/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230818.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, August 18, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 166 Headlines 3M CO: Residents to Launch Suit Over PFAs Chemicals in New Jersey 4602 4626 GREENPOINT: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA AC DISASTER: Underpays Disaster Recovery Specialists, Shepard Says AERCAP HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims AETNA MEDICAID: Palmer Suit Seeks Agents' Unpaid Overtime Wages ALEGRIA PRODUCTIONS: Carter Alleges Sexual Assault at Pride Event AMC NETWORKS: Discloses Personal Info to Meta, Buckley Says AMERICA'S TEST: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Adams Suit AMERITAS HOLDING: Mismanages Retirement Plan, Colston Alleges AMROCK LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Coppola Claims ANTRA INC: Jama Sues Over Wage-and-Hour Violations in E.D. Va. APELLIS PHARMA: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims BECTON DICKINSON: Investors' Class Action Can Proceed BOSTON MARKET: Tejeda Seeks Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA BYTEDANCE INC: Rodriguez Sues Over CapCut App Users' Privacy Issue CANADA: May Face Suit Over Health-Related Issues of Cannabis Use CELI NAILS: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA, Lopez Says CHERISH PRODUCTIONS: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Unpaid Wages CHERISH PRODUCTIONS: Sears Seeks Unpaid Wages, Reimbursements COUNTRY CLUB AT OTTERKILL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, McCree Says CYPRESS BAYSHORE: Tenants Sue Over Cancer-Causing Chemicals DISCOVERY HOUSE: Fails to Provide Timely Meal Breaks, Jenkins Says DNF ASSOCIATES: Judge Grants Motion to Dismiss FDCPA Class Action DOMINO'S PIZZA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Arriola Alleges EOS ENERGY: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Business Statements ESSILORLUXOTTICA SA: Monopolizes Eyewear Market, Fathmath Says FEDERAL ENVELOPE: Illegally Collects Fingerprints, Pearl Suit Says FLORIDA HEALTH: Dipierro Sues Over Unprotected Health Info FRANKLIN MINT: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Harris Suit Alleges FRESENIUS MEDICAL: Underpays Registered Nurses, Schuman Claims FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Suit HAYWARD HOLDINGS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Oct. 2 HENRY FORD: Tabbs Sues Over Failure to Protect Patients' Info HERITAGE VALLEY: Bowen Sues Over Patients' Unprotected Health Info HOAG MEMORIAL: Appeals Remand Order in Davis Suit to 9th Circuit HOTEL PIERRE: Fails to Properly Pay Hotel Staff, Serrano Alleges HUB CYBER: Faces Green Suit Over Alleged Drop in Share Price HUMANA INC: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Murphy Suit Says ILLINOIS: Faces NIFLA Class Suit Over Life-Affirming Organizations ISLAND FEDERAL: Charges Multiple Overdraft Fees, Wykle Suit Says JAG PAVING: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Rivera Suit Alleges JAZEERA RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Melendez Alleges JOYY INC: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims JRCRUZ CORP: Thomas Appeals Court Order to N.Y. Appellate Division LENOVO UNITED: Augustine Sues Over Third Party Access to Info LIVE NATION: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action MASSACHUSETTS: Parole Board Faces Discrimination Class Action METROSPEEDY OPERATIONS: Fails to Pay Drivers' OT Wages, Roman Says MICROSOFT CORP: Intercepts Internet Browsing Data, Saeedy Says NATIONAL CARWASH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Maurer Alleges NEVADA: Takes Private Property Without Notice, Raymond Alleges NEWFOUNDLAND & LABRADOR: Faces Class Suit Over Privacy Breach NORDSTROM INC: Online Store Inaccessible to Blind, Herrera Says NORTH MAIN: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages under FLSA, Rosado Says NUZ ENTERPRISES: Ceropin Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages ODOO INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Kayed Suit Alleges PARTY CITY: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Oct. 2 PARTY CITY: Execs Hid Liquidity Woes Before Bankruptcy, Suit Says PARTY CITY: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action in S.D. Tex. PATRIOT ERECTORS: Appeals Final Judgment in Davila Suit to 5th Cir. PEACOCK TV: Shapiro Sues Over Disclosure of Personal Info PELHAM COUNTRY CLUB: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Lewis Suit Alleges PENSION BENEFIT: White et al. Sue Over MOVEit Data Breach PRECISION ANESTHESIA: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Dillon Says PRIME HYDRATION: Faces False Advertising Class Action in Calif. PRIMECARE MEDICAL: Steadman Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Nurses RTX CORP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Oct. 2 RTX CORPORATION: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Civil Rights Class Action to Proceed SASKATCHEWAN: Lawyers Argue Over Boarding Schools Suit Process SEPHORA USA: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Hussein Suit Alleges SOLAREDGE TECHNOLOGIES: Sauer Appeals Case Dismissal Order SPARC GROUP: Montes Appeals Case Dismissal Order STERILIZATION SERVICES: Faces Class Action Over Toxic Air Emissions SUNRISE FLOOR: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Grande Alleges SUTTON TRANSPORT: Hodges Sues Over Biometric Collection and Storage SYNEOS HEALTH: Faces Securities Suit Over 77% Stock Price Drop TACOS LLC: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Herrera Class Suit Says TECOMET INC: Faces Wallin Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D. Wisconsin TEMASEK HOLDINGS: O'Keefe Sues Over Misappropriation of Funds TESLA INC: Faces Class Action Over Misleading EV Range Estimates TETHER LTD: New York Judge Tosses Suit Over Token's Value TRCU COFFEE: Rosas Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Restaurant Staff TRINITY PACKAGING: Robertson Appeals Order Denying Settlement OK U.S. SPECIAL SERVICE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Garcia Says ULTA BEAUTY: Faces Qualls Labor Suit Over COVID-19 Screenings UNIFI AVIATION: Fuller Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages UNITED STATES: Scotts Valley Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling WAYFAIR LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Counts Suit Alleges WELLS FARGO: Faces Class Action Over Phony Bank Accounts WELSPUN PIPES: Sanford Law Appeals Sanctions in Vines Suit WIRELESS ICENTER: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Diaz Alleges WLCC II: Faces Day Suit Over Illegal Collection Practices YALE-NEW HAVEN: Must Face ERISA Class Action, Judge Rules YELLOW CORP: Faces Class Action Over Inadequate Notice of Layoffs [*] Lawmakers Pursue Tort Reform as Alternative to Class Action Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Inc. Faces Personal Injury Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: CarParts.com's Subsidiaries Faces Damage Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chemours Has 900 Pending Exposure Suits at June 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colgate-Palmolive Defends 251 Suits at June 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus McKinnon Estimates $5.3MM Net Liability ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Holdings Paid $7MM to Settle Asbestos Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enstar Group Reports $412MM Net A&E Liabilities ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enviri Corp. Has 17,259 Pending PI Actions ASBESTOS UPDATE: ESAB Corp. Logs 14,764 Unresolved Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flowserve Corp. Faces 590 New PI Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graybar Has $2.5MM Insurance Receivable at June 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: International Paper Has $111MM in Claims Liability ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Technologies Defends 501 Cases at July 2 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Defends 1,465 Exposure Cases ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trane Tech. Defends Exposure Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Faces 200 PI Lawsuits as of June 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Steel Has 915 Active Cases as of June 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Univar Defends 260 PI Claims As of June 30 ********* 3M CO: Residents to Launch Suit Over PFAs Chemicals in New Jersey ----------------------------------------------------------------- Euronews Green reports that toxic chemicals leaked into their drinking water supplies more than 30 years ago. Now residents want compensation. Jersey residents could be the first in the British Isles to launch legal action over toxic 'forever chemicals' polluting their water. Per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a large family of human-made chemicals that don't occur in nature. They are known as ‘forever chemicals' because they don't break down in the environment. Like microplastics, there is virtually no escape from PFAS; they've seeped into our blood, breastmilk, and almost all rainwater on Earth. But the Channel Island has been dealing with a particularly egregious load of pollution for decades. Firefighting foam used on the airport fire training ground in the early 1990s leaked into the surrounding area and people's borehole water supplies. Locals attribute a number of serious health conditions including cancer to this source, and some are now considering collective legal action. The timeline of Jersey's forever chemicals scandal When the foam was confirmed to be in drinking water in 1993, the Government of Jersey stopped its use and offered to install new bore holes for those affected. In a new investigation into the issue, the BBC has spoken with people who believe the ban came too late for their health. They include 57-year-old Graeme Farmer, who lived in a cottage near the training ground in the mid-1990s, and was diagnosed with blood cancer five years ago. "My parents… and I lived there for four years. We all went down with cancer and we all seemed to have it within the same time period," he told the broadcaster. In 2005 the island's government signed a confidential deal with 3M, the manufacturer of the foam, to secure £2.6m (around €3m) towards the PFAS clean-up. Under the terms of the agreement, it promised not to pursue any legal claims against the company. Controversially, it also committed the government to support the company if any citizen pursued legal action. The deal was kept secret from the public until a local journalist obtained a leaked copy of the deal, and broke the story in 2021 -- prompting a fresh wave of outrage. From magnets to lawsuits, here's how we can fix the forever chemicals problem Why are Jersey residents seeking compensation now? In 2022, Jersey's government conducted a pioneering programme to test the blood of people living near the airport for PFAS compounds. Of the 88 islanders tested, 70 per cent were found to have higher threshold levels of PFHxS and 30 per cent had higher threshold levels of PFOS in their blood - both PFAS compounds. Having received their blood test results, Jersey residents are now considering their legal options. "Many of these people feel that they have health concerns arising out of their exposure to PFAS chemicals and they may have some sort of claim to receive compensation," Jersey Advocate Eleanor Colley told the BBC. Her law firm Viberts has spoken to some 10 islanders about pursuing a financial compensation claim, which it is "in the early stages" of investigating. If it goes ahead, Colley believes this could be the first collective action concerning PFAS in the British Isles. 3M recently reached a $10.3 billion (EUR9.4bn) settlement to pay to test and clean up the chemicals from water supplies across the US, without admitting liability. "Like everybody we'd like to see our health back," said Farmer. "But that isn't possible -- that only leaves financial compensation which everybody deserves." "At this stage we are not sure who any potential defendant would be, although it's likely to be a States of Jersey entity and potentially the manufacturer of the chemicals," Colley added. In response to the BBC's report, the Government of Jersey said: "There is no international agreement about how to interpret blood results, therefore it is difficult to reach conclusions on the levels in the blood that has been tested. "We have set up the Independent PFAS Scientific Panel, who will examine, report, and make recommendations to the government on agreed topics." 3M said in a statement: "We have and will continue to take action consistent with our values -- including remediating PFAS, investing in water treatment, and collaborating with communities." [GN] 4602 4626 GREENPOINT: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- LUIS MUNOZ, v. 4602 4626 GREENPOINT AVENUE LLC (DBA LOS VERDES NEW YORK) and JAVIER QUESADA, Case No. 1:23-cv-05692 (E.D.N.Y., July 27, 2023) seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage and overtime wage compensation, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Defendants were required, under relevant New York State law, to pay and compensate the Plaintiff at a minimum rate of $15.00 per hour (the "minimum wage"); however, the Plaintiff was only compensated at a rate of $10.00 per hour for 40 hours workweek, the lawsuit claims. The Defendants were also required, under relevant New York State law, to compensate the Plaintiff with overtime pay at one and one-half the regular rate for work in excess of 40 hours per work week. However, the Defendants only compensated the Plaintiff at a rate of $10 per hr. plus $300 tips per week and failed to pay the Plaintiff his lawful overtime pay for that period from April 2020 until July 22, 2023, the lawsuit claims. The Defendants' conduct allegedly extended beyond the Plaintiff to all other similarly situated employees. The Defendants have allegedly engaged in their unlawful conduct pursuant to a corporate policy of minimizing labor costs and denying employees compensation. The Defendants' unlawful conduct has been intentional, willful, and in bad faith, and has caused significant damage to the Plaintiff and the other class members, the lawsuit added. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant at its offices at 46-26 Greenpoint Ave, Queens, NY 11104 from April 2020 until July 22, 2023, where his primary work duty was as a cook and a delivery.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lina Stillman, Esq. STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C. 42 Broadway, 12t Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 203-2417 E-mail: www.StillmanLegalPC.com AC DISASTER: Underpays Disaster Recovery Specialists, Shepard Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ LaRHONDA SHEPARD, for herself and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AC DISASTER CONSULTING LLC, a Texas Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case No. 4:23-cv-00760-P (N.D. Tex., July 21, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant to recover Plaintiff's unpaid overtime and back wages, an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was hired as a full-time, benefits-eligible Disaster Recovery Specialist employee by the Defendant from June 17, 2020 until May 26, 2023. She asserts that Defendant failed and/or refused to properly disclose or apprise her rights under the FLSA. AC Disaster Consulting LLC operates as a nationwide emergency management firm with its principal place of business located in Arlington, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew R. Frisch, Esq. Angeli Murthy, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 8151 Peters Rd., Suite 4000 Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) WORKERS Facsimile: (954)-327-3016 E-mail: afrisch@forthepeople.com amuthy@forthepeople.com AERCAP HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Aug. 4 announced an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of AerCap Holdings N.V. (NYSE: AER) resulting from allegations that AerCap may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public, specifically as it related to its exposure to the Russian market, and in particular potential financial exposure resulting from escalating hostilities in Ukraine. SO WHAT: If you purchased AerCap securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=17599 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. 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] AETNA MEDICAID: Palmer Suit Seeks Agents' Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- CRYSTAL PALMER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AETNA MEDICAID ADMINISTRATORS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-01010 (D. Conn., July 28, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act, and for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. Ms. Palmer worked for the Defendant as a call center agent from approximately August 2016 until May 2022. Aetna Medicaid Administrators LLC is a provider of managed health care services, with its principal offices located at 151 Farmington Ave., Hartford, Connecticut. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. Albert J. Asciutto, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com aasciutto@sommerspc.com - and - Jeffrey S. Morneau, Esq. CONNOR & MORNEAU, LLP 273 State Street, 2nd Floor Springfield, MA 01103 Telephone: (413) 455-1730 E-mail: jmorneau@cmolawyers.com ALEGRIA PRODUCTIONS: Carter Alleges Sexual Assault at Pride Event ----------------------------------------------------------------- BRETT CARTER, CHRISTOPHER ADAMS, DANIEL AHN, DANIEL CHIU, JOHN SUN, JOSEPH LEE, JOSHUA FRIEDMAN, TIMMY HOWARD, and WEICHIEH CHI on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated Plaintiffs v. ALEGRIA PRODUCTIONS INC., AVANT GARDNER, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 521124/2023 (N.Y. Sup., Kings Cty., July 21, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for assault and battery; negligent hiring, training and supervision; gross negligence; and violations of the New York City Human Rights Law, New York State Human Rights Law, and N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law. On June 25, 2023, Defendants Avant Gardner and Alegria Productions organized and hosted "Alegria Pride 2023." It was the fourth "mega production" organized and promoted by Alegria Productions and held at Avant Gardner, a large event space located at 140 Stewart Ave, Brooklyn, New York. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs were subjected to unwarranted and intrusive sexual assault by the security guards hired and supervised by Defendants upon entry. Many attendees were touched repeatedly, sometimes without consent and sometimes despite specifically refusing to consent, in their intimate areas, forced to spread their legs for extensive periods of time, and made to take off their pants and underwear, bare themselves, and show their genitals and buttocks to the security and anyone else nearby. The Defendants' security guards were rude, aggressive, and abusive, and behaved in a way that would be unthinkable had attendees been anything other than gay men. The abusive conduct did not stop at the entrance. Even inside the venue, attendees were subject to the continued abuse and mistreatment of security for instance when using bathroom stalls. Lastly, after enduring all the abuse by Defendants' staff, not to mention having paid over 200 dollars each which was the price of entry, the Plaintiffs had hoped to be treated to a magical experience consistent with prior performances in past Alegria Pride events. But the Defendants failed to deliver with respect to the sunrise closing ceremonies. Instead, the music abruptly stopped and all the attendees were again, rudely herded out into the streets at night, in an unceremonious and disappointing end, asserts the suit. The Plaintiffs and the proposed Class consists of all individuals who attended Alegria Pride 2023. Upon information and belief, there are about 7,500 individuals within the Class definition. Alegria Productions is a production company which organizes and operated the Alegria Pride 2023 event.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jacob Chen, Esq. DGW KRAMER LLP One Rockefeller Plaza, Ste. 1060 New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (917) 633-6860 Facsimile: (917) 633-6183 E-mail: jchen@dgwllp.com AMC NETWORKS: Discloses Personal Info to Meta, Buckley Says ----------------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM BUCKLEY, individually and on behalf of all others --similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMC NETWORKS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-03630-JCS (N.D. Cal., July 21, 2023) arises from the Defendant's violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act by disclosing personally identifiable information -- including the specific videos and video services Plaintiff and Class members' requested and obtained -- to unrelated third parties without their consent. According to the complaint, AMC installed computer code on Shudder, called the "Meta Tracking Pixel," which tracks and records Plaintiff and Class members' private video consumption. Behind the scenes of many key Shudder webpages -- and unbeknownst to video viewers -- this code collects Plaintiff and Class members' videoconsumption history and discloses it to Meta without their consent. Meta, in turn, uses Plaintiff and Class members' video consumption habits to build profiles on consumers and deliver targeted advertisements to them, among other activities, the suit alleges. Mr. Buckley has visited the Shudder website on his Google Chrome browser to watch videos, and at that time was logged into his facebook.com account on that same Google Chrome browser during the relevant time period. AMC Networks, Inc, develops, owns, and operates Shudder.com, which is used throughout California and the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Neal J. Deckant, Esq. Stefan Bogdanovich, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com ndeckant@bursor.com sbogdanovich@bursor.com AMERICA'S TEST: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Adams Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ AMERICA'S TEST KITCHEN, INC., et al. are taking an appeal from a court order denying their motion to compel arbitration or, in the alternative, dismiss the complaint in the lawsuit entitled Anca Adams, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. America's Test Kitchen, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-11309-AK, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The lawsuit, which was removed from the Superior Court Division of the Trial Court for Suffolk County, Commonwealth of Massachusetts to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, is brought over the Defendants' alleged violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act. On Nov. 10, 2022, the Defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration or, in the alternative, dismiss the complaint, which the Court denied through an Order entered by Judge Angel Kelley on June 30, 2023. The Court determined that there are still factual issues to resolve in the case. Dismissal would be inappropriate at this stage. The appellate case is captioned Adams v. America's Test Kitchen, Inc., et al., Case No. 23-1592, in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, filed on July 24, 2023. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellee ANCA ADAMS, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Joseph Henry Bates, III, Esq. Edwin Lee Lowther, III, Esq. Randall K. Pulliam, Esq. Courtney Elizabeth Ross, Esq. CARNEY, BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC 519 W. 7th St. Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 312-8500 - and - Elizabeth A. Ryan, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 176 Federal St., 5th Fl. Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 439-6730 Defendants-Appellants AMERICA'S TEST KITCHEN, INC., et al. are represented by: Frances Faircloth, Esq. Edward Robert McNicholas, Esq. ROPES & GRAY LLP 2099 Pennsylvania Ave, NW, Ste. 1200 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 508-4788 (202) 508-4779 - and - Patrick T. Roath, Esq. ROPES & GRAY LLP 800 Boylston St. Boston, MA 02199 Telephone: (617) 235-4674 AMERITAS HOLDING: Mismanages Retirement Plan, Colston Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- AMBER COLSTON; WILLIS BRAMWELL; and ROSEANN BLESSING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AMERITAS HOLDING COMPANY; THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF AMERITAS HOLDING COMPANY; THE AMERITAS 401(K) RETIREMENT PLAN COMMITTEE; and JOHN DOES 1- 30, Defendants, Case No. 4:23-cv-03137-CRZ (D. Neb., July 28, 2023) alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that during the Class Period, the Defendants, as "fiduciaries" of the Plan, breached the duties they owed to the Plan, to the Plaintiffs, and to the other participants of the Plan by, inter alia, failing to objectively and adequately review the Plan's investment portfolio with due care to ensure that each investment option was prudent, in terms of cost and performance. The Defendants' mismanagement of the Plan, to the detriment of participants and beneficiaries, constitutes a breach of the fiduciary duty of prudence, Their actions were contrary to actions of a reasonable fiduciary and cost the Plan and its participants millions of dollars, the suit asserts. AMERITAS HOLDING COMPANY operates as a holding company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, offers life insurance, investments, retirement plans, and public financing services. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Donald R. Reavey, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C. 2933 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Telephone: (717) 233-4101 Facsimile: (717) 233-4103 Email: donr@capozziadler.com - and - Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C. 312 Old Lancaster Road Merion Station, PA 19066 Telephone: (610) 890-0200 Facsimile: (717) 233-4103 Email: markg@capozziadler.com AMROCK LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Coppola Claims -------------------------------------------------------- LENNY COPPOLA and CHERYL ACCARDI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AMROCK, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-11639 (D. Mass., July 21, 2023) is a collective and class action brought by representative Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of the proposed Collective and Classes, arising from the Defendant's alleged unlawful labor policies and practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Massachusetts Labor Law, and the New Hampshire Minimum Wage Law. Plaintiffs Coppola and Accardi were employed by Amrock as Appraisers from August 26, 2013 to February 28, 2023 and from July 7, 2012 to August 9, 2020, respectively. They assert that they consistently worked over 40 hours per week without receiving premium overtime pay for all hours worked. They bring this suit to remedy the Defendant's failure to pay all wages due and for recordkeeping failures, in addition to injunctive relief. Amrock, LLC, is a national provider of title insurance, property valuations and settlement services in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Farva Jafri, Esq. JAFRI LAW FIRM 50 Evergreen Row Armonk, NY 10504 Telephone: (800) 593-7491 E-mail: farva@jafrilawfirm.com - and - Rachel M. Haskell, Esq. Jessica Cahill, Esq. Brendan Sweeney, Esq. Christopher Q. Davis, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER Q. DAVIS, PLLC 80 Broad Street, Suite 703 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (646) 430-7930 Facsimile: (646) 349-2504 E-mail: rhaskell@workingsolutionsnyc.com jcahill@workingsolutionsnyc.com bsweeney@workingsolutionsnyc.com cdavis@workingsolutionsnyc.com ANTRA INC: Jama Sues Over Wage-and-Hour Violations in E.D. Va. -------------------------------------------------------------- JAMA JAMA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ANTRA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-00997 (E.D. Va., July 27, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to provide wage statement, failure to provide wage notice, and unlawful wage deductions. Plaintiff Jama was employed by the Defendant as a software developer from approximately September 21, 2021 to July 22, 2022. Antra, Inc., is a provider of IT consulting, services, and products, with its principal office located at 21000 Atlantic Blvd., Ste. 300, Sterling, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zev Antell, Esq. Craig Juraj Curwood, Esq. BUTLERCURWOOD, PLC 140 Virginia Street, Suite 302 Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 648-4848 E-mail: zev@butlercurwood.com craig@butlercurwood.com - and - Timothy Coffield, Esq. COFFIELD PLC 106-F Melbourne Park Circle Charlottesville, VA 22901 Telephone: (434) 218-3133 Facsimile: (434) 321-1636 E-mail: tc@coffieldlaw.com - and - Matthew T. Sutter, Esq. SUTTER & TERPAK, PLLC 7540 Little River Turnpike, Suite A Annandale, VA 22003 Telephone: (703) 256-1800 Facsimile: (703) 991-6116 E-mail: matt@sutterandterpak.com APELLIS PHARMA: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues to investigate potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Apellis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: APLS) resulting from allegations that Apellis may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. SO WHAT: If you purchased Apellis 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=17734 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, the American Society of Retina Specialists issued a press release highlighting concerns with Syfovre, Apellis Pharmaceuticals' new eye-disease drug. The release indicated that physicians have reported cases of eye inflammation in patients treated with the drug, including six instances of occlusive retinal vasculitis, a potentially blinding type of inflammation that blocks blood flow through the vessels that feed the retina. On this news, the price of Apellis' stock fell by $32.04 per share, or 37.92%, to close at $52.46 on July 17, 2023. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] BECTON DICKINSON: Investors' Class Action Can Proceed ----------------------------------------------------- Ben Miller, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Becton, Dickinson & Co. investors, who sued the company for allegedly misleading them about defects in its infusion pumps, can pursue their case as a class action, the US District Court for the District of New Jersey said. The class includes any investor who bought or sold shares or options of the medical device manufacturing company's stock from November 5, 2019 to February 5, 2020, Judge Stanley R. Chesler said in his Aug. 3 order. The court allowed the class to include options traders, finding that the plaintiffs had demonstrated that they were harmed by showing the impact of price. [GN] BOSTON MARKET: Tejeda Seeks Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- Jose Tejeda, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Boston Market Corporation d/b/a Boston Market, Boston Chicken of AZ LLC d/b/a Boston Market, John Doe Corporations I-XX d/b/a Boston Market, Krupa Patel and Jane Doe Patel, a married couple, and Jignesh Pandya and Jane Doe Pandya, a married couple,, Case No. 2:23-cv-01497-JJT (D. Ariz., July 27, 2023) sues the Defendant for failing to pay minimum and overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Arizona Minimum Wage Act. The Defendants are allegedly engaged in the regular practice of paying paychecks otherwise owed to the Plaintiff, the Collective Members, and the Class Members late or not at all. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all similarly-situated current and former employees of the Defendants who worked in any of Defendants' Boston Market restaurant locations in Arizona who did not receive at least the minimum wage, did not receive any paycheck at all, or received late payment of a paycheck in a given workweek, from May 2023 through the present. The Plaintiff and the Collective Members are entitled to compensation for the full applicable minimum wage at an hourly rate, to be proven at trial, plus liquidated damages, together with interest, reasonable attorney's fees, and costs, says the suit. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants and worked many of Defendants' Boston Market locations in Arizona at various times between 1997 until June 30, 2023. He worked as an assistant manager for the Defendants, earning an hourly rate of $20. Boston Market is an American fast casual restaurant chain.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clifford P. Bendau, II, Esq. Christopher J. Bendau, Esq. BENDAU & BENDAU PLLC Phoenix, AZ 85060 Telephone: (480) 382-5176 Facsimile: (480) 304-3805 E-mail: cliffordbendau@bendaulaw.com chris@bendaulaw.com BYTEDANCE INC: Rodriguez Sues Over CapCut App Users' Privacy Issue ------------------------------------------------------------------ EVELIA RODRIGUEZ; ERIKKA WILSON; AND A.N., a minor, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BYTEDANCE, INC.; BEIJING DOUYIN INFORMATION SERVICE CO. LTD. F/K/A BEIJING BYTEDANCE TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD.; BYTEDANCE LTD.; BYTEDANCE PTE. LTD.; BEIJING BYTEDANCE TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD.; and TIKTOK, INC. F/K/A MUSICAL.LY, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-04953 (N.D. Ill., July 28, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, the California Comprehensive Data Access and Fraud Act, the California Unfair Competition Law, the California False Advertising Law, the Illinois's Biometric Information Privacy Act, the Right of Privacy under the California Constitution, and state consumer protection statutes and for intrusion upon seclusion and restitution/unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to protect the privacy of the data of users of their CapCut app and violate their privacy rights. The CapCut app facilitates the collection of a wide range of private information from users, including their biometric information. The privacy concerns with respect to the CapCut app are particularly significant. First, the CapCut app is ultimately owned by a China-based company, which has a legal obligation to share information with the Chinese government under binding Chinese law and which, in fact, is in business with China state-owned entities. Second, the app has been aggressively promoted by Defendant TikTok, Inc. As a result, the app has rapidly grown in popularity among both users and nonusers of the TikTok app alike, and the Defendants have gained access to the private and personal information of millions of users of the app, says the suit. ByteDance, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of ByteDance Ltd., with its principal place of business in Palo Alto, California. Beijing Douyin Information Service Co. Ltd., formerly known as Beijing ByteDance Technology Co. Ltd., is a privately held company headquartered in Beijing, China. ByteDance Ltd. is a technology company, headquartered in Beijing, China. ByteDance Pte. Ltd. is a private limited company headquartered in Singapore. Beijing ByteDance Technology Co. Ltd. was a subsidiary of ByteDance Ltd., headquartered in Beijing, China. TikTok, Inc., formerly known as Musical.ly, Inc., is a social media application company, with its principal place of business in Culver City, California. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com - and - Jeannie Evans, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 455 N. Cityfront Plaza Dr., Suite 2410 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (708) 628-4962 Facsimile: (708) 628-4952 E-mail: jeannie@hbsslaw.com - and - Douglas G. Smith, Esq. AURELIUS LAW GROUP LLC 77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 4500 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 451-6708 E-mail: dsmith@aureliuslawgroup.com CANADA: May Face Suit Over Health-Related Issues of Cannabis Use ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ben Stevens at businessofcannabis.com reports that the Canadian Federal government's failure to facilitate research into the potential health issues associated with cannabis consumption. According to Toronto-based newspaper The Globe and Mail, the former Canadian Health Minister has said the lack of research following recreational cannabis legalisation in 2018 was a ‘big disappointment'. "The big disappointment coming out of the legalisation project is that governments and researchers have not stepped up in the way that we had hoped after legalisation to do a lot of that research," Anne McLellan, who was part of the task force responsible for laying the groundwork for legalisation said. READ MORE: First Month of Maryland Cannabis Sales Reach Over $80 million She continued that she had hoped the government would incentivise private sector parties to conduct research into the effects of cannabis consumption which had been largely restricted during prohibition. With the last study into cannabis sales and consumption published by Health Canada in 2013, Ms McLellan argued that the government could 'potentially' face a class action lawsuit. Despite this, she stipulated that any such lawsuit could yet be years away, so ample time is available for the government to rectify the situation. [GN] CELI NAILS: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA, Lopez Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- MARIA SARMIENTO LOPEZ and NANCY YANZA, v. CELI NAILS AND SPA INC., LEXI NAILS AND SPA INC., and JIA CHEN, Case No. 1:23-cv-06528 (S.D.N.Y., July 27, 2023) is a class action seeking to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages, and spread-of-hours pay, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act. The Plaintiffs regularly worked up to 66 hours per workweek as nail technicians at the Nail Salons. Throughout their employment, the Defendants allegedly paid the Plaintiffs on day rates that failed to compensate them for regular hours worked at the statutory minimum wage rate and overtime pay for hours worked over forty per workweek. The Defendants also allegedly failed to provide Plaintiffs with wage notices at their time of hiring and when their wage rates changed; and accurate wage statements with each payment of wages, says the suit. The Plaintiffs bring the claims on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated Nail Salon Workers employed by the Defendants in the three years prior to the filing of this action. The FLSA Collective consists of persons who, during their employment with the Defendants, fell into the category of non-managerial Nail Salon Workers. Ms. Sarmiento was employed by the Defendants as a nail technician at Lexi Nails from January 2020 through February 2021, and at Celi Nails from April 2021 through January 2023. Ms. Yanza was employed by the Defendant as a nail technician at Celi Nails from November 2021 through January 2023. Celi Nails is a nail salon.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Louis Pechman, Esq. Gianfranco J. Cuadra, Esq. Camille A. Sanchez, Esq. PECHMAN LAW GROUP PLLC 488 Madion Avenue-17th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 583-9500 E-mail: pechman@pechmanlaw.com cuadra@pechmanlaw.com sanchez@pechmanlaw.com CHERISH PRODUCTIONS: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- insurancejournal.com reports that a delivery driver in Massachusetts has filed a proposed class action against a grocery delivery company and grocery chain for allegedly misclassifying drivers as independent contractors and not paying minimum wage, overtime wages or employee expenses. The lawsuit comes as there is new reporting that technology companies will renew their effort to get a gig worker classification and benefits proposal on the ballot in the state. Thayer Sears has brought the claim against Cherish Productions, LLC, an Ohio-based firm doing business as Grocery Runners since 2015. The company employs delivery drivers in Massachusetts who are dispatched through a mobile phone application to deliver on behalf of retail stores to customers at their homes and businesses. The suit also names Roche Bros., a local retail grocery chain that utilizes the Grocery Runners platform. Sears worked for Grocery Runners from December of 2022 to April of 2023. The suit claims that under Massachusetts law, Grocery Runners must treat its drivers as employees, including paying minimum wage, overtime pay and certain expenses. However, the suit alleges, Grocery Runner pays runners either a flat rate of $200 per day or a set rate per delivery. The suit maintains that drivers often work 45 hours per week or more but do not receive any overtime pay for hours worked over 40 per week. Because Grocery Runners classifies them as independent contractors, the drivers pay for certain job expenses "normally borne by employers," including expenses for their vehicles, gas, phone, and data plan, according to the complaint. In light of the expenses that Grocery Runners drivers bear in order to perform their jobs, drivers' hourly wages sometimes fall below the Massachusetts minimum wage, the suit claims. Grocery Runners issued weekly "invoices" that the suit claims do not accurately record the time worked by delivery drivers and show that the drivers did not receive full payment of customer tips. Effective January 1, 2023, the minimum wage in Massachusetts is $15.00 per hour, while the minimum hourly rate for workers who provide services to customers and who make more than $20 a month in tips is $6.75. The suit alleges violations of Massachusetts and federal labor laws and seeks certification of a class of drivers along with restitution of the alleged unpaid wages and tips, and damages. Grocery Runners has not yet replied to a request for comment or answered the complaint, which was filed in federal district court on July 21. Ballot Question Transportation and delivery network companies including Uber, Lyft, DoorDash and Instacart were dealt a setback in the state last year when the state's high court rejected their ballot proposals that sought to both cement their app-based drivers' status as independent contractors and shield themselves from liability for lawsuits stemming from their workers' actions. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ordered the two proposals removed from the November ballot on the grounds that they overreached in addressing two separate policy issues when state law requires subjects of a ballot referendum to be related. The court said the proposals not only fail the related subject test but also are presented in a way that could be confusing for voters. The courier and rideshare companies' proposal had promised they would provide a minimum level of compensation and benefits to app-based drivers without their employees being classified as employees, which would entitle them to a fuller menu of benefits and protections. The battle is not over. Bloomberg reported that the Massachusetts Coalition for Independent Work, backed by tech giants, has announced it will try again to get a measure on gig worker classification on the 2024 ballot.[GN] CHERISH PRODUCTIONS: Sears Seeks Unpaid Wages, Reimbursements ------------------------------------------------------------- THAYER D. SEARS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHERISH PRODUCTIONS, LLC d/b/a GROCERY RUNNERS and ROCHE BROS. INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-11629-PGL (D. Mass., July 21, 2023) arises from the Defendants' violations of the Massachusetts General Law and the federal Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay minimum wage and overtime premium to Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals, and failing to reimburse them for all work-related expenses. According to the complaint, the Defendants misclassified all delivery drivers as independent contractors when they are actually employees for the purposes of the Massachusetts wage laws. Plaintiff Thayer Sears is an adult resident of Natick, Massachusetts. He worked as a delivery driver for Defendants from approximately December 2022 to March or April of 2023. Cherish Productions, LLC, d/b/a Grocery Runners, is a merchandise delivery company that employs delivery drivers who are dispatched through a mobile phone application to deliver products from Roche Brothers and other retail stores to customers at their homes and businesses.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raymond Dinsmore, Esq. HAYBER, MCKENNA & DINSMORE, LLC One Monarch Place, Suite 1340 Springfield, MA 01144 Telephone: (413) 785-1400 E-mail: rdinsmore@hayberlawfirm.com - and - Harold L. Lichten, Esq. Matthew W. Thomson, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston St., Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com mthomson@llrlaw.com COUNTRY CLUB AT OTTERKILL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, McCree Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL P. McCREE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE COUNTRY CLUB AT OTTERKILL, LLC; JOSEPH BETRO; ERIN PASCUAL; and JOHN DOES, Defendants, Case No. 7:23-cv-06508 (S.D.N.Y., July 27, 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 McCree was employed by the Defendants as an executive chef. The Country Club at Otterkill is a Private Golf Club located in Campbell Hall, NY also known as the Hudson Valley region of upstate NY. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer Echevarria, Esq. ECHEVARRIA LAW, PLLC P.O. Box 1053 Warwick, NY 10990 Telephone: (845) 544-7644 Email: Jennifer@EchevarriaLawPLLC.com CYPRESS BAYSHORE: Tenants Sue Over Cancer-Causing Chemicals ----------------------------------------------------------- Caroline Reinwald at wisn.com reports that residents in a Glendale apartment complex have filed a class action lawsuit against the complex owners after elevated levels of a toxic, cancer-causing chemical were discovered inside. In July, the North Shore Health Department issued an emergency evacuation order for six units in Building 3 of the Lydell apartment complex after unsafe levels of trichloroethylene were discovered inside. According to the lawsuit filed, Lydell's owners, Cypress Bayshore Residential, LP., "knew Building 3 presented a higher risk for TCE exposure than other areas of the Lydell development." The lawsuit alleges Cypress knew about the risks because of testing done in 2021 on the historic landfill site, before construction on the luxury apartments started. "You have the (Department of Natural Resources) recommending that before buildings are occupied, that testing is completed. You also have an email indicating that occupancy was going to be done before testing was going to be performed for economic reasons," said Michael Cerjak, a founder and attorney for Barton Cerjak S.C. Documents obtained by WISN 12 News show the owners hired an outside firm to test for TCE. However, they did not get to Building 3 until June, after people moved in. Selamani Ngaruko is one of the tenants listed in the lawsuit. He said he lived in Building 3 at the newly-constructed luxury apartments for two months, before the complex informed him in June about the TCE levels. "I think being exposed to something like that and not have been informed upfront when I moved in, should have been something, that I feel, should have been told to me," Ngaruko said. "I feel now my health is in jeopardy down the road." Kate Vlahoulis is another tenant listed in the lawsuit. She sent WISN 12 News a written statement. "In my view, the health and safety of my family, and the health and safety of all the residents of our building at The Lydell, has been needlessly and recklessly endangered. I'm deeply concerned about my family's exposure to a toxin and the potential for long-term health effects. This should never have happened in the first place," the statement said. "For nearly three months, my family and I lived there, used the elevators and stairwells, and breathed in harmful vapors, while management downplayed the situation and told us not to worry. Ultimately, we made the decision to leave as soon as we could in order to protect our family. I believe The Lydell's owner Cypress needs to be held accountable for its actions. I also believe that we need to change the law so that a situation like this never happens to anyone ever again." The lawsuit also accuses Cypress of downplaying tenants' TCE exposure risk. In one email, dated June 14, a spokesperson for Cypress asked an environmental firm testing for TCE to re-write a proposed letter to tenants that does not "make it sound like the [tenants] have had a month-long exposure to the plague." The lawsuit goes on to accuse Cypress of misleading tenants, by saying the levels of TCE discovered in Building 3 were"'not a big deal' and that government officials were 'blowing the situation out of proportion.'" For residents like Ngaruko who do not live in the evacuated units, but still reside in Building 3, Lydell's owners offered to move residents to other apartments within the Lydell complex, or give them $500 to move elsewhere. "If you take the agreement and you take the $500, you are going to give up your claim to make any claim now or in the future, if you develop any adverse health care consequences," Cerjak said. "I think that's a scary proposition in a situation like this." "I wouldn't feel safe relocating (to another Lydell apartment), knowing what I know now," Ngaruko said. In response to WISN 12 news, Cypress Bayshore Residential said it is reviewing the allegations in the lawsuit and is not ready to respond at this time. Glendale's mayor, Bryan Kennedy, said the city issued a temporary occupancy permit for the Lydell Apartments, which sit on an old landfill site, but air quality is not part of city building inspections and oversight. "The city oversees the structure. We come in and we check the plumbing and the electrical and make sure that the balconies are all safe. The fire department goes in and they check to make sure that the fire systems are working, the sprinklers are working. We sign off on all of that," said Bryan Kennedy, Glendale's mayor. "The DNR would sign off on whether or not they were meeting the requirements for mitigating whatever contamination might have been below the surface." The DNR told WISN 12 News it does not have the authority to grant or take away occupancy. "Would it be accurate for us to say there is a gap that isn't being covered in this process," WISN 12 News investigative reporter Caroline Reinwald asked. "Yeah, absolutely. We're going to put in place, for our permitting, before we do a final signoff, we're going to look at, 'Has the DNR signed off?' Because we can say the building is structurally sound, but it's up to that contractor to make sure they've done the air quality testing or, in some cases, water quality testing, whether they've done their storm-water management system, and those are all signed off by the state. Those should be complete before a project is actually deemed complete," Kennedy said. "So we're going to have to work more closely with the state to make sure that something like this doesn't happen."[GN] DISCOVERY HOUSE: Fails to Provide Timely Meal Breaks, Jenkins Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ WILLIAM JENKINS, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. THE DISCOVERY HOUSE LLC, a California limited liability company, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV17920 (Cal. Super., July 31, 2023) sues the Defendant for failing to provide timely meal breaks, and failing to reimburse for required business expenses, in violation of the California Labor Code. The Defendant allegedly failed to maintain a policy and practice that always provides its employees with timely, uninterrupted 30-minute meal breaks. The Defendant also allegedly required the Plaintiff and Class Members to use their personal phones throughout their work shifts to communicate with other employees regarding work without providing any reimbursement. The Plaintiff also sues the Defendant for failing to pay all wages and penalty wages due on separation; failing to produce payroll records and personnel file; and for unlawful and unfair business practices. The class claims in this action are brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure seeking recovery for unpaid missed meal period penalty pay, unreimbursed business expenses, statutory and waiting time penalties, injunctive and other equitable relief, interest, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and proposed Class Members also seeks injunctive relief and restitution of all benefits the Defendant has received from their unlawful actions. The Plaintiff worked as an hourly, non-exempt employee of the Defendant until August 2020. Discovery House is an addiction treatment center in Southern California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nazo Koulloukian, Esq. KOUL LAW FIRM 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 761-5484 Facsimile: (818) 561-3938 E-mail: nazo@koullaw.com DNF ASSOCIATES: Judge Grants Motion to Dismiss FDCPA Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Gibb, writing for Accounts Recovery, reports that a District Court judge in Maryland has granted a defendant's motion to dismiss a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act class action after the defendants were accused of attempting to collect on unpaid debts without having the proper licenses to do so in the state. For anyone who has seen complaints against debt buyers, not having the proper license is a very frequent claim made by plaintiffs. A copy of the ruling in the case of Bittinger v. DNF Associates can be accessed by clicking here. The plaintiffs defaulted on credit card debts that were purchased by the defendants. The defendants hired a collection law firm to file lawsuits against the plaintiffs to recover the unpaid debts. The lawsuits caused the plaintiffs to suffer damages including mental anguish, emotional distress, difficulty sleeping, elevated stress levels, and extreme nervousness. The plaintiffs filed suit, alleging the defendants are not licensed under Maryland's Consumer Loan Law and Maryland's Sales Finance Company Licensing Law, and thus were not authorized to engage in any activity associated with attempting to collect on debts from individuals within the state of Maryland. In seeking to have the suit dismissed, the defendants argued they are not required to have either license. The Consumer Loan Law applies to anyone "in the business of making loans" which is not what the defendants did. The defendants purchased defaulted loans, they did not make new loans to the plaintiffs, noted Judge Theodore F. Chuang of the District Court for the District of Maryland. The Sales Finance Company Licensing Law, meanwhile, applied to retail credit transactions, among others, and the plaintiffs contend the defendants are engaged int he business of acquiring or investing in retail credit account transactions. But, after a lengthy review of the legislative history of the law and other cases invoking similar claims, Judge Chuang noted that the Maryland Collection Agency Licensing Act checklist includes debt buying activities whereas the Sales Finance Company checklist does not. "Considering the historical understanding of sales finance companies, the General Assembly's separate licensing regime for debt buyers in the MCALA. and the Commissioner's reinforcement of that separate arrangement, the Court concludes that the legislature did not intend for companies such as the Unlicensed Debt Buyer Clients to be subject to the SFCLL's licensing requirement," Judge Chuang wrote. [GN] DOMINO'S PIZZA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Arriola Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- THOMAS ARRIOLA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DOMINO'S PIZZA, LLC; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 8:23-cv-01358 (C.D. Cal., July 28, 2023) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, provide accurate wage statements, and to pay wages due upon termination of employment. Plaintiff Arriola was employed by the Defendants as a truck driver. DOMINO'S PIZZA, LLC owns and operates fast food restaurants. The Company delivers pizza and other fast food items. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aashish Y. Desai, Esq. Adrianne De Castro, Esq. DESAI LAW FIRM, P.C. 3200 Bristol St., Suite 650 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (949) 614-5830 Facsimile: (949) 271-4190 Email: aashish@desai-law.com adrianne@desai-law.com EOS ENERGY: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Business Statements ------------------------------------------------------------------ Robbins LLP reminds investors that a shareholder filed a class action against Eos Energy Enterprises, Inc. (NASDAQ: EOSE) on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or acquired EOS securities between May 9, 2022 and July 27, 2023. Eos claims it designs, develops, manufactures, and markets zinc-based energy storage solutions for utility-scale, microgrid, and commercial & industrial ("C&I") applications. For more information, submit a form, email Aaron Dumas, Jr., or give us a call at (800) 350-6003. What is this Case About: Eos Energy Enterprises, Inc. (EOSE) Made Misleading Statements Regarding its Financial Prospects According to the complaint, Eos was originally incorporated in Delaware in June 2019 as a special purpose acquisition company named B. Riley Principal Merger Corp. II ("B. Riley"). Upon the completion of the business combination of B. Riley and Eos Energy Storage, LLC on November 16, 2020, the Company changed its name to Eos Energy Enterprises, Inc. On July 27, 2023, during market hours, Iceberg Research ("Iceberg") published a report titled "62% Of $Eose's Backlog Is With Financially Distressed Bridgelink Whose Renewable Energy Assets Were Foreclosed And Auctioned Off In May." Therein, Iceberg alleged that, while the fate of Eos "rests on its touted 2.2 GWh energy storage system backlog, which EOS valued at $535 million at the end of March 2023," the backlog "is fake." On this news, the Company's stock price fell $0.83 per share, or 23.9%, to close at $2.65 per share on July 27, 2023. That same day, after the market closed, Eos attempted to address the statements made by Iceberg. On this news, the Company's stock price fell $0.39 per share, or 14.7%, to close at $2.26 per share on July 28, 2023. The complaint alleges that during the class period defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) Bridgelink Commodities, LLC is connected to a group whose assets were seized by a creditor and sold in an auction; (2) as such, Bridgelink's commitment and ability to purchase Eos products was not as secure as Eos had led investors to believe; (3) consequently, Eos's backlog was overstated; and (4) such overstatement negatively impacts Eos's ability to secure a loan from the Department of Energy. What Now: Similarly situated shareholders may be eligible to participate in the class action against Eos Energy Enterprises, Inc. Shareholders who want to act as lead plaintiff for the class should contact the firm. 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 Eos Energy Enterprises, Inc. settles or to receive free alerts when corporate executives engage in wrongdoing, sign up for Stock Watch today. Attorney Advertising. Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact: Aaron Dumas, Jr. Robbins LLP 5060 Shoreham Pl., Ste. 300 San Diego, CA 92122 adumas@robbinsllp.com (800) 350-6003 www.robbinsllp.com [GN] ESSILORLUXOTTICA SA: Monopolizes Eyewear Market, Fathmath Says -------------------------------------------------------------- ISHA FATHMATH, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ESSILORLUXOTTICA S.A., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-03626 (N.D. Cal., July 21, 2023) arises from the Defendants' anticompetitive and unfair business practices in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, the Cartwright Act, and the California Unfair Competition Law. This class action for damages and equitable relief arises from EssilorLuxottica and other Defendants' unlawful conduct in the non-contact-lens consumer eyewear market. The Defendants have entered into unlawful agreements to fix the price of consumer eyewear at supra-competitive rates. Spefically, EssilorLuxottica serves as the instigator and primary enforcer of a national price-fixing scheme in the consumer eyewear market with Defendants Frames for America, Inc., For Eyes Optical Company, Inc., Costa Del Mar, Inc., Oakley, Inc, the Fashion Houses, the Competing Eyewear Entities, and other entities. EssilorLuxottica has formed exclusive licensing agreements and sales agreements with its horizontal competitors in the consumer eyewear market to manipulate and artificially inflate the price of eyewear by as much as 1000 percent for Defendants' collective financial benefit. To further this price-fixing scheme, EssilorLuxottica, through its vision benefits subsidiary EyeMed, has also formed anticompetitive agreements with thousands of American eyecare providers to unfairly channel millions of consumers into purchasing the conglomerate's over-priced eyewear, alleges the suit. The Plaintiff and millions of other consumers have suffered losses as a direct and proximate result of Defendants' alleged unlawful conduct and are entitled to relief including but not limited to actual damages, treble damages, equitable relief, and reasonable costs and attorneys' fees. EssilorLuxottica S.A. sells and distributes consumer eyewear brands in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Merriman, Esq. HILGERS GRABEN PLLC 655 West Broadway, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 369-6232 E-mail: mmerriman@hilgersgraben.com - and - Alec Schultz, Esq. HILGERS GRABEN PLLC 1221 Brickell Avenue, Suite 900 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 630-8304 E-mail: aschultz@hilgersgraben.com - and - Hadyn Pettersen, Esq. HILGERS GRABEN PLLC 1320 Lincoln Mall, Suite 200 Lincoln, NE 68508 Telephone: (402) 356-5574 E-mail: hpettersen@hilgersgraben.com FEDERAL ENVELOPE: Illegally Collects Fingerprints, Pearl Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ LARRY PEARL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FEDERAL ENVELOPE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 2023LA000796 (Ill. Cir. Ct., DuPage Cty., July 28, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). According to the complaint, the Defendant violated the BIPA by collecting and storing its employees' fingerprints without (1) notifying employees the practice is taking place; (2) informing employees of how the practice is implemented; (3) obtaining written consent from the employees to collect and store their biometric data; (4) maintaining their employees' biometric data in a sufficiently secure manner; and (5) maintaining a publicly available disclosure of how the biometric data will be handled and destroyed. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of class members to obtain statutory damages and injunctive relief. Federal Envelope Company is a paper and forest products company headquartered in Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is 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 E-mail: rlc@beaumontcostales.com whb@beaumontcostales.com FLORIDA HEALTH: Dipierro Sues Over Unprotected Health Info ---------------------------------------------------------- ANGELICA DIPIERRO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FLORIDA HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER, INC. d/b/a TAMPA GENERAL HOSPITAL, a Florida corporation, Defendant, Case No. 177989818 (Fla. Cir., 13th Judicial, Hillsborough Cty., July 21, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, and violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, seeking an award of monetary damages and injunctive and declaratory relief, resulting from Defendant's failure to adequately protect the Plaintiff's personally identifiable information and protected health information. According to the complaint, on May 31, 2023, the Defendant detected unusual activity in its computer systems and ultimately determined that an unauthorized third party accessed its network and obtained certain files from its systems between May 12 and May 30, 2023. As a result of the data breach, which Defendant failed to prevent, the private information of Defendant's patients, including Plaintiff and the proposed Class members, were stolen, including their names, addresses, phone numbers, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, health insurance information, medical record numbers, patient account numbers, dates of service and/or limited treatment information used by Defendant for its business operations, the suit asserts. The Defendant's failure to protect patients' private information has harmed and will continue to harm over one million of Defendants' patients, causing Plaintiff to seek relief on a class wide basis, claims the suit. Florida Health Sciences Center, Inc. is a Tampa, Florida-headquartered private not-for-profit hospital.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Ostrow, Esq. Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq. Steven Sukert, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com cardoso@kolawyers.com sukert@kolawyers.com FRANKLIN MINT: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Harris Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL HARRIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FRANKLIN MINT FEDERAL CREDIT UNION (FMFCU), Case No. 2:23-cv-02933-JMY (E.D. Pa., July 31, 2023) alleges that due to FMFCU's impermissibly inadequate data security, the personal identifying information of the Plaintiff and 140,963 similarly situated persons were exfiltrated by unauthorized access by cybercriminals on June 28, 2023. The Plaintiff contends that the cybercriminals who perpetrated the Breach are part of the Clop crime group. The exfiltrated data included individuals' names and Social Security numbers. As evidenced by the Data Breach, FMFCU inadequately maintained its network, platform, software, and technology partners -- rendering these easy prey for cybercriminals. Then, after the Data Breach, FMFCU failed to provide timely notice to the affected the Plaintiff and Class Members -- thereby exacerbating their injuries. FMFCU deprived Plaintiff and Class Members of the chance to take speedy measures to protect themselves and mitigate harm, the Plaintiff claims. Even when FMFCU finally notified Plaintiff and Class Members of their PII's exfiltration, FMFCU failed to adequately describe the Data Breach and its effects, the Plaintiff adds. The Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered -- and will continue to suffer -- from the loss of the benefit of their bargain, unexpected out-of-pocket expenses, lost or diminished value of their PII, emotional distress, and the value of their time reasonably incurred to mitigate the fallout of the Data Breach. The Plaintiff seeks remedies including compensatory damages, treble damages, punitive damages, reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs, and injunctive relief -- including improvements to FMFCU's data security systems, future annual audits, and adequate credit monitoring services funded by FMFCU. Mr. Harris is a natural person and resident and citizen of Pennsylvania. He has no intention of moving to a different state in the immediate future. FMFCU has provided financial products and services to its members in the greater Philadelphia region and beyond since 1970.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: K. Clancy Boylan, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN PHILADELPHIA, PLLC 2005 Market Street, Suite 350 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 446-9795 Facsimile: (215) 446-9799 E-mail: cboylan@forthepeople.com - and - John A. Yanchunis, Esq. Marcio W. Valladares, Esq. Ra O. Amen, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 North Franklin Street 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 Facsimile: (813) 223-5402 E-mail: JYanchunis@forthepeople.com MValladares@forthepeople.com Ramen@forthepeople.com FRESENIUS MEDICAL: Underpays Registered Nurses, Schuman Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT SCHUMAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FRESENIUS MEDICAL CARE HOLDINGS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-05731 (E.D.N.Y., July 28, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the New York Labor Law. Mr. Schuman was employed by Fresenius as a registered nurse (RN) at Fresenius' dialysis clinic in Centereach, New York from approximately October 2019 until October 2022. Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc. is an owner and operator of dialysis clinics, with its headquarters in Waltham, Massachusetts. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph A. Fitapelli, Esq. Dana Cimera, Esq. FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER LLP 28 Liberty St., 30th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 300-0375 - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com - and - William C. (Clif) Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER PLLC 101 N. Shoreline Blvd., Suite 610 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Frontier Communications Parent, Inc. (NASDAQ: FYBR) resulting from allegations that Frontier Communications may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. SO WHAT: If you purchased Frontier Communications 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=17738 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 14, 2023, The Wall Street Journal issued an article entitled "I Was Really Sick, And I Didn't Know From What", which discussed illnesses affecting telecoms workers who have been exposed to toxic lead. On this news, Frontier Communications stock declined by $1.93 per share, or 11.9%, to close at $14.31 on July 14, 2023. On July 17, 2023, The Wall Street Journal released an article entitled "Environmental Groups Ask Epa To Shield Public From Abandoned Lead Cables", which discussed how environmental groups were requesting that the EPA respond to the reports that telecom companies such as Frontier Communications were leaving toxic lead cables around the country. On this news, Frontier Communications stock fell a further $2.26, or 15%, to close at $12.05 on July 17, 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.[GN] HAYWARD HOLDINGS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Oct. 2 ---------------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of common stock of Hayward Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: HAYW) between March 2, 2022 and July 27, 2022, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October 2, 2023. SO WHAT: If you purchased Hayward securities during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Hayward class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=17699 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October 2, 2023. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Hayward Holdings and its management had engaged in a channel-stuffing scheme designed to artificially boost Hayward Holdings' short-term sales and earnings; (2) Hayward Holdings had flooded its channel partners with inventory that they did not want or need at a level that far outpaced then-existing consumer demand; (3) Hayward Holdings' channel partners were suffering from an inventory glut as a result of the channel-stuffing scheme that would require a massive de-stocking in the second half of 2022; (4) Hayward Holdings' channel-stuffing scheme had cannibalized future sales, materially impairing Hayward Holdings' ability to sell to its customers; (5) the demand for pool equipment had slowed down, which, combined with flooding channel partners with more inventory, led to an inventory glut and the need for these channel partners to reduce inventory levels; and (6) as a result of the above, Hayward Holdings' projected 2022 financial results were not achievable and lacked a reasonable basis in fact. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. To join the Hayward class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=17699 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. [GN] HENRY FORD: Tabbs Sues Over Failure to Protect Patients' Info ------------------------------------------------------------- BRIANA TABBS, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Henry Ford Health System, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-11758-GCS-CI (D. Mich., July 21, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of confidence, declaratory relief, and violation of Michigan's Data Breach Prompt Notification Law. This class action arises from the recent targeted cyberattack and data breach on Henry Ford's network that resulted in unauthorized access to highly sensitive patient health information and personal data. The Plaintiff brings this class action against Henry Ford for its failure to secure and safeguard her and approximately 168,000 other patients' personally identifiable information(PII) and personal health information(PHI). Henry Ford concedes that the PHI and PII potentially accessed in the data breach includes: "name, gender, date of birth, age, lab results, procedure type, diagnosis, date of service, telephone number, medical record number and/or internal tracking number," says the suit. As a result, Plaintiff and Class Members suffered ascertainable losses in the form of the loss of the benefit of their bargain, out-of-pocket expenses, and the value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the attack, emotional distress, and the imminent risk of future harm caused by the compromise of their sensitive personal information, the suit claims. Henry Ford Health System is an integrated, not-for-profit health care organization in Metro Detroit, Michigan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq. E. Powell Miller, Esq. Melvin Hollowell, Esq. THE MILLER LAW FIRM 950 W. University Drive, Ste 300 Rochester, MI 48307 Telephone: (248) 841-2200 E-mail: ssa@millerlawpc.com epm@millerlawpc.com mbh@millerlawpc.com - and - Jonathan Shub, Esq. Benjamin F. Johns, Esq. Samantha E. Holbrook, Esq. SHUB & JOHNS LLC Four Tower Bridge 200 Barr Harbor Drive, Suite 400 Conshohocken, PA 19428 Telephone: (610) 477-8380 E-mail: jshub@shublawyers.com bjohns@shublawyers.com sholbrook@shublawyers.com HERITAGE VALLEY: Bowen Sues Over Patients' Unprotected Health Info ------------------------------------------------------------------ TIFFANIE BOWEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HERITAGE VALLEY HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-01320-CB (W.D. Pa., July 21, 2023) is a class action brought against the Defendant on behalf of the Plaintiff and similarly situated patients affected on the HVHS's unauthorized disclosure of their sensitive protected health information to Meta Platforms, Inc. in violation of the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act According to the complaint, between approximately July 2018 and May 2023, HVHS procured and embedded an invisible 1x1 tracking pixel on its website and subpages, which then deployed on each website visitor's Internet browser for the purposes of intercepting and disclosing website visitor's electronic communications with HVHS's website to Meta. When HVHS intentionally embedded the Meta Pixel on its website, and without its patients' knowledge or consent, HVHS shared with Meta every patient's interaction with its website. Meta then aggregated this data across all websites in order to build a dossier of that patient's activity, labeled with the patient's IP address, and matched to the patient's Facebook and/or Instagram account, says the suit. As described throughout the complaint, HVHS did not reasonably protect, secure, or store Plaintiff and Class Members' PHI, but rather intentionally and knowingly granted Meta access to confidential information that it knew or should have known was unlawful, the suit asserts. Heritage Valley Health System, Inc. provides healthcare, emergency care, paediatrics and surgical services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary F. Lynch, Esq. Nicholas A. Colella, Esq. Patrick D. Donathen, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1133 Penn Ave., 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 E-mail: gary@lcllp.com nickc@lcllp.com patrick@lcllp.com HOAG MEMORIAL: Appeals Remand Order in Davis Suit to 9th Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN is taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiff's motion to remand in the lawsuit entitled Kelly Davis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, Defendant, Case No. 8:23-cv-00772-CJC-ADS, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff alleges that Hoag conspires with Facebook to intercept communications containing personally identifiable information, protected health information, and related confidential information. Hoag removed the case to the District Court under the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. Section 1442(a)(1). When it removed the case, Hoag noted that it is related to another case before the District Court, Doe v. Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, Case No. SACV 23-04444-CJC (ADSx) ("Doe"), in which Hoag made the same arguments regarding applicability of the federal officer removal statute under similar circumstances. The day before Hoag removed this case, the Court granted a motion to remand in Doe, explaining that the federal officer removal statute did not apply. On May 19, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case to Orange County Superior Court, which the Court granted through an Order entered by Judge Cormac J. Carney. on June 23, 2023. Judge Carney helds that Hoag has not shown that it acted under the direction of a federal officer or agency. Further, mere compliance with federal regulations, even if the regulation is highly detailed and even if the private firm's activities are highly supervised and monitored, does not fall within the scope of Section 1442(a). Thus, while the Meaningful Use program may subject private entities like Hoag to some degree of government control, simply complying with a law or regulation is not enough to bring a private person within the scope of the statute. In short, Hoag has established only that it is subject to "highly detailed" regulations and that its activities are highly supervised and monitored. That is not sufficient to invoke federal officer removal. Therefore, the Plaintiff's motion to remand was granted. The action was remanded to the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange. The appellate case is captioned Kelly Davis v. Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, Case No. 23-55649, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on July 24, 2023. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Mediation Questionnaire was due on July 31, 2023; -- Appellant Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian opening brief is due on September 19, 2023; -- Appellee Kelly Davis answering brief is due on October 19, 2023; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellee KELLY DAVIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Lawrence Timothy Fisher, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, PA 1990 N. California Boulevard, Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Defendant-Appellant HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN is represented by: Dyanne J. Cho, Esq. Teresa Carey Chow, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER, LLP 11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 979-8418 (310) 820-8800 - and - Alexander Vitruk, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 999 3rd Avenue, Suite 3900 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 566-7092 HOTEL PIERRE: Fails to Properly Pay Hotel Staff, Serrano Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- YELIAN SERRANO SUAREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HOTEL PIERRE, LLC t/a NOTEBOOK HOTEL, SECRET GARDEN MIAMI BEACH HOTEL, and BEROURIA ABERGEL, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-22827 (S.D. Fla., July 28, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff and Class members were employed by the Defendants to perform maintenance work at their hotels. Hotel Pierre, LLC is the owner and operator of Notebook Hotel located at 216 43rd Street, Miami Beach, Florida. Secret Garden Miami Beach Hotel is a hotel owner and operator, located at 4210 Collins Avenue, Miami Beach, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan S. Minick, Esq. JONATHAN S. MINICK, P.A. 169 E. Flagler St., Suite 1600 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (786) 441-8909 Facsimile: (786) 523-0610 E-mail: E-mail: jminick@jsmlawpa.com HUB CYBER: Faces Green Suit Over Alleged Drop in Share Price ------------------------------------------------------------ DUSTIN GREEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HUB CYBER SECURITY LTD. f/k/a HUB CYBER SECURITY (ISRAEL) LTD.; EYAL MOSHE; HUGO GOLDMAN; UZI MOSCOVICH; ZEEV ZELL; MOSHE RAINES; MANISH AGARWAL; and MOTI FRANKO, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-06668 (S.D.N.Y., July 31, 2023) is a federal securities class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and a class consisting of all: (a) Legacy HUB stockholders who acquired the Company's common stock through Legacy HUB's merger (the "Merger") with Mount Rainier Acquisition Corp. ("Mount Rainier"); (b) Mount Rainier investors who acquired the Company's securities pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering Documents (as defined below) issued in connection with the Merger; and/or (c) persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Mount Rainier or U.S.-listed HUB securities between March 23, 2022 and June 13, 2023, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933 ("Securities Act") and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act"). The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the reports submitted by the Defendants to the Securities and Exchange Commission were negligently prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material fact or omitted to state other facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading and were not prepared in accordance with the rules and regulations governing their preparation. Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and compliance policies. As of the time this Complaint was filed, HUB's stock was trading significantly below its Initial Closing Price and continues to trade below its initial value from the Merger, damaging investors, says the suit. As a result of the Defendants' alleged wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. HUB CYBER SECURITY LTD. f/k/a HUB CYBER SECURITY (ISRAEL) LTD. offers a broad portfolio of cybersecurity services and solutions worldwide, including managed services, compliance, and confidential computing. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. James M. LoPiano, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (917) 463-1044 Email: ahood@pomlaw.com jalieberman@pomlaw.com jlopiano@pomlaw.com HUMANA INC: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Murphy Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------------- CARLOS HERRERA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HUMANA, INC., Defendant, Case No. HUD-L-002669-23 07/28/2023 (N.J. Sup., Hudson Cty., July 28, 2023) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's website, https://www.humana.com/, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Humana Inc. operates as a managed health care company. The Company offers coordinated health care through health maintenance organizations, point-of-service plans, and administrative services products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Zemel, Esq. ZEMEL LAW LLC 660 Broadway Paterson, NJ 07514 Telephone: (862) 227-3106 Email: dz@zemellawllc.com ILLINOIS: Faces NIFLA Class Suit Over Life-Affirming Organizations ------------------------------------------------------------------ NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FAMILY AND LIFE ADVOCATES; WOMEN'S HELP SERVICES D/B/A 1ST WAY LIFE CENTER & FOCUS WOMEN'S CENTER; ROCKFORD FAMILY INITIATIVE; RELEVANT PREGNANCY OPTIONS CENTER; and PRO-LIFE ACTION LEAGUE, on behalf of themselves and their clients v. KWAME RAOUL, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of Illinois, Case No. 3:23-cv-50279 (N.D. Ill., July 27, 2023) seeks to protect the right of life-affirming pregnancy help ministries to continue their meaningful and important work of providing compassionate and competent advice, care, and support to the thousands of women facing difficult or untimely pregnancies across the State of Illinois each year. The State of Illinois enacted Senate Bill 1909 (SB1909), which amended the Deceptive Business Practices Act with new provisions targeting life-affirming organizations' alleged "unfair methods of competition or unfair or deceptive acts or practices." SB1909 subjects the Plaintiffs to investigations, subpoenas, fines, injunctions, and even dissolution because of the pro-life content and viewpoint of their speech and because they are life-affirming organizations. SB1909 further subjects them to civil liability. Despite the obvious benefit that life-affirming organizations like the Plaintiffs provide to their community, SB1909 threatens to silence all religious and pro-life speech on the issues of pregnancy, motherhood, and abortion with which the State disagrees. If not for SB1909, the Plaintiffs and their agents, including their staff and volunteers, would freely engage in protected speech, without hesitancy or fear of government punishment. Instead, the Plaintiffs are unable to freely publish or display their desired outreach materials without fear of government penalty, the Plaintiffs claim. The Plaintiffs are currently suffering ongoing harm because of SB1909. Specifically, SB1909 infringes on the Plaintiffs' rights under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment by chilling, deterring, and restricting the Plaintiffs' protected speech. To prevent imminent and irreparable harm to these essential constitutional rights, the Plaintiffs ask for this Court's immediate intervention to declare SB1909 unconstitutional and enjoin its enforcement. Plaintiff National Institute of Family and Life Advocates is a non-profit membership organization comprised of a network of both medical and non-medical centers providing pro-life information services to women in unplanned pregnancies. Women's Help Services is a Christian organization that empowers women by providing them with information and education for prenatal development, child birthing, parenting, and child development. Defendant Kwame Raoul is the Attorney General of Illinois. He is authorized to enforce SB1909, which his office drafted, at his personal direction.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Peter Breen, Esq. Michael G. McHale, Esq. Thomas L. Brejcha, Esq. Joan M. Mannix, Esq. B. Tyler Brooks, Esq. THOMAS MORE SOCIETY 309 W Washington St, Ste 1250 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 782-1680 E-mail: tbrejcha@thomasmoresociety.org pbreen@thomasmoresociety.org jmannix@thomasmoresociety.org mmchale@thomasmoresociety.org tbrooks@thomasmoresociety.org ISLAND FEDERAL: Charges Multiple Overdraft Fees, Wykle Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- PATRICK WYKLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ISLAND FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-05722 (E.D.N.Y., July 28, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, and violations of New York General Business Law. The case arises from the Defendant's routine practice of assessing multiple overdraft fees and insufficient funds fees on an item. The Defendant misleadingly and deceptively misrepresents its fee practices including, upon information and belief, in its take-it-or-leave-it form adhesion contract. Had the Plaintiff and Class members known they could be charged the above-described deceptive fees, they would have attempted to avoid incurring such fees, says the suit. Island Federal Credit Union is a credit union with its principal place of business in Suffolk County, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James J. Bilsborrow, Esq. WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C. 700 Broadway New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 558-5500 E-mail: jbilsborrow@weitzlux.com - and - Christopher D. Jennings, Esq. Tyler B. Ewigleben, Esq. Winston S. Hudson, Esq. JOHNSON FIRM 610 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 300 Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 372-1300 E-mail: chris@yourattorney.com tyler@yourattorney.com winston@yourattorney.com JAG PAVING: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Rivera Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- EDGAR RIVERA, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated who were employed by JAG PAVING CORP. and/or any other entities affiliated with, controlling, or controlled by JAG PAVING CORP, ERNESTINE REYES, individually, and LORENA LUGO, individually v. JAG PAVING CORP. and/or any other entities affiliated with, controlling, or controlled by JAG PAVING CORP., ERNESTINE REYES, individually, and LORENA LUGO, individually, Case No. 2:23-cv-04032 (D.N.J., July 27, 2023) seeks to recover statutory wage and overtime payments pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law, the New Jersey State Wage Payment Law, and the New Jersey State Prevailing Wage Act. The Plaintiff and the members of the putative class worked on numerous privately financed projects and publicly financed projects pursuant to contracts with various government entities. The Public Works Projects were undertaken and performed by the Corporate Defendant in accordance with the terms and conditions of certain "Public Works Contracts" entered into with the Government Entities between July 27, 2017, and the present, the lawsuit says. The Defendants knowingly and willfully failed to pay the Plaintiffs at one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all of his overtime worked in a work week. The Defendants willfully failed to pay Plaintiffs the statutorily required overtime compensation for the time he worked in excess of 40 hours a week for the Defendants on both the New Jersey Public Works Projects and on the Private Projects, the lawsuit claims. The Defendants willfully paid the Plaintiffs less than the prevailing rates of wages and supplemental benefits to which the Plaintiffs were entitled for the labor which the Plaintiffs furnished to the Defendants on the sites of the Public Work, the lawsuit adds. The Plaintiff was employed full time as a paving laborer performing paving related work for the Defendants from 2012 through June 2023. Jag Paving is a contractor that is providing a wide range of services for all your paving needs.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew I. Glenn, Esq. Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq. JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A. 300 Carnegie Center, Suite 150 Princeton, NJ 08540 Telephone: (201) 687-9977 Facsimile: (201) 595-0308 E-mail: Aglenn@JaffeGlenn.com Jjaffe@JaffeGlenn.com JAZEERA RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Melendez Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- NORIS MELENDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JAZEERA RESTAURANT INC.; and "JOHN DOE", Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-05694 (E.D.N.Y., July 27, 2023) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a cook. JAZEERA RESTAURANT INC. operates a restaurant located at 37 West John Street, Hicksville, New York 11801. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Farnworth, Esq. Peter A. Romero, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC 490 Wheeler Road, Suite 250 Hauppauge, NY 11788 Telephone: (631) 257-5588 Email: mfarnworth@romerolawny.com JOYY INC: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims ------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Aug. 4 announced an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of JOYY Inc. (NASDAQ: YY) resulting from allegations that JOYY may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. SO WHAT: If you purchased JOYY 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=17590 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On May 31, 2023, JOYY announced their first quarter 2023 unaudited financial results. The average mobile monthly active users ("MAUs") of Likee decreased by 27.4% to 44.9 million from 61.8 million in the corresponding period of 2022, primarily due to reduced spending on user acquisition via advertisement. The Average mobile MAUs of Hago decreased by 36.5% to 5.9 million from 9.3 million in the corresponding period of 2022, primarily due to reduced spending on user acquisition via advertisement. The net revenue was a reported $583.6 million, compared to $623.8 million in the corresponding period of 2022. On this news, the price of JOYY's American Depository Shares ("ADS") fell $2.07 per ADS, or 7.82%, to close at $24.39 on May 31, 2023. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] JRCRUZ CORP: Thomas Appeals Court Order to N.Y. Appellate Division ------------------------------------------------------------------ LATISHA THOMAS is taking an appeal from a court order entered April 12, 2023 in her lawsuit entitled LATISHA THOMAS, AIESHAI LONDON and JAY SIMMONS, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. JRCRUZ CORP., Defendant, Case No. 511297/2020 (N.Y. Sup., Kings Cty., June 30, 2020). As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, this is an action brought by the Plaintiff to recover unpaid prevailing wages, daily overtime and supplemental benefits which she and the members of the putative Class were entitled to receive for work, including weekend, evening and holiday work, they performed pursuant to contracts entered into between Defendants and public entities, including, but not limited to, New York City Department of Transportation ("DOT") and New York City Department of Design and Construction ("DDC") which required payment of prevailing wages. Jrcruz Corp. is a New Jersey-based heavy construction company. Plaintiffs are former construction flaggers who worked for Defendant on public projects on New York City roadways. Throughout their employment with Defendant, Plaintiffs were not paid the applicable prevailing rate of wages or supplemental benefits for all hours that they worked on water main, sewer and other public works projects on New York City roadways, says the complaint. Plaintiffs also bring claims for Defendants' failure to provide proper wage notices pursuant to New York Labor Law. The appellate case is captioned Latisha Thomas et al vs. JRCRUZ Corp. et al., Case No. 23-06144, in the Second Judicial Department of New York Appellate Division, filed on July 24, 2023. [BN] Defendants-Respondents JRCRUZ CORP., et al., are represented by: Casey Jonathan Rahn, Esq. 733 3rd Ave. Fl. 15, New York, NY 10017 LENOVO UNITED: Augustine Sues Over Third Party Access to Info ------------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Brown at news.bloomberglaw.com reports that Lenovo United States Inc. must face a proposed class action alleging it installed code on its website that allowed a third-party to record user activities in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act. Plaintiff Ophelia Augustine provided sufficient foundation at the pleading stage for her claim that Lenovo intercepted her communications without her consent, and that the third-party provider of the code, Quantum Metric Inc., took an independent role in the interception, Judge M. James Lorenz of the US District Court for the Southern District of California said in rejecting Lenovo's bid for dismissal of the lawsuit. [GN] LIVE NATION: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), on Aug. 4 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, captioned Donley v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., et al., Case No. 23-cv-6343, on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. ("Live Nation" or the "Company") (NYSE: LYV) securities between February 23, 2022 and July 28, 2023, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). Investors are hereby notified that they have 60 days from the date of this notice to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this action. If you suffered a loss on your Live Nation investments or would like to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact information at www.glancylaw.com/cases/Live-Nation-Entertainment-Inc-1/. You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights. On November 18, 2022, The New York Times reported that the DOJ had opened an antitrust investigation into Ticketmaster and Live Nation after the ticketing platform's systems crashed during a highly-anticipated presale for Taylor Swift tickets. The ensuing chaos of disappointed "Swifties" highlighted Live Nation's power over the live music industry, exacerbating complaints that the Company has "constrained competition and harmed consumers." On this news, Live Nation's stock price fell $5.64, or 7.8%, to close at $66.21 per share on November 18, 2022, on unusually heavy trading volume. Then, on February 23, 2023 at 3:30 p.m. Eastern time, NPR reported that, following Congressional hearings, the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Competition Policy, Antitrust, and Consumer Rights wrote to the DOJ, presenting evidence that "Live Nation is harming America's music industry." The letter cited issues with Live Nation's pricing models and fees, increasingly long contracts with competitors, and retaliatory behavior against artists and venues that don't want to work with it. The senators "encourage[d]" the DOJ to take action if it found Live Nation had "walled itself off from competitive pressure at the expense of the industry and fans." On this news, Live Nation's stock price fell $7.71, or 10.1%, to close at $68.78 per share on February 24, 2023, on unusually heavy trading volume. Then, on July 28, 2023 at 3:13 p.m. Eastern time, Politico reported that the DOJ "could file an antitrust lawsuit against [Live Nation and Ticketmaster] by the end of the year, according to three people with knowledge of the matter." Politico further reported that the DOJ complaint is expected to allege that "the entertainment giant is abusing its power over the live music industry." On this news, Live Nation's stock price fell $7.60, or 7.8%, to close at $89.33 per share on July 28, 2023, on unusually heavy trading volume. The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that Live Nation engaged in anticompetitive conduct, including charging high fees and extended contracts with talent, and retaliated against venues; (2) that, as a result, Live Nation was reasonably likely to incur regulatory scrutiny and face fines, penalties, and reputational harm; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Live Nation securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than 60 days from the date of this notice to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. Contacts Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles Charles H. Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 www.glancylaw.com shareholders@glancylaw.com [GN] MASSACHUSETTS: Parole Board Faces Discrimination Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Tom Marino, writing for This Week in Worcester, reports that a new lawsuit claims the Massachusetts Parole Board consistently denies equal access to parole to incarcerated people with disabilities. The Parole Board allegedly systematically deprives individuals with mental health disabilities of the opportunity to effectively present their case for parole. Three plaintiffs, all identified as John Doe, are named as plaintiffs. The complaint also seeks to establish class-action status on behalf of incarcerated individuals in Massachusetts "with mental health conditions, cognitive challenges, and other mental disabilities." The complaint, filed in June in Suffolk County Superior Court, claims that parole in Massachusetts is "significantly diminished or denied entirely," due to the Parole Board's "ongoing failure to provide the accommodations necessary to ensure meaningful access to the parole process and fair consideration for parole by the Board." Title Two of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) "and parallel state provisions prohibit the Defendant from engaging in practices that effectively deny equal access to parole to incarcerated people with disabilities," according to the complaint. It also claims the Parole Board defies a 2017 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) decision in Crowell vs. Massachusetts Parole Board. According to the Harvard Law Review, the SJC ruled in Crowell that "that the ADA requires that the Parole Board (the Board) reasonably modify its policies to accommodate incarcerated persons with disabilities." The complaint says the Parole Board maintains its discriminatory policies and practices in at least 12 ways the Parole Board fails to comply with or is inadequate in its responsibilities under ADA and Crowell, which include: -- Failed to establishing procedures to screen for mental disabilities; -- Failed to identify and making available reasonable accommodations; -- Assigning counsel in a timely manner, or at all; -- Unfairly penalizing parole candidates for conduct, appearance, and/or presentation caused by their disability during parole hearings; -- Failed to provide assistance in developing a release plan and identifying post-release programming before a parole hearing; -- Failed to ensure professional evaluation of mental conditions; -- Failed to consider how mental disabilities can affect a candidate's conduct, disciplinary history, and/or ability to access prison programming, work, or educational opportunities during incarceration; -- Failed to consider how a candidate's disability could affect behavior during parole hearings (which can last three hours) and on parole; -- Failed to coordinate with the Department of Corrections to ensure access to rehabilitative and educational programs the Board may determine are needed; -- Failed to coordinate with Departments of Mental Health, Public Health, and Developmental Services to ensure candidates qualified for parole with specific services do not remain incarcerated because services are not available or available but not offered (due to the Board's failure to coordinate); and -- Failed to consider the availability of "risk reduction programs designed to reduce recidivism" that could allow the parole candidate with mental disabilities to safely reenter the community, as the SJC required in Crowell. The three plaintiffs in the case are: * A 58-year-old man incarcerated for 38 years who has been eligible for parole since 2004; * A 42-year-old man incarcerated for 22 year and eligible for parole since 2016; and * A 65-year-old man incarcerated for 43 years an eligible for parole since 2004. This is the second time since December 2021 the Parole Board has been accused of violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On December 17, 2021, the U.S. Attorney's office for the District of Massachusetts announced a settlement with the Massachusetts Parole Board. The Department of Justice alleged that the Parole Board discriminated against parolees and prospective parolees with Opioid Abuse Disorder by requiring they take the prescription drug Vivitrol, the brand name for Naltrexone manufactured by Alkermes, instead of requiring they comply with their health care provider's recommended treatment. The Parole Board was not required to take responsibility or admit wrongdoing in the settlement, but was required to write and implement a new policy under monitoring by the Department of Justice. [GN] METROSPEEDY OPERATIONS: Fails to Pay Drivers' OT Wages, Roman Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ JUAN ROMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. METROSPEEDY OPERATIONS, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-06520 (S.D.N.Y., July 27, 2023) alleges that the Defendant misclassified the Delivery Drivers as "independent contractors," and failed to pay overtime premiums for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours within a workweek, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The Defendant allegedly failed to record or compensate Delivery Drivers' for off-the-clock hours worked; unlawfully deducted business expenses; unlawfully withheld gratuities; failed to provide wage notices at the time of hiring; failed to provide accurate wage statements on each payday that includes the information required by the NYLL, including the actual number of hours worked during the pay period; and failed to maintain proper recordkeeping practices, all in violation of the NYLL. As a Delivery Driver, Mr. Roman spent at least 25% of his time engaged in physical labor, which included loading and unloading hundreds of pre-packaged meals in and out of a minivan or SUV and carrying such pre-packaged meals into homes, apartment buildings, or commercial buildings, many without elevator service. The Collective is made up of all persons who are or have been employed by the Defendants as Delivery Drivers anywhere in the United States within the period of the past three years from this action's filing date through the date of the final disposition of this action. The Class(es) are made up of all persons who are or have been employed by the Defendant as Delivery Drivers in New York State within the period of six years prior to the filing date. The Plaintiffs seek relief for the Collective under the FLSA and for the Classes pursuant to the applicable provisions of the NYLL. Mr. Roman was a Delivery Driver with MetroSpeedy from October 2021 until October 2022. MetroSpeedy is a technology-based delivery company that provides on-demand, same day, or scheduled delivery services of small to medium-sized packages for businesses.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Q. Davis, Esq. Rachel M. Haskell, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER Q. DAVIS 80 Broad Street, Suite 703 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (646) 430-7930 Facsimile: (646) 349-2504 MICROSOFT CORP: Intercepts Internet Browsing Data, Saeedy Says -------------------------------------------------------------- NOAH SAEEDY, VISHAL SHAH, TINA WILKINSON, and M.S., individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, a Washington Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-01104 (W.D. Wash., July 21, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for intrusion upon seclusion, violation of the right to privacy, conversion, restitution/unjust enrichment, as well as violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, the California Unfair Competition Law, the Washington Privacy Act, and the Washington Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant programmed Versions 90, 92, 93, and earlier and later versions of Microsoft Edge browser to surreptitiously intercept, collect and send to Defendant a wide range of private data relating to Plaintiffs and other users' Internet browsing activities, Internet searches, and online shopping behavior, including while in "private" browsing mode. As this private data is intercepted and collected, it is associated with unique user identifiers that Defendant assigns to users, and/or cookies -- small text files containing unique data by which to identify a user's device -- that it installs on users' devices. Upon intercepting and receiving the private user data, unique user identifiers, and cookies from Edge, Defendant then links or binds the private user data to individual users though the unique user identifiers and cookies, says the suit. The Defendant intercepts, collects, and sends users' keyword search terms, URLs, and unique user identifiers and cookies to the SmartScreen and Bing servers without their actual or implied consent. The Defendant fails to conspicuously present its flawed and deficient privacy statement and terms of use to users and thus these electronic documents have no legal effect, the suit asserts. Microsoft Corporation is an American multinational technology corporation headquartered in Redmond, Washington.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alexander A. Baehr, Esq. SUMMIT LAW GROUP, PLLC 315 Fifth Avenue S., Suite 1000 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 676-7000 E-mail: alexb@summitlaw.com - and - Ekwan E. Rhow, Esq. Marc E. Masters, Esq. Barr Benyamin, Esq. BIRD, MARELLA, BOXER, WOLPERT, NESSIM, DROOKS, LINCENBERG & RHOW, PC 1875 Century Park East, 23rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-2100 E-mail: erhow@birdmarella.com mmasters@birdmarella.com bbenyamin@birdmarella.com - and - Jonathan Rotter, Esq. Raymond D. Sulentic, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: jrotter@glancylaw.com kwolke@glancylaw.com prajesh@glancylaw.com - and - Glenn A. Danas, Esq. Yana Hart, Esq. Katelyn M. Leeviraphan, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C. 22525 Pacific Coast Highway Malibu, CA 90265 Telephone: (213) 788-4050 Facsimile: (213) 788-4070 E-mail: gdanas@clarksonlawfirm.com yhart@clarksonlawfirm.com kleeviraphan@clarksonlawfirm.com NATIONAL CARWASH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Maurer Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- MARK MAURER, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL CARWASH SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-00916-FJS-DJS (N.D.N.Y., July 27, 2023) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs. Plaintiff Maurer was employed by the Defendant as a laborer. NATIONAL CARWASH SOLUTIONS, INC. is a service and systems provider to the North American car wash industry. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brett R. Cohen, Esq. Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq. Michael A. Tompkins, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873-9550 NEVADA: Takes Private Property Without Notice, Raymond Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- STEVEN RAYMOND, KYONG 'GINA' RAYMOND, and CHASE HYON individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, v. ZACH CONINE, in his official capacity as NEVADA STATE TREASURER & ADMINISTRATOR OF THE NEVADA UNCLAIMED PROPERTY PROGRAM, NEVADA STATE TREASURER'S OFFICE, and DANIELLE ANTHONY, in her official capacities as DEPUTY TREASURER OF UNCLAIMED PROPERTY, NEVADA STATE TREASURER'S OFFICE, Case No. 2:23-cv-01195 (D. Nev., July 27, 2023) alleges that Nevada's Nevada Uniform Unclaimed Property Act (NUUPA) is unconstitutional because it does not require the Defendants to provide notice to property owners prior to or after depriving them of their private property. The Defendants' enforcement of Nevada's NUUPA, in their official capacities, violated and continues to violate private property owners' guaranteed rights under the United State Constitution, including the rights provided under the Fifth Amendment (Takings Clause) and the Fourteenth Amendment (Due Process Clause), the Plaintiffs contend. The NUUPA is designed to reunite people with their property, but the Defendants allegedly use the NUUPA to take private property from people and businesses without meeting the basic threshold requirements under the U.S. Constitution for escheatment and without the requisite notice and due process of law required by the U.S. Constitution. The Plaintiffs and putative class members have had their property seized without notice, sometimes sold, and generally mishandled by the custodial Defendants, the lawsuit asserts. The Defendants acted intentionally to generate revenue for the State, but these funds were neither authorized tax levies nor funds rightfully belonging to the State. Instead, the Defendants abdicated their duties to return this property to its rightful owners. The Defendants' failure to comply with the requirements of the Due Process Clauses of the United States Constitution, has resulted in and will continue to result in substantial monetary losses to the Plaintiffs and putative class members, the lawsuit further asserts. The Plaintiffs and all similarly situated persons are entitled to and hereby seek a return of their property from the account set up to pay NUUPA claims, and, if necessary, the Nevada State General Fund, because it was seized in violation of the Plaintiffs' guaranteed right to Due Process of Law as afforded by the United States Constitution. The Plaintiffs are entitled to an injunction barring the Defendants from enforcing the NUUPA and thereby violating their guaranteed right to Due Process as afforded by the United States Constitution. Mr. Raymond lived in the Las Vegas, Nevada metropolitan area from 2004 through 2014 and from 2020 to the present. Mr. Raymond has had a vehicle registered with the Nevada Division of Motor Vehicles and paid taxes on that motor vehicle.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Krista J. Nielson, Esq. William M. Fischbach, Esq. Elliot C. Stratton, Esq. TIFFANY & BOSCO P.A. 10100 W. Charleston Blvd., Ste. 220 Las Vegas, NV 89135 Telephone: (702) 258-8200 Facsimile: (702) 258-8787 E-mail: knielson@tblaw.com wmf@tblaw.com ecs@tblaw.com - and - Richard M. Paul III, Esq. Laura C. Fellows, Esq. David Bodenheimer, Esq. PAUL LLP 601 Walnut Street, Suite 300 Kansas City, MO 64106 Telephone: (816) 984-8100 Facsimile: (816) 984-8101 E-mail: Rick@PaulLLP.com Laura@PaulLLP.com David@PaulLLP.com - and - Jonathan Greiner, Esq. Christopher Ross, Esq. GREINER & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 401 Austin Highway, Suite 110 San Antonio, TX 78209 Telephone: (210) 829-6529 Facsimile: (210) 829-5528 E-mail: chris@greinerattorneys.com jon@greinerattorneys.com service@greinerattorneys.com NEWFOUNDLAND & LABRADOR: Faces Class Suit Over Privacy Breach ------------------------------------------------------------- vocm.com reports that Buckingham Law has launched a class-action lawsuit against Newfoundland and Labrador Health Services and NL Fertility Services for a privacy breach one month ago. The breach in question happened on July 4. The clinic sent an email to people who had availed of a provincial subsidy to travel out of province for fertility services. Those on the email were not blind copied, meaning the names of everyone on the list were visible. In total, 116 patients were affected. Buckingham says those involved in the breach have called it "devastating and a violation." He explains that while some patients were quite open about what they were going through, many were dealing with their fertility journey in a very private and confidential manner. He says the situation has placed additional strain on patients already going through a stressful time. He says people have cancelled some of their treatments while others have put their fertility journey on hold because of it.[GN] NORDSTROM INC: Online Store Inaccessible to Blind, Herrera Says --------------------------------------------------------------- CARLOS HERRERA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NORDSTROM, INC., Defendant, Case No. HUD-L-002668-23 (N.J. Super., Hudson Cty., July 28, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and for declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://www.nordstrom.com/, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues include, but not limited to: (a) fail to accurately describe the contents of graphical images, (b) fail to properly label title, (c) fails to distinguish one page from another, (d) contain multiple broken links, (e) contain headings that do not describe the topic or purpose, and (f) contain text that is not read. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Nordstrom, Inc. is an American luxury department store chain headquartered in Seattle, Washington. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Zemel, Esq. Zemel Law LLC 660 Broadway Paterson, NJ 07514 Telephone: (862) 227-3106 E-mail: dz@zemellawllc.com NORTH MAIN: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages under FLSA, Rosado Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ GUILLERMINA ROSADO v. NORTH MAIN FOOD MARKET CORP (DBA NORTH MAIN FOOD MART), and EDDIE PERALTA, individually, Case No. 1:23-cv-05680 (E.D.N.Y., July 27, 2023) is a class action seeking to recover unpaid minimum wage and overtime wage compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Defendants were required, under relevant New York State law, to pay and compensate the Plaintiff at a minimum rate of $15.00 per hour; however, the Plaintiff was only compensated at a rate of $10.32 per hour, the lawsuit asserts. Accordingly, the Defendants employed the policy and practice of disguising the Plaintiffs' actual duties in payroll records to avoid paying the Plaintiffs at the minimum wage rate and to enable them to pay the Plaintiff at the lower tip-credited rate by designating them waitresses instead of non-tipped employees. The Plaintiff's work schedule was from 2:00 P.M. until 11:00 P.M., Monday to Sunday, for approximately 63 hours per week. She did not work at her own convenience but was required to report to work in accordance with a work schedule devised by the Defendants. Moreover, once scheduled for a shift, the Plaintiff did not come and go at her pleasure but rather was controlled by the Defendant, the lawsuit claims. The Plaintiff also brings this action under the Wage Theft Prevention Act for the Defendants' failure to provide written notice of wage rates. The Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, liquidated damages, spread of hours pay, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to the FLSA and NYLL. The Plaintiff Rosado was employed by the Defendant from October 2022 until June 27, 2023, where her primary work duty was as a waitress, but also did other chores such as cleaning and cooking for over 20% of her workday. NORTH MAIN FOOD MARKET CORP is a grocery company in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lina Stillman, Esq. STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C. 42 Broadway, 12t Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 203-2417 E-mail: www.StillmanLegalPC.com NUZ ENTERPRISES: Ceropin Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Ana Ceropin, Keyly Ceropin on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Nuz Enterprises Ltd. d/b/a Lakewood Bakery, Bryant Caceres and Danny Caceres, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-05563 (E.D.N.Y., July 22, 2023) is brought by the Plaintiffs against the Defendants arising from alleged unlawful labor policies and practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiffs seek to recover from the Defendants: (i) compensation for wages paid at less than the statutory minimum wage, (ii) unpaid wages for overtime work for which they did not receive overtime premium pay as required by law, (iii) compensation for the Defendants' violations of the "spread of hours" requirements; and (iv) liquidated damages pursuant to the FLSA; and (v) statutory damages for the Defendants' violation of the NYLL's Wage Theft Prevention Act. Plaintiff Ana Ceropin was employed at Nuz Enterprises, Ltd. d/b/a Lakewood Bakery from approximately April 28, 2019, until April 15, 2022 as a packer and in maintenance. Plaintiff Keylyt Ceropin was employed by Defendants from December 2021 until December 2022 as a dispatcher, and to deliver bread to the drivers. Nuz Enterprises Ltd. owns and operates the Lakewood Bakery restaurant located in Farmingdale, New York.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Samuel, Esq. THE SAMUEL LAW FIRM 1441 Broadway Suite 6085 New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (212) 563-9884 ODOO INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Kayed Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------- OMAR KAYED; JESUS PRADO; and SPENCER CARR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ODOO, INC.; and ODOO, S.A., Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-03728 (N.D. Cal., July 27, 2023) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as sales representatives. ODOO SA provides a range of easy to use business applications. The Company develops software to boost company's sale, integrate project services, streamline inventory and purchase operations, manage finance, and automate marketing. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jahan C. Sagafi, Esq. Molly J. Frandsen, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP One California Street, 12th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 638-8800 Facsimile: (415) 638-8810 Email: jsagafi@outtengolden.com mfrandsen@outtengolden.com - and - Melissa L. Stewart, Esq. Julio Sharp-Wasserman, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 245-1000 Facsimile: (646) 509-2060 Email: mstewart@outtengolden.com jsharp-wasserman@outtengolden.com PARTY CITY: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Oct. 2 ---------------------------------------------------------- Shareholder rights law firm Johnson Fistel, LLP (www.JohnsonFistel.com) announces the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Party City Holdco Inc. (NYSE: PRTY) (OTC: PRTYQ) between November 8, 2022 and June 9, 2023, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you are a shareholder who incurred losses during this period, you have until October 2, 2023, to move the court to become a lead plaintiff in this action. If you would like more information and want to join the class action please click or copy and paste the following link: https://www.johnsonfistel.com/investigations/party-city-stock-news According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period, the defendants: (1) affirmatively misrepresented that its capital resources "will be adequate to meet our liquidity needs for at least the next 12 months"; (2) omitted that there was substantial doubt about the Company's ability to continue as a going concern; (3) downplayed the nature and extent of the Company's then existing liquidity problems; (4) omitted that the Company's existing credit facilities were insufficient to satisfy its operational needs and that it was unable to obtain additional loans in the normal course of business and ; (5) omitted that there was a material weakness in its internal control over financial reporting. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A lead plaintiff will act on behalf of all other class members in directing the class-action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the class-action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share any potential future recovery of the class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. There is no cost or obligation to you. Johnson Fistel, LLP is a shareholder rights law firm representing individual and institutional investors in shareholder derivative and securities class action lawsuits. For more information, visit their website http://www.johnsonfistel.com.[GN] PARTY CITY: Execs Hid Liquidity Woes Before Bankruptcy, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Martina Barash at news.bloomberglaw.com reports that Party City Holdco Inc.'s CEO and chief financial officer signed off on SEC filings that misrepresented its financial health, an owner of the bankrupt retailer's stock alleges. "Party City was well aware of its liquidity problems and lending shortfalls" before it filed a 10-Q form with the Securities and Exchange Commission in November 2022, shareholder Ryan Shulman says in a proposed class action. He filed the suit in the US District Court for the District of New Jersey. [GN] PARTY CITY: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action in S.D. Tex. ------------------------------------------------------------ Kimberly Redmond, writing for NJBiz, reports that Woodcliff Lake-based Party City Holdco Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit for allegedly misleading shareholders regarding the company's financial health ahead of filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. Announced Aug. 3, the complaint accuses the bankrupt retailer of securities fraud and seeks to recover losses on behalf of investors who were "adversely impacted" between November 2022 and June 2023. According to the suit, Party City reportedly mispresented that it had adequate capital resources to meet liquidity needs for the next 12 months, as well as "omitted there was substantial doubt about the company's ability to continue as a going concern." Additionally, Party City allegedly "downplayed the nature and extent" of its "then-existing liquidity problems," omitted that its existing credit facilities were insufficient to satisfy operational needs and was unable to obtain additional loans in the normal course of business, according to the suit. The retailer was also accused of not informing stockholders "that there was a material weakness in its internal control over financial reporting." The action comes as Party City reportedly adjusts its plan to exit bankruptcy after struggling to meet financial projections. Recently, the retailer revised its year-over-year growth rate forecast for comparable store sales down to -8.4% from -2.5%. After filing for Chapter 11 relief in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas in January, Party City entered into a restructuring agreement with a bondholder group to reduce its $1.67 billion debt load. Additionally, the company secured $150 million in debtor-in-possession financing to support operations, as well as court approval to keep its 800-plus stores open. In July, the company modified a key deal with lenders, giving them the option to be repaid in second-lien notes instead of cash. They can also purchase new notes in addition to equity, rather than just buying the stock, the outlet reported. Altogether, Party City plans to issue $232 million of new debt backed by the company's assets, with interest to be paid in-kind or in cash, at a 12% rate. While Party City's balloon manufacturing and retail business, Anagram, was not part of the bankruptcy proceedings, the company is reportedly in talks with debt holders about spinning off the unit, Bloomberg reported, citing confidential sources. Following the expected completion of reorganization in the second quarter of 2023, Party City plans to emerge as a non-publicly reporting company. However, the company's lawyers reported in June that it hadn't met certain benchmarks related to its restructuring. Then, in a June 9 filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Party City revealed that its longtime auditor, Ernst & Young LLP, resigned due to a disagreement over the retailer's decision to not include a going concern warning in its Q3 2022 report. "The company strongly disagrees with EY's assertions in its resignation letter to the extent that they inaccurately imply that the company refused to make any required disclosures under the federal securities laws," Party City said in the filing. A few weeks later, the SEC asked Party City to retain documents and data in connection with an "ongoing investigation" by the regulator, according to Bloomberg. Additional details about the nature of the probe weren't disclosed, the outlet reported. Party City did not immediately respond to a request for comment. [GN] PATRIOT ERECTORS: Appeals Final Judgment in Davila Suit to 5th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------- PATRIOT ERECTORS, LLC is taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Candelario Davila, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Patriot Erectors, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-884, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs filed a complaint against the Defendant for its failure to compensate them and all others similarly situated employees the required minimum wages and overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. On July 27, 2022, Patriot filed a Notice of Settlement. On September 2, 2022, Patriot filed a Motion to Dismiss, and the case was dismissed against Candelario Davila on September 6, 2022. An order was also entered restyling the case as ROBERT WHITE, on behalf of himself and a class of those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PATRIOT ERECTORS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-CV-00884-SH. White alleges that Patriot did not pay him overtime required by the FLSA. Although styled as a collective action, the claims tried pertain only to White, Patriot's former production manager. On June 20, 2023, the Court, in its discretion, found that White is entitled to compensation in the form of liquidated damages in an amount equal to his unpaid overtime compensation. The Court awarded White $40,575.68 in uncompensated overtime and $40,575.68 in liquidated damages, for a total award of $81,151.36, as well as attorney's fees and costs. Judge Susan Hightower also entered final judgment in the case. The appellate case is captioned Davila v. Patriot Erectors, Case No. 23-50524, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, filed on July 24, 2023. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees CANDELARIO DAVILA, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Kell Asher Simon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF KELL A. SIMON 501 N. IH-35 Austin, TX 78702 Telephone: (512) 695-4618 Defendant-Appellant Patriot Erectors, LLC is represented by: Andrea M. Johnson, Esq. KANE RUSSELL COLEMAN & LOGAN, P.C. 5151 San Felipe Street Houston, TX 77056 Telephone: (713) 425-7433 PEACOCK TV: Shapiro Sues Over Disclosure of Personal Info --------------------------------------------------------- SCOTT SHAPIRO, COREY AMUNDSON, AND TANYA MARSHALL, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PEACOCK TV LLC, Defendant, Case No. 7:23-cv-06345 (S.D.N.Y., July 21, 2023) arises from the Defendant's knowing disclosure of Plaintiffs' personally identifiable information(PII) to a third-party without Plaintiffs' consent in violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act. The Plaintiffs are subscribers of Defendant's website, peacocktv.com, which offers, among other things, a wide array of pre-recorded audio visual materials and services. When Plaintiffs requested or obtained specific video materials or services on Defendant's Website, the Defendant knowingly disclosed Plaintiffs' PII to Facebook (aka Meta) without notifying Plaintiffs and without their consent, says the suit. Peacock TV LLC is engaged in the business of the rental, sale, or delivery of prerecorded audio visual materials.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Todd S. Garber, Esq. FINKELSTEIN, BLANKENSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP One North Broadway Suite 900 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 298-3281 E-mail: tgarber@fbfglaw.com - and - Caleb Marker, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 6420 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1080 Los Angeles, CA 90048 Telephone: (310) 752-9387 E-mail: caleb.marker@zimmreed.com - and - Jeffrey J. Harrington, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 80 South 8th Street, Suite 1100 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 341-0400 E-mail: jeffrey.harrington@zimmreed.com PELHAM COUNTRY CLUB: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Lewis Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ KAMEIKA LEWIS; ANN PEARLINA BROWN; ADRIAN WILLIAMS, and MYANA BROWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PELHAM COUNTRY CLUB, Defendant, Case No. 7:23-cv-06500 (S.D.N.Y., July 27, 2023) is an action against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, spread-of-hours pay, and provide accurate wage statements. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as golf caddies. PELHAM COUNTRY CLUB is a family-oriented Club with first-rate recreational, social and dining facilities. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq. LIPSKY LOWE LLP 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830 New York, NY 10170 Telephone: (212) 392-4772 Email: Doug@lipskylowe.com PENSION BENEFIT: White et al. Sue Over MOVEit Data Breach --------------------------------------------------------- DIANE WHITE, SABELA PORTILLO, and REBECCA IDDINGS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PENSION BENEFIT INFORMATION, LLC d/b/a PBI RESEARCH SERVICES and PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 0:23-cv-02254 (D. Minn., July 28, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, negligence per se, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, invasion of privacy, and breach of fiduciary duty. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the Plaintiffs and similarly situated customers stored within the Defendants' MOVEit Transfer and MOVEit Cloud software following a data breach on or about May 27, 2023. The Defendants also failed to timely notify the Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the PII of the Plaintiffs and Class members were compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Pension Benefit Information, LLC, doing business as PBI Research Services, is a pension management services provider, with its principal place of business at 333 S. 7th Street, Suite 2400, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Progress Software Corporation is a software company, with its principal place of business located at 15 Wayside Road, Suite 4, Burlington, Massachusetts. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq. June P. Hoidal, Esq. Michael J. Laird, Esq. Rachel K. Tack, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 1100 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 341-0400 E-mail: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com june.hoidal@zimmreed.com michael.laird@zimmreed.com rachel.tack@zimmreed.com - and - Christopher D. Jennings, Esq. Tyler B. Ewigleben, Esq. Laura Edmondson, Esq. THE JOHNSON FIRM 610 President Clinton Ave., Suite 300 Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 372-1300 E-mail: chris@yourattorney.com tyler@yourattorney.com ledmondson@yourattorney.com PRECISION ANESTHESIA: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Dillon Says --------------------------------------------------------------- MICHELLE DILLON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PRECISION ANESTHESIA BILLING, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 23C1776 (Fla. Cir., Davidson Cty. July 31, 2023) is an action against the Defendant regarding the cyberattack and data breach involving the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and the Class. According to the complaint, on May 2023, an unknown and unauthorized criminal actor gained access to the Defendant's network and infiltrated the customer names, social security numbers, dates of birth, bank account numbers, patient medical information, telephone numbers and other data provided to the Defendant. As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff and the Class suffered injury and ascertainable losses in the form of the present and imminent threat of fraud and identity theft, loss of the benefit of their bargain, out of pocket expenses, loss of value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the attack, and the loss of, and diminution in, value of their personal information. PRECISION ANESTHESIA BILLING, LLC is engaged as a healthcare billing service provider. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Gerard Stranch, IV Stranch, Jennigs & Garvey, PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Facsimile: (615) 225-5419 Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com - and - Andrew Shamis, Esq. Christopher Berman SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1 st Ave., Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 20900 NE 30 th Ave., Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (786) 289-9471 Facsimile: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com PRIME HYDRATION: Faces False Advertising Class Action in Calif. --------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Steinberg, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that sports drink maker Prime Hydration LLC was hit with a proposed class suit alleging it deceptively markets a hydration product containing PFAS as healthful. The lawsuit in the US District Court for the Northern District of California joins a growing number of consumer suits over PFAS in various types of products, including clothing and cosmetics. Prime Hydration Grape Sports Drink is prominently labeled and marketed as a product with antioxidants, electrolytes, and vitamins to "refresh, replenish, and refuel," California resident Elizabeth Castillo alleges. [GN] PRIMECARE MEDICAL: Steadman Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Nurses ---------------------------------------------------------------- JANIQUE STEADMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PRIMECARE MEDICAL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-02041-MJM (D. Md., July 28, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages and failure to pay all wages earned in violation of the Maryland Wage and Hour Law. Ms. Steadman worked for PrimeCare as a licensed practical nurse (LPN) at Baltimore County Detention Center in Baltimore County, Maryland, from approximately November 2019 until October 2021. PrimeCare Medical, Inc. is a healthcare services provider based in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Taylor A. Jones, Esq. Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: tjones@mybackwages.com mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com RTX CORP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Oct. 2 -------------------------------------------------------- Shareholder rights law firm Johnson Fistel, LLP on Aug. 3 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of RTX Corporation f/k/a Raytheon Technologies Corporation (NYSE: RTX) between February 8, 2021 and July 25, 2023, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you are a shareholder who incurred losses during this period, you have until October 2, 2023, to move the court to become a lead plaintiff in this action. If you would like more information and want to join the class action please click or copy and paste the following link: https://www.johnsonfistel.com/investigations/rtx-raytheon According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose, among other things, that: (1) the GTF engines had been affected from at least 2015-2020 by a quality control issue; (2) this quality control issue would require RTX to recall and reinspect many of its GTF engines, affecting customers and harming its business; and (3) 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. A lead plaintiff will act on behalf of all other class members in directing the class-action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the class-action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share any potential future recovery of the class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. There is no cost or obligation to you. Johnson Fistel, LLP is a shareholder rights law firm representing individual and institutional investors in shareholder derivative and securities class action lawsuits. For more information, visit their website http://www.johnsonfistel.com. Contact: Johnson Fistel, LLP Jim Baker, 619-814-4471 Investor Relations jimb@johnsonfistel.com or Frank Johnson, 619-309-4405 fjohnson@johnsonfistel.com [GN] RTX CORPORATION: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of RTX Corporation f/k/a Raytheon Technologies Corporation (NYSE: RTX) between February 8, 2021 and July 25, 2023, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for RTX investors under the federal securities laws. To join the RTX class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=17866 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. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose, among other things, that: (1) the GTF engines had been affected from at least 2015-2020 by a quality control issue; (2) this quality control issue would require RTX to recall and reinspect many of its GTF engines, affecting customers and harming its business; and (3) 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. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October 2, 2023. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=17866 or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. 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. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. [GN] SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Civil Rights Class Action to Proceed ------------------------------------------------------- Joe Rivano Barros, writing for Mission Local, reports that an Francisco officials have dropped the vast majority of cases stemming from the Dolores hill bomb, in which police arrested 117 people, 83 of them minors, during an operation targeting the annual skateboarding event. District Attorney Brooke Jenkins announced on Aug. 4 that she is discharging most of the cases against adults swept up in the mass arrests during the Dolores Park hill bomb, with the possibility of filing charges at a later date. "Misdemeanor citations presented to our office for failure to disperse and inciting a riot will be discharged at this time," the DA's office wrote in a statement. "The misdemeanor citations presented to my office for inciting a riot and failure to disperse are being discharged because we can not prove beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury the guilt of any specific individuals cited." On July 28, Katherine Miller, the Chief Juvenile Probation Officer for San Francisco, said that the cases against juveniles were largely being dismissed, too, confirming earlier reporting by Mission Local. "The Juvenile Probation Department has reached out to all parents/guardians of the 81 youth cited for refusing to disperse, inciting a riot and conspiracy charges related to the hill bomb event, to inform them that we are closing out their citations with no additional action," Miller said. The Juvenile Probation Department handles misdemeanors against juveniles. Of the 117 people arrested that day, 113 were encircled in a kettling action by police officers; those adults and teenagers will see their cases discharged, pending further investigation. Two additional teenagers face charges of assault against an officer and resisting arrest from earlier in the day, and the charging status of the other two adults -- also arrested earlier that day -- was not clear. One of the adults who had their case discharged may still face a felony gun charge, which is awaiting further DNA analysis. The investigation into "vandalism, property crime, and other crimes" from that day is ongoing, the DA's office said, meaning that individuals could be re-charged at a later date, if evidence shows they took part in other alleged crimes that day, like graffiti or assaults against officers. And the Juvenile Probation Department may also bring allegations at a later date, if they receive evidence of other wrongdoing. "At this time, the police are continuing their investigation to identify individuals who participated in other related incidents that day (such as vandalism and battery)," Miller wrote in an email. "We are awaiting further information from the police." Class action lawsuit in the works The announcement is not impacting a class-action civil rights lawsuit against the city, according to Rachel Lederman, a protest attorney who has met with dozens of parents, teenagers, and arrested adults. Lederman said on Aug. 4 that a lawsuit would be filed in federal court, alleging civil rights violations and unlawful arrest. "We are definitely proceeding with a lawsuit for civil rights violations, which we are planning to file as a class action, so that it potentially includes everyone that was arrested on 17th Street," said Lederman. "The police department created the class by sealing everyone into that block, so that they were all treated as a mass, without any individual basis for each arrest, as the constitution requires." The police response led to allegations of misconduct, pledges to investigate departmental policy, and promises to sue the city: Parents arriving that night to pick up their children were met with stone-faced walls of police officers. They saw their teenagers held on the street for hours in the dark, zip-tied one by one, and transported to Mission Station nearby, where they were released well into the night. The last child was released at 4:15 a.m. Several teenagers urinated on themselves and had panic attacks, according to those arrested, and others had circulation to their hands cut off from the tight restraints. The class action lawsuit, Lederman added, could be dropped altogether -- if the city were to "acknowledge the police's wrongful conduct," compensate the arrested, drop all charges, and destroy arrest records. "Then, maybe we could work all this out," she said. DA can file charges later, but evidence may be tainted Lederman, for her part, said any attempt to use fingerprints and mugshots obtained during the mass arrest to match the teenagers and young adults to crimes that day might, itself, be illegal -- and thus could be challenged in court. "That identifying information was seized unlawfully, because the whole mass arrest was illegal," she said. "The kids, in particular, were detained for this long period of time in order for them to take their thumbprints at the station -- that's the only reason they didn't write them a ticket and release them to their parents on the street." The San Francisco Police Department has voluminous body camera footage from the dozens of officers patrolling the park that day, a small portion of which it showed at a Police Commission meeting last month. At that meeting, the police showed video of people throwing a metal can, a glass bottle, and two fireworks at officers. Social media footage also shows hill bomb participants tagging a Muni tram, and graffiti was seen on Mission High School and several buses nearby. A Muni spokesperson estimated the damage to vehicles at $70,000. It was the largest mass arrest of teenagers in at least six years, according to Police Chief Bill Scott, coming after years of serious injuries and one death at the skateboarding event, which sees skaters from across the Bay Area "bomb" the hill by going as fast as possible down a two-block stretch of Dolores Street. The DA has a year to file misdemeanor charges. Jenkins, in her statement, said that while she believed police had "probable cause to act to disperse the group," the mass arrests were likely too indiscriminate to hold up in court. "The evidence does not clearly show which specific individuals were inciting a riot, heard the dispersal orders, and refused to comply with dispersal orders," her statement read. That is in line with the accounts of teenagers themselves, many of whom said that they were walking home or passing through the Mission when police corralled them, ordering them one way and then the other before eventually trapping them between lines of officers and arresting them. The DA's statement noted that prosecutors would be hard-pressed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that any one individual caught up in the mass arrest had heard dispersal orders and willfully remained on-site. [GN] SASKATCHEWAN: Lawyers Argue Over Boarding Schools Suit Process -------------------------------------------------------------- aura Sciarpelletti at CBC News reports that the lawyers from two competing class action suits were in a Saskatoon courtroom. There they argued at length about the best way to represent Metis survivors of the Ile-a-la-Crosse boarding school. Survivors and intergenerational survivors of the school filled the Court of King's Bench courtroom, many dressed in orange - a reminder of the suffering children went through at the school. Legal representatives and plaintiffs said survivors deserve compensation and recognition for physical, sexual and emotional abuse they endured at the boarding school. It operated in the Ile-a-la-Crosse community, about 460 kilometres north of Saskatoon, from the 1860s to the 1970s. Ile-a-la-Crosse students were denied the Indian Residential School settlements that others received, on the basis that the school was run by the Roman Catholic Church with no federal funding. One of the lawsuits discussed in court is over 17 years old. The other lawsuit was filed in 2022 and is looking to have the older suit stayed and its plaintiffs brought into the latest suit's fold. Neither has been certified as a class ac Lawyer Tony Merchant says both lawsuits should go forward Tony Merchant and the Merchant Law Group head up the nearly two-decade old Aubichon class action. Many Ile-a-la-Crosse boarding school survivors argue the suit has stalled. The newest class action was filed by Wandell Phillips law firm and is known as the Gardiner action. Both suits are looking to sue the provincial and federal governments for the school's harm to survivors. Louis Gardiner is a Metis survivor of the boarding school and a member of the newer lawsuit. He said survivors are getting old and dying, and are looking for closure now. "We have to start moving on this. We want action. We want closure. People like elders that are in their 80s . . . they want to put closure to this and enjoy life at least and there's peace," Gardiner said. Tony Merchant said that both lawsuits should move forward. He does not think his should be stayed. But Justice Naheed Bardai said the point of class actions is to have just one lawsuit. Jeffrey Brick, Crown counsel for the Government of Saskatchewan, said the province is not taking a stance on what the judge decides, but does not want to take on two similar cases at the same time. He said having both Aubichon and Gardiner suits proceed "makes no sense." Merchant argued that if Aubichon is stayed, the plaintiffs who have died since will not have any reward for their estate. He said the Gardiner class action does not expressly include claims for people who have died since 2005. "The problem is their plan will cut out all the people who died, and the provincial government has been resistant to settling these cases," Merchant told reporters following court proceedings. But Margaret Waddell, counsel for the Gardiner class action, said that is not the case. "We said it and the government of Saskatchewan lawyer agreed that it really does cover that. But if there's any concern, and if the judge wants that little loophole to be clarified, we simply need to add a couple of words to the claim and an amendment to say that it's brought on behalf of the estates as well as the living people. It's easily done," said Waddell. Claims of Lack of Communication During the court proceedings, Bardai said he is concerned that Merchant has not communicated with his clients. Merchant responded by saying he is not obligated to communicate with his Aubichon clients. Bardai disagreed with Merchant's stance. Merchant also said he was doing work in the background and had a strategy that he hadn't shared with his clients. Duane Favel, mayor of Ile-a-la-Crosse and a survivor plaintiff in the Gardiner class action, agreed with Bardai that Merchant's lack of communication with his clients is concerning. "Very little progress has been made over 17 years, when there's all kinds of class actions being resolved across the country that are similar to the Ile-a-la-Crosse case. There's no words to say in terms of how frustrated our survivors are," said Favel. Favel said there are about only 700 Ile-a-la-Crosse boarding school survivors left. He said its important they are represented by the Wandell Phillips law firm and not Merchant Law Group. He said they gave Merchant a chance for 17 years, and were under the impression that the class action was moving forward and was certified. "There was no communication with the survivors, with the steering committee. I've been on this steering committee since 2005. I've never had a conversation with Merchant. He's never been at our table," Favel said. "In the last three years, with the help of he Metis Nation-Saskatchewan, we've invited Merchant to come and have a conversation with us several times. And he didn't come to the table to talk to the people he's supposedly representing." Justice Naheed Bardai said he will deliver his decision on the class actions at a later date.[GN] SEPHORA USA: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Hussein Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- SUMAYA HUSSEIN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. SEPHORA USA, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-04992 (N.D. Ill., July 31, 2023) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.sephora.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On July 1, 2023, and again on July 9, 2023, the Plaintiff visited the Defendant's website, to purchase a fragrance. Despite her efforts, however, the Plaintiff was denied a shopping experience like that of a sighted individual due to the website's lack of a variety of features and accommodations, which effectively barred the Plaintiff from having an unimpeded shopping experience. Specifically, the Plaintiff wanted to purchase the "Glossier You Fragrance." Because of the Defendant's denial of full and equal access to and enjoyment of the good, benefits and services of the Website, the Plaintiff has suffered an injury in fact due to her inability to purchase her desired fragrance, which is a concrete and particularized injury, and is a direct result of Defendant's conduct, the Plaintiff alleges. Despite this direct harm and frustration, the Plaintiff intends to attempt to access the Website in the future to purchase products and services the Website offers, and more specifically the "Glossier You Fragrance," if remedied, the Plaintiff adds. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumer. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person, who cannot use a computer without the assistance of screen-reading software. The Plaintiff is, however, a proficient NVDA screen-reader user and uses it to access the Internet. The Defendant is a company that owns and operates www.sephora.com, offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services and by which Defendant ensures the delivery of such goods and services throughout the United States, including the State of Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com SOLAREDGE TECHNOLOGIES: Sauer Appeals Case Dismissal Order ---------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Cheryl Sauer filed an appeal from the District Court's Order dated June 22, 2023 entered in the lawsuit styled CHERYL SAUER, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SOLAREDGE TECHNOLOGIES, INC., and DOES 1-10 Inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 5:22-cv-01584-JGB-KK, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Riverside. The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against the Defendants to stop its practice of falsely advertising and selling solar power system monitoring services, and to obtain redress for a class of consumers who were misled by Defendants within the applicable statute of limitations period. The Defendants allegedly advertised to consumers that its solar power systems were accompanied by a system monitoring plan that was free of charge in violation of the California False Advertising Law and the Unfair Competition Law. The Plaintiff and other consumers similarly situated were exposed to these advertisements. The Defendants misrepresented and falsely advertised and represented to Plaintiff and others similarly situated by failing to disclose in either their advertisements or the contract itself that Defendants would require Plaintiff and others similarly situated to pay for the labor to replace certain components of the monitoring system. The Defendants' misrepresentations to Plaintiff and others similarly situated induced them to purchase Defendants' products. The Defendants took advantage of Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers unfairly and unlawfully, says the suit. As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, to the U.S. District Court for Central District of California on Sept. 8, 2022. On December 9, 2022, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's first amended complaint. On June 22, 2023, the Court entered an Order (1) GRANTING Defendants' motion to dismiss; and (2) vacating the June 26, 2023 hearing by Judge Jesus G. Bernal. The Court GRANTED SolarEdge Technologies' motion and DISMISSED all of Plaintiff's claims WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant Cheryl Sauer Mediation Questionnaire was due on July 27, 2023; -- Appellant Cheryl Sauer opening brief is due on September 18, 2023; -- Appellees Does and SolarEdge Technologies, Inc. answering brief is due on October 18, 2023; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant CHERYL SAUER, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Adrian Bacon, Esq. Todd M. Friedman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD FRIEDMAN, PC 21031 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 340 Woodland Hills, CA 91364 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Defendant-Appellee SOLAREDGE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. is represented by: Matthew David Powers, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS, LLP Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 984-8898 SPARC GROUP: Montes Appeals Case Dismissal Order ------------------------------------------------ Plaintiff Shawnna Montes filed an appeal from the District Court's Order dated June 22, 2023 entered in the lawsuit entitled Shawnna Montes, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. SPARC GROUP LLC d/b/a Aeropostale, Case No. 2:22-cv-00201-TOR, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, Spokane. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on October 10, 2022, the complaint is brought under the Washington Consumer Protection Act on behalf of Washington consumers who purchased falsely discounted clothing and accessories on the Aeropostale website and, due to Aeropostale's fraud, paid more than they otherwise would have paid. Allegedly, Aeropostale perpetrated a massive false discount advertising scheme across nearly all of its Aeropostale-branded products and sales channels (i.e., on Aeropostale website and in its brick-and-mortar stores). Specifically, Aeropostale advertised perpetual or near perpetual website-wide and store-wide "sales" and percentage-off discounts--typically 50% to 70% off--from Aeropostale's self-created list prices for its products in order to trick its customers and the general public into thinking that its products were "on sale." Aeropostale represented its list prices, which were advertised on its website with a slash-through (and which were printed on the product tags affixed to the items it sold), to be the "regular" and normal selling prices of the items. The list prices functioned as reference prices to which the advertised discounts were applied. On March 10, 2023, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the case which the Court granted with prejudice on June 22, 2023 through an Order entered by Judge Thomas O. Rice. The appellate case is captioned as Shawnna Montes v. SPARC Group, LLC, Case No. 23-35496, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on July 21, 2023. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant Shawnna Montes Mediation Questionnaire was due on July 28, 2023; -- Transcript shall be ordered by August 21, 2023; -- Transcript is due on September 18, 2023; -- Appellant Shawnna Montes opening brief is due on October 30, 2023; -- Appellee SPARC Group, LLC answering brief is due on November 29, 2023; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant SHAWNNA MONTES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Che Corrington, Esq. Daniel Hattis, Esq. HATTIS & LUKACS 11711 SE 8th Street, Suite 120 Bellevue, WA 98005 Telephone: (425) 233-8633 - and - Stephen P. DeNittis, Esq. DENITTIS OSEFCHEN, PC 5 Greentree Centre, Suite 410 525 Route 73 North Marlton, NJ 08054 Telephone: (856) 797-9951 - and - Paul Karl Lukacs, Esq. HATTIS & LUKACS 936 Woodlawn Drive Thousand Oaks, CA 91360 Telephone: (805) 233-8062 Defendant-Appellee SPARC GROUP, LLC is represented by: Meegan Brooks, Esq. Stephanie Sheridan, Esq. BENESCH FRIEDLANDER COPLAN & ARONOFF, LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 3100 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (628) 600-2266 - and - Farron Curry, Esq. SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON & WYATT, PC 1420 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3400 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 407-1571 STERILIZATION SERVICES: Faces Class Action Over Toxic Air Emissions ------------------------------------------------------------------- Napoli Shkolnik, along with Local Counsel Wampler, Carrol, Wilson & Sanderson, PLLC, filed a class action lawsuit in the Shelby County, Tennessee State Court on August 2, 2023, seeking compensation for injuries suffered by the South Memphis community due to exposure to the toxic emissions from local medical sterilization facility. Since 1979, Sterilization Services of Tennessee-located in a dense residential area of south Memphis-has been emitting dangerous amount of Ethylene Oxide into the air. Ethylene Oxide has been a known human carcinogen for decades. As a result, the immediately surrounding community has been and continued to be at an increased risk of developing certain cancers (including breast cancer, lymphoma, stomach cancer, and leukemia), experiencing serious fertility issues and birth injuries, and other devastating health problems. Late last year, the EPA began to publish information to impacted communities-including Memphis-about the most unsafe facilities using Ethylene Oxide. Sterilization Services of Tennessee is one of roughly two dozen to have been red flagged as the most dangerous in the United States, with current exposure levels twenty times the EPA's maximum acceptable risk level. Even more alarmingly, these emissions were approximately 100 times higher during periods of the 1980s and continue to be a devastating public health burden on the community. Paul Napoli remarked "Defendants' use and emission of Ethylene Oxide creates an unreasonably high degree of risk to those who live, pray, and work and the surrounding area. We are taking action on behalf of the impacted South Memphis community to recover for the decades of damage inflicted on the men, women, and children breathing in these toxic emissions from the Defendants' facility." ABOUT NAPOLI SHKOLNIK Napoli Shkolnik is a national litigation firm providing representation to persons in class action lawsuits and complex commercial cases, as well as victims of environmental contamination disasters, aviation accidents, defective prescriptions drugs and medical devices, asbestos-related illnesses, and other serious personal injury matters.[GN] SUNRISE FLOOR: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Grande Alleges -------------------------------------------------------- JOSE GRANDE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUNRISE FLOOR SYSTEMS, LLC; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 23STCV18075 (Cal. Sup., Los Angeles Cty., July 31, 2023) is an action against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, provide meals and rest periods, and provide accurate wage statements. Plaintiff Grande was employed by the Defendant as a floor cleaner. SUNRISE FLOOR SYSTEMS, LLC was founded in 1990. The Company's line of business includes providing asphalt tile, carpeting, linoleum, and resilient flooring installation and services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael H. Boyamian, Esq. BOYAMIAN LAW, INC. 550 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 1500 Glendale, CA 91203-1922 Telephone: (818) 547-5300 Facsimile: (818) 547-5678 Email: michael@boyamianlaw.com SUTTON TRANSPORT: Hodges Sues Over Biometric Collection and Storage ------------------------------------------------------------------- JEREMY HODGES, individually and on behalf of other persons similarly situated v. SUTTON TRANSPORT, INC., Case No. 2023LA000803 (Ill. Cir., July 31, 2023) sues over alleged recording, collection, and/or storage of biometric data, in violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant required certain employees to scan their fingerprints in order to clock in and out at Defendant jobsites. Thus, the Defendant caused the biometric data from employees' fingerprints to be recorded, collected, and stored. The Defendant did not inform in writing either the Plaintiff or class members that their biometric data was being recorded, obtained, collected, and/or stored, and did not inform in writing the specific purpose and length of term for which their biometric data would be collected, stored, and/or used. The Defendant did not obtain the Plaintiff's or class members' written consent to record, collect, obtain, and/or store the Plaintiff's and class members' biometric data. Also, the Defendant never provided Plaintiff with the requisite statutory disclosures nor an opportunity to prohibit or prevent the collection, storage or use of Plaintiff’s unique biometric identifiers and/or biometric information, the suit claims. The Plaintiff is an individual subject to the same fingerprint-storing practices as other Defendant's employees. Sutton Transport is a Midwest trucking company.[BN] The Plaintiff is 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 E-mail: rlc@beaumontcostales.com whb@beaumontcostales.com SYNEOS HEALTH: Faces Securities Suit Over 77% Stock Price Drop -------------------------------------------------------------- UNITED ASSOCIATION OF PLUMBERS AND PIPEFITTERS, JOURNEYMEN, LOCAL No. 38 DEFINED BENEFIT PENSION PLAN, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. SYNEOS HEALTH, INC., ALISTAIR MACDONALD, MICHELLE KEEFE, and JASON MEGGS, Case No. 1:23-cv-06548 (S.D.N.Y., July 27, 2023) is a securities class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all purchasers of Syneos common stock between September 9, 2020, and November 3, 2022, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies against Syneos and certain of the Company's current and former senior executives under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. During the Class Period, the Defendants claimed that Syneos's business was booming as the Company lapped weak pandemic-era results. For example, during a November 2020 industry conference presentation, the Defendant Meggs represented that Syneos was poised for growth based on "record" customer order flows and that Syneos's new business "pipeline really starts to shape up nicely into quarter 4 and into 2021." Unbeknownst to investors, however, these and similar statements made by the Defendants during the Class Period were materially false and misleading when made. Syneos's business development capabilities had been critically impaired by recent workforce reductions and leadership and operational changes, as well as labor force turmoil caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the lawsuit alleges. As a result of the Defendants' Class Period misrepresentations, the price of Syneos stock soared, reaching all-time highs of more than $100 per share by December 2021. Then, on February 17, 2022, Syneos announced deeply disappointing financial results for the fourth quarter of 2021. As a result, the Company set apart $3.9 billion from its backlog of expected new business and reported alarmingly low book-to-bill ratios. Subsequently, on April 29, 2022, the Company announced the abrupt departure of the Defendant Macdonald as CEO of the Company. Defendant Meggs would follow his departure less than a year later. As a result of these revelations, the price of Syneos stock declined to a low of less than $23 per share, more than 77% below the Class Period high, causing the Plaintiff and the Class to suffer hundreds of millions of dollars in losses and economic damages under the federal securities laws, the suit alleges. Syneos is a multinational clinical research organization that helps biopharmaceutical companies test and develop their products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. Brian E. Cochran, Esq. Francisco J. Mejia, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 367-7100 Facsimile: (631) 367-1173 E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com bcochran@rgrdlaw.com fmejia@rgrdlaw.com TACOS LLC: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Herrera Class Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Yuli A. Herrera and other similarly situated individuals v. El Senor De Los Tacos 2 LLC, El Senor De Los Tacos LLC, Sam Rifaie, and Teresa Delgado Sanchez, individually, Case No. 8:23-cv-01705 (M.D. Fla., July 31, 2023) seeks to recover overtime compensation under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act on behalf of the Plaintiff and all other current and former employees similarly situated to Plaintiff and who worked more than 40 hours during one or more weeks on or after March 2022 without being adequately compensated. The Plaintiff worked a different number of hours every day, but she worked between 75 and 80 hours, or an average of 75 hours weekly. She was not able to take bonafide lunchtime. The Plaintiff was paid for all her working hours but at her regular rate. The Plaintiff did not clock in and out, but a lead co-worker was in charge of signing timesheets for her, and the Defendants were able to track the number of hours worked by the Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals. The Defendants knew about the number of hours the Plaintiff worked, the suit says. On July 19, 2023, the Defendant Sam Rifaie allegedly fired the Plaintiff due to discriminatory reasons. The Plaintiff is in the process of filing her Charge Of Discrimination with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The Plaintiff also seeks liquidated damages, costs, and reasonable attorney's fees. Plaintiff Yuli A. Herrera was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempted, full-time, hourly restaurant employee from March 14, 2022, to July 19, 2023, or 70 weeks. The Plaintiff's wage rate was $12.00 an hour plus tips. El Senor is a Mexican restaurant.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com TECOMET INC: Faces Wallin Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D. Wisconsin -------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH WALLIN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TECOMET, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-01005-NJ (E.D. Wis., July 28, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages and failure to pay an agreed-upon wage in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid, non-exempt employee in the position of machinist working at its Kenosha, Wisconsin location since June 2023. Tecomet, Inc., is a medical device manufacturer, with a principal place of business located at 115 Eames Street, Wilmington, Massachusetts. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Walcheske, Esq. Scott S. Luzi, Esq. David M. Potteiger, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240 Brookfield, WI 53005 Telephone: (262) 780-1953 Facsimile: (262) 565-6469 E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com TEMASEK HOLDINGS: O'Keefe Sues Over Misappropriation of Funds ------------------------------------------------------------- CONNOR O'KEEFE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TEMASEK HOLDINGS (PRIVATE) LIMITED, RIBBIT CAPITAL, L.P., & ALTIMETER CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, L.P., Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-03655 (N.D. Cal., July 24, 2023) seeks damages for Defendants' knowing and substantial assistance in furtherance of fraud involving American entrepreneur Sam Bankman-Fried. According to the complaint, through his cryptocurrency exchange, FTX, Bankman-Fried preyed on naive, young investors, persuading them to deposit hard-earned monies into accounts on the exchange, promising them the funds would be safe and garner returns other financial institutions could not provide. Both were allegedly false. Bankman-Fried was in fact running a Ponzi scheme, whereby he took in FTX customer funds, transferred those funds to entities he separately owned, and then spent the money on things of unmatched luxury, including a Formula One team, beachfront property in The Bahamas, expensive cars, and private jets. Bankman-Fried swindled more than $8 billion from FTX customers in this way, says the suit. Though FTX customers could not see that Bankman-Fried was misappropriating their deposits on vice, vanity, and speculative personal investments, Defendants had full view. Through diligence on FTX and close ties with Bankman-Fried, Defendants learned that FTX was operated as Bankman-Fried's personal piggy bank, that as quickly as FTX customer funds flowed into FTX, they flowed back out to other entities Bankman-Fried separately owned or controlled, and that FTX lacked the most basic internal controls, such that the enterprise was in fact a house of cards. But Defendants did not care since, they, too, had money to make in the scheme, and their interests aligned with Bankman-Fried's, the suit claims. This action is a related action to the multidistrict litigation In re: FTX Cryptocurrency Exchange Collapse Litigation, No. 1:23-md-3076 (S.D. Fla.), pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida before the Honorable K. Michael Moore. This related action, which was originally filed in the Southern District of Florida, O'Keeffe v. Sequoia Capital Operations, LLC, et al., No. 1:23-cv-20700 (S.D. Fla.) is being filed again before this Court in this District in order to address the arguments Defendants Temasek Holdings (Private) Limited, Ribbit Capital, L.P., and Altimeter Capital Management, L.P. raise regarding whether the Transferee Court has jurisdiction over them for these claims. The substantive allegations in both actions are the same, and will be amended in a consolidated amended class action complaint, once transferred to the Transferee Court and consolidated into the FTX MDL. Plaintiff O'Keefe held funds in both U.S. dollars and cryptocurrencies in a yield-bearing account and/or other account on the FTX platform. Temasek Holdings is a global commercial investment company owned by the Government of Singapore, with a portfolio valued at more than $400 billion.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph R. Saveri, Esq. Steven N. Williams, Esq. Christopher K.L. Young, Esq. Louis A. Kessler, Esq. JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1000 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 500-6800 Facsimile: (415) 395-9940 E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com swillliams@saverilawfirm.com cyoung@saverilawfirm.com lkessler@saverilawfirm.com - and - James R. Swanson, Esq. Kerry J. Miller, Esq. Benjamin D. Reichard, Esq. C. Hogan Paschal, Esq. Monica Bergeron, Esq. FISHMAN HAYGOOD L.L.P. 201 St. Charles Avenue, 46th Floor New Orleans, LA 70170-4600 Telephone: (504) 586-5252 Facsimile: (504) 586-5250 E-mail: jswanson@fishmanhaygood.com kmiller@fishmanhaygood.com breichard@fishmanhaygood.com hpaschal@fishmanhaygood.com mbergeron@fishmanhaygood.com TESLA INC: Faces Class Action Over Misleading EV Range Estimates ---------------------------------------------------------------- A group of Tesla owners in California are suing the EV maker in a proposed class-action lawsuit, alleging the company exaggerated the estimated driving ranges of its vehicles. It comes after a Reuters investigation found that Tesla gave drivers "rosy" range estimates and then created a "secret team" to cancel repair appointments related to driving range issues. Yahoo Finance Senior Reporter Pras Subramanian breaks down the story. Video Transcript Meantime, Tesla facing a class action lawsuit over its EV driving ranges. Pras Subramanian is here with the details. So, Pras, we've got another thorn in the side when it comes to Tesla, right? PRAS SUBRAMANIAN: Yeah, you know, the next shoe dropping here after that big Reuters report talking about how Tesla may have used an algorithm to improve or show rosier range kind of display in the car when actually you're getting a much less range. So now comes a proposed class action lawsuit, where the plaintiffs are alleging that Tesla breached vehicle warranties and engaged in fraud and unfair competition. The three plaintiffs allege that they got less range than advertised. In fact, one said he lost 182 miles of range and only got 92 miles of the day -- that day. Now, I've got to -- I've got to say, though, EVs sort have a lot of a broad variance in range when it comes to warm weather versus cold weather versus other conditions, but for some reason Tesla, according to consumer reports, has a very -- the widest range, widest disparity in range across different conditions, basically getting much less than what the EPA actually certified them to get. So I think this is sort of an ongoing issue. Like you said, another thorn in the side for Tesla. We'll see if they maybe try to dispose of this lawsuit by settling or who knows, because I don't think they're going to want to get into discovery and emails and -- you know, they also had this diversion team, right? Where they actually had a team in Las Vegas, where people complained about range. They got sent to this team. They were -- got the complaint rid of and they would bang a xylophone to -- kind of like a boiler room type of fun activity there, so a lot going on in that report from Reuters. So we'll see where this actually goes from a legal point of view. - Yeah. But I could see that even just anecdotally. I had my first experience. I rented a Tesla while on vacation, and I could see the difference in, like, you know, just the battery life And one day to the next day after charging it, and just literally it was like temperature it seemed like affected that. So I can see the issue. Again, to your point, we'll see if this has legs, right? PRAS SUBRAMANIAN: Yeah, a lot of people are so used to gas powered cars and your range just sort of sticks with how much gas you have. Actually, that does vary based on temperature, but EVs in particular are a lot more because of the battery has to be cooled or warmed before you use it, and that takes a lot of energy. - All right. Thank you, Pras Subramanian. PRAS SUBRAMANIAN: Thank you. - All right. [GN] TETHER LTD: New York Judge Tosses Suit Over Token's Value --------------------------------------------------------- Solomon Odunayo, writing for TimesTabloid, reports that Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District Of New York has demised a class action lawsuit against Tether, the issuer of the world's largest stablecoin USDT and Bifinex, its sister company. According to a blog post on Tether's official website, the judge issued a comprehensive and incisive 6-page decision that included an order dismissing the class action lawsuit that lacks merit, which was filed by Matthew Anderson and Shawn Dolifka against Tether and Bitfinex companies in its entirety. As the report further stated, the court correctly held that the plaintiffs' complaint lacked any plausible allegation of injury because it includes no facts showing that "USDT had a diminished actual value at all." The fact that the entirety of the class action suit was dismissed at this very early stage of the proceedings implies that plaintiffs' allegations were void of any legal merit, Tether stated. In a tweet after the favorable ruling, Tether spokesperson and CTO Paolo Ardoino wrote: "Tether and Bitfinex Win Comprehensive Legal Victory as U.S. District Court Dismisses Class Action Lawsuit The Court correctly held that plaintiffs' complaint lacked any "plausible allegations of injury" because it includes no facts showing that "USDT had a diminished actual value at all." A Throwback to the Complaint Filed in 2021 It's worth noting that the complaint stems from a complaint filed all the way back in 2021. At that time, Shawn Dolifka and Matthew Anderson claimed that a statement that Tether was backed by US Dollar was false. The complaint read in part: "Defendants did not maintain the same amount of reserves as Tether tokens in circulation. At times, Defendants had no reserves whatsoever. Further, these reserves did not contain U.S. dollars, as Tether suggested, but were a mix of other assets, such as overcollateralized loans and other undisclosed commercial paper." [GN] TRCU COFFEE: Rosas Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Restaurant Staff ----------------------------------------------------------------- RUPERTO ROSAS and ADRIANO GARCIA CASTRO, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TRCU COFFEE LLC d/b/a EAST ONE COFFEE ROASTERS, and TOM CUMMINGS, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-05712 (E.D.N.Y., July 28, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Mr. Rosas was employed as a dishwasher, porter, and cleaner in the kitchen at East One Coffee Roasters from approximately January 2021, until August 31, 2021. Mr. Castro was employed as a dishwasher, cleaning, and preparation staff at East One Coffee Roasters from approximately September 2018, through September 11, 2021. TRCU Coffee LLC, doing business as East One Coffee Roasters, is an owner and operator of several restaurants, with a principal place of business at 384 Court St., Brooklyn, New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Samuel, Esq. THE SAMUEL LAW FIRM 1441 Broadway, Suite 6085 New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (212) 563-9884 TRINITY PACKAGING: Robertson Appeals Order Denying Settlement OK ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Claude Robertson filed an appeal from the Court's Decision and Order dated July 5, 2023 entered in the lawsuit styled CLAUDE ROBERTSON and JOHN SZALASNY, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TRINITY PACKAGING CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-659, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York. As reported in the Class Action Reporter, on May 21, 2019, Robertson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a Collective Action Complaint against his former employer, Trinity, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) alleging that it willfully violated the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq. After the Defendant answered the Complaint, District Judge Lawrence J. Vilardo, to whom the case was previously assigned, referred the case to Magistrate Judge Jerimiah J. McCarthy for all proceedings under 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1)(A) and (B). On Dec. 27, 2019, Robertson and Szalasny, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed an Amended Collective and Class Action Complaint alleging that the Defendant willfully violated the FLSA, New York Labor Law, Sections 650 et seq. and 190 et seq., and 12 NYCRR Section 142-1.1 et seq. (collectively, the "NYLL"). On February 18, 2020, the case was reassigned to the Hon. John L. Sinatra, Jr. On May 12, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed an "Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement and for Certification of Class for Settlement Purposes," which attached a "Joint Stipulation of Settlement and Release" proposing to settle all NYLL class claims as well as all FLSA collective claims. On June 21, 2022, Magistrate Judge McCarthy issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending that the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion be denied. Neither party objected to the Report and Recommendation and the time to do so has expired. A district court may accept, reject, or modify the findings or recommendations of a magistrate judge. It must conduct a de novo review of those portions of a magistrate judge's recommendation to which a party objects. But neither 28 U.S.C. Section 636 nor Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72 requires a district court to review the recommendation of a magistrate judge to which no objections are raised. On July 5, 2023, Magistrate Judge McCarthy signed a DECISION AND ORDER denying final approval of the Settlement. The appellate case is captioned as Robertson v. Trinity Packaging Corporation, Case No. 23-1043, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on July 19, 2023.[BN] Plaintiffs-Petitioners Claude Robertson and John Szalasny, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, are represented by: Jason T. Brown, Esq. BROWN, LLC 111 Town Square Place, Suite 400 Jersey City, NJ 07310 Telephone: (877) 561-0000 Defendant-Respondent Trinity Packaging Corporation is represented by: Vincent E. Polsinelli, Esq. NIXON PEABODY LLP 677 Broadway Albany, NY 12207 Telephone: (518) 427-2743 U.S. SPECIAL SERVICE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Garcia Says ------------------------------------------------------------ JONATHAN GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. U.S. SPECIAL SERVICE CORPORATION; IVAN S. SANTOS; NIDALIA ABDALLETIF; and JAMES G. ABDALLETIF, Defendants, Case No. 6:23-cv-01451 (M.D. Fla., July 31, 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 Garcia was employed by the Defendants as a driver. U.S. SPECIAL SERVICE CORPORATION is a company that specializes in transporting prisoners between correctional facilities. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd. Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com ULTA BEAUTY: Faces Qualls Labor Suit Over COVID-19 Screenings ------------------------------------------------------------- TIMOTHY QUALLS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ULTA BEAUTY, INC., Case No. 1:23-at-00630 (E.D. Cal., July 27, 2023) alleges that the Defendant implemented an illegal policy requiring non-exempt distribution center workers to undergo a symptom screening for COVID-19 before every shift without pay. According to the complaint, the practice required the employees to wait and submit to a COVID-19 symptom check prior to clocking-in before every shift. After the Plaintiff and all other employees underwent the COVID-19 symptom screenings they were also required to wait in line to clock-in. They were not paid for this, despite the fact that they had already started performing tasks on Ulta's premises, at Ulta's direction, and primarily for Ulta's benefit, when they were screened, the Plaintiff contends. Accordingly, the time spent between undergoing the COVID-19 screening and clocking-in is compensable. These screenings were a uniform practice and policy in all Ulta distribution center locations. During every week of his employment, Mr. Qualls spent 5-6 minutes per day undergoing symptom screening and waiting in line to clock-in. During any given week, Mr. Qualls worked 30 minutes of uncompensated time. Thus, because of the Defendant's unlawful uncompensated COVID-19 symptom screenings, Mr. Qualls was deprived of wages as required by the California Labor Code, the lawsuit alleges. By conservative calculations, this equates to a total of $817 and $860 in uncompensated wages over the course of Mr. Qualls's employment. The amount of uncompensated wages may be greater if Mr. Qualls is entitled to overtime pay for the time spent during the symptom screenings, between $1,225.50 and $1,290, the lawsuit further claims. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated Ulta distribution center employees in California to recover wages, overtime compensation, penalties, interest, injunctive relief, damages, and reasonable attorney fees and costs under Cal. Lab. Code sections 1194, 510, 201, 202, 203, 204, 218, and 226 et seq. Mr. Qualls was employed by Ulta as a material handler in its Fresno, California distribution center location at 850 E. Central Ave, Fresno, California from September 2020 through April 2022. His job requirements included shipping, receiving, stocking, and fulfilling orders. Ulta is an American beauty store chain.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brittany S. Scott, Esq. L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Brittany S. Scott, Esq. Luke Sironski-White, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com bscott@bursor.com lsironski@bursor.com UNIFI AVIATION: Fuller Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- BRYAN A. FULLER, JR., on behalf of himself and all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNIFI AVIATION, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 8:23-cv-01643 (M.D. Fla., July 21, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals' unpaid minimum wages and overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Fuller worked for UNIFI as an hourly non-exempt employee at Tampa International Airport from approximately May 28, 2021 through approximately June 12, 2023. He asserts that he was not paid by the Defendant the minimum wage for all hours worked, and was not paid overtime for all of the hours he worked over 40 in a workweek. UNIFI AVIATION, LLC. is a Delaware limited liability company that provides services at the Tampa International Airport in Tampa, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sam Y. Badawi, Esq. BADAWI LAW 14505 University Point Place Tampa, FL 33613 Telephone: (813) 508-8808 Facsimile: (813) 644-7152 E-mail: Sam@badawilaw.com UNITED STATES: Scotts Valley Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling ------------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiff SCOTTS VALLEY BAND OF POMO INDIANS filed an appeal from the District Court's Order and Memorandum Opinion dated September 30, 2022 entered in the lawsuit styled SCOTTS VALLEY BAND OF POMO INDIANS v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01544-ABJ, in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. On May 24, 2019, Plaintiff Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians brought this action under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) against the United States Department of the Interior; David L. Bernhardt, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Interior; Tara Sweeney, in her official capacity as Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs; and John Tahsuda, in his official capacity as Principal Deputy to the Assistant for Indian Affairs. The Plaintiff challenged a February 7, 2019 Indian Lands Opinion (ILO) issued on behalf of the agency by the then-Principal Deputy to the Assistant Secretary, John Tahsuda, which found that a parcel of land in the City of Vallejo, California, would not qualify for gaming under what is known as the "restored lands" exception in the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA). This decision rendered the land ineligible for gaming purposes under the IGRA and brought an end to Scotts Valley's efforts to acquire the land to establish a casino. The parties have each filed a motion for summary judgment. The Plaintiff argued that the agency's decision was arbitrary, capricious, and otherwise not in accordance with law in contravention of the APA, and it requested that the Court remand the ILO to the agency for reconsideration. The Defendants moved for judgment in their favor on the grounds that the ILO is procedurally sound, the agency followed its implementing regulations in rendering the decision, and the regulations are based on permissible interpretations of the underlying statutes. On September 30, 2022, the Court entered an order GRANTING Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment with respect to the question of whether the February 7, 2019 ILO was arbitrary and capricious when considered in accordance with the Indian canon of statutory construction, and DENYING the motion with respect to whether Part 292, 25 C.F.R. Section 292, violates the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act or the Indian Reorganization Act, and whether the agency's decision is a result of a flawed decision-making process. The Defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment was GRANTED with respect to the questions of whether the agency exceeded its statutory authority in issuing Part 292, whether it was lawful for the then-Principal Deputy to the Assistant Secretary, John Tahsuda, to issue the ILO, and whether the agency otherwise followed appropriate procedures, but was DENIED with respect to whether the ILO was arbitrary and capricious. The Court, therefore, remanded the ILO to the agency for further proceedings. Defendants filed a motion for reconsideration, which was DENIED on May 8, 2023. This appeal presents the following grounds upon which the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was denied: -- Defendants exceeded their authority under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act in the adoption of implementing regulations at 25 CFR Part 292. -- Defendants violated the Indian Reorganization Act in the application of implementing regulations at 25 CFR Part 292 by treating the Tribe's ILO request disparately compared to those made by restored tribes prior to the adoption of the regulations; -- Defendants failed to faithfully apply their regulations at 25 CFR Part 292, and consider all evidence submitted by the Tribe regarding the Tribe's request for an ILO that a specified parcel of land in the City of Vallejo, California, is eligible for tribal gaming if taken into trust by the United States for the Tribe; -- Defendant John Tahsuda, the signatory of the negative ILO on the Tribe's request, did not hold delegated authority to render the decision; and -- Defendants' negative decision on the Tribe's ILO request was arbitrary and capricious for failing to comply with Defendants' own 2008 Guidance regarding the processing of such requests. The appellate case is captioned as SCOTTS VALLEY BAND OF POMO INDIANS v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR et al., Case No. 23-5170, in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, filed on July 21, 2023.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians is represented by: Patrick R. Bergin, Esq. Tim Hennessy, Esq. PEEBLES KIDDER BERGIN & ROBINSON LLP 2020 L Street, Suite 250 Sacramento, CA 95811 Telephone: (916) 441-2700 E-mail: pbergin@ndnlaw.com thennessy@ndnlaw.com - and - Arlinda F. Locklear, Esq. 4113 Jenifer Street, NW Washington, DC 20015 Telephone: (202) 237-0933 E-mail: alocklearesq@verizon.net WAYFAIR LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Counts Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- KAYLA COUNTS; KAYLYNN MAJOR; and ERICA DUJARDIN, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WAYFAIR LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-11706 (D. Mass., July 28, 2023) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as customer service representatives. WAYFAIR LLC provides home improvement products online. The Company offers furniture, home furnishings, rugs, outdoor, bed, bath, lighting, kitchen, storage, kids, housewares, decor, decorative accents, and other household goods. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kelsey Raycroft Rose, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 155 Federal Street, Suite 1502 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (857) 383-4903 Facsimile: (857) 383-4928 Email: KRose@forthepeople.com - and - Andrew R. Frisch, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 8151 Peters Road, 4th Floor Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) WORKERS Facsimile: (954) 327-3013 Email: AFrisch@forthepeople.com - and - Charles R. Ash, IV, Esq. ASH LAW, PLLC 402 W Liberty Street Ann Arbor, MI 48103-4388 Telephone: (734) 234-5583 Email: cash@nationalwagelaw.com - and - Oscar Rodriguez, Esq. HOOPER HATHAWAY, P.C. 126 South Main St Ann Arbor, MI 48104-1903 Telephone: (734) 662-4426 Email: orod@hooperhathaway.com WELLS FARGO: Faces Class Action Over Phony Bank Accounts -------------------------------------------------------- Gretchen Morgenson, writing for NBC News, reports that as a longtime forensic accountant who helps consumer lawyers investigate big financial institutions, Jay Patterson has made a point to do business with a smallish local bank in his hometown of Little Rock, Arkansas. So he was startled in June 2022 when he received a bank statement from Wells Fargo showing $12 in an "Everyday Checking" account in his name, an account he didn't know about and had never opened. Patterson immediately called Wells Fargo, a bank he has often scrutinized in his work, and it closed the account. But he continued to investigate, he said, learning troubling things that even he, a finance expert, hadn't known regarding how banks collect and disperse consumers' financial data. Other consumers, in public complaints to regulators, have detailed similarly mysterious Wells Fargo bank accounts, raising fresh questions, experts say, about compliance and risk management at a bank that has been rocked by scandals in recent years. In 2016, Wells Fargo was found to have opened millions of unauthorized accounts for existing customers to meet sales goals. Those woes caused the ouster of John Stumpf, the chief executive of the bank at the time. Additional improprieties and systems failures have emerged at Wells Fargo, the nation's fourth largest bank, requiring it to pay billions in fines and penalties to regulators. The bank settled allegations that it illegally repossessed military members' cars, and it was found to have charged car owners for insurance they didn't need and paused borrowers' home loan payments without their approval during Covid. Last December, Wells Fargo agreed to pay $3.7 billion to settle Consumer Financial Protection Bureau allegations of consumer abuses involving 16 million accounts. Amid the scandals, the Federal Reserve Board, the nation's top financial regulator, took the extraordinary step of capping Wells Fargo's asset size. That cap remains in place. Patterson's case differs from the previous unauthorized accounts mess at Wells Fargo in one important way: those involved existing customers who had shared their personal information with the bank. Patterson has never been a Wells Fargo customer and says he has never given the bank access to his personal data. Instead, Patterson's Wells Fargo account appears to be a case of synthetic identity fraud -- when impostors create new identities using a combination of real and fake personal information, such as names, Social Security numbers, birth dates and drivers' license numbers. They use these new identities to launder money, finance terrorism or defraud financial institutions, government agencies or individuals, according to a report by the Government Accountability Office. Banking regulations require financial institutions to verify customers' identities before they open accounts to prevent fraud and money laundering. But as often happens in synthetic identity fraud, only some of the personal information used to open Patterson's unauthorized Wells Fargo account was correct -- his name, address and Social Security number. Other information -- date of birth, email address and driver's license details -- were wrong. Thousands of dollars flowed through the account before it was shut. Patterson suffered no direct financial loss. This erroneous information should have raised red flags at Wells Fargo before the account was created, experts say. "If financial institutions are not vetting customers' identities thoroughly enough or as required under bank secrecy and anti-money laundering laws, then they shouldn't be opening the bank account to begin with," said Carla Sanchez-Adams, senior attorney at the National Consumer Law Center, a consumer advocacy nonprofit in Washington, D.C. "Banks that allow accounts to be opened through synthetic identity theft are allowing fraud actors to use the accounts for illicit activity." It will be up to a jury to decide whether the bank met its legal and regulatory responsibilities in the Patterson case, she added. Amy Bonitatibus, a Wells Fargo spokeswoman, said in a statement that allegations of unlawful activity by Wells Fargo are without merit and that identity theft is a broad industry problem that the bank is working to minimize. "Wells Fargo invests hundreds of millions of dollars annually to fight fraud and strengthen our ability to quickly combat against criminal behavior," she said. "When we learn of fraudulent activity, we take action and work to ensure there's no harm to the consumer." Patterson is not alone in having Wells Fargo allow a bogus account to be opened in his name, complaints filed with the CFPB show. During the period in which his Wells Fargo account was open, more than 40 unidentified consumers notified the CFPB of similarly mysterious accounts opened by the bank in their names. Some said the bank notified them of the accounts. "Over the past four months, I have placed multiple calls to Wells Fargo asking them to close the account and to provide information to me on the circumstances under which the account was opened," wrote one Colorado consumer in June 2022 who said Wells Fargo had opened an unauthorized checking account in their name. "One of Wells Fargo's representatives actually told me that if I wanted to get any information from Wells Fargo, I should hire an attorney!" Patterson, too, remains in the dark about who opened his mystery account. "Wells Fargo would not tell me anything about this account -- when it was opened, who opened it, what kind of money went through it," Patterson told NBC News. "They did acknowledge it was fraud in a letter a few weeks later." It could not be determined how many unauthorized accounts like Patterson's have cropped up at Wells Fargo. In the 2016 scandal, bank employees opened 1.5 million bank accounts and 565,000 credit card accounts that customers did not request. Wells Fargo says it serves one in three U.S. households. Investigating his unauthorized Wells Fargo account also introduced Patterson to Early Warning Services LLC, a little-known Arizona company owned by seven of the nation's largest banks, including Bank of America, Capital One Financial, JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo. Early Warning Services owns the Zelle Network payment system and collects vast amounts of consumers' financial data to provide identity verification services to banks when they open consumer accounts. Upon request, Early Warning will provide consumers with reports showing granular details of their banking activities. Patterson requested his record, which shows the phony Wells Fargo account was opened in March 2022 and that roughly $5,000 flowed through it. The Early Warning report, reviewed by NBC News, also shows three outgoing payments on the account totaling $15,000 that were returned for insufficient funds. Returned transactions like these can damage a consumer's credit standing and Patterson wonders if they penalized him. On Aug. 1, Patterson sued Wells Fargo and Early Warning contending that they stole his personal information and harmed him by reporting the phony transactions as his. Early Warning appeared to verify Patterson's erroneous personal data to Wells Fargo, the lawsuit said, and Wells Fargo furnished transaction information from the unauthorized account to Early Warning. In a statement, a spokeswoman for Early Warning said the claims asserted in the lawsuit "are completely baseless and without legal merit and we intend to vigorously defend this matter." Bonitatibus at Wells Fargo said: "The allegations of unlawful activity in this complaint are without merit." Patterson's lawsuit seeks class-action status. "Wells Fargo and Early Warning talk a lot about information security and the importance of protecting sensitive consumer data," said Theodore O. Bartholow, III, Patterson's lawyer at Kellett & Bartholow in Dallas. "The reality is that Wells Fargo and Early Warning are more concerned about profiting from consumers' private information than they are about protecting consumers' privacy." Given his work as a forensic accountant, Patterson said he is surprised the account was created. "How in the world can a bank allow an account to be opened by someone who doesn't have all the vital information that's correct? How did it even get through?" he asked. Meanwhile, his mystery account appears to have lived on, even after Wells Fargo told him it was closed. Last October, three months after the bank assured Patterson the account had been closed, he received a postcard from Wells Fargo letting him know it had changed the address on his accounts "in response to your request." The new address? The same one Wells Fargo used for the unauthorized account in the first place. [GN] WELSPUN PIPES: Sanford Law Appeals Sanctions in Vines Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Respondent Sanford Law Firm and Josh Sanford filed an appeal from the District Court's Order dated July 7, 2023 entered in the lawsuit entitled ANTHONY VINES and DOMINIQUE LEWIS, each individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WELSPUN PIPES, INC.; WELSPUN TUBULAR LLC; and WELSPUN USA, the Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-00509-SWW, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Central. The lawsuit was filed in April 2018 on behalf of Anthony Vines and Dominique Lewis, who represented a class of workers at Welspun Pipes Inc., accusing the company of underpaying the workers for overtime hours they worked in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The case was settled in 2020 after Welspun agreed to pay $211,666 to be divided among 160 people, and an additional $57,673 to be divided among another 74 people who comprised a second class of employees who opted into the lawsuit after the settlement was reached. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the settlement in favor of the Plaintiffs resulted in a denial of $96,000 in fees to their counsel, Sanford Law Firm, after U.S. District Judge Billy Roy Wilson decided the fees were excessive and reduced the amount to $1. He later raised the amount to $500 after a three-judge panel on the 8th Circuit vacated the award in 2021 and remanded the matter back to him. Judge Wilson awarded the Sanford Law Firm $500 in attorney fees and $2,790.87 in costs. In that order, Wilson wrote, "This case continues to be drawn out because the Sanford Law Firm wants to be paid for work it never performed and never intended to perform. Additionally, the work SLF actually did perform was billed at inflated hourly rates and far exceeded the number of reasonable hours that should have been devoted to this case." According to his September 2021 order, Wilson calculated a lodestar of $14,056.50 which he reduced to $500 "based on SLF's egregious conduct," and $2,790.87 in costs, a decision that was appealed. A three-judge panel unanimously ruled on June 29, 2023 that Judge Wilson did not abuse his discretion in the ruling, saying that Wilson, "complied to the letter with our directive on how to calculate an award of attorneys' fees and provided ample justification for reducing the lodestar based on SLF's unprofessional conduct." On the heels of that June 29 Order, Judge Wilson issued the order to Sanford Law Firm to appear July 19 at 2 p.m. before his court to show cause "as to why it should not be held in contempt of court and sanctioned under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. More specifically, Rules 11(b)(1) and (b)(2), which relate to "needlessly increas[ing] the cost of litigation" and certifying that "legal contentions are warranted by existing law." In his four-page order, Judge Wilson accused Sanford Law Firm of drawing out the case in order to "be paid for work it never performed and never intended to perform" and of billing work it did perform at inflated rates and of exceeding the "reasonable" number of billable hours "that should have been devoted to the case." On July 7, 2023, Sanford Law Firm filed a motion to continue the said July 19, 2023 show cause hearing which the Court denied on the same day through an Order signed by Judge Wilson. On July 21, an amended Order was entered by Judge Wilson finding Mr. Sanford to be in violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and imposed the following sanctions: (1) Mr. Josh Sanford and his firm are suspended from practicing in any FLSA cases in federal court in the Eastern District of Arkansas for a term of two years. After two years, Respondents may submit a request to lift the suspension and provide supporting documentation regarding how Mr. Sanford and SLF's practices have changed; (2) While Mr. Sanford and SLF are suspended in the Eastern District of Arkansas, they must provide to every other jurisdiction where they practice copies of the June 29, 2023 show-cause order and this order. More specifically, they must be filed in every pending case and any future cases; and (3) Any attempt to circumvent this suspension by, for example, associating other lawyers, will be closely examined and Mr. Sanford is directed to advise any lawyers he associates of this fact. The appellate case is captioned as In re: Sanford Law Firm, et al., Case No. 23-2682, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on July 21, 2023. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellants' brief, Addendum, and Appendix were due August 11, 2023; -- Amicus brief is due September 1, 2023; and -- Appellants' reply brief is due September 8, 2023.[BN] Respondents-Appellants Sanford Law Firm and Josh Sanford are represented by: Jeffrey M. Rosenzweig, Esq. 300 Spring Building Little Rock, AR 72201-2421 Telephone: (501) 372-5247 WIRELESS ICENTER: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Diaz Alleges --------------------------------------------------------- IVAN M. DIAZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. WIRELESS ICENTER LLC; and DAVID J. CAMPO, Defendants, Case No. Case 0:23-cv-61467-XXXX (S.D. Fla., July 31, 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 Diaz was employed by the Defendants as a driver. WIRELESS ICENTER LLC operates as a cellular telephone service provider. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd. Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com WLCC II: Faces Day Suit Over Illegal Collection Practices --------------------------------------------------------- DAMIEN DAY, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WLCC II DBA ARROWHEAD ADVANCE, Defendant, Case No. CACE-23-015992 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial, Broward Cty., July 21, 2023) arises from the Defendant's violation of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant sent an electronic communication to Plaintiff in connection with the collection of the consumer debt. The electronic communication was sent to Plaintiff between the hours of 9:00 PM and 8:00 AM in the Plaintiff's time zone. The Defendant did not have the Plaintiff's consent to communicate with him between the said hours. As such, by Defendant's act of sending the electronic communication, Defendant violated the FCCPA, says the suit. WLCC II, dba Arrowhead Advance, is a short-term loans company with its principal place of business in Batesland, South Dakota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq. Jennifer G. Simil, Esq. Shannon E. Gilvey, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 907-1136 Facsimile: (855) 529-9540 E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com jen@jibraellaw.com shannon@jibraellaw.com YALE-NEW HAVEN: Must Face ERISA Class Action, Judge Rules --------------------------------------------------------- Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Esq., and Jeffrey R. Zohn, Esq., of Duane Morris, disclosed that on July 28, 2023, Judge Michael P. Shea of the U.S. District Court For The District Of Connecticut granted class certification for current and former employees of Yale-New Haven Hospital in Ruilova et al. v. Yale-New Haven Hospital, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:22-CV-00111 (D. Conn. July 28, 2023). Plaintiffs alleged that their retirement accounts were not appropriately managed, which resulted in poor investment decisions and excessive fees. Although many class action defendants are emboldened to fight on every aspect of plaintiffs' claims, the Defendants in Ruilova took a different approach. Prior to the Court granting certification, Defendants stipulated to the certification of an over 25,000-person class in order to streamline the litigation and efficiently manage the litigation. Per Rule 23, the Court deemed that the motion satisfied the requirements for class certification. Case History In January 2022, Plaintiffs Kaity Ruilova and Eileen Brannigan ("Plaintiffs") filed a class action lawsuit against Yale-New Haven Hospital, Inc. and its Board of Directors and Investment Oversight Committee ("Defendants") alleging breach of fiduciary duty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"). Plaintiffs sought to represent over 25,000 former and current employees that participated in the Yale-New Haven ERISA Plan ("the Plan"). The Plan had assets totaling approximately $1.66 billion. The lawsuit alleged that Defendants failed to fully disclose the expenses and risks of the Plan's investment options to participants, allowed unreasonable expenses to be charged to participants (at a rate around 33% higher than comparable plans), and accepted high-cost and poorly-performing investments. Plaintiffs sought to recover all losses resulting from each breach of fiduciary duty. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss that the Court granted in part and denied in part. The Court dismissed the claims made against the Board of Directors because the Board of Directors was not a fiduciary of the Plan. The Court denied the motion to dismiss as to the claim alleging that the Plan incurred excessive recordkeeping and administrative fees and the related failure-to-monitor claims. While still denying that they are liable to Plaintiffs, approximately four months later, Defendants struck a deal with Plaintiffs to jointly file a stipulation to certify the class just as Plaintiffs articulated in the Complaint. The Court certified the class in a brief half page order one month later. Per its duty under Rule 23, the Court analyzed the motion and determined that Plaintiffs met the prerequisites for class certification. Implications for Class Action Defendants While a court certifying a class does not always make headlines, this one is unique. Defendants proactively agreed to stipulate to the certification of the class that Plaintiffs' counsel alleged in the Complaint. The parties' conversations and thought processes that led to this decision will never be known, but this strategy is a good reminder to always assess the merits of plaintiffs' claims and only attack the weakest aspects of the case. Doing more is a waste of everyone's resources, may demonstrate a lack of good faith, and could damage credibility in the eyes of the court.[GN] YELLOW CORP: Faces Class Action Over Inadequate Notice of Layoffs ----------------------------------------------------------------- Colin Campbell at transportdive.com reports that Yellow Corp. failed to give its 30,000 workers a required 60 days' notice before mass layoffs, a class-action lawsuit by a laid-off employee alleges. Dockworker Armando Rivera, a 25-year Yellow employee and International Brotherhood of Teamsters shop steward at Yellow's Bloomington, California terminal, filed the lawsuit against the carrier and its subsidiaries in Delaware District Court. Previously the third-largest LTL provider in the U.S., Yellow shut down operations and is headed for liquidation. Rivera was among about 600 employees at the Bloomington facility - and thousands more workers elsewhere - who were laid off on or about July 28 without the required notice, the complaint alleges. The lawsuit seeks to create a legal class of plaintiffs and attorneys plan to notify laid-off Yellow employees affected by the layoffs. The lawsuit seeks unpaid wages, salary, commissions, bonuses, accrued holiday pay, accrued vacation pay, pension and 401(k) contributions and other benefits the complaint says would have been covered for 60 days under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act. For class-action plaintiffs in New Jersey, which has a stricter WARN law requiring 90 days' notice, the lawsuit also seeks severance pay equivalent to one week of pay, plus an additional four weeks of mandatory severance pay. A Yellow spokesperson declined to comment on the lawsuit. But in a July 30 letter to the Teamsters, the company said the layoffs fell under "unforeseeable business circumstances," "faltering company" and "liquidating fiduciary" exceptions to the WARN Act. The letter was provided by the carrier as its WARN notice, according to the Illinois Department of Commerce & Economic Opportunity. The outcome of the lawsuit, then, could depend on a court's interpretation of those exceptions - and whether Yellow's looming bankruptcy qualifies. The Teamsters and Yellow have a separate lawsuit awaiting settlement. Yellow sued the union for $137 million in June, accusing leadership of "unjustifiably blocking" the network overhaul the company considered key to survival. The company and union have pointed the finger at each other for the carrier's demise, with Yellow blaming the union's intransigence for the job losses, and the union arguing the carrier mismanaged its business. [GN] [*] Lawmakers Pursue Tort Reform as Alternative to Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Patrick Gleason, writing for Forbes, reports that in the days and even hours leading up to Governor Ron DeSantis's (R-Fla.) spring signing of House Bill 837, tort reform legislation that shortens the statute of limitations for certain lawsuits and makes a number of other changes, there was a reported "rush to the courthouse with negligence lawsuits in advance of its effective date." The scramble to file suits, noted the firm Holland & Knight, "suggests that HB 837 will curtail the overall tort liability confronted by all kinds of companies operating in Florida." Florida isn't the only state where tort reform was enacted in 2023. Five weeks and a day before Governor DeSantis signed HB 837, Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds (R) signed HF 161, legislation capping noneconomic damages in medical malpractices lawsuits. "Iowa joins the majority of U.S. states by enacting commonsense medical malpractice reform that places a reasonable cap on non-economic damages," Governor Reynolds said in her February 16 signing statement for HF 161. "Protecting our health care system from out-of-control verdicts promotes access to care in communities across our state and better positions us to recruit the best and brightest physicians to Iowa." The need for tort reform that limits unexpected legal costs for employers while maintaining consumer safeguards is an ongoing topic of debate in state legislatures. While business interests and trade associations often advocate for tort reform, companies have also developed a strategy for mitigating legal costs over the years, with an approach that focuses on arbitration as an alternative to class action and does not rely on legislative or regulatory action. This development, however, has come with its own unintended consequences that some now seek to address. The Rise of Mass Arbitration Though tort reform helps businesses limit the potential for unexpected legal fees and penalties associated with class action lawsuits, companies have found over the years that they can mitigate prospective legal costs through forced arbitration agreements. Forced arbitration allows companies to avoid the courtroom through contractual language mandating that consumer complaints be addressed through arbitration rather than class action lawsuits or other legal action. Mandatory arbitration clauses are a tool now used by most of the largest companies. In fact, 81 of the businesses who comprise the Fortune 100 prevent consumers from taking them to court with contractual language mandating arbitration. Digital terms of service agreements with forced arbitration clauses are used by many companies today. More than 825 million separate consumer arbitration agreements are now in existence. As of 2018, approximately 7,000 arbitration cases were heard annually. Critics of forced arbitration contend it leads to less favorable outcomes for consumers, many of whom are unaware they've agreed to forced arbitration. "I would venture that every person living in the U.S. today has unknowingly signed up for forced arbitration in some aspect of their lives, whether it's through credit cards, cell phones, long-term care or employment contracts," said Julia Duncan, senior director of government affairs for the American Association for Justice. Arbitration arose as a preferable alternative to class action lawsuits, one that has been effective in reducing unexpected legal costs. Yet, although arbitration originated as an alternative to mass legal action, businesses now face a new predicament with the rise of mass arbitration, which many companies appear unable to handle, or in some cases refuse to engage with the process entirely. Companies Shirk Mass Arbitration Process They Erected Companies first pushed for forced arbitration as a way to avoid class action lawsuits. This effort to avoid mass legal action through mandatory arbitration has been followed by the rise of mass arbitration. In an attempt to avoid the costs associated with mass legal action, companies now find themselves grappling with unexpected costs associated with mass arbitration. In 2020, for example, 31,000 separate demands for arbitration were issued by UberEats customers who argued Uber'sUBER +1.7% temporary 2020 policy of cancelling delivery fees for Black-owned restaurants was racial discrimination. A New York state appeals court subsequently denied Uber's request to get out of paying $92 million in arbitration fees charged by the American Arbitration Association (AAA) to handle the complaints from UberEats customers. "While Uber is trying to avoid paying the arbitration fees associated with 31,000 nearly identical cases, it made the business decision to preclude class, collective or representative claims in its arbitration agreement with its consumers," the appeals court noted in its ruling. "AAA's fees are directly attributable to that decision." While companies are now having a difficult time living under the forced arbitration regime they created, opponents of forced arbitration have taken legislative action. In 2019, for example, California lawmakers passed Assembly Bill 51, which prohibits companies from forcing their workers to sign arbitration agreements. AB 51, however, was subsequently struck down by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on February 15, 2023, which ruled that businesses can mandate that their employees and job applicants sign arbitration agreements as a condition of employment. California lawmakers have also passed legislation stipulating that if an employer fails to pay their required portion of arbitration fees or costs within 30 days past due, the business is in "material breach" of the agreement. That deemed breach allows the matter to be be resolved in civil court and through class action. Critics of forced arbitration point to examples of companies shirking the arbitration process that they helped erect and into which they voluntarily forced complaints. Samsung, for example, is refusing to pay arbitration fees related to motions for arbitration filed by nearly 50,000 Samsung Galaxy users who claim their biometric data was improperly used. "For nearly a decade, Samsung has included a forced mandatory arbitration provision and class action waiver in its terms and conditions wielding it as a shield to successfully evade class actions," noted the Galaxy users' motion to compel arbitration. The motion added that "now, when tens of thousands of customers finally level the playing field by simultaneously filing individual claims in arbitration, Samsung refuses to honor its contract to arbitrate and, worse, tells the arbitral forum that Samsung -- a company with approximately $21 billion in net income last year -- will only arbitrate if the individual consumers pay its fees." Critics of forced arbitration point to substandard outcomes for consumers. Businesses that have mandated arbitration over legal action, meanwhile, are proving unable to handle the responsibilities and cost associated with mass arbitration. Those on all sides of this debate believe some form of response from state officials is called for. There is bipartisan, cross-ideological consensus that state legislative reforms to the arbitration system that companies created is necessary. While the benefits of some types of tort reform have become clearer with the passage of time, evidence continues to mount that the current forced arbitration regime, though it has become common, is flawed and needs to be reformed. As more state lawmakers pursue legislation seeking to ensure arbitration leads to better outcomes, businesses, consumer groups, and stakeholder organizations will likely be coming to the table with their own ideas. Even those who differ over the preferred solution, after all, now agree that the status quo is untenable. [GN] Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Inc. Faces Personal Injury Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- Ashland Inc. is subject to liabilities from claims alleging personal injury caused by exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "Such claims result from indemnification obligations undertaken in 1990 in connection with the sale of Riley Stoker Corporation and the acquisition of Hercules in November 2008. Although Riley, a former subsidiary, was neither a producer nor a manufacturer of asbestos, its industrial boilers contained some asbestos-containing components provided by other companies. Hercules, an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Ashland, has liabilities from claims alleging personal injury caused by exposure to asbestos. Such claims typically arise from alleged exposure to asbestos fibers from resin encapsulated pipe and tank products sold by one of Hercules’ former subsidiaries to a limited industrial market. "To assist in developing and annually updating independent reserve estimates for future asbestos claims and related costs given various assumptions for Ashland and Hercules asbestos claims, Ashland retained third party actuarial experts Gnarus. The methodology used by Gnarus to project future asbestos costs is based largely on recent experience, including claim-filing and settlement rates, disease mix, open claims and litigation defense. The claim experience of Ashland and Hercules are separately compared to the results of previously conducted third party epidemiological studies estimating the number of people likely to develop asbestos-related diseases. Those studies were undertaken in connection with national analyses of the population expected to have been exposed to asbestos. Using that information, Gnarus estimates a range of the number of future claims that may be filed, as well as the related costs that may be incurred in resolving those claims. Changes in asbestos-related liabilities and receivables are recorded on an after-tax basis within the discontinued operations caption in the Statements of Consolidated Comprehensive Income (Loss)." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://tinyurl.com/4zkx5eyj ASBESTOS UPDATE: CarParts.com's Subsidiaries Faces Damage Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- CarParts.com, Inc.'s wholly-owned subsidiary, Automotive Specialty Accessories and Parts, Inc., and its wholly-owned subsidiary Whitney Automotive Group, Inc. ("WAG"), are named defendants in several lawsuits involving claims for damages caused by installation of brakes during the late 1960's and early 1970's that contained asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "WAG marketed certain brakes, but did not manufacture any brakes. WAG maintains liability insurance coverage to protect its and the Company's assets from losses arising from the litigation and coverage is provided on an occurrence rather than a claims made basis, and the Company is not expected to incur significant out-of-pocket costs in connection with this matter that would be material to its consolidated financial statements." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://tinyurl.com/y75djfhp ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chemours Has 900 Pending Exposure Suits at June 30 ------------------------------------------------------------------- The Chemours Company, at June 30, 2023 and December 31, 2022, had approximately 900 lawsuits pending against former parent company E. I. du Pont de Nemours (EID) alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "A small number of cases are pending outside of the U.S. Most of the actions were brought by contractors who worked at sites between the 1950s and the 1990s. A small number of cases involve similar allegations by EID employees or household members of contractors or EID employees. Finally, certain lawsuits allege personal injury as a result of exposure to EID products. "At June 30, 2023 and December 31, 2022, Chemours had accruals of $35 related to these matters." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://tinyurl.com/4y2zyeda ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colgate-Palmolive Defends 251 Suits at June 30 --------------------------------------------------------------- Colgate-Palmolive Company has been named as a defendant in civil actions alleging that certain talcum powder products that were sold prior to 1996 were contaminated with asbestos and/or caused mesothelioma and other cancers, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "As of June 30, 2023, there were 251 individual cases pending against the Company in state and federal courts throughout the United States, as compared to 248 cases as of March 31, 2023 and 227 cases as of December 31, 2022. During the three months ended June 30, 2023, 57 new cases were filed and 54 cases were resolved by voluntary dismissal or settlement. During the six months ended June 30, 2023, 103 new cases were filed and 79 cases were resolved by voluntary dismissal, settlement or dismissal by the court. The value of the settlements in the periods presented was not material, either individually or in the aggregate, to such periods' results of operations. "A significant portion of the Company's costs incurred in defending and resolving these claims has been, and the Company believes that a portion of the costs will continue to be, covered by insurance policies issued by several primary, excess and umbrella insurance carriers, subject to deductibles, exclusions, retentions, policy limits and insurance carrier insolvencies." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://tinyurl.com/mr2j2t5j ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus McKinnon Estimates $5.3MM Net Liability ----------------------------------------------------------------- Columbus McKinnon Corporation has estimated its net asbestos-related aggregate liability including related legal costs to range between $5,300,000 and $9,700,000, net of insurance recoveries, using actuarial parameters of continued claims for a period of 38 years from June 30, 2023, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Columbus McKinnon states, "The Company has estimated its asbestos-related aggregate liability that is probable and estimable, net of insurance recoveries, in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles approximates $6,890,000. The Company has reflected the liability gross of insurance recoveries of $8,081,000 as a liability in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as of June 30, 2023. The recorded liability does not consider the impact of any potential favorable federal legislation. This liability will fluctuate based on the uncertainty in the number of future claims that will be filed and the cost to resolve those claims, which may be influenced by a number of factors, including the outcome of the ongoing broad-based settlement negotiations, defensive strategies, and the cost to resolve claims outside the broad-based settlement program. Of this amount, management expects to incur asbestos liability payments of approximately $2,900,000 over the next 12 months. Because payment of the liability is likely to extend over many years, management believes that the potential additional costs for claims will not have a material effect on the financial condition of the Company or its liquidity, although the effect of any future liabilities recorded could be material to earnings in a future period. "A share of the Company's previously incurred asbestos-related expenses and future asbestos-related expenses are covered by pre-existing insurance policies. The Company had been engaged in a legal action against the insurance carriers for those policies to recover past expenses and future costs incurred. The Company came to an agreement with the insurance carriers to settle its case against them for recovery of a portion of past costs and future costs for asbestos-related legal defense costs. The agreement was finalized during the quarter ended September 30, 2020. The terms of the settlement require the carriers to pay gross defense costs prior to retro-premiums of 65% for future asbestos-related defense costs subject to an annual cap of $1,650,000 for claims covered by the settlement. "Further, the insurance carriers are expected to cover 100% of indemnity costs related to all covered cases. Estimates of the future cost sharing have been included in the loss reserve calculation as of June 30, 2023 and March 31, 2023. The Company has recorded a receivable for the estimated future cost sharing in Other assets in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet at June 30, 2023 in the amount of $8,081,000, which offsets its asbestos reserves." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://tinyurl.com/yj2m45dm ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Holdings Paid $7MM to Settle Asbestos Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------- Crown Holdings, Inc.'s subsidiary, Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc., is one of many defendants in a substantial number of lawsuits filed throughout the U.S. by persons alleging bodily 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. Crown Holdings states, "During the six months ended June 30, 2023, the Company paid $7 to settle asbestos claims and pay related legal and defense costs "As of June 30, 2023, the Company's accrual for pending and future asbestos-related claims and related legal costs was $213, including $165 for unasserted claims. The Company determines its accrual without limitation to a specific time period. "It is reasonably possible that the actual loss could be in excess of the Company's accrual. However, the Company is unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss in excess of its accrual due to uncertainty in the following assumptions that underlie the Company's accrual and the possibility of losses in excess of such accrual: the amount of damages sought by the claimant (which was not specified for approximately 82% of the claims outstanding at the end of 2022), the Company and claimant's willingness to negotiate a settlement, the terms of settlements of other defendants with asbestos-related liabilities, the bankruptcy filings of other defendants (which may result in additional claims and higher settlements for non-bankrupt defendants), the nature of pending and future claims (including the seriousness of alleged disease, whether claimants allege first exposure to asbestos before or during 1964 and the claimant's ability to demonstrate the alleged link to Crown Cork), the volatility of the litigation environment, the defense strategies available to the Company, the level of future claims, the rate of receipt of claims, the jurisdiction in which claims are filed, and the effect of state asbestos legislation (including the validity and applicability of the Pennsylvania legislation to non-Pennsylvania jurisdictions, where the substantial majority of the Company’s asbestos cases are filed)." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://tinyurl.com/yb5x8wdv ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enstar Group Reports $412MM Net A&E Liabilities ---------------------------------------------------------------- Enstar Group Limited has $412 million of net liabilities relating to defendant A&E exposures, for the period ended June 30, 2023, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://tinyurl.com/3v86u67a ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enviri Corp. Has 17,259 Pending PI Actions ----------------------------------------------------------- Enviri Corporation is named as one of many defendants (approximately 90 or more in most cases) in legal actions in the U.S. alleging personal injury from exposure to airborne asbestos over the past several decades, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "At June 30, 2023, has reported 17,259 pending asbestos personal injury actions filed against the Company. Of those actions, 16,602 were filed in the New York Supreme Court (New York County), 115 were filed in other New York State Supreme Court Counties and 542 were filed in courts located in other states "The complaints in most of those actions generally follow a form that contains a standard damages demand of $20 million or $25 million, regardless of the individual plaintiff's alleged medical condition, and without identifying any specific Company product. "At June 30, 2023, 16,549 of the actions filed in New York Supreme Court (New York County) were on the Deferred/Inactive Docket created by the court in December 2002 for all pending and future asbestos actions filed by persons who cannot demonstrate that they have a malignant condition or discernible physical impairment. The remaining 53 cases in New York County are pending on the Active or In Extremis Docket created for plaintiffs who can demonstrate a malignant condition or physical impairment. "In view of the persistence of asbestos litigation in the U.S., the Company expects to continue to receive additional claims in the future. The Company intends to continue its practice of vigorously defending these claims and cases. At June 30, 2023, the Company has obtained dismissal in approximately 28,432 cases by stipulation or summary judgment prior to trial." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://tinyurl.com/mvzdsdpk ASBESTOS UPDATE: ESAB Corp. Logs 14,764 Unresolved Claims --------------------------------------------------------- ESAB Corporation, for the tree months ended June 30, 2023, has recorded 14,764 unresolved asbestos-related claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "Certain entities that became subsidiaries of ESAB Corporation in connection with the Separation are the legal obligor for certain asbestos obligations including long-term asbestos insurance assets, long-term asbestos insurance receivables, accrued asbestos liabilities, long-term asbestos liabilities, asbestos indemnity expenses, asbestos-related defense costs and asbestos insurance recoveries related to the asbestos obligations from the Former Parent's other legacy industrial businesses. As a result, the Company holds certain asbestos-related contingencies and insurance coverages. "These subsidiaries are each one of many defendants in a large number of lawsuits that claim personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos from products manufactured or used with components that are alleged to have contained asbestos. Such components were acquired from third-party suppliers, and were not manufactured by any of the Company's, or Former Parent's, subsidiaries, nor were the subsidiaries, producers or direct suppliers of asbestos. The manufactured products that are alleged to have contained or used asbestos generally were provided to meet the specifications of the subsidiaries' customers, including the U.S. Navy. The subsidiaries settle asbestos claims for amounts the Company considers reasonable given the facts and circumstances of each claim. The annual average settlement payment per asbestos claimant has fluctuated during the past several years while the number of cases has steadily declined. The Company expects such fluctuations to continue in the future based upon, among other things, the number and type of claims settled in a particular period and the jurisdictions in which such claims arise. To date, the majority of settled claims have been dismissed for no payment. "The Company has classified asbestos-related activity in Loss from discontinued operations, net of taxes in the Consolidated and Combined Condensed Statements of Operations. This is consistent with the Former Parent's classification on the basis that, pursuant to the purchase agreement from the Former Parent's Fluid Handling business divestiture, the Former Parent retained its asbestos-related contingencies and insurance coverages. However, as the Former Parent did not retain an interest in the ongoing operations of the business subject to the contingencies, asbestos-related activity was classified as part of Loss from discontinued operations, net of taxes in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations of the Former Parent. "The Company has projected each subsidiary's future asbestos-related liability costs with regard to pending and future unasserted claims based upon the Nicholson methodology. The Nicholson methodology is a standard approach used by experts and has been accepted by numerous courts. Consistent with the Former Parent, it is ESAB's policy to record a liability for asbestos-related liability costs for the longest period of time that ESAB management can reasonably estimate. "The Company believes that it can reasonably estimate the asbestos-related liability for pending and future claims that will be resolved in the next 15 years and has recorded that liability as its best estimate. While it is reasonably possible that the subsidiaries will incur costs after this period, the Company does not believe the reasonably possible loss or a range of reasonably possible losses is estimable at the current time. Accordingly, no accrual has been recorded for any costs that may be paid after the next 15 years. Defense costs associated with asbestos-related liabilities as well as costs incurred related to efforts to recover insurance from the subsidiaries' insurers are expensed as incurred. "Each subsidiary has separate insurance coverage acquired prior to Company ownership. The Company estimates the insurance assets for each subsidiary based upon the applicable policy language, expected recoveries and allocation methodologies, and law pertaining to the affected subsidiary's insurance policies." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://tinyurl.com/y5smu5f4 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flowserve Corp. Faces 590 New PI Lawsuits ---------------------------------------------------------- Flowserve Corporation, for the three months ended March 31, 2023, has received 590 new claims and lawsuits that seeks to recover damages for personal injury allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos-containing products manufactured and/or distributed by our heritage companies in the past, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "Typically, these lawsuits have been brought against multiple defendants in state and federal courts. While the overall number of asbestos-related claims in which we or our predecessors have been named has generally declined in recent years, there can be no assurance that this trend will continue, or that the average cost per claim to us will not further increase. Asbestos-containing materials incorporated into any such products were encapsulated and used as internal components of process equipment, and we do not believe that significant emission of asbestos fibers occurred during the use of this equipment. "During both the three and six months ended June 30, 2023 the Company incurred expenses (net of insurance) of approximately $4.3 million and $6.0 million, respectively, compared to $1.8 million and $3.6 million, respectively, for the same periods in 2022 to defend, resolve or otherwise dispose of outstanding claims, including legal and other related expenses. These expenses are included within SG&A in our condensed consolidated statements of income. "The Company had cash inflows (outflows) (net of insurance and/or indemnity) to defend, resolve or otherwise dispose of outstanding claims, including legal and other related expenses of approximately $(11.7) million and $2.7 million, respectively, during the six months ended June 30, 2023 and 2022, respectively. "Historically, a high percentage of resolved claims have been covered by applicable insurance or indemnities from other companies, and we believe that a substantial majority of existing claims should continue to be covered by insurance or indemnities, in whole or in part." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://tinyurl.com/mr4ch67s ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graybar Has $2.5MM Insurance Receivable at June 30 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Graybar Electric Company, Inc., is subject to various claims, disputes, and administrative and legal matters incidental to past and current business activities, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "We have in place insurance coverage for litigation defense and claim settlement costs incurred in connection with our asbestos claims. We estimate the value of probable insurance recoveries associated with our asbestos reserve based on management's interpretations and estimates surrounding the available or applicable insurance coverage. We estimate the future payments for litigation defense and claim settlement costs based on our historical liabilities and current and projected caseloads. At June 30, 2023 and December 31, 2022, we had $2.5 million and $41.5 million of insurance receivables recorded in other current assets and other non-current assets, respectively, and $2.5 million and $41.5 million recorded in other current liabilities and other non-current liabilities, respectively, related to our asbestos litigation defense and claims settlement reserve. "Estimated loss contingencies are accrued only if the loss is probable and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. With respect to a particular loss contingency, it may be probable that a loss has occurred but the estimate of the loss is a wide range. If we deem an amount within the range to be a better estimate than any other amount within the range, that amount will be accrued. However, if no amount within the range is a better estimate than any other amount, the minimum amount of the range is accrued. While we believe that none of these claims, disputes, administrative, and legal matters will have a material adverse effect on our financial position, these matters are uncertain and we cannot at this time determine whether the financial impact, if any, of these matters will be material to our results of operations in the period in which such matters are resolved or a better estimate becomes available." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://tinyurl.com/23fbcr28 ASBESTOS UPDATE: International Paper Has $111MM in Claims Liability ------------------------------------------------------------------- International Paper Company has been named as a defendant in various asbestos-related personal injury litigation, in both state and federal court, primarily in relation to the prior operations of certain companies previously acquired by the Company, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. International Paper states, "The Company's total recorded liability with respect to pending and future asbestos-related claims was $111 million, net of estimated insurance recoveries and $105 million, net of estimated insurance recoveries as of June 30, 2023 and December 31, 2022, respectively. While it is reasonably possible that the Company may incur losses in excess of its recorded liability with respect to asbestos-related matters, we are unable to estimate any loss or range of loss in excess of such liability, and do not believe additional material losses are probable." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://tinyurl.com/4r9zu37r ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Technologies Defends 501 Cases at July 2 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Minerals Technologies Inc., as of July 2, 2023, had 501 open asbestos cases related to certain talc products previously sold by Barretts Minerals Inc., which is an increase in volume from previous years, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "These claims typically allege various theories of liability, including negligence, gross negligence and strict liability and seek compensatory and, in some cases, punitive damages, but most of these claims do not provide adequate information to assess their merits, the likelihood that the Company will be found liable, or the magnitude of such liability, if any. We are unable to state an amount or range of amounts claimed in any of these lawsuits because state court pleading practices do not require the plaintiff to identify the amount of the claimed damage. The Company's position, as stated publicly, is that the talc products sold by Barretts Minerals Inc. are safe and do not cause cancer. "The Company records accruals for loss contingencies associated with legal matters, including talc-related litigation, when it is probable that a liability will be incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Amounts accrued for legal contingencies often result from a complex series of judgments about future events and uncertainties that rely heavily on estimates and assumptions including timing of related payments. The ability to make such estimates and judgments can be affected by various factors, including whether damages sought in the proceedings are unsubstantiated or indeterminate, the stage of the litigation, the factual and legal matters in dispute, the ability to achieve comprehensive settlements, the availability of co-defendants with substantial resources and assets participating in the litigation, and our evaluation of the unique attributes of each claim. "While costs relating to the defense of talc-related cases has increased concurrently with the volume, the majority of these costs have historically been borne by Pfizer Inc. pursuant to the terms of certain agreements entered into in connection with the Company's initial public offering in 1992. The Company is entitled to indemnification, pursuant to agreement, for liabilities arising from sales prior to the initial public offering. The Company continues to receive information with respect to potential costs associated with the defense and/or settlement of talc-related cases not subject to indemnification from Pfizer Inc. Although the Company believes that the talc products are safe and that claims to the contrary are without merit, Barretts Minerals Inc. opportunistically settled certain talc-related cases in 2022 and 2023. In the third quarter of 2022, as a result of the settlements and defense costs incurred to date, the Company reviewed its estimates of the probability and amount of losses in connection with its existing talc-related cases and recorded $31 million for litigation costs to defend against, opportunistically settle, and establish a reserve for claims associated with certain talc products from Barretts Minerals Inc. In the second quarter of 2023, the Company reviewed its estimates of the probability and amount of losses in connection with its current talc-related cases and recorded a charge of $13.9 million for litigation costs and to restore its reserve. "The broader litigation and regulatory environments for talc-related claims continue to evolve. Given this ongoing evolution, it is reasonably possible that the Company will incur a loss for liabilities associated with future talc claims in excess of the amount currently recognized. This risk is based on the potential for new talc-related claims that could eventually be filed against the Company together with their associated disposition cost and related legal costs, taking into account the portion of such hypothetical claims that may be subject to indemnification by Pfizer Inc. These factors are unknown and may vary depending upon, among other things, changes in the regulatory and litigation environments for talc-related claims. Further, the Company has announced that it will exit the talc business following a strategic review of its operations and amidst the backdrop of the escalating talc-related litigation environment. However, the effect of an exit from the talc business on future litigation is unknown. Accordingly, the Company is currently unable to provide an estimate or range of the magnitude of the Company's potential loss related to future talc claims." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://tinyurl.com/4v54exm6 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Defends 1,465 Exposure Cases ------------------------------------------------------------ Standard Motor Products, Inc., at June 30, 2023, approximately 1,465 cases were outstanding for which they may be responsible for any related liabilities, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "Since inception in September 2001 through June 30, 2023, the amounts paid for settled claims and awards of asbestos-related damages, including interest, were approximately $68.3 million. We do not have insurance coverage for the indemnity and defense costs associated with the claims we face. "In evaluating our potential asbestos-related liability, we have considered various factors including, among other things, an actuarial study of the asbestos related liabilities performed by an independent actuarial firm, our settlement amounts and whether there are any co-defendants, the jurisdiction in which lawsuits are filed, and the status and results of such claims. As is our accounting policy, we consider the advice of actuarial consultants with experience in assessing asbestos-related liabilities to estimate our potential claim liability; and perform an actuarial evaluation in the third quarter of each year and whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that additional provisions may be necessary. The methodology used to project asbestos-related liabilities and costs in our actuarial study considered: (1) historical data available from publicly available studies; (2) an analysis of our recent claims history to estimate likely filing rates into the future; (3) an analysis of our currently pending claims; (4) an analysis of our settlements and awards of asbestos-related damages to date; and (5) an analysis of closed claims with pay ratios and lag patterns in order to develop average future settlement values. Based on the information contained in the actuarial study and all other available information considered by us, we have concluded that no amount within the range of settlement payments and awards of asbestos-related damages was more likely than any other and, therefore, in assessing our asbestos liability we compare the low end of the range to our recorded liability to determine if an adjustment is required. "In accordance with our policy to perform an annual actuarial evaluation in the third quarter of each year, an actuarial study was performed as of August 31, 2022. The results of the August 31, 2022 study included an estimate of our undiscounted liability for settlement payments and awards of asbestos-related damages, excluding legal costs, ranging from $68.8 million to $111.6 million for the period through 2065. The change from the prior year study, which was as of August 31,2021, was a $7.9 million increase for the low end of the range and an $11.4 million increase for the high end of the range. The increase in the estimated undiscounted liability from the prior year study at both the low end and high end of the range reflects our actual experience, our historical data and certain assumptions with respect to events that may occur in the future. "Based upon the results of the August 31, 2022 actuarial study, in September 2022 we increased our asbestos liability to $68.8 million, the low end of the range, and recorded an incremental pre-tax provision of $18.5 million in earnings (loss) from discontinued operations in the accompanying statement of operations. Future legal costs, which are expensed as incurred and reported in earnings (loss) from discontinued operations in the accompanying statement of operations, are estimated, according to the August 31, 2022 study, to range from $53.2 million to $105.7 million for the period through 2065. Total operating cash outflows related to discontinued operations, which include settlements, awards of asbestos-related damages and legal costs, net of taxes, were $4.5 million and $9.5 million for the six months ended June 30, 2023 and 2022, respectively." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://tinyurl.com/3fvwrd8b ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trane Tech. Defends Exposure Lawsuits ------------------------------------------------------ Trane Technologies plc's wholly-owned subsidiaries, and its former companies, have been named as defendants in asbestos-related lawsuits in state and federal courts, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "In virtually all of the suits, a large number of other companies have also been named as defendants. The vast majority of those claims were filed against predecessors of Aldrich and Murray and generally allege injury caused by exposure to asbestos contained in certain historical products sold by predecessors of Aldrich or Murray, primarily pumps, boilers and railroad brake shoes. None of the Company's existing or previously-owned businesses were a producer or manufacturer of asbestos. "On June 18, 2020, Aldrich and Murray filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code to resolve equitably and permanently all current and future asbestos related claims in a manner beneficial to claimants and to Aldrich and Murray. As a result of the Chapter 11 filings, all asbestos-related lawsuits against Aldrich and Murray have been stayed due to the imposition of a statutory automatic stay applicable in Chapter 11 bankruptcy cases. In addition, at the request of Aldrich and Murray, the Bankruptcy Court has entered an order temporarily staying all asbestos-related claims against the Trane Companies that relate to claims against Aldrich or Murray (except for asbestos-related claims for which the exclusive remedy is provided under workers' compensation statutes or similar laws). On August 23, 2021, the Bankruptcy Court entered its findings of facts and conclusions of law and order declaring that the automatic stay applies to certain asbestos related claims against the Trane Companies and enjoining such actions. As a result, all asbestos-related lawsuits against Aldrich, Murray and the Trane Companies remain stayed. "The goal of these Chapter 11 filings is to resolve equitably and permanently all current and future asbestos-related claims in a manner beneficial to claimants and to Aldrich and Murray through court approval of a plan of reorganization that would create a trust pursuant to section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code, establish claims resolution procedures for all current and future asbestos-related claims against Aldrich and Murray and channel such claims to the trust for resolution in accordance with those procedures. Aldrich and Murray intend to seek an agreement with representatives of the asbestos claimants on the terms of a plan for the establishment of such a trust. "Prior to the Petition Date, predecessors of each of Aldrich and Murray had been litigating asbestos-related claims brought against them. No such claims have been paid since the Petition Date, and it is not contemplated that any such claims will be paid until the end of the Chapter 11 cases. "From an accounting perspective, the Company no longer has control over Aldrich and Murray as of the Petition Date as their activities are subject to review and oversight by the Bankruptcy Court. Therefore, Aldrich and its wholly-owned subsidiary 200 Park and Murray and its wholly-owned subsidiary ClimateLabs were deconsolidated as of the Petition Date and their respective assets and liabilities were derecognized from the Company's Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements. Amounts derecognized in the second quarter of 2020 primarily related to the legacy asbestos-related liabilities and asbestos-related insurance recoveries and $41.7 million of cash. "Upon deconsolidation in the second quarter of 2020, the Company recorded its retained interest in Aldrich and Murray at fair value within Other noncurrent assets in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet. In determining the fair value of its equity investment, the Company used a market-adjusted multiple of earnings valuation technique. As a result, the Company recorded an aggregate equity investment of $53.6 million as of the Petition Date. "Simultaneously, the Company recognized a liability of $248.8 million within Other noncurrent liabilities in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet related to its obligation under the Funding Agreements. The liability was based on asbestos related liabilities and insurance related assets balances previously recorded by the Company prior to the Petition Date." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://tinyurl.com/5xtj82p5 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Faces 200 PI Lawsuits as of June 30 --------------------------------------------------------------- Transocean Ltd.'s one of its subsidiaries was named as a defendant, along with numerous other companies, in lawsuits arising out of the subsidiary's manufacture and sale of heat exchangers, and involvement in the construction and refurbishment of major industrial complexes alleging bodily injury or personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "As of June 30, 2023, the subsidiary was a defendant in approximately 200 lawsuits with a corresponding number of plaintiffs. For many of these lawsuits, we have not been provided sufficient information from the plaintiffs to determine whether all or some of the plaintiffs have claims against the subsidiary, the basis of any such claims, or the nature of their alleged injuries. The operating assets of the subsidiary were sold in 1989. In December 2021, the subsidiary and certain insurers agreed to a settlement of outstanding disputes that provide the subsidiary with cash. An earlier settlement, achieved in September 2018, provided the subsidiary with cash and an annuity that begins making payments in 2024. Together with a coverage in place agreement with certain insurers and additional coverage issued by other insurers, we believe the subsidiary has sufficient resources to respond to both the current lawsuits as well as future lawsuits of a similar nature. While we cannot predict or provide assurance as to the outcome of these matters, we do not expect the ultimate liability, if any, resulting from these claims to have a material adverse effect on our condensed consolidated statement of financial position, results of operations or cash flows." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://tinyurl.com/4che2ync ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Steel Has 915 Active Cases as of June 30 -------------------------------------------------------------- United States Steel Corporation, as of June 30, 2023, was a defendant in approximately 915 active asbestos cases involving approximately 2,505 plaintiffs. The vast majority of these cases involve multiple defendants, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "About 1,545, or approximately 62 percent, of these plaintiff claims are currently pending in a jurisdiction which permits filings with massive numbers of plaintiffs. At December 31, 2022, U. S. Steel was a defendant in approximately 920 active asbestos cases involving approximately 2,510 plaintiffs. Based upon U. S. Steel's experience in such cases, it believes that the actual number of plaintiffs who ultimately assert claims against U. S. Steel will likely be a small fraction of the total number of plaintiffs. "The amount U. S. Steel accrues for pending asbestos claims is not material to U. S. Steel's financial condition. However, U. S. Steel is unable to estimate the ultimate outcome of asbestos-related claims due to a number of uncertainties, including: (1) the rates at which new claims are filed, (2) the number of and effect of bankruptcies of other companies traditionally defending asbestos claims, (3) uncertainties associated with the variations in the litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, (4) uncertainties regarding the facts, circumstances and disease process with each claim and (5) any new legislation enacted to address asbestos-related claims. "Further, U. S. Steel does not believe that an accrual for unasserted claims is required. At any given reporting date, it is probable that there are unasserted claims that will be filed against the Company in the future. The Company engages an outside valuation consultant to assist in assessing its ability to estimate an accrual for unasserted claims. This assessment is based on the Company's settlement experience, including recent claims trends. The analysis focuses on settlements made over the last several years as these claims are likely to best represent future claim characteristics. After review by the valuation consultant and U. S. Steel management, it was determined that the Company could not estimate an accrual for unasserted claims. "Despite these uncertainties, management believes that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on U. S. Steel's financial condition." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://tinyurl.com/2x8y5mf2 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Univar Defends 260 PI Claims As of June 30 ----------------------------------------------------------- Univar Solutions Inc., as of June 30, 2023, had approximately 260 asbestos-related cases for which Univar has the obligation to defend and indemnify; however, this number tends to fluctuate up and down over time, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "Historically, the vast majority of these asbestos cases have been dismissed without payment or with a nominal payment. While the Company is unable to predict the outcome of these matters, it does not believe, based upon currently available facts, that the ultimate resolution of any of these matters will have a material effect on its overall financial position, results of operations, or cash flows." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://tinyurl.com/ya9nu9bt ********* 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 ***