/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230824.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, August 24, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 170 Headlines 3M CO: Study Links Forever Chemicals to Testicular Cancer Risk ADIDAS AMERICA: Hussein Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Court Tosses Madriz's Appeal in Stockholder Suit AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Class Action Over Stock Conversion Plan AMERICAN FIRST: Files 9th Cir. Appeal in Andrade Suit APPLE INC: 9th Cir. Dismisses Appeals on Settlement Terms Objection APPLE INC: iOS 15 Degraded iPhone 7 Performance, Margolis Says ARC AUTOMOTIVE: Class Action Over Airbag Inflators Ongoing ARC ONE PROTECTIVE: Faces Pasteur Suit Over Unpaid Overtime AUTOZONERS LLC: Contreras Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices AVOCADO MATTRESS: False Advertising Class Action Dismissed BEEEPERMD LLC: Gibson Sues Over Mobile Testers' Unpaid Wages BISHOP OF CHARLESTON: 4th Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment in Nestler BOB COCHRAN: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Voight Suit Alleges BOB'S RED: Hayden Sues Over Flaxseed Products' Misleading Label CANADA: Class Action Over Immigration Policy Pending CHATTANOOGA HEART: Faces Two Class Actions Over Data Breach CHURCH & DWIGHT: Agrees to Settle Dry Shampoo Class Suit for $2.5M DELTA AIR: Settlement Claim Form Submission Deadline Set Sept. 15 DISCOVER PRODUCTS: Underpays Customer Service Reps, Harris Says ECO BRITE: Patino Sues Over Biometric Data Retention EOS ENERGY: Faces Houck Suit Over Share Price Drop EROS INT'L: $25MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Nov. 28 FEDEX GROUND: Removes Bruno Suit to C.D. California FIRSTENERGY CORP: Class Action Over Bailout Scandal Ongoing FLORIDA: Seeks Dismissal of Transgender Treatment Class Action FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Faulty Engines GAP INC: Faces Class Action Over WARN Act Violations GAP INC: Removes Bourgeois Suit to District of New Hampshire GENWORTH LIFE: Hauser Sues Over Unauthorized Personal Info Access GOODYEAR TIRE: Hull Seeks Proper Wages Following Kronos Outage HARVARD MEDICAL: Defendants Added in Morgue Mishandling Suit HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC: Shares Hit Lowest Level Amid Wildfire Scrutiny HCA HEALTHCARE: Faces Hinds Suit Over Data Breach HOME DEPOT: $72.5MM Class Settlement in Utne Suit Wins Prelim. Nod HUNTER BUSINESS: $450K Settlement in D'Angelo Suit Gets Final Nod INSURANCE CORP: Liable for Damages in Class Action, Court Rules JOCKEY INTERNATIONAL: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Suit Says KIMMICO INC: Misclassifies Exotic Dancers, Bonner Claims KLAUSSNER HOME: Faces Class Action Over WARN Act Violations LADY JANE'S HAIRCUTS: Kennedy Sues Over Stylists' Unpaid Wages M.A.C. COSMETICS: Removes Byrd Suit to C.D. California MARY BLACK: October 2 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set MDL 2873: Bliven Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams MDL 2873: Exposure to PFAS Caused Sickness, Fitzgerald Says MDL 2873: Exposure to Toxic PFAS Caused Cancer, Daniels Says MDL 2873: Williams Suit Alleges Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams MDL 2873: Zenz Suit Alleges Exposure to PFAS Caused Cancer MEDTRONIC INC: Harris Hits Defective Implantable Cardiac Devices MERCURY AUTO: Averts Workers' Overtime Class Action in Florida MINNEAPOLIS RAGSTOCK: Hussein Files ADA Suit in N.D. Illinois MOHAMMAD REZA VAZIRI: Lalabekyan Sues Over False Imprisonment MORGANS SHOES: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York MOTIVE ENERGY: Knight Sues Over Field Workers' Unpaid Overtime NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Shabazz Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania NEW YORK, NY: Efforts to Improve Safety at City Jails Not Enough NEWTON RUNNING: DiMeglio Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York NIPPON EXPRESS: Aranda Files Suit in D. Nevada NORTHLAND RESOURCES: Dec. 15 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set NORTHTOWN CAPITAL: Barragan Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Texas ONEMAIN GENERAL: Estrada Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. OPC KICKS LLC: Hussein Files ADA Suit in N.D. Illinois OPENAI INC: Faces Privacy Class Action Suit in California PATTERSON-UTI DRILLING: Ginn Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime PENNY NEWMAN GRAIN: Nares Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. PENSION BENEFIT: Cheng Sues Over Compromised Personal Information PENSION BENEFIT: Hurtado Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII PENSION BENEFIT: Smith Sues Over Cyberattack and Data Breach PENSION BENEFIT: Sued Over Failure to Implement Cybersecurity PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA: Sookul Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York PORSCHE CARS: Faces Class Action in Calif. Over Defective Taycans POST BAGEL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hercules Alleges PRECISION IMAGING: Hermann Files Suit in M.D. Florida PRECOR INCORPORATED: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York PRIORITY CONCEPTS: Connor Sues Over Unsolicited Calls and Messages PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Mosqueda Claims PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Ortega Sues Over Failure to Secure Information PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Siflinger Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII QUALITY DRIVE AWAY: Gentry Suit Removed to C.D. California R1 RCM INC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Reynolds Suit Claims RAREESSENCE LLC: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York RC BIGELOW: Court Certifies False Advertising Class Action REAL KOSHER: Gurkov Sues Over Mislabeled Ice Cream Products REALPAGE INC: Dempsey Suit Transferred to M.D. Tennessee RECKER CONSULTING: Underpays Customer Service Reps, Lott Claims REMAC LLP: Gonzalez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York REPUBLIC SERVICES: Molina Files Suit in S.D. New York RESURGENT CAPITAL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Perkins Claims RETROSPEKT LLC: Gonzalez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York REVANCE THERAPEUTICS: Lytle Sues Over Exposure of PII SALMOS 23 V: Castano Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Retaliation SOUTH32 LTD: Faces Class Suit Over Exposure to Coal Dust in Mines SOWELL REALTORS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Turner Alleges ST. CAMILLUS HEALTH: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Wieland Alleges SUNRISE GROWERS: Faces Class Action Over Frozen Fruit Recall SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime TACO BELL: Removes Herrera Suit to District of New Jersey TENAGLIA & HUNT: Lasky Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection Practices TESLA INC: Porter Sues Over Electric Vehicles' False Ads TILE INC: Faces Gordy Suit Over Privacy Rights Violations TWIST BIOSCIENCE: Bleichmar Fonti & Auld Named Peters' Lead Counsel UBS GROUP: Credit Suisse Equity Investors File Class Action UBS GROUP: Faces Third Class Action Over Credit Suisse Takeover ULTIMATE FIGHTING: Must Face MMA Fighters' Antitrust Class Action UNITED ARTISTS: Faces Class Action Over ADA Violations UNITED STATES: Faces Suit Over Failure to Prevent Prisoners' Abuse UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO: Settles Price Fixing Suit for $13.5 Million UPONOR INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Brown Suit Alleges VICTORIA: Junior Doctors Win Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime WALTER KIDDE: Pons Sues Over False & Misleading Advertising WELLS FARGO: Fries Sues Over Outdated Two Factor Authentication WELLS FARGO: Wants Class Action Over Fake Job Interviews Tossed WESTLAKE SERVICES: Klare Suit Removed to C.D. California WHITE AID MEDICAL: Gousse Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages WILLIS TOWERS: Pitts Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Overtime WISECROWD INC: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York X CORP: Martell Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois YELLOW FREIGHT: Moore Sues Over Mass Layoff Without Prior Notice ZOOT SQUAD: DiMeglio Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ZUFFA LLC: Sanchez Suit Transferred to D. Nevada ZURI PLASTIC SURGERY: J.F. Files Suit in S.D. Florida [*] CANADA: Indigenous Lawsuits Resulted in Billions in Payouts [*] Companies Face VPPA Class Action Privacy Litigation Risks [*] Jones Day Attorneys Discusses Greenwashing Suits v. Airlines [*] New SEC Cyberattack Reporting Rule to Expose Cos. to Lawsuits ********* 3M CO: Study Links Forever Chemicals to Testicular Cancer Risk -------------------------------------------------------------- PBS reports that Gary Flook served in the Air Force for 37 years, as a firefighter at the now-closed Chanute Air Force Base in Illinois and the former Grissom Air Force Base in Indiana, where he regularly trained with aqueous film forming foam, or AFFF -- a frothy white fire retardant that is highly effective but now known to be toxic. Flook volunteered at his local fire department, where he also used the foam, unaware of the health risks it posed. In 2000, at age 45, he received devastating news: He had testicular cancer, which would require an orchiectomy followed by chemotherapy. Hundreds of lawsuits, including one by Flook, have been filed against companies that make firefighting products and the chemicals used in them. And multiple studies show that firefighters, both military and civilian, have been diagnosed with testicular cancer at higher rates than people in most other occupations, often pointing to the presence of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, in the foam. But the link between PFAS and testicular cancer among service members was never directly proven -- until now. A new federal study for the first time shows a direct association between PFOS, a PFAS chemical, found in the blood of thousands of military personnel and testicular cancer. Using banked blood drawn from Air Force servicemen, researchers at the National Cancer Institute and Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences found strong evidence that airmen who were firefighters had elevated levels of PFAS in their bloodstreams and weaker evidence for those who lived on installations with high levels of PFAS in the drinking water. And the airmen with testicular cancer had higher serum levels of PFOS than those who had not been diagnosed with cancer, said study co-author Mark Purdue, a senior investigator at NCI. "To my knowledge," Purdue said, "this is the first study to measure PFAS levels in the U.S. military population and to investigate associations with a cancer endpoint in this population, so that brings new evidence to the table." In a commentary in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, Kyle Steenland, a professor at Emory University's Rollins School of Public Health, said the research "provides a valuable contribution to the literature," which he described as "rather sparse" in demonstrating a link between PFAS and testicular cancer. More studies are needed, he said, "as is always the case for environmental chemicals." Not 'just soap and water' Old stocks of AFFF that contained PFOS were replaced in the past few decades by foam that contains newer-generation PFAS, which now also are known to be toxic. By congressional order, the Department of Defense must stop using all PFAS-containing foams by October 2024, though it can keep buying them until this October. That's decades after the military first documented the chemicals' potential health concerns. A DoD study in 1974 found that PFAS was fatal to fish. By 1983, an Air Force technical report showed its deadly effects on mice. But given its effectiveness in fighting extremely hot fires, like aircraft crashes and shipboard blazes, the Defense Department still uses it in operations. Rarely, if ever, had the military warned of its dangers, according to Kevin Ferrara, a retired Air Force firefighter, as well as several military firefighters who contacted KFF Health News. "We were told that it was just soap and water, completely harmless," Ferrara said. "We were completely slathered in the foam -- hands, mouth, eyes. It looked just like if you were going to fill up your sink with dish soap." Photos released by the Defense Visual Information Distribution Service in 2013 show personnel working in the foam without protective gear. The description calls the "small sea of fire retardant foam" at Travis Air Force Base in California "non-hazardous" and "similar to soap." "No people or aircraft were harmed in the incident," it reads. There are thousands of PFAS chemicals, invented in the 1940s to ward off stains and prevent sticking in industrial and household goods. Along with foam used for decades by firefighters and the military, the chemicals are in makeup, nonstick cookware, water-repellent clothing, rugs, food wrappers, and a myriad of other consumer goods. Known as "forever chemicals," they do not break down in the environment and do accumulate in the human body. Researchers estimate that nearly all Americans have PFAS in their blood, exposed primarily by groundwater, drinking water, soil, and foods. A recent U.S. Geological Survey study estimated that at least 45 percent of U.S. tap water has at least one type of forever chemical from both private wells and public water supplies. Health and environmental concerns associated with the chemicals have spurred a cascade of lawsuits, plus state and federal legislation that targets the manufacturers and sellers of PFAS-laden products. Gary Flook is suing 3M and associated companies that manufactured PFAS and the firefighting foam, including DuPont and Kidde-Fenwal. Congress has prodded the Department of Defense to clean up military sites and take related health concerns more seriously, funding site inspections for PFAS and mandating blood testing for military firefighters. Advocates argue those actions are not enough. "How long has [DoD] spent on this issue without any real results except for putting some filters on drinking water?" said Jared Hayes, a senior policy analyst at the Environmental Working Group. "When it comes to cleaning up the problem, we are in the same place we were years ago." On a mission to get screening The Department of Veterans Affairs does not recommend blood testing for PFAS, stating on its website that "blood tests cannot be linked to current or future health conditions or guide medical treatment decisions." But that could change soon. Rep. Dan Kildee (D-Mich.), co-chair of the congressional PFAS Task Force, in June introduced the Veterans Exposed to Toxic PFAS Act, which would require the VA to treat conditions linked to exposure and provide disability benefits for those affected, including for testicular cancer. "The last thing [veterans] and their families need to go through is to fight with VA to get access to benefits we promised them when they put that uniform on," Kildee said. Evidence is strong that exposure to PFAS is associated with health effects such as decreased response to vaccines, kidney cancer, and low birth weight, according to an expansive, federally funded report published last year by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The nonprofit institution recommended blood testing for communities with high exposure to PFAS, followed by health screenings for those above certain levels. It also said that, based on limited evidence, there is "moderate confidence" of an association between exposure and thyroid dysfunction, preeclampsia in pregnant women, and breast and testicular cancers. The new study of Air Force servicemen published July 17 goes further, linking PFAS exposure directly to testicular germ cell tumors, which make up roughly 95 percent of testicular cancer cases. Testicular cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer among young adult men. It is also the type of cancer diagnosed at the highest rate among active military personnel, most of whom are male, ages 18 to 40, and in peak physical condition. That age distribution and knowing AFFF was a source of PFAS contamination drove Purdue and USUHS researcher Jennifer Rusiecki to investigate a possible connection. Using samples from the Department of Defense Serum Repository, a biobank of more than 62 million blood serum specimens from service members, the researchers examined samples from 530 troops who later developed testicular cancer and those of 530 members of a control group. The blood had been collected between 1988 and 2017. A second sampling collected four years after the first samples were taken showed the higher PFOS concentrations positively associated with testicular cancer. Ferrara does not have testicular cancer, though he does have other health concerns he attributes to PFAS, and he worries for himself and his fellow firefighters. He recalled working at Air Combat Command headquarters at Joint Base Langley-Eustis in Virginia in the early 2010s and seeing emails mentioning two types of PFAS chemicals: PFOS and perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA. But employees on the base remained largely unfamiliar with the jumble of acronyms, Ferrara said. Even as the evidence grew that the chemicals in AFFF were toxic, "we were still led to believe that it's perfectly safe," Ferrara said. "They kept putting out vague and cryptic messages, citing environmental concerns." When Ferrara was working a desk job at Air Combat Command and no longer fighting fires, his exposure likely continued: Joint Base Langley-Eustis is among the top five most PFAS-contaminated military sites, according to the EWG, with groundwater at the former Langley Air Force Base registering 2.2 million parts per trillion for PFOS and PFOA. According to the EPA, just 40 parts per trillion would "warrant further attention," such as testing and amelioration. The Defense Department did not provide comment on the new study. Air Force officials told KFF Health News that the service has swapped products and no longer allows uncontrolled discharges of firefighting foam for maintenance, testing, or training. "The Department of the Air Force has replaced Aqueous Film Forming Foam, which contained PFAS, with a foam that meets Environmental Protection Agency recommendations at all installations," the Air Force said in a statement provided to KFF Health News. Both older-generation forever chemicals are no longer made in the U.S. 3M, the main manufacturer of PFOS, agreed to start phasing it out in 2000. In June, the industrial giant announced it would pay at least $10.3 billion to settle a class-action suit. Alarmed over what it perceived as the Defense Department's unwillingness to address PFAS contamination or stop using AFFF, Congress in 2019 ordered DoD to offer annual testing for all active-duty military firefighters and banned the use of PFAS foam by 2024. According to data provided by DoD, among more than 9,000 firefighters who requested the tests in fiscal year 2021, 96 percent had at least one of two types of PFAS in their blood serum, with PFOS being the most commonly detected at an average level of 3.1 nanograms per milliliter. Readings between 2 and 20 ng/mL carry concern for adverse effects, according to the national academies. In that range, it recommends people limit additional exposure and screen for high cholesterol, breast cancer, and, if pregnant, high blood pressure. According to DoD, 707 active and former defense sites are contaminated with PFAS or have had suspected PFAS discharges. The department is in the early stages of a decades-long testing and cleaning process. More than 3,300 lawsuits have been filed over AFFF and PFAS contamination; beyond 3M's massive settlement, DuPont and other manufacturers reached a $1.185 billion agreement with water utility companies in June. Attorneys general from 22 states have urged the court to reject the 3M settlement, saying in a filing July 26 it would not adequately cover the damage caused. For now, many firefighters, like Ferrara, live with anxiety that their blood PFAS levels may lead to cancer. Flook declined to speak to KFF Health News because he is part of the 3M class-action lawsuit. The cancer wreaked havoc on his marriage, robbing him and his wife, Linda, of "affection, assistance, and conjugal fellowship," according to the lawsuit. Congress is again trying to push the Pentagon. This year, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) reintroduced the PFAS Exposure Assessment and Documentation Act, which would require DoD to test all service members -- not just firefighters -- stationed at installations with known or suspected contamination as part of their annual health checkups as well as family members and veterans. The tests, which aren't covered by the military health program or most insurers, typically cost from $400 to $600. In June, Kildee said veterans have been stymied in getting assistance with exposure-related illnesses that include PFAS. "For too long, the federal government has been too slow to act to deal with the threat posed by PFAS exposure," Kildee said. "This situation is completely unacceptable." [GN] ADIDAS AMERICA: Hussein Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------ SUMAYA HUSSEIN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ADIDAS AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-04989 (N.D. Ill., July 31, 2023) is a civil rights action brought by the Plaintiff against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.adidas.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using her computer. The Plaintiff was injured when she attempted on July 1, 2023, and again on July 12, 2023, to access Defendant's website from her home in an effort to shop for Defendant's products, but encountered barriers that denied her full and equal access to Defendant's online goods, content and services, says the suit. Because Defendant's website is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. 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 consumers, the suit asserts. Adidas America, Inc. designs and markets apparel products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Court Tosses Madriz's Appeal in Stockholder Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE AMC ENTERTAINMENT HOLDINGS, INC. STOCKHOLDER LITIGATION, Case No. 258, 2023 (Del.), Judge Collins J. Seitz, Jr., of the Supreme Court of Delaware dismisses the Appellant David D. Madriz, Jr.'s interlocutory appeal from a stockholder class action pending in the Court of Chancery. On July 20, 2023, the Appellant filed this interlocutory appeal. A proposed settlement has been submitted to the Court of Chancery for approval. In his appeal papers, Madriz identified June 27, 2023, as the date of the interlocutory ruling he was appealing. A review of the Court of Chancery docket did not reveal any court rulings or orders on June 27, 2023. The Senior Court Clerk issued a notice directing Madriz to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for his failure to identify a court order subject to appellate review. In his response to the notice to show cause, Madriz identifies a June 27, 2023 telephone call he had with a Court of Chancery employee regarding a document he had previously sent to the Court of Chancery as the "De facto Interlocutory Order" on appeal. Judge Seitz holds that Madriz's telephone calls with Court of Chancery employees who are not judicial officers do not constitute appealable interlocutory orders. Even if a telephone call with court staff could constitute an appealable interlocutory order as Madriz contends, the handling of the April 27, 2023 Letter does not meet the strict standards for this Court's acceptance of an interlocutory appeal under Supreme Court Rule 42. This appeal must be dismissed. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. A full-text copy of the Court's July 28, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/5jpzs5bs from Leagle.com. AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Class Action Over Stock Conversion Plan ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tom Hals, writing for Reuters, reports that AMC Entertainment Inc was hit with a class-action lawsuit on behalf of preferred shareholders that are challenging its stock conversion plan, just days after the cinema operator ended a bruising legal fight with a different group of investors. AMC got court approval on Aug. 11 for a settlement of a class action lawsuit by holders of the company's common stock, clearing the way for the company to convert its preferred stock, known as APEs, to common shares. AMC, a "meme" stock that was part of a social media-fueled trading frenzy in 2021 along with other companies such as Gamestop, has said that conversion plan is key to strengthening its finances. A holder of APEs said in the lawsuit, which was filed late on Aug. 14 but hit the public docket on Aug. 15, that APEs investors are being shortchanged in the settlement that was approved on Aug. 15. AMC did not respond to a request for comment. AMC agreed to settle the class action by holders of common stock by providing them with additional shares worth an estimated $129 million. The holders of common stock had claimed that the company rigged a shareholder vote against them. In the new lawsuit filed in Delaware's Court of Chancery, APE investor Michael Simons claims AMC is obligated to provide the same amount of new stock to APE holders as the company is giving to common shareholders in the settlement. Simons' complaint said the settlement "has the effect of diluting the preferred shareholders' ownership interest in AMC." He also said it violates the certificate of designation that governs AMC's preferred stock. The lawsuit adds to months of legal turmoil for the company. Objections to shareholder class action settlements are rare, but AMC received thousands from investors who questioned claims about the company's dire finances. The settlement was initially rejected by a Court of Chancery judge in July before the judge signed off on a revised deal on Aug. 15. [GN] AMERICAN FIRST: Files 9th Cir. Appeal in Andrade Suit ----------------------------------------------------- AMERICAN FIRST FINANCE, INC. has filed an appeal in the lawsuit entitled MARIA ANDRADE, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN FIRST FINANCE, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-06743-SK, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, AFF provides "purchase money loans for the sale of consumer goods through retailers with whom AFF has a preexisting relationship." It interacts with customers, such as Andrade, through retailers. AFF provides its marketing materials, credit application and security agreement forms, and a hyperlink to its pre-approval process to the retailers. Andrade alleges that AFF's role is not disclosed to consumers and that the retailer then purports to assign to AFF the Security Agreements that individual customers sign. On Dec. 9, 2015, Andrade purchased several pieces of furniture from Elegant Furniture in Fresno California. She alleges that she signed a purchase order, but she was not informed that her sale was being financed with AFF. She had no interaction with AFF and only interacted with the retailer, Elegant Furniture. A salesman with Elegant Furniture told Andrade that the payments for the furniture would be about $100 every month and "that if she paid for the furniture in full within 90 days of purchase there would be no interest." The Plaintiff brings claims against AFF based on the terms of the financing with AFF, and she alleges, inter alia, that the interest rates AFF charged to her and to the putative class members were unconscionable. She seeks to represent a class defined as "all California residents who purchased consumer goods from AFF affiliated businesses and who AFF claims are or were bound to the terms of its Security Agreement" from Nov. 7, 2014, to the present." The proposed class is comprised of approximately 180,000 people -- those individuals who have loans with AFF up through Sept. 29, 2021. On June 28, 2023, Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim entered an order and judgment that held that in order to deter Defendant from engaging in illegal and unfair conduct, it is necessary to award to Plaintiff in restitution the full amount of money that Defendant took from her as a result of the transaction. The Court found that restitution to Plaintiff is appropriate under California Business & Professions Code and awarded Plaintiff a total amount of $2,161.15 in restitution. The Court found that prejudgment interest is not necessary to make Plaintiff whole in light of her restitution award and therefore declined to award her prejudgment interest. Based on the restitution awarded to Plaintiff, Plaintiff no longer owes any debt to Defendant. Therefore, Defendant would have no basis to sell any debt for collections or attempt to seek possession of Plaintiff's furniture. On July 17, 2023, the Defendant filed an administrative motion for extension of time to file bill of costs which the Court denied on July 18 through an Order entered by Judge Kim. The appellate case is captioned as Maria Andrade v. American First Finance, Inc., Case No. 23-16050, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on July 31, 2023. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant American First Finance, Inc. Mediation Questionnaire was due on August 7, 2023; -- Transcript shall be ordered by August 28, 2023; -- Transcript is due on September 26, 2023; -- Appellant American First Finance, Inc. opening brief is due on November 6, 2023; -- Appellee Maria Andrade answering brief is due on December 6, 2023; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Defendant-Appellant AMERICAN FIRST FINANCE, INC. is represented by: Tomio Buck Narita, Esq. WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US), LLP 50 California Street, Suite 2750 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 519-6093 Plaintiff-Appellee MARIA ANDRADE, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, is represented by: Robert S. Green, Esq. Emrah M. Sumer, Esq. GREEN & NOBLIN, P.C. 2200 Larkspur Landing Circle, Suite 101 Larkspur, CA 94939 APPLE INC: 9th Cir. Dismisses Appeals on Settlement Terms Objection ------------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Finney and Simone Chavoor, writing for KGO, report that the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has cleared the way for payments to be sent to members of a class action suit against Apple for deliberately slowing iPhones with aging batteries. The court dismissed appeals last week from two individual members of the class action lawsuit who objected to the terms of the settlement, meaning that the payments to claimants can now be sent. In March 2020, Apple agreed to settle the suit for a minimum of $310 million, up to $500 million. Consumers who owned iPhone 6, 6 Plus, 6S, 6S Plus, and SE models running iOS 12.2.1 and iPhone 7 and 7 Plus running iOS 11.2 -- and who filed their claim before the October 2020 deadline -- will be receiving a check for about $65. In 2018, Apple was accused of slowing down an iPhone's performance if the operating system detected the device's battery had degraded with age, which the company has denied. Three million claims were filed in the class action suit. [GN] APPLE INC: iOS 15 Degraded iPhone 7 Performance, Margolis Says -------------------------------------------------------------- DR. FERN MARGOLIS, MAYER MARGOLIS, JUAN PADILLA, ZEV LEWINSON, EDUARDO ARANIBAR, ELIZABETH GUIDICE, EARL MCFARLAND, GLENNIS PARKER, and SHAUN BIDDISCOMBE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. APPLE INC. Defendant, Case No. 5:23-cv-03882 (S.D. Cal., August 2, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for misrepresenting negative effects of iOS 15 on iPhone 7 devices in violation of the Computer Fraud And Abuse Act, the California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, California's False and Misleading Advertising Law, California's Unfair Competition Law, the New York General Business Law, the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, the North Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act, and the Virginia Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, Apple released iOS 15 in 2021 as the latest iOS version available at the time. iOS 15 was the last iOS series that Apple made available for the iPhone 7 and iPhone 7 Plus. Apple promoted iOS 15 as improving the performance of the iPhone 7 Devices and providing important security updates. The Company also incessantly told its customers to download updates by sending notifications directly to their iPhones until they downloaded the latest version of iOS 15. iOS 15, however, did not work well on the iPhone 7 Devices. Instead, it slowed down their performance of basic operations across apps, as compared to prior iOS versions. This operating system update also caused myriad other problems as compared to prior iOS versions, such as apps freezing or crashing, the battery draining more quickly, the device taking longer to work after booting, and the device becoming very hot, among other basic performance problems in the regular usage of the iPhone 7 Devices, says the suit. The Plaintiffs are all owners of iPhone 7 Devices who suffered significant performance degradations after they downloaded iOS 15 onto their devices. The Plaintiffs continued using their iPhone 7 Devices after downloading iOS 15, despite the problems described above, because they did not want to spend the significant amount of money it would cost to purchase a new iPhone, the suit asserts. Apple Inc. is one of the world's largest developers and sellers of mobile phones and other consumer electronic devices.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jennifer Pafiti, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 405-7190 E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. Michael Grunfeld, Esq. Emma Gilmore, Esq. Brandon Cordovi, Esq. POMERANTZ, LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com egilmore@pomlaw.com mgrunfeld@pomlaw.com bcordovi@pomlaw.com ARC AUTOMOTIVE: Class Action Over Airbag Inflators Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------------- Beasley Allen disclosed that it filed a class action lawsuit for owners or lessees of vehicles with defective driver or passenger side ARC Automotive airbag inflators. The inflators can cause serious injuries or death. When consumers buy or lease vehicles, they expect them to have been inspected and designed with safety in mind. More than 100 plaintiffs from 36 states this summer filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint alleging violations of state consumer protection and warranty laws. The plaintiffs also seek to represent a nationwide class on behalf of all people in the United States who purchased, currently own, lease, or leased a Class Vehicle containing a driver or passenger side inflator manufactured by ARC Automotive, Inc. between 2001 and 2018. The lawsuit filed June 28, 2023, alleges defective airbag inflators were manufactured by ARC, and/or its subsidiaries, successors, or affiliates. The airbag inflators are installed in numerous companies' airbag modules and distributed or marketed through several vehicle manufacturers. These defective vehicles pose a serious risk to the safety and health of occupants. Airbag inflators from vehicles in the Class Action suit use gas and propellant to fill the airbag cushion during a crash. The ARC-made defective airbag inflators are manufactured through a friction-welding process, which fuses components of the airbag inflator using heat and rotation. ARC's friction-welding process, however, inadequately joins the airbag inflator components together and creates excess weld flash, which can exit the inflator upon deployment or rupture the inflator entirely. Due to the location and proximity to vehicle occupants, the inflator defect places occupants at severe risk of bodily injury or death. The National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration's conclusions followed a nearly eight-year investigation. During that time, there have been at least 10 known ruptures of the defective inflators in vehicles, including seven driver inflators and three passenger inflators. Two of those ruptures resulted in driver fatalities. Based on known incidents in the field, NHTSA's ongoing investigation, pre-release design and testing, and numerous vehicle manufacturer recalls, the defendants have long known about the inflator defect and the risk to consumer safety. NHTSA has demanded that ARC recall the defective inflators to address the serious safety defect. Despite this demand, ARC refuses to issue any recall of the approximately 30 million affected vehicles for this failure mode. If you or someone you know has experienced the inflator defect or has a defective ARC-made airbag inflator in their vehicle, our firm would like to speak with you. This case is being pursued by Beasley Allen Consumer Fraud lawyers Dee Miles, Demet Basar, Clay Barnett, Mitch Williams, and Dylan Martin. [GN] ARC ONE PROTECTIVE: Faces Pasteur Suit Over Unpaid Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------- RAYNARD PASTEUR, individually and on behalf of all of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ARC ONE PROTECTIVE SERVICES LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case No. 6:23-cv-01479 (M.D. Fla., August 2, 2023) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff under Fair Labor Standards Act against the Defendant for failing to compensate hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week at one and one-half times the regular hourly rate. The Plaintiff began working for Defendant on August 17, 2021, and was assigned to provide security services at the COVID testing sites. His employment with Defendant ended on June 23, 2022. Arc One Protective Services LLC is engaged in the business of providing full-service private security services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy D. Friedman, Esq. Paul A. Hankin, Esq. THE DOWNS LAW GROUP, P.A. 3250 Mary Street, Suite 307 Coconut Grove, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 444-8226 Facsimile: (305) 444-6773 E-mail: jfriedman@downslawgroup.com phankin@downslawgroup.com AUTOZONERS LLC: Contreras Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices ------------------------------------------------------------ MIGUEL CONTRERAS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AUTOZONERS, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 23STCV17970 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 31, 2023) arises from the Defendant's alleged unlawful labor policies and practices in violation of the Private Attorneys General Act of the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff alleges the Defendant's failure to provide their non-exempt employees with all wages at the regular rate, accurate itemized wage statements, and timely pay all wages during and upon termination of employment in compliance with the applicable wage order and/or the state law. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant in Temple City, California from approximately 2019 through approximately December 28, 2022. Plaintiff worked as a store manager and earned approximately $22.82 per hour. AutoZoners, LLC is a retailer of automotive parts and accessories headquartered in Memphis, Tennessee.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marcus Bradley, Esq. Kiley Grombacher, Esq. Lirit King, Esq. BRADLEY/GROMBACHER, LLP 31365 Oak Crest Drive, Suite 240 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Telephone: (805) 270-7100 Facsimile: (805) 270-7589 E-mail: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com lking@bradleygrombacher.com - and - Garen Majarian, Esq. Sahag Majarian, II, Esq. MAJARIAN LAW GROUP APC 18250 Ventura Boulevard Tarzana, CA 91356 Telephone: (818) 263-7343 Facsimile: (818) 609-0892 E-mail: garen@majarianlawgroup.com AVOCADO MATTRESS: False Advertising Class Action Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------------- Bedding News Now reports that a proposed class action that alleged Avocado Mattress had falsely advertised its latex mattresses, pillows and mattress toppers as free of synthetic and nontoxic chemicals has been dismissed. "We are pleased to report that the proposed class-action lawsuit against Avocado has been dismissed," the company said in a statement to Bedding News Now. "As is common in these legal matters, we cannot discuss further details, but we are glad to put this issue behind us." The lawsuit alleged several false claims against the company about creating products containing synthetic and/or harmful chemicals. In fact, Avocado Green Brands, in addition to using natural materials in its products, is involved with several green initiatives, including releasing an annual sustainability and impact report to exemplify its efforts. In addition, the company is Climate Neutral Certified, which means it has committed to reduction targets and specific action plans to reduce operational and value chain emissions within the next 12-24 months. [GN] BEEEPERMD LLC: Gibson Sues Over Mobile Testers' Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ ALEESHA GIBSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BEEEPERMD, LLC., a Florida Limited Liability Company, COLLABRATORY VENTURES, LLC., a Florida Limited Liability Company, COLLABRATORY VENTURES II LLC., a Florida Limited Liability Company and JEREMY GELBART, individually Defendants, Case No. 9:23-cv-81102 (S.D. Fla., Aug. 1, 2023) is a collective action brought by Plaintiff against the Defendants pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act for unpaid overtime, liquidated damages and alleged contractual obligations, or unjust enrichment if no contract. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a mobile tester from approximately January 2022 through June 22, 2022, in Florida. She asserts that Defendants required and/or permitted her to work as a non-exempt, hourly paid "Tester" in excess of 40 hours per week but refused to compensate her and similarly situated workers for all hours worked. BeeperMD, LLC is an online scheduling service that automatically confirms appointments and keeps track of doctor's schedules.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noah E. Storch, Esq. RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A. 10368 W. State Road 84, Suite 103 Davie, FL 33324 Telephone: (866) 344-9243 Facsimile: (954) 337-2771 E-mail: noah@floridaovertimelawyer.com BISHOP OF CHARLESTON: 4th Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment in Nestler ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, GARY NESTLER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; VIEWED STUDENT FEMALE 200, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; VIEWED STUDENT MALE 300, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. THE BISHOP OF CHARLESTON, a Corporation Sole; BISHOP ENGLAND HIGH SCHOOL; TORTFEASORS, 1-10; THE BISHOP OF THE DIOCESE OF CHARLESTON, in his official capacity; ROBERT GUGLIELMONE, individually, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 22-1750 (4th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit affirms the district court's denial of the Students' motion for class certification and grant of summary judgment in favor of the Defendants. After learning that an employee of Bishop England High School ("Bishop High") covertly filmed Bishop High students disrobing through a locker room window, Bishop High students and parents of Bishop High students brought this putative class action. Relevant to this appeal, although the Students did not allege that a Bishop High employee filmed the students or even viewed them through a locker room window, the Students brought a claim for wrongful intrusion into private affairs under South Carolina law, alleging they could state a claim based on the potential that they were viewed while partially or completely nude. The district court denied the Students' motion for class certification and granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants. In so doing, it heavily relied on its determination that South Carolina case law permits success on the tort of wrongful intrusion into private affairs only when the plaintiff can show that an actual viewing occurred. The Students appeal, arguing that the district court's interpretation of South Carolina law was erroneous. Bishop High is a Catholic high school in Charleston, South Carolina. Students participating in physical education or sporting events at Bishop High disrobed in locker rooms that shared adjoining walls with Bishop High coaching staff offices. Each wall contained a 4' by 4' glass window that made it possible for Bishop High employees, and anyone else with access to the offices, to view students in the locker rooms as they disrobed. In May 2019, it came to light that Bishop High's Director of Sports Information had used a locker room window to surreptitiously film students in the process of disrobing and who had already disrobed. After learning of that employee's conduct, the Students brought a putative class action in the South Carolina Court of Common Pleas, claiming, inter alia, wrongful intrusion into private affairs. They brought their claims against Bishop High; the Bishop of Charleston, a Corporation Sole; and Robert Guglielmone, the Bishop of Charleston, individually and in his official capacity. The Fourth Circuit refers to these defendants collectively as "the School." After the School removed this case to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1453(b), the Students moved for class certification of two proposed classes -- a "Viewed Class" and a "Tuition Class." The Viewed Class would be made up of Bishop High students, or their representatives, who were required to disrobe in the locker rooms and who therefore could have been viewed by persons on the other side of the windows. The Tuition Class would consist of all persons who paid tuition for a Bishop High student who was required to use the locker rooms and was thus subject to possible viewing through the windows. Both classes are limited to students and parents within a 20-year period who may have claims against the School based on its employees "monitoring, watching, viewing, spying, prying, besetting, photographing or videotaping them, or other such similar type conduct," through the viewing windows of the coaches' offices into the locker rooms. The School opposed the motion, arguing that the Students could not meet the requirements of class certification. In relevant part, the School asserted that the proposed class members were not ascertainable and were instead "fail-safe" classes because there was no evidence they had actually been viewed. Further, the School contended that the Students lacked standing because, without evidence of actual viewing, they could not show a concrete injury. In response, the Students asserted that the potential for monitoring was sufficient to prove a claim for wrongful intrusion into private affairs under South Carolina law such that evidence of actual viewing was unnecessary. Pressing that interpretation of state law, the Students asserted that they met the requirements for class certification and had suffered a cognizable injury. The district court denied the Students' motion for class certification. It had multiple reasons for that denial but two are particularly relevant on appeal. First, the district court concluded that South Carolina law explicitly requires that information about the victim be acquired by the defendant for the tort to be actionable, but the Students could not demonstrate that anyone actually viewed them through the locker room windows. As a result, the district court determined that the Students could not meet multiple class certification requirements, including ascertainability, and that they lacked standing. Second, the district court explained that the Students failed to address the superiority requirement of class certification. Thereafter, the School filed a motion for summary judgment, which the district court granted, reasoning that without evidence of actual viewing, the named plaintiffs failed to establish that they suffered a legally cognizable injury. The Students timely appeal from both the denial of class certification and the grant of summary judgment. The Fourth Circuit has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1291. The Students' appeal essentially rests on their assertion that the district court applied the wrong legal standard because the South Carolina tort of wrongful intrusion into private affairs does not require an actual viewing to be actionable. Although the Fourth Circuit does not downplay what is alleged to have occurred, conclusory statements alleging "anxiety" -- without more -- do not demonstrate the requisite "serious mental or physical injury or humiliation" necessary to establish injury. All that the Students put forward in their complaint and the record are generalized statements, unsupported by medical records or other testimony that would allow a factfinder to determine the seriousness of the alleged injury. There is simply insufficient evidence to support their allegations as a matter of law. Therefore, the Students failed to satisfy the requirements for a claim of wrongful intrusion into private affairs, making summary judgment appropriate. As a result, the Fourth Circuit affirms the district court's judgment, albeit for a different reason than the district court. Although this analysis would also lead the Fourth Circuit to affirm the district court's denial of class certification, it has an additional basis for doing so given the Students' failure to challenge on appeal a separate ground the district court relied on to deny class certification. As the district court explained in its order, the Students wholly failed to address the superiority requirement of class certification in their motion before the district court. Given that the Students had the burden to prove superiority and yet failed to make any argument that would permit the district court to make such a finding, the court appropriately denied class certification. Any argument to the contrary was forfeited, and the Fourth Circuit need not address it further. Accordingly, the Fourth Circuit affirms the judgment of the district court because the Students failed to demonstrate an injury resulting from the potential viewing -- as is required for a claim for wrongful intrusion into private affairs under either parties' interpretation of the "viewing" requirement. A full-text copy of the Court's July 28, 2023 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/2rac5b2v from Leagle.com. ARGUED: David Kevin Lietz -- dlietz@milberg.com -- MILBERG, Washington, D.C., for the Appellants. Richard Sears Dukes, Jr. -- rdukes@turnerpadget.com -- TURNER PADGET GRAHAM & LANEY, P.A., Charleston, South Carolina, for the Appellees. ON BRIEF: Lawrence E. Richter, Jr. -- lrichter@richterfirm.com -- RICHTER FIRM, LLC, Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina; Carl L. Solomon -- cls@solomonlawsc.com -- SOLOMON LAW GROUP, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for the Appellant. Carmelo B. Sammataro -- ssammataro@turnerpadget.com -- TURNER PADGET GRAHAM & LANEY, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for the Appellees. BOB COCHRAN: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Voight Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- AMANDA VOIGHT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BOB COCHRAN MOTORS, INC.; #1 COCHRAN BUICK GMC, INC.; COCHRAN AUTO BODY & SERVICE, LLC; COCHRAN COLLISION OF CRANBERRY, LLC; COCHRAN COLLISION OF GREENSBURG, LLC; COCHRAN INFINITY, INC.; COCHRAN MOTORS, INC.; COCHRAN OLDSMOBILE, INC.; COCHRAN SATURN, INC.; COCHRAN SOUTH HILLS, INC.; #1 COCHRAN INFINITY OF SOUTH HILLS, INC.; COCHRAN INFINITI, INC.; COCHRAN SATURN, INC.; REC28, INC.; RCVW, INC.; AV AUTOMOTIVE, INC.; COCHRAN IMPORTS, INC.; COCHRAN 2756, INC.; COCHRAN FAR, INC.; AV FORD, INC.; RC20, INC.; COCHRAN GLWC INVESTMENTS, LLC; REC18, INC.; REC76, INC.; REC46, INC.; REC21, INC.; REC27, INC.; REC24, INC.; REC25, INC.; REC23, INC.; REC26, INC.; AVMH, INC.; CANONSBURG COLLISION, LLC; WASHINGTON COLLISION, LLC; NORTH HILLS COLLISION, LLC, collectively d/b/a # 1 COCHRAN, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-01455-NR (W.D. Pa., Aug. 15, 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 Voight was employed by the Defendants as a collision technician. Bob Cochran Motors, Inc. operates as a car dealer. The Company offers new and used cars, as well as provides rental, maintenance, post warranty repairs, mechanical and painting work, diagnosis insurance, valuation, and security services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua P. Ward, Esq. Justin M. Bahorich, Esq. J.P. WARD & ASSOCIATES, LLC The Rubicon Building 201 South Highland Avenue Suite 201 Pittsburgh, PA 15206 Telephone: (412) 545-3016 Facsimile: (412) 540-3399 Email: jward@jpward.com jbahorich@jpward.com BOB'S RED: Hayden Sues Over Flaxseed Products' Misleading Label --------------------------------------------------------------- MARK HAYDEN individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BOB'S RED MILL NATURAL FOODS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:23-cv-03862-AGT (N.D. Cal., Aug. 1, 2023) arises from the Defendant's conduct of misleading consumers about the health benefits and quality of flaxseed products and failing to disclose that the products contain unsafe and unlawful levels of cadmium, in violation of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act and the California's Unfair Competition Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant manufactures two flaxseed products called Bob's Red Mill Whole Ground Flaxseed Meal and Bob's Red Mill Golden Flaxseed Meal. The labels for each of these products give reasonable consumers the impression that the products are healthy and made with quality ingredients and do not contain unlawful levels of heavy metals. For example, the front labels on each of the Products state: "To Your Good Health," "You Can See Our Quality," "Non-GMO," and "Gluten Free." The net-effect or net-impression of the products' labeling on consumers is that the products do not contain any potentially harmful ingredients like high levels of cadmium, says the suit. Consumers, including Plaintiff, would not have purchased Defendant's products if they had known the products contain high levels of cadmium, a substance which has known adverse health effects on humans, the suit added. Bob's Red Mill Natural Foods, Inc. is a manufacturer of various whole-grain food products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zachary M. Crosne, Esq. Craig W. Straub, Esq. Michael T. Houchin, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, P.C. 9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (866) 276-7637 Facsimile: (310) 510-6429 E-mail: zach@crosnerlegal.com craig@crosnerlegal.com mhouchin@crosnerlegal.com CANADA: Class Action Over Immigration Policy Pending ---------------------------------------------------- Toronto Star's Manuela Vega provides the latest update on a class-action lawsuit against a former immigration policy and Trudeau's response to the housing crisis. A lawsuit claims Canada's now defunct safe country rules "marginalize, prejudice, and stereotype" refugees Piotr Marek Kaczor, a gay man from Poland, and Aniko Horvathne Serban, a Roma minority from Hungary, thought arriving in Canada would mean leaving behind discriminatory experiences. But upon arriving, the Canadian government barred them from obtaining work permits and pre-removal risk assessments based on their country of origin. Although the federal government got rid of the so-called designated country of origin list behind the policy in 2019, Kaczor and Serban say the damage has already been done and they want justice. They're filing a $100 million class-action suit on behalf of 20,000 current and former refugee claimants, Nicholas Keung reports. Here's more on what they faced under the previous system. At a recent housing announcement in Hamilton, the prime minister caused a stir when he said housing prices aren't primarily a federal responsibility, Alex Ballingall reports. And while housing advocates, business groups and opposition parties call for more action to reduce costs, inflation is only making construction more expensive. Altogether, the Liberals have a "toxic" political dilemma on their hands -- one it's not doing enough to address, according to a former senior economic adviser in Trudeau's office. This is what's going so wrong. [GN] CHATTANOOGA HEART: Faces Two Class Actions Over Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------------- Chattanoogan.com reports that two class action lawsuits have been filed against the Chattanooga Heart Institute. One was brought by the Mason Law Firm and another by a Memphis attorney. They were filed in Hamilton County Circuit Court. Still other class action lawsuits have been filed against CHI in Federal Court. One lawsuit says extensive personal information was released during the breach of over 170,000 current and former patients. CHI was alerted to the cybersecurity attack around April 17. It was found that it occurred between March 8-16. The suit says those individuals whose data was leaked will be at risk for financial harm for the rest of their lives, saying the information taken was "a gold mine for data thieves." It says the data could be used for a variety of financial crimes. The suit says there is no indication that CHI has since improved its data protection. It asks for unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. [GN] CHURCH & DWIGHT: Agrees to Settle Dry Shampoo Class Suit for $2.5M ------------------------------------------------------------------ Kaushal S., writing for SK Lifestyle, reports that Church & Dwight's co-owned Batiste dry shampoo brand has agreed to resolve a $2.5 million class action lawsuit. The lawsuit that was filed in November 2022 alleged that the Batiste-branded dry shampoo contained unsafe levels of a human carcinogen -- Benzene. Though Church & Dwight never accepted the allegations made by the lawsuit, the establishment has now agreed to compensate all class members either in the form of purchase vouchers or cash payments. The compensation is available to all members who may have purchased the Batiste Bare dry shampoo and other similar products on or before May 30, 2023. Class members across the country will be able to claim their compensation by filling out a 'Claim Form' available on the website -- https://cd-settlement.com/submit-claim -- until November 15, 2023. Individuals can receive up to $10 or more if they submit the form with or without a receipt. Individuals can claim the compensation under the Batiste dry shampoo $2.5 million settlement until November 15, 2023 The class members who participated in the November 2022 Batiste dry shampoo lawsuit, are eligible to receive compensation under the $2.5 million settlement. To claim the compensation, all class members must fill out the Batiste dry shampoo lawsuit settlement 'Claim Form' on this website -- https://cd-settlement.com/submit-claim -- before November 15, 2023. All consumers who may have purchased the Batiste Light Bare, Batiste Clean, or Batiste Bare Dry shampoo products on or before May 30, 2023, may be eligible for the compensation. Filling out the Batiste dry shampoo lawsuit settlement claim form only requires individuals to enter details including information about the purchased products, the consumer's name, mailing address, and the method they would prefer to receive the payment through. The form also has the option to submit a receipt for a higher payout on all qualifying purchases. Consumers or class members can receive compensation under the following conditions on all valid claims made until November 15, 2023: Consumers who may have purchased any of the Batiste products but can't provide proof with a receipt will be eligible for a $2 refund on up to five products. The refund can be availed either in cash or a voucher. Those who purchased one or more Batiste products except Bare dry shampoos will be eligible to claim product vouchers of $2 each for over five products. The maximum compensation cannot surpass $10. Consumers who purchased any Batiste Light Bare, Batiste Clean, or Batiste Bare Dry shampoo products and can provide a receipt or proof of purchase will receive a full refund for all purchases. The final hearing for the November 2022 Batiste-branded dry shampoo settlement is scheduled for October 16, 2023. Though the brand has not hinted at a confirmed payout date for the settlement, class members can expect an announcement soon after the hearing. [GN] DELTA AIR: Settlement Claim Form Submission Deadline Set Sept. 15 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jordan Parker Erb, writing for Insider, reports that if you had a Delta flight canceled early in the Covid-19 pandemic, you may finally get a refund. That's due to a recent class-action lawsuit, which Delta has agreed to settle. Insider breaks down how to determine if you qualify and how to get a refund if you do. Anyone who had plans to fly at the start of 2020 will remember the travel nightmare that began that March when the spread of Covid-19 left a barrage of canceled and disrupted flights. Now, certain Delta Air Lines passengers whose flights were canceled during the first year of the pandemic might be eligible for compensation, thanks to a class-action lawsuit (Dusko v. Delta Air Lines) the company agreed to settle. A court has yet to decide but has granted preliminary approval of the settlement, per a website dedicated to the class action. According to the website, Delta "breached its contracts of carriage with ticketholders" by refusing refunds for flights canceled during the pandemic, instead providing credits for future travel. According to the website, Delta has denied all allegations and agreed to settle to avoid further litigation. A representative for Delta did not respond to Insider's request for comment, made outside regular working hours. Are you eligible for a refund? To be eligible, you must be a US citizen who received credit -- not cash -- for a non-refundable Delta flight canceled between March 1, 2020, and April 30, 2021. You must have requested a refund but not received one and have unused or partial unused credit as of January 13, 2023. Delta employees, their family members, judges involved with the case, and their family members, are not eligible. What can you get from the settlement? Passengers who meet the above criteria can request either a cash refund or credit for each eligible ticket. The cash refund equals the ticket's original amount. The credit refund will equal the amount of unused credit plus 7% interest. The credit will be valid for one year from the time it's issued, according to the website. How to request a refund if you're eligible: If you qualify, you must complete a claim form online. Alternatively, some people may have already received an email notifying them of their eligibility -- those individuals can find a link to the claim form in the email. Qualifying passengers can also fill out a physical claim form and mail it in. Claim forms must be filed by September 15, 2023. According to the site, the court is set to hold a hearing on October 5 to determine whether to approve the settlement. Refunds won't be issued until any appeals are resolved, and the site suggests that passengers "please be patient." [GN] DISCOVER PRODUCTS: Underpays Customer Service Reps, Harris Says --------------------------------------------------------------- KEYONA HARRIS, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DISCOVER PRODUCTS INC., a corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-05071 (N.D. Ill., August 2, 2023) is a collective and class action brought by the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons employed by Defendant, arising from Defendant's willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act, and common law. The complaint alleges the Defendant's violation of the federal and state laws by systematically failing to compensate its customer service representatives, including Plaintiff, for work tasks completed before and after their scheduled shifts when they are not logged into Defendant's timekeeping system, which resulted in CSRs not being paid for all overtime hours worked, overtime gap time when associated with unpaid overtime and in non-overtime workweeks, for regular hours. Plaintiff Harris is a resident of Chicago, Illinois and worked for Defendant as an hourly, non-exempt customer service representative in Defendant's Chicago, Illinois brick and mortar call center from approximately February 2021 through November 2021 and remotely from approximately November 2021 through March 2022. Discover Products Inc. is a digital bank and payments services company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew L. Turner, Esq. Alana A. Karbal, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 E-mail: mturner@sommerspc.com akarbal@sommerspc.com ECO BRITE: Patino Sues Over Biometric Data Retention ---------------------------------------------------- IRENE PATINO, individually and on behalf of other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ECO BRITE LINENS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2023LA000811 (Ill. Cir., Dupage Cty., August 2, 2023) seeks to obtain statutory damages and other equitable relief under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act arising from the Defendant's alleged unlawful biometric scanning and storage practices. As past and present employees of Defendant, Plaintiff and class members were required to provide it with their personalized biometric identifiers and the biometric information derived therefrom. Specifically, Defendant collects and stores its employees' fingerprints and requires all the employees to clock-in and clock-out by scanning their fingerprints into a fingerprint-scanning machine. The Plaintiff and class members have not been notified where their fingerprints are being stored, for how long Defendant will keep the fingerprints, and what might happen to this valuable information in violation of BIPA, says the suit. Eco Brite Linens, LLC is a for-profit corporation that is registered to and doing business in the state of 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 EOS ENERGY: Faces Houck Suit Over Share Price Drop -------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM HOUCK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EOS ENERGY ENTERPRISES, INC., JOSEPH MASTRANGELO, RANDALL GONZALE, and NATHAN KROEKER, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-04113 (D.N.J., Aug. 1, 2023) is a class action on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Eos securities between May 9, 2022 and July 27, 2023, inclusive, pursuing claims against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the complaint, 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 Bridgelink Commodities, LLC is connected to a group whose assets were seized by a creditor and sold in an auction; (2) that, as such, customer Bridgelink Commodities, LLC's commitment and ability to purchase Eos products was not as secure as Eos had led investors to believe; (3) that, as such, Eos' backlog was overstated; (4) that such overstatement negatively impacts Eos' ability to secure a loan from the Department of Energy; and (5) 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. 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, on unusually heavy trading volume. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, the suit alleges. Eos Energy Enterprises, Inc. designs, develops, manufactures, and markets zinc-based energy storage solutions for utility-scale, microgrid, and commercial & industrial applications.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Donald A. Ecklund, Esq. Kevin G. Cooper, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 Facsimile: (973) 994-1744 E-mail: decklund@carellabyrne.com kcooper@carellabyrne.com EROS INT'L: $25MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Nov. 28 --------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY C. A. No. 19-cv-14125 (ES)(JSA) IN RE EROS INTERNATIONAL PLC SECURITIES LITIGATION Honorable Esther Salas SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES TO: All persons and entities who, during the period between July 28, 2017 and August 3, 2021, inclusive, purchased or otherwise acquired Eros Media World Plc, f/k/a ErosSTX Global Corporation, f/k/a Eros International Plc ("Eros") class A ordinary shares (New York Stock Exchange ("NYSE"): EROS) and/or ErosSTX common stock (NYSE: ESGC) and were damaged thereby (the "Settlement Class"): PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and an Order of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, that the above-captioned litigation (the "Action") has been certified as a class action on behalf of the Settlement Class, except for certain persons and entities who are excluded from the Settlement Class by definition as set forth in the full printed Notice of (I) Pendency of Class Action and Proposed Settlement; (II) Settlement Fairness Hearing; and (III) Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses (the "Notice"). YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Lead Plaintiffs in the Action have reached a proposed settlement of the Action for $25,000,000 in cash (the "Settlement"), that, if approved, will resolve all claims in the Action. A hearing will be held on November 28, 2023, at 2:00 p.m., before the Honorable Esther Salas at the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, Martin Luther King Building & U.S. Courthouse, Courtroom MLK 5A, 50 Walnut Street, Newark, NJ 07102, to determine (i) whether the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants, and the Releases specified and described in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated April 4, 2023 (and in the Notice) should be granted; (iii) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (iv) whether Lead Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses should be approved. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be entitled to share in the Settlement Fund. If you have not yet received the Notice and Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these documents by contacting the Claims Administrator at In re Eros International Plc Securities Litigation, c/o Epiq, P.O. Box 2320, Portland, OR 97208-2320, 1-855-619-1409. Copies of the Notice and Claim Form can also be downloaded from the website maintained by the Claims Administrator, www.ErosSecuritiesLitigation.com. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be eligible to receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you must submit a Claim Form postmarked no later than December 6, 2023. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action. If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for exclusion such that it is received no later than November 7, 2023, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action and you will not be eligible to share in the proceeds of the Settlement. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses, must be filed with the Court and delivered to Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they are received no later than November 7, 2023, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, Eros, or its counsel regarding this notice. All questions about this notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to Lead Counsel or the Claims Administrator. Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to: In re Eros International Plc Securities Litigation c/o Epiq P.O. Box 2320 Portland, OR 97208-2320 855-619-1409 www.ErosSecuritiesLitigation.com Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form, should be made to Lead Counsel: Kara M. Wolke, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 (888) 773-9224 settlements@glancylaw.com By Order of the Court URL: www.ErosSecuritiesLitigation.com FEDEX GROUND: Removes Bruno Suit to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------- The Defendants in the case of ROBERTO BRUNO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC.; DOE HUBBARD; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles (Case No. 23AHCV01619) to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Aug. 16, 2023. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-06729. The case is assigned to Hernan D Vera and referred to Magistrate A. Joel Richlin. FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC. provides package delivery services. The Company delivers packages by truck to residential and business addresses throughout North America. [BN] The Defendants are represented byL Shaun J. Voigt, Esq. Victoria Shin, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 444 South Flower Street, Suite 1500 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 330-4500 Facsimile: (213) 330-4501 Email: svoigt@fisherphillips.com vshin@fisherphillips.com FIRSTENERGY CORP: Class Action Over Bailout Scandal Ongoing ----------------------------------------------------------- Marty Schladen, writing for Ohio Capital Journal, reports that after two former Republican officials in June were sentenced for their roles in a massive racketeering conspiracy, U.S. Attorney Kenneth Parker said the investigation was continuing. At least two signs emerged that the proceedings might be intensifying. Former Ohio House Speaker Larry Householder was sentenced to 20 years in federal prison on June 29 and former state GOP Chairman Matt Borges was sentenced to five years a day later. Both played roles in a scandal in which Akron-based FirstEnergy and other utilities paid more than $61 million to pass a $1.3 billion ratepayer bailout that was mostly intended for a subsidiary that FirstEnergy was spinning off that owned two Northern Ohio nuclear plants. In addition to Householder and Borges, two others who were arrested in July 2020 have pleaded guilty and a third died by suicide. But on March 10, just after a jury convicted Householder and Borges, a reporter asked Parker an obvious question: What about the people who paid the bribes? Would they be charged? Parker would only say that the investigation was continuing. Attorneys for the men who were FirstEnergy's top executives at the time of the conspiracy -- former CEO Chuck Jones and former Vice President Michael Dowling -- have already said in court filings that they believe federal investigators are looking at their clients. This month brought two more pieces of evidence that federal investigators are considering further prosecutions in the bribery and money laundering scandal. On Aug. 4, Hilary M. Williams, who is representing FirstEnergy, submitted a filing in a massive class-action case against the company over the bailout scandal. She informed the scores of lawyers for the pension and investment funds suing the company that they're not the only ones who want to see the emails and text messages the FirstEnergy executives sent as the bribery scheme was taking place. "Counsel . . . we confirmed that we may disclose to the parties that certain governmental authorities have requested the production of the entire contents of iPad and iPhone devices used by Mr. Jones or Mr. Dowling from January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2020," Williams wrote. "In keeping with the protocol in this matter, those documents will be produced to all parties, and we expect to do so at approximately the same time that production is made to the requesting governmental authorities." She added. "Mr. Dowling and Mr. Jones used more than a dozen devices during the relevant time period, and processing and reviewing the contents of those devices requires substantial processing time and then time to review for confidentiality and privilege. We are working to complete the review as quickly as possible, and expect to make these productions on or about September 15, 2023." A spokeswoman for the U.S. attorney's office didn't comment on whether the "governmental authorities" Williams referred to worked for Parker, whose office prosecuted Householder and Borges. However, Parker sent a letter to the Public Utility Commission of Ohio asking the regulator to further postpone its investigation into the racketeering scandal. "The PUCO proceedings involve issues related to the U.S. Department of Justice of the United States' investigation, and the United States believes that continued discovery in the PUCO proceedings may directly interfere with or impede the United States' ongoing investigation," the letter said. "For that reason, the United States respectfully requests that PUCO stay the PUCO proceedings for a period of six months from the date of this letter. The United States reserves the right to request that the stay be extended beyond this time." Among those the feds may be investigating are Jones, Dowling and Sam Randazzo, whom Gov. Mike DeWine nominated to chair the PUCO in early 2019. In a deferred prosecution agreement, FirstEnergy said it paid Randazzo a $4.3 million bribe just before his nomination in exchange for favors the ostensible regulator did for the company. Randazzo denies wrongdoing, but in the Householder trial, witnesses testified that Randazzo played a key role in drafting the corrupt bailout legislation. Plaintiffs in the class-action suit earlier this month filed texts and emails between Jones, Dowling and Randazzo. They indicate that the three met in Randazzo's Columbus condo in December 2018 and arranged to pay the soon-to-be regulator $4.3 million and made it clear that they expected something in return. They also appear to indicate that in addition to his work on the the bailout, Randazzo helped exempt FirstEnergy from a 2024 rate review it had been required to undergo. The class-action plaintiffs are accusing FirstEnergy of violating securities law by concealing its illegal conduct from investors. They filed a transcript of an earnings call from July 23, 2020 -- days after Householder, Borges and three others were arrested in the racketeering conspiracy. In it, Jones appeared to mislead analysts about his and his company's role in it. "I believe that FirstEnergy acted properly in this matter, and we intend to cooperate fully with the investigation to, among other things, ensure our company and our role in supporting House Bill 6 is understood as accurately as possible," said Jones, who would be fired months later. "In the meantime, we wanted to share our preliminary perspective on this issue and reinforce the values with which we operate our company." Jones also claimed that he and his subordinates followed "the highest standards of conduct." "This is a serious and disturbing situation," he said. "Ethical behavior and upholding the highest standards of conduct are foundational values for the entire FirstEnergy family and me personally. These high standards have fostered the trust of our employees, our customers and the financial community. We strive to apply these standards in all business dealings including our participation in the political process." Jones sat for a sworn deposition in the class-action case in July. U.S. Magistrate Judge Kimberly Jolson ordered Dowling to sit for one in October. [GN] FLORIDA: Seeks Dismissal of Transgender Treatment Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Fox 35 Orlando reports that attorneys for the State of Florida are trying to fend off an attempt to create a class-action lawsuit out of a challenge to new restrictions on treatments for transgender people. The state on Aug. 14 filed a 28-page court document urging U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle to reject certification of a class action in a lawsuit filed on behalf of transgender children and adults. The lawsuit challenges a new law (SB 254), championed by Gov. Ron DeSantis, that banned doctors from providing treatments such as hormone therapy and puberty blockers to transgender children. The law also put restrictions on treatments for adults diagnosed with gender dysphoria. A revised version of the lawsuit, filed on July 21, sought class certification. The lawsuit breaks down types of plaintiffs into three potential classes, depending on whether plaintiffs are children or adults and certain other circumstances. In each class, it said "common questions of law and fact exist" to support class certification. But in the document filed on Aug. 14, attorneys for the state argued that class certification is "entirely inappropriate" in the case, in part because of what they said are varying factors involving plaintiffs. "There are no common legal or factual questions in any of the plaintiffs' three proposed classes that could conceivably counsel in favor of class certification," the document said. [GN] FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Faulty Engines -------------------------------------------------- Jessy Edwards, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that a group of Ford Escape, Maverick and Lincoln Corsair drivers are suing the automaker alleging the vehicles were sold with a dangerous defect that sometimes led to the engine combusting into an "inferno." Plaintiffs Todd Nishon, James Capps, Joseph Vaillancourt, Harry Hilburg, Raymond Dynne II, and William Simmons filed the class action lawsuit against Ford Motor Company on Aug. 8 in a Michigan federal court, alleging violations of state and federal consumer laws. According to the lawsuit, Ford sold Escapes, Mavericks and Lincoln Corsairs equipped with faulty engines that can suffer a blown engine. The engine can allegedly seize and shatter the engine rods and connecting bearings, which can then be propelled through the engine block itself or the oil pan. "The 'block breach' or blown engine, however named, causes the engine to stall and it causes highly flammable fluid and vapors to escape, causing an under hood fire, or at least presenting a serious fire risk," the plaintiffs say. Though Ford knew or should have known of the stall and fire risk prior to launching the vehicles, it did nothing to promptly warn owners and lessees, instead waiting over a year to announce a safety recall, the plaintiffs allege. Ford's fix 'utterly failed,' lawsuit states Once complaints surfaced, Ford allegedly assured its customers it had developed a fix that would alleviate the risk of fire. However, the lawsuit alleges the automaker chose not to inspect the engines to determine which cars had the defect or issue a fix that addressed it. As a result, Ford's fix, "utterly failed, leaving all owners in the same position as owners like Plaintiffs Nishon and Capps who suffered catastrophic car fires when the engines in their Stall/Fire Risk Vehicles blew up." Nishon describes how, on Oct. 28, 2022, the engine compartment in his Ford Escape hybrid exploded into flames, and he was "fortunate to escape the inferno." Meanwhile, Capps was driving in Arizona on Feb. 24, 2021, when he noticed smoke coming from his Ford Escape Hybrid. He says he pulled over and he and his wife jumped out. Within 15 minutes, the vehicle was "totally consumed" by fire, the lawsuit states. The plaintiffs are suing on behalf of anyone who purchased or leased model year 2020-2023 Ford Escape, 2022-2023 Ford Maverick or 2021-2023 Lincoln Corsair vehicles. They're suing for breach of warranty, fraudulent concealment, unjust enrichment and violations of state consumer laws. They are seeking certification of the class action, restitution, damages, fees, costs and a jury trial. Meanwhile, Ford Motor Co. is dealing with a number of class action lawsuits and recalls. The plaintiffs are represented by Steve W. Berman, Thomas E. Loeser and Abigail D. Pershing of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. The Ford Motor Co. class action lawsuit is Todd Nishon, et al. v. Ford Motor Co., Case No. 2:23-cv-11972-LVP-EAS in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. [GN] GAP INC: Faces Class Action Over WARN Act Violations ---------------------------------------------------- Abraham Jewett, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that Gap failed to give any of its remote-working employees the legally required sixty days notice prior to the clothing retail company conducting a mass layoff in April 2023, a new class action lawsuit alleges. Plaintiff Ian O'Reilly claims Gap is required by the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN) to provide at least 60 days notice to its employees before conducting a mass layoff. O'Reilly argues Gap did give the required 60 days notice to in-person workers at the company's San Francisco headquarters when it conducted its mass layoff in April 2023, yet failed to provide the same notice to employees who worked remotely. "Gap Inc. gave Mr. O'Reilly only fifteen days notice of his termination in the mass layoff because he was a remote employee," the Gap class action states. O'Reilly wants to represent a nationwide class of individuals who worked remotely for Gap out of its San Francisco headquarters and were terminated during the mass layoff in or around April 2023 without being given 60 days notice. Gap offered standard transition benefits plan to employees who agreed to release company from WARN claims, says class action O'Reilly argues Gap offered to provide its standard transition benefits plan to all employees who were eligible, but only if the terminated workers released the company from claims they violated the WARN act. "Gap Inc. offered Mr. O'Reilly its standard transition benefits (which, given his salary, position and tenure, amounted to eight weeks of severance), but only if he signed a waiver of his claims under the WARN Act. He did not sign," the Gap class action states. O'Reilly is demanding a jury trial and requesting an award of compensatory damages for himself and all eligible class members. A separate class action lawsuit was filed against Gap last year over claims the company failed to make its website fully accessible to and individually usable by individuals who are blind or visually impaired. The plaintiff is represented by Benjamin Rudolph Delson, Attorney at Law. The Gap layoffs class action lawsuit is O'Reilly, et al. v. The Gap Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-04002, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. [GN] GAP INC: Removes Bourgeois Suit to District of New Hampshire ------------------------------------------------------------ The Defendants in the case of JODI BOURGEOIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE GAP, INC.; OLD NAVY, LLC; BANANA REPUBLIC, LLC; and ATHLETA, LLC, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of New Hampshire, County of Hillsborough (Case No. 216-2023-cv-00395) to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire on Aug. 16, 2023. The Clerk of Court for the District of New Hampshire assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-00394. The case is assigned to Judge Talesha Leah Saint-Marc. The Gap, Inc. operates as a clothing retailer. The Company offers casual apparels, jeans, pants, shirts, tops, accessories, and personal care products for men, women, and children. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Kathleen Mahan, Esq. HINCKLEY ALLEN 650 Elm Street Manchester, NH 03101 Telephone: (603) 545-6118 Email: kmahan@hinckleyallen.com - and - Michael D. Roth, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 633 West Fifth Street Suite 1600 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 443-4355 Email: mroth@kslaw.com - and - Anne M. Voigts, Esq. Alessandra Givens, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 50 California Street Suite 3300 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 318-1200 Email: avoigts@kslaw.com agivens@kslaw.com GENWORTH LIFE: Hauser Sues Over Unauthorized Personal Info Access ----------------------------------------------------------------- PATRICE HAUSER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GENWORTH LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-00486-MHL (E.D. Va., August 2, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, and unjust enrichment, seeking inter alia, damages and injunctive relief, including improvements to Defendant's data security systems and integrated services, future annual audits, and adequate credit. This class action arises from the recent targeted cyberattack and data breach on Genworth's network that resulted in unauthorized access to highly sensitive data. As a result of the data breach, Class Members suffered ascertainable losses and are subject to the present and continuing risk of imminent harm caused by the compromise of their sensitive personal information. The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of those similarly situated to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of her and Class Members' personally identifiable information(PII) that Defendant collected and maintained, and for Defendant's failure to provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiff and other Class Members that their PII had been subject to the unauthorized access of an unknown, unauthorized party. Genworth Life Insurance Company provides financial and insurance services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lee A. Floyd, Esq. Sarah G. Sauble, Esq. BREIT BINIAZAN, PC 2100 E. Cary Street, Suite 310 Richmond, VA 23223 Telephone: (804) 351-9040 Facsimile: (757) 670-3939 E-mail: Lee@bbtrial.com Sarah@bbtrial.com - and - David K. Lietz, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC 5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW Washington, D.C. 20015-2052 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Facsimile: (202) 686-2877 E-mail: dlietz@milberg.com GOODYEAR TIRE: Hull Seeks Proper Wages Following Kronos Outage -------------------------------------------------------------- Daren Hull, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-01534-JFM (D. Ariz., Aug. 1, 2023) seeks to recover the unpaid wages and other damages owed by Goodyear to Plaintiff and similarly situated workers, along with the other remedies provided by the Fair Labor Standards Act. Like many other organizations across the United States, The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company's Kronos-based timekeeping and payroll systems were affected by a service outage beginning in December 2021. That outage led to problems in timekeeping and payroll throughout Goodyear's organization. According to the complaint, Goodyear's workers who were not exempt from overtime under federal law were not paid for all overtime hours worked and/or were not paid their proper overtime premium on time, if at all, for all overtime hours during and after the onset of the Kronos outage. Goodyear's failure to pay wages, including proper overtime, on time and in full for all hours worked violates the FLSA, says the suit. Plaintiff Hull worked for Goodyear from August 2019 to July 2023. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company is a foreign corporation doing business in Phoenix, Arizona.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew S. Parmet, Esq. PARMET PC 2 Greenway Plaza, Ste. 250 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 999-5228 E-mail: matt@parmet.law - and - Andrew R. Frisch, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 8151 Peters Rd., 4th Floor Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) WORKERS Facsimile: (954) 327-3013 E-mail: AFrisch@forthepeople.com HARVARD MEDICAL: Defendants Added in Morgue Mishandling Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Nia L. Orakwue, writing for The Harvard Crimson, reports that in an amended complaint filed last month, Harvard Medical School Anatomical Gift Program managers Mark F. Cicchetti and Tracey Fay were added as defendants in a class action lawsuit over the alleged mishandling of donated human remains at the HMS morgue. The suit, which was filed in the Massachusetts Suffolk County Superior Court by Keches Law Group, originally only named the University and former HMS morgue manager Cedric Lodge. The amended complaint, filed July 10, accuses Cicchetti and Fay -- who remain HMS employees -- of negligence and infliction of emotional distress. In June, Lodge was indicted by federal prosecutors for allegedly stealing and transporting human remains. At the time of the alleged thefts, Cicchetti and Fay were employed as the managing director and manager of the HMS Anatomical Gifts Program, respectively. Jonathan D. Sweet, an attorney representing the affected families, wrote in an emailed statement that the new defendants were named due to their roles as directors of the Anatomical Gift Program and "supervisory responsibilities as to the donor bodies and the morgue manager Cedric Lodge." "Defendant Mark F. Cicchetti and Defendant Tracey Fay had a duty to safeguard the donors' bodies and to ensure that their loved ones' bodies were not defiled for non-anatomical research purposes," the amended filing reads. "Harvard and HMS directors breached this duty when they failed to take reasonably supervisory steps to verify that the bodies of the donors were treated with proper and reasonable decency after Harvard had no further use for them in the HMS." Families of the deceased initially filed a class action lawsuit against the University and Lodge on June 16, alleging negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and infliction of emotional distress. Two more class action lawsuits were filed against the University last month by affected families. "Harvard and HMS and its managers failed to exercise the minimal reasonable level of care with respect to the safe custody, handling, and supervision of donor bodies after their use for anatomical study," the amended complaint reads. An HMS spokesperson declined to comment on the pending litigation or the allegations made against Cicchetti and Fay. Attorneys on behalf of the Medical School, Cicchetti, and Fay did not respond to a request for comment. An attorney for Lodge could not be identified. [GN] HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC: Shares Hit Lowest Level Amid Wildfire Scrutiny ----------------------------------------------------------------- Shreyashi Sanyal, Clark Mindock, Chibuike Oguh, Shristi Achar and Brendan O'Brien, writing for Reuters, report that Hawaiian Electric Industries' (HE.N) shares plunged nearly 40% to a 13-year low in early trading on Aug. 14 amid growing scrutiny over whether the utility company's equipment played any role in the deadly wildfires that burnt through the coastal Maui town of Lahaina. Shares of the company hit $18.70, the lowest level since February 2010, just moments after the opening bell, after it was hit with two lawsuits by residents of the state who claim it is responsible for the wildfires that killed at least 96 people. Hawaiian Electric was last trading down 35% at $20.90. The cause of the fire remains under investigation. Hawaiian Electric did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Aug. 14. On Aug. 11, before the lawsuits were filed, the company said it is working with the county to investigate what happened. "There's an uncertainty that the cause of the fires in Maui may be attributable to Hawaiian Electric. That's not yet proven, so there's the fear in the market. It's a 'shoot first and ask questions later' type of situation," Thomas Hayes, chair at Great Hill Capital, said of investors. A Washington Post report over the weekend raised questions over whether Hawaiian Electric, which owns utility Maui Electric, did not take sufficient safety measures amid warnings days before the fires broke out that wind gusts would trigger dangerous fire conditions. The proposed class action lawsuits were filed on Aug. 12 in state courts and seek to represent thousands of Hawaii residents affected by the devastating fires that left thousands homeless and Lahaina in ruins. Lahaina residents in one of the lawsuits claimed Hawaiian Electric is responsible for the fires after failing to shut off power lines despite warnings from the National Weather Service that high winds could blow those lines down and spark fast-spreading wildfires. "By failing to shut off the power during these dangerous fire conditions, defendants caused loss of life, serious injuries, destruction of hundreds of homes and businesses, displacement of thousands of people, and damage to many of Hawaii's historic and cultural sites," the plaintiffs said in the lawsuit, which raises gross negligence and private nuisance claims, among others. Hawaiian Electric Vice President Jim Kelly told CNN on Aug. 13 that the company does not comment on pending litigation. "At this early stage, the cause of the fire has not been determined and we will work with the state and county as they conduct their review," Kelly told CNN. He added that Hawaiian Electric does not have a formal shut-off program and precautionary shut-offs have to be arranged with first responders, CNN reported. The scrutiny caused Wells Fargo (WFC.N) and Morningstar to cut their price targets for Hawaiian Electric. Morningstar strategist Andrew Bischof said he was lowering his fair value estimate for Hawaiian Electric Industries to $23 per share from $34 due to the reports. Wells cut its price target to $25 from $35. "While it remains unclear if any of HE's equipment directly caused any of the wildfires, we believe it prudent to account for the risk," Wells Fargo wrote. [GN] HCA HEALTHCARE: Faces Hinds Suit Over Data Breach ------------------------------------------------- KELSEY HINDS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HCA HEALTHCARE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-00794 (M.D. Tenn., August 2, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, and declaratory judgment, seeking actual and putative damages, with attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses, and appropriate injunctive and declaratory relief due to HCA's inadequate data security measures, and its breach of its duty to handle patients' personally identifying information(PII) or protected health information(PHI) with reasonable care. As a healthcare provider, HCA knowingly obtains, collects, and stores patient PII and PHI and has a resulting duty to secure, maintain, protect, and safeguard the PII and PHI that it collects and stores against unauthorized access and disclosure through reasonable and adequate data security measures. Despite HCA's duty to safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII and PHI, Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII and/or PHI in Defendant's possession were accessed, exfiltrated, and later offered for sale by an unauthorized third-party during a data breach on one of its external storage locations used to format patient email messages, which HCA disclosed on July 10, 2023, says the suit. The Plaintiff is a patient of Wesley Medical Center, which is one of HCA's facilities that was impacted by the alleged data breach. HCA is a healthcare system in the United States, providing healthcare services in over 20 states though 180 hospitals and more than 2,300 care sites.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David A. McLaughlin, Esq. 901ATTORNEYS, LLC 200 Jefferson Avenue, Suite 900 Memphis, TN 38103 Telephone: (901) 671-1551 Facsimile: (901) 671-1571 E-mail: David@901Attorneys.com - and - Gary F. Lynch, Esq. Nicholas A. Colella, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 Facsimile: (412) 231-0246 E-mail: gary@lcllp.com nickc@lcllp.com HOME DEPOT: $72.5MM Class Settlement in Utne Suit Wins Prelim. Nod ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, JOHN UTNE, et al., Plaintiffs v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-01854-RS (N.D. Cal.), Judge Richard Seeborg of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California grants the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of class action and PAGA settlement. More than seven years after the litigation began, the parties have reached a settlement for which the Plaintiffs seek preliminary approval. Under the proposed Settlement Agreement, Home Depot will provide a gross payment of $72.5 million to resolve the claims of three classes -- two of which have already been certified (the "Hourly Employee Class" and the "Post-Shift Class"), and one class (the "Rounding Class") for which the Plaintiffs seek certification pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The wage and hour class action avers that Home Depot failed to pay its employees all wages due, in several ways. The Plaintiffs sought and obtained certification of two classes: the Post-Shift Class (previously referred to and certified as the "Lock-In Class") and the Hourly Employee Class. With respect to the former, the Plaintiffs allege Home Depot did not pay employees who worked closing shifts for the time they spent waiting in locked stores until being let out by a supervisor; and with respect to the latter, they contend Home Depot did not compensate employees for time spent walking through Home Depot stores to clock-in for their shifts. Summary judgment was granted to Home Depot as to its rounding policy with respect to timekeeping. The parties proceeded through class certification, partial summary judgment, formal and expert discovery, and a Daubert hearing. After participating in a full-day mediation session and subsequent negotiations, the parties arrived at the current Settlement Agreement. Under the Agreement, Home Depot will pay $72.5 million as a gross settlement amount. From this, the Plaintiffs propose to deduct (1) one-third of the gross amount (or roughly $24.16 million) in attorney fees; (2) out-of-pocket costs not to exceed $3.5 million; (3) a $25,000 service award for the Estate of John Utne and a $7,500 award for Alfred Pinto; (4) up to $750,000 in settlement administration costs; and (5) a $10,000 reserve fund for "disputed, untimely and self-identified claims," the balance of which will be donated to The Homer Fund as the cy pres recipient. After these deductions, 5% (or $2.2 million) will constitute the PAGA Settlement Fund. Pursuant to Cal. Lab. Code Section 2699(i), 75% of this Fund will be paid to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency ("LWDA"), and the remaining 25% will go to the PAGA group members. This leaves around $41.8 million as the Net Class Settlement Fund. From this, 41% is dedicated to the Hourly Employee Class claims; 50% is dedicated to the Post-Shift Class claims; and 9% is dedicated to the Rounding Class claims. This results in an average payout of roughly $77 for Hourly Employee Class members, $72 for Post-Shift Class members, $25 for Rounding Class members, and $2.50 for PAGA group members. As the gross settlement is non-reversionary, any deductions from the gross fund not approved by the Court will go back into the net settlement fund. Further, Class members will not be required to file claims. Rather, payments will be calculated based on each member's respective number of shifts worked based on the Defendant's records, and payments will then be distributed directly. The Agreement also contains an escalation clause that effectively limits Defendant's overall exposure should the actual number of Class members increase. Gross Settlement Amount $72.5 million Minus Attorney Fees (33.3%) $24,166,666.67 Minus Costs (up to) $3.5 million Minus Service Awards $32,500 Minus Settlement Administration costs $750,000 (up to) Reserve Fund $10,000 Net Settlement Amount $44,040,833.33 PAGA Settlement (5%) $2,202,041.67 PAGA Members (25%) $550,510.42 LWDA (75%) $1,651,531.25 Class Settlement (95%) $41,838,791.66 Post-Shift Class (41%) $17,153,904.58 Hourly Employee Class (50%) $20,919,395.83 Rounding Class (9%) $3,765,491.25. In exchange, the class members will release all claims that were or could have been asserted based on the facts alleged in any Complaint or any notice provided to the LWDA by any Named Plaintiff. This includes the state wage and hour claims raised, as well as claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq. Upon review, Judge Seeborg finds that the Plaintiffs have demonstrated that the Settlement Class may be certified under Rule 23(e) and that the proposed Settlement Agreement appears to be fair, adequate, and reasonable. As such, the motion is granted. The proposed settlement is preliminarily approved, under the terms, definitions, and provisions expressed in the Settlement Agreement. Pursuant to Rule 23(e), the proposed Settlement Class is preliminarily certified, with the Class Period running from March 8, 2012, through and including the date of this order. The Settlement Class contains the following subclasses: a. The Hourly Employee Class is defined as all individuals employed by Home Depot who worked one or more shifts in retail stores in hourly-paid or non-exempt positions in California during the Class Period, including persons hired after notice of class certification. b. The Post-Shift Class is defined as all individuals employed by Home Depot in hourly-paid or non-exempt positions in Home Depot stores in California during the Class Period, including persons hired after notice of class certification, who worked at least one Closing Shift. c. The Rounding Class is defined as all individuals employed by Home Depot who worked one or more shifts in retail stores in hourly-paid or non-exempt positions in California during the Class Period and who were paid less than their actual clock-in and clock-out time for his or her total hours worked during the Class Period as a result of Home Depot's practice of rounding time to the nearest quarter hour, including persons hired after notice of class certification. The Plaintiffs are preliminarily appointed as the class representatives for the Settlement Class. Shaun Setareh and Thomas Segal of the Setareh Law Group, and Cody R. Kennedy, Alan Lazar, and Marissa Mayhood of Marlin & Saltzman LLP, are preliminarily appointed as the Class Counsel for the same. KCC is appointed as the Settlement Administrator. The proposed Class Notice and the notice procedures outlined by the parties are approved, subject to the correction noted in the Order. Notice will be disseminated to the Settlement Class members pursuant to the relevant provisions of the Settlement Agreement. A Final Approval Hearing is scheduled for Feb. 15, 2024, at 1:30 p.m. The motion for final approval must be filed no later than 21 days prior to the Hearing. As noted at the hearing, the parties will, as soon as is practicable, file on the public docket a final implementation schedule reflecting the correct dates and deadlines for each of the events listed in the Plaintiffs' proposed order. This includes the dates by which the motion for attorney fees' and costs, and the motion for final approval, must be filed. A full-text copy of the Court's July 28, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/253bm6cd from Leagle.com. HUNTER BUSINESS: $450K Settlement in D'Angelo Suit Gets Final Nod ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, DANIEL D'ANGELO, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class, Plaintiff v. HUNTER BUSINESS SCHOOL, INC. and JAY FUND, Defendants, Case No. 21-CV-03334 (JMW) (E.D.N.Y.), Magistrate Judge James M. Wicks of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York grants three motions: (1) the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and final approval of the class action and collective settlement; (2) the Plaintiffs' motion for approval of a service award and release payment; and (3) the class counsel's motion for attorneys' fees, expenses, and costs and administration fees. The settlement agreement itself contemplates that all three motions would be considered at the fairness hearing. Named Plaintiff Daniel D'Angelo was employed by Defendants Hunter Business School and Jay Fund as a Financial Aid Adviser. On June 14, 2021, the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and others, commenced this wage and hour class and collective action against Defendants alleging the Defendants failed to pay proper overtime wages due to misclassification of non-exempt workers as exempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sections 201 et seq. ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law Section 190, et seq. ("NYLL"). Following a period of informal discovery and investigations and a full day of formal mediation, the parties achieved a settlement, resolving the dispute. The parties then entered into a settlement agreement on May 6, 2022. On June 14, 2021, D'Angelo initiated this action on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, alleging wage and hour violations under both the FLSA and NYLL. Hunter employed the Plaintiff as a Financial Aid Adviser between Oct. 16, 2018, and March 1, 2021. For the duration of his employment, the Plaintiff earned a fixed salary of $40,000.22 per year. The Plaintiff was required to advise students and prospective students about available financial aid programs. From October 2018 to March 2020, the Plaintiff adhered to a fixed schedule and worked 42 hours per week. Subsequently, the Defendants laid off several financial advisors during the initial stages of the COVID-19 pandemic; however, Hunter's enrollment increased significantly during this time. As a result, the Plaintiff began working approximately 80 to 90 hours per week to address this influx of new students. The Plaintiff alleges that he was not paid overtime wages for his overtime hours during and after the pandemic because the Defendants improperly classified him as "exempt." The Plaintiff asserts that this exempt classification was erroneous for two reasons: first, he exercised no executive or administrative power in his role as an adviser, and second, his salary was far too low to qualify as exempt in Nassau County under NYLL. In sum, the Defendants were allegedly obligated to pay the Plaintiff at least $60,000 in addition to his $40,000 base yearly salary. After voicing his concerns to several coworkers, the Plaintiff allegedly determined that 86 employees (including career services advisers, instructors, and laboratory assistants) had been similarly misclassified, and that they too were uncompensated for their overtime labor. The Settlement Fund is $450,000 where each Class Member would receive a payment "proportional to the duration of their employment; those who worked for longer periods will receive greater payments than those who worked for shorter periods." And no Class Member is to receive less than $1,000. Upon approval, the costs and fees will be reduced from the Settlement Amount and each Class Member will receive their allocated sum at one time. Had the Class Members waited until after trial to receive a potential sum of damages, they would be waiting months, even years to see such monies. On July 23, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed their Answer to the Complaint, and denied all material allegations. Soon after a scheduling order was adopted on Oct. 4, 2021, the parties pursued mediation with Dina Jansenson, Esq., of JAMS. The mediation was held on March 3, 2022 and negotiations continued thereafter, resulting in a binding term sheet exchanged on April 15, 2022, and leading to an executed Settlement Agreement on May 6, 2022. The parties then filed a motion for preliminary approval of the class settlement, which was referred to the undersigned by the Hon. Gary R. Brown for a report and recommendation ("R&R"). On Jan. 24, 2023, Judge Wicks issued an R&R recommending approval of the settlement, and conditionally certifying the class and approving the collective action. Thereafter the parties consented to Judge Wicks for all purposes, and Judge Wicks converted the R&R to an Order. The parties appeared before him on March 6, 2023, and a briefing schedule for final approval of the class certification and settlement approval was set, and a fairness hearing was scheduled for July 25, 2023. The fairness hearing took place as scheduled on July 25, 2023, with the counsel and the Objector presenting their respective positions. The Class Members consist of the named Plaintiff as well as all career service advisors, financial aid counselors, admissions representatives and administrative staff who were employed by the Defendants from June 14, 2015 up until Nov. 30, 2021 and did not opt-out of the litigation. In determining whether final class certification should be granted, Judge Wicks looks to the prongs under Rule 23: numerosity; commonality/typicality; adequacy of representation and predominance/superiority. He finds that the proposed class has satisfied these prongs. In considering whether the settlement is substantively fair, courts look to the Grinnell factors, namely: (1) the complexity, expense and likely duration of the litigation; (2) the reaction of the class to the settlement; (3) the stage of the proceedings and the amount of discovery completed; (4) the risks of establishing liability; (5) the risks of establishing damages; (6) the risks of maintaining the class action through the trial; (7) the ability of the defendants to withstand a greater judgment; (8) the range of reasonableness of the settlement fund in light of the best possible recovery; and (9) the range of reasonableness of the settlement fund to a possible recovery in light of all the attendant risks of litigation. Judge Wicks finds that these factors weigh in favor of settlement approval. Accordingly, the class action settlement is approved as fair and reasonable. Moreover, Judge Wick finds that the service award is reasonable in light of the time and effort spent on litigating this case on behalf of himself and the other Class Members. Accordingly, he approves the Plaintiff's $10,000 Service Award and $15,000 Release Payment. He also approves the attorneys' fee award of $150,000, costs and expenses in the amount of $6,465.94, and administration fees award of $25,000 to Advanced Litigation Strategies LLC. For all the foregoing reasons, Judge Wicks grants the motions as follows: the Plaintiff's Motion for Settlement Class Certification, Final Approval of the Class-Wide Settlement Agreement, and Approval of the FLSA Settlement is granted in its entirety; the Plaintiff's Motion for Approval of the Service Award and Release Fees is granted in its entirety; and the Plaintiff's Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs and Expenses and Administration Fees is granted in its entirety. Judge Wicks also approves the releases set forth in the Settlement Agreement, which will be binding in accordance with the terms set forth therein. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the litigation and all matters relating thereto, and over all Parties. Judge Wicks adopts and finally approves, for the purpose of the Order, the definition of the settlement "Class" as that term is defined in the Preliminary Approval Order. Pursuant to Rule 23, he confirms as final its certification of the Class for settlement purposes based on its findings in the Preliminary Approval Order and in the absence of any objections from Class Members to such certification. Pursuant to 29 Section U.S.C. 216(b), he approves the FLSA Settlement and certifies the collective class under the FLSA based on its findings in the Preliminary Approval Order. Judge Wicks confirms as final the appointment of (i) D'Angelo, as the representative of the Class and (ii) C.K. Lee of Lee Litigation Group PLLC as the Class Counsel for the and for individuals who opted into the litigation pursuant to the FLSA. The Action is dismissed with prejudice. However, the Court retains jurisdiction over the action for the purpose of enforcing the Settlement Agreement and overseeing the distribution of settlement funds. The Parties will abide by all terms of the Settlement Agreement and the Order A full-text copy of the Court's July 28, 2023 Memorandum & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/39pphchx from Leagle.com. C.K. Lee, Esq., Anne Seelig, Esq., Lee Litigation Group, PLLC, New York, NY, Attorneys for Plaintiff Daniel D'Angelo, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class. Eve Irene Klein, Esq. -- EIKlein@duanemorris.com -- Katelynn Mimi Gray, Esq. -- KGray@duanemorris.com -- Duane Morris LLP, New York, NY, Attorneys for Defendants Hunter Business School, Inc. and Jay Fund Noreen Iadanza, Objector, appearing pro se. INSURANCE CORP: Liable for Damages in Class Action, Court Rules --------------------------------------------------------------- Ian Holliday, writing for CTV News, reports that British Columbia's highest court has dismissed an appeal by ICBC, leaving the provincial insurer liable for damages in a class action lawsuit. The case has been before courts in the province for more than a decade, and stems from a string of arson, shooting and vandalism incidents that happened over a 10-month period from April 2011 to January 2012. The 13 people who had property damaged in the incidents were part of a larger group of 78 ICBC customers whose personal information was accessed by claims adjuster Candy Rheaume in 2011 "for no apparent business reason," according to the latest decision from the B.C. Court of Appeal. Rheaume retrieved the customers' personal information by "running" licence plate numbers provided to her by Aldorino Moretti. The decision indicates she sold information to him for $25 or more per licence plate. The perpetrators of the incidents -- identified in the decision as Vincent Eric Gia-Hwa Cheung, Thurman Ronley Taffe and others -- used the information to carry out their attacks. The only thing the 13 victims had in common was that their vehicles had been parked in the parking lot at the Justice Institute of British Columbia. As summarized in a 2022 B.C. Supreme Court decision that found ICBC "vicariously liable" for Rheaume's violation of the customers' privacy, "Cheung had a drug-induced paranoid belief that he was being targeted and controlled by the Justice Institute." He was sentenced to 12 years in prison for "numerous arson and firearm offences" in 2016, according to the supreme court decision. It was that decision's findings on the customers' privacy being breached and vicarious liability that ICBC challenged before the court of appeal. INFORMATION WAS NOT PUBLICLY AVAILABLE Writing for the three-judge panel, which was unanimous in its decision to dismiss ICBC's appeal, Justice Susan Griffin noted that the insurer advanced "several grounds of appeal" on the question of privacy breaches, but they all boiled down to the same basic argument. "Essentially, these grounds of appeal all are aspects of ICBC's assertion that the information was merely contact information and therefore was not private," Griffin wrote, before addressing and dismissing each variation. "In my view, despite ICBC's able arguments, it has not established that the judge erred in finding that customers had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the information they gave ICBC, which expectation was that the information would only be used for ICBC's legitimate purposes," the judge wrote. She also rejected the premise she saw underlying each of the company's arguments, namely that the information was publicly available and had "no inherent privacy interest." "This argument begs the question: if the information linking a licence plate to a person's name and address was not private because it was available publicly, why did someone need to pay ICBC's employee in order to obtain that information?" Griffin wrote. "ICBC's proposition would surprise many people, including those who park their motor vehicles at the airport to go on holiday." Likewise, on the question of vicarious liability, Griffin was unmoved by ICBC's argument that the trial judge made an error in his application of the legal principles that determine whether to impose vicarious liability on an employer for the actions of its employee. "It is just to impose liability on ICBC in order to provide an adequate remedy and to create deterrence of similar conduct in the future," the judge wrote. "Between ICBC and a customer required to provide their private information to ICBC, it is just that the risk of improper use of the information by an ICBC employee in Ms. Rheaume's position should be borne by ICBC and not the customer." The high court's decision to dismiss the appeal means the B.C. Supreme Court decision remains in effect. That decision found that Rheaume had breached the privacy of the members of the class described in the class action; that class members are entitled to general damages on a class-wide basis; that the individual class members who suffered losses as a result of the breach are entitled to pecuniary damages; and that ICBC is vicariously liable for both the general and the pecuniary damages. What the supreme court decision didn't determine is how much money those damages are worth. The monetary awards for class-wide damages and individual issues were left to be determined in future court. [GN] JOCKEY INTERNATIONAL: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- LUIS MERCEDES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JOCKEY INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-07186 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 14, 2023) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, www.jockey.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. JOCKEY INTERNATIONAL GLOBAL, INC. manufactures and retails apparel. The Company offers sportswear, t-shirts, socks, active wear, sleep and lounge wear, lingerie, pajamas, tops, boxer briefs, bottoms to teenagers, men, women, and children. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com KIMMICO INC: Misclassifies Exotic Dancers, Bonner Claims -------------------------------------------------------- BREA BONNER and SHAKIA APRIL LOVE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. KIMMICO, INC. d/b/a FANTASIES NIGHTCLUB, JAGUAR ASSET MANAGEMENT LLC, and CALVIN BROCKDORFF, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-02062-JKB (D. Md., July 31, 2023) seeks relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Maryland Wage Hour Law, and the Maryland Wage Payment Collection Law for unpaid minimum wages, unlawfully assigned or withheld tips, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, and/or any such other relief as the Court may deem appropriate. Plaintiffs Bonner and Love were employed by the Management Defendants in Baltimore City, Maryland as exotic dancers performing at Fantasies Nightclub from January 2022 until April 2023. They assert that Management Defendants have had uniform policies and practices misclassifying exotic dancer workforce as non-employee contractors, failing to pay minimum wage compensation, and charging unlawful kickbacks and/or wage deductions and taking and assigning tips and gratuities from their exotic dancer workforce. As a result, Management Defendants have denied them and the proposed class members of minimum wage compensation and retention of tips and gratuities in violation of the FLSA as well as minimum wages and unlawfully deducted wages in violation of Maryland law, allege the Plaintiffs. Kimmico, Inc., d/b/a Fantasies Nightclub, operates a gentleman's club, featuring female nude and semi-nude exotic dancers, in Baltimore City, Maryland.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Thomas J. Eiler, Esq. ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC 8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: (301) 587-9373 Facsimile: (240) 839-9142 E-mail: teiler@zagfirm.com KLAUSSNER HOME: Faces Class Action Over WARN Act Violations ----------------------------------------------------------- Sheila Long O'Mara, writing for Furniture Today, reports that a former employee at Klaussner Home Furnishing's headquarters in Asheboro has filed a class action civil lawsuit against the company seeking collection of wages and benefits for 60 days as required under the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN). In the lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court in Delaware, Trey Chavis and others allege Klaussner failed to provide them with the required "60 days' advanced written notice of termination" the WARN Act requires when it said it was going out of business. The case was filed in the Delaware court because Klaussner is incorporated in Wilmington, Del. Klaussner announced Monday, Aug. 7, that it was ceasing operations because its lender would no longer fund the company. The WARN filing, which said the company employed 884 people, was emailed and sent via FedEx to the N.C. Department of Commerce on the same day Klaussner made its announcement on its website's homepage. The lawsuit says the number of employees impacted is too "numerous" and that including them in the document would be "impracticable." Chavis, who worked at the company's facility at 405 Lewallen Road in Asheboro, and the other employees are asking for unpaid wages, salary, commissions, bonuses, accrued holiday pay, accrued vacation pay, pension and 401(K) contributions and other benefits that would have been covered for 60 days following the employees' terminations. [GN] LADY JANE'S HAIRCUTS: Kennedy Sues Over Stylists' Unpaid Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Tammy Kennedy, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Lady Jane's Haircuts for Men Holding Company, LLC; Lady Jane's Milford, OH, LLC; Lady Jane's Clearwater FL, LLC; Chad Johnson; Tim McCollum; Jesse Dhillon; Alicia Bunch; John Doe 1–10; and Doe Corporation 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00493-MRB (S.D. Ohio, August 2, 2023) seeks appropriate monetary, declaratory, and equitable relief based on Defendants' alleged willful failure to compensate Plaintiff and similarly-situated individuals with minimum wages and overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Constitution, Article II, Section 34a, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, as well as damages under the theory of unjust enrichment. Plaintiff Kennedy worked for Defendants as a stylist in Clearwater, Florida location from January 2017-May 2020. Lady Jane's Haircuts for Men Holding Company, LLC is a salon company registered to do business in the State of Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew R. Biller, Esq. Andrew P. Kimble, Esq. Laura E. Farmwald, Esq. Emily A. Hubbard, Esq. BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC 8044 Montgomery Rd., Ste. 515 Cincinnati, OH 45236 Telephone: (513) 715-8711 Facsimile: (614) 340-4620 E-mail: abiller@billerkimble.com akimble@billerkimble.com lfarmwald@billerkimble.com ehubbard@billerkimble.com M.A.C. COSMETICS: Removes Byrd Suit to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The Defendants in the case of EBONY BYRD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. M.A.C. COSMETICS INC.; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles (Case No. 23STCV16114) to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Aug. 16, 2023. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-06720. The case is assigned to the Hon. George H. Wu and referred to Magistrate Charles F. Eick. M.A.C. Cosmetics Inc. provides personal care products. The Company offers lipstick, eye lashes, foundation, powder, concealer, moisturizers, sponges, brush kits, fragrances, and other related products. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jennifer B. Zargarof, Esq. Julianne G. Park, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 300 South Grand Avenue Twenty-Second Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132 Tel: (213) 612-2500 Fax: (213) 612-2501 Email: jennifer.zargarof@morganlewis.com julianne.park@morganlewis.com MARY BLACK: October 2 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set ------------------------------------------------------- The following release was issued on Aug. 15 by The Notice Company, Inc.: A court authorized this notice. This is not a solicitation. The Court has certified a class action lawsuit that may affect you. The lawsuit is known as Blackwell, et al. ("Plaintiffs") v. Mary Black Health System, LLC et al. ("Defendants"), C. A. No. 2017-CP-42-00219, and it is currently pending before the Honorable J. Mark Hayes, II of the Court of Common Pleas, Spartanburg County, South Carolina. Who is Included? On November 1, 2022, the Court certified the following Class: All individuals who, since January 1, 2014, received any type of healthcare treatment from any entity located in South Carolina that is owned or affiliated with Defendants, while being covered by valid health insurance other than Cigna, and whose medical bills resulting from that treatment were not submitted to their health insurance carrier for potential payment. Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants had a policy and practice of refusing to bill health insurance that impacted every member of the Class by interfering with Class Members' own relationships with their insurance companies. The lawsuit also alleges that the Defendants attempted to collect larger payments from Class Members than what the Defendants separately contracted for with the insurance companies. The Defendants deny the lawsuit's allegations. The Court has not decided whether the Defendants are liable or whether the allegations of the lawsuit are true. The Court has only decided that the case should proceed as a class action. The lawsuit is thus ongoing. What Do You Need to Do? You don't have to do anything now if you want to remain in the Class and keep the possibility of getting money or benefits from this lawsuit. What Are My Other Options? If you do not want to be a part of the Class, you must exclude yourself ("opt out") by October 2, 2023. If you opt out, you will not be eligible to receive any payments or benefits that might result at trial or settlement. Requests to opt out must be in writing and mailed to Mary Black Exclusions, c/o The Notice Company, P.O. Box 455, Hingham, MA 02043. Do not opt out if you wish to remain a member of the Class. The descriptions in this Notice are only summaries. If you have any questions or would like more information, including the detailed notice, please contact the Class Administrator at 1-800-789-6490 or visit www.MaryBlackClassAction.com. Please do not call the Court about this Notice or lawsuit. They will not be able to give you advice or answer your questions. [GN] MDL 2873: Bliven Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams ---------------------------------------------------------- HERBERT ALLEN BLIVEN, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.,; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-03699-RMG (D.S.C., July 31, 2023) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff and those similarly situated individuals seeking damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). According to the complaint, AFFF containing PFAS that was designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, and sold by the Defendants was so hazardous, toxic, and dangerous to human health that the act of designing, formulating, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling this AFFF was unreasonably dangerous under the circumstances. The AFFF designed, formulated, manufactured, marketed, distributed, and sold by Defendants was defectively designed and the foreseeable risk of harm could and would have been reduced or eliminated by the adoption of a reasonable alternative design that was not unreasonably dangerous. The Defendants' defective design and formulation of AFFF containing PFAS was a direct and proximate cause of the contamination of the blood and/or body of Plaintiff and the persistence and accumulation of PFAS in Plaintiff's blood and/or body, says the suit. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's working career in the military and/or as a civilian. He was diagnosed with kidney renal papillary cell carcinoma as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products, the suit asserts. The Bliven case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglass A. Kreis, Esq. Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq. Justin G. Witkin, Esq. AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC 17 East Main Street, Suite 200 Pensacola, FL 32502 Telephone: (850) 202-1010 E-mail: dkreis@awkolaw.com baylstock@awkolaw.com jwitkin@awkolaw.com MDL 2873: Exposure to PFAS Caused Sickness, Fitzgerald Says ----------------------------------------------------------- ELIJAH FITZGERALD, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-03685-RMG (D.S.C., July 31, 2023) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff and those similarly situated individuals seeking damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). According to the complaint, the Defendant collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise inappropriately disposed of PFAS chemicals with knowledge that it was highly toxic and bio persistent, which would expose plaintiff to the risks associated with PFAS. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous PFAS in his drinking water and unaware of the toxic nature of the Defendant's PFAS in general. The Plaintiff's consumption of PFAS from Defendant's contamination and inappropriate disposal caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein, says the suit. The Plaintiff was exposed to PFAS chemicals through drinking water both at home and at his place of work, due to contamination on behalf of the 3M plant in Decatur, Alabama and potential AFFF sources. The Plaintiff was diagnosed with hypothyroidism as a result of exposure to Defendant's PFAS contamination, the suit asserts. The Fitzgerald case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 - and - Hunter Garnett, Esq. GARNETT PATTERSON INJURY LAWYERS 100 Jefferson St S #300 Huntsville, AL 35801 Telephone: (256) 539-8686 MDL 2873: Exposure to Toxic PFAS Caused Cancer, Daniels Says ------------------------------------------------------------ MASON NEIL DANIELS, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.,; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-03700-RMG (D.S.C., July 31, 2023) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff and those similarly situated individuals seeking damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). According to the complaint, AFFF containing PFAS that was designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, and sold by the Defendants was so hazardous, toxic, and dangerous to human health that the act of designing, formulating, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling this AFFF was unreasonably dangerous under the circumstances. The AFFF designed, formulated, manufactured, marketed, distributed, and sold by Defendants was defectively designed and the foreseeable risk of harm could and would have been reduced or eliminated by the adoption of a reasonable alternative design that was not unreasonably dangerous. The Defendants' defective design and formulation of AFFF containing PFAS was a direct and proximate cause of the contamination of the blood and/or body of Plaintiff and the persistence and accumulation of PFAS in Plaintiff's blood and/or body, says the suit. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's working career in the military and/or as a civilian. He was diagnosed with testicular cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products, the suit asserts. The Daniels case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglass A. Kreis, Esq. Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq. Justin G. Witkin, Esq. AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC 17 East Main Street, Suite 200 Pensacola, FL 32502 Telephone: (850) 202-1010 E-mail: dkreis@awkolaw.com baylstock@awkolaw.com jwitkin@awkolaw.com MDL 2873: Williams Suit Alleges Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams --------------------------------------------------------------- DAVE WILLIAMS, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.,; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-03704-RMG (D.S.C., July 31, 2023) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff and those similarly situated individuals seeking damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). According to the complaint, AFFF containing PFAS that was designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, and sold by the Defendants was so hazardous, toxic, and dangerous to human health that the act of designing, formulating, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling this AFFF was unreasonably dangerous under the circumstances. The AFFF designed, formulated, manufactured, marketed, distributed, and sold by Defendants was defectively designed and the foreseeable risk of harm could and would have been reduced or eliminated by the adoption of a reasonable alternative design that was not unreasonably dangerous. The Defendants' defective design and formulation of AFFF containing PFAS was a direct and proximate cause of the contamination of the blood and/or body of Plaintiff and the persistence and accumulation of PFAS in Plaintiff's blood and/or body, says the suit. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's working career in the military and/or as a civilian. He was diagnosed with prostate cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products, the suit asserts. The Williams case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglass A. Kreis, Esq. Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq. Justin G. Witkin, Esq. AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC 17 East Main Street, Suite 200 Pensacola, FL 32502 Telephone: (850) 202-1010 E-mail: dkreis@awkolaw.com baylstock@awkolaw.com jwitkin@awkolaw.com MDL 2873: Zenz Suit Alleges Exposure to PFAS Caused Cancer ---------------------------------------------------------- DENNIS ZENZ, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.,; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-03707-RMG (D.S.C., July 31, 2023) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff and those similarly situated individuals seeking damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). According to the complaint, AFFF containing PFAS that was designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, and sold by the Defendants was so hazardous, toxic, and dangerous to human health that the act of designing, formulating, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling this AFFF was unreasonably dangerous under the circumstances. The AFFF designed, formulated, manufactured, marketed, distributed, and sold by Defendants was defectively designed and the foreseeable risk of harm could and would have been reduced or eliminated by the adoption of a reasonable alternative design that was not unreasonably dangerous. The Defendants' defective design and formulation of AFFF containing PFAS was a direct and proximate cause of the contamination of the blood and/or body of Plaintiff and the persistence and accumulation of PFAS in Plaintiff's blood and/or body, says the suit. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's working career in the military and/or as a civilian. He was diagnosed with prostate cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products, the suit asserts. The Zenz case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglass A. Kreis, Esq. Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq. Justin G. Witkin, Esq. AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC 17 East Main Street, Suite 200 Pensacola, FL 32502 Telephone: (850) 202-1010 E-mail: dkreis@awkolaw.com baylstock@awkolaw.com jwitkin@awkolaw.com MEDTRONIC INC: Harris Hits Defective Implantable Cardiac Devices ---------------------------------------------------------------- TERRY HARRIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MEDTRONIC INC., MEDTRONIC USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 0:23-cv-02273 (D. Minn., Aug. 1, 2023) arises from the Defendants' negligent failure to ensure the quality and safety of Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators and Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Defibrillators in violation of the Minnesota False Statements in Advertising Act and the Minnesota Deceptive Trade Practice Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants' negligent failure led to the recall of the said devices. These defibrillators have been recalled because they contain a glassed feedthrough. A glassed feedthrough "may deliver low or no energy output when high voltage therapy is needed due to inappropriate activation of the Short Circuit Protection feature." A defibrillator that malfunctions in this manner during a life-threatening event could lead to serious injury including cardiac arrest or death, says the suit. The Plaintiff and the putative class suffered economic damages due to Defendants' misconduct and seek injunctive relief, monetary damages, and restitution for the full purchase price of the medical devices they purchased, the suit asserts. Medtronic Inc. is an American medical device company with its principal place of business in Minneapolis, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chad Alexander, Esq. SIEBEN POLK Eagan Woods Office Center 2600 Eagan Woods Drive, Suite 50 Eagan, MN 55121-1170 Telephone: (651)-437-3148 E-mail: CAlexander@siebenpolklaw.com - and - Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. Blake G. Abbott, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO, LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 E-mail: blake.abbott@poulinwilley.com paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com MERCURY AUTO: Averts Workers' Overtime Class Action in Florida -------------------------------------------------------------- Ufonobong Umanah, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Mercury Auto Transport LLC workers who alleged the company misclassified them to avoid paying them overtime had their case dismissed by the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Their allegations "at best resemble 'defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusations' that are insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss," Judge Raag Singhal wrote August 11. Alleging Mercury Auto failed to pay overtime is insufficient to allege workers are similarly situated for the purpose of a proposed class action, the court ruled While an oral agreement under an extremely liberal reading could be construed to satisfy some of the elements of a contract. [GN] MINNEAPOLIS RAGSTOCK: Hussein Files ADA Suit in N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Minneapolis Ragstock, Co. The case is styled as Sumaya Hussein, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Minneapolis Ragstock, Co., Case No. 1:23-cv-04257 (D.N.J., July 3, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Minneapolis Ragstock Co. -- https://ragstock.com/ -- is a Retail, and Apparel & Accessories company located in Minneapolis, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com MOHAMMAD REZA VAZIRI: Lalabekyan Sues Over False Imprisonment ------------------------------------------------------------- Gayane Lalabekyan, individually and on behalf of the putative class, 44 Grigor Lusavorich Street, Stepanakert, Republic of Artsakh (Nagorno-Karabakh) v. MOHAMMAD REZA VAZIRI, Case No. 1:23-cv-01994-JMC (D.D.C., July 11, 2023), is brought involving the role of DEFENDANT VAZIRI in aiding and abetting the false imprisonment and torture of 120,000 Armenians, including 30,000 children, in Artsakh (also known as Nagorno-Karabakh), a self-governing enclave in the South Caucasus. On December 12, 2022, the government of Azerbaijan orchestrated a blockade of the only road connecting the 120,000 ethnic Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh with the outside world, thereby preventing anyone and anything from entering or exiting. The blockade has caused a humanitarian catastrophe in Nagorno-Karabakh, depriving the Armenian population of access to food, medicine, heat, electricity, and normal living conditions. The United States, the United Nations, the European Parliament and numerous other states and global institutions have called upon Azerbaijan to end its blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh. Numerous international human rights organizations--including Human Rights Watch, the Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention, the International Association of Genocide Scholars, and Amnesty International--have warned that Azerbaijan is committing ethnic cleansing in Nagorno-Karabakh and that the risk of genocide against the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh is acute. The International Court of Justice has ordered Azerbaijan to lift the blockade. The Plaintiff is a victim of the blockade. She has been falsely imprisoned by the blockade since December 12, 2022, enduring grave violations of her freedom of movement and right to life; suffering lack of access to food, proper medical care and medicine; enduring physical pain and suffering in extreme winter temperatures without regular access to heat or electricity; and suffering other human rights abuses. She represents a putative class of nearly 120,000 Artsakh Armenians that continue to suffer under Azerbaijan's strategic blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh, aided and abetted by DEFENDANT VAZIRI. In this case, Plaintiff and the putative class bring three causes of action against DEFENDANT VAZIRI: aiding and abetting false imprisonment; aiding and abetting intentional infliction of emotional distress; and aiding and abetting violations of the Torture Victims Protections Act, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a civilian living in Artsakh (Nagorno-Karabakh) who has lived in Artsakh since the start of Azerbaijan's blockade. Mohammad Reza Vaziri is a civilian living at 6833 Capri Place, Bethesda, Maryland 20817.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Karnig S. Kerkonian, Esq. Elizabeth M. Al-Dajani, Esq. KERKONIAN DAJANI LLP 1555 Sherman Avenue, Suite 344 Evanston, IL 60201 Phone: (312) 416-6180 Fax (312) 604-7815 Email: kkerkonian@kerkoniandajani.com ealdajani@kerkoniandajani.com MORGANS SHOES: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Morgans Shoes, Inc. The case is styled as Jasmine Toro, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Morgans Shoes, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-06882 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 4, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Morgan's Shoes, Inc. -- https://morganshoes.com/ -- offers retail shoe sales, including orthopedic footwear.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com MOTIVE ENERGY: Knight Sues Over Field Workers' Unpaid Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- JESSE KNIGHT, on his own behalf and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MOTIVE ENERGY TELECOMMUNICATIONS GROUP, INC. Defendant, Case No. 5:23-cv-01511 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 1, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, declaratory relief and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff, Jesse Knight, performed as non-exempt field worker services for Defendant in Colorado from approximately February 2022 to January 2023. He asserts that Defendant violated the FLSA by failing to pay him and other similarly-situated workers time and one half for all of their hours worked over 40 each week. Motive Energy Telecommunications Group, Inc. provides telecommunications solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Schwartz, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 633 W. 5th Street, #2200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 757-6072 Facsimile: (213) 757-6172 E-mail: jschwartz@forthepeople.com NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Shabazz Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, et al. The case is styled as Abdul Shabazz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, d.b.a. RIGHTPATH SERVICING, Case No. 5:23-cv-02991-JMG (E.D. Pa., Aug. 3, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions for Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"). Nationstar Mortgage LLC, doing business as Mr. Cooper -- https://www.mrcooper.com/ -- offers mortgage services. The Company provides mortgages loan, re-financing, and home equity loans.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph M. Adams, Esq. 200 Highpoint Drive, Suite 211a Chalfont, PA 18914 Phone: (215) 996-9977 Fax: (267) 996-4141 Email: josephmadamsesq@verizon.net NEW YORK, NY: Efforts to Improve Safety at City Jails Not Enough ---------------------------------------------------------------- Graham Rayman, writing for New York Daily News, reports that New York City's efforts to curb violence and improve safety at Rikers Island and other city lockups are "not enough," a federal judge said on Aug. 10 as she set in motion a series of steps that could end with Mayor Adams' administration losing control of the jail system. Manhattan Federal Judge Laura Taylor Swain ordered lawyers for detainees and the Manhattan U.S. Attorney's office to file motions by Nov. 17 to hold the city in contempt of prior court orders and to make a case for the federal takeover. "The defendants [city officials and the Department of Correction] hold a crucial public trust. They do not seem willing or able to make the changes that are necessary. I am not saying the progress is not positive. I am saying it is not enough," Swain said in court. Swain added her decision partly resulted from concerns about the Correction Department's willingness to "engage productively" with a court-appointed federal monitoring team, which is tracking violence and conditions at Rikers Island and other jails as part of a class action lawsuit. Under the schedule set by Swain, the city would have until Jan. 16 to file its opposition brief. The plaintiffs would reply by Feb. 15, setting up the possibility that Swain could order appointment of a receiver as early as next summer. But the appointment of an outsider to run the jail system would have to overcome a series of hurdles -- notably the federal Prison Litigation Reform Act, a law which requires a finding that all other avenues of improvement to the system have been attempted. The Clinton-era law has been wielded in the past by the city as an effective tool against other class action lawsuits. City correction unions also could bring legal challenges to a takeover. Correction Commissioner Louis Molina made a last-ditch effort to avert the process with a lengthy defense of his department's performance since he began leading it in early 2022. He cited one statistic after another that he claimed showed improvement compared to 2021. "No receiver will make greater reform at a faster pace than what we have accomplished," he declared. But Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Powell dismissed Molina's assertion that things are better than two years ago. "We don't think that is a proper comparison," Powell said. "Stabbings and slashing will exceed 300 this year with 6,000 uses of force -- much high than other jail systems. Every use of force and violence indicator is substantially higher compared to 2016." "The proposals offered by the city have been underwhelming," Powell said. "It has failed to offer novel strategies, just more of the same, such as issuing teletypes to remind officers of their basic jobs." Swain's decision was a setback for Mayor Adams, who has stubbornly opposed receivership. Anna Friedberg, the deputy monitor in the class action suit before Swain, noted that Molina created a high security unit for men two weeks ago inside the women's jail at Rikers -- known as the Rose M. Singer Center. Already in the new men's high security area, eight stabbings and slashings have been reported, including blade attacks on victims in restraints, Friedberg said. "Weapons have been found in this high security unit," Friedberg said, adding that when she visited the Singer Center high-security unit, she witnessed guards looking on indifferently as detainees smoked illegal narcotics. "They were highly intoxicated, some almost unable to stand," Friedberg said. Sixteen detainees rioted and took over a housing unit on Aug. 1, with two detainees even forcing their way into a control room. On Aug. 8, sources said, there were two near-fatal overdoses in the Eric M. Taylor Center at Rikers. One of the detainees was found at 8 p.m. in a bus in the sally port, the sources said. That man was given 10 Narcan doses. He and the other overdosed man were at Elmhurst Hospital as of Aug. 10, the sources said. [GN] NEWTON RUNNING: DiMeglio Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Newton Running Company, Inc. The case is styled as Maria DiMeglio, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Newton Running Company, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-05850-VSB (S.D.N.Y., July 7, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Newton Running -- https://www.newtonrunning.com/ -- is the leader in natural running form and active technology in footwear.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com - and - Ara Vahe Naljian, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 584-5575 Email: analjian@steinsakslegal.com The Defendant is represented by: Benjamin F. Silfen, Esq. BERG HILL GREENLEAF RUSCITTI LLP 1712 Pearl Street Boulder, CO 80302 Phone: (303) 412-1600 Fax: (303) 412-1601 Email: bfs@bhgrlaw.com NIPPON EXPRESS: Aranda Files Suit in D. Nevada ---------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nippon Express U.S.A., Inc. The case is styled as Charles M. Aranda, individually and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Nippon Express U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 23CV040634 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., Aug. 14, 2023). Nippon Express -- http://www.nipponexpress.com/-- is a global logistics company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christina M. Lucio, Esq. FARNAES & LUCIO, APC 9880 Research Drive, Suite 200 Irvine, California 92618 Phone: (949) 387-7200 Fax: (949) 387-6676 Email: christina@Jameshawkinsaplc.com NORTHLAND RESOURCES: Dec. 15 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set ------------------------------------------------------------------ A securities class action involving Northland Resources S.A. ("Northland") and other related parties has settled for EUR7,550,000. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has approved the settlement agreement and the plan of distributing the settlement funds less Court-approved legal fees, disbursements, notice, administration and other related costs. The claims period is now open for eligible affected shareholders to make a claim for a portion of the settlement funds. Eligible shareholders include all persons or entities who acquired Northland Resources S.A. Securities between April 1, 2012 and January 23, 2013 and held some or all of those Securities as of January 23, 2013. Claims can be submitted online through the settlement website at www.northlandclassaction.com, or by paper copy upon request to the Claims Administrator. The deadline for filing a claim is December 15, 2023. Claims filed after the deadline may not be approved or eligible for compensation. For more information regarding the claims process, or to view copies of the Settlement Agreement, Plan of Distribution, Claims Notice and other documents, please visit the settlement website www.northlandclassaction.com. If your question is not answered there, you may contact the Claims Administrator at northland@ricepoint.com or 1.888.756.7635. Foreman & Company, the lawyers acting for the class in this matter, can be contacted at northland@foremancompany.com or at 1.855.814.4575, ext. 107. Foreman & Company, based in London, Ontario, has more than 20 years' experience in class action litigation and expertise in a full range of class action matters. [GN] NORTHTOWN CAPITAL: Barragan Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Texas ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Northtown Capital Services Group, LLC. The case is styled as Moises Barragan, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Northtown Capital Services Group, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00258-MJT (E.D. Tex., July 12, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Northtown Capital Services Group LLC is a Billing and Accounts Receivable company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Stephen Agruss, Esq. AGRUSS LAW FIRM LLC 4809 N. Ravenswood Avenue,Suite 419 Chicago, IL 60640 Phone: (312) 224-4695 Fax: (312) 253-4451 Email: michael@agrusslawfirm.com ONEMAIN GENERAL: Estrada Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Onemain General Services Corporation, et al. The case is styled as Jenny Estrada, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Petitioner v. Onemain General Services Corporation; Onemain Financial Group LLC; Does 1-50, Respondents, Case No. 23CV005986 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Aug. 3, 2023). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." OneMain Holdings, Inc. is an American financial services holding company headquartered in Evansville, Indiana, with central offices.[BN] OPC KICKS LLC: Hussein Files ADA Suit in N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against OPC Kicks, LLC. The case is styled as Sumaya Hussein, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. OPC Kicks, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-04258 (D.N.J., July 3, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. OPC Kicks -- https://www.opckicks.com/ -- was founded in 2006 and has been customizing sneakers since.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com OPENAI INC: Faces Privacy Class Action Suit in California --------------------------------------------------------- Hans Allnutt and Astrid Hardy of DAC Beachcroft, in an article for Claims Journal, disclosed that generative AI tools such as ChatGPT have been in the headlines since 2022, with many users (including children) using the tools to generate content with little thought as to the data protection risks associated with its use. Last month, we reviewed the various actions being undertaken by European data protection authorities in an effort to ensure that OpenAI, the creator of ChatGPT, is using the personal data obtained via the platform appropriateClaims Journally. Perhaps unsurprisingly, there are now updates from the United States as the regulatory and litigation backlash against OpenAI takes on a wider international outlook. There is a key theme to the developments in the US which concerns the huge amount of personal data which is being used (allegedly scraped from the web) to train OpenAI's products. The investigation and class actions filed highlight the moral, legal and ethical concerns regarding the development of generative AI products. The past month has seen the commencement of an investigation into OpenAI by the Federal Trade Commission, and further understanding of how the litigation landscape for artificial intelligence technologies is likely to progress, with the first AI focused class action filed. These increasing regulatory pressures on OpenAI and class action lawsuits are indicative of the legal backdrop against which AI platforms will find themselves operating. We summarize the key developments below: Federal Trade Commission investigation It has recently been reported by the Washington Post that the US Federal Trade Commission has commenced an investigation into OpenAI, demanding substantial detail on how OpenAI addresses risk related to its AI models. The subject of the investigation is whether OpenAI has "(1) engaged in unfair or deceptive privacy or data security practices or (2) engaged in unfair or deceptive practices relating to risks of harm to consumers, including reputational harm, in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act [which relates to unfair or deceptive acts or practices]". Class actions Mr. Allnutt and Ms. Hardy said, "We are now seeing a series of class actions being commenced in the United States against OpenAI and other companies involved in the development of AI systems, which largely consider whether data and images have been improperly obtained and then used as part of training datasets for the AI platforms." Northern District of California class action A class action has been filed in California against Open AI and Microsoft including various alleged complaints. Microsoft is also a defendant in the class action, since it integrated OpenAI's technologies in some of the software and services it provides (Azure OpenAI Service, Bing, Microsoft Teams). The plaintiffs (claimants), have asked to remain anonymous, are claiming $3 billion. The action is one of the first AI related class actions which is not focused on intellectual property infringement. The complaints include violation of unfair competition, privacy, consumer fraud, and deceptive business practices legislation across Illinois and California. The complaint, a copy of the 157-page complaint can be found here, alleges ongoing harms and threats posed by the products which are the subject of the complaint (ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4.0, Dall-E, and Vall-E). These harms include privacy violations, misinformation campaigns, malware creation and autonomous weaponry. In respect of the harms actioned upon the members of the class, it is alleged that the business model of OpenAI is based on theft. It is argued that OpenAI ignored established protocols for the purchase and use of personal information which would be used to train the AI, and instead "systematically scraped 300 billion words from the internet, "books, articles, websites and posts – including personal information obtained without consent" [paragraph 146]. It is also alleged that non-users of ChatGPT had their "personal information scraped long before OpenAI's applications were available to the public, and certainly before they could have registered as a ChatGPT user" [paragraph 159]. The personal data includes accounts, names, contact information, means of payment to name a few examples. The class action highlights the privacy concerns with the potential exposure of users' and non-users' personal information. Authors class action Class actions were also filed against Meta and OpenAI in San Francisco earlier this month, by the authors Sarah Silverman, Richard Kadley and Christopher Golden against Open AI and Meta. The complaint against Meta is directed against the Large Language Model Meta AI (LLaMA) product, which as of yet is not publicly available. It is alleged that OpenAI has been training ChatGPT using datasets "from copyrighted works -- including books written by [the author Plaintiffs] . . . without consent, without credit, and without compensation." The action against Meta makes similar allegations. Getty UK/US action against Stability AI In the United Kingdom, Getty Images is pursuing a claim against an AI image generator, Stability UK, over the unlawful use of copyrighted photographs in order to train the image generation tool. The representative action alleges that at least 12 million links to Getty content had formed part of the training. Earlier this year, similar litigation against Stability's US operations was filed in Delaware by Getty, and a class action complaint has also been filed in San Francisco by artists who also alleged their work has been used to train the Stability AI tool. Implications for companies in the UK Dependent on the outcomes in the United States there could be real implications on companies globally should there be a temporary freeze on access granted (which is what the plaintiffs ask for in the California class action), which would impact the continued availability of ChatGPT and other OpenAI products worldwide. Alternatively, we could see requests for tighter security and controls on the use of personal data which would be welcome, but could restrict the speed of development on generative AI tools generally. For example, it is alleged that OpenAI is using personal data which has been collected via web-scraping (without users' consent), should future consent be required, then it follows that this will limit the speed of development of generative AI tools moving forward. Conclusion Any decisions flowing from the US, will undoubtedly alter the data practices used by OpenAI to develop its generative AI tools. It is likely that any outcome from the US will have a knock-on effect with regulators and organizations globally. Mr. Allnutt and Ms. Hardy said, "We will continue to report on developments in this area, in particular steps taken by the Courts and whether this aligns with data protection regulators around the world. What remains to be seen is whether the courts will agree with the regulators' concerns on the associated data protection and privacy risks in both the development and use of these AI tools." [GN] PATTERSON-UTI DRILLING: Ginn Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- PATRICK GINN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PATTERSON-UTI DRILLING COMPANY LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:23-cv-02830 (S.D. Tex., Aug. 1, 2023) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act. Plaintiff Ginn was employed by Patterson in Texas from approximately March 2022 until April 2023, as a health, safety and environment advisor. He asserts that although he and the Putative Collective/Class Members have routinely worked (and continue to work) in excess of 40 hours per workweek, they were not paid overtime of at least one and one-half their regular rates for all hours worked. Patterson is an oilfield services company that owns and operates land-based oil rigs throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. Lauren E. Braddy, Esq. Carter T. Hastings, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 101 N. Shoreline Blvd., Ste. 610 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com lauren@a2xlaw.com carter@a2xlaw.com PENNY NEWMAN GRAIN: Nares Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Penny Newman Grain Co., et al. The case is styled as Carlos Nares, on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Petitioner v. Penny Newman Grain Co., Does 1-100, Respondents, Case No. 23CV006061 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Aug. 4, 2023). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Penny Newman -- https://penny-newman.com/ -- plays a vital role within many different segments of the food/ag supply chain.[BN] PENSION BENEFIT: Cheng Sues Over Compromised Personal Information ----------------------------------------------------------------- Terry Cheng, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. PENSION BENEFIT INFORMATION, LLC; THE BERWYN GROUP, INC.; DOES 1 through 100, Case No. 2:23-cv-05481-DDP-MRW (C.D. Cal., July 7, 2023), is brought against the Defendants for various claims under state law, including negligence, invasion of privacy and violations of California's Consumer Records Act ("CRA"), arising from a data breach which compromised personal information of retired members of the California Public Employees' Retirement System ("CalPERS") including their full name, date of birth and Social Security number. In May 2023, the data that PBI had received from CalPERS with the personal information of Plaintiff and the rest of the Class, was downloaded by an unauthorized third party. In total, full names, dates of birth and Social Security numbers of 769,000 retired CalPERS members were exfiltrated. PBI waited until on or around June 4, 2023, to notify CalPERS. CalPERS sent notices to retired members on June 22, 2023. PBI has not sent any notice to Plaintiff and the rest of the Class. The Plaintiff are informed and believe and thereon allege that each of the fictitiously named Defendants is legally responsible for the occurrences herein alleged, and that Plaintiff's damages as herein alleged were proximately caused by their conduct. At all relevant times, all Defendants were and are legally responsible for the unlawful conduct, policies, practices, acts, and omissions as described in each and all of the foregoing paragraphs, unless otherwise indicated, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a retired member of CalPERS. PENSION BENEFIT INFORMATION, LLC is a limited liability corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mike Arias, Esq. Craig S. Momita, Esq. M. Anthony Jenkins, Esq. ARIAS SANGUINETTI WANG & TORRIJOS LLP 6701 Center Drive West, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90045 Phone: (310) 844-9696 Facsimile: (310) 861-0168 Email: mike@aswtlawyers.com craig@aswtlawyers.com anthony@aswtlawyers.com PENSION BENEFIT: Hurtado Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII ----------------------------------------------------------- Robbie Hurtado, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PENSION BENEFIT INFORMATION, LLC dba PBI RESEARCH SERVICES, BERWYNGROUP, INC. and PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION, Case No. 3:23-cv-03377-SK (N.D. Cal., July 6, 2023), is brought against Defendants Pension Benefit Information, LLC ("PBI"), BerwynGroup, Inc. ("BGI") and Progress Software Corporation ("PSG") (collectively "Defendants") for their failure to properly secure and safeguard the Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information stored within Defendant's information network, including without limitation, full names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers and dependents'/children's names (these types of information, inter alia, being thereafter referred to, collectively, as "personally identifiable information" or "PII"). The Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendants responsible for the harms it caused and will continue to cause the Plaintiff and, at least, hundreds of thousands of other similarly situated persons in the massive and preventable cyberattack purportedly discovered by PBI on or around June 6, 2023 by which cybercriminals infiltrated Defendants' inadequately protected file transfer application and accessed highly sensitive PII which was being kept unprotected (the "Data Breach"). While PBI claims to have discovered the breach as early as June 6, 2023, Defendants did not begin informing victims of the Data Breach until June 22, 2023 and failed to inform victims when or for how long the Data Breach occurred. Indeed, the Plaintiff and Class Members were wholly unaware of the Data Breach until they received letters informing them of it. The Notice received by the Plaintiff was dated June 22, 2023. The Defendants acquired, collected and stored the Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII. Therefore, at all relevant times, Defendants knew or should have known that the Plaintiff and Class Members would use Defendants' services to store and/or share sensitive data, including highly confidential PII. By obtaining, collecting, using and deriving a benefit from the Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII, Defendants assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals. These duties arise from state and federal statutes and regulations as well as common law principles. The Defendants disregarded the rights of the Plaintiff and Class Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly and/or negligently failing to take and implement adequate and reasonable measures to ensure that the Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII was safeguarded, failing to take available steps to prevent an unauthorized disclosure of data, and failing to follow applicable, required and appropriate protocols, policies and procedures regarding the encryption of data, even for internal use. As a result, the Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII was compromised through disclosure to an unknown and unauthorized third party--an undoubtedly nefarious third party seeking to profit off this disclosure by defrauding the Plaintiff and Class Members in the future. the Plaintiff and Class Members have a continuing interest in ensuring their information is and remains safe and are entitled to injunctive and other equitable relief, says the complaint. The Plaintiff's PII was exposed in the Data Breach because the Defendants stored and/or shared the Plaintiff's PII. PBI bills itself as death audit and beneficiary research experts for pension plans.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Edward Cole, Esq. Laura Grace Van Note, Esq. Cody Alexander Bolce, Esq. COLE & VAN NOTE 555 12th Street, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Phone: (510) 891-9800 Facsimile: (510) 891-7030 Email: sec@colevannote.com lvn@colevannote.com cab@colevannote.com Web: www.colevannote.com PENSION BENEFIT: Smith Sues Over Cyberattack and Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------ Karen Smith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PENSION BENEFIT INFORMATION, LLC; THE BERWYN GROUP, INC., Case No. 0:23-cv-02055-KMM-DTS (D. Minn., July 10, 2023), is brought arising out of the recent targeted cyberattack and data breach in 2023 ("Data Incident") on PBI's network that resulted in unauthorized access to customer and employee data. Information compromised in the Data Incident includes Plaintiff's and Class Members' full names, dates of birth, and Social Security numbers (these types of information, inter alia, being thereafter referred to, collectively, as "Private Information"). The Data Incident has impacted more than 700,000 California Public Employees' Retirement System ("CalPERS") members and an unknown number of California State Teachers' Retirement System ("CalSTRS") members. The Data Breach has also impacted millions of additional individuals nationwide for whom PBI provides pension and insurance related services. In addition, Plaintiff and Class Members' sensitive personal information--which was entrusted to PBI was compromised and unlawfully accessed due to the Data Incident. As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff and approximately millions of 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 Data Incident. The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of those similarly situated to address PBI's inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' Private Information that it collected and maintained. PBI maintained the Private Information in a reckless and negligent manner. In particular, the Private Information was maintained on PBI's computer system and network in a condition vulnerable to cyberattacks. Upon information and belief, the mechanism of the cyberattack and potential for improper disclosure of Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was a known risk to PBI, and thus PBI was on notice that failing to take steps necessary to secure the Private Information from those risks left that property in a vulnerable condition. Plaintiff and Class Members' identities are now at risk because of PBI's negligent conduct because the Private Information that PBI collected and maintained is now in the hands of data thieves, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a resident and citizen of Ohio and is a plan participant of an entity that utilizes PBI's services. Pension Benefit Information, LLC is a Delaware limited liability corporation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nathan D. Prosser, Esq. Anne T. Regan, Esq. Lindsey L. Larson, Esq. HELLMUTH & JOHNSON, PLLC 8050 West 78th Street Edina, MN 55439 Phone: (952) 941-4005 Email: nprosser@hjlawfirm.com aregan@hjlawfirm.com llabellelarson@hjlawfirm.com - and - Terence R. Coates, Esq. Dylan J. Gould, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC 119 E. Court, Suite 530 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Phone: (513) 651-3700 Email: tcoates@msdlegal.com dgould@msdlegal.com PENSION BENEFIT: Sued Over Failure to Implement Cybersecurity ------------------------------------------------------------- Melainee Collins, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PENSION BENEFIT INFORMATION, LLC; THE BERWYN GROUP, INC.; and DOES 1-10, CASE 0:23-cv-02045-KMM-DTS (D. Minn., July 7, 2023), is brought arising from the Defendants' negligent failure to implement and maintain reasonable cybersecurity procedures that resulted in a data breach of its systems, which was discovered in May or June 2023 (the "Data Breach"), in violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act, the California Customer Records Act, violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, and for invasion of privacy based on the California Constitution. PBI acts as a third-party provider of pension management services to public pensions throughout the nation, including the California Public Employees' Retire System ("CalPERS") and the California Teachers' Retirement Fund ("CalSTRS"). In connection with the Data Breach, PBI failed to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' protected personally identifiable information, including without limitation, full names, dates of birth, and Social Security numbers (these types of information, inter alia, being thereafter referred to, collectively, as "personal identifiable information" or "PII"). The Data Breach has impacted more than 700,000 CalPERS members and an unknown number of CalSTRS members. The Data Breach has also impacted several million additional individuals nationwide for whom PBI provides pension and insurance related services. Plaintiff brings this class action complaint to redress injuries related to the Data Breach, on behalf of herself and a nationwide class and California subclass of similarly situated persons. The Plaintiff asserts claims on behalf of a nationwide class for negligence, negligence per se, declaratory judgment, common law invasion of privacy, breach of implied contract and breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of the State of California whose personal identifying information was part of the June 2023 data breach. Pension Benefit Information, LLC and The Berwyn Group, Inc. (collectively "PBI") jointly provide pension benefit management services to public pensions throughout the nation, including CalPERS and CalSTRS.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq. Philip J. Krzeski, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: (612) 339-7300 Facsimile: (612) 336-2940 Email: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com - and - Jason M. Wucetich, Esq. Dimitrios V. Korovilas, Esq. WVCETICH & KOROVILAS LLP 222 N. Pacific Coast Hwy, Suite 2000 El Segundo, CA 90245 Phone: (310) 335-2001 Facsimile: (310) 364-5201 Email: jason@wukolaw.com dimitri@wukolaw.com - and - M. Anderson Berry, Esq. Gregory Haroutunian, Esq. Brandon P. Jack, Esq. CLAYEO C. ARNOLD A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 865 Howe Avenue Sacramento, CA 95825 Phone: (916) 239-4778 Facsimile: (916) 924-1829 Email: aberry@justice4you.com gharoutunian@justice4you.com bjack@justice4you.com PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA: Sookul Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Philips North America, LLC. The case is styled as Sanjay Sookul, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Philips North America, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-06833 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 3, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Philips North America LLC -- http://usa.philips.com/-- designs and manufactures products for consumers, commercial professionals, and government professionals.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noor H. Abou-Saab, I, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB 380 North Broadway, Suite 300 Jericho, NY 11753 Phone: (718) 740-5060 Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com PORSCHE CARS: Faces Class Action in Calif. Over Defective Taycans ----------------------------------------------------------------- David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a Porsche Taycan class action lawsuit alleges customers in California have not received what they paid for regarding 2020-2021 Porsche Taycans, including base, 4S, Turbo, and Turbo S models. The class action alleges Porsche advertised the 2020-2021 Taycans as equipped with several functions that are allegedly defective. * State-of-the-art cockpit display * Integrated Apple CarPlay and an infotainment system with Apple Music built in * Air conditioning and heating * A mobile phone app that controls charging the car, displays the status of charging, and controls the air conditioning * Wireless mobile phone charging In addition, the class action alleges the Taycan has a "Smart Lift system that is geolocation based so the car will remember locations where lifting the car for greater clearance is desired and automatically lifts the car when at those locations." The lessee who sued contends Porsche knew none of these features functioned properly. However, Porsche allegedly forced customers to pay for vehicles with several features that didn't work. The class action lawsuit was filed by California plaintiff William M. Turner who leased a 2021 Porsche Taycan 4S. Porsche allegedly falsely advertised the 2020-2021 Taycan vehicles by making consumers believe multiple features functioned normally. The plaintiff asserts his Taycan began having trouble as soon as he leased it and was driving it home. According to the lawsuit, Apple CarPlay and the wireless mobile phone charging did not function properly. The plaintiff said he was notified about a recall of the computer system, but by that time multiple issues were evident. According to the Porsche Taycan lawsuit: 1. Sometimes Apple CarPlay did not work at all 2. Frequently the part of the dashboard that was supposed to display Apple CarPlay, the radio, the controls for the car, etc. remained blank/black for the entire drive 3. When Apple CarPlay worked, 95% of the time it took more than 60 seconds to connect, and 20% of the time, it took more than five minutes to connect 4. It frequently took several minutes for Plaintiff to be able to use the radio 5. Plaintiff's "favorites" for radio stations were repeatedly deleted, requiring that Plaintiff reset them as "favorites" 6. The wireless charging frequently did not work, and, when it did work, it took two to 20 minutes for charging to start 7. The Smart Lift system frequently did not work, resulting in the car scraping the ground (potentially causing damage to the car). The plaintiff says the recall repairs did help certain features but none of the problems were completely eliminated. There were allegedly two more Taycan recalls but the plaintiff continued to have several problems with the vehicle, including a loss of heating. In addition, the plaintiff claims Porsche technicians told him other 2020-2021 Taycan customers were having the same problems. The Porsche Taycan class action lawsuit was originally filed in the Supreme Court of California for the County of Los Angeles, but was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California: William M. Turner v. Porsche Cars North America, Inc. The plaintiff is represented by Law + Brandmeyer LLP. [GN] POST BAGEL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hercules Alleges ------------------------------------------------------- GLORIA HERCULES, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. POST BAGEL INC. D/B/A POST BAGEL RESTAURANT; and MARTA LILIAN ORTORIO, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-06132 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 14, 2023) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, provide meals and rest periods, and provide accurate wage statements. Plaintiff Hercules was employed by the Defendants as a waitress, cashier, and maintenance worker. POST BAGEL INC. owns and operates Post Bagel, a breakfast restaurant located in Westbury, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Samuel, Esq. THE SAMUEL LAW FIRM 1441 Broadway Suite 6085 New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (212) 563-9884 Email: michael@thesamuellawfirm.com PRECISION IMAGING: Hermann Files Suit in M.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Precision Imaging, Inc. The case is styled as Natalie Hermann, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Precision Imaging, Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-00818-TJC-LLL (M.D. Fla., July 13, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. Precision Imaging -- https://www.precisionimagingcenters.com/ -- offers litigation and imaging support such as copying, scanning, printing, and electronic data review.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Laukaitis, Esq. LAUKAITIS LAW FIRM LLC 954 Avenida Pone De Leon, Suite 205, #10518 San Juan, PR 00907 Phone: (215) 789-4462 - and - Joshua Robert Jacobson NORMAND PLLC 3165 McCrory Place, Suite 175 Orlando, FL 32803 Phone: (407) 488-8291 Email: JJacobson@normandpllc.com PRECOR INCORPORATED: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Precor Incorporated. The case is styled as Kevin Yan Luis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Precor Incorporated, Case No. 1:23-cv-06812 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 3, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Precor -- https://www.precor.com/ -- offers the best selection of home fitness gym equipment, including ellipticals, bikes, rowers, strength training equipment, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB 380 North Broadway, Suite 300 Jericho, NY 11753 Phone: (718) 740-5060 Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com PRIORITY CONCEPTS: Connor Sues Over Unsolicited Calls and Messages ------------------------------------------------------------------ JAY CONNOR, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PRIORITY CONCEPTS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-03726-RMG (D.S.C., July 31, 2023) seeks redress for the Defendant's alleged wide-scale illegal telemarketing calls in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the South Carolina Telephone Privacy Protection Act. According to the complaint, Plaintiff Connor received a pre-recorded call on his cellular telephone number on July 11, 2023. The number called had been on the National Do Not Call Registry for more than 30 days prior to the call. The pre-recorded message stated that a refund based on a federally mandated employee retention credit program is due. The Plaintiff and members of the classes are entitled to and do seek injunctive relief prohibiting Defendant and/or its affiliates, agents, and/or other persons or entities acting on Defendant's behalf from violating the TCPA by making calls, except for emergency purposes, to any cellular telephone numbers or numbers for which the recipient is charged for the call using an artificial or prerecorded voice in the future. Priority Concepts, Inc. is a financial consulting corporation with a principal place of business in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David A. Maxfield, Esq. P.O. Box 11865 Columbia, SC 29211 Telephone: (803) 509-6800 Facsimile: (855) 299-1656 E-mail: dave@consumerlawsc.com - and - Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (508) 221-1510 E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Mosqueda Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ ROSEMARY MOSQUEDA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION and PENSION BENEFIT INFORMATION, LLC d/b/a PBI RESEARCH SERVICES, Defendants, Case No. 0:23-cv-02278-KMM-DTS (D. Minn., August 2, 2023) asserts claims against the Defendants for negligence, negligence per se, invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment, and violations of the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, the California Customer Records Act, the California Unfair Competition Law, and the California Constitution arising from Defendant's inadequate security measures to safeguard Plaintiff's sensitive personal identifiable information(PII) and protected health information(PHI). As a result of Defendants' inadequate security and breach of its duties and obligations, the data breach occurred and Plaintiff's and class members' PII and PHI was accessed by, and disclosed to, an unauthorized third-party actor. This instant action seeks to remedy these failings and their consequences. The Plaintiff thus brings this complaint on behalf of herself and all similarly situated individuals whose PII and/or PHI was exposed as a result of the data breach, which PSC learned of on May 27, 2023, but did not publicly disclose until May 31, 2023, says the suit. Progress Software Corporation is an American public company that offers software for creating and deploying business applications.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: E. Michelle Drake, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE, PC 1229 Tyler Street NE, Suite 205 Minneapolis, MN 55413 Telephone: (612) 594-5933 Facsimile: (612) 584-4470 E-mail: emdrake@bm.net - and - Mark B. DeSanto, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE, PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 E-mail: mdesanto@bm.net PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Ortega Sues Over Failure to Secure Information ----------------------------------------------------------------- Juan Ortega, David Merkle, and Nancy Merkle, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION, a Delaware Publicly Traded Corporation; PENSION BENEFIT INFORMATION, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Case No. 2:23-cv-05301 (C.D. Cal., July 3, 2023), is brought against the Defendants for their failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiffs' and other similarly situated individuals' names, addresses, Social Security numbers, birthdates, demographic information, beneficiaries' information, driver's license numbers, vehicle registration numbers, and other personally identifiable information and financial information (collectively, the "Private Information"). "Private Information" was shared between the Retirement Systems and PBI using PROGRESS's proprietary line of products and services, including file transfer software, file transfer services, cloud hosting, and /or cloud storage known as "MOVEit," "MOVEit File Transfer," and "MOVEit Cloud" (hereinafter the "MOVEit Software"). On May 31, 2023, PROGRESS posted on its website a "Critical Vulnerability" notice, stating, in part: "PROGRESS has discovered a vulnerability in MOVEit Transfer that could lead to escalated privileges and potential unauthorized access to the environment. If you are a MOVEit Transfer customer, it is extremely important that you take immediate action as noted below in order to help protect your MOVEit Transfer environment." A nearly identical notice was posted with regard to MOVEit Cloud. On June 6, 2023, a Russian based cyber terrorist group named "CLOP" has publicly claimed to have accessed and retrieved the Private Information of millions of americans, using the critical vulnerabilities in the MOVIEit Software. Since June 6, 2023, additional critical vulnerabilities in MOVEit Software have been identified and publicly admitted to by PROGRESS. PROGRESS and PBI have not yet sent direct notice to those impacted by the Data Breach, though many of Defendants' customers, including the Retirement Systems, have begun notifying individuals, that their Private Information has been compromised as a result of the Breach. PROGRESS has not confirmed that it has adequately enhanced its data security practices sufficient to avoid a similar vulnerability in its "MOVEit Software" in the future. PROGRESS has not confirmed to Plaintiffs and Class members what if any negotiations took place with CLOP, and what, if any of the Private Information was sold, released, publicized, etc. The Plaintiffs and Class Members have suffered and continue to suffer harm, including release of the Private Information, imminent risk of identity theft and other fraudulent misuse of the Private Information by bad actors, out-of-pocket expenses incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the Data Breach, and the value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the Data Breach, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are retirees receiving benefits through the California Public Employees' Retirement System (hereinafter "CalPERS") PROGRESS is a software company offering a range of products and services to government and corporate entities across the country and around the world.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ramin R. Younessi, Esq. Heather N. Phillips, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF RAMIN R YOUNESSI A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP. 3435 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2200 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Phone: (213) 480-6200 Email: ryounessi@younessilaw.com hphillips@younessilaw.com PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Siflinger Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII --------------------------------------------------------------- Kim Siflinger and Randy Kiyabu, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION and PENSION BENEFIT INFORMATION, LLC d/b/a PBI RESEARCH SERVICES, Case No. 1:23-cv-11782-NMG (D. Mass., Aug. 3, 2023), is brought against Defendants for their failure to properly secure and safeguard personally identifiable information ("PII" or "Private Information") including, but not limited to, Plaintiffs' and Class members' names, dates of birth, and Social Security numbers. According to CalPERS, "PBI provides services to CalPERS to identify member deaths. This ensures that proper payments are made to retirees and beneficiaries and prevents" instances of overpayments or other errors." CalPERS succinctly summarizes the breach as follows: "CalPERS provided data to PBI in a secure, encrypted format. On June 6, 2023, PBI notified CalPERS that a previously unknown 'zero-day' vulnerability in the MOVEit transfer application allowed our data to be downloaded by an unauthorized third party." CalPERS states that the unauthorized third party downloaded "full name, date of birth and Social Security number. It could also have included the names of your child or children." During its business operations, Defendants acquired, collected, utilized, and derived a benefit from Plaintiffs' and Class members' Private Information. Therefore, Defendants owed and otherwise assumed statutory, regulatory, contractual, and common law duties and obligations, including to keep Plaintiffs' and Class members' Private Information confidential, safe, secure, and protected from the type of unauthorized access, disclosure, and theft that occurred in the Data Breach described below. Despite its duties to Plaintiffs and Class members related to and arising from its cloud hosting and secure file transfer services and applications involving MOVEit, PSC stored, maintained, and/or hosted Plaintiffs' and Class members' Private Information on its MOVEit transfer services software that was negligently and/or recklessly configured and maintained so as to contain security vulnerabilities that resulted in multiple breaches of its network and systems or of its customers' networks and systems, including PBI. These security vulnerabilities existed as far back as 2021. As a result of the breach, unauthorized third-party cybercriminals gained access to and obtained Plaintiffs' and Class members' PII, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs received a breach notification letter from CalPERS alerting Plaintiffs that their PII had been stolen. PBI, which is based in Minneapolis, Minnesota, is a company that provides search services to pension funds like CalPERS, insurance companies, and others to determine whether fund recipients are deceased.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kristen A. Johnson, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO 1 Faneuil Hall Square, 5th Floor Boston, MA 02109 Phone: (617) 482-3700 Fax: (617) 482-3003 Email: kristen@hbsslaw.com - and - Steve W. Berman, Esq. Sean R. Matt, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 623-7292 Fax: (206) 623-0594 Email: steve@hbsslaw.com sean@hbsslaw.com - and - Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq. GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA 4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490 Cincinnati, OH 45242 Phone: (513) 345-8291 Fax: (513) 345-8294 Email: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com - and - Charles Schaffer, Esq. Nicholas J. Elia, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Phone: (215) 592-1500 Fax: (215) 592-4663 Email: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com nelia@lfsblaw.com - and - Joseph M. Lyon, Esq. THE LYON FIRM 2754 Erie Ave. Cincinnati, OH 45208 Phone: (513) 381-2333 Fax: (513) 766-9011 Email: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com - and - Jeffrey Brown, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Phone:(516) 873-9550 Fax: (516) 747-5024 Email: JBrown@leedsbrownlaw.com - and - Jason Sulzer, Esq. THE SULZER LAW GROUP 270 Madison Avenue, Suite 1800 New York, NY 10016 Phone: 347-657-5533 Fax: 888-749-7747 Email: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com QUALITY DRIVE AWAY: Gentry Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Deon Gentry and Leon Gentry, Jr., as individuals and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. QUALITY DRIVE AWAY, INC., an Indiana corporation; and DOES 1 through 100 inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2314287 was removed from the Superior Court for the County of San Bernardino, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Aug. 14, 2023, and assigned Case No. 5:23-cv-01642. The complaint alleges generalized claims for violations of the California Labor Code and Business and Professions Code. The Plaintiffs allege that, as a result of Defendant's alleged willful misclassification of its drivers as independent contractors, Plaintiffs and unnamed other drivers are entitled to damages, restitution, statutory penalties, and attorney's fees.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Roger M. Mansukhani, Esq. Kiley McCarthy Connolly, Esq. Amanda H. Herron, Esq. GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP 633 West Fifth Street, 52nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 576-5000 Fax: (213) 680-4470 Email: rmansukhani@grsm.com kconnolly@grsm.com aherron@grsm.com R1 RCM INC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Reynolds Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ RAYMOND L. REYNOLDS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. R1 RCM, INC. d/b/a MEDICAL FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-00135-Z (N.D. Tex., Aug. 15, 2023) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. R1 RCM, INC. d/b/a MEDICAL FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS is an American revenue cycle management company servicing hospitals, health systems and physician groups across the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mohammed O. Badwan, Esq. SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD. 2500 South Highland Avenue Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Telephone: (630) 575-8181 Email: mdaher@sulaimanlaw.com RAREESSENCE LLC: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against rareESSENCE, LLC. The case is styled as Mairoby Hernandez, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. rareESSENCE, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-06796 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 3, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. rareESSENCE Aromatherapy -- https://www.rareessencearomatherapy.com/ -- is a seller of essential oils, body care products, aromatherapy books, perfumes, and candles.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ian Piasecki, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor New York, NY 10007 Phone: (347) 745-0445 Email: ipiasecki@mizrahikroub.com RC BIGELOW: Court Certifies False Advertising Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Conor J. Mannix, Esq., of K&L Gates, disclosed that on July 31, 2023, the Central District of California granted class certification in a false advertising lawsuit against tea-maker R.C. Bigelow, Inc.[1] The suit alleges that Bigelow's tea labels, which state "Manufactured in the USA 100%," either intentionally or negligently misrepresent the origins of the tea because the tea itself is primarily grown internationally, and at least partially processed abroad before being packaged in the U.S. Certifying the Class The court found the plaintiffs satisfied all four prerequisites for class certification (numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy).[2] The court refused to find typicality lacking merely because a consumer purchased the product because of taste or brand loyalty. For the commonality requirement,[3] the court examined the "predominance inquiry" in which a court asks whether "questions common to the class predominate" over the individual questions of each plaintiff's experience.[4] The court studied how different consumers might experience the claim, considering both the placement of the product on store shelves and the prominence of the claim on the label. The court noted that the same Made in USA label was placed on many different types of teas, and that the claim was set off and much larger than other text on the box, not hidden in a block of text. The court also examined whether consumers would rely on the common meaning of the Made in USA claim, and whether there could be damages from the alleged misrepresentation. The court then held that despite the individual reasons a consumer chose Bigelow teas, the common questions for the class did predominate over the individual questions. The court then defined the common questions as (1) whether reasonable consumers would believe the label to be true, and (2) whether the teas actually were 100% manufactured and processed in the United States. Admitting and Analyzing Expert Testimony The Defendants also challenged certain expert reports. The first report was from a food labeling specialist that discussed how the food industry analyzes "Made in USA" claims, which included an analysis of related federal and state statutes. The defendants sought to exclude this report on the grounds that its analysis was irrelevant to the specific charges of the class action and that the non-lawyer expert had improperly proffered legal opinions. The court dismissed those concerns, stating that the report and testimony discussed relevant statutes. The second challenged report contained the results of a survey that supported the plaintiffs' theory of damages — specifically, that consumers are willing to pay a premium for certain qualities such as a product being made wholly in the U.S., and that plaintiffs were misled into paying this premium. The defendants claimed that the survey lacked specificity and improperly disregarded many other external factors influencing consumer behavior. The court disagreed, finding that such issues went to the weight of the evidence, not the admissibility. The third challenged report contained the results of a survey that asked consumers what they perceived the "Manufactured in the USA 100%" to mean. According to the report, almost 85% of the consumers surveyed believed "manufactured" to mean the same as "processed," which matters, according to plaintiffs, because the tea was not 100% processed in the U.S. The defendants sought to strike this report because it did not examine what "processed" meant to the consumers. The court again found that the plain meaning of "processed" was unambiguous and denied the defendant's motion. [1] ORDER GRANTING CLASS CERTIFICATION, DENYING MOTIONS TO STRIKE, July 31, 2023, Case No. 20‐cv‐06208 DDP (RAOx) (C.D. Cal) [2] Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a). [3] Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2). [4] Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 623 (1997).[GN] REAL KOSHER: Gurkov Sues Over Mislabeled Ice Cream Products ----------------------------------------------------------- CHAYA GURKOV, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. REAL KOSHER ICE CREAM INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-06128 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 14, 2023) seeks to remedy the deceptive and misleading business practices of the Defendant with respect to the manufacturing, marketing, and sale of Defendant's Ice Cream and Sorbet products (hereinafter the "Products"). The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant has improperly, deceptively, and misleadingly labeled and marketed its Products to reasonable consumers, like the Plaintiff, by omitting and not disclosing to consumers on its packaging that consumption of the Products may increase the risk of contracting invasive infections. The Products contain Listeria monocytogenes, which could lead to serious and life-threatening adverse health consequences. The risk of serious infection is particularly concerning for pregnant mothers, infants, the elderly, and immunocompromised individuals, who are highly susceptible to severe infection and even death from Listeria monocytogenes. The Defendant knows that if they had not omitted that the Products contained Listeria monocytogenes, then Plaintiff and the Class would not have purchased the Products at all, says the suit. REAL KOSHER ICE CREAM INC. provides dairy products. The Company offers ice cream, vegan, and fruit bars. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. Daniel Markowitz, Esq. THE SULTZER LAW GROUP P.C. 85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Telephone: (845) 483-7100 Facsimile: (888) 749-7747 Email: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com markowitzd@thesultzerlawgroup.com - and - Nick Suciu III, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 6905 Telegraph Road, Suite 115 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301 Telephone: (313) 303-3472 Email: nsuciu@milberg.com REALPAGE INC: Dempsey Suit Transferred to M.D. Tennessee -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Benjamin Dempsey and Ivonne Arriola Mendieta, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RealPage, Inc., BH Management Services, LLC, Cortland Partners, LLC, Pinnacle Property Management Services, LLC, Greystar Real Estate Partners, LLC, Highmark Residential, LLC, Independence Realty Trust, Inc., Lincoln Property Co., Mid-America Apartment Communities, Inc., Morgan Properties Management Company, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01832 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on Aug. 4, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-00792 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust. RealPage -- https://www.realpage.com/ -- provides data analytics, property management software, and services to efficiently manage rental properties and real estate.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Rusty Evan Glenn, Esq. SHUMAN GLENN & STECKER 600 17th Street, Suite 2800 South Denver, CO 80202 Phone: (303) 861-3003 Fax: (303) 536-7849 Email: rusty@shumanlawfirm.com RECKER CONSULTING: Underpays Customer Service Reps, Lott Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- KIARA LOTT, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RECKER CONSULTING, LLC d/b/a PATH FORWARD IT, a limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-00489-DRC (S.D. Ohio, Aug. 1, 2023) is a collective and class action arising from the Defendant's alleged willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and common law. The complaint alleges that the Defendant violated the FLSA and common law by systematically failing to compensate its customer service representative, including Plaintiff, for work tasks completed before and after their scheduled shifts and during their unpaid meal periods, when they are not logged into Defendant's timekeeping system, which resulted in CSRs not being paid for all overtime hours worked, and in non-overtime workweeks, for regular hours. More specifically, Defendant failed to compensate CSRs for the substantial time they spent turning on and booting up their computer and computer systems prior to clocking in to Defendant's timekeeping system, and shutting down/logging out of various computer programs and software after they clocked out at the end of each day, says the suit. Plaintiff Lott is a resident of Cincinnati, Ohio and worked remotely for Defendant as an hourly, non-exempt customer service representative from approximately September 21, 2020 through April 1, 2021. Recker Consulting, LLC is a managed service provider that offers solutions and IT support to healthcare and other business markets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert E. DeRose, Esq. Jacob A. Mikalov, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE COX, LLP 4200 Regent Street, Suite 210 Columbus, OH 43219 Telephone: (614) 221-4221 E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com jmikalov@barkanmeizlish.com - and - Matthew L. Turner, Esq. Alana A. Karbal, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 E-mail: mturner@sommerspc.com akarbal@sommerspc.com REMAC LLP: Gonzalez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Remac, L.L.P. The case is styled as Yanilza Gonzalez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Remac, L.L.P., Case No. 1:23-cv-06823 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 3, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Remac LLP was founded in 1974. The Company's line of business includes the wholesale distribution of footwear.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB 380 North Broadway, Suite 300 Jericho, NY 11753 Phone: (718) 740-5060 Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com REPUBLIC SERVICES: Molina Files Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Republic Services, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Julio Cesar Molina, individually, and on behalf of all other aggrieved employees v. Republic Services, Inc., Richmond Sanitary Service, Inc., Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV19374 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 14, 2023). Republic Services -- http://www.republicservices.com/-- is a North American waste disposal company whose services include non-hazardous solid waste collection, waste transfer, waste disposal, recycling, and energy services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marcia Guzman, Esq. Victoria Tokar, Esq. GUZMAN & TOKAR LLP 440 N. Barranca Avenue, Suite 1354 Covina, California 91723 Phone: (626) 427-7128 Fax: (213) 342-6329 Email: service@guzmanandtokar.com service@guzmanandtokar.com RESURGENT CAPITAL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Perkins Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- KENNETH PERKINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RESURGENT CAPITAL SERVICES, L.P., Defendant, Case No. 6:23-cv-04048-TMC (D.S.C., Aug. 15, 2023) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls. RESURGENT CAPITAL SERVICES, L.P. is a manager and servicer of domestic and international consumer debt portfolios for credit grantors and debt buyers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dave Maxfield, Esq. DAVE MAXFIELD, ATTORNEY, LLC P.O. Box 11865 Columbia, SC 29211 Telephone: (803) 509-6800 Email: dave@consumerlawsc.com RETROSPEKT LLC: Gonzalez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Retrospekt, LLC. The case is styled as Yanilza Gonzalez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Retrospekt, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-06824 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 3, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Retrospekt, LLC offers vintage Polaroid instant film cameras, cassette players and vintage gaming, faithfully refurbished and restored to original working condition.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB 380 North Broadway, Suite 300 Jericho, NY 11753 Phone: (718) 740-5060 Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com REVANCE THERAPEUTICS: Lytle Sues Over Exposure of PII ----------------------------------------------------- Karen Lytle, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. REVANCE THERAPEUTICS, INC., Case No. 23C1897 (Tenn. 20th Judicial Dist. Ct., Davidson Cty., Aug. 15, 2023), is brought arising out of the public exposure of the confidential, private information of Revance's current and fonner employees, Personally Identifying Information ("PII") and Protected Health Information ("PW') (collectively "Private Information"), Plaintiff and the Class Members, from March 15, 2023 to April 10, 2023 during a cyberattack, caused by the Defendant's failures to adequately safeguard that information ("the Data Breach"). As a condition of working for Revance, Defendant required its employees to provide it with their sensitive Private Information, which Revance promised to protect from unauthorized disclosure. The Defendant failed to undertake adequate measures to safeguard the Private Information of Plaintiff and the proposed Class Members, including failing to implement industry standards for data security, and failing to properly train employees on cybersecurity protocols, resulting in the Data Breach. Although Defendant purportedly discovered the Data Breach on April 9, 2023, it failed to immediately notify and warn current and former employees who were victimized in the breach, waiting until July 10, 2023 to send written notice to Plaintiff and the Class Members. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's failures to protect current and former employees' sensitive Private Information and warn them promptly and fully about the Data Breach, Plaintiff and the proposed Class Members have suffered widespread Injury and damages necessitating Plaintiff to seek relief on a class wide basis, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a former Revance employee and Data Breach victim. Revance is a biotechnology company headquarted m Nashville, Tennessee, with approximately $78 million in revenue in 2021 and 500 employees.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Andrew E. Mize, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Phone: (615) 254-8801 Facsimile: (615) 255-5419 Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com amize@stranchlaw.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina Borelli, Esq. TURKE & STRAUSS, LLP 613 Williamson St., Suite 201 Madison, WI 53703 Phone: (608) 237-1775 Facsimile: (608) 509-4423 Email: sam@turkestrauss.com raina@turkestrauss.com SALMOS 23 V: Castano Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Retaliation ----------------------------------------------------------- CLAUDIA CASTANO, on behalf of herself and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. SALMOS 23 V, LLC, and ODELMYS BELLO, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-22860 (S.D. Fla., July 31, 2023) is an action against the Defendants to recover monetary damages for unpaid overtime hours and retaliatory constructive discharge under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from April 1, 2019 to approximately October 15, 2020, or 80 weeks, and from January 1, 2022 to July 10, 2023, or 79 weeks. She and those similarly situated worked as a caregiver at a facility engaged in caring for the sick, the aged, or the mentally ill. SALMOS 23 V, LLC is an assisted living facility that provides room, board, personal, and healthcare services to the elderly and infirm.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, PA 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd. Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com SOUTH32 LTD: Faces Class Suit Over Exposure to Coal Dust in Mines ----------------------------------------------------------------- SABC News reports that Richard Spoor Incorporated filed an application for certification for a class action against global mining companies, South32, BHP Billiton and Seriti Power. The applicants are seeking legal remedies for miners who contracted coal mine dust lung disease as a result of long and often unprotected exposure to coal dust in mines. The dependents of deceased workers who contracted the illness are also being represented. RSI say the companies have breached the legal duties owed to the miners by failing to implement statutorily mandated procedures and protections. Dasantha Pillay is an instructing attorney for the Coal Class Action case brought to court by Richard Spoor Incorporated. [GN] SOWELL REALTORS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Turner Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- LAUREN TURNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SOWELL REALTORS, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-02505-JTF-atc (W.D. Tenn., Aug. 15, 2023) is an action against the Defendant failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class minimum wages, and overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Plaintiff Turner was employed by the Defendant as a staff. SOWELL REALTORS, INC. is a full service real estate company located in Memphis, Tennessee. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chris Burks, Esq. WH LAW 1 Riverfront Place, Suite 745 North Little Rock, AR 72114 Telephone: (901) 641-4199 Email: chris@wh.law ST. CAMILLUS HEALTH: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Wieland Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- LAWANDA WIELAND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ST. CAMILLUS HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., Defendant, Case No. 23-cv-1086 (E.D. Wis., Aug. 15, 2023) is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Plaintiff Wieland was employed by the Defendant as an aide. ST. CAMILLUS HEALTH SYSTEM, INC. provides assisted living, memory care, and independent living services at various facilities and physical locations in the State of Wisconsin. [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 Email: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com SUNRISE GROWERS: Faces Class Action Over Frozen Fruit Recall ------------------------------------------------------------ Kelly Mehorter, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that Sunrise Growers, Inc. faces a proposed class action in the wake of its voluntary recall of various frozen fruit products sold at Walmart, Whole Foods, Trader Joe's, Target, Aldi and Associated Wholesale Grocers due to potential bacterial contamination. According to the 29-page case, the food manufacturer "improperly, deceptively, and misleadingly" failed to disclose that the following frozen fruit products may contain Listeria monocytogenes, a type of bacteria that can cause a serious and sometimes fatal infection known as listeriosis: Great Value Mixed Fruit; Great Value Dark Sweet Cherries; Great Value Mango Chunks; 365 Organic Tropical Fruit Medley; 365 Organic Pineapple Chunks; 365 Pineapple Chunks; 365 Organic Whole Strawberries; 365 Organic Slice Strawberries and Bananas; 365 Organic Blackberries; Trader Joe's Organic Tropical Fruit Blend; Good & Gather Organic Cherries and Berries Fruit Blend; Good & Gather Dark Sweet Whole Pitted Cherries; Good & Gather Mango Strawberry Blend; Good & Gather Mixed Fruit Blend; Good & Gather Mango Chunks; Good & Gather Blueberries; Good & Gather Triple Berry Blend; Season's Choice Tropical Blend; and Best Choice Pitted Red Tart Cherries. The lawsuit says that the foodborne illness, which causes a 95 percent hospitalization rate and has a case fatality rate of 20 percent, is particularly dangerous to infants, pregnant mothers, the elderly and immunocompromised individuals. "Although healthy individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea, listeria infection can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women," the complaint relays. Other infection issues associated with Listeria monocytogenes include sepsis, meningitis and encephalitis, the suit adds. The complaint stresses that the bacteria can survive in freezing conditions, making the defendant's frozen fruit products "in no way safe for humans." Concerningly, consumers reasonably believed they were purchasing frozen fruit that was safe for consumption given that the company omitted from packaging that the products contain, or are at risk of containing, life-threatening bacteria, the filing says. "Had [the plaintiff] and Class Members known the truth about the products," the case claims, "they would not have been willing to purchase it at any price, or, at minimum would have paid less for it." According to Sunrise Growers' June 21 recall announcement, the products' potential for Listeria monocytogenes contamination has been linked to pineapple provided by a third-party supplier. The lawsuit looks to represent anyone who purchased any of the products listed above during the applicable statute of limitations period. [GN] SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- Tyson Fisher, writing for Land Line, reports a Washington state trucker for Swift Transportation has filed a class-action lawsuit against the company, accusing it of violating wage laws. On Aug. 10, David Carlson filed a class-action lawsuit against Swift Transportation in a Tacoma, Wash., federal district court. The lawsuit claims that the company failed to pay overtime wages for hours worked more than 40 hours per week. "Specifically, plaintiff asserts defendant by its actions 'including but not limited to, paying on a per mile or per delivery basis but not paying for overtime, despite plaintiff and class members driving over 40 hours per week, defendant violated Washington overtime law,'" the lawsuit states. According to the complaint, the putative class worked at least an aggregate 42,000 workweeks from April 21, 2020. Class members were generally paid at least $20 per hour of work on average. The lawsuit goes on to state that "it is reasonable to assume that plaintiff alleges at least 6 hours of overtime per week per putative class member." Therefore, claims for unpaid overtime wages reach at least $5,040,000 ($20/hr x 0.5 overtime premium rate x 42,000 weeks x 6 overtime hours per week x 2 for alleged liquidated damages under Washington state law). Actual average pay and number of workweeks worked may be higher. The Swift lawsuit does not specify how drivers accrued more than 40 hours of work each week. Last year, a federal court in California gave Swift Transportation and a class of nearly 20,000 drivers the green light to proceed with a settlement worth more than $7 million. The settlement put an end to the lawsuit that was filed nearly 13 years ago. Drivers allege the carrier failed to: Pay them minimum wages or agreed rates for all hours worked. Provide them with duty free meal and rest periods. Reimburse them for all necessary business expenditures and/or losses incurred during the discharge of their duties. Pay them with instruments that were immediately payable in cash, on demand, and without discount in California. Furnish them with accurate itemized wage statements. Timely pay them all wages due following separation of employment. Regarding hours worked, Swift Transportation drivers claim the carrier did not compensate for all duties, including: Driving miles in excess of the estimated miles for which they were paid. Performing pre- and post-trip inspections. Fueling vehicles. Waiting for dispatch to be issued assignments via onboard computer systems. Hooking and unhooking empty trailers. In 2019, Swift Transportation agreed to a $100 million settlement in a class action lawsuit with nearly 20,000 truck drivers that accused the company of misclassifying them as independent contractors.[GN] TACO BELL: Removes Herrera Suit to District of New Jersey --------------------------------------------------------- The Defendant in the case of CARLOS HERRERA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TACO BELL CORPORATION, Defendant, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of New Jersey, County of Hudson, Case No. HUD-L-002328-23, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on August 14, 2023. The clerk of court for the District of New Jerse assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-04449-KM-JRA. The case is assigned to Kevin Mcnulty and referred to Magistrate Jose R. Almonte. TACO BELL CORPORATION owns and operates a chain of restaurants. The Company offers tacos, burritos, quesadillas, salads, nachos, desserts, and beverages for on-premises and off-premises consumption. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Steven J. Luckner, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 10 Madison Avenue, Suite 400 Morristown, NJ 07960 Telephone: (973) 656-1600 Facsimile: (973) 656-1611 Email: steven.luckner@ogletree.com TENAGLIA & HUNT: Lasky Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection Practices ------------------------------------------------------------------ HOWARD LASKY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TENAGLIA & HUNT, P.A., Defendant, Case No. 612216/2023 (N.Y., Sup., Nassau Cty., Aug. 1, 2023) seeks redress for the illegal practices of Defendant, when attempting to collect an alleged debt from the Plaintiff, in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Some time prior to January 3, 2021, Plaintiff opened a credit card account with Credit One Bank, N.A. and after opening the account, Plaintiff ceased being able to make payments on the account. Credit One charged off the account and sold it indirectly to an affiliate engaged in the purchase and collection of defaulted consumer debt, LVNV Funding LLC. LVNV, directly or indirectly, retained Tenaglia & Hunt to collect the defaulted debt. To that end, Tenaglia & Hunt brought an action against Mr. Lasky on April 7, 2023, in the District Court of the State of New York, County of Nassau, captioned LVNV Funding, LLC against Howard Lasky, CV‐003218‐23. Conspicuously missing from the complaint was the cardholder agreement governing Mr. Lasky's account with Credit One, an agreement that Tenaglia & Hunt had provided to Mr. Lasky prior to the filing of the complaint. The Credit One cardholder agreement limits the courts in which claims by LVNV can be filed to small claims court. Instead, Tenaglia & Hunt filed the complaint in the District Court of the State of New York, County of Nassau. By not attaching the Credit One cardholder agreement to the complaint, Tenaglia & Hunt hid the fact that it was filing in a venue not provided for by the agreement, says the suit. The Plaintiff was damaged by Tenaglia & Hunt's filing of a collection action against him in the District Court of the State of New York, County of Nassau in that he was required to pay and retain counsel to file an answer and otherwise defend him in that action. Had Tenaglia & Hunt filed the action in small claims court, Mr. Lasky would not have had to hire counsel to defend him in the action, the suit asserts. Tenaglia & Hunt is a debt collector based in Rochelle Park, New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Abraham Kleinman, Esq. KLEINMAN LLC 626 RXR Plaza Uniondale, NY 11556‐0626 Telephone: (516) 522‐2621 Facsimile: (888) 522‐1692 E‐mail: akleinman@kleinmanllc.com - and - Francis R. Greene, Esq. GREENE CONSUMER LAW 1954 1st St. #154 Highland Park, IL 60035 Telephone: (312) 847‐6979 Facsimile: (312) 847‐6978 E‐mail: francis@greeneconsumerlaw.com TESLA INC: Porter Sues Over Electric Vehicles' False Ads -------------------------------------------------------- JAMES PORTER, BRYAN PEREZ, and DRO ESRAEILI ESTEPANIAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TESLA, INC. d/b/a TESLA MOTORS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-03878-LB (N.D. Cal., August 2, 2023) arises out of Tesla's false advertising of its electric vehicles' range, which Tesla grossly overvalued when selling the vehicles to consumers, in violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, the California Unfair Competition Law, and the California False Advertising Law. The complaint alleges that after purchasing Tesla electric vehicles, many Tesla owners, including Plaintiffs, noticed that the average range in their vehicles was well-below the range Tesla had advertised prior to their purchase. As some owners grew concerned, they contacted Tesla to schedule service appointments to confirm whether anything was wrong with their electric vehicle or its battery. However, many consumers who complained or scheduled appointments with Tesla regarding the below-advertised ranges in their vehicles discovered that Tesla would cancel such appointments and would explain that their electric vehicle was performing as intended, says the suit. As a result of Tesla's unfair, deceptive, and/or fraudulent business practices in advertising grossly overestimated range statistics for its electric vehicles to consumers, Tesla purchasers, including Plaintiffs, were harmed, the suit claims. Tesla, Inc. designs, manufactures, advertises, markets, and sells its electric vehicles throughout the United States and worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Adam A. Edwards, Esq. William A. Ladnier, Esq. Virginia Ann Whitener, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (865) 247-0080 Facsimile: (865) 522-0049 E-mail: aedwards@milberg.com wladnier@milberg.com gwhitener@milberg.com - and - Mitchell Breit, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 405 E. 50th Street New York, NY 1002 Telephone: (347) 668-8445 E-mail: mbreit@milberg.com TILE INC: Faces Gordy Suit Over Privacy Rights Violations --------------------------------------------------------- SHANNON IRELAND GORDY; and STEPHANIE IRELAND GORDY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TILE, INC.; LIFE360, INC.; and AMAZON.COM, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-04119 (N.D. Cal., Aug. 14, 2023) alleges violation of the California's Invasion of Privacy Act. The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendants are engaged in the practice practice of releasing an unreasonably dangerous product into the stream of commerce, misrepresenting the harms associated therewith, and facilitating the unwanted and unconsented to location tracking of the Plaintiffs and Class members. TILE, INC. provides mobile tracking devices and services. The Company offers object location services to users through mobile tracking devices. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gillian L. Wade, Esq. Sara D. Avila, Esq. Marc A. Castaneda, Esq. MILSTEIN JACKSON FAIRCHILD & WADE, LLP 10990 Wilshire Blvd., 8th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90024 Tel: (310) 396-9600 Fax: (310) 396-9635 Email: gwade@mjfwlaw.com savila@mjfwlaw.com mcastaneda@mjfwlaw.com - and - David Slade, Esq. Brandon Haubert, Esq. Jessica Hall, Esq. WH LAW 1 Riverfront Place, Suite 745 North Little Rock, AR 72114 Telephone: (501) 891-6000 Facsimile: (501) 222-3027 Email: slade@wh.law brandon@wh.law jessica@wh.law TWIST BIOSCIENCE: Bleichmar Fonti & Auld Named Peters' Lead Counsel ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ANTHONY JOSEPH PETERS, Plaintiff v. TWIST BIOSCIENCE CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:22-cv-08168-EJD (N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward J. Davila of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division: a. grants the Policemen's Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago's ("PABF") Motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of its Selection of Lead Counsel; and b. denies all other competing motions for appointment of lead plaintiff. The Court has received several motions to appoint lead plaintiff and select lead counsel in this securities class action governed by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"). After all the opening motions seeking appointment had been submitted, all but two movants withdrew or expressed non-opposition to the remaining plaintiffs seeking appointment. The two remaining movants are the University of Puerto Rico ("UPR") Retirement System and PABF. Defendant Twist is a biotechnology company that manufactures synthetic DNA and DNA products. Synthetic DNA products allow users to design and modify DNA for the purposes of academic research, enhancing specialty chemical production, and developing healthcare treatments, among other uses. During the period between Dec. 13, 2019 and Nov. 14, 2022 (the "Class Period"), Twist and Co-Defendants Emily Leproust and James Thorburn assured investors that the Company had achieved substantial growth and was positioned for future growth. The Defendants also reported "skyrocketing gross margins" and announced plans to build a "Factory of the Future" in Wilsonville, Oregon. On Nov. 15, 2022, Scorpion Capital published a lengthy report that described Twist as a "cash-burning inferno that is not a going concern," drawing parallels between Twist's DNA chip technology to Theranos Inc.'s now infamous non-existent blood-testing technology. The Scorpion Report indicated that the Company's growth is dependent on unsustainable pricing strategies to undercut competitors, that the Company was perpetuating its fraud through false reporting of capital expenditures and gross margins. Moreover, Scorpion's investigation revealed that there was no evidence that the Company intended to begin manufacturing in Wilsonville and suggested that the Company was using the facility to hide large operating expenses as fraudulent capital expenditures. In response to the Scorpion Report, the price of Twist's common stock fell nearly 20% from $38 per share on Nov. 14, 2022, to $30.43 per share on Nov. 15, 2022. On Dec. 12, 2022, Plaintiff Peters filed the instant Complaint, asserting claims for relief under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b) and 78t(a). On the same day, the Plaintiff's counsel published notice on Business Wire, providing information on the claims asserted, the purported class period, and a lead plaintiff motion deadline of Feb. 10, 2023. On Feb. 10, 2023, the Court received eight (8) motions to appoint lead plaintiff and select lead counsel. Since then, six of the movants have either withdrawn their motions or filed non-opposition to competing motions for lead plaintiff. The remaining candidates for lead counsel are UPR and PABF, each of whom have filed subsequent briefs in opposition and reply. In its motion, PABF stated that it had purchased 19,112 shares and sold 7,267 shares over the Class Period. At the time of the Scorpion Report's corrective disclosure, PABF had 11,845 shares with an average value of $25.9752 (calculated as the average close price between Nov. 15, 2022 and Feb. 10, 2023). Accordingly, PABF estimated its loss to be $814,517.36, based on the actual price it purchased each tranche of stock and disregarding any losses it sustained from selling shares before the Scorpion Report's disclosure. In its opening motion, UPR stated that it purchased and retained a total of 10,630 Twist common stock during the Class Period at an average price of $40.94 per share and a total cost of $435,229. Accordingly, it estimated its total loss to be $158,704, which it calculated by taking the total cost of its shares ($435,229) and subtracting the average value of those retained shares ($26.01 per share) during the PSLRA's 90-day lookback period (Nov. 15, 2022 to Feb. 9, 2023). After all competing motions for appointment had been received, however, UPR adopted a different calculation method that resulted in a reduced loss amount of $113,859. Its new methodology calculates the value of its pre-corrective disclosure shares by adopting the actual purchase price but capping the price at $38 per share (the closing price on the day before the corrective disclosure), instead using the average price ($40.94) it had previously calculated in its opening motion. In other words, all shares purchased at a price above $38 per share were reduced to $38 for the purposes of UPR's calculations. Additionally, UPR proposes using the first-in, first-out ("FIFO") accounting method -- which assumes that the first stocks to be sold were the ones bought first- instead of the last-in, first out ("LIFO") method -- which assumes that the first stocks to be sold are those purchased most recently. Although UPR's new calculation reduces their own loss amount, it would reduce the estimated loss even further for PABF, changing PABF's estimated loss from over $800,000 to somewhere between $87,000 to $124,000. As an alternative, UPR posits that both FIFO and LIFO methodologies are flawed and proposes a novel method that involves comparing the total amount of alleged inflation in retained shares by matching shares with the same levels of inflation. Judge Davila finds that PABF's LIFO calculation is "rational and consistently applied," both by the Court and other courts in this district. Because PABF purchased the most net shares, expended the most net funds, and sustained the most loss during the Class Period, Judge Davila finds that PABF has the largest financial interest. Based on the foregoing, PABF is presumed to be the most adequate plaintiff under the PSLRA. No other competing movant, including UPR, has made any effort to rebut the presumption. Accordingly, Judge Davila grants PABF's Motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff. No parties have objected to PABF's selection of Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP ("BFA") as lead counsel for the putative class, nor is the Court aware of any need to appoint different counsel to protect the interests of the class. Judge Davila has reviewed the firm's and attorneys' resumes and is satisfied with PABF's selection of counsel. Accordingly, he approves PABF's selection of Bleichmar Fonti & Auld as Lead Counsel. In view of the foregoing, Judge Davila grants PABF's Motion. He appoints PABF as the Lead Plaintiff and Bleichmar Fonti & Auld as the Lead Counsel. He denies all other Motions to Appoint Lead Plaintiff and Select Lead Counsel. A full-text copy of the Court's July 28, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yff59wn4 from Leagle.com. UBS GROUP: Credit Suisse Equity Investors File Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Julia Kollewe, writing for The Guardian, reports that UBS faces another legal challenge to its emergency takeover of Credit Suisse, as a group representing nearly 1,000 individual shareholders, including former employees of the failed Swiss bank, prepares to file a court claim in Zurich on Aug. 7. The Swiss Association for the Protection of Investors (Schweizerischer Anlegerschutzverein, or SASV), which represents retail investors, intends to lodge the claim on behalf of Credit Suisse shareholders -- including some from the UK -- who suffered heavy losses as a result of the rushed takeover in March. UBS, Switzerland's biggest bank, agreed to take over Credit Suisse, in a rescue orchestrated by the Swiss authorities, for almost $3.25bn (£2.65bn) -- well below its market value at the time -- amid fears that a failure to protect depositors could trigger a new global banking crisis. The SASV claim is the second class action lawsuit brought by Credit Suisse shareholders against UBS. Shareholders were not allowed to vote on the emergency merger. There are also lawsuits against Switzerland's financial regulator over the deal, from bondholders who were wiped out. Credit Suisse shareholders received only one UBS share for every 22.48 shares they owned in the failed bank. This valued each Credit Suisse share at 0.76 Swiss francs (68p), while the book value on 31 March was 13.70 Swiss francs per share, SASV said. It argued that the exchange ratio was set "without any well-founded basis" as a result of "hasty action" and "turned out to be far too advantageous for UBS". The association said: "The takeover of the second largest Swiss bank by the largest bank had the character of horse trading, in which the purchase price was arbitrarily determined." The vast majority of the claimants in the lawsuit are Swiss, but they also include investors from the UK, US, Germany, Austria, Thailand and Dubai. Many are former Credit Suisse staff who were given shares as part of their annual pay packages. Arik Röschke, the SASV's general secretary, said: "Credit Suisse has a strong presence in London, and many employees received shares as part of their remuneration that are almost worthless now. The frustration among staff is therefore enormous, as I have been told. "However, many employees are reluctant to take legal action against their employer. Especially because UBS is currently exploring which employees will be taken on and which will be dismissed." The merger has put thousands of jobs at risk in London's financial district, where more than 5,000 Credit Suisse staff and 6,000 UBS employees are based. It has been reported that UBS is planning to axe more than half of Credit Suisse's global workforce of 45,000. Röschke said SASV would write to staff to tell them that they could join the class action lawsuit on an anonymous basis until any settlement talks begin, and they could later decide whether to reveal their identity to UBS. The claim will be brought under the Swiss merger act, and filed at the cantonal court of commerce in Zurich, where UBS is based, on Aug. 7. It could take up to 18 months for a judge to rule in the case, according to Röschke, and it would be quicker for UBS to settle the case out of court. SASV is bringing the case on a not-for-profit basis, with the Zurich-based law firm Niedermann Rechtsanwälte representing shareholders. Claimants are asked to pay 250 francs to cover SASV's costs, but this could be partly refunded if costs are lower than expected. UBS declined to comment. The other shareholder class action lawsuit is being brought by LegalPass, a Lausanne-based legal start-up, and backed by Ethos Foundation, which represents institutional investors who own about 5% of shares in both banks. It also challenges the exchange ratio set as part of the Credit Suisse takeover. Several groups of Credit Suisse bondholders are suing Switzerland's financial regulator over its decision to wipe out risky bank debt. They are being represented by the law firms Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan and Pallas Partners. Pallas represents a group of more than 90 global asset managers, as well as a second group of 460 retail and family office clients. [GN] UBS GROUP: Faces Third Class Action Over Credit Suisse Takeover --------------------------------------------------------------- Finews.com reports that a Liechtenstein-based law firm has filed what is now the third class action lawsuit related to the price UBS paid for Credit Suisse. The plaintiffs are seeking appropriate compensation. Lennert Partners AG, a law firm based in Liechtenstein filed a class action in the Commercial Court of Zurich on Aug. 14, the final day to file such a suit, according to an emailed statement from the firm. The lead plaintiffs are an investment fund and a private individual. Other plaintiffs include other investors representing an investment volume of several million Credit Suisse shares who are seeking «appropriate compensation payment» of at least 7.78 Swiss francs per share, which is significantly higher than comparable class actions, according to the law firm. UBS paid about three billion Swiss francs for Credit Suisse in treasury shares, with shareholders receiving one UBS share for every 22.48 Credit Suisse shares held corresponding to a valuation of 76 centimes per share. Credit Suisse's share price closed at 1.86 francs on March 17, leaving a market capitalization of around 7.4 billion francs. "From the beginning, we had investment companies and intermediaries in mind rather than small shareholders," Philipp Lennert Managing Partner of the eponymous firm told finews.com. "Our goal was to represent the owners of at least 1 million Credit Suisse shares as plaintiffs. We have clearly exceeded that," he added. No Valuation Scheme "The exchange relationship between Credit Suisse and UBS shares doesn't follow any valuation scheme. It is not only completely inappropriate but has been set arbitrarily. This reinforces the impression that there was no negotiating parity between the negotiators of the merger agreement," Lennert said, according to the statement. He went on to say the merger was to be carried out "on the back of Credit Suisse shareholders," and called for a company valuation based on recognized standards to be carried out as part of the judicial review that has now been initiated. Considering the average of the current company valuations, partly published by UBS, the value is 7.78 francs ($8.86) per share, and the "amount to be used to settle the action." Memories of Bear Stearns The UBS/Credit Suisse deal isn't the first emergency bank merger in history, nor the first in an acute crisis. One of the biggest was certainly the takeover of American investment bank Bear Stearns by its larger rival JPMorgan at the start of the financial crisis in March 2008 when Bear Stearns fell victim to a liquidity crisis. At the time of the sale, an exchange ratio was agreed upon that corresponded to $2 per share, about 7 percent of the previous market value. After a shareholder class action lawsuit was filed a few days later, JPMorgan raised the valuation to $10 per share the same day. Lennert Partners is a business law firm founded in 2014 and based in Liechtenstein. The focus of the firm's activities is on providing international legal and tax advice to private clients and financial intermediaries. Its staff consists of lawyers, tax advisors, auditors, and notaries, usually with a large German law firm background. [GN] ULTIMATE FIGHTING: Must Face MMA Fighters' Antitrust Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Nidhin Shibu, writing for First Sportz, reports that the issue of fighter pay has persisted in the world of MMA over the last decade. Every now and then, fighters allege improper pay and other benefits that led fighters like Francis Ngannou, Corey Anderson, and others to jump ship from the UFC. An Antitrust lawsuit filed by former MMA fighters in 2014 recently took the combat sports world by storm. They claimed that the UFC used improper strategies to dominate the market and paid less amount to the fighters. The US Antitrust laws permit private plaintiffs to receive more than three times if they prove the damage they have suffered. One of the major goals of the Antitrust lawsuit remains to recover the money for 1200 fighters who have aligned with the lawsuit. Judge Boulware ruled that the Antitrust lawsuit had been elevated to Class Action. A report from Fannation states that the fighter and lawyers leading the lawsuit will represent the 1200 fighters and sue the UFC for damages. The lawsuit has the potential to change the MMA landscape forever. If the lawsuit is successful, the plaintiffs could get from $800 million to $1.6 billion. Dana White has remained firm on the stance that the UFC could win the case in court. White has always debated against the notion of fighter-pay issues and exploitation of the fighters. However, others do not think so. Jake Paul has alleged that the UFC does not pay a fair amount to its fighters. In the past, Jorge Masvidal stated that the pay scale and revenue share needs to be changed. Masvidal argued that leagues like NFL and NBA give at least half of the revenue generated to the players, whereas the UFC pays less than 15 percent. The revenue aspect of the UFC could play a major part when the lawsuit reaches court. Combat sports lawyer makes a case for the ruthless tactics of Dana White's UFC with Nate Diaz's example after the Class Action lawsuit proceeding News sites reported that Nate Diaz earned eight figures for his boxing bout against Jake Paul. Erik Magraken is a lawyer by profession and covers the combat sports world. He stated that the Class Action lawsuit against the UFC has relevance due to how the UFC operates. He used the example of Nate Diaz to illustrate his point. He wrote, "In a profession where CTE is real, and is tied to the DOSAGE of career brain rattling, if anyone deserves to not be contractually exploited its pro fighters." Diaz making more money for the Paul fight than all the fights of his career may be a cause for concern. Here is where Masvidal's point about the revenue share comes into play. Do the fighters only deserve less than 20 percent? Why cannot it be close to 25 percent? Does it mean that the UFC is exploiting fighters? Many questions will be answered when the Class Action lawsuit court proceedings happen. [GN] UNITED ARTISTS: Faces Class Action Over ADA Violations ------------------------------------------------------ Justin Russell of Kalikhman & Rayz, LLC disclosed that together with colleagues from Connolly Wells & Gray, LLP, attorneys from Kalikhman & Rayz, LLC initiated a class action against United Artists Theaters, which operates the largest and most geographically diverse movie theater circuit in the United States -- consisting of 7,334 screens in 588 locations in 44 states -- for failing to maintain its facilities accessible to individuals with disabilities in the Greater Philadelphia area, including the pictured location at the "Grant Plaza" in Northeast Philadelphia. As detailed in the complaint, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, United Artists Theaters has engaged in willful violations of the applicable provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 12101 et seq., and its implementing regulations by, inter alia, failing to identify (or otherwise designate) sufficient parking spaces at its theater locations as "van accessible." [GN] UNITED STATES: Faces Suit Over Failure to Prevent Prisoners' Abuse ------------------------------------------------------------------ CALIFORNIA COALITION FOR WOMEN PRISONERS; R.B.; A.H.R.; S.L.; J.L.; J.M.; G.M.; A.S.; and L.T., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; BUREAU OF PRISONS DIRECTOR COLETTE PETERS, in her official capacity; FCI DUBLIN WARDEN THAHESHA JUSINO, in her official capacity; OFFICER BELLHOUSE, in his individual capacity; OFFICER GACAD, in his individual capacity; OFFICER JONES, in his individual capacity; LIEUTENANT JONES, in her individual capacity; OFFICER LEWIS, in his individual capacity; OFFICER NUNLEY, in his individual capacity, OFFICER POOL, in his individual capacity, LIEUTENANT PUTNAM, in his individual capacity; OFFICER SERRANO, in his individual capacity; OFFICER SHIRLEY, in his individual capacity; OFFICER SMITH, in his individual capacity; and OFFICER VASQUEZ, in her individual capacity, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-04155-JCS (N.D. Cal., Aug. 16, 2023) is an action alleging that the Defendants failed, and continues to fail, to take action to protect those in its care by preventing and addressing rampant staff sexual misconduct. According to the complaint, officers, supervisors, and leadership throughout FCI Dublin were and continue to be aware of the ongoing sexual abuse at the facility, and not only fail to prevent it but also affirmatively take actions that allow abuse to continue. Staff protect their abusive colleagues by failing to investigate claims or respond meaningfully, and by retaliating against those who report abuse, says the suit. FCI Dublin and the BOP's inadequate systems for preventing, detecting, investigating, and responding to sexual abuse put people incarcerated at FCI Dublin at substantial risk of serious harm from sexual assault, harassment, and retaliation by staff, the suit added. THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS is a United States federal law enforcement agency under the Department of Justice that is responsible for the care, custody, and control of incarcerated individuals who have committed federal crimes. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael W. Bien, Esq. Ernest Galvan, Esq. Kara J. Janssen, Esq. Ginger Jackson-Gleich, Esq. Rosen Bien, Esq. GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP 101 Mission Street, Sixth Floor San Francisco, CA 94105-1738 Telephone: (415) 433-6830 Email: mbien@rbgg.com egalvan@rbgg.com kjanssen@rbgg.com gjackson-gleich@rbgg.com - and - Susan M. Beaty, Esq. CALIFORNIA COLLABORATIVE FOR IMMIGRANT JUSTICE 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1800 Oakland, CA 94612-4700 Telephone: (510) 679-3674 Email: susan@ccijustice.org - and - Oren Nimni, Esq. Amaris Montes, Esq. D Dangaran, Esq. RIGHTS BEHIND BARS 416 Florida Avenue N.W. #26152 Washington, D.C. 20001-0506 Telephone: (202) 455-4399 Email: oren@rightsbehindbars.org amaris@rightsbehindbars.org d@rightsbehindbars.org UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO: Settles Price Fixing Suit for $13.5 Million ------------------------------------------------------------------ Laura Spitalniak, writing for Higher Ed Dive, reports that the University of Chicago will pay $13.5 million to settle claims it conspired with other wealthy colleges to price-fix its financial aid packages, driving up the cost of college, according to court documents. The institution, which did not admit wrongdoing as part of the settlement, is the first of the 17 institutions named in the class-action lawsuit to settle. The case was brought by students and graduates of the colleges and their family members. In addition to the payment, UChicago will share data and information on its financial aid practices with the plaintiffs and coordinate a witness interview with its previous director of college aid. The information is expected to help the case against the remaining 16 universities, which have not settled, the plaintiffs' legal team said on Aug. 14. Dive Insight: In early 2022, students and alumni filed an antitrust lawsuit, Henry, et al. v. Brown University, et al., alleging that more than a dozen top-ranked colleges illegally colluded to lower the amount of financial assistance they offered. The defendant institutions were all at one time members of the since-shuttered 568 Presidents Group, whose member colleges coordinated their financial policies. The group was named after section 568 of the Improving America's Schools Act of 1994, which allows colleges to work together when determining their financial aid formulas if they practice need-blind admissions -- meaning they do not consider applicants' ability to pay during admissions decisions. But the plaintiffs in the lawsuit alleged the group's members were not truly need-blind and conspired to cut competition by using a shared financial aid methodology. This led to higher college costs for students, they said. The institutions named in the lawsuit include: Brown University, in Rhode Island. California Institute of Technology. The University of Chicago. Columbia University, in New York. Cornell University, in New York. Dartmouth College, in New Hampshire. Duke University, in North Carolina. Emory University, in Georgia. Georgetown University, in Washington, D.C. Johns Hopkins University, in Maryland. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The University of Notre Dame, in Indiana. Northwestern University, in Illinois. The University of Pennsylvania. Rice University, in Texas. Vanderbilt University, in Tennessee. Yale University, in Connecticut. The defendants jointly asked the judge to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing their actions were covered by Section 568. But in July 2022, the U.S. Department of Justice weighed in on the case, challenging some of the colleges' arguments. A federal judge allowed the lawsuit to continue against all named colleges the following month. Eric Cramer, a lead attorney for the plaintiffs, lauded the settlement on Aug. 14. "This case will serve as an important reminder that the antitrust laws are a critical source of protection against exploitation by cartels and monopolies for all citizens, including students," Cramer said in a statement. "Because universities play such an important role in our society, it is all the more important that they avoid collusion in the provision of financial aid and in the setting of their prices." The University of Chicago, however, issued a different viewpoint. "The University believes the plaintiffs' claims are without merit," it said in a statement. "We look forward to putting this matter behind us and continuing to focus our efforts on expanding access to a transformative undergraduate education." [GN] UPONOR INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Brown Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ SCOTT BROWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UPONOR, INC.; and UPONOR NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 0:23-cv-02517-NEB-DLM (D. Minn., Aug. 16, 2023) is a class action arising from the Defendants' failure to protect highly sensitive data. According to the complaint, the Defendants store a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information about their employees, with their employees' dependents and beneficiaries. But the Defendants lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated their insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach. Cybercriminals were able to breach the Defendants' systems because the Defendants failed to adequately train their employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class's PII. In short, Defendants' failures placed the Class's PII in a vulnerable position—rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals, says the suit. UPONOR, INC. provides plumbing, indoor climate, and infrastructure systems. The Company offers residential radiant floor heating, commercial heating, residential plumbing, commercial plumbing, residential fire safety, and pre-insulated pipes. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Brittany Resch, Esq. TURKE & STRAUSS LLP 613 Williamson St., Suite 201 Madison, WI 53703 Telephone: (608) 237-1775 Facsimile: (608) 509-4423 Email: raina@turkestrauss.com sam@turkestrauss.com brittanyr@turkestrauss.com VICTORIA: Junior Doctors Win Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Rachel Fieldhouse, writing for AusDoc., reports that junior doctors have claimed victory in a class action on unpaid overtime, which lawyers are calling a landmark case for Australia. Two years after the case began, the Federal Court of Australia handed down its judgement on Aug. 11, finding that Peninsula Health in Victoria contravened the Fair Work Act. Justice Mordecai Bromberg found that the lead plaintiff, Dr Gaby Bolton, was owed just over $8000 in unpaid overtime from four rotations between 2019 and 2021. It has opened the door for an estimated 1500 doctors directly involved in the class action. Law firms Gordon Legal and Hayden Stephens and Associates represented Dr Bolton and the Victorian branch of the Australian Salaried Medical Officers' Federation in the case. Lawyer Hayden Stephens said there were now a range of options for the junior doctors. The court could consider running sample cases, hearing evidence from different doctors who worked unpaid overtime across different departments, as a guide to set a damages figure, he said. "Alternatively, courts sometimes entertain the idea of aggregate damages across the whole group or, dependent on the circumstances of the case, appointing a court referee process where individual assessments occur for each individual client." He said his preferred option was a settlement scheme agreed outside of the courts, where individual cases would be assessed. "At the next hearing, . . . these options that I've canvassed, and possibly others, will be discussed with the judge." Peninsula Health could also be penalised under the Fair Work Act. Mr Stephens said the findings were influential for the other class actions afoot in Victoria because they addressed a key issue: whether the relevant enterprise agreements entitled junior doctors to overtime pay through 'implied authorisation'. "[Implied authorisation] is established where a junior has performed necessary duties with the expectation or knowledge of the employer," Mr Stephens said. "And the judgement stands for the principle that authorisation can be implied." Justice Bromberg said a range of contextual factors weighed into his decision that overtime had been implicitly authorised for Dr Bolton's post-shift work writing clinical handovers and discharge summaries, and her pre-shift preparation. On clinical handovers, Peninsula Health argued there was no "express direction" to complete handovers outside of rostered hours. But the judge heard from the former head of the cardiology unit, who said he expected doctors would complete clinical handovers, even if it took longer than their rostered hours. This evidence "clearly establishe[d] that Peninsula Health expected junior doctors in the cardiology unit to complete handovers at the end of a shift -- even if that meant working beyond their rostered hours", the judge said. In the plastics unit, the court found there was "an understanding or practice" that overtime for pre-shift preparation work was never claimed as overtime. However, the head of the plastics unit acknowledged it was "not possible" for junior doctors to avoid early starts, in order to prepare patient lists. The judge came to similar conclusions on overtime for writing discharge summaries. He said Peninsula Health set a KPI that 80% of discharge summaries were completed prior to discharge and that its key witnesses acknowledged this would sometimes involve working after rostered hours. Peninsula Health claimed that Dr Bolton did not work overtime because it was not shown on her time sheets. However, this was dismissed as "misguided" due to the environment that was "hostile to the making of claims". Dr Bolton gave evidence that she was reticent to seek approval from the department of medicine's clinical director because other doctors told her that he "had a reputation for being obstructive during phone calls and often hard to get hold of". Getting the director's approval for overtime "was not a simple phone call to make", she told the court. "You would be questioned as to why you needed the overtime, why these tasks were necessary, why couldn't they be handed over, why couldn't they be done in your rostered hours." In its defence, Peninsula Health pointed to its written policies on overtime and time in lieu, and its guideline for managing junior medical staff overtime, which explained that only the "clinical director or another member of senior medical staff and preferably a head of unit" or a delegate could authorise overtime. But the judge said, "even if the terms of the policy were crystal clear in providing that Peninsula Health intended that it would only authorise all overtime where it has given an express authorisation, . . . the existence of those terms do[es] not demonstrate that Peninsula Health's intent was objectively so understood". "That is because the evidence demonstrated that employees of Peninsula Health who engaged in clinical work in the departments of medicine and surgery were likely not aware of the policy." He said all of the clinical staff called by Peninsula Health as witnesses "were either not aware of the policy or, if they were aware, had never applied the policy in the course of their work". Peninsula Health's lawyers also disputed Dr Bolton's claims on how much overtime she worked, arguing that five minutes "represented a reasonable period of time for the performance of the tasks in question". But Justice Bromberg said the evidence was that, "in the ideal world", these tasks could be done in five minutes. This was "substantially divorced from the world faced by Dr Bolton and demonstrated in her evidence", he said. Peninsula Health also argued that "the work provided by Dr Bolton was . . . motivated by her desire to impress and advance her career". But the judge also dismissed this argument as well. A spokesperson for the Victorian Department of Health said it was still considering the decision and could not make any further comment. Both parties must either agree or file changes to the orders by 25 August. [GN] WALTER KIDDE: Pons Sues Over False & Misleading Advertising ----------------------------------------------------------- Stephen Pons, Caroline Coleman, and Stanley Wolken, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. WALTER KIDDE PORTABLE EQUIPMENT INC. d/b/a Kidde Safety Equipment, and BRK BRANDS, INC. d/b/a First Alert, Case No. 3:23-cv-03436-LB (N.D. Cal., July 10, 2023), is brought arising out of the false misleading advertising, labeling, and packaging of one of the most important safety products a consumer will ever purchase: home smoke detectors and seek damages for their purchases of ionization-only devices that, based on the Defendants' misrepresentations, they reasonably believed were suitable for detecting smoke during all common home fires, and they want the industry to stop misleadingly and deceptively selling ionization-only devices as "smoke alarms." In virtually every home in America, families install alarms to warn them about dangerous fires so that they may make a safe escape. These alarms should be capable of detecting the early signs of a fire long before the family could--otherwise, they serve no purpose. The deadliest home fires typically begin as slow, smoldering fires that often escape notice until there are large amounts of smoke or flame and by then, escape is risky or hopeless. Given that smoldering fires are a particularly common and dangerous type of home fire, any product that is sold as a "smoke alarm" should be able to reliably detect and warn of such a fire long before it becomes hazardous. And, when consumers purchase any product that is labeled, marketed, and sold as a "smoke alarm," those consumers reasonably expect that such a product will provide adequate warning to reliably protect against common home fires. Yet for decades the largest manufacturers of smoke alarms in America, including each of the Defendants, have been making and selling products labeled as "smoke alarms" even though those products are technologically unsuited for this most basic and essential function. Crucially, any product advertised, labeled, and sold as a "smoke alarm" for residential use should have photoelectric technology inside, because--in stark contrast to ionization technology--it can quickly detect and warn of the presence of smoke. Conversely, an alarm product that uses only ionization technology (an "ionization-only device") cannot effectively detect smoke from slow, smoldering fires. Because ionization-only devices are not reasonably suited to detect and warn of smoldering fires—a particularly common and dangerous type of home fire—they cannot be truthfully and accurately advertised, labeled, and sold as "smoke alarm" products. The Defendants have known about the shortcomings of ionization-only devices for many years. Each Defendant began manufacturing and selling ionization-only devices decades ago, and they became able to mass produce them cheaply. For years, Defendants have also mass-produced photoelectric devices and "hybrid" devices containing both types of technology, but they have manufactured and sold vastly more ionization-only products to American consumers (largely due to their mislabeling of those products). Consequently, the overwhelming majority of U.S. homes are equipped solely with ionization-only devices. With deliberate disregard for the safety of the public, each Defendant continues to sell ionization-only devices to the public deceptively and misleadingly advertised, labeled, and packaged as "smoke alarms." On the back or bottom of some of their packaging, the Defendants slip in fine print that says that it is optimal to buy both kinds of alarms (ionization and photoelectric). But such fine-print on the back of an ionization-only device package prominently labeled a "Smoke Alarm" fails to inform reasonable consumers that the product they are buying is unsuitable for timely detection and warning of all types of common home fires. Indeed, burying this critical safety information in small print underscores Defendants' knowledge that their ionization-only devices—which are conspicuously mislabeled in large print on the front of the packaging as "Smoke Alarms"—provide false and misleading assurances to reasonable consumers. Today, tens of millions of American families are immediately at risk that a smoldering fire in their home will not be detected in time, even though they bought an ionization only "smoke alarm" they thought was protecting them. And even though the Defendants have for decades also mass-produced photoelectric devices--and "hybrid" devices that contain both ionization and photoelectric technology--they have continued to profit by selling large quantities of ionization-only devices, notwithstanding the dire risks to the public. Each Defendant has, quite simply and callously, placed profits over people, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs bought numerous Kidde ionization-only devices. Kidde, including its owners, employees, subsidiaries, affiliates, and agents, has for decades developed, designed, manufactured, assembled, marketed, promoted, advertised, warranted, distributed, sold, packaged, and provided instructions for ionization-only devices under various brand names.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Sean Eskovitz, Esq. ESKOVITZ LAW LLP 1217 Wilshire Blvd, # 3683 Santa Monica, CA 90403 Phone: 323.821.5836 Email: seane@eskovitz.com WELLS FARGO: Fries Sues Over Outdated Two Factor Authentication --------------------------------------------------------------- Alice Fries, on behalf of itself and all those similarly situated v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. and DOES 1-100, Case No. 23STCV18422 (Cal. Super. Ct., Aug. 3, 2023), is brought against the Defendants' use of the same outdated 'two factor authentication' ("2FA") system which caused scams directed at its customers. The Defendant's pattern and practice prior to speaking to its customers over the phone is to send a text message to the customers' cell phone, presumably as a security measure, commonly known as 'two factor authentication' ("2FA"). WELLS sends the 2FA text message with a numeric code and then asks the customer to read back that numeric code to confirm the person is in fact, the WELLS' customer they are purporting to be. WELLS will not speak to the customer about their account until the 2FA code is read back. WELLS FARGO is absolutely aware of numerous scams directed at its customers whereby criminals and fraudsters pretend to be a WELLS representative and contact their customers under assorted pretexts. Once contact is made, these criminals send the WELLS' customer a 2FA text message and ask them to read the code to "verify" identity. With that 2FA code in hand, these criminals and fraudsters are able to immediately access the WELLS' customer accounts, and cause funds to be immediately wired out of the customer account--all without the permission or consent of the account holder. Despite being fully aware of these 2FA scams, WELLS' refuses to do anything about it. Despite being fully aware of these 2FA scams, WELLS continues to use the same outdated 2FA system and continues to ask its customers for that 2FA code when communicating with its customers. Despite being fully aware of these scams WELLS' refuses to make any changes to its 2FA system. In fact, if WELLS was actually concerned about this rampant fraud, it could easily institute a different 2FA system, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has been a longstanding WELLS customer with multiple accounts since 1986. WELLS FARGO continually and systematically transacts business within Los Angeles County, including multiple branch locations and ATM's.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel L. Krishel, Esq. KRISHEL LAW FIRM 4500 Park Granada, Suite 202 Calabasas, CA 91302 Phone: (818)883-8759 WELLS FARGO: Wants Class Action Over Fake Job Interviews Tossed --------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Gennaro, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that Wells Fargo asked a federal judge on Aug. 15 to dismiss a class action that claims the banking giant conducted fake job interviews in order to meet its diversity hiring policy. The bank's attorney, Brenden Cullen, told U.S. District Judge Trina Thompson in a hearing on the motion to dismiss that the plaintiff -- a shareholder who filed the suit on behalf of anyone who bought stock in the company between Feb. 24, 2021, and June 9, 2022 -- had no specific information about the fake interviews or any Wells Fargo executive's supposed knowledge of them. The complaint claims that some Wells Fargo employees conducted fake interviews to get around the company's diversity guidelines, which required that at least 50% of candidates interviewed for positions that have salaries of more than $100,000 a year represented an underrepresented racial, ethnic, or gender group or were veterans, people with disabilities or members of the LGBTQ community. According to the complaint, in May and June 2022, the New York Times wrote articles detailing the interviews, and Wells Fargo's common stock price plummeted. The plaintiffs argue that Wells Fargo execs knew about the practice of fake interviews, so the company's statements made in reports and notices filed with the Securities Exchange Commission and press releases, which emphasized the company's commitment to improving workforce diversity, were materially false. Cullen argued on Aug. 15 that the plaintiffs could not prove Wells Fargo execs knew that the fake interviews were happening, thus they could not prove that public statements were deliberately false or misleading. "If it's not recorded somewhere . . . There has to be some information that these interviews were fake conveyed to the defendants," Cullen said. If not, then there is no way to prove the defendants knew the fake interviews were happening, Cullen added. The number of fake interviews and when they happened also is in dispute. Cullen said that there is no way of knowing how many fake interviews there were, and that, if they occurred, they may have happened outside of the class period. He also took issue with claims the interviews were systemic, saying there's no way to prove that. Cullen said that Wells Fargo executives could not deliberately make a false statement if they were not aware any wrongdoing was happening. Plaintiffs' attorney Sharan Nirmul pleaded scienter in the case, which requires the plaintiffs to allege facts that give rise to a strong inference of fraudulent intent. Nirmul claimed that the interviews with numerous former employees in the New York Times articles, plus the fact that the Department of Justice and other regulatory agencies opened investigations based on those employees' claims, was proof that the fake interviews were widespread and tolerated throughout the company. There was no need for a "smoking gun," Nirmul said. "These are people that the government thinks are credible," Nirmul said. In his rebuttal, Cullen said that inferences were insufficient. "You have to show that this specific information was available," to Wells Fargo executives to successfully plead scienter, Cullen said. Cullen argued that there was no way to know who talked to the New York Times, what departments they worked in, if they were current or former employees, and if their claims about fake interviews even related to the class period in question. In his closing remarks, Nirmul said that Wells Fargo CEO Charles Scharf, named as a defendant in the complaint, had the ability to control his employees but chose not to. Fake interviews were an "entrenched" practice in the company, an open secret that executives had to know about, she said. "We don't have a document to point you to," Nirmul said, because misconduct is rarely written down. Thompson took the matter under consideration. If the defendants' motion to dismiss is granted, plaintiffs will have 21 days to file an amended complaint. [GN] WESTLAKE SERVICES: Klare Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Michael Klare, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. WESTLAKE SERVICES, LLC d/b/a WESTLAKE FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 23-STCV-14272 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Aug. 4, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-06386. The Plaintiff seeks to represent one purported nationwide class on claims against Westlake Services, LLC d/b/a Westlake Financial Services (“Westlake”) on the theory that Westlake imposed unauthorized “Pay-to Pay Fees” on borrowers, in violation of state law. The Plaintiff alleges claims for breach of contract; violation of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (the “Rosenthal Act”); and violation of the California Unfair Competition Law (the “UCL”).[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jessica R. Lohr, Esq. TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP 11682 El Camino Real, Suite 400 San Diego, CA 92130-2092 Phone: 858.509.6000 Facsimile: 858.509.6040 Email: jessica.lohr@troutman.com WHITE AID MEDICAL: Gousse Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ Leonardo Gousse, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. WHITE AID MEDICAL SUPPLIES INC. and WILLIAM CENSOR, Case No. 1:23-cv-06110 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 14, 2023), is brought on behalf of drivers working for White Aid for unpaid minimum and overtime wages, breach of contract damages, and other relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York State Labor Law ("NYSLL"). By willfully and unlawfully misclassifying its drivers as "independent contractors," the company has denied them benefits that the law affords to employees. In particular, the company has: failed to reimburse or indemnify drivers for employment-related expenses and losses; taken wrongful deductions from drivers' wages; coerced drivers to purchase necessary services and items; failed to pay drivers minimum wage and overtime compensation; and failed to track and document drivers' actual hours worked, as required by federal and New York law, says the complaint. The Plaintiff began working for White Aid as a driver on December 14, 2021 and the employment ended in June 2023. White Aid is a rapidly growing Durable Medical Equipment (DME) company that distributes and services medical equipment to hospitals, rehab/skilled nursing facilities, as well as to our patients in the home setting throughout New York City and its surrounding areas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mohammed Gangat, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT 675 Third Avenue, Suite 1810, New York, NY 10017 Phone: 718-669-0714 Email: mgangat@gangatpllc.com WILLIS TOWERS: Pitts Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- STEPHANIE PITTS, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WILLIS TOWERS WATSON US LLC, a limited liability company, and EXTEND HEALTH, LLC, a limited liability company, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-02951 (E.D. Pa., Aug. 1, 2023) is a collective and class action brought by the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons employed by Defendants, arising from Defendants' willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and common law. According to the complaint, the Defendants violated the laws by systematically failing to compensate their customer service representatives for work tasks completed before and after their scheduled shifts when they were not logged into Defendants' timekeeping system, which resulted in CSRs not being paid for all overtime hours worked, overtime gap time when associated with unpaid overtime and in non-overtime workweeks, for regular hours. Plaintiff Pitts is a resident of Kountze, Texas and worked remotely for Defendants as an hourly, non-exempt CSR from approximately August 2022 through January 2023. Willis Towers Watson US LLC is a global advisory, broking and solutions company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam S. Levy LAW OFFICE OF ADAM S. LEVY, LLC P.O. Box 88 Oreland, PA 19075 Telephone: (267) 994-6952 E-mail: adamslevy@comcast.net - and - Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. Alana Karbal, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com akarbal@sommerspc.com WISECROWD INC: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wisecrowd, Inc. The case is styled as Mairoby Hernandez, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Wisecrowd, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-06800-ER (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 3, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. WiseCrowd -- https://wisecrowd.global/ -- is the trusted online platform connecting businesses with freelance consultants in Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC).[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ian Piasecki, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor New York, NY 10007 Phone: (347) 745-0445 Email: ipiasecki@mizrahikroub.com X CORP: Martell Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois --------------------------------------------- The case styled as Mark Martell, and others similarly situated v. X Corp., Case No. 2023CH06416 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Aug. 14, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-05449 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. X Corp. is an American technology company established by Elon Musk in 2023 as the successor to Twitter, Inc.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC 111 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1700 Chicago, IL 60604 Phone: (312) 984-0000 Fax: (212) 686-0114 Email: malmstrom@whafh.com The Defendants is represented by: Robert Collins, III, Esq. Kathryn Running, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 330 N. Wabash Avenue, Suite 2800 Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: (312) 876-7700 Email: robert.collins@lw.com Kathryn.Running@lw.com YELLOW FREIGHT: Moore Sues Over Mass Layoff Without Prior Notice ---------------------------------------------------------------- JEFF MOORE and ELIZABETH BROOKE MOORE on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. YELLOW FREIGHT CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-00832-UNA (D. Del., August 2, 2023) is a civil action brought by the Plaintiff for collection of unpaid wages and benefits for 60 calendar days pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act. Plaintiffs Jeff Moore and Elizabeth Brooke Moore were employed by the Defendant and worked at or reported to a facility located in Marietta, Georgia until their termination without cause on July 28, 2023. According to the complaint, on July 28, 2023 and thereafter, Defendant ordered the termination of Plaintiffs' employment together with the termination of approximately 30,000 other employees who worked at or reported to or were assigned work from its facilities as part of a mass layoff and/or plant closing as defined by the WARN Act, for which they were entitled to receive 60 days advance written notice. Moreover, the Defendant failed to pay Plaintiffs and the other similarly situated employees their respective wages, salary, commissions, bonuses, accrued holiday pay and accrued vacation for 60 days following their respective terminations and failed to make 401(k) contributions and provide them with health insurance coverage and other employee benefits, says the suit. Yellow Freight Corporation is a small-freight trucking company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James E. Huggett, Esq. MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN 300 Delaware Avenue Suite 800 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 888-1112 Facsimile: (302) 888-1119 - and - Stuart J. Miller, Esq. LANKENAU & MILLER, LLP 100 Church Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10078 Telephone: (212) 581-5005 Facsimile: (212) 581-2122 - and - Mary E. Olsen, Esq. M. Vance McCrary, Esq. THE GARDNER FIRM, PC 182 St. Francis Street Suite 103 Mobile, AL 36602 Telephone: (251) 433-8100 Facsimile: (251) 433-8181 ZOOT SQUAD: DiMeglio Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Zoot Squad. The case is styled as Maria DiMeglio, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Zoot Squad, Case No. 1:23-cv-05851-LJL (S.D.N.Y., July 7, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Zoot -- https://zootsports.com/ -- is the leading running and triathlon sports brand, providing quality running shoes, triathlon, running, and cycle apparel and wetsuits.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com - and - Ara Vahe Naljian, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 584-5575 Email: analjian@steinsakslegal.com ZUFFA LLC: Sanchez Suit Transferred to D. Nevada ------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Isaiah Sanchez, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Zuffa, LLC doing business as: UFC Fight Pass, Case No. 2:23-cv-06113 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada on Aug. 14, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-01259-JCM-VCF to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Contract Dispute. Zuffa, LLC doing business as UFC Fight Pass -- http://www.ufcfightpass.com/-- is an American subscription-based video streaming service owned by the UFC's parent company, Zuffa, that launched in December 2013.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marc G. Reich, Esq. Adam T. Hoover, Esq. REICH RADCLIFFE AND HOOVER LLP 4675 Macarthur Court Suite 550 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: (949) 975-0512 Fax: (949) 975-0514 - and - L. Timothy Fisher. Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, PA 1990 N. California Blvd., Ste. 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Phone: (925) 300-4455 Fax: (925) 407-2700 Email: ltfisher@bursor.com The Defendants is represented by: Ashley L. Shively, Esq. Daniel Patrick Kappes, Esq. Zachary Tyler Watterson, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 560 Mission Street, Ste. 19th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 743-6900 Email: ashley.shively@hklaw.com daniel.kappes@hklaw.com zachary.watterson@hklaw.com ZURI PLASTIC SURGERY: J.F. Files Suit in S.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Zuri Plastic Surgery, LLC. The case is styled as J.F., on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Zuri Plastic Surgery, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-23102-RAR (S.D. Fla., Aug. 15, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. Zuri Plastic Surgery -- https://www.zuriplasticsurgery.com/ -- specializes in all types of plastic/cosmetic surgery and non-surgical face, breast and body rejuvenation procedures.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Natalie Marie Rico, Esq. COLSON HICKS EIDSON 255 Alhambra Circle, Penthouse Coral Gables, FL 33134 Phone: (305) 476-7400 Fax: (305) 476-7444 Email: nrico@milberg.com - and - Jon Deters, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC 119 E. Court St., Ste. 530 Cincinnati, OH 45002 Phone: (513) 651-3700 - and - Joseph M. Lyon, Esq. THE LYON FIRM 2754 Erie Avenue Cincinnati, OH 45208 Phone: (513) 381-2333 Email: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com - and - Philip J. Krzeski, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE P.A. 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: (612) 339-7300 Email: pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com [*] CANADA: Indigenous Lawsuits Resulted in Billions in Payouts --------------------------------------------------------------- Thomas Flanagan, writing for The American Conservative, reports that class action lawsuits by Indigenous litigants meet no resistance from Canada's federal government, resulting in tens of billions in payouts. Paying reparations to designated racial and ethnic groups for historical injustice is a hotly debated issue in contemporary public policy. Appointed commissions in the state of California and the city of San Francisco have produced proposals for payments to African Americans, even though slavery was never a legal institution in California. The San Francisco committee proposed giving a grant of $5 million to each qualifying black resident, plus a guaranteed annual income of $97,000 for the next 250 years. While this proposal, which would bankrupt the city, is unlikely to be approved, it shows how high the stakes in the reparations debate have become. In Canada, where people of African descent are a small minority, debates over reparations are focused on other ethnic groups. The Mulroney (Conservative) government authorized payments to Japanese Canadians because of their relocation in World War II. The Harper (also Conservative) government offered compensation to Chinese Canadians for the head tax on immigrants, though few were left alive to receive it. The biggest issue of reparations in Canada going forward will concern Indigenous Canadians: Métis, Inuit, and above all First Nations (Indians). American scholar Alfred Brophy has itemized the main elements that usually make up a reparations package: apologies, truth commissions, civil rights legislation, community building, and payments to individuals. Canada has adopted all these several times over as Indigenous policies. The distinctive Canadian contribution is a reparations payments strategy driven by the judicial process, chiefly through class actions. Crucially, the policy of the federal executive government since 2015 has been to put up only token opposition to Indigenous claims before proceeding to negotiate a settlement. The legal process proposes, the executive government disposes. Superficially, the Canadian practice appears to seek compensation for damages for individuals, but the government's unwillingness to contest these claims, at least since 2015, has turned them into a kind of de facto reparations. Claims are made in virtue of alleged historical mistreatment under this or that federal program. When the claims are not contested, and no proof is sought of actual damages, they become the equivalent of reparations—but never discussed in the legislature or ratified by public opinion. In effect, Canada is enacting reparations by stealth. Indian Residential Schools (IRS) had enjoyed a relatively favorable image in Canadian public opinion until 1990, when Manitoba chief Phil Fontaine was interviewed about physical and sexual abuse that he claimed to have suffered at an IRS. Similar complaints then started to come forward from many directions. Historians wrote influential books criticizing the system, while the Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples devoted a chapter to the topic. The churches that had run the schools with government funding delivered public apologies, as did the minister of Indian Affairs. By the turn of the century, the courts were swamped with IRS litigation, both class actions and individual claims for compensation. At the normal pace of the judicial process, it would have taken decades to resolve all the claims. The churches were afraid of being bankrupted and were begging the federal government for a solution. Protracted negotiations between federal representatives and the Assembly of First Nations resulted in the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement, signed by Prime Minister Paul Martin in late November 2005, on the eve of his government's defeat in the House of Commons. The Conservative Party of Canada, led by Stephen Harper, won the next election and formed a minority government in January 2006. It would now be up to the Conservatives to implement the agreement, even though they had had no role in negotiating it. Prime Minister Harper decided to accept the IRS Settlement negotiated by Paul Martin's government and to implement it as written, but not to go beyond the four corners of the text. Despite some warnings from the civil service, Harper and his advisors hoped that implementation of the agreement, combined with a fulsome apology from the prime minister, would mark the end of an era and the beginning of reconciliation. The agreement was exceedingly generous. There was a "Common Experience Payment" of $10,000 for the first year spent in an IRS, plus $3,000 for each additional year. No demonstration of harm or loss to the individual claimant would be required, only evidence of enrollment. This was a way of handling a multitude of small claims with relative dispatch, but it bolstered the misconception that the IRS were horrible places in which everyone suffered. There was also an Independent Assessment Process for claims of physical and sexual abuse, with the amount of compensation proportional to the severity of the purported abuse. Evidence was required that the claimant and alleged abuser had been at the same school at the same time, but there was no cross examination or weighing of conflicting testimonies. Payments to individuals totaled almost $5 billion. Additional expenditures on advocacy, commemoration, and legal fees, plus the number of employment hours invested in negotiation, administration, and adjudication, would bring the true cost to well over that. (In evaluating this and all other Canadian dollar amounts, American readers should remember that the gross domestic product of the United States is more than ten times larger than that of Canada. Whereas $5 billion may seem like a rounding error in the United States, it is "real money" in Canada.) At the time, it was the largest class action settlement in Canadian history. Yet it proved to be the beginning rather than the end of demands for Indigenous reparations. In the wake of the IRS Settlement, other groups began pursuing class actions to obtain compensation for alleged historical grievances, but they did not have much success while the Conservatives were in power. Things changed dramatically when the Liberals under Justin Trudeau won the national election of October 19, 2015. Trudeau promptly appointed Jodi Wilson-Raybould as Minister of Justice, the first status Indian ever to hold that position. That appointment marked an immediate change in the litigation strategy of the Department of Justice, although Minister Wilson-Raybould did not formalize the new approach until January 11, 2019, when she issued the Attorney General of Canada's Directive on Civil Litigation Involving Indigenous Peoples. A main theme of her 20 "Litigation Guidelines" is that, in cases of Indigenous rights, the Department of Justice should do everything possible to avoid litigation in favor of other ways of resolving disputes, such as negotiation. Guideline 4 states: Counsel's primary goal must be to resolve the issues, using the court process as a last resort and in the narrowest way possible. This is consistent with a counsel's ongoing obligation to consider means of avoiding or resolving litigation throughout a file's lifespan. Counsel must engage in these efforts early and often, ensuring that all reasonable avenues for narrowing the issues and settling the dispute are explored. Wilson-Raybould's practice directive is still in force, even though she has been gone from the Justice portfolio since 2019. The first sign of a shift came with a negotiated settlement of the Newfoundland and Labrador Residential Schools class action, which had begun in 2007 and finally reached the courtroom in September 2015. In November 2015, only three weeks after taking office, the new Liberal government discontinued its legal defence and asked for negotiations. In 2016, a settlement was reached that provided $50 million to those who had attended five boarding schools in Newfoundland and Labrador, plus additional money for "healing and commemoration." The settlement, though small in comparison to the IRS settlement of 2006, clearly signalled a new receptivity to Indigenous claims about abuse in education. Much bigger was the Federal Indian Day Schools Settlement, announced in March 2019. About 700 day schools had been funded by the federal government between 1863 and 2000, in every province and territory. It is estimated that 200,000 students may have attended them at one time or another, in comparison to an estimated 150,000 who ever attended residential schools (in evaluating these numbers, remember that some children attended both types of schools at different times). The settlement provided base compensation of $10,000 for all who had attended a day school, topped off by an additional $50,000 to $200,000 for claims of physical and sexual abuse. As with the IRS agreement, evidence of attendance was required, but claims of abuse were not to be cross-examined and did not require corroboration. It has been reported that $1.47 billion was set aside for compensating individuals and that 178,161 claims had been filed as of January 3, 2023. This would yield an average payment of about $82,000, with much variation depending on claims of abuse. There was also an appropriation of $200 million to an independent corporation for healing, commemoration, and perpetuation of language and culture. An additional provision not seen in previous settlements was that compensation could be paid to the estate of claimants who died on or after July 31, 2007. Residential schools were criticized because they took children away from their families and placed them in congregate settings where they allegedly had to endure malnutrition and disease, physical and sexual abuse from staff and older students, and loss of language and culture. Now compensation was being paid to students who, like most other Canadian children, continued to live at home while they attended school. It was beginning to look as if all formal education for First Nations children would be considered abusive. Next to come was a settlement of the day scholars class action, announced in 2021. Day scholars were Indian children who continued to live at home while attending an IRS, thus not sleeping overnight in dormitories. This was possible because many residential schools were located on Indian reserves, so children who were near the school could continue to live with their parents, while children from farther away would board at the school. According to the settlement agreement, day scholars will receive $10,000 apiece, without further provision for physical or sexual abuse. Somewhat like the day school settlement, payments can also be made to descendants of claimants who passed away after May 30, 2005. The exact number of claimants is not known yet, but it has been estimated to be 15,000 or more, yielding a minimum payout total of $150 million. As with earlier settlements, there was a provision for $50 million to be paid to a Day Scholars Revitalization Fund for the usual purposes. At the very end of 2022 came a negotiated settlement to the Indian Boarding Homes Class Action. This was for Indian students whose expenses had been paid by the federal government to attend public schools in town. While in town, they lived with local families, hence the name "boarding home students." It is estimated that perhaps 40,000 Indian students were involved between 1951 and 1992. The program was created when the federal government started to close IRS after 1950, leaving many children without easy access to any type of Indian school, especially in the higher grades. The settlement, whose total has no cap, provides for a $10,000 base payment plus an additional payment of $10,000 to $200,000 for abuse, which can include physical or sexual abuse in the homes as well as racial discrimination from teachers or other students in the town schools. The law firm carrying the class action estimates that the total value of the payout will be about $2.2 billion in individual payments, plus $50 million for a foundation. Finally comes the Band Reparations Class Action Settlement, announced in early 2023. This was originally part of the day scholars class action but was sundered because it presented different and more difficult issues. The claimants in this instance are not individuals but 325 Indian bands (First Nations), about half the First Nations in Canada. The settlement provides $2.8 billion for a 20-year trust fund, independent of government management, that will pay for programs and services benefitting the participant bands. The theory behind the award is the novel claim that First Nations suffered as communities because of the loss of language and culture suffered by all the Indian children who received formal education in whatever form. In this claim, harm to individuals is totally abandoned as a cause of action. There are no individual payments at all, just one large collective payment. The Band Reparations settlement may indicate the path of future litigation. The former chief who initiated the case said that "it was about time" Canada stepped aside and let First Nations themselves decide how to overcome the harms caused by IRS. In context, this was praise for transferring public money to First Nations, letting them decide how to spend it with no accountability measures imposed. What I have called the "education explosion" has resulted in compensation for practically all First Nations children who received formal education of any type. There is still a pending issue with Métis children, but I will let this pass here, because "Métis" is not a recognized legal category in the United States. Suffice it to say that education litigation is far from over. First Nations people with other grievances soon saw the potential of the class action model. The first achievement was the Sixties Scoop Settlement, announced in November 2017. It provided $750 million in payments to Indian children, now adults, who had been "adopted out" (i.e., adopted by non-Indigenous parents) between 1959 and 1991. As of January 2023, 20,992 claims had been approved out of 34,785 received. After all claims are dealt with, the payout is expected to be about $25,000 apiece. There was also provision for payment to the estates of deceased claimants, an appropriation of $50 million for a commemorative foundation, and payment of $75 million in legal fees. Adoption of native children became much more frequent in Canada after a 1951 amendment to the Indian Act gave provincial welfare agencies the authority to operate on Indian reserves. Before this, neglected and abused children, as well as orphans, had often been sent to IRS, which acted as de facto orphanages. Provincial authorities moved in just as the federal government started closing IRS. The result was widespread out-adoption of Indian children for whom provincial social workers could not find Indian homes that they deemed suitable. Ironically, compensation is now being paid to neglected and abused children whose lives may well have been saved by being adopted out. Further afield, negotiated settlements for two class actions involving drinkable water on Indian reserves were announced on July 30, 2021. Clean water on reserves has long been a point of grievance for First Nations, with several ameliorative programs announced over the years. According to a news report, this settlement "includes $1.5 billion in compensation for individuals deprived of clean drinking water; $6 billion to upgrade water infrastructure to help settle ongoing water issues; and the creation of a $400 million First Nation Economic and Cultural Restoration Fund." Eligibility both for First Nations and for individuals requires a drinking water advisory that lasted at least one year between November 20, 1995, and June 20, 2021. The deadline for filing claims is March 7, 2024, so at this stage it is not clear how many individuals and First Nations will share the proceeds or in what proportions. One note of caution is required in understanding the settlement. The $6 billion "to upgrade water infrastructure" is a promise to increase federal budgetary expenditures but does not entail cash transfers to individuals or to First Nations, nor is the timetable clear. Is it really "new money"? It may not be quite the same as the collective awards included in the settlements previously discussed. The same qualification applies to the astonishingly large foster care settlement announced in early 2022 and upgraded in 2023. This will provide $23.3 billion in individual compensation to First Nations children (and their parents or other caregivers) taken from Indian reserves into foster care between 1991 and the present. Compensation is now being offered to the abusers as well as the abused! There will be another $20 billion for improvement of child welfare services on reserves over the next five years. As in the foster care settlement, this second tranche is a promise to spend more money on programs rather than a distribution of cash to individuals and organizations. This settlement was unique not only in size but in its legal format. It was a response to a human rights complaint originally lodged in 2007 rather than a class action (though two class actions later emerged in parallel to the original complaint). The theory of the complaint was that the federal First Nations Child and Family Welfare program, which came into effect in 1991, was underfunded and poorly organized in comparison to provincial programs. Therefore, anyone affected by it suffered a deprivation of human rights under the Canadian Human Rights Act and is entitled to compensation. Crucially, compensation was to be paid for the deprivation of human rights, not for harm suffered. This almost magical legal maneuver turned the Human Rights Tribunal into a reviewer of the adequacy of government policy and funding. The original human rights complaint did not specify an amount of damages, but the cost of a positive verdict was thought to be in the range of $6 to 8 billion. The figure of $40 billion emerged at a later date after the federal government decided to settle and brought in former senator and judge Murray Sinclair to lead the negotiations. Agreement between the parties was reached during the Covid pandemic when the Canadian federal government, like its American counterpart, was running gargantuan deficits, so the previously unthinkable total of $40 billion did not loom so large in comparison to other governmental expenditures. Only time will tell whether this settlement, now increased to $43.3 billion, was an exception or will prove to be a model for future agreements. The Federal Court of Canada recently certified a new class action on behalf of all off-reserve Indigenous children (not just status Indians) taken into non-Indigenous care between 1992 and 2019. Unless the Crown vigorously defends this claim, the new class action has the potential for another very large settlement, because the number of Indigenous people living off reserve between 1992 and 2019, when Métis and Inuit are included, is certainly larger than the number of status Indians living on reserve. All three government approaches since 1951 to protecting the welfare of Indian children have now been declared unacceptable -- using IRS as de facto orphanages, adopting Indian children out to non-Indian families, and taking children into foster care. In the real world, there is a difficult situation which no government has resolved and probably no government can resolve through public policy alone: coping with the breakup of Indian families due to alcohol and drug abuse as well as welfare dependency, which makes the male breadwinner role largely superfluous and tends to deprive children of paternal support and supervision. Another major class action not yet settled is the Indian Hospitals case. At one time the federal government operated at least twenty-nine Indian hospitals, established long before public health care became federally funded. Tuberculosis was a lethal plague among native people, and status Indians were not always welcome in local hospitals because they did not pay local taxes and could not afford to pay fees. Now it is claimed that patients in these hospitals received inferior care and were subjected to physical and sexual abuse. The lawsuit demands $1.1 billion in compensation for individuals, with the new wrinkle that compensation can also be paid to spouses or other family members negatively affected by the claimants' allegedly inferior health care. The federal government has indicated willingness to settle, but a deal has not yet been finalized. Other cases are still in the litigation pipeline, but this brief survey shows the potential for the Canadian judicial process to act as a vehicle for securing reparations far beyond the field of residential schools. Indeed, the future for such litigation seems unlimited if the Crown persists in settling almost every claim rather than using its resources for a vigorous defence. The value of all these cases settled to date is roughly $38 billion in payments to individuals plus $32 billion in transfers to organizations, for a grand total of about $60 billion. In Canadian terms, this is "real money." The total is bound to go much higher considering class actions already in the courts, others seeking certification, and others still only contemplated. I will not here enter the debate about whether or to what extent reparations to Indigenous people in Canada are justified. I will limit myself to making some observations about using the legal process as a tool to provide reparations. The record since 2006 is one of continual expansion of claims: To include new causes of action, moving from residential schools to other modes of education to other aspects of Indigenous health and welfare. To include new groups of claimants, going from status Indians with grievances to their family members and heirs to whole First Nations as collective entities to all Indigenous people. To raise the stakes, from about $5 billion in compensation for residential schools to $43.3 billion for foster care. To employ new legal processes, starting with class actions then moving on to human rights grievances. Although these actions are styled as legal claims for damages, they are really critiques of public policy using the judicial system as a forum. In none of these actions have individual claimants been required to document harm they allegedly suffered as individuals. In other areas of law, the Crown is not liable for damages resulting from past public policy enacted in good faith, using the information available at the time. The Supreme Court of Canada said in the Marchi case (2021) that governments may be sued for damages arising from the operational implementation of policy but "core policy decisions" should be shielded from civil liability. This is classic separation of powers doctrine. The litigation discussed here has dealt mainly with core policy issues—what is the appropriate structure for education, how should neglected and abused children be dealt with, how should health care be delivered to Indians, how should drinkable water be delivered on Indian reserves. If there were operational failures connected with the policies, those could have been addressed by documenting the harm caused to individuals rather than indicting the whole policy, but that did not happen. Canadian courts have been turned into a forum for making retrospective judgments about past policy rather than a venue for adjudicating harm done to individuals by mistakes in implementation. Another departure from Canadian legal tradition can be found in the role played by the federal Department of Justice. Previously, the department guarded the public interest by vigorously defending claims. Since 2015, the Department of Justice has called for negotiations at an early opportunity in cases of historical grievance, thus preventing grave and novel issues from being heard in the Supreme Court or other appellate courts. This frustrates the development of the law. It also turns the federal government into a piñata, waiting for litigants to beat it and collect what falls out. The current approach to negotiation of Indigenous claims amounts to collusion between claimants and the executive branch of the federal government, negotiating early settlements while cutting Parliament out of any meaningful role. In the British tradition of representative democracy, Parliament is supposed to have the power of the purse. But Parliament never had a chance to debate and approve Jodi Wilson-Raybould's practice directive, which was drawn up by her legal advisers, then adopted by cabinet fiat. A settlement negotiated by the executive according to the Wilson-Raybould directive reaches Parliament as a virtual fait accompli. It is almost impossible for members to track expenditures because implementation of settlements extends over many years while claimants are being enumerated and compensated. For all these reasons, the judicial model of incremental and never-ending reparations is highly undesirable. Now that it is well entrenched, we cannot expect internal reform without intervention from the elected government. Indigenous litigants are thriving by filing claims and negotiating settlements; class-action law firms also prosper when the federal government pays their legal fees. Justice Department lawyers are employees who must act as directed by the minister, who in turn must follow government policy. To effect any change, Jodi Wilson-Raybould's practice directive must be repealed, either by a change of heart in the elected government or a change in the government by means of an election. Maybe the judicial model of reparations will never come to the United States. I wouldn't be too confident. America is even more litigious than Canada. Class action lawyers reading this article may already be rushing to find a class for certification. Forewarned is forearmed. [GN] [*] Companies Face VPPA Class Action Privacy Litigation Risks ------------------------------------------------------------- Brian Esler and Eva Novick, Esq., of Miller Nash LLP, in an article for JDSupra, reports that plaintiffs class action lawyers have latched onto privacy litigation as their next big meal ticket. Over the past year, companies have faced a new barrage of lawsuits under the federal Video Privacy Protection Act, (VPPA) and state and federal wiretap laws. The VPPA was originally enacted in the 1980s to prevent videotape rental stores from disclosing customers' rental records without their consent. While your neighborhood Blockbuster may be extinct (unless of course you live in Bend), the VPPA's offer of up to $2,500 per violation in addition to costs and attorneys fees for successful litigants has given it new life in this digital age. Over 100 VPPA lawsuits have been filed in roughly the last year alone alleging that companies' use of Meta's "Pixel" to track website users' video history and share that information with advertisers is a violation of the VPPA. Last month, one such accused company agreed to a $2.6 million class action settlement. Similarly, under the state and federal wiretap laws, plaintiffs class action lawyers have alleged that companies' disclosure of customers' chats to outside software analytics companies violates state and federal wiretapping and eavesdropping statutes. However, based on recent federal district court victories by defendants in getting many such claims dismissed or moved into arbitration, it is clear that plaintiffs will have to do more than simply allege that either their video watch history or chat history was disclosed to win the day. When the courts move beyond companies' procedural defenses and address the merits of the plaintiffs' claims, plaintiffs will still need to convince the courts to adapt decades old statutes to an evolving online marketplace. Key Takeaways Companies that conspicuously display mandatory arbitration policies and class waivers will be more successful either compelling arbitration or dismissing class actions of such claims. Companies must be engaged specifically in the business of providing audio visual materials to be covered by the VPPA. State laws will differ on who consents and who is participating as a direct party for the purposes of wiretapping and eavesdropping violations. Companies facing similar claims should consider responding proactively and reaching out to our team at Miller Nash for more help. Editor's Note: Michael Zangl, a 2023 Miller Nash summer associate, contributed to this blog post. [GN] [*] Jones Day Attorneys Discusses Greenwashing Suits v. Airlines ---------------------------------------------------------------- Gregory J. Barden, Dean E. Griffith, Françoise S. Labrousse, Ozan Akyurek, Holly Sara and Prudence J Smith, Esq., of Jones Day, in an article for Lexology, disclosed that for more than a decade, environmental groups have accused airlines of "greenwashing" or misrepresenting the sustainability of their business operations. Now these claims are gaining traction around the globe. These groups argue that airlines advertise as environmentally friendly while their flights contribute to climate change. Although sustainability is a long-term goal for the airline industry, airlines now face consumer protection lawsuits in the United States, Europe, and Australia over ad campaigns touting the use of carbon offsets for these future commitments. First Greenwashing Class Action in the United States Under State Consumer Protection Law On May 30, 2023, consumers filed a class action lawsuit against a U.S. airline, claiming the airline misrepresented its environmental impact by advertising itself as being "carbon neutral" and that consumers relied on those statements in choosing to fly on that airline. The first-of-its-kind suit in the United States alleges violations of California state law related to unfair and deceptive practices, and claims the airline's reliance on participation in the voluntary carbon market to offset its emissions makes its carbon neutrality claim false. This suit alleges the market uses inaccurate accounting and speculative emissions reduction forecasts to inflate the actual environmental effects of its projects. Among other defenses, the airline would be expected to claim that the California law at issue is preempted by the Airline Deregulation Act, which expressly preempts states from enacting or enforcing laws related to an air carrier's routes, rates, or services. Greenwashing Claims Meet Mixed Success in European Courts A ruling from the District Court of Amsterdam established for the first time that an environmental nonprofit has standing to bring a greenwashing claim against a Dutch air carrier under a new Dutch class action law aimed at protecting consumers and those affected by climate change. The environmental group seeks to ban airline sustainability advertising, drawing parallels to nicotine advertising to argue that airlines should not be allowed to advertise they are flying sustainably when they use fossil fuels. This litigation remains ongoing. Separately, on June 22, 2023, a consumer protection group, the Bureau Européen des Unions de Consommateurs, and a number of its member organizations filed a complaint to the European Commission and the Consumer Protection Network, alleging that 17 European airlines have made misleading climate-related claims. The complaint alleges that the airlines have engaged in greenwashing and misleading commercial practices by (i) falsely suggesting that air transport can be "sustainable," "eco-responsible," and "green"; (ii) encouraging the payment of premiums for carbon offsetting in circumstances where the climatic benefits of the offsets are highly controversial; and/or (iii) charging customers to contribute to the development of "sustainable aviation fuels" in circumstances where the fuels are not ready to be deployed and are not forecast to be widely used for some time. In a February 2023 decision by the Stockholm District Court, it was held that the defendant incorrectly suggested that offset credits could totally eliminate carbon footprints. On April 5, 2023, the regional court of Düsseldorf ruled in favor of German NGO Deutsche Umwelthilfe in the first of 15 greenwashing cases. The court held that the claim of a multinational energy and petroleum company advertising heating oil as "CO2 compensated" was misleading. Other pending German cases concern supermarkets, energy companies, retailers, sports teams, food companies, and one concerns an airline which had advertised a compensation scheme for CO2 emissions caused by airline flights. Greenwashing Complaints Filed With the Australian Consumer Protection Regulator On March 22, 2023, the Environmental Defenders Office filed a complaint with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission ("ACCC") against Etihad Airways, alleging that Etihad made false or misleading statements about its greenhouse gas emissions and plans for achieving net-zero emissions. The complaint was filed on behalf of Flight Free Australia, a not-for-profit organization seeking to reduce climate pollution in the aviation industry. Flight Free Australia alleges that Etihad ads displayed at an A-League soccer match at AAMI Park last February stating, "Flying shouldn't cost the earth" and "Net zero emissions by 2050," were misleading because they conveyed that Etihad has no significant environmental impact and that Etihad has a credible path to net-zero emissions by 2050. Flight Free Australia seeks that the ACCC investigate Etihad's conduct and take compliance action as appropriate on the basis that Etihad has a significant environmental impact, emitting 4.31 million tonnes of CO2 in 2021, and does not have a clear path to net zero, with forecasts that its CO2 emissions will increase in 2026. The request for an investigation in the complaint is reinforced by specific reference to the ACCC's focus on greenwashing as an enforcement priority for 2023 and the significant environmental impact of the aviation industry. Key Takeaways Perceptions around carbon offsets are evolving, and companies that rely on them to reduce emissions might be at risk of greenwashing complaints and/or claims. Airlines and corporations in the aviation sector (and beyond) should generally take care in making statements regarding their environmental impacts and carbon offset offerings, ensuring that they are not overly broad and can be verified. Companies must be aware of local requirements governing communications on carbon compensation and offsets. Some may consider having independent, third-party verification of their sustainability efforts. In Australia, there are a number of pending cases which will decide key questions relating to liability risk for greenwashing in corporate announcements and marketing. In addition, the ACCC and other corporate regulators in Australia are devoting significant resources to conducting investigations and pursuing enforcement action in relation to greenwashing, and so further actions are expected imminently. While these greenwashing claims are similar, the results vary greatly by jurisdiction. Companies with multinational touchpoints need to be aware of differences in jurisdictions in which they operate. Several jurisdictions have rejected these claims, and companies should carefully consider available defenses. Anika M. Smith, an associate in the Washington Office, contributed to this article. [GN] [*] New SEC Cyberattack Reporting Rule to Expose Cos. to Lawsuits ----------------------------------------------------------------- Daphne Zhang, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that a new SEC cyberattack reporting rule has left public companies and insurers exposed to potential regulatory probes and shareholder class actions alleging senior executives failed to supervise their businesses' cybersecurity practices. The US Securities and Exchange Commission recently issued rules that formally outlined directors' responsibilities in cybersecurity governance for the first time, laying the groundwork for potential enforcement actions. The rule also set a road map for investors to bring derivative claims alleging a company's senior executives breached their fiduciary duty by failing to manage cyber risks. And it put insurers on alert that they could find themselves exposed to underlying claims, insurance attorneys say. "The plaintiff bar is drooling. They're like, 'when does this go into effect?'" said Kelly Geary of EPIC Insurance Brokers & Consultants. Though the practice is not yet universal, a growing number of director and officer (D&O) policies are being drafted with cyber-related exclusions. Meanwhile, most cyber insurance policies exempt SEC enforcement actions and investor claims, but some cover allegations against a company's executives over their cybersecurity roles. As a result, public companies may soon find themselves in the "worst of both worlds," where neither cyber nor D&O policies pay for legal bills over SEC investigations and investor lawsuits, said Steven Weisman, a partner at McCarter & English, LLP. D&O policies cover claims and regulator probes against a company and its directors. "It's time for public companies to reassess their insurance program to ensure that they have coverage," Weisman said. "Some cyber policies cover fines and penalties from the FCC, the FTC, and state regulatory agencies, but not the SEC." The rule will accelerate D&O insurers' efforts to exclude cyber incidents and privacy violations, Geary said. D&O carriers can rely on the exclusions to deny claims alleging directors were lax in their oversight of a cyberattack that exposed consumers' and employees' personal information. Insurance carriers will also conduct tougher underwriting for cyber risks and add more restrictive terms to current policies, brokers say. "I'm sure D&O underwriters are thinking very hard about all of this," Geary said, referring to regulator and investor claims that will likely stem from the SEC cyberattack reporting rule. Board Scrutiny In its adopted rule, the SEC asked companies for the first time to describe their senior executives' roles and expertise in managing cybersecurity threats, which often include business interruption and reputational damage after a cyber incident. The cyber literacy of Fortune 500 senior executives is often inadequate, and there has been an increase in shareholder derivative suits that specifically target board members about cyber failures, insurance analysts say. The rule will embolden plaintiffs to bring duty-of-oversight claims against companies and their directors, and "make a public company's insurance application process more onerous" because underwriters will grill policyholders over their cybersecurity procedures, said Geary. Businesses should be vigilant in the next annual renewal cycle of their general liability, cyber, and D&O policies to check whether insurers are adding new restrictions in response to the SEC rule, said Weisman. "Now that the SEC is regulating cyber disclosures, there may be an incentive for D&O insurers to not want to insure that risk or to only insure that risk for additional premiums so we might start to see more cyber exclusions," said David Cummings, a Reed Smith LLP partner who represents corporate policyholders. There's a potential flip side: If a company can show it has mature cybersecurity measures, insurers may offer "more favorable terms, better coverage, and lower deductibles," said Katherine Keefe, cyber incident management leader at broker Marsh McLennan. But carriers haven't rewarded policyholders with premium discounts yet, she said. Cyber Underwriting Data On the whole, forcing companies to disclose cyberattack incidents and security measures will help insurers to make more accurate decisions about corporate cyber risks, said Avery Dial, a partner at Kaufman Dolowich Voluck, LLP. "People will be able to see and compare what's being done," Dial said. Cyber insurance is a relatively new product that has seen huge price jumps amid rising hacks in the last few years. Ransomware attacks against industrial organizations increased by 87% in 2022 from the year before, according to cybersecurity company Dragos Inc. One of the key challenges for cyber underwriting has been the lack of historical and comparable data, because many companies have never reported their cyber incidents. Last October, Uber Technologies Inc.'s former security officer was convicted of concealing a 2016 data breach that exposed the information of 57 million Uber users and drivers. Uber took a year to report the incident. Now the SEC is telling public companies that they can no longer withhold that kind of information, said Marsh's Keefe. The publicly reported cyber data will give insurers a second source to verify what companies disclosed on their insurance applications, said Cummings. More transparency around companies' cyber measures will also help to stabilize cyber insurance prices, he said. The disclosures may be of little use, however, for investors and insurers trying to forecast how a company will weather a cybersecurity incident because cyber risks are rapidly changing. Even when a company has the strongest cyber security measures and insurance policies, there is no assurance that a future cyber incident will be covered "if a hacker is creating some new attack strategy that no one in the insurance or brokerage business thought of yet," said Alex Sugzda, a partner at Cohen Ziffer Frenchman & McKenna who represents policyholders. "The risk itself evolves at a rate that is more rapid than our annual policy period," EPIC's Geary said. [GN] ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2023. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***