conductor, but to the Norfolk Southern Atlanta office. It turns out that on the day of the incident, the person on duty was working from home. Moreover, when the transmission came in, she was dealing with another train situation and did not communicate the temperature signal to the Columbiana County train conductor for some minutes. When the trainmen finally hit the brakes, the axle of car 23 had failed and the derailment occurred. [GN] NUTRIVO LLC: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nutrivo LLC. The case is styled as Kevin Yan Luis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Nutrivo LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-06625 (S.D.N.Y., July 29, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Nutrivo LLC -- https://www.nutrivo.com/ -- are one of the most well-respected nutrition supplement manufacturers in the Chicago area with over 35+ years of experience in supplement manufacturing.[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 OCELCO INC: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ocelco, Inc. The case is styled as Milton Williams, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Ocelco, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-06592 (S.D.N.Y., July 28, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Ocelco -- https://www.ocelco.com/store/pc/home.asp -- offers a range of high-quality disposable medical products at affordable prices to meet the daily needs of healthcare professionals.[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 ORANGE COUNTY, NC: Summary Judgment in Zander Suit Affirmed in Part ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ELIZABETH ZANDER and EVAN GALLOWAY, for themselves and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ORANGE COUNTY, NC, and the TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL, Defendants, Case No. COA22-691 (N.C. App.), the Court of Appeals of North Carolina affirms in part and reverses in part the order granting summary judgment for the County. Plaintiffs Zander and Galloway appeal from a summary judgment order dismissing their class action complaint brought against Defendants Orange County and the Town of Chapel Hill1 on behalf of persons: (1) who were assessed allegedly ultra vires school impact fees by the County (the "Feepayer Class"); or (2) who are allegedly entitled to a refund of some school impact fees due to a 2016 change in the fee schedule (the "Refund Class"). On appeal, the Plaintiffs contend that the evidence conclusively establishes that both classes are entitled to relief and that there are no genuine issues of material fact for resolution at trial. In 1987, the General Assembly enacted a statute authorizing the County to assess impact fees "to help defray the costs to the County of constructing certain capital improvements" necessitated by new residential development ("Enabling Act"). The Enabling Act also established minimum procedures that the County must follow as it endeavors to approach the objective of having every development contribute to a fund for capital improvements in a reasonable and fair manner. The Enabling Act was later amended in 1993 to define the word "costs" as including loan obligations, lease payments, and installment sale contracts connected with capital improvements. In 2003, the County enacted an ordinance designed to ensure adequate school capacity at specified service levels in the face of new development. It began creating Schools Adequate Facilities Ordinance Technical Advisory Committee reports ("SAPFOTAC reports") to aid the process. The SAPFOTAC reports were limited, however, insofar as they only estimated the need for entirely new schools by type without considering expansion of existing school facilities or the capacity needs of schools individually. The County also sought assistance in calculating future capital improvement costs and impact fees from consultants TischlerBise. In 2007, TischlerBise completed school impact fee reports (the "2007 Studies") for each school district operated by the County: (1) the Orange County School District ("OCSD"); and (2) the Chapel Hill-Carrboro School District ("CHCSD"). Following receipt of the 2007 Studies, the County enacted impact fees at 32% of the maximum calculated by TischlerBise beginning in 2009; that percentage then increased to 40% in 2010, 50% in 2011, and 60% in 2012. The County never assessed impact fees at 100% of the maximum calculated by TischlerBise under the incremental expansion method. In 2014, TischlerBise provided the County with a new student generation rate study. Then, in 2016, TischlerBise completed an updated set of impact fee studies that accounted for new dwelling types and student generation data. The 2016 Studies anticipated $19MM in future capital costs over the next five years for the OCSD and $23.28MM for the CHCSD, while again estimating the anticipated student enrollment and housing development increases for the next 10 years. The County adopted new impact fee schedules following the release of the 2016 Studies to account for the new housing types captured therein. The new fee schedule resulted in the reduction of impact fees for some dwelling types and an increase for others. The County did not offer refunds, reasoning that the impact fee reductions were "due to an updated impact fee study that resulted in changes to the impact fee levels charged. The Plaintiffs filed suit against the County on Feb. 6, 2017, challenging the impact fee assessments and lack of refunds. On March 3, 2017, they filed an amended class action complaint alleging, inter alia, that: (1) the County failed to comply with the Enabling Act's fee-setting provisions and the fees were thus ultra vires; and (2) they were entitled to a refund due to the 2016 Ordinance's reduction in fees. The trial court entered a case management order following class action certification. Under its terms, all motions for summary judgment were to be filed by Dec. 22, 2021. The Plaintiffs filed their motion for summary judgment on Nov. 30, 2021, and the County did the same on Dec. 1, 2021. They later filed an amended motion with exhibits on Dec. 22, 2021, and the County followed suit on Feb. 1, 2022. The County's amended motion for summary judgment did not include any substantive changes, and instead simply identified the pleadings and evidence on which the motion was based, including several affidavits with exhibits that were attached to the amended motion. The Plaintiffs subsequently moved to strike the County's amended motion as untimely. The motions were heard on March 14, 2022. After taking the matter under consideration at the close of the hearing, the trial court entered a written order denying the Plaintiffs' motion to strike and granting summary judgment for the County on June 17, 2022. The Plaintiffs filed written notice of appeal on June 28, 2022. The Plaintiffs raise several arguments on appeal, divided amongst the Feepayer and Refund Classes. As to the Feepayer Class, they contend that the County: (1) failed to estimate the total cost of improvements in accordance with the Enabling Act's rate-setting procedures; (2) included improper costs in calculating its impact fees; and (3) owe the Feepayer Class a full refund of all illegally assessed impact fees at 6% annual interest -- totaling well in excess of $12 million -- pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. Section 160D-106 (2021). For the Refund Class, the Plaintiffs assert that the impact fee reductions in the 2016 Ordinance were not solely caused by the updated 2016 Studies and refunds are therefore owed under the 2016 Ordinance's refund provision. Both classes, the Plaintiffs posit, are owed attorney's fees. Lastly, they challenge the trial court's denial of their motion to strike the County's amended summary judgment motion. After careful review, the Court of Appeals that the Plaintiffs, on behalf of the Feepayer Class, have demonstrated that there are genuine issues of material fact concerning the damages owed due to the assessment of impact fees to cover costs that do not fit within the Enabling Act's definition of "capital improvements to schools," -- specifically the assessments for buses and the TischlerBise study -- and the County has not shown that this claim is precluded as a matter of law. It therefore reverses the summary judgment order in part and remands for further proceedings on this claim. However, the Court of Appeals holds that the Plaintiffs have failed to show any such genuine issue of material fact as to the Refund Class, and the trial court properly granted summary judgment for the County on these claims. A full-text copy of the Court's July 5, 2023 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/mr4c99w8 from Leagle.com. Brooks, Pierce, McLendon, Humphrey & Leonard, L.L.P., by William A. Robertson -- wrobertson@brookspierce.com -- Robert J. King, III , Daniel F. E. Smith -- dsmith@brookspierce.com -- and Matthew B. Tynan -- mtynan@brookspierce.com -- for the Plaintiffs-Appellants. Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP, by Sonny S. Haynes -- sonny.haynes@wbd-us.com -- and James R. Morgan, Jr. -- jim.morgan@wbd-us.com -- for the Defendants-Appellees. PACESETTER PERSONNEL: Removes Duran Suit to M.D. Florida -------------------------------------------------------- The Defendant in the case of REYNALDO DURAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. KENNETH JOEKEL; MARC PLOTKIN; PACESETTER PERSONNEL SERVICE, INC.; PACESETTER PERSONNEL SERVICE OF FLORIDA, INC.; FLORIDA STAFFING SERVICE, INC.; and TAMPA SERVICE COMPANY, INC. d/b/a/ PACESETTER; PACESETTER PERSONNEL; PACESETTER PERSONNEL SERVICE; PACESETTER PERSONNEL SERVICES; PACESETTER PERSONNEL SERVICES, LLC; PPS; and/or FW SERVICES, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Circuit Court of the State of Florida, County of Lee (Case No. 23-CA-005129) to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida on July 26, 2023. The Clerk of Court for the Middle District of Florida assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-00558. The case is assigned to Judge John E. Steele and referred to Magistrate Nicholas P. Mizell. PACESETTER PERSONNEL SERVICE, INC. is a full-service staffing agency for temporary labor ready assistance. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Derek E. Leon, Esq. Ronald J. Tomassi, Jr., Esq. LEON COSGROVE JIMENEZ, LLP 255 Alhambra Circle, 8th Floor Miami, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 740-1975 Email: dleon@leoncosgrove.com rtomassi@leoncosgrove.com eperez@leoncosgrove.com rmartinez@leoncosgrove.com PAYPAL INC: 7th Cir. Revives Suit Over Charitable Contributions --------------------------------------------------------------- Jim Sams of Claims Journal reports that a federal appellate court revived a potential class action lawsuit against PayPal filed by a disgruntled charity donor who alleges that the payments company misled her and others about how their charitable contributions would be used. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals on July 27, 2023, threw out a trial court ruling that affirmed an arbitrator's finding in favor of PayPal and nonprofit corporation that it created to transmit donations to charities. The appellate panel said Terry Klass should have been given an opportunity to prove that she never agreed to terms of service that PayPal posted online in 2012 that require all disputes against it to be resolved through arbitration. "Because Kass offered evidence that flatly denied that she received the notice from PayPal of the mandatory arbitration clause, Illinois law requires that a trier of fact decide whether she received the notice," the panel's opinion says. Kass received emails from PayPal in November and December 2016 that encouraged her to support her favorite charities by sending money through its Charitable Giving Fund. PayPal promised to add 1% to each donation made through its platform during the holiday season. Kass perused a long list of charities that she could contribute to and decided to donate a total of $3,250 to 13 nonprofit groups, including local nonprofits that served her community in Lake County, Illinois. She learned later, however, that only three of those nonprofits received her donations. Kass says she learned that PayPal's Giving Fund will not transmit donations to organizations that don't have a business account with PayPal and also a PayPal Giving Fund account. When money is donated to organizations that haven't signed up for those services, PayPal donates the money to similar organizations that have accounts, according to a lawsuit she filed in the US District Court for Northern Illinois. In February 2017, Kass filed a putative class action lawsuit against PayPal along with several nonprofit groups. They alleged PayPal's solicitations for charitable donations listed thousands of charities that were not signed up for PayPal accounts and could not receive the money. PayPal told donors that 100% of their funds would go to the charities of their choice, the lawsuit says, but in reality PayPal didn't even notify charities when it received donations for them if they hadn't paid to use its services, the suit says. In 2018, a US District Court judge ruled that Kass' lawsuit was subject to binding arbitration under terms of service that PayPal adopted in 2012. Kass objected, saying that she signed up for PayPal in 2004 and never consented to the new terms. A paralegal for the company testified that the new terms were emailed to every account holder and that it would be impossible for anyone to use its platform without consenting to the new conditions. Kass insisted that she never received an email from PayPal explaining the change in terms of service. While Kass' was litigating her case, a group of state attorneys investigated PayPal Charitable Giving Fund. In January 2020, a group of 23 state attorneys general reached a consent agreement with the company. PayPal agreed to change its operating practices and pay $200,000 to the National Association of Attorneys General's Charities Enforcement and Training Fund. An arbitrator who heard Kass' claim ruled in favor PayPal, finding that Kass had agreed to the company's mandatory arbitration agreement when she made the donations. US District Judge Martha M. Pacold approved the arbitrator's decision and Kass appealed. The 7th Circuit panel, in its unpublished decision, said that Judge Pacold had misinterpreted previous rulings regarding the "mailbox rule." In previous rulings, the 7th Circuit has ruled that judges may presume an user agreement has been read if it has been received in the user’s email inbox. The panel said that doesn't mean the presumption of validity applies to agreements that were sent but never received. In previous decisions, courts have ruled against plaintiffs who testified they couldn't recall whether they received an agreement that was emailed to them. But Kass stated flatly that she never received PayPal's email about the change in its terms of service. The panel said the 7th Circuit itself led to the judge's confusion because it wrote in a 2013 ruling that the mailbox rule applies to emails that are "sent." In fact, that's not the case. The panel said the presumption created by the mailbox rule is not conclusive unless the evidence shows that an email has been sent and received. "Presuming that a communication was not only properly received and read but was also properly sent puts the cart," the opinion says. "Before we may presume receipt, there must be sufficient evidence that the communication in question was sent." The panel vacated the District Court's ruling and remanded the case with direction that the lower court hold a trial to resolve the question of whether Kass had received and read the email changing PayPal's terms of service. [GN] PAYPAL INC: Court of Appeals Vacated & Reprimanded Kass Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Wisconsin Law Journal Staff of Wisconsin Law Journal reports that PayPal offers the option to donate to charities through the Giving Fund, a 501(c)(3) charitable organization operated by PayPal. Kass opened a PayPal account and agreed to the User Agreement in 2004, which included an optional arbitration clause and allowed PayPal to make changes to the Agreement by posting them on their website. In 2012, PayPal made an amendment to the Agreement, making arbitration mandatory. Until December 2012, users had the choice to opt-out of this provision. In 2016, PayPal sent Kass emails encouraging her to make year-end donations, and she donated $3,250 to 13 charities through the Giving Fund website. Later, Kass discovered that only three charities received her donations, and none of them were aware of her contributions. Kass alleges that the Giving Fund only transferred funds to charities with a PayPal "business" account and "redistributed" donations to similar charities if the recipient charity did not have such an account. Subsequently, Kass, along with a charity she had donated to, initiated a class action lawsuit. The district court initially compelled arbitration, and the arbitrator ruled in favor of the defendants. However, the Seventh Circuit vacated the decision. The district court made an error by deciding a disputed factual issue that should have been determined by a fact-finder: whether Kass had received notice of the amended Agreement and implicitly agreed to the new arbitration clause. Vacated, Remanded. Decided 07/27/23 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Case Name: Terry Kass v. PayPal Inc. Case No.: 22-2575 Officials: Rovner, Hamilton, and Scudder, Circuit Judges.[GN] PETALUMA HEALTH: Johnson Suit Removed to N.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Thurman Johnson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Petaluma Health Center, Inc., Case No. SCV-273559 was removed from the Superior Court of California, Sonoma County, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on July 28, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-03777-TSH to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Med. Malpractice. Petaluma Health Center -- https://phealthcenter.org/ -- provides patient-centered medical, dental and specialty healthcare services for the communities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 17 Washington Avenue North, Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: (612) 339-7300 - and - Joshua Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM One Financial Center 650 South Shackleford, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Phone: (501) 221-0088 Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com - and - Philip Joseph Krzeski, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: (612) 767-3613 Fax: (612) 336-2940 Email: pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com The Defendants is represented by: Matthew Sidney Freedus, Esq. 1129 20th Street NW Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (202) 466-8960 Email: mfreedus@ftlf.com - and - Kathryn Ellen Doi, Esq. FELDESMAN TUCKER LEIFER FIDELL LLP 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2580 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: (916) 425-3477 Email: kdoi@ftlf.com PHARMACARE US: Sunderland Sues Over Elderberry Products' False Ad ----------------------------------------------------------------- LINDA SUNDERLAND and BENJAMIN BINDER individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PHARMACARE U.S., INC., a Delaware Corporation, and PHARMACARE LABORATORIES PTY LTD., an Australian company, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-01318-JES-BGS (S.D. Cal., July 18, 2023) is a class action brought by the Plaintiffs to halt Defendants' alleged unlawful sales and marketing of its Elderberry Products, and for damages they sustained as a result of the illegal sales and false and misleading marketing. This class action is brought individually by Plaintiffs on behalf of consumers who purchased Defendants' Elderberry Original Syrup, Sambucol Black Elderberry Sugar Free, Sambucol Black Elderberry Syrup for Kids, Sambucol Black Elderberry Effervescent Tablets, Sambucol Black Elderberry Chewable, Sambucol Black Elderberry Pastilles, Sambucol Black Elderberry Daily Immune Drink Powder, and Sambucol Black Elderberry Advanced Immune Syrup (collectively the "Elderberry Products") in California, New York, and nationwide. According to the complaint, the Defendants advertise that the Elderberry Products were "developed by a world renowned virologist," a reference to Dr. Madeleine Mumcuoglu. Dr. Mumcuoglu and her company (Razei Bar Ltd.) originally trademarked the "Sambucol" branding, the same trademark that is currently owned by the Defendants. While uniformly marketing the product as a unique formulation developed by a world-renowned virologist, Defendants have argued that its "unique" and "propriety" Elderberry Extract is simply run-of-the-mill Elderberry Juice during an ancillary litigation. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' counsel ordered testing to determine if the Defendants' so-called "unique" and "propriety" Elderberry Extract was actually the same "unique" and "propriety" formula developed by Dr. Mumcuoglu. The results confirm it is not and ther are no lectins in the Elderberry Products, asserts the suit. PharmaCare U.S., Inc. is a pharmaceutical company in San Diego, California.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Trenton R. Kashima, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 402 West Broadway St., Suite 1760 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 810-7047 E-mail: tkashima@milberg.com - and - Alex Straus, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 280 s. Beverly Drive, Ste. PH Beverly Hills, CA 902126 Telephone: (865) 247-0080 E-mail: astraus@milberg.com. - and - Rachel Soffin, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC First Tennessee Plaza 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (865) 247-0080 E-mail: rsoffin@milberg.com - and - Martha A. Geer, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 900 West Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (919) 600-5000 Facsimile: (919) 600-5035 E-mail: mgeer@milberg.com - and - Nick Suciu III, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 6905 Telegraph Rd., Suite 115 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301 Telephone: (313) 303-3472 E-mail: nsuciu@milberg.com PHOENICIAN MEDICAL: Murray Files Suit in D. Arizona --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Phoenician Medical Center Incorporated. The case is styled as Miles Murray, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Phoenician Medical Center Incorporated, Case No. 2:23-cv-01498-MTL (D. Ariz., July 27, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for Breach of Contract. Phoenician Medical Center -- https://phoenicianmedical.care/ -- specialized medicine and surgery for various licensed practitioners.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daisy Mazoff, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP - PHOENIX, AZ 11201 N Tatum Blvd., Ste. 300 Phoenix, AZ 85028 Phone: (602) 806-9975 Fax: (646) 417-5967 Email: dmazoff@sirillp.com - and - Mason Barney, Esq. Tyler James Bean, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP - NY 745 Fifth Ave., Ste. 500 New York, NY 10151 Phone: (212) 532-1091 Email: mbarney@sirillp.com tbean@sirillp.com PIZZA PETE'S: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Flores Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ AURELIO MARCELO FLORES, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PIZZA PETE'S LLC (D/B/A PIZZA PETE'S); and FRANK LIBRETTA, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-06431 (S.D.N.Y., July 25, 2023) is an action against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, provide meals, and provide accurate wage statements. Plaintiff Flores was employed by the Defendants as a delivery driver. PIZZA PETE'S LLC owns, operates, or controls a pizzeria, located at New York, NY 10024, under the name "Pizza Pete's". [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Catalina Sojo, Esq. CSM LEGAL, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 PROFESSIONAL SECURITY: Jasani Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices ---------------------------------------------------------------- THAILAND JASANI, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PROFESSIONAL SECURITY CONSULTANTS; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 23CV419159 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., July 18, 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 alleges the Defendants' failure to pay wages including overtime, failure to provide meal and rest periods, failure to pay timely wages, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to indemnify necessary business expenses, and engagement in unlawful deductions from wages. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant in approximately February 2022 as a non-exempt employee with the title of Security Guard and worked during the liability period for Defendants until Plaintiff's separation from employment on October 2, 2022. Professional Security Consultants operate security businesses throughout the state of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James R. Hawkins, Esq. Gregory Mauro, Esq. Michael Calvo, Esq. Lauren Falk, Esq. Ava Issary, Esq. JAMES HAWKINS APLC 9880 Research Drive, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 387-7200 Facsimile: (949) 387-6676 E-mail: James@jameshawkinsaplc.com Greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com Michael@jameshawkinsaplc.com Lauren@jameshawkinsaplc.com Ava@jameshawkinsaplc.com RC ECOMMERCE: Yamini Sues Over Deceptive Ads on Bargained Items --------------------------------------------------------------- JUSTIN YAMINI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RC ECOMMERCE LLC and DOUBLE RO LTD., Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-05966 (C.D. Cal., July 24, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of California Unfair Competition Law, California False Advertising Law, and California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and for fraud, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment/quasi-contract. The case arises from the Defendants' misleading and unlawful pricing, sales, and discounting practices on its website, www.elephantstock.com. The Defendants advertise fake and inflated comparison reference prices to deceive customers into a false belief that the sale price is a deeply discounted bargain price. In reality, the offered price represents the actual value of the product. As a result of the Defendants' deceptive marketing, the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers are deceived into spending money they otherwise would not have spent, says the suit. RC Ecommerce LLC is an online retail company based in Texas. Double Ro Ltd. is an online retail company headquartered in Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander E. Wolf, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 280 South Beverly Drive, Penthouse Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (872) 365-7060 E-mail: awolf@milberg.com RED ROBIN: McInerny Suit Transferred to E.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Nicholas J. McInerny, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. RED ROBIN INTERNATIONAL, INC. WHICH WILL DO BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA AS RED ROBIN BURGER SPIRITS EMPORIUMS, a Nevada corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 2:23-cv-03338 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on July 28, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-01548-JDP to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated Other Labor fir Labor/Mgmnt. Relations. Red Robin International, Inc. -- https://www.redrobin.com/ -- operates as a restaurant. The Company offers food products such as gourmet burgers, chicken sandwiches, salads, entrees, turkey burgers, fish sandwiches, bottomless steak fries, and beverages.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christina M. Lucio, Esq. FARNAES & LUCIO, APC 2235 Encinitas Blvd. Encinitas, CA 92024 Phone: (909) 908-3059s Email: clucio@farnaeslaw.com - and - James Ross Hawkins, Esq. JAMES HAWKINS APLC 9880 Research Drive, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92618 Phone: (949) 387-7200 Fax: (949) 387-6676 Email: james@jameshawkinsaplc.com - and - Malte L.L. Farnaes, Esq. TROUTMAN SANDERS, LLP 550 West B. Street, Suite 400 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 235-4040 Fax: (619) 231-8796 Email: malte.farnaes@troutmansanders.com The Defendants are represented by: Adam Y. Siegel, Esq. Martin P. Vigodnier, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408 Phone: (213) 689-0404 Facsimile: (213) 689-0430 Email: Adam.Siegel@jacksonlewis.com Martin.Vigodnier@jacksonlewis.com - and - Philip J. Smith, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 50 California Street, 9th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4615 Phone: (415) 796-5433 Email: Philip.Smith@jacksonlewis.com ROBERT ADAMS: Mathis Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Robert Adams, et al. The case is styled as Dale Mathis, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. ROBERT ADAMS, ROBERT J. COBUZZI, JR., MARK T. GILES, JANE T. HOLLINGSWORTH, DIANA LANCHONEY, ALAN LEVIN, and DIFFUSION PHARMACEUTICALS INC., Case No. 2023-0772-NAC (Del. Chancery Ct., July 28, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Breach of Fiduciary Duties. Diffusion Pharmaceuticals Inc. -- https://www.diffusionpharma.com/ -- is a publicly traded biotechnology and drug development company based in Charlottesville, Virginia, U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Blake Bennett, Esq. COOCH & TAYLOR PA-WILMINGTON 1000 W St 10th Fl Wilmington, DE 19899 Phone: (302) 984-3889 Fax: (302) 984-3939 Email: bbennett@coochtaylor.com ROOSEVELT UNIVERSITY: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Coy Says ------------------------------------------------------------ SHAWN COY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROOSEVELT UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case: 1:23-cv-04890 (N.D. Ill., July 26, 2023) seeks to redress the Defendant's unlawful, willful and wanton failure to protect the personal identifiable information of approximately 47,877 individuals that was exposed in a major data breach of Defendant's network, in violation of its legal obligations. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's failure to implement and to follow basic security procedures, Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII is now in the hands of cybercriminals. Due to the Defendant's negligence, cybercriminals obtained sensitive information that could be used to commit identity theft and wreak havoc on the financial and personal lives of tens of thousands of individuals, says the Plaintiff. ROOSEVELT UNIVERSITY is a private university with campuses in Chicago and Schaumburg, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David S. Almeida, Esq. Elena A. Belov, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 849 W. Webster Avenue Chicago, Illinois 60614 Telephone: (312) 576-3024 Email: david@almeidalawgroup.com elena@almeidalawgroup.com RPKG HOLDINGS: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against RPKG Holdings, LLC. The case is styled as Vanessa Jimenez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RPKG Holdings, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-06559-JLR (S.D.N.Y., July 28, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. RPKG Holdings, LLC doing business as Firecreek Snacks -- https://www.firecreeksnacks.com/ -- offers a healthy, all-natural snacks with an exceptional taste.[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 S & G DISCOUNT: Marquez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against S & G Discount Outlet, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Daniella Marquez, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Petitioner v. S & G Discount Outlet, Inc., Does 1-100, Respondents, Case No. 23CV005687 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., July 28, 2023). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." S & G DISCOUNT OUTLET in Rocklin, CA is a local Shaw Flooring Network retailer Offering a selection of exclusive flooring styles including carpet, hardwood, laminate, vinyl, and tile & stone.[BN] SACRAMENTO CREDIT: Lee Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sacramento Credit Union, et al. The case is styled as Lucy Lee, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Petitioner v. Sacramento Credit Union, Does 1-50, Respondents, Case No. 23CV005661 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., July 28, 2023). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Sacramento Credit Union -- https://www.sactocu.org/ -- is a full service credit union in Sacramento, California.[BN] SADDLE RAGS INC: Jones Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Saddle Rags, Inc. The case is styled as Damon Jones, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Saddle Rags, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-06601-KPF (S.D.N.Y., July 28, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Saddle Rags -- https://saddlerags.com/ -- is a full-line western store.[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 SCHWAN'S CONSUMER: Hammock Sues Over Mislabeled Apple Pies ---------------------------------------------------------- SUSAN HAMMOCK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SCHWAN'S CONSUMER BRANDS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 6:23-cv-01399 (M.D. Fla., July 25, 2023) alleges that the Defendant manufactures a mislabeled frozen apple pie as containing a "Flaky Crust" that is "Made With Real Butter," under the Mrs. Smith's brand. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint that though the front label of the Product prominently promotes the Product's "Flaky Crust" that is "Made With Real Butter," shown with two pats of butter, consumers are misled because its primary shortening ingredient is "Palm Oil," shown in the fine print ingredient list on the side panel as part of an ingredient called "Shortening Butter Blend." By listing "Shortening Butter Blend," the ingredient list fails to list the crust's ingredients by their common or usual name and by descending order of predominance by weight, contrary to federal and identical state requirements, says the suit. SCHWAN'S CONSUMER BRANDS, INC. offers trusted retail brands throughout the frozen-food category. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William Wright, Esq. THE WRIGHT LAW OFFICE, P.A. 515 N Flagler Dr Ste P300 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Telephone: (561) 514-0904 Email: willwright@wrightlawoffice.com - and - Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412 Great Neck NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 268-7080 Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com SEGERDAHL CORP: Faces Carvajal Suit Over BIPA Violations -------------------------------------------------------- JORGE GARCIA CARVAJAL; and HILDA AGUIRRE, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE SEGERDAHL CORP., Defendant, Case No. 2023LA000785 (Ill. Cir., Dupage Cty., July 25, 2023) alleges violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. According to the complaint, as past and present employees of the Defendant, the Plaintiffs and class members were required to provide it with their personalized biometric identifiers and the biometric information derived therefrom ("biometric data"). Specifically, the Defendant allegedly collects and stores its employees' fingerprints and requires all the employees to clock-in and clock-out by scanning their fingerprints into a fingerprint-scanning machine. Following the capture of their employees' biometric data, the Defendant uses this data to compare the future scans of their employees' fingerprints into a punch-clock device. The punch-clock device scans each fingerprint and confirms that the employee punching in to work is who they claim to be. The collection of the punch-clock fingerprint entries is then used to confirm employees' presence, says the suit. The Plaintiffs and class members have not been notified where their fingerprints are being stored, for how long Defendant will keep the fingerprints, and what might happen to this valuable information, the suit added. THE SEGERDAHL CORPORATIONS provides empirical direct marketing solutions. The Company offers printing and producing of direct mail marketing within the luxury and casual clothing retailers, big box, food, electronic, and home and hardware retailers. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Roberto Luis Costales, Esq. William H. Beaumont, Esq. BEAUMONT COSTALES LLC 107 W. Van Buren, Suite 209 Chicago, IL 60605 Telephone: (773) 831-8000 Email: rlc@beaumontcostales.com whb@beaumontcostales.com SHOES-N-FEET: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Shoes-n-Feet, LLC. The case is styled as Jasmine Toro, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Shoes-n-Feet, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-06603-VEC (S.D.N.Y., July 28, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. SHOES-n-FEET -- https://shoesnfeet.com/ -- is a shoe store like no other; our unique combination of retail, education and service has "closed the loop" between the medical community, their patients, and retail shoe stores.[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 SIMILASAN CORPORATION: Hernandez Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Gabriela Hernandez, individually and on behalf of all others similar situated v. SIMILASAN CORPORATION, a Colorado corporation d/b/a WWW.SIMILASANUSA.COM, Case No. 23STCV13748 was removed from the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on July 27, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-06096. The Plaintiff's sole cause of action in the Complaint is a claim for violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act (the "VPPA").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Hannah Lynn Cannom, Esq. WALKER STEVENS CANNOM LLP 500 Molino Street, Suite 118 Los Angeles, CA 90013 Phone: (213) 712-9145 Facsimile: (213) 403-4906 Email: hcannom@wscllp.com - and - Gregory F. Hauser, Esq. WUERSCH & GERING LLP 100 Wall St., 10th Floor New York, NY 10005 Phone: (212) 509-5050 Facsimile: (212) 509-9559 Email: gregory.hauser@wg-law.com SITEONE LANDSCAPE: Caballero Suit Removed to E.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Gustavo Caballero, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. SITEONE LANDSCAPE SUPPLY LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. STK-CV-VOE-2023-6325 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Joaquin, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on July 27, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-01533-AC. The Plaintiffs Complaint alleges ten causes of action: Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; Failure to Pay All Wages and Minimum Wages; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Provide Rest Periods; Failure To Timely Furnish Accurate Itemized Wage Statements and Failure to Maintain Accurate Records; Failure To Timely Pay Wages; Failure to Provide COVID-19 Supplemental Paid Sick Leave; Failure to Produce Records; Failure to Reimburse Business Expenses; and Violations of Business & Professions Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Aaron H. Cole, Esq. Sona P. Patel, 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: aaron.cole@ogletree.com sona.patel@ogletree.com SMITH AND EDWARDS: Castro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Smith and Edwards Company. The case is styled as Felix Castro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Smith and Edwards Company, Case No. 1:23-cv-06543-JGK (S.D.N.Y., July 27, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Smith and Edwards Company -- https://www.smithandedwards.com/ -- is a longtime, warehouse store offering a variety of sporting goods, Western tack, clothing & housewares.[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 SOUTH TEXAS TACK: Castro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against South Texas Tack, LLC. The case is styled as Felix Castro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. South Texas Tack, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-06541 (S.D.N.Y., July 27, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. South Texas Tack, LLC -- https://www.southtexastack.com/ -- is an e-commerce, retail store, and catalog company located in Brenham, Texas.[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 SPACE EXPLORATION: Faces Padilla Class Suit Over Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Maia Spoto of Bloomberg Law reports that Elon Musk's Space Exploration Technologies Corp. was accused of failing to pay employees for all of their work and pressuring them to skip meal and break periods in a proposed class action filed on July 26, 2023. Plaintiff Juan Padilla, who worked for SpaceX for eight months in 2022, alleged in the suit that he was often required to work before clocking in for his 3 p.m. to 1:30 a.m. shift, among a suite of other labor violations. He filed the proposed class action on behalf of all non-exempt or hourly-paid SpaceX workers employed over the past four. [GN] STANLEY KORSHAK LP: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Stanley Korshak, LP. The case is styled as Jasmine Toro, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Stanley Korshak, LP, Case No. 1:23-cv-06604 (S.D.N.Y., July 28, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Stanley Korshak -- https://stanleykorshak.com/ -- is an American luxury goods specialty department store in Dallas, Texas.[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 STARR WESTERN WEAR: Castro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Starr Western Wear, Inc. The case is styled as Felix Castro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Starr Western Wear, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-06540 (S.D.N.Y., July 27, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Starr Western Wear Inc. -- https://starrwesternwear.com/ -- provides retail services. The Company offers cowboy hats and suit products for sale.[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 STAY GREEN: Garcia Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Gardeners in Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------------ ARTURO SALAS GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STAY GREEN INC. and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 23STCV17296 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 24, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of California Labor Code's Private Attorneys General Act including failure to keep accurate records, meal period violations, rest period violations, cooldown recovery period violations, failure to provide suitable resting facilities, minimum and overtime wage violations, statutory wage violations, refusal to make payment, failure to reimburse business expenses, unlawful deductions, seating violations, failure to provide supplemental paid sick leave, failure to pay vested vacation/paid time off, untimely payment of final wages, unlawful agreements/ unlawful criminal history inquiries, and failure to provide a safe and healthful workplace. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a gardener from May 15, 2018 through December 2, 2022. Stay Green Inc. is a provider of commercial landscaping services doing business in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zachary M. Crosner, Esq. Jamie Serb, Esq. Brandon Brouillette, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, PC 9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (866) 276-7637 Facsimile: (310) 510-6429 E-mail: zach@crosnerlegal.com jamie@crosnerlegal.com bbrouillette@crosnerlegal.com SYNAGRO WOONSOCKET: Doire Sues Over Noxious Odor to Facility ------------------------------------------------------------ MAURICE DOIRE; and JOSHUA HOYE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SYNAGRO WOONSOCKET, LLC; and JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-00310-WES-LDA (D.R.I., July 26, 2023) alleges that the Defendants' incinerator causes noxious odors to the Plaintiffs' homes and neighboring residential properties in Woonsocket. According to the complaint, through their respective industrial processes, the Defendants have, and continue to, unnecessarily and unreasonably cause noxious odors to be emitted off-site and into Plaintiffs' homes and similarly situated neighboring residential properties in Woonsocket. Due to the Defendants' negligent and intentional actions, and inadequate efforts to prevent its noxious emissions from escaping into the adjacent residential neighborhood through the ambient air, the Plaintiffs' properties have been and continue to be physically invaded by noxious odors, says the suit. SYNAGRO WOONSOCKET, LLC operates and maintains the Incinerator located at 15 Cumberland Hill Road, Woonsocket, Rhode Island. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Cassandra L. Feeney, Esq. HAMELWAXLER ALLEN COLLINS 395 Smith Street Providence, RI 02908 Telephone: (401) 455-3800 Email: cfeeney@hwac.com - and - Steven D. Liddle, Esq. Matt Robb, Esq. Reed Solt, Esq. LIDDLE SHEETS COULSON, P.C. 975 E. Jefferson Avenue Detroit, MI 48207 Telephone: (313) 392-0015 Facsimile: (313) 392-0025 Email: sliddle@ldclassaction.com mrobb@lsccounsel.com rsolt@lsccounsel.com SYNEOS HEALTH: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due September 25 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Robbins LLP of Business Wire reports that a shareholder filed a class action on behalf of purchasers of Syneos Health Companies Inc. (NASDAQ: SYNH) common stock between September 9, 2020 and November 3, 2022. Syneos is a multinational clinical research organization. For more information, submit a form, email Aaron Dumas, Jr., or give us a call at (800) 350-6003. What is this Case About: Syneos Health, Inc. (SYNH) Misled Investors Regarding its Business Prospects According to the complaint, during the class period defendants failed to disclose that: (a) Syneos's business development capabilities had been materially impaired by workforce reductions and leadership and operational changes, as well as labor force turmoil caused by the COVID-19 pandemic; (b) Syneos had struggled to integrate recent acquisitions, causing the Company to suffer from a bloated and confused organizational structure and impairing the Company's ability to provide comprehensive or effective customer engagement across its product portfolio; (c) Syneos was suffering from acute competitive disadvantages as clinical trials moved to remote monitoring and decentralized administration, as the Company lacked the tools possessed by some of its rivals to successfully run remote and decentralized trials, such as certain data visualization and statistical modeling capabilities, and the Company had failed to adapt to changing business demands in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic; (d) Syneos's backlog, book-to-bill ratios, and net new business awards had been artificially inflated by more than $500 million through the inclusion of reimbursable expenses that the Company would never collect; (e) as a result, Syneos was struggling to execute on its existing contracts and to agilely respond to its client needs, causing the Company to suffer client dissatisfaction across its client base; and (f) consequently, Syneos was losing customers, failing to grow its client base or win significant contract renewals, and ceding market share to its rivals. When the truth was revealed, the price of Syneos stock declined to a low of less than $23 per share, more than 77% below the class period high, damaging shareholders. What Now: Similarly situated shareholders may be eligible to participate in the class action against Syneos Health, Inc. Shareholders who want to act as lead plaintiff for the class must file their motion with the court by September 25, 2023. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. You do not have to participate in the case to be eligible for a recovery. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. For more information, click here. All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay no fees or expenses. About Robbins LLP: Some law firms issuing releases about this matter do not actually litigate securities class actions; Robbins LLP does. A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, the attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been dedicated to helping shareholders recover losses, improve corporate governance structures, and hold company executives accountable for their wrongdoing since 2002. Since our inception, we have obtained over $1 billion for shareholders. To be notified if a class action against Syneos Health, Inc. settles or to receive free alerts when corporate executives engage in wrongdoing, sign up for Stock Watch on July 31, 2023. Contacts Aaron Dumas, Jr. Robbins LLP 5060 Shoreham Pl., Ste. 300 San Diego, CA 92122 adumas@robbinsllp.com (800) 350-6003 www.robbinsllp.com [GN] SYSTEM ONE: Faces Rodriguez Wage-and-Hour Suit in California ------------------------------------------------------------ DIANE RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SYSTEM ONE HOLDINGS LLC, COMMDEX CONSULTING LLC, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 23STCV17298 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 24, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of California Labor Code's Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) including failure to provide required meal periods, failure to provide required rest breaks, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to timely pay wages during employment, failure to pay all wages due to discharged and quitting employees, failure to furnish accurate itemized wage statements, failure to maintain required records, and failure to indemnify employees for necessary expenditures incurred in discharge of duties. The Plaintiff was hired by Defendant System One to work as a test driver for Defendant Commdex in Los Angeles County, California. System One Holdings LLC is a company that provides workforce management solutions, headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Commdex Consulting LLC is a provider of critical solutions and services for telecom networks, communications systems, and information technology, headquartered in Norcross, Georgia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Ernest Wheeler, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF SCOTT ERNEST WHEELER 250 West First Street, Suite 216 Claremont, CA 91711 Telephone: (909) 621-4988 Facsimile: (909) 621-4622 E-mail: sew@scottwheelerlawoffice.com - and - Marcia Guzman, Esq. GUZMAN & TOKAR LLP 440 N. Barranca Avenue, Suite 1354 Covina, CA 91723 Telephone: (626) 427-7128 Facsimile: (213) 342-6329 E-mail: service@guzmanandtokar.com TACO BELL: Faces Siragusa Class Suit Over Crunchwraps' False Ads ---------------------------------------------------------------- Josh Russell of Courthouse News Service reports that a class action suit filed on July 31, 2023 against Taco Bell accuses the "Live Mas" chain of drastically shorting customers on the advertised amount of meat and beans filling its Crunchwraps and other menu items. According to a 15-page complaint brought in the Eastern District of New York, Taco Bell advertisements exaggerate the quantity of meat and meat-alternative ingredients contained in the beef and vegan versions of its Crunchwrap Supreme and Mexican Pizza products "by at least double the amount." New York attorney James C. Kelly and Florida-based lawyer Anthony Russo represent the unsatisfied customers in the proposed class action complaint alleging two violations of New York Deceptive Acts and Practices Act. The suit's named plaintiff is New Yorker Frank Siragusa, who purchased a Mexican pizza in Ridgewood, Queens, for $5.49 that contained approximately half of the seasoned beef and bean filling that he expected from advertisements and marketing. "Taco Bell advertises larger portions of food to steer consumers to their restaurants for their meals and away from competitors that more fairly advertise the size of their menu items, unfairly diverting millions of dollars in sales that would have gone to competitors," the complaint states. The suit seeks at least $5 million in damages from Taco Ball, which is headquartered in Irvine in Orange County, California. "Taco Bell's actions are especially concerning now that inflation, food, and meat prices are very high and many consumers, especially lower income consumers, are struggling financially," the complaint states. Representatives for Taco Bell did not immediately respond to requests for comment on July 31, 2023 afternoon. It is a subsidiary of Yum! Brands, which also owns KFC and Pizza Hut. Yum! has more outlets than any other fast-food chain in the world -- more than 55,000 restaurants in over 155 countries and territories. The civil complaint references other consumers' similarly disappointed experiences posted online, including a YouTube video titled "Taco Bell's Mexican Pizza Is Not The Same" and a Reddit message board thread titled "Crunch Wraps are a joke nowadays." Kelly and Russo previously sued McDonald's and Wendy's over hamburger patty sizes, similarly citing various food reviews on YouTube. A 2011 class action suit in California Superior Court accused the company of deceptively advertising its meat products and failing to tell customers the meat mixture "consists mostly of non-meat substances such as extenders and binders." [GN] TAKE 5 LLC: Moore Sues Over Shop Managers' Unpaid Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER MOORE and AUSTIN HILL, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TAKE 5, LLC and DRIVEN BRANDS SHARED SERVICES, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-429 (W.D.N.C., July 18, 2023) arises from the Defendants' violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees overtime wages. Plaintiff Moore has been employed as a shop manager in Defendants' Tallahassee, Florida store locations since February 2019 when Defendants acquired Plaintiff's previous employer, Sunshine Car Care, LLC. The Plaintiff is currently employed by Defendants. Plaintiff Hill was also employed as a shop manager in Defendants' Tallahassee, Florida and Prattville, Alabama store locations from February 2019 until August 2022. In 1984, TAKE 5 was founded in Metairie, Louisiana as a traditional oil change store. About a decade later, TAKE 5 became one of the first stay-in-your-car oil change locations allowing customers to receive a drive-through oil change.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Philip J. Gibbons, Jr., Esq. Corey M. Stanton, Esq. GIBBONS LAW GROUP, PLLC 14045 Ballantyne Corporate Place Ste. 325 Charlotte, NC 28277 E-mail: phil@gibbonslg.com corey@gibbonslg.com - and - Harold L. Lichten, Esq. Olena Savytska, Esq LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston St., Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com osavytska@llrlaw.com - and - Jason L. Gunter, Esq. Conor P. Foley, Esq. GUNTERFIRM 1514 Broadway, Suite 101 Fort Myers, FL 33901 Telephone: (239) 334-7017 E-mail: Jason@GunterFirm.com Conor@GunterFirm.com TAMARA LICH: Moves to Quash $300M Suit Over 2022 Convoy Protests ---------------------------------------------------------------- David Fraser of CBC News reports that the people facing a $300-million class-action lawsuit for organizing the 2022 convoy protests in Ottawa are attempting to have the case quashed altogether, or moved out of Canada's capital. Lawyers representing convoy organizers Tamara Lich, Chris Barber and 10 other parties are preparing to argue the lawsuit should be dismissed because the legal action against them unduly limits their freedom of expression in a matter of public interest. The lawyer representing Pat King, another convoy organizer, in the proceedings is intending on supporting the motion to have the case tossed. Known as an anti-Slapp motion, the matter is expected to be debated during a court hearing in October. "What happened in Ottawa was a matter of expression, we had a lot of people who were obviously very upset with what was going on in 2022 and they were taking to the streets expressing themselves," said James Manson, the lawyer representing Lich, Barber and the others. "The lawsuit that was launched against my clients and everybody else does relate to expression, and it does relate to a matter of public interest of course, it was the COVID vaccine mandates and all of the government response to COVID," he said. Another motion will be argued after that: Lawyers representing other defendants, most of whom were heavily involved in managing and collecting donations during the convoy, say the court case should be moved out of Ottawa. It's not yet clear if they will support the other defendants' effort to have the matter thrown out altogether. The U.S.-based GiveSendGo, an online platform used to collect more than $12 million during the protests, its founder Jacob Wells and others who managed donations argue a fair trial can't be had in Ottawa. Their argument focuses on whether the number of Ottawa residents who may be included in the lawsuit or be potential witnesses in it is too many to hold a fair trial in the capital city. They intend on proposing the matter should be moved to Toronto and heard by a Superior Court of Justice there. Paul Champ, the lawyer behind the proposed class-action suit, said he doubted either of the motions would be successful. "The defendants, for whatever reasons, still don't seem to be taking it seriously," he said. "They're trying to do everything they can to slow it down." 'Not interested in creating delay' Manson denies that's the case. "There is a huge backlog in our court system and I would never do anything to increase that backlog — I am not interested in creating delay for the sake of creating delay," he said, adding his duty to his clients is to ensure justice is done and if his motion is successful, the case would likely be tossed. The manoeuvres by the defendants delayed the process of the court deciding whether the class-action lawsuit will be certified and move forward. Champ successfully defeated a proposed motion from the defendants earlier this year to have the matter dismissed altogether. He said the named plaintiffs on the lawsuit, including downtown Ottawa resident Zexi Li and Happy Goat Coffee Co., continue to push the case forward. In March, Champ added new defendants and expanded the geographic border to include more plaintiffs. $300M class action convoy lawsuit amended to add defendants, expand 'occupation zone' Around 15,000 people are estimated to now be included in the action against the group facing the lawsuit. "We continue to be very committed to getting proper accountability for what happened here in Ottawa and as much as possible getting compensation for the people of Ottawa for all they suffered during the three weeks," he said. Most of the $25 million raised during the convoy protests was either returned to donors or put into an escrow account that is being managed until the civil proceedings determine where the money should go. Approximately $18 million was refunded to donors. Most of the $6.3 million sitting in escrow came from online fundraising led by Lich or cryptocurrency donations. Almost $6M in Freedom Convoy money captured as months-long injunction ends The Public Order Emergency Commission, the public inquiry tasked with looking into the federal government's use of the Emergencies Act during the protests, found only about $1 million was spent by convoy organizers. Criminal trials to come Lich and Barber are scheduled for trial in September on criminal charges related to the protests that gridlocked downtown Ottawa for several weeks during the winter of 2022. The pair are co-accused of mischief, obstructing police, and counselling others to commit mischief and intimidation. King's trial is scheduled for November and he is charged with mischief, counselling to commit mischief, counselling to disobey a court order and counselling to obstruct police. During his bail hearing he was charged with perjury and obstruction of justice and held in jail for five months before being released on bail. He's also requesting his criminal trial be moved out of Ottawa, saying he feels an Ottawa judge and jury would be too biased to offer a fair hearing. [GN] TARGET CORP: Wilkins Sues Over Illegal Employment Practices ----------------------------------------------------------- ALEXANDER WILKINS and BRITTANY KUHLEMEIER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated Plaintiffs v. TARGET CORPORATION; and DOES 1–50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-05819 (C.D. Cal., July 18, 2023) challenges Defendants' systemic illegal employment practices resulting in violations of the stated provisions of the California Labor Code against the identified group of employees, including Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs bring this suit against the Defendants for unreimbursed expenses, unpaid overtime and double time, unpaid minimum wages, improper meal periods and rest breaks, improper wage statements, unpaid wages upon separation, and unfair competition. Mr. Wilkins was hired in July 2022 to work as a cashier in Defendants' store# 2479, 5500 West Sunset Blvd., Los Angeles, California while Ms. Kuhlemeier was hired in August 29, 2015 as a cashier/guest services. In 2019, Ms. Kuhlemeier transferred to the position of security guard and she worked until July 7, 2022 in Defendants' store# 2469, 3308 North Dinuba Blvd., Visalia, California. Target Corporation is an American retail corporation headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Reuben D. Nathan, Esq. NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC 2901 W. Coast Highway, Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Telephone: (949) 270-2798 Facsimile: (949) 209-0303 E-mail: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com - and - Brian J. Kowalski, Esq. KOWALSKI EMPLOYMENT LAW CORP. 1941 California Avenue, #79453 Corona, CA 92877 Telephone: (925) 570-5673 E-mail: brian@kowalskilawfirm.com TENET HEALTHCARE: Faces Suit Over Data Privacy Violations --------------------------------------------------------- JANE DOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION; and DOCTORS MEDICAL CENTER OF MODESTO, INC., Case No. 1:23-at-00620 (E.D. Cal., July 24, 2023) is a case arising from the Defendants' systematic violation of the medical privacy rights of patients and users of the Defendants' services, exposing highly sensitive personal information to Facebook, Google, and other third parties without those patients' or users' knowledge or consent. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants disclosed information about prospective and actual patients -- including their status as actual or potential patients, their actual or potential physicians, their actual or potential medical concerns and treatments, the hospitals they visited or may visit, and their personal identities -- to Facebook, Google, and other third parties without their prospective or actual patients' knowledge, authorization, or consent. The Defendant breached confidentiality and violated Plaintiff's privacy when it did not seek—and certainly did not receive—consent for disclosure of personal and medical information before it unlawfully disclosed Plaintiff's personally identifiable information and protected health information, the suit claims. TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION owns or operates general hospitals and related health care facilities serving communities in the United States. The Company operates rehabilitation hospitals, specialty hospitals, long-term care facilities, psychiatric facilities, and medical office buildings near its general hospitals, as well as ancillary health care businesses. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Caddell, Esq. Cynthia B. Chapman, Esq. Amy E, Tabor, Esq. CADDELL & CHAPMAN 628 East 9th Street Houston, TX 77007-1722 Telephone: (713) 751-0400 Facsimile: (713) 751-0906 Email: mac@caddellchapman.com cbc@caddellchapman.com aet@caddellchapman.com TIMESHARE HELP: Perrong TCPA Suit transferred to W.D. Texas ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Andrew Perrong, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Timeshare Help Source, LLC, Dan Human, Eduardo Balderas, Case No. 4:22-cv-01064 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas on July 27, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-00035 to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Timeshare Help Source -- https://www.timesharehelpsource.com/ -- is one of the leading timeshare exit sources for owners to get the help and information they deserve.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy C. Jackson, Esq. BOWER LAW ASSOCIATES, PLLC 403 South Allen Street, Suite 210 State College, PA 16801 Phone: (814) 234-2626 Fax: (814) 237-8700 Email: jjackson@bower-law.com - and - Anthony Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (615) 485-0018 Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com The Defendants appear pro se. TRADEHOME SHOE STORES: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tradehome Shoe Stores, Inc. The case is styled as Kevin Yan Luis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Tradehome Shoe Stores, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-06510 (S.D.N.Y., July 27, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Tradehome Shoe Stores, Inc. -- https://tradehome.com/ -- retails footwear products. The Company offers sells men's, women's and children's footwear including sandles, sleeper, shoes, and accessories.[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 TWITTER INC: Woodfield Sues Over Refusal to Provide Severance Pay ----------------------------------------------------------------- CHRIS WOODFIELD, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff V. TWITTER, INC., X CORP., X HOLDINGS I, INC., X HOLDING CORP., and ELON MUSK, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00780-UNA (D. Del., July 18, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of contract, breach of merger agreement, breach of oral contract, promissory estoppel, breach of offer letter, fraud, WARN Act violations, employment discrimination, and wage theft. This action arises out of Defendants' attempts to avoid paying Twitter's ex-employees the severance Defendants promised them - attempts which began with Twitter's refusal to pay the severance it repeatedly promised its employees, and which have morphed, in the months since the employees began to take action to recover what they are owed, into an outright refusal to follow the terms of the dispute resolution agreements Twitter imposed upon Plaintiff and members of the Class. Twitter allegedly broke all these promises, breaching their enforceable agreements with its former employees in the process. The saga surrounding this breach of faith began in late March 2022, when Elon Musk issued vehement criticism of Twitter's content moderation decisions. Shortly thereafter, Musk disclosed that he had purchased a 9.2% stake in the company. Next, after declining a position on Twitter's Board of Directors, he announced his intention to purchase Twitter and take it private, says the suit. The Plaintiff relied on Twitter's representation that he would have a safety net if he was terminated after the merger as part of his decision to remain at Twitter. On January 4, 2023, after the close of the merger, Plaintiff was laid off by Twitter. Yet Twitter has refused to provide him with the severance it promised, the suit claims. Twitter, Inc. was an American social media company based in San Francisco, California. The company operated the social networking service Twitter and previously the Vine short video app and Periscope livestreaming service. In 2023, Twitter merged with X Holdings and ceased to be an independent company, becoming a part of X Corp.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph L. Christensen, Esq. CHRISTENSEN & DOUGHERTY LLP 1000 N. West Street, Suite 1200 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 212-4330 E-mail: joe@christensendougherty.com - and - Akiva Cohen, Esq. Lane Haygood, Esq. Dylan M. Schmeyer, Esq. Michael D. Dunford, Esq. KAMERMAN, UNCYK, SONIKER & KLEIN, P.C. 1700 Broadway, 16th Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 400-4930 E-mail: acohen@kusklaw.com lhaygood@kusklaw.com dschmeyer@kusklaw.com mdunford@kusklaw.com UNITED PARCEL: Bid to Certify Class in Baker Suit Granted in Part ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JUSTIN BAKER, Plaintiff v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., a Delaware corporation; and UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., an Ohio Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-CV-0114-TOR (E.D. Wash.), Judge Thomas O. Rice of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington grants in part the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification. The case concerns the Defendants' employment policies regarding military leave and their compliance with the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act ("USERRA"). The Plaintiff has been employed as a full-time package driver by the Defendants since approximately June 18, 2007. He also serves in the Army Reserve and has done so since 2014. The Plaintiff has routinely taken short-term leave during his employment to engage in military service as required by his obligations to the Army Reserve, although the precise dates are unclear. Since at least Oct. 10, 2004, the Defendants have not provided paid leave to employees who take military leave lasting 14 days or less ("short-term military leave"). However, they provide paid leave or full wages to employees who must be absent from work for non-military reasons, including bereavement and illness. Additionally, they provide differential pay to employees who must perform jury duty. The Plaintiff and all other small package drivers for the Defendants are members of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the union that represents the employees in collective bargaining with the Defendants. The collective bargaining agreements ("CBA") entered between the Defendants and their employees govern the Defendants' leave policies. Relevant in the case are the National Master United Parcel Service Agreement, which applies nationwide and includes the policies for jury duty leave and funeral leave, and the Joint Council No. 28 Rider, which applies to the Defendants' Washington State employees and contains sick leave policies that are specific to Washington State. Neither of the relevant CBAs contain a leave policy that permits paid leave for short-term military leave. However, the Defendants do provide some paid military leave, including up to one year differential pay for individuals who (1) are employed by them for at least six months, (2) joined the military prior to becoming employed by them, and (3) are called for active duty for a period of service exceeding 30 days because of war or national emergency. The Defendants do not provide paid leave benefits for any type of military service that is 30 days or less or for any type of military service that is not "active duty," such as mandatory Guard training and Reserve duties. On Aug. 2, 2021, the Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on behalf of himself and similarly situated individuals challenging the Defendants' paid leave policies and compliance with USERRA. ECF No. 16. The Amended Complaint raises a single cause of action: violation of USERRA, 38 U.S.C. Section 4316(b)(1), for failure to provide paid short-term military leave while providing other forms of paid short-term leave. The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on Aug. 25, 2021, which the Court denied in full on March 31, 2022. The Defendants answered the Amended Complaint on April 28, 2022. The Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification proposes the following class definition: All current and former employees of UPS subject to the Joint Council No. 28 Rider who worked in the State of Washington and, during their employment with UPS, took one or more short-term military leaves of 14 days or less and did not receive the regular pay that they would have earned had they continued to work their ordinary work schedules. The class covers a time period from Oct. 10, 2004 through the date of judgment in this action. Judge Rice explains that certification of a class action lawsuit is governed by Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Pursuant to Rule 23(a), the party seeking class certification must demonstrate that (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. Provided that the proposed class satisfies the above criteria, courts must further determine whether certification is appropriate under Rule 23(b). Where a party seeks certification of a so-called "damages class" under Rule 23(b)(3), as in the case, he or she must demonstrate that (1) questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members; and (2) a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy. As the party moving for certification, the Plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that the foregoing requirements have been satisfied. Judge Rice finds that (i) the Plaintiff has identified approximately 440 putative class members; (ii) the Plaintiff has sufficiently identified common questions of law and fact as to full-time package drivers; (iii) the Plaintiff's claims are typical to the limited class consisting of full-time regular package drivers; (iv) the Plaintiff and his counsel will adequately represent the interests of the class; (v) the issues common to the class predominate over any individual inquiries that may be required in the case; and (vi) class adjudication would serve the interests of individual class members for whom the potential recovery may be small in comparison to the costs of litigation. With certain restrictions to the scope of the class, the Plaintiff has satisfied the requirements for class certification. Accordingly, Judge Rice grants in part the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3), he certifies the following Class: All current and former full-time employees of UPS subject to the Joint Council Rider No. 28 who worked in the State of Washington from Oct. 10, 2004 through the date of judgment and, during their employment with UPS, took one or more short-term military leaves of 14 or fewer consecutive days and did not receive the regular pay that they would have earned had they continued to work their ordinary work schedules. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(1)(B), he certifies the following claims, including all damages related thereto: The pay differential that was not paid by UPS for the short-term military leaves of 14 or fewer consecutive days. Excluded from the Class are persons who previously reached settlements with or judgments against the Defendants resolving or releasing any claims arising during the Class periods under USERRA related to any of the claims in this lawsuit. Also excluded from the Class are persons who are managers and full-time supervisors who received a salary when taking military leave lasting less than one week. Plaintiff Justin Baker is appointed as the Class Representative for the certified Class. Michael J. Scimone of Outten & Golden, LLP and R. Joseph Barton of Barton & Downes, LLP are appointed as Co-Lead Class Counsel for the Class. Ryan Cowdin, Thomas G. Jarrard of the Law Office of Thomas G. Jarrard, PLLC, Matthew Z. Crotty of Riverside Law Group, PLLC, Peter Romer-Friedman of Peter Romer-Friedman Law, PLLC, and Robert D. Friedman of Gupta Wessler, PLLC are appointed as additional Class Counsel for the Class. Pursuant to Rule 23(c)(2)(B), within 14 days from the date of the Order, the class counsel will serve and file a proposed Notice to members of the certified class and suggest a method by which this should be accomplished and at whose expense. This Notice will comply with the requirements of Rule 23(c)(2)(B). The Defendants will have 14 days from service of the proposed Notice to serve and file any objections to the same. The class counsel will have seven days from service of any objection to serve and file a reply to the same. The Court will thereafter Order Notice to be provided and by whom. The District Court Executive is directed to enter the Order and furnish copies to counsel. A full-text copy of the Court's July 5, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ypyjxkfj from Leagle.com. UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA: SCOTUS to Take Up COVID Shutdown Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Jim Saunders of Observer Local News reports that the state Supreme Court on July 27, 2023 said it will take up a dispute about whether the University of Florida should return fees to students because of a campus shutdown early in the COVID-19 pandemic -- one of numerous similar cases filed in Florida and across the country. Justices issued an order saying they will consider what is known as a "certified question of great public importance" in the potential class-action lawsuit filed by UF graduate student Anthony Rojas. The order did not set a date for arguments. Attorneys for Rojas went to the Supreme Court in January after a divided panel of the 1st District Court of Appeal said an Alachua County circuit judge should have dismissed the lawsuit, which seeks refunds of fees paid for transportation, health-care and athletics services that were not provided because of the shutdown. A key issue in the lawsuit -- and others like it -- is whether the university breached a contract with Rojas when it did not provide services linked to the fees. In the 1st District Court of Appeal's Nov. 22 majority opinion, Judge Rachel Nordby wrote that "assorted documents attached to the complaint do not constitute an express written contract." As a result, she wrote that UF is shielded by sovereign immunity, a legal concept that generally protects government agencies from liability. Under sovereign immunity, agencies can face breach-of-contract lawsuits if it is shown that contracts have been violated. "We are sympathetic to Rojas and all other students whose on-campus experiences were clipped short and rendered non-existent by the university's response to COVID-19," Nordby wrote in a seven-page opinion joined by Judge Lori Rowe. "And if there were a sufficient contract attached to his complaint, we would affirm the trial court (decision not to dismiss the case) without hesitation. But without such an express, written agreement … sovereign immunity bars the action." The Tallahassee-based appeals court, however, also asked the Supreme Court to resolve a question of great public importance about whether sovereign immunity "bars a breach of contract claim against a state university based on the university's failure to provide its students with access to on-campus services and facilities." Judge Scott Makar, who was then on the 1st District Court of Appeal and is now on the 5th District Court of Appeal, dissented from the majority opinion. "Little doubt exists that an enforceable written contract of some sort exists; if one did not, the university would have difficulty collecting tuition and fees for services because of the lack of mutuality," he wrote. Campuses throughout Florida and the nation were temporarily shut down in 2020 after the COVID-19 pandemic hit, with students forced to learn remotely. The UF case deals only with fees and not tuition. State appeals courts have rejected similar lawsuits filed against Florida International University, Florida Atlantic University, Florida A&M University and Miami Dade College. The Florida International, Florida Atlantic and Florida A&M decisions were appealed to the Supreme Court. The court, however, has put those cases on hold because of the UF lawsuit. Meanwhile, the 2nd District Court of Appeal last year refused a request by the University of South Florida to dismiss a similar potential class-action lawsuit. The Supreme Court on Jan. 5 declined to take up an appeal by USF. A footnote in a May decision by the 3rd District Court of Appeal in the Florida International case said the University of South Florida lawsuit "arguably relies on specific -- and different -- documents to determine if an express, written contract exists." [GN] VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Encourages Investors to Join Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Rosen Law Firm PA of GlobeNewsWire reports that Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues to investigate potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Verizon (NYSE: VZ) resulting from allegations that Verizon may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. SO WHAT: If you purchased Verizon 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=17727 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 July 17, 2023, during market hours, The Wall Street Journal published an article entitled "Environmental Groups Ask EPA to Shield Public From Abandoned Lead Cables", which followed up on a series of exposés showing that "Verizon and other telecom companies have left behind more than 2,000 toxic lead cables on poles, under waterways and in the soil across the U.S.", leaving various spots with lead levels which exceeded Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") safety guidelines. The article also discussed how various environmental groups had requested that the EPA investigate the matter and remove certain lead-covered cables, and take other action as needed. On this news, the price of Verizon stock fell by $2.55 per share, or 7.5%, to close at $31.46 on July 17, 2023. Then, on July 26, 2023, after the market closed, The Wall Street Journal published an article entitled "Justice Department and EPA Probe Telecom Companies Over Lead Cables." The article stated, in pertinent part, "The Justice Department and Environmental Protection Agency are investigating the potential health and environmental risks stemming from a sprawling network of toxic lead-sheathed telecom cables across the U.S." It highlighted how the EPA had said it takes "the issues raised in the articles very seriously and will move expeditiously under our statutory authorities to protect the public from legacy pollution." On this news, the price of Verizon stock fell by $0.79 per share, or 2.3%, to close at $33.55 on July 27, 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. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] VERIZON CONNECT: Underpays Business Development Reps, Tucker Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------- ROLAND TUCKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VERIZON CONNECT FLEET USA LLC, Defendant, Case No. 8:23-cv-01655 (M.D. Fla., July 24, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff worked as a business development representative in the Defendant's office, located at 7701 East Telecom Parkway, Temple Terrace, Florida since November 2019. Verizon Connect Fleet USA LLC is a fleet management solutions company, with its principal place of business at 1100 Winter Street, Waltham, Massachusetts. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin L. Williams, Esq WILLIAMS LAW P.A. 123 18th Avenue N., Unit A Jacksonville Beach, FL 32250 Telephone: (904) 580-6060 E-mail: bwilliams@williamslawjax.com VESSEL FWP LLC: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vessel FWP LLC. The case is styled as Kevin Yan Luis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Vessel FWP LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-06624 (S.D.N.Y., July 29, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Vessel FWP -- https://vesselgolf.com/ -- manufactures and sells modern, handcrafted bag collections.[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 VIRGINIA: Court Dismisses Chaplick Class Suit Over Disability Law ----------------------------------------------------------------- Anna Bryson of Culpeper Star Exponent reports that a federal judge in Fairfax County ruled to dismiss a class-action lawsuit brought against the Virginia Department of Education and the Fairfax County school division under federal disability law. The plaintiffs in the case had alleged active involvement of the state department of education in denying students with disabilities access to educational services that are guaranteed to them under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The law, passed in 1975, ensures that students with disabilities receive a free and appropriate public education. U.S. District Judge Michael Nachmanoff did not deny the plaintiffs' claims, but rather dismissed the case on procedural grounds. He found that none of the plaintiffs had standing to sue. But the judge's order does not prevent different plaintiffs from pursuing the claims at issue in the lawsuit. The judge ruled that the Chaplick family was unable to sustain their claims because they failed to exhaust Virginia's administrative procedures when trying to obtain educational services that they claimed were appropriate for their son. The judge wrote that he does not see how the procedural issues with the suit at hand would apply to plaintiffs who had exhausted the administrative procedures. "Thus, while this case must be dismissed, a future case may fare differently," Nachmanoff wrote in his opinion. The Virginia Department of Education declined to discuss the decision. The Fairfax County Public Schools division declined to comment on the allegations presented in the lawsuit, but provided a statement: "FCPS appreciates the court's careful consideration of the arguments presented and agrees with the dismissal of the lawsuit. FCPS remains committed to working with parents to provide students with disabilities an education that meets their needs." The class-action suit filed in Fairfax County in September asserted that in recent decades hearing officers rarely sided with parents who challenge school plans for how to educate their children. Plaintiffs Trevor Chaplick and Vivian Chaplick, the parents of a current Fairfax County Public Schools student, said the school district rejected the idea that the student needed to leave the division. Identified as "D.C." in the suit, the Chaplicks' son "has faced significant challenges in his life including Autism, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder-Primarily Hyperactive-Impulsive Type, Tourette's Syndrome, Encephalopathy, Adjustment Disorder with Anxiety and Disturbance of Conduct, and an Intellectual Disability of an undetermined severity," according to the suit. The Chaplicks went ahead with a due-process hearing despite receiving a warning from a school system social worker that "they should not bother [with the case] because they 'would lose' "according to the suit. In January, the Chaplicks broadened the scope of their case to allege active involvement of the state education department in denying students with disabilities access to educational services that are guaranteed to them under federal law. The amended lawsuit alleged that school divisions and the state education department encouraged the falsification of students' grades, illegally withheld information from parents, failed to properly investigate denials of appropriate education services to students and failed to create and update Individual Education Plans (IEPs) in accordance with federal law. [GN] WALGREEN CO: Miller Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Timothy Miller, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WALGREEN CO., an Illinois corporation; WALGREENS DISTRIBUTION CENTER, a business entity of unknown form; WALGREENS BOOTS ALLIANCE, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV12846 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on July 27, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-06094. The Plaintiff alleges the following causes of action against Defendants on behalf of himself and the putative class: Failure to Provide Required Meal Periods; Failure to Provide Required Rest Periods; Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Pay All Wages Due to Discharged and Quitting Employees; Failure to Furnish Accurate and Itemized Wage Statements; Failure to Maintain Required Records; Failure to Indemnify Employees for Necessary Expenditures Incurred in Discharge of Duties; Unfair and Unlawful Business Practices; and Penalties Under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act, as Representative Action.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Allison C. Eckstrom, Esq. Christopher J. Archibald, Esq. Gabriel C. Hemphill, Esq. BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP 1920 Main Street, Suite 1000 Irvine, CA 92614-7276 Phone: (949) 223-7000 Facsimile: (949) 223-7100 Email: allison.eckstrom@bclplaw.com christopher.archibald@bclplaw.com gabriel.hemphill@bclplaw.com WARNER BROS: Durantas Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. The case is styled as Hakan Durantas, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-05728 (E.D.N.Y., July 28, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. -- http://www.warnerbros.com/-- is an American film and entertainment studio headquartered at the Warner Bros.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 14749 71st Ave. Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com WAWA INC: Temple Sues Over Fair Workweek Law Violations ------------------------------------------------------- Tara Temple, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Wawa, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 230701614 (Pa. Com. Pl., Philadelphia Cty., July 18, 2023) is a class action lawsuit brought by the Plaintiff against Defendant under the Philadelphia Fair Workweek Employment Standards. According to the complaint, Wawa violated Plaintiff's and other employees' rights under the Fair Workweek Law in several ways. Namely, Wawa failed to (1) provide employees with Predictability Pay when changing their work schedules with less than 14-days' notice; (2) provide employees with $40 premiums when they worked shifts on consecutive days with less than nine hours of off-time in between; (3) post work schedules on-site in conspicuous and accessible locations; (4) offer work shifts to existing employees before hiring new employees; and (5) provide new hires with compliant, written, good faith estimates of their typical work schedules. The Plaintiff was employed as a non-exempt hourly cashier at the Wawa store located at 3222 Richmond Street in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, from approximately December 2021 through October 2022. Wawa, Inc. operates a chain of nearly 1,000 convenience stores and gas stations across U.S. East Coast.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan Allen Hancock, Esq. WILLIG, WILLIAMS & DAVIDSON 1845 Walnut Street, 24th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 656-3679 E-mail: rhancock@wwdlaw.com - and - Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. Alan L. Quiles, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 951 Yamato Road, Suite 285 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 447-8888 E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com aquiles@shavitzlaw.com - and - Sally J. Abrahamson, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 705 8th St SE #100 Washington, DC 20003 Telephone: (202) 830-2016 E-mail: sabrahamson@flsalaw.com - and - Douglas M. Werman, Esq. John J. Frawley, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 77 W. Washington St., Suite 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 419-1008 E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com jfrawley@flsalaw.com - and - Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq. Krysten Connon, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (267) 256-9973 E-mail: ssb@llrlaw.com kconnon@llrlaw.com WEST TEXAS WESTERN: Castro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against West Texas Western Store, Inc. The case is styled as Felix Castro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. West Texas Western Store, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-06529 (S.D.N.Y., July 27, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. West Texas Western Store, Inc. is a merchant with a large selection of cowboy hats & boots, plus belts, wallets & other accessories.[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 WESTSIDE APPAREL: Durantas Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Westside Apparel, Inc. The case is styled as Hakan Durantas, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Westside Apparel, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-05729 (E.D.N.Y., July 28, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Westside Apparel, Inc. offers a wide range of clothing, footwear, bags & beauty products for men, women & kids.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 14749 71st Ave. Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com YVES SAINT LAURENT: Sabzerou Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Titania Sabzerou, an individual on behalf of herself and all similarly situated aggrieved employees v. YVES SAINT LAURENT AMERICA, INC., a New York corporation, JESSICA ALVAREZ, an individual; and DOES 1 through 30, inclusive, Case No. 30-2023-01321788-CU-OE-CXC was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on July 27, 2023, and assigned Case No. 8:23-cv-01355. The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts claims for relief arising out of Plaintiff's alleged employment with Defendant. The Complaint asserts claims for: Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Provide Meal Periods or Compensation In Lieu Thereof; Failure to Provide Rest Periods or Compensation In Lieu Thereof; Failure to Pay Due Wages at Termination; Failure to Furnish Accurate Wage Statements; Violation of Labor Code Section 226(c); Violation of Labor Code Section 1198.5; Violation of Labor Code Section 2802; Unfair Competition; and Civil Penalties Under Labor Code. ("PAGA").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Brooke Sikora Purcell, Esq. Melissa Hughes, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP A Limited Liability Partnership Including Professional Corporations Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4109 Phone: 415.434.9100 Facsimile: 415.434.3947 Email: bpurcell@sheppardmullin.com mhughes@sheppardmullin.com Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Faces 4,066 Exposure Claims at June 30 -------------------------------------------------------------- 3M Company, as of June 30, 2023, is a named defendant, with multiple co-defendants, in numerous lawsuits in various courts that purport to represent approximately 4,066 individual claimants, compared to approximately 4,028 individual claimants with actions pending December 31, 2022, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. 3M states, "The vast majority of the lawsuits and claims resolved by and currently pending against the Company allege use of some of the Company's mask and respirator products and seek damages from the Company and other defendants for alleged personal injury from workplace exposures to asbestos, silica, coal mine dust or other occupational dusts found in products manufactured by other defendants or generally in the workplace. A minority of the lawsuits and claims resolved by and currently pending against the Company generally allege personal injury from occupational exposure to asbestos from products previously manufactured by the Company, which are often unspecified, as well as products manufactured by other defendants, or occasionally at Company premises. "The Company's current volume of new and pending matters is substantially lower than it experienced at the peak of filings in 2003. The Company expects that filing of claims in the future will continue to be at much lower levels than in the past. Accordingly, the number of claims alleging more serious injuries, including mesothelioma, other malignancies, and black lung disease, will represent a greater percentage of total claims than in the past. Over the past twenty plus years, the Company has prevailed in fifteen of the sixteen cases tried to a jury (including the lawsuits in 2018 described below). In 2018, 3M received a jury verdict in its favor in two lawsuits – one in California state court in February and the other in Massachusetts state court in December – both involving allegations that 3M respirators were defective and failed to protect the plaintiffs against asbestos fibers. In April 2018, a jury in state court in Kentucky found 3M's 8710 respirators failed to protect two coal miners from coal mine dust and awarded compensatory damages of approximately $2 million and punitive damages totaling $63 million. In August 2018, the trial court entered judgment and the Company appealed. In 2019, the Company settled a substantial majority of the then-pending coal mine dust lawsuits in Kentucky and West Virginia for $340 million, including the jury verdict in April 2018 in the Kentucky case mentioned above, and the appeal was dismissed. In October 2020, 3M defended a respirator case before a jury in King County, Washington, involving a former shipyard worker who alleged 3M's 8710 respirator was defective and that 3M acted negligently in failing to protect him against asbestos fibers. The jury delivered a complete defense verdict in favor of 3M, concluding that the 8710 respirator was not defective in design or warnings and any conduct by 3M was not a cause of plaintiff's mesothelioma. The plaintiff appealed the verdict. In May 2022, the First Division intermediate appellate court in Washington affirmed in part and reversed in part 3M's trial victory, concluding that the trial court misapplied Washington law in instructing the jury about factual causation. The Washington Supreme Court declined to review the matter. "The Company has demonstrated in these past trial proceedings that its respiratory protection products are effective as claimed when used in the intended manner and in the intended circumstances. Consequently, the Company believes that claimants are unable to establish that their medical conditions, even if significant, are attributable to the Company's respiratory protection products. Nonetheless, the Company's litigation experience indicates that claims of persons alleging more serious injuries, including mesothelioma, other malignancies, and black lung disease, are costlier to resolve than the claims of unimpaired persons, and it therefore believes the average cost of resolving pending and future claims on a per-claim basis will continue to be higher than it experienced in prior periods when the vast majority of claims were asserted by medically unimpaired claimants. Since the second half of 2020, the Company has experienced an increase in the number of cases filed that allege injuries from exposures to coal mine dust; that increase represents a substantial majority of the growth in case numbers referred to above. The rate of coal mine dust-related case filings decelerated in 2022 and has continued to decelerate in 2023. 3M moved two cases involving over 400 plaintiffs to federal court based on, among others, the Class Action Fairness Act. The federal district court remanded the cases to state court. In March 2023, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals granted 3M's petition to review the remand order, and in April 2023 reversed the district court's remand order; accordingly, those cases will remain in federal court." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://tinyurl.com/cuk3c39h ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l. Defends 3,601 Claims at June 30 -------------------------------------------------------------- Albany International Corp. is a defendant in suits brought in various courts in the United States by plaintiffs who allege that they have suffered personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing paper machine clothing synthetic dryer fabrics marketed during the period from 1967 to 1976 and used in certain paper mills, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "We were defending 3,601 claims as of June 30, 2023. "The Company's subsidiary, Brandon Drying Fabrics, Inc. ("Brandon"), is also a separate defendant in many of the asbestos cases in which Albany is named as a defendant, despite never having manufactured any fabrics containing asbestos. While Brandon was defending against 7,702 claims as of June 30, 2023, only twelve claims have been filed against Brandon since January 1, 2012, and only $15,000 in settlement costs have been incurred since 2001. Brandon was acquired by the Company in 1999 and has its own insurance policies covering periods prior to 1999. Since 2004, Brandon's insurance carriers have covered 100% of indemnification and defense costs, subject to policy limits and a standard reservation of rights. "In some of these asbestos cases, the Company is named both as a direct defendant and as the "successor in interest" to Mount Vernon Mills ("Mount Vernon"). We acquired certain assets from Mount Vernon in 1993. Certain plaintiffs allege injury caused by asbestos-containing products alleged to have been sold by Mount Vernon many years prior to this acquisition. Mount Vernon is contractually obligated to indemnify the Company against any liability arising out of such products. We deny any liability for products sold by Mount Vernon prior to the acquisition of the Mount Vernon assets. Pursuant to its contractual indemnification obligations, Mount Vernon has assumed the defense of these claims. On this basis, we have successfully moved for dismissal in a number of actions. "We anticipate that additional claims will be filed against the Company and related companies in the future but are unable to predict the number and timing of such future claims. Due to the fact that information sufficient to meaningfully estimate a range of possible loss of a particular claim is typically not available until late in the discovery process, we do not believe a meaningful estimate can be made regarding the range of possible loss with respect to pending or future claims and therefore are unable to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss in excess of amounts already accrued for pending or future claims. "While we believe we have meritorious defenses to these claims, we have settled certain claims for amounts we consider reasonable given the facts and circumstances of each case. Our insurance carrier has defended each case and funded settlements under a standard reservation of rights. As of June 30, 2023, we had resolved, by means of settlement or dismissal, 38,032 claims at a total cost of $10.6 million. Of this amount, almost 100% was paid by our insurance carrier, who has confirmed that we have approximately $140 million of remaining coverage under primary and excess policies that should be available with respect to current and future asbestos claims." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://tinyurl.com/2urmvx2z ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Has $437MM Asbestos Litigation Reserve --------------------------------------------------------------- Ashland Inc., in its news release dated July 25, 2023, has reported US$437 million and US$472 million asbestos litigation reserve at June 30, 2023 and September 30, 2022, respectively, according to the Company's Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. A full-text copy of the Form 8-K is available at https://tinyurl.com/4b79kzbv ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carlisle Cos. Faces Numerous PI Lawsuits --------------------------------------------------------- Carlisle Companies Incorporated, over the years, the Company has been named as a defendant, along with numerous other defendants, in lawsuits in various courts in which plaintiffs have alleged injury due to exposure to asbestos-containing friction products produced and sold predominantly by the Company's discontinued Motion Control business between the late-1940s and the mid-1980s and roofing products produced and sold by Henry Company LLC, which the Company acquired on September 1, 2021, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Carlisle Companies states, "The Company currently maintains insurance coverage with respect to asbestos-related claims and associated defense costs. The Company records the insurance coverage as a receivable in an amount it reasonably estimates is probable of recovery for pending and future asbestos-related indemnity claims. Since the Company's insurance coverage contains various exclusions, limits of coverage and self-insured retentions and may be subject to insurance coverage disputes, the Company may incur expenses for indemnity and defense costs and recognize income from insurance recoveries in different periods, as such recoveries are recorded only if and when it becomes probable that such costs will be covered by insurance. "The Company is also involved in various other legal actions and proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. In the opinion of management, the ultimate outcomes of such actions and proceedings, either individually or in the aggregate, are not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position, results of operations, or operating cash flows." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://tinyurl.com/5fsshe63 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carrier Global Reports $223MM Asbestos Liabilities ------------------------------------------------------------------- Carrier Global Corporation, as of June 30, 2023, has $223 million in total asbestos liabilities, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "The amounts recorded for asbestos-related liabilities are based on currently available information and assumptions that the Company believes are reasonable and are made with input from outside actuarial experts. These amounts are undiscounted and exclude the Company's legal fees to defend the asbestos claims, which are expensed as incurred. In addition, the Company has recorded insurance recovery receivables for probable asbestos-related recoveries. A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://tinyurl.com/4xjmyhz3 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dow Inc. Has US$819MM Liabilities at June 30 ------------------------------------------------------------- Dow Inc., in its press release issued on July 25, 2023, has reported US$819 million and US$857 million noncurrent asbestos-related liabilities at June 30, 2023 and December 31, 2022, respectively, according to the Company's Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. A full-text copy of the Form 8-K is available at https://tinyurl.com/56ys3xax ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hartford Financial Still Defends A&E Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc., continues to receive asbestos and environmental ("A&E") claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Hartford Financial states, "The vast majority of the Company's exposure to A&E relates to accident years prior to 1986 that are reported in Property & Casualty Other Operations ("Run-off A&E"). In addition, since 1986, the Company has written asbestos and environmental exposures under general liability policies and pollution liability under homeowners policies, which are reported in the Commercial Lines and Personal Lines segments, respectively. "Prior to 1986, the Company wrote several different categories of insurance contracts that may cover A&E claims. First, the Company wrote primary policies providing the first layer of coverage in an insured's liability program. Second, the Company wrote excess and umbrella policies providing higher layers of coverage for losses that exhaust the limits of underlying coverage. Third, the Company acted as a reinsurer assuming a portion of those risks assumed by other insurers writing primary, excess, umbrella and reinsurance coverages. "Significant uncertainty limits the ability of insurers and reinsurers to estimate the ultimate reserves necessary for unpaid gross losses and expenses related to environmental and asbestos claims. The degree of variability of gross reserve estimates for these exposures is significantly greater than for other more traditional exposures." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p8r7fvc ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Still Faces Personal Injury Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Honeywell International Inc. is named in asbestos-related personal injury claims related to North American Refractories Company (NARCO), which was sold in 1986, and the Bendix Friction Materials (Bendix) business, which was sold in 2014, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "On November 18, 2022, Honeywell entered into a definitive agreement with the Trust and certain other parties, which was subsequently amended on November 20, 2022 (Amended Buyout Agreement). "Pursuant to the terms of the Amended Buyout Agreement, Honeywell agreed to make a one-time, lump sum payment in the amount of $1.325 billion to the Trust (Buyout Amount), subject to certain deductions as described in the Amended Buyout Agreement and in exchange for the release by the Trust of Honeywell from all further and future obligations of any kind related to the Trust and/or any claimants who were exposed to asbestos-containing products manufactured, sold, or distributed by NARCO or its predecessors (the Honeywell Obligations) (the NARCO Buyout). In accordance with the Amended Buyout Agreement, the economic rights of the Trust in respect of the net proceeds from the HWI Sale (as defined in Note 11 Fair Value Measurements) inure to the benefit of Honeywell. "On December 8, 2022, the Bankruptcy Court issued an order that (A) approved the Amended Buyout Agreement, and (B) declared that the Channeling Injunction will remain in full force and effect without modification, dissolution, or termination. "On December 14, 2022, HWI (as defined in Note 11 Fair Value Measurements) entered into a definitive sale agreement for the sale of HWI to an affiliate of Platinum Equity, LLC subject to the terms set forth in the agreement. "On January 30, 2023, the Company paid the Buyout Amount to the Trust, the parties closed the transactions contemplated in the Amended Buyout Agreement, and Honeywell was released from the Honeywell Obligations. Honeywell continues to have the right to collect proceeds in connection with its NARCO asbestos-related insurance policies. "On February 16, 2023, the HWI Sale closed. Pursuant to the Amended Buyout Agreement, during the six months ended June 30, 2023, Honeywell received $275 million of proceeds from the HWI sale. See Note 11 Fair Value Measurements for further information on the related proceeds and remaining amount under the Amended Buyout Agreement." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://tinyurl.com/56nr4ccc ASBESTOS UPDATE: IDEX Corp. Defends Personal Injury Lawsuits ------------------------------------------------------------ IDEX Corporation and six of its subsidiaries are presently named as defendants in a number of lawsuits claiming various asbestos-related personal injuries, allegedly as a result of exposure to products manufactured with components that contained asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. IDEX Corp. states, "These components were acquired from third party suppliers and were not manufactured by the Company or any of the defendant subsidiaries. To date, the majority of the Company's settlements and legal costs, except for costs of coordination, administration, insurance investigation and a portion of defense costs, have been covered in full by insurance, subject to applicable deductibles. However, the Company cannot predict whether and to what extent insurance will be available to continue to cover these settlements and legal costs, or how insurers may respond to claims that are tendered to them. Asbestos-related claims have been filed in jurisdictions throughout the United States and the United Kingdom. Most of the claims resolved to date have been dismissed without payment. The balance of the claims have been settled for various immaterial amounts. Only one case has been tried, resulting in a verdict for the Company's business unit." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://tinyurl.com/2mz5f7u8 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Electric Faces 1,458 Pending Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc., as of June 30, 2023, was a co-defendant in cases alleging asbestos induced illness involving claims by approximately 1,458 plaintiffs, which is a net decrease of 9 claims from those previously reported, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Lincoln Electric states, "In each instance, the Company is one of a large number of defendants. The asbestos claimants seek compensatory and punitive damages, in most cases for unspecified sums. Since January 1, 1995, the Company has been a co-defendant in asbestos cases that have been resolved as follows: 56,909 of those claims were dismissed, 23 were tried to defense verdicts, 7 were tried to plaintiff verdicts (which were reversed or resolved after appeal), 1 was resolved by agreement for an immaterial amount and 1,012 were decided in favor of the Company following summary judgment motions." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://tinyurl.com/2x3z38jp ASBESTOS UPDATE: Otis Worldwide Has $21MM Estimated Liabilities --------------------------------------------------------------- Otis Worldwide Corporation been named as defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "The estimated range of total liabilities to resolve all pending and unasserted potential future asbestos claims through 2059 is approximately $21 million to $43 million as of June 30, 2023 and December 31, 2022. "While we have never manufactured any asbestos-containing component parts, and no longer incorporate asbestos in any current products, certain of our historical products have contained components manufactured by third parties incorporating asbestos. A substantial majority of these asbestos-related claims have been dismissed without payment or were covered in full or in part by insurance or other forms of indemnity. Additional cases were litigated and settled without any insurance reimbursement. The amounts involved in asbestos-related claims were not material individually or in the aggregate as of and for the periods ended June 30, 2023 and December 31, 2022." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://tinyurl.com/y2phrtju ASBESTOS UPDATE: TriMas Has 443 Pending PI Cases as of June 30 -------------------------------------------------------------- TriMas Corporation, as of June 30, 2023, was a party to 443 pending cases involving an aggregate of 4,836 claimants primarily alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos containing materials formerly used in gaskets (both encapsulated and otherwise) manufactured or distributed by its former Lamons division and certain other related subsidiaries for use primarily in the petrochemical, refining and exploration industries, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. TriMas states, "In addition, the Company acquired various companies to distribute its products that had distributed gaskets of other manufacturers prior to acquisition. The Company believes that many of its pending cases relate to locations at which none of its gaskets were distributed or used. "The Company may be subjected to significant additional asbestos-related claims in the future, and will aggressively defend or reasonably resolve, as appropriate. The cost of settling cases in which product identification can be made may increase, and the Company may be subjected to further claims in respect of the former activities of its acquired gasket distributors. The cost of claims varies as claims may be initially made in some jurisdictions without specifying the amount sought or by simply stating the requisite or maximum permissible monetary relief, and may be amended to alter the amount sought. The large majority of claims do not specify the amount sought. Of the 4,836 claims pending at June 30, 2023, 49 set forth specific amounts of damages (other than those stating the statutory minimum or maximum). At June 30, 2023, of the 49 claims that set forth specific amounts, there were no claims seeking more than $5 million for punitive damages. "Relatively few claims have reached the discovery stage and even fewer claims have gone past the discovery stage. Total settlement costs (exclusive of defense costs) for all such cases, some of which were filed over 30 years ago, have been $12.8 million. All relief sought in the asbestos cases is monetary in nature. Based on the settlements made to date and the number of claims dismissed or withdrawn for lack of product identification, the Company believes that the relief sought (when specified) does not bear a reasonable relationship to its potential liability." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://tinyurl.com/ts7njwyt ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Reports $904MM Total Liabilities --------------------------------------------------------------- Union Carbide Corporation has total asbestos-related liability for pending and future claims and defense and processing costs of $904 million at June 30, 2023 ($947 million at December 31, 2022), according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. "Each quarter, the Corporation reviews asbestos-related claims filed, settled and dismissed, as well as average settlement and resolution costs by disease category. The Corporation also considers additional quantitative and qualitative factors such as the nature of pending claims, trial experience of the Corporation and other asbestos defendants, current spending for defense and processing costs, significant appellate rulings and legislative developments, trends in the tort system, and their respective effects on expected future resolution costs. UCC management considers these factors in conjunction with the most recent actuarial study and determines whether a change in the estimate is warranted. Based on the Corporation's review of 2023 activity, it was determined that no adjustment to the accrual was required at June 30, 2023." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://tinyurl.com/23xn455p ASBESTOS UPDATE: Zurn Elkay Co-Defends 6,000 Exposure Lawsuits -------------------------------------------------------------- Zurn Elkay Water Solutions Corporation and numerous other unrelated companies, as of June 30, 2023, were defendants in approximately 6,000 asbestos related lawsuits representing approximately 7,500 claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "Plaintiffs' claims allege personal injuries caused by exposure to asbestos used primarily in industrial boilers formerly manufactured by a segment of Zurn. Zurn did not manufacture asbestos or asbestos components. Instead, Zurn purchased them from suppliers. These claims are being handled pursuant to a defense strategy funded by insurers. "As of June 30, 2023, the Company estimates the potential liability for the asbestos-related claims described above, as well as the claims expected to be filed in the next ten years, to be approximately $79.0 million, of which Zurn expects approximately $58.0 million to be paid in the next ten years on such claims, with the balance of the estimated liability being paid in subsequent years. The $79.0 million was developed based on actuarial studies and represents the projected indemnity payout for current and future claims. There are inherent uncertainties involved in estimating the number of future asbestos claims, future settlement costs, and the effectiveness of defense strategies and settlement initiatives. As a result, actual liability could differ from the estimate described herein and could be substantial. "Management estimates that the available insurance to cover this ten year estimated potential asbestos liability as of June 30, 2023 is $72.1 million. "The Company recorded a receivable from its insurance carriers, which corresponds to the amount of this potential asbestos liability that is covered by available insurance and is currently determined to be probable of recovery. However, there is no assurance the Company's current insurance coverage will ultimately be available or that this asbestos liability will not ultimately exceed the Company's coverage limits. Factors that could cause a decrease in the amount of available coverage or create gaps in coverage include: changes in law governing the policies, potential disputes and settlements with the carriers regarding the scope of coverage, and insolvencies of one or more of the Company's carriers." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7j3duwa ********* 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 ***