/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230912.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, September 12, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 183 Headlines 02 GLOBAL: Judge Okays $85,000 FLSA Class Action Settlement 3D SYSTEMS: $4MM Class Suit Settlement Hearing Set November 21 ADAMAS PHARMACEUTICALS: Dismissed from Securities Suit ADVANCE AMERICA: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Knuutila Alleges ALL GREEN: Fails to Pay Driver's OT Wages Under FLSA, Waxler Says AMERICAN GENERAL: Moriarty Wins Summary Judgment Bid AMERICAN MERCHANDISING: FLSA Suit Conditionally Certified APPLE INC: Bodenburg Sues Over Deceptive Cloud Storage Services ARGO GROUP: Shareholder Suit Ongoing in New York AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES: Suit Over Antitrust Violations Dismissed AVIATOR NATION: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to Dec. 15, 2024 AXON ENTERPRISE: Township Sues Over Self-Defense Market Monopoly BANKROLL CAPITAL: Court OK's Bid to Conduct Class Cert. Discovery BLACKSKY TECHNOLOGIES: Ortega Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages BROOKDALE SENIOR: Shareholder Suit Over Stock Price Nixed BROOKLYN CRAB: Erkan Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York C & G SPORTING GOODS: Mercedes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Ct. Terminates Bid to Certify Class in Santiago CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Wiretapping Suit Over Keystroke Capturing Ended CHETAK NEW YORK: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Torres Alleges CIGNA CORP: Faces Suit Over Outright Denial of Insurance Claims CIGNA GROUP: Faces Pelt Suit Over Unfair Claim Settlement Practices COBHAM ADVANCED: Wightman May File Optional Reply by Sept. 28 COLGATE-PALMOLIVE CO: Faces Toothpaste False Ads Class Action COMMUNITY HEALTH: Smith Seeks to Recover Nurses' Unpaid Wages COMPANY NO. 5: Mercedes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CONSOLIDATED WASTE: Conditional Class Cert Filing Due Sept. 15 COOKIES SF LLC: Mercedes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York COREBRIDGE FINANCIAL: Applegate Files Suit in S.D. Texas CORECIVIC INC: Inmates' Labor Suit to Proceed in S.D. Cal. CORMEDIX INC: Consolidated Shareholder Suit Ongoing in NJ Court CRUMBL LLC: Faces Watson Class Suit Over Hidden Service Fees DIRECT ENERGY LP: Newman Class Action Transferred to S.D. Tex. DIRECT ENERGY: Dickson TCPA Action Ongoing DIRECT ENERGY: Faces Schafer Class Action DIRECT ENERGY: Gant Action Pending in D.N.J. DISCOVER FINANCIAL: SAHL Files Suit in C.D. California DISH NETWORK: Court OK's Dismissal of 401(k) Mismanagement Suit DISH NETWORK: Faces Owen-Brooks Suit Over Data Breach Incident DISH NETWORK: Shareholder Sues Over SEC Filing DOLGENCORP LLC: Faces Pressley Wage-and-Hour Suit in N.D. Ga. DOUG'S DINER: Fails to Pay OT Premiums Under FLSA, Zuniga Alleges ETHICON INC: $300M Class Suit Win No Impact on Legal Firm's Results FENIX INTERNATIONAL: Faces OnlyFans Suit Over Third Party Services FIBROGEN INC: Faces Shareholder Suit Over Misleading Statements FIBROGEN INC: Faces Shareholder Suit Over SEC Filing on FDA Report FLORIDA HEALTH: Wagner Suit Removed to M.D. Florida FLORIDA: Faces Class Action Suit Over Unfair Medicaid Coverage FORD MOTOR: 7th Cir. Revives Antitrust Suit Over No-Poach Clauses FRANKLIN COUNTY, VA: Class Action Mulled Over Attorneys' Shortage FRUITFUL YIELD: Cromitie Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York GAMESTOP CORP: Abdulhadi Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website GOLD SHEEP: Faces Wurm Class Suit Over Telephonic Sales Calls GOLDMAN SACHS (ASIA): Dimissal of Securities Suit Under Appeal GOLDMAN SACHS: F45 IPO Securities Suit Ongoing GOOGLE LLC: Calif. Judge Set to Decertify Google Play Class Suit GORES GUGGENHEIM: Breaches Fiduciary Duty, May Class Suit Alleges HARLEY-DAVIDSON: Zariczny Suit Removed to C.D. California HCA HEALTHCARE: Warren Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII & PHI HEILIND ELECTRONICS: Hess Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages HENSEL PHELPS: Trochez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages HILTON HOTELS: SCOTUS to Take Up Issue of Fail-Safe Classes HIMS HEALTH: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York HOLTGER BROS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Heesacker Alleges HOSPITALITY STAFFING: Faces Data Breach Class Action Suit HOT TOPIC: Faces Zuccaro Class Suit Over Fake Limited Time Sales IMMUNITYBIO INC: Salzman Suit Over Anti-Tumor Drug Ongoing INFOCISION INC: Williams Suit Seeks OT Wages Under FLSA INSURANCE CORP: Customer Sues Over Third-Party Rebate Coverage INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Sued Over Faulty System KAISER FOUNDATION: Mercado Sues Over Unpaid Proper Compensations KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Court Narrows Claims in Securities Suit KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Seeks Dismissal of Shareholder Suit KANKAKEE HOSPITALITY: Karnes Files Rule 23 Class Certification Bid KERN COUNTY, CA: Parties May Amend Settlement Deal in T.G. Suit LEBANON VALLEY: Fails to Refund Tuition Fees, Alunni Says MARATHON PETROLEUM: Law Firm to File Class Suit After Refinery Fire MAXIMUS INC: Fails to Protect Patients' Info, Valiente Says MEXICAN BISTRO: Suries Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation MIDVALE INDEMNITY: 7th Circuit Affirms Class Action Dismissal MIDVALE INDEMNITY: Dismissal Ruling in Privacy Suit Discussed MIDVALE INDEMNITY: Maurice Wutscher Discusses Privacy Suit Ruling MORENITA FRUIT: Romero Suit Seeks Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA MURPHY OIL: Customers File Class Action Over Gas Overcharges MY HERO DELI: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Castro Alleges NEW YORK TIMES: Attorneys' Fee Award Delays Settlement Approval NEW YORK: Home Health Care Aides Sue Over Unpaid Overtime NEWELL BRANDS: Faces Class Action Over Orthodontic Pacifiers ORIGIN MATERIALS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Oct. 24 ORIGIN MATERIALS: Faces Class Action Over Securities Law Violations ORIGIN MATERIALS: Faces Soto Suit Over 66.5% Stock Price Drop ORRICK HERRINGTON: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Jensen Alleges PALANTIR TECH: Consolidated Cupat Shareholder Suit Ongoing PALANTIR TECH: Consolidated Shareholder Suit on SEC Filing Ongoing PANDA EXPRESS: Agrees to Settle Delivery Fee Class Action for $1.4M PRECISION DRILLING: 3rd Cir. Reverses Decision in FLSA Class Suit PROBUILD CONSTRUCTION: Kennedays Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, McDaniel Says PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Trigg Says QUEENSLAND: Youth Advocates Mull Suit Over Detaining of Children RECKITT BENCKISER: $30MM Class Settlement Hearing Set on Oct. 19 RITE AID: Faces Anderson Suit Over Illegal Wiretapping ROBLOX CORP: Faces Class Action Over Gambling Websites' Charges SCULPTOR CAPITAL: Juan Monteverde Investigates Proposed Rithm Sale SMASHTECH LLC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Camacho Suit Claims STEADMAN PARKING: Talbot Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages TD AMERITRADE: Faces Data Breach Class Action in Nebraska TD AMERITRADE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Jeanfort Alleges TD AMERITRADE: Fails to Secure Consumers' Info, Jeanfort Alleges TENNECO INC: Motion to Compel Arbitration in ERISA Suit Denied TRILLIUM COMMUNITY: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Hopkins Says ULTIMATE FIGHTING: To Appeal Class Cert. Ruling in Antitrust Suit UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL: Two Suits Over Student Fee Refunds Tossed VALLEY NATIONAL: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, White Alleges VERITIV CORP: Juan Monteverde Investigates Proposed Clayton Sale WORKERS CREDIT: Prelim. Approval of Class Settlement Sought XOOM ENERGY: Summary Judgment Bid vs Mirkin Partly Granted ********* 02 GLOBAL: Judge Okays $85,000 FLSA Class Action Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------- Rhode Island Lawyers Weekly reports that a federal judge has approved a proposed agreement to settle for $85,000 a class action brought by employees of a chauffeured transportation company under the Fair Labor Standards Act. "For the purposes of settlement, the Court finds that the proposed Rule 23 Class, as defined in the settlement agreement between the Parties, meets the requirements of Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, the Court certifies the following proposed Rule 23 Class: 'All individuals who, at any time during the period between September 16, 2019 to May 12, 2022, were employed by Defendant as drivers and/or chauffeurs,'" U.S. District Court Judge Mary S. McElroy wrote. McElroy approved the settlement agreement after finding it was a reasonable compromise of the claims of the Rule 23 class members. "The Court finds that the Agreement: (a) is fair to all parties; (b) reasonably resolves a bona fide disagreement between the parties with regard to the merits of the claims of the Named Plaintiff, the FLSA Collective and the Rule 23 Class members; and (c) demonstrates a good faith intention by the parties that these claims be fully and finally resolved, not subject to appellate review, and not re-litigated in whole or in part at any point in the future," McElroy said. She went on to call the settlement agreement "fair, just, reasonable and adequate to, and in the best interest of, the Rule 23 Class members. It achieves a definite and certain result for the benefit of the Rule 23 Class Members that is preferable to continuing litigation in which the Rule 23 Class Members would necessarily confront substantial risk (including the risk of non-certification of a class and the risk of loss), uncertainty, delay, and cost." The five-page decision is Bequir v. 02 Global Chauffered Service, Inc., et al., Lawyers Weekly No. 52-073-23. [GN] 3D SYSTEMS: $4MM Class Suit Settlement Hearing Set November 21 -------------------------------------------------------------- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. on Aug. 28 disclosed that the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York has approved the following announcement of a proposed class action settlement that would benefit purchasers of 3D Systems Corporation Publicly-Traded Common Stock (NYSE:DDD): SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED THE PUBLICLY-TRADED COMMON STOCK OF 3D SYSTEMS CORPORATION ("3DSC") FROM MAY 6, 2020, THROUGH MARCH 5, 2021, INCLUSIVE. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, that a hearing will be held on November 21, 2023, at 10:00 a.m. before the Honorable Nicholas G. Garaufis, United States District Judge of the Eastern District of New York, 225 Cadman Plaza East, Courtroom 4D South, Brooklyn, NY 11201, for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed Settlement of the claims in the above-captioned Action for consideration including the sum of $4,000,000 should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether the proposed plan to distribute the Settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable, and adequate; (3) whether the application of Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees of up to one-third plus interest of the Settlement Amount, reimbursement of expenses of not more than $50,000, and a service payment of no more than $21,500 in total to Plaintiffs, should be approved; and (4) whether this Action should be dismissed with prejudice as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement, dated December 16, 2022 (the "Settlement Stipulation"). The Court reserves the right to hold the Settlement Fairness Hearing telephonically or by other virtual means. The Court appointed The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. as Lead Counsel to represent you and the other Settlement Class Members. However, you have the right to retain your own counsel and the right to appear at the Settlement Fairness Hearing through counsel of your choosing. If you purchased the publicly-traded common stock of 3DSC during the period from May 6, 2020, to March 5, 2021, both dates inclusive, your rights may be affected by this Settlement, including the release and extinguishment of claims you may possess relating to your ownership interest in publicly-traded 3DSC common stock. If you need assistance obtaining a detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Notice") and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release Form ("Claim Form"), you may write to, call, or contact the Claims Administrator: 3D Systems Corp. Securities Litigation, c/o Strategic Claims Services, P.O. Box 230, 600 N. Jackson St., Ste. 205, Media, PA 19063; (Toll-Free) (866) 274-4004; (Fax) (610) 565-7985; info@strategicclaims.net. You can also download copies of the Notice and submit your Claim Form online at www.strategicclaims.net/3DSC. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Claim Form electronically or postmarked no later than October 24, 2023 to the Claims Administrator, establishing that you are entitled to share in the recovery. Unless you submit a written exclusion request, you will be bound by any judgment rendered in the Action whether or not you make a claim. If you desire to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must submit to the Claims Administrator a request for exclusion so that it is received no later than October 24, 2023, in the manner and form explained in the Notice. All members of the Settlement Class who have not requested exclusion from the Settlement Class will be bound by any judgment entered in the Action pursuant to the Settlement Stipulation. Any objection to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or Lead Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses and awards to Plaintiffs must be in the manner and form explained in the detailed Notice and received no later than October 24, 2023, by each of the following: Clerk of the Court United States District Court Eastern District of New York 225 Cadman Plaza East Brooklyn, NY 11201 Robin Bronzaft Howald The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel Elizabeth Gingold Clark Alston & Bird 90 Park Avenue 15th Floor New York, NY 10016 Counsel for Defendants If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may call or write to Lead Counsel: Robin Bronzaft Howald THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 rhowald@rosenlegal.com PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING THIS NOTICE. DATED: JULY 18, 2023 BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK [GN] ADAMAS PHARMACEUTICALS: Dismissed from Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------ Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2023, that all claims against its subsidiary Adamas Pharmaceuticals Inc. and certain of its former directors and officers in federal court in the Northern District of California (Case No. 4:19-cv-08051) have been dismissed with prejudice, but claims against one of the individual defendants, who may have certain rights to indemnification, remain. On February 27, 2023, plaintiffs advised the court that plaintiffs would proceed only on the remaining claim against one of the individual defendants. The individual defendant filed an answer denying the claim on April 28, 2023. No trial date has been set. On December 10, 2019, said putative class action lawsuit alleging violations of the federal securities laws was filed by Ali Zaidi alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by Adamas and certain of Adamas's former directors and officers. On October 8, 2021, the presiding judge dismissed the litigation, and granted Plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint. On November 5, 2021, Plaintiffs filed their second amended class action complaint. On December 10, 2021, Adamas filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs opposed the motion to dismiss. On January 13, 2023, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (is a biopharmaceutical company focused on developing and commercializing products for the treatment of central nervous system diseases. Its neuroscience portfolio includes approved treatments for epilepsy, migraine, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), hypomobility in Parkinson’s Disease (PD), cervical dystonia, chronic sialorrhea, dyskinesia in PD patients receiving levodopa-based therapy, and drug-induced extrapyramidal reactions in adult patients. On November 24, 2021, the company completed its acquisition of all the outstanding equity of Adamas. ADVANCE AMERICA: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Knuutila Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- TAMARA KNUUTILA; and JOSE GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ADVANCE AMERICA CASH ADVANCE CENTERS, INC.; ADVANCE AMERICA CENTERS OF TENNESSEE, INC. d/b/a ADVANCE AMERICA; and ADVANCE AMERICA CENTERS OF CALIFORNIA, LLC d/b/a ADVANCE AMERICA, Defendants, Case No. 7:23-cv-04304-DCC (D.S.C., Aug. 28, 2023) alleges that the Defendants breached their duty and betrayed the trust of their clients, the Plaintiffs and Class members by failing to properly safeguard and protect their PII, thus enabling cybercriminals to steal and misuse it. According to the complaint, on or about February 7, 2023, cybercriminals foreseeably accessed the Defendants' inadequately secured network containing the PII of the Plaintiffs and thousands of other Class Members. Due to the Defendants' negligence and data security failures, cybercriminals had access to, and now potentially possess, everything they need to commit identity theft and wreak havoc on the financial and personal lives of thousands of individuals. As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiffs and Class members have already suffered damages. The Plaintiffs' PII has been released to cybercriminals, Plaintiffs and Class members are at imminent and impending risk of identity theft, says the suit. ADVANCE AMERICA CASH ADVANCE CENTERS INC. provides payday cash advance services to middle-income working individuals in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Harper Todd Segui, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 825 Low Country Blvd, Suite 101 Mount Pleasant, SC 29465 Telephone: (919) 600-5000 Email: hsegui@milberg.com - and - A. Brooke Murphy, Esq. MURPHY LAW FIRM 4116 Will Rogers Pkwy, Suite 700 Oklahoma City, OK 73108 Telephone: (405) 389-4989 Email: abm@murphylegalfirm.com ALL GREEN: Fails to Pay Driver's OT Wages Under FLSA, Waxler Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- GAGE WAXLER v. ALL GREEN TRANSPORT, LLC (AGT), a Michigan limited liability company, and CHARLES E FISHER, an individual, Case No. 1:23-cv-00897 (W.D. Mich., Aug. 25, 2023) is a class action seeking to recover overtime wage as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. All drivers at the Defendants' business, including the Plaintiff, have been subject to the same employment policies and practices, including policies and practices with respect to overtime, the suit claims. AGT and Fisher allegedly improperly classified all its drivers as independent contractors. Waxler and the FLSA Collective worked more than 40 hours in one or more workweeks. But AGT and Fisher did not pay them at least one-and-a-half times their regular hourly rate for time worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, the Plaintiff claims. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and similarly situated current and former drivers who elect to opt in pursuant to FLSA, to remedy violations of the FLSA wage and hour provisions by Defendants. Plaintiff Waxler was hired as a secure transport driver. His duties were to drive to and from marijuana facilities throughout Michigan’s Upper and Lower Peninsulas to transport marijuana AGT transports marijuana and cash for marijuana dispensaries and growers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradley K. Glazier, Esq. Robert M. Howard, Esq. BOS & GLAZIER, P.L.C. 940 Monroe Avenue, N.W., Suite 253 Grand Rapids, MI 49503 Telephone: (616) 458-6814 AMERICAN GENERAL: Moriarty Wins Summary Judgment Bid ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHELLE L. MORIARTY, as Successor-In-Interest to Heron D. Moriarty, Decedent, on Behalf of the Estate of Heron D. Moriarty, and on Behalf of the Class, v. AMERICAN GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-01709-JO-WVG (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jinsook Ohta entered an order granting summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on her breach-of-contract claim. -- The Plaintiff's declaratory relief claim is denied as moot. -- The Court has not reconsidered the previous summary judgment rulings on Plaintiff's UCL and bad faith causes of action. -- The parties are ordered to meet and confer regarding pre- and post-judgment interest. -- Any motions regarding interest must be filed by August 24, 2023, and responses must be filed by August 31, 2023. The motion(s) will be submitted on September 1, 2023, without oral argument. The Plaintiff also asks this Court to reconsider the Court's September 27, 2022, order denying class certification, but Plaintiff has not shown that reconsideration is warranted. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification was denied primarily because Plaintiff's proposed class was too broad and included many policyholders still alive and not entitled to the same type of damages as deceased policy holders. The Plaintiff Moriarty sued Defendant American General Life Insurance Company for breach of contract after Defendant refused to pay the life insurance benefits on her husband’s policy. The Plaintiff contends that her husband's policy was still in force at the time of his death under California Insurance Code Sections 10113.71(b) and 10113.72(c). The Court agrees and reconsiders its September 7, 2022, order denying Plaintiff summary judgment on her breach-of-contract claim. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 14, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qScBM7 at no extra charge.[CC] AMERICAN MERCHANDISING: FLSA Suit Conditionally Certified ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GUS L. SINGLETON IV, v. AMERICAN MERCHANDISING SPECIALISTS, INC., Case No. 5:22-cv-00123-KDB-DCK (W.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Kenneth D. Bell entered an order that: 1. The Plaintiffs' Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) claim is conditionally certified as a collective action on behalf of: "All current and former non-exempt employees who were paid by American Merchandising Specialists, Inc. to perform supplier maintenance and merchandising services in the United States between three years prior to the filing of the Complaint in this matter and the present and were allegedly denied proper overtime compensation as a result of Defendant's willful policies." 2. The Plaintiff's proposed Notice, Reminder Notice, and Opt-In Consent Form are approved. 3. The Defendant is instructed to provide to Plaintiffs' Counsel, within 10 business days, an electronic list of all persons who fit within the proposed collective, including each collective Member's: (1) name, (2) last known mailing address, (3) last known telephone number, (4) last known personal email address, (5) dates and location of employment, (6) date of birth, and (7) Social Security number (last four digits only). 4. The Plaintiff's Counsel, within ten (10) business days of receiving the electronic file, shall send the Notice and Opt-In Consent Form to all Collective Members via U.S. Mail, email, and text message. The action arises out of American Merchandising Specialists alleged failure to pay overtime compensation to Plaintiff and similarly situated employees who performed supplier maintenance and merchandising services in violation of the FLSA. American Merchandising provides retail merchandising and marketing services. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 15, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3P0IGJE at no extra charge.[CC] APPLE INC: Bodenburg Sues Over Deceptive Cloud Storage Services --------------------------------------------------------------- LISA BODENBURG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. APPLE INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:23-cv-04409 (N.D. Cal., Aug. 25, 2023) alleges violation of the California's False Advertising Law, California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and California's Unfair Competition Law. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant failed to deliver the cloud storage capacity that class members paid for and that the Defendant contracted to deliver. Instead, in each instance, the Defendant delivered 5 GB less of cloud storage than what it had promised in exchange for receiving class members' iCloud monthly subscription payments. Throughout the Class Period, the Defendant also sold iCloud subscriptions to the putative class members by which the Defendant represented to class members that, in exchange for paying the Defendant monthly subscription fees, the Defendant would provide them with additional cloud storage beyond the free 5 GB of storage automatically provided to all. This additional cloud storage would provide added capacity up to certain limits (measured in gigabytes (GB) or terabytes (TB)) depending on the subscription plan purchased. In exchange for the monthly payment of $0.99, that subscriber received only 45 GB of paid cloud storage, not the 50 GB of paid storage he contracted for and was promised, says the suit. APPLE INC. designs, manufactures, and markets smartphones, personal computers, tablets, wearables and accessories, and sells a variety of related accessories. The Company also offers payment, digital content, cloud and advertising services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roy A. Katriel, Esq. THE KATRIEL LAW FIRM, P.C. 2262 Carmel Valley Rd., Suite 201 Del Mar, CA 92014 Telephone: (619) 363-3333 Facsimile: (866) 832-5852 Email: rak@katriellaw.com - and - Ralph B. Kalfayan, Esq. Ian D. Krupar, Esq. THE KALFAYAN LAW FIRM, APC 2262 Carmel Valley Rd., Suite 200 Del Mar, CA 92014 Telephone: (619) 232-0331 Facsimile: (619) 232-4019 Email: ralph@rbk-law.com ian@rbk-law.com ARGO GROUP: Shareholder Suit Ongoing in New York ------------------------------------------------ Argo Group International Holdings, Ltd. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in August 8, 2023, that it is facing "The Police & Fire Retirement System City of Detroit v. Argo Group International Holdings, Ltd., et al.," No. 22-cv-8971 (S.D.N.Y.), a securities class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain of its current and former officers filed on October 20, 2022, alleging securities fraud violations under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On January 18, 2023, U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan granted the Police and Fire Retirement System City of Detroit and the Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement System’s joint motion for appointment as lead plaintiff. On March 27, 2023, lead plaintiffs filed an Amended Class Action Complaint, which alleges that from June 11, 2018 through August 9, 2022, defendants made false and misleading statements concerning the company's reserves and underwriting standards. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on May 26, 2023. Lead plaintiffs filed an opposition to such motion on July 13, 2023, and Defendants anticipate filing a reply on or before August 14, 2023. Argo Group is an underwriter of specialty insurance products in the property and casualty market. AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES: Suit Over Antitrust Violations Dismissed --------------------------------------------------------------- Leslie Shaver of MultiFamily Dive reports that Arlington, Virginia-based REIT AvalonBay Communities has been released from a class action suit surrounding antitrust allegations, the REIT announced in a 10-Q filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission released earlier this month. AVB was among the defendants named in late 2022 and early 2023 cases alleging antitrust violations by RealPage and several owners and operators of multifamily housing utilizing the company's revenue management systems. More than 30 class action suits have been filed against RealPage and apartment owners and managers. These cases have been consolidated into one suit that moved forward in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee this month when Waverly D. Crenshaw Jr., chief U.S. District Court judge for the Middle District of Tennessee, deferred a series of motions asserting the case should be dismissed, according to Bisnow. After a ProPublica report investigated RealPage's pricing model in October, a group of renters -- three in California and two in Washington state -- of market-rate apartments sued Richardson, Texas-based property management software and data analytics provider RealPage and a number of large operators a week later, alleging that they committed antitrust violations under the Sherman Act. The five renters accused property managers of sharing "competitively sensitive information with one another" by using RealPage as a conduit. In recent earnings calls, executives from Chicago-based Equity Residential and Palo Alto, California-based Essex Property Trust have defended their companies' actions. "We think the claims are without merit, and we're going to defend ourselves," said Equity CEO Mark Parrell. "We continue to feel really confident in our prospects there." In addition to Essex and EQR, managers named in the suit included: Greystar Real Estate Partners. Lincoln Property Co. FPI Management. MAA Communities. Avenue 5 Residential. Although AVB wasn't named in that suit, it was mentioned in subsequent filings, including a suit brought in February by renters Shaina Silverman and Tyler Kimbrough in United States District Court in the Western District of Washington against RealPage, Brookfield Residential Properties, Cushman & Wakefield, Equity Residential, Greystar Real Estate Partners, TF Cornerstone and Rose Associates. AVB's recent 10-Q filing said that it engaged with the plaintiffs' counsel to explain why it believed that the cases were without merit as they pertained to the company. "Following these discussions, the plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary dismissal in July 2023, which resulted in us being dismissed without prejudice from these cases," it said in the filing. On AVB's Q2 earnings call, CEO Benjamin Schall said he was unaware of any other litigation the company was involved with related to RealPage. "We are pleased we've been dismissed from that class action lawsuit," he said. "At this point, given its ongoing litigation in the wider industry, we can't make any additional comments above what we included in our disclosure in the earnings release." [GN] AVIATOR NATION: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to Dec. 15, 2024 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BOBBY ETRI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AVIATOR NATION, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-08644-FMO-MRW (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando M. Olguin entered an order granting joint stipulation motion to extend deadlines: Event Old New Deadline Deadline Initial Expert Witness Aug. 10, 2023 Sept. 25, 2023 Disclosures Rebuttal Expert Witness Sept. 11, 2023 Oct. 26, 2023 Disclosures All fact and expert discovery Oct. 11, 2023 Nov. 27, 2023 shall be completed Motion for class certification Oct. 31, 2023 Dec. 15, 2023. shall be filed The previously scheduled remaining deadlines are hereby vacated. Aviator Nation is a design company that has brought the reproduction of retro t-shirts to the next level. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 15, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45rofN4 at no extra charge.[CC] AXON ENTERPRISE: Township Sues Over Self-Defense Market Monopoly ---------------------------------------------------------------- TOWNSHIP OF HOWELL, MONMOUTH COUNTY, NEW JERSEY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. AXON ENTERPRISE, INC.; and SAFARILAND, LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-07182 (D.N.J., Aug. 22, 2023) is class action complaint about Axon's scheme to unlawfully obtain and maintain its monopolies in two highly lucrative law enforcement and self-defense markets: -- long-range conducted energy weapons (CEWs), which are commonly known by Axon’s brand name, Tasers; and -- body-worn camera (BWC) systems, which allow police departments to record, store, and use video evidence collected while police officers are on duty. Axon allegedly facilitated its monopolies over long-range CEWs and BWC systems by acquiring its largest competitor in the BWC system market, VieVu, from Safariland and signing 12-year non-compete, market allocation, and no-poach agreements with Safariland to prevent Safariland from challenging its monopolies in either market. Axon enticed Safariland to agree to its acquisition by granting Safariland a preferred supply contract for Taser holsters. Plaintiff Township of Howell is a township located in Monmouth County, and is a public entity organized and existing pursuant to the laws of New Jersey. The Plaintiff manages operations of Howell Township Police, which directly purchased Taser-branded CEWs, their components, BWCs, and/or a DEMS subscription at unlawfully inflated prices. Howell Township is a township in Monmouth County, in the U.S. state of New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael D. Fitzgerald, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL D. FITZGERALD Industrial Way West, Unit B Eatontown, NJ 07724 P.O. Box 1067 Oakhurst, NJ 07755 Telephone: (202) 349-1482 E-mail: mdfitz@briellelaw.com - and - Kellie Lerner, Esq. Jonathan Edelman, Esq. Ellen G. Jalkut ROBINS KAPLAN LLP 1325 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 2601 New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 980-7400 E-mail: klerner@robinskaplan.com jedelman@robinskaplan.com ejalkut@robinskaplan.com - and - Heidi M. Silton, Esq. Jessica N. Servais, Esq. Joseph C. Bourne, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P. 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 E-mail: hmsilton@locklaw.com jnservais@locklaw.com jcbourne@locklaw.com BANKROLL CAPITAL: Court OK's Bid to Conduct Class Cert. Discovery ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL BARACK; MICHELLE BARACK; and GERALD BUSBEE, individually and on behalf of a class, v. BANKROLL CAPITAL INC., Case No. 4:23-cv-00615-O (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Reed O'Connor entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' request for six months to conduct class discovery and to file a motion for class certification. -- The Plaintiffs to file a motion for leave to conduct discovery in support of class certification is no later than September 11, 2023. -- Such motion shall propose specific dates by which Plaintiffs shall (1) conclude class discovery and (2) file a motion for class certification. Bankroll Capital offers funding for small businesses. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 15, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44wWod2 at no extra charge.[CC] BLACKSKY TECHNOLOGIES: Ortega Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Lazaro D. Ortega, and other similarly situated individuals v. BLACKSKY TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-23354-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Sept. 1, 2023), is brought to recover money damages for unpaid regular and overtime wages and retaliation under the laws of the United States, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("the Act"). The Plaintiff was paid for 40 regular hours by direct deposits and overtime hours in a separate check. The Defendant paid the Plaintiff for overtime hours at his regular rate of $15.00 an hour. Every week, the Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours, but he was not paid for overtime hours as required by law. The Plaintiff clocked in and out, and Defendant was in absolute control of the Plaintiff's schedule and activities. The Defendant knew the hours that the Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals were working. Therefore, the Defendant willfully failed to pay the Plaintiff overtime wages, at the rate of time and a half his regular rate, for every hour that he worked in excess of 40, in violation of the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt, full-time production employee from February 01, 2021, to August 08, 2023. The Defendant is a technology Company, manufacturer of gate arms.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Phone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com BROOKDALE SENIOR: Shareholder Suit Over Stock Price Nixed --------------------------------------------------------- Brookdale Senior Living Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2023, that in September 2021, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee dismissed a putative class action lawsuit alleging violations of the federal securities laws filed in the federal court against the company and several current and former executive officers. Plaintiffs have yet to file an appeal. In June 2020, said lawsuit asserted that the defendants made material misstatements and omissions concerning the company's business, operational and compliance policies, compliance with applicable regulations and statutes, and staffing practices that caused the company's stock price to be artificially inflated between August 2016 and April 2020. The district court dismissed the lawsuit and entered judgment in favor of the defendants. Brookdale Senior Living Inc. together with its consolidated subsidiaries is an operator of 672 senior living communities throughout the United States. As of June 30, 2023, it owned 346 communities, representing a majority of the Company's community portfolio, leased 295 communities, and managed 31 communities. BROOKLYN CRAB: Erkan Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brooklyn Crab, LLC. The case is styled as Nihal Erkan, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Brooklyn Crab, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-06533 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 31, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Brooklyn Crab -- https://www.brooklyncrab.com/ -- is a tri-level seafood shack offering buckets of crab and raw oysters with outdoor seating and water views in Red Hook, Brooklyn.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 14749 71st Ave. Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com C & G SPORTING GOODS: Mercedes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against C & G Sporting Goods, LLC. The case is styled as Luis Mercedes, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. C & G Sporting Goods, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-07716 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 30, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. C & G Sporting Goods, LLC -- https://www.cgsportinggoods.com/ -- sell firearms and ammunition, hunting equipment, fishing bait and tackle, archery, clothing, footwear, optics and camping equipment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: PeterPaul Elhamy Shaker, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 1 University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: pshaker@steinsakslegal.com CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Ct. Terminates Bid to Certify Class in Santiago ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as SANTIAGO v. CAVALRY PORTFOLIO SERVICES, LLC et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-08332 (D.N.J., Filed Nov. 30, 2015), the Hon. Judge Michael A. Hammer entered a terminating motion to certify class. -- The motion to certify the class will be terminated without prejudice, and the parties will be afforded ninety days from the filing of the Order of Reference to Mediation to mediate the matter. -- If mediation is unsuccessful, Plaintiff may re-file the motion to certify. The parties will meet and confer concerning the selection of a mediator and are referred to the list of Court- certified mediators available on the District of New Jersey's website. -- On August 29, 2023, the parties will file a joint letter informing the Court whether they have agreed on the selection of a mediator and, if so, the identity of the mediator. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Cavalry is a debt collection agency.[CC] CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Wiretapping Suit Over Keystroke Capturing Ended ------------------------------------------------------------------- The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2023, that on February 21, 2023, the case captioned "Curd v. TCF CO. LLC," Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-00472-JMC was lodged at the United States District Court for the District of Maryland but was voluntarily dismissed on May 10, 2023. The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated currently owns and operates 321 restaurants throughout the United States and Canada under brands including The Cheesecake Factory, North Italia, Flower Child and a collection of other FRC brands. Its bakery division operates two facilities that produce baked products for its restaurants, international licensees and third-party bakery customers. CHETAK NEW YORK: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Torres Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- CESAR TORRES, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. CHETAK NEW YORK LLC, (CHETAY NY LLC) and ARCHIT AMIN individual, Case No. 2:23-cv-06958 (D.N.J., Aug. 22, 2023) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law. The Plaintiff was paid $16 per hour from 2018 until June 2023 and was not paid any overtime, despite working 50 hours per week. He asserts that the Defendants allegedly maintained a policy and practice of requiring the Plaintiff and the FLSA collective employees to work more than 40 hours per week without providing them with any additional compensation. The Plaintiff seeks to recover from the Defendants liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and/or attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to the FLSA and NJWHL and brings this action individually and on behalf of all other and former non-exempt workers who have been or were employed by the Defendants for up to the last three years, through the entry of judgment in this case and who have not compensated at least the overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. With NJWHL claims, the Plaintiff asserts the same pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of all non-exempt personnel employed by the Defendants on or after the date that is two years before the filing of the Complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant at its company located at 351 Mill Rd. Edison, NJ 08837 to haul and company trucks within New Jersey. Chetak is a corporate entity principally engaged in the food services industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lina Stillman, Esq. STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C. 42 Broadway, 12t Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 203-2417 E-mail: www.StillmanlegalPC.com CIGNA CORP: Faces Suit Over Outright Denial of Insurance Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Kelly Mehorter of ClassAction.org reports that Cigna Corporation and Cigna Health and Life Insurance Company face a proposed class action over their allegedly unlawful use of an algorithm to systemically deny batches of insurance claims without conducting individualized reviews. According to the 22-page lawsuit out of California, insurance companies are required under state law to conduct a "thorough, fair, and objective" investigation into each submitted claim to determine if the payment is medically necessary. However, rather than employ medical directors to examine patient records, review coverage policies and use their expertise to approve or deny claims, Cigna instead uses an algorithm known as PXDX -- which stands for "procedure-to-diagnosis" -- to automatically review, process and deny thousands of claims at once, the suit contends. More specifically, the PXDX system uses an algorithm to identify and deny claims based on "discrepancies between diagnoses and what Defendants consider acceptable tests and procedures for those ailments," the complaint explains. The filing claims that Cigna doctors then sign off on the denials without opening each patient's file to complete the legally-required process for reviewing patient claims. As a result of this automated process, thousands of patients who have submitted bills to Cigna for medically necessary expenses supposedly covered by their plan terms have had their claims unfairly denied, the case argues. These covered members are wrongfully left without coverage and forced to incur unexpected bills, the suit relays. "The scope of this problem is massive," the lawsuit says, citing a March 2023 report by ProPublica. "For example, over a period of two months in 2022, Cigna doctors denied over 300,000 requests for payments using this method, spending an average of just 1.2 seconds 'reviewing' each request." Per the filing, the PXDX system helps Cigna save money by allowing it to deny claims it would have otherwise paid and cut labor costs associated with conducting manual reviews. "Cigna also utilizes the PXDX system because it knows it will not be held accountable for wrongful denials," the case contends. "For instance, Cigna knows that only a tiny minority of policyholders (roughly 0.2%) will appeal denied claims." The complaint further alleges that the defendants have failed to provide policyholders with written statements informing them of the insurance company's decision to deny their claim and listing the reasons why their claim was denied, as required by California law. The lawsuit looks to cover anyone who purchased health insurance from Cigna in the United States during the applicable statute of limitations period. [GN] CIGNA GROUP: Faces Pelt Suit Over Unfair Claim Settlement Practices ------------------------------------------------------------------- PAIGE VAN PELT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE CIGNA GROUP, CIGNA CORPORATION, and CIGNA HEALTH AND LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 3:23-cv-01135-OAW (D. Conn., Aug. 25, 2023) alleges that Cigna has leveraged its sophisticated infrastructure and automated intelligence capabilities to systematically defraud its consumers by denying medically necessary claims en masse without appropriate physician review, in violation of state and federal consumer protection laws. According to the complaint, Cigna's practices thus, have caused the Plaintiff and the putative Class to pay for medical services that should have otherwise been approved under plan terms and enable Cigna to save millions, if not billions, of dollars on its bottom line. Cigna furthered this scheme to defraud the Plaintiff and the Class through an automated intelligence system referred to as “procedure-to-diagnosis" (referred to as "PxDx"). PxDx allows Cigna medical directors to automatically deny a claim purportedly on medical grounds without making a medically necessary determination or even opening the patient file, leaving patients with unexpected bills that should have been covered and paid. Indeed, Cigna automatically denies claims because it knows that most patients will either pay such bills or forego the procedures, rather than deal with the hassle of appealing a denial, the suit alleges. The impact on Cigna's insureds is devastating. In a period of just over two months, Cigna medical directors reportedly automatically denied, without review, over 300,000 requests for payments, spending an average of 1.2 seconds on each case. The Plaintiff and the Class are therefore not receiving the benefits they have paid for, and in many cases are left paying out-of-pocket for medical care that should have been covered by Cigna. The Plaintiff and the Class have been harmed through violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act through violating the Connecticut Unfair Insurance Practices Act and the Connecticut Corrupt Organizations and Racketeering Activity Act, breach of contract, as well as violations of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment, says the suit. The Plaintiff was enrolled in a self-funded Cigna Plan throughout 2018. The written terms of this Plan provided benefits for covered health care services. The Plan further specified that Cigna provides claim administration services to the Plan as the party delegated with authority to interpret and apply the terms of financial disbursement. The Plaintiff has Lynch Syndrome -- a type of inherited cancer syndrome associated with a genetic predisposition to different cancer types. In order to prevent cancerous growths, the Plaintiff is required to have a colonoscopy once every 1-2 years. In 2018, Cigna automatically denied coverage for her colonoscopy and endoscopy, because the clinic coded it as diagnostic instead of preventative. As a result, Plaintiff was charged $3,200 which has since been sent to collections, the suit further contends. Cigna is one of the largest medical insurers in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq. Amanda Rolon, Esq. Erin Green Comite, Esq. Anja Rusi, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP The Helmsley Building 230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 223-6444 Facsimile: (212) 223-6334 E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com arolon@scott-scott.com ecomite@scott-scott.com arusi@scott-scott.com - and - James E. Cecchi, Esq. Michael A. Innes, Esq. Jordan M. Steele, Esq. Zachary S. Bower, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, New Jersey 07068 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com minnes@carellabyrne.com jsteele@carellabyrne.com zbower@carellabyrne.com COBHAM ADVANCED: Wightman May File Optional Reply by Sept. 28 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wightman v. Cobham Advanced Electronic Solutions, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-01784 (S.D. Cal., Filed Oct. 18, 2021), the Hon. Judge Daniel E. Butcher entered an order setting briefing schedule. -- Presently before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class, which is noticed for a hearing on Oct. 12, 2023, at 3:00 p.m. in Courtroom 3A before the Honorable Todd W. Robinson. -- Pursuant to Section III.B.2 of the undersigned's Standing Order for Civil Cases, the Defendant shall file its opposition on or before Sept. 14, 2023. -- The Plaintiff may file his optional reply, if any, on or before Sept. 28, 2023. The nature of suit states Labor Management Relations. Cobham manufactures search and navigation equipment.[CC] COLGATE-PALMOLIVE CO: Faces Toothpaste False Ads Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Abraham Jewett, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that Colgate, Taco Bell, Pacific Coast Producers, Tesla, A&W, Keurig Dr Pepper, Curaleaf, DreamCloud and Inventure Foods have recently been hit with a class action lawsuit or reached a class action settlement. Why: The class action lawsuits and settlements involve false advertising claims. Where: The class action lawsuits and settlements affect consumers nationwide. Companies filed or settled class action lawsuits involving false advertising claims recently. The companies are in the food, dental hygiene, automobile, mattress and cannabis industries. A consumer may choose to file a false advertising claim if they believe they have been misled by a company about a product or service. Colgate class action claims company deceives consumers about toothpaste tube recyclability A pair of consumers filed a class action lawsuit against Colgate-Palmolive Company earlier in August, arguing the company falsely advertises its Colgate and Tom's of Maine brand toothpaste tubes are recyclable. The consumers claim the Colgate and Tom's of Maine toothpaste tubes are only accepted at a "miniscule" amount of recycling centers. "Defendant knows that the Products almost invariably end up in landfills or incinerated because recycling facilities do not accept them," the Colgate class action states. Taco Bell falsely advertises amount of ingredients in some menu items, class action says A consumer filed a class action lawsuit against Taco Bell at the end of July, arguing the Mexican fast food chain falsely advertises the amount of beef and other ingredients in some of its products. Taco Bell is accused of depicting in its advertisements and on its menu boards that some of its menu items, including the Crunchwrap Supreme and Mexican Pizza, among others, contain twice the amount of ingredients than in reality. Canner accused of falsely advertising tomatoes as 'preservative-free' A class action lawsuit was filed against the largest tomato canner in the United States in July over claims the company falsely advertises that its tomatoes are "preservative-free" despite them allegedly containing citric acid. Pacific Coast Producers is accused of mislabeling that its tomatoes are preservative-free to capitalize on a demand from consumers for preservative-free food. "Defendant clearly lists 'No Preservatives' on Products' label, capitalizing on the preference of health-conscious consumers to purchase foods that are free from preservatives," the Pacific Coast class action states. Tesla inflates estimated mileage range, class action says A group of vehicle owners filed a class action lawsuit against Tesla Motors earlier in August, claiming the automaker falsely advertises the mileage range of its electric vehicles. Tesla is accused of estimating the mileage range for its electric vehicles as much as 26% more than their actual average range in an effort to appeal to consumers. "The electric vehicle's range is one of the most important features that consumers generally consider when purchasing an electric vehicle because it correlates to the distance they can travel before needing to recharge the vehicle," the Tesla class action states. A&W, Keurig Dr Pepper to pay $15M over claims they falsely advertised root beer, cream soda contained real vanilla On the settlement side, A&W Concentrate and Keurig Dr Pepper agreed to pay $15 million in July to resolve claims they falsely advertised that their root beer and cream soda contained real vanilla. Consumers who purchased one or more A&W Root Beer or Cream Soda products containing the statement "made with aged vanilla" on their label from between Feb. 7, 2016, and June 2, 2023 can benefit from the class action settlement. Curaleaf to pay $100,000 to end claims it falsely advertised CBD drops only contained CBD Medical and recreational cannabis dispensary Curaleaf agreed to pay $100,000 in July to put to bed claims the company falsely advertised that its CBD drops only contained CBD when they allegedly also contained THC. The settlement will benefit a class of consumers in Oregon who, after June 19, 2021, purchased Curaleaf Select CBD Drops labeled as containing only CBD. DreamCloud to refund consumers who purchased mattresses advertised as made with US materials The Federal Trade Commission began accepting claims in August for settlement payments stemming from an agreement made by mattress company DreamCloud to resolve claims the company falsely advertised its mattresses are made from U.S. materials. Consumers who purchased a mattress from DreamCloud's website after being influenced by claims they were made with "USA-made premium quality materials," from between Dec. 9, 2018, and Jan. 29, 2019, or May 6, 2020, and June 26, 2020, are eligible for a refund. Inventure Foods to pay $900,000 over claims it falsely advertised TGI Friday's Mozzarella Stick Snacks contain real mozzarella Inventure Foods agreed to pay $900,000 in July to end claims the company falsely advertised its TGI Friday's brand Mozzarella Stick Snacks contain real mozzarella cheese. The settlement will benefit a nationwide class of consumers who purchased a variety of different TGI Friday's Mozzarella Stick Snacks from between Jan. 1, 2017, and July 31, 2022. [GN] COMMUNITY HEALTH: Smith Seeks to Recover Nurses' Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- DARIUS SMITH, individually and for others similarly situated v. COMMUNITY HEALTH CARE, INC. d/b/a COMPLETECARE HEALTH NETWORK, Case No. 1:23-cv-11058 (D.N.J., Aug. 25, 2023) seeks to recover overtime wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, as amended by the New Jersey Wage Theft Act. Mr. Smith and the Putative Class Members regularly worked more than 40 hours in a week. But CompleteCare did not pay them for all the hours they worked. Also, CompleteCare automatically deducted 30 minutes a day from these employees' recorded work time for so called "meal breaks." But Mr. Smith and the Putative Class Members did not actually receive bona fide meal breaks. Instead, CompleteCare required Mr. Smith and the Putative Class Members to remain on-duty and perform compensable work throughout their shifts, and CompleteCare continuously subjected them to work interruptions during their unpaid "meal breaks," says the suit. CompleteCare's auto-deduction policy allegedly also violates the New Jersey Wage Payment Law, as amended by the New Jersey Wage Theft Act by depriving Mr. Smith and the Putative Class Members of earned wages (at their agreed hourly rates) for all hours worked. Further, CompleteCare also only paid Mr. Smith and the Putative Class Members for overtime hours that CompleteCare pre-approved. If CompleteCare did not pre-approve the overtime hours, Mr. Smith and the Putative Class Members were forced to work their "unapproved" overtime hours "off the clock" (without pay) to complete their patient care responsibilities, the suit added. Mr. Smith worked for CompleteCare as Registered Nurse in Cumberland County, New Jersey from September 2020 until November 2022. CompleteCare is a system of health centers in southern New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Camille Fundora Rodriguez, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-4635 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 E-mail: crodriguez@bm.net - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com - and - William C. (Clif) Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER PLLC 101 N. Shoreline Blvd., Suite 610 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com COMPANY NO. 5: Mercedes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Company No 5, LLC. The case is styled as Luis Mercedes, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Company No 5, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-07714 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 30, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. COMPANY NO 5, LLC is an Utah Domestic LLC.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: PeterPaul Elhamy Shaker, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 1 University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: pshaker@steinsakslegal.com CONSOLIDATED WASTE: Conditional Class Cert Filing Due Sept. 15 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dudley v. Consolidated Waste Services, LLC et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00592 (E.D.N.Y., Filed May 17, 2023), the Hon. Judge Therese Wiley Dancks entered an order setting the following limited discovery deadlines during the Aug. 15, 2023 Rule 16 Conference: -- Conditional class certification Sept. 15, 2023 motion to be filed by: -- Rule 33 and 34 Requests to be Sept. 29, 2023 served by: -- Mandatory Mediation: Deferred -- Stipulated protective order to be Oct. 20, 2023 submitted for Court approval by: The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Consolidated offers waste management for residential and commercial clients.[CC] COOKIES SF LLC: Mercedes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cookies SF, LLC. The case is styled as Luis Mercedes, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Cookies SF, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-07709 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 30, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Cookies SF -- https://cookiessf.com/ -- is an inspirational clothing and accessory brand destined to spark fire within the budding fashion industr.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: PeterPaul Elhamy Shaker, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 1 University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: pshaker@steinsakslegal.com COREBRIDGE FINANCIAL: Applegate Files Suit in S.D. Texas -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Corebridge Financial, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Dawn Ann Applegate, Richard Applegate, Jon Robus, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Corebridge Financial, Inc., American General Life Insurance Co., Case No. 4:23-cv-03227 (S.D. Tex., Aug. 31, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Contract. Corebridge Financial -- https://www.corebridgefinancial.com/ -- is an American multinational financial services company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joe Kendall, Esq. KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC - DALLAS 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 1450 Dallas, TX 75219 Phone: (214) 744-3000 Fax: (214) 744-3015 Email: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com CORECIVIC INC: Inmates' Labor Suit to Proceed in S.D. Cal. ---------------------------------------------------------- Corecivic, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2023, that on June 12, 2023, the Supreme Court dismissed the company's petition to appeal a class certification ruling. The claims resulting in certified classes will now proceed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. On May 31, 2017, two former ICE detainees, who were detained at the company's Otay Mesa Detention Center (OMDC) in San Diego, California, filed a class action lawsuit against the Company in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. The complaint alleged that the company forces detainees to perform labor under threat of punishment in violation of state and federal anti-trafficking laws and that OMDC's Voluntary Work Program (VWP) violates state labor laws including state minimum wage law. ICE requires that CoreCivic offer and operate the VWP in conformance with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) standards and ICE prescribes the minimum rate of pay for VWP participants. The Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, exemplary damages, restitution, penalties, and interest as well as declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of former and current detainees. On April 1, 2020, the district court certified a nationwide anti-trafficking claims class of former and current detainees who participated in an ICE VWP at a CoreCivic facility. It also certified a state law class of former and current detainees who participated in a VWP wherever the company held ICE detainees in California. The court did not certify any claims for injunctive or declaratory relief. On March 10, 2021, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted CoreCivic's petition to appeal the class certification ruling. On June 3, 2022, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed the class certification ruling. Following the three-judge panel affirmance, the Company petitioned the Ninth Circuit for a discretionary appellate review, which was denied. On January 3, 2023, the Ninth Circuit Court granted the company's motion to stay its mandate during the pendency of the company's petition for Supreme Court review. CoreCivic, Inc. owns partnership correctional, detention, and residential reentry facilities. It is one of the largest prison operators in the United States. CORMEDIX INC: Consolidated Shareholder Suit Ongoing in NJ Court --------------------------------------------------------------- Cormedix Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2023, that a consolidated suit "In re CorMedix Inc. Securities Litigation," Case No. 2:21-cv 14020-JXN-CLW (October 13, 2021), is pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey is currently ongoing. Two putative class action lawsuits filed on or about July 22, 2021 and September 13, 2021, respectively, and appointed lead counsel and lead plaintiff, a purported stockholder of the Company. The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended class action complaint on December 14, 2021, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, along with Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Act. On October 10, 2022, the lead plaintiff filed a second amended consolidated complaint that superseded the original complaints in "In re CorMedix Securities Litigation." In the second amended complaint, the lead plaintiff seeks to represent two classes of shareholders: (i) shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired CorMedix securities between October 16, 2019 and August 8, 2022, inclusive; and (ii) shareholders who purchased CorMedix securities pursuant or traceable to the company's November 27, 2020 offering pursuant to CorMedix's Form S-3 Registration Statement, its Prospectus Supplement, dated November 27, 2020, and its Prospectus Supplement, dated August 12, 2021. The second amended complaint names as defendants the Company and twelve (12) current and former directors and officers of CorMedix, namely Khoso Baluch, Robert Cook, Matthew David, Phoebe Mounts, John L. Armstrong, and Joseph Todisco and collectively with CorMedix, the "CorMedix Defendants" as well as Janet Dillione, Myron Kaplan, Alan W. Dunton, Steven Lefkowitz, Paulo F. Costa and Greg Duncan. The second amended complaint alleges that the CorMedix Defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act (and Rule 10b-5), the Officer Defendants violated Section 20(a), the Director Defendants, CorMedix, Baluch, and David violated Section 11 of the Securities Act, and that the Director Defendants, Baluch, and David violated Section 15. In general, the purported bases for these claims are allegedly false and misleading statements and omissions related to the NDA submissions to the FDA for DefenCath, subsequent complete response letters, as well as communications from the FDA related and directed to the company's contract manufacturing organization and heparin supplier. The company and the other Defendants filed their motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on November 23, 2022; the lead plaintiff filed his opposition to the Defendants’ motions to dismiss on January 7, 2023; and Defendants filed their reply brief on February 6, 2023. CorMedix Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company focused on developing and commercializing therapeutic products with its principal executive office is located in Berkeley Heights, New Jersey. CRUMBL LLC: Faces Watson Class Suit Over Hidden Service Fees ------------------------------------------------------------ Corrado Rizzi of ClassAction.org reports that Crumbl LLC faces a proposed class action that alleges the gourmet cookie company carefully conceals a hidden 2.95 percent "service fee" on its mobile app. The 35-page case says that Crumbl's hidden service fee causes customers to pay more for the cookies than what's advertised on the menu and constitutes an unfair and deceptive trade practice. The suit describes Crumbl as the fastest-growing gourmet cookie business in the country, with more than 600 franchisee stores across 47 states. The Crumbl app is "a vital part" of the company's business strategy, displaying the company's rotating menu of flavors and facilitating orders, pick-ups, catering, shipping and gifting, the filing relays. Even when ordering in a store, the case says, a customer must still use the Crumbl app at the point of sale. According to the complaint, however, every time a consumer orders through the Crumbl app, they are hit with a 2.95 percent service fee, an added cost that is not reflected in the company's menu prices. "Despite the fact that Crumbl uniformly charges the Service Fee through the Crumbl App, at no point is the Service Fee disclosed to consumers," the lawsuit says. On the mobile order screen, the case shares, a breakdown appears of a customer's subtotal, taxes and fees, tip amount, and order total. Next to the taxes and fees line, however, is a small, light gray question mark icon that's "nearly imperceptible to reasonable consumers due to its color and font size," the suit relays. It is only upon clicking this icon that a consumer can learn that a 2.95 percent service fee has been added to their order: "Given that the vast majority of American consumers already expect to pay sales tax on their purchase, Crumbl purposefully hides this charge among state taxes where it is unlikely to be discovered by reasonable consumers," the lawsuit says. The lawsuit looks to cover all individuals in the United States who made a purchase through the Crumbl app within the applicable statute of limitations period. [GN] DIRECT ENERGY LP: Newman Class Action Transferred to S.D. Tex. -------------------------------------------------------------- NRG Energy, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in August 8, 2023, that the putative class action against its subsidiary, Direct Energy LP, "Holly Newman v. Direct Energy, LP" (September 2021, D. Md.) was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Direct Energy filed its Motion to Dismiss but the Court denied its motion stating the court does not have the benefit of all of the facts. On October 19, 2022, Direct Energy filed a Motion to Transfer Venue asking the court to transfer the case to the Southern District. On April 12, 2023, the court granted Direct Energy's Motion to Transfer Venue. NRG Energy, Inc. is an energy, smart home and services company fueled by proprietary technologies and complementary sales channels across the United States and Canada. DIRECT ENERGY: Dickson TCPA Action Ongoing ------------------------------------------ NRG Energy, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in August 8, 2023, that putative class action against its subsidiary, Direct Energy LP, "Matthew Dickson v. Direct Energy," (January 2018, N.D. Ohio) was stayed pending the outcome of an appeal to the Sixth Circuit based on the unconstitutionality of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) during the period from 2015-2020. The Sixth Circuit found the TCPA was in effect during that period and remanded the case back to the trial court. Direct Energy refiled its motions along with supplements. On March 25, 2022, the court granted summary judgment in favor of Direct Energy and dismissed the case. Dickson appealed. The Sixth Circuit found that Dickson has standing and reversed the trial court's dismissal of the case. The case went back to the trial court where Direct Energy sought a stay to file a petition for review by the U.S. Supreme Court. NRG Energy, Inc. is an energy, smart home and services company fueled by proprietary technologies and complementary sales channels across the United States and Canada. DIRECT ENERGY: Faces Schafer Class Action ------------------------------------------ NRG Energy, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in August 8, 2023, that its subsidiary Direct Energy is facing putative class action captioned "Richard Schafer v. Direct Energy," (W.D. N.Y. Dec. 2019). Said case is currently on appeal in the United States Court of Appeals 2nd Circuit. The Second Circuit sent the matter back to the trial court in December 2021. After discovery, Direct Energy filed summary judgment. Direct Energy won summary judgment and Schafer appealed. The appeal is fully briefed. Oral argument has not been set. NRG Energy, Inc. is an energy, smart home and services company fueled by proprietary technologies and complementary sales channels across the United States and Canada. DIRECT ENERGY: Gant Action Pending in D.N.J. -------------------------------------------- NRG Energy, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in August 8, 2023, that its subsidiary Direct Energy is facing putative class action captioned "Andrew Gant v. Direct Energy and NRG (August 2022, D.N.J.). Direct Energy and NRG filed a Motion to Dismiss on October 18, 2022. NRG Energy, Inc. is an energy, smart home and services company fueled by proprietary technologies and complementary sales channels across the United States and Canada. DISCOVER FINANCIAL: SAHL Files Suit in C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Discover Financial Services, et al. The case is styled as Support Animal Holdings, LLC, Lennys Casita, LLC, individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. Discover Financial Services, DFS Services, LLC, Discover Bank, Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 2:23-cv-07131-DSF-RAO (C.D. Cal., Aug. 29, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Contract. Discover Financial Services -- http://www.discover.com/-- is an American financial services company that owns and operates Discover Bank, an online bank that offers checking and savings accounts, personal loans, home equity loans, student loans and credit cards.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq. PORTNOY LAW FIRM 1100 Glendon Avenue 15th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90024 Phone: (310) 692-8883 Email: lesley@portnoylaw.com DISH NETWORK: Court OK's Dismissal of 401(k) Mismanagement Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- DISH Network Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2023, that on February 1, 2023, a Magistrate Judge issued a recommendation that the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint be granted with regards to a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado against DISH, its Board of Directors, and its Retirement Plan Committee alleging fiduciary breaches arising from the management of its 401(k) Plan. On March 27, 2023, the district court judge granted the motion. On December 20, 2021, four former employees filed said action, where the class comprised of all participants in the plan on or after January 20, 2016, alleges that the plan had excessive recordkeeping and administrative expenses and that it maintained underperforming funds. As permitted by the Court's order, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 10, 2023, which is limited to allegations regarding the alleged underperformance of the Fidelity Freedom Funds. DISH Network Corporation is a holding company that operate two primary business segments namely Pay-TV and wireless the latter of which consists of retail wireless and 5G network deployment. DISH NETWORK: Faces Owen-Brooks Suit Over Data Breach Incident -------------------------------------------------------------- DISH Network Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2023, that on May 9, 2023, Susan Owen-Brooks, an alleged customer, filed a putative class action complaint against the company in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. She purports to represent a nationwide class of all individuals in the United States who allegedly had private information stolen as a result of the February 23, 2023 Cyber-security Incident (and a North Carolina statewide subclass of the same individuals). On behalf of the nationwide class, she alleges claims for contractual breaches, negligence and unjust enrichment (and, on behalf of the North Carolina subclass only, violation of the North Carolina Deceptive Trade Practices Act), and seeks monetary damages, injunctive relief and a declaratory judgment. Since that filing, ten additional putative class action complaints have been filed in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, purporting to represent the same nationwide class of people, and Owen-Brooks has filed an amended complaint. Certain of the plaintiffs have filed a motion to have the cases consolidated. DISH Network Corporation is a holding company that operate two primary business segments namely Pay-TV and wireless the latter of which consists of retail wireless and 5G network deployment. DISH NETWORK: Shareholder Sues Over SEC Filing ---------------------------------------------- DISH Network Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2023, that on March 23, 2023, a securities fraud class action complaint was filed against the company and Messrs. Ergen, Carlson and Orban in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The complaint is brought on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of its securities during the February 22, 2021 to February 27, 2023 class period. In general, the complaint alleges that DISH Network's public statements during that period were false and misleading and contained material omissions, because they did not disclose that the company allegedly maintained a deficient cyber-security and information technology infrastructure, were unable to properly secure customer data and operations were susceptible to widespread service outages. DISH Network Corporation is a holding company that operate two primary business segments namely Pay-TV and wireless the latter of which consists of retail wireless and 5G network deployment. DOLGENCORP LLC: Faces Pressley Wage-and-Hour Suit in N.D. Ga. ------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER PRESSLEY and MELISSA SMITH, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DOLGENCORP, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-00170-RWS (N.D. Ga., August 23, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages and retaliation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Mr. Pressley has worked for Dollar General in Maysville, Georgia, in June 2020. Ms. Smith worked for Dollar General in Maysville, Georgia from 2013 until approximately October 2022. The Plaintiffs were employed as cashiers, keyholders, and assistant managers by Dollar General. Dolgencorp, LLC is an operator of a discount store based in Tennessee. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: J. Daniel Cole, Esq. John L. Mays, Esq. PARKS, CHESIN & WALBERT, P.C. 1335 Peachtree NE, Suite 2000 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 873-8000 Facsimile: (404) 873-8050 E-mail: dcole@pcwlawfirm.com jmays@pcwlawfirm.com DOUG'S DINER: Fails to Pay OT Premiums Under FLSA, Zuniga Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- MIGUEL ANGEL ZUNIGA on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DOUG'S DINER, INC., DOUG'S DAY DINER, LLC, MILO, INC., COCO, INC., RICKEY BRUENING, INC., RICKEY BRUENING, and LINDA HERNANDEZ, Case No. 1:23-cv-02176 (D. Colo., Aug. 25, 2023) alleges that the Defendants refused to pay overtime premiums, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff Zuniga worked 156.82 hours during the two-week pay period running from January 16, 2023 through January 29, 2023. During the two-week pay period running from February 27, 2023 through March 12, 2023, the Plaintiff Zuniga worked 125.99 hours. The Defendants refused to pay the Plaintiff overtime premiums for the hours he worked beyond 40 each workweek and 12 each workday during these and all other pay periods during his tenure of employment, the Plaintiff alleges. Additionally, the Defendants willfully filed fraudulent information returns, in violation of 26 U.S.C. section 7434, by paying part of their employees' wages in cash and not reporting those wages to the federal government, says the suit. The Defendants also violated the Colorado Minimum Wage Act, as implemented by the Colorado Overtime and Minimum Pay Standards Order because the COMPS requires employers to pay their employees one-and-one-half times each employee's regular hourly rate of pay for each hour worked beyond 40 each workweek and/or beyond 12 hours each workday. The Defendants further violated the Colorado Wage Claim Act ("CWCA"), which requires employers to pay their employees all wages due. The Plaintiff seeks, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, actual and liquidated damages, penalties, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorney fees and costs. Plaintiff Miguel Zuniga was employed by the Defendants between 2021 and July 14, 2023. Doug's Diner is a company that operates in the Restaurants industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandt Milstein, Esq. MILSTEIN TURNER, PLLC 2400 Broadway, Suite B Boulder, CO 80304 Telephone: (303) 440-8780 E-mail: brandt@milsteinturner.com ETHICON INC: $300M Class Suit Win No Impact on Legal Firm's Results ------------------------------------------------------------------- Nick Nichols, writing for Business Australia, reports that a $300 million class action win by Shine Justice (ASX: SHJ) last year has failed to translate into a profit bonanza for the listed legal firm which on Aug. 29 posted an 89 per cent slump in net profit to $3.31 million. Shine Justice, which scored the payout from Johnson & Johnson and subsidiary Ethicon for women who suffered severe complications from the company's defective pelvic mesh implants, has blamed delays in court decisions and settlements to class actions for the latest result. The result was also materially impacted by Shine's decision to write off a large portion of the interest expense it cost the group to wage the Ethicon case. The $32.4 million impairment to the company's unbilled impairment asset followed the Federal Court's refusal to allow Shine to recover all of its interest expenses for the expensive decade-long class action, which was undertaken on a no-win no-fee basis. The litigation on behalf of up to 12,000 Australian women who were left with life-altering complications from faulty prolapse mesh and tape implants was one of Australia's largest product liability class actions. Because of the complex nature of the case, which required Shine to fork out to third parties including medical experts and barristers, the company had to secure external disbursement funding to proceed. On 3 August 2023, the Federal Court dismissed Shine's application to recover from the settlement fund the full amount of the interest it had paid on the disbursement funding facility. As a result, Shine decided to write off the asset from its books from the FY23 accounts. Shine's CEO Simon Morrison has described the company's gross operating cash flow (GOCF) of minus $3.9 million as a 'disappointing result' for the group, largely reflecting delays in the resolution of cases and court approvals of class action settlements achieved during the year. Shine's GOCF for FY23 includes $15.6 million in professional fees for the two Ethicon class actions which was paid to the disbursement funder. Apart from the Ethicon class actions, the company also secured a $105 million settlement against US manufacturer Boston Scientific relating to defective pelvic mesh implants, adding to a successful year of litigation for Shine. "Although the operating performance of the group was disappointing, revenue increased due to growth in personal injuries, particularly in Queensland, and in medical law and dust diseases," Morrison says. "While the revenue growth was pleasing, it was offset by increased direct and indirect costs. "GOCF in the year was affected by expenditure in growth activities, including class action investigations, slower than anticipated case resolution, as well as expenditure in marketing and recruitment. Like many businesses, we were impacted by staff turnover." Shine tackled the staff issues by attracting new staff following a recruitment program launched in the UK. On an adjusted basis, Shine recorded earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation (EBITDA) of $61.6 million, down from $63.1 million in FY22. Revenue was $231.6 million, up 7.7 per cent for the year. However, Morrison says the year ahead is promising with the company targeting EBITDA to be higher the then adjusted EBITDA of FY23. "Shine Justice's business remains strong, with a committed and talented team and the right strategy to deliver improving results and grow earnings in new and existing markets," he says. "Our pipeline of cases is strong. We are targeting a significant improvement in cash generation as major cases are concluded and as we implement improvements in our systems and processes for case execution and cash collection. "In addition, we have commenced a reduction in our cost base which should assist EBITDA and GOCF in the future." Shine Justice is not paying a final dividend. [GN] FENIX INTERNATIONAL: Faces OnlyFans Suit Over Third Party Services ------------------------------------------------------------------ Francisco Velasquez, writing for The Messenger Business, reports that a lawsuit against Fenix International Limited, the London-based parent company of OnlyFans, alleges that some of its creators are failing to connect with their subscribers and instead are using outside services to send explicit messages. The class action, filed in federal court for the Northern District of Illinois on Aug. 25, claims that certain creators on OnlyFans, such as Riley Reid, Kimmy Granger and Gina Valentina, are not forming genuine relationships with their subscribers, as they advertise. "Many of the interactions that they [subscribers] pay to have on OnlyFans with some of the top revenue producing creators are not 'authentic' at all," the plaintiffs allege. The plaintiffs, Philip McFadden of DuPage County, Illinois, and John DeFranza of Middlesex County, New Jersey, claim that OnlyFans creators are using outside individuals and companies, such as advertising firm Unruly Agency, to send "ghostwritten responses" on their behalf, and even engaging in intimate "sexting" conversations with fans. The creators have not yet responded to the accusations in the court case. Riley Reid, one of the website's highest-earning creators, makes between $600,000 and $800,000 every month. Kimmy Granger earns between $175,000 and $292,000 a month. During a YouTube interview, Gina Valentina said she has earned up to $200,000 a month. According to the suit, Only Fans "popularity has mushroomed since 2020, [and it] recently claimed to have 150 million registered users and to pay out over $5 billion dollars annually to its content creators." OnlyFans takes a 20% portion of the earnings creators make on the platform, the lawsuit said. [GN] FIBROGEN INC: Faces Shareholder Suit Over Misleading Statements --------------------------------------------------------------- Fibrogen, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2023, that it is facing lawsuits alleging that defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making materially false and misleading statements regarding FibroGen's Phase 3 clinical studies data and prospects for U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval. Between April 2021 and May 2021, five putative securities class action complaints were filed against FibroGen and certain of its current and former executive officers in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. On August 30, 2021, the court consolidated the actions and appointed a group of lead plaintiffs. Plaintiffs filed their consolidated amended complaint on October 29, 2021 and a corrected consolidated amended complaint on November 19, 2021. Complaint alleges false and misleading statements between December 2018 and June 2021 and seeks to represent a class of persons or entities that purchased FibroGen securities between December 20, 2018 and July 15, 2021. On July 15, 2022, the court issued an order denying defendants' motions to dismiss. Defendants answered the complaint on September 13, 2022 and discovery is ongoing. On January 27, 2023, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. On May 12, 2023, Defendants filed their opposition to plaintiffs' motion for class certification and the plaintiffs filed their reply on June 23, 2023. On June 8, 2023, plaintiffs filed a motion for spoliation sanctions against Dr. Yu and the Company. Defendants filed their opposition to the motion for spoliation sanctions on July 17, 2023 and the plaintiffs' reply was due August 11, 2023 and the hearing on both motions was scheduled for August 31, 2023. FibroGen, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company headquartered in San Francisco, California, with subsidiary offices in Beijing and Shanghai. FIBROGEN INC: Faces Shareholder Suit Over SEC Filing on FDA Report ------------------------------------------------------------------ Fibrogen, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2023, that on May 25, 2023, a complaint was filed against the company, alleging that defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making materially false and misleading statements regarding FibroGen's Phase 3 clinical studies data and prospects for U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval. Said suit also invoked California state fraud claims. The parties have stipulated to a briefing schedule on defendants' forthcoming motion to dismiss, which will be due on September 20, 2023. FibroGen, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company headquartered in San Francisco, California, with subsidiary offices in Beijing and Shanghai. FLORIDA HEALTH: Wagner Suit Removed to M.D. Florida --------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Brianna Wagner, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. FLORIDA HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER, INC., doing business as TAMPA GENERAL HOSPITAL, Case No. 23-CA-014367 was removed from the Circuit Court for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County, Florida, to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida on Aug. 30, 2023, and assigned Case No. 8:23-cv-01957. Based on these allegations, the Plaintiff asserts six causes of action against TGH: negligence, invasion of privacy (electronic intrusion), breach of implied contract; unjust enrichment; violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act ("FDUTPA"), and breach of fiduciary duty.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Elizabeth V. McNulty, Esq. Samantha M. Geraghty, Esq. EVANS FEARS SCHUTTERT MCNULTY MICKUS 1 Park Plaza, Suite 500 Irvine, CA 92614 Phone: (949) 301-9464 Facsimile: (949) 966-0706 Email: emcnulty@efsmmlaw.com sgeraghty@efsmmlaw.com FLORIDA: Faces Class Action Suit Over Unfair Medicaid Coverage -------------------------------------------------------------- Chianne D.; C.D., by and through her mother and Next Friend, Chianne D.; and A.V., by and through her mother and Next Friend, Jennifer V., v. Jason Weida, in his official capacity as Secretary for the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration, and Shevaun Harris, in her official capacity as Secretary for the Florida Department of Children and Families,, Case No. 3:23-cv-00985-MMH-LLL (M.D. Fla., Aug. 22, 2023) alleges that the Defendants are terminating tens of thousands of Floridians from Medicaid coverage without providing them adequate individualized written notice of the reason for the termination and the opportunity for a pre-termination fair hearing as the Constitution and Medicaid Act require. The Plaintiffs assert that the Defendants have deprived, and continue to deprive, the Plaintiffs of due process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment by: creating a risk of erroneous deprivation of Medicaid coverage; failing to provide timely, effective notice of the basis for the agency's decision or enrollees' rights and responsibilities pertaining to their Medicaid coverage; and failing to provide a meaningful opportunity for a fair hearing and timely corrective action as needed prior to termination of Medicaid coverage. The Defendants routinely fail to include in the Medicaid notices the legal or factual basis for the agency’s decision. Instead, the notices use a set of standardized "reason codes" many of which provide little or no explanation of the actual reason for the agency's decision. As a result, the Plaintiffs and class members are losing Medicaid coverage without meaningful and adequate notice, leaving them unable to understand the agency's decision, properly decide whether and how to contest their loss of Medicaid coverage, or plan for a smooth transition of coverage that minimizes disruptions in necessary care. Without Medicaid coverage, Plaintiffs are unable to obtain care they need, including prescription drugs, children’s vaccinations, and post-partum care, says the suit. The Plaintiffs seek preliminary and permanent declaratory and injunctive relief to require the Defendants to stop terminating Florida Medicaid enrollees until adequate notice and an opportunity for a pre-termination fair hearing has been provided. The Plaintiffs bring this case on behalf of a statewide class with two subclasses, defined as: All Florida Medicaid enrollees who are members of either of the two subclasses listed below and who on or after March 31, 2023, have been or will be found ineligible for Medicaid coverage. Subclass A: Individuals issued a written notice that includes no reason code or only uses reason code(s) that do not identify the eligibility factor(s) Defendants relied on to determine the individual is ineligible for Medicaid. Subclass B: Individuals issued a written notice that relies on a reason code that states the individual or household is over income for Medicaid eligibility but does not identify the household income used in the eligibility determination or the applicable income standard. AHCA is designated as the "single state agency" to administer the state's Medicaid plan.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Katy DeBriere, Esq. Miriam Harmatz, Esq. Lynn Hearn, Esq. FLORIDA HEALTH JUSTICE PROJECT 3900 Richmond Street Jacksonville, FL 32205 Telephone: (352) 496-5419 E-mail: debriere@floridahealthjustice.org harmatz@floridahealthjustice.org hearn@floridahealthjustice.org - and Sarah Grusin, Esq. Miriam Heard, Esq. Amanda Avery, Esq. Jane Perkins, Esq. NATIONAL HEALTH LAW PROGRAM 1512 E. Franklin Street, Suite 110 Chapel Hill, NC 27541 Telephone: (919) 968-6308 E-mail: grusin@healthlaw.org heard@healthlaw.org avery@healthlaw.org perkins@healthlaw.org FORD MOTOR: 7th Cir. Revives Antitrust Suit Over No-Poach Clauses ----------------------------------------------------------------- Swap Agrawal, writing for onlabor, reports that in the news and commentary, UAW members authorize strikes against the Big Three and the Seventh Circuit revives an anti-trust lawsuit over McDonald's use of no-poach clauses. On Aug. 25, the United Auto Workers (UAW) President Shawn Fain announced that 97 percent of its members had voted to authorize strikes against the Big Three auto companies -- Ford, General Motors, and Stellantis -- if the union and companies are unable to negotiate new contracts before the current agreements expire on September 14. As Jacqueline previously reported, the union is asking for elimination of the two-tiered wage system and a 40% raise over a four-year period, as well as the re-establishment of cost-of-living allowances and defined benefit pensions and retiree healthcare, the right to strike over plant closures, significant increases to current retiree benefits, and more paid time off to be with family. "Our members' expectations are high because Big Three profits are so high," said President Fain. "The Big Three made a combined $21 billion in profits in just the first six months of this year. That's on top of the quarter-trillion dollars in North American profits they made over the last decade. While Big Three executives and shareholders got rich, UAW members got left behind. Our message to the Big Three is simple: record profits mean record contracts." Fain was elected as a militant reform candidate amid widespread member dissatisfaction with the previous UAW leadership due to plant closings, contract concessions, and corruption scandals. UAW's Big Three contract renegotiation is the latest in a series of high-profile labor disputes over the past year, including the ongoing SAG-AFTRA and WGA strikes, Teamsters' showdown with UPS, and a threatened railway strike thwarted by the Biden administration earlier this year. Axios reported that UAW's strike fund totals over $825 million, meaning that the union could strike all three automakers for 12 weeks before the fund is exhausted. Meanwhile, the Anderson Economic Group estimates that a work stoppage by nearly 150,000 UAW workers at GM, Ford and Stellantis would cost more than $5 billion after 10 days, and Deutsche Bank estimates that a strike would cost each affected automaker about $400 million to $500 million per week of production. Moreover, many smaller parts manufacturers and suppliers may not be able to survive a prolonged strike. On Aug. 25, the Seventh Circuit revived an anti-trust class action lawsuit against McDonald's over its use of no-poach clauses in franchise contracts. These clauses, which until recently were part of every McDonald's franchise agreement, prevented franchise operators from soliciting or hiring any person employed by a different franchise, or by McDonald's itself, until six months after the last date that person had worked for McDonald's or another franchise. The two plaintiffs in this case, Leinani Deslandes and Stephanie Turner, worked for McDonald's franchises while these clauses were in force and were unable to take higher-paying offers at other franchises. They argue that no-poach clauses violate antitrust laws by reducing competition for fast food workers to the benefit of franchise owners. The district court had rejected plaintiffs' arguments that no-poach clauses were per se illegal, stating that the clauses were not naked restraints on trade but rather ancillary to -- and justified by -- each new restaurant's expanded output. The trial court also found plaintiff's complaint deficient under the Rule of Reason because it did not allege that McDonald's and its franchises collectively have market power in the labor market for restaurant workers. Miriam previously covered the district court's decision here. However, Judge Easterbrook wrote for the Seventh Circuit that the district court "jettisoned the per se rule too early." The panel found that the district court erred by treating "benefits to consumers (increasing output) as justifying detriments to workers (monopsony pricing)." The case is now remanded to the district court to consider whether the no-poach clause protected the franchises' investments in training or allowed them to appropriate the value of workers' own investments. [GN] FRANKLIN COUNTY, VA: Class Action Mulled Over Attorneys' Shortage ----------------------------------------------------------------- Cameron Probert, writing for Tri-City Herald, reports that after five months of a critical shortage of attorneys to represent criminal defendants in Franklin County, the problem has eased in August. But attorney Sheri Oertel said the relief is too little too late for all those who lost their right to an attorney for months. The county now is facing a possible lawsuit. Oertel, who previously worked as a public defense attorney in Franklin County, is currently the felony resource attorney for the Washington Defender Association. The organization is looking for a lawyer or group to challenge the decision by Benton-Franklin Superior Court judges that left about 80 defendants without legal representation for so long. For some defendants, the delay has gone on for months. "If we get an attorney who wants to work on a single case rather than try to certify a class (action lawsuit), it still benefits the group as a whole," she told the Herald. A person is constitutionally entitled to a trial two months after being formally charged if they're in jail and haven't agreed to the delay. Or a trial must begin within three months if the person is out of custody. The constitution also promises an attorney if they can't afford one to defend themselves. The problem in Franklin County started in March after Franklin County had trouble replacing two public defense lawyers after their contracts ended. That left the county's Office of Public Defense unable to provide attorneys to some suspects. Attorney Larry Zeigler, the public defense manager, said he was focused getting help first to those who accused of committing violent crimes and were in jail. At the time, the county was averaging about 80 defendants who needed an attorney. After about five months, the Office of Public Defense was able to hire two new attorneys to start handling the backlog. "We got our noses above the waterline," Zeigler said. "We got our noses above the waterline," Zeigler said. DEFENSE ATTORNEYS During the shortage, the Superior Court judges told the Herald in a joint statement that they were looking at every option to help deal with the problem. They had the option to hire defense attorneys, who would get paid out of the county's budget. County officials said the amount of money necessary would have been too much. The judges also could dismiss the cases or release suspects to give the county more time to find defense attorneys before they had to hold a trial. Judges declared it was an unforeseen emergency that warranted continuing the cases when the suspect didn't have a lawyer. But Oertel told the Tri-City Herald that was the improper. She said the judges can't find good cause to violate someone's civil rights. "Checks and balances fail when one branch colludes with one or more other branches," she said. "Here the judges are colluding with both the prosecutors and the Office of Public Defense administrators." The association has been actively seeking an attorney to challenge the rulings that kept extending the time suspects spent in jail, Oertel said. Even with recent improvements, Oertel said they have dozens of people who have been denied their rights. "Precedent is clear, once the . . . speedy trial right is violated, anything occurring beyond that doesn't matter, the case must be dismissed," she told the Herald. "If this occurs, it will cause hundreds of cases in Franklin County and likely 70-100 in Benton County to be overturned and dismissed." She said the judges were told by a state Supreme Court justice that keeping defendants in jail past the speedy trial deadline would violate their rights. The Superior Court judges said they couldn't comment on the potential case. "It is each judge's duty to decide a case according to the law and the facts," they told the Tri-City Herald in a joint statement. "A party, who feels aggrieved by the court's decision, may seek appellate review as provided by the rules of appellate procedure." DOZENS OF CASES DELAYED Oertel said she can point to dozens of cases where defendants are having to make decisions where they needed an attorney's advice. One of the most dramatic is the case of Jose M. Flores Ramirez, 35, who was charged in connection with a May 2021 Pasco assault. Ramirez told detectives he hit a man with a metal pipe after his mother was insulted. Prosecutors initially charged him in July 2021 with second-degree assault, but the charge was dismissed in January 2022. According to court documents, they were planning to file the case in District Court. The prosecutors attempted to put Flores Ramirez into a diversion program, but he failed to complete community service. Then, prosecutors filed the charge again in February 2023. He entered a plea, but was never given an attorney during his arraignment. When he failed to show up for his next hearing a warrant was issued, and he was arrested. Since then, he's been in jail without a lawyer assigned. After two months, he was fed up being in jail and declared in court on Aug. 8 that he wanted to plead guilty. Attorney Tim Dickerson was assigned within days. He pointed out that Flores Ramirez continued to want to plead guilty, even after a key witness died, according to court documents. Dickerson asked for his client to be released because he believed his client just wanted to work. Deputy Prosecutor Daniel Stovern argued against the change because Flores Ramirez didn't finish his community service. The hearing ended with a decision that the prosecutor couldn't accept a guilty plea given that it didn't seem that Flores Ramirez was informed about the potential immigration consequences. If Flores Ramirez is released, he has an outstanding warrant in Benton County and would end up needing to face those charges too. [GN] FRUITFUL YIELD: Cromitie Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Fruitful Yield, Inc. The case is styled as Seana Cromitie, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. The Fruitful Yield, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-07677 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 29, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Fruitful Yield -- https://www.fruitfulyield.com/ -- is an e-commerce site that provides natural health products including vitamins, herbs, beauty, sports supplements.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: PeterPaul Elhamy Shaker, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 1 University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: pshaker@steinsakslegal.com GAMESTOP CORP: Abdulhadi Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- Ali Abdulhadi, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. GameStop Corp., Case No. 2:23-cv-07197 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 30, 2023), is brought to secure redress against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully and equally accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant’s denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiffs’ rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act ("UCRA"). The Plaintiff brings this civil rights action against Defendant to enforce Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("Title III"), which requires, among other things, that a public accommodation not deny persons with disabilities the benefits of its services, facilities, privileges and advantages; provide such persons with benefits that are equal to those provided to nondisabled persons; provide auxiliary aids and services--including electronic services for use with a computer screen reading program--where necessary to ensure effective communication with individuals with a visual disability, and to ensure that such persons are not excluded, denied services, segregated or otherwise treated differently than sighted individuals; and utilize administrative methods, practices, and policies that provide persons with disabilities equal access to online content. Because Defendant’s website, www.gamestop.com, (the "Website" or "Defendant’s website"), is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers in violation of the ADA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. The Defendant is a gaming store that offers the website www.gamestop.com to the public.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Sibilia, Esq. OCEANSIDE LAW CENTER APC P.O. Box 861 Oceanside, CA 92049 Phone: (760) 666-1151 Fax: (818) 698-0300 GOLD SHEEP: Faces Wurm Class Suit Over Telephonic Sales Calls ------------------------------------------------------------- CHARMING WURM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GOLD SHEEP, LLC, Case No. CACE-23-017313 (Fla. Cir., Aug. 22, 2023) alleges that the Defendant transmit a phone number that was not capable of receiving phone calls when it made Telephonic Sales Calls by text message, in violation of the Caller ID Rules of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act. Specifically, the Defendant transmitted (844) 399-7261 to the Plaintiff's Cell Phone's caller identification service when it made the Gold Sheep Text Message Sales Calls. The Plaintiff called (844) 399-7261 and call could not be completed, the Plaintiff claims. The Plaintiff and the members of the Plaintiff Class are entitled to $500 in liquidated damages against the Defendant for each violation of the Caller ID Rules, a declaration that the Defendant's actions violate the FTSA's Caller ID Rules, and an injunction requiring the Defendant to transmit to Plaintiffs' caller identification services a telephone number that is capable of receiving telephone calls, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of persons defined as: All persons and entities that reside in Florida whose Caller identification service was transmitted a telephone number that was not capable of receiving telephone calls when Gold Sheep Text Message Sales Calls were made to them, since July 1, 2021. The Plaintiff resides in Broward County, Florida, and is the regular user of a cellular telephone number that receives Defendant's telephonic sales calls. Gold Sheep sells various goods to persons throughout the country, including Florida, through its online store.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua A. Glickman, Esq. Shawn A. Heller, Esq. SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL 974 Howard Ave. Dunedin, FL 34698 Telephone: (202)709-5744 Facsimile: (866)893-0416 E-mail: josh@sjlawcollective.com shawn@sjlawcollective.com GOLDMAN SACHS (ASIA): Dimissal of Securities Suit Under Appeal -------------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2023, that its subsidiary Goldman Sachs (Asia) L.L.C. (GS Asia) is among the underwriters named as defendants in a putative securities class action filed on September 14, 2021 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York relating to Waterdrop Inc.'s $360 million May 2021 initial public offering of ADS. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Waterdrop and certain of its officers and directors. On May 15, 2023, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint with prejudice. GS Asia underwrote 15,300,000 ADS representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $184 million. On February 21, 2022, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, and on February 3, 2023, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On March 6, 2023, plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation, together with its consolidated subsidiaries, is a global financial institution that delivers a broad range of financial services to a large and diversified client base that includes corporations, financial institutions, governments and individuals. GOLDMAN SACHS: F45 IPO Securities Suit Ongoing ---------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2023, that its subsidiary Goldman Sachs and Co. (GS&Co.) is among the underwriters named as defendants in an amended complaint for a putative securities class action filed on May 19, 2023 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas relating to F45 Training Holdings Inc.'s (F45) approximately $350 million July 2021 initial public offering of common stock. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include F45, certain of its officers and directors and certain of its shareholders. GS&Co. acted as a qualified independent underwriter for the offering and underwrote 8,303,744 shares of common stock representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $133 million. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation, together with its consolidated subsidiaries, is a global financial institution that delivers a broad range of financial services to a large and diversified client base that includes corporations, financial institutions, governments and individuals. GOOGLE LLC: Calif. Judge Set to Decertify Google Play Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that a U.S. judge plans to free Google from having to defend against a class action by 21 million consumers who claimed it violated federal antitrust law by overcharging them in its Google Play app store. The Aug. 28 decision by U.S. District Judge James Donato in San Francisco could significantly reduce damages that Google, a unit of Alphabet (GOOGL.O), might owe over the distribution of Android mobile applications. Consumers claimed they would have paid less for apps and enjoyed expanded choice but for Google's alleged monopoly. Google has denied wrongdoing. Donato said his Nov. 2022 class certification order should be thrown out because his decision, also announced on Aug. 28, not to let an economist testify as an expert witness for the consumers eliminated an "essential element" of their argument for certification. The judge said he couldn't decertify the class immediately because Google had been appealing his November order. He directed lawyers for Google and the consumers to try resolving that issue before a Sept. 7 hearing. The class action included consumers from 12 U.S. states and five territories, who were not part of a similar case against Google brought by various state attorneys general. Class actions let plaintiffs sue as a group, and potentially obtain larger recoveries at lower cost than if they were forced to sue individually. Lawyers for the consumers did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Google and its lawyers did not immediately respond to similar requests. The case is part of wide-ranging antitrust litigation that includes 38 states and the District of Columbia, and companies including Epic Games and Match Group (MTCH.O). The case is In re Google Play Store Antitrust Litigation, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, No. 21-md-02981. [GN] GORES GUGGENHEIM: Breaches Fiduciary Duty, May Class Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- TERRY MAY, ELIZABETH MAY, VIRGIL ECOFFEY, and TERRY JANDREAU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GORES GUGGENHEIM SPONSOR LLC, ALEC E. GORES, ANDREW M. ROSENFIELD, MARK R. STONE, ANDREW MCBRIDE, RANDALL BORT, ELIZABETH MARCELLINO, NANCY TELLEM, AEG HOLDINGS, LLC, GGP SPONSOR HOLDINGS, LLC, and GG SPONSOR, LLC, Case No. 2023-0863 (Del. Ch., Aug. 22, 2023) is a verified class action complaint on behalf of the Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated former stockholders of Gores Guggenheim, Inc. ("GGI") who were entitled to redeem their shares in connection with GGI's merger with Legacy Polestar Defendants. The Plaintiffs assert breach of fiduciary duty claims arising from the Merger and unjust enrichment claims against all Defendants and seek monetary and/or rescissory damages against Defendants for their breaches of fiduciary duty owed to GGI stockholders arising out of the deprivation of their right to a fully informed decision whether to redeem their GGI shares or to invest in the Merger. Alternatively, the action seeks an equitable reopening of the redemption window for public stockholders who purchased GGI stock, were entitled to redeem their shares, and continue to hold such stock, to allow such Polestar stockholders to exchange their GGI Class A shares (now Polestar shares) for $10 per share, plus interest. Plaintiffs Terry May and Elizabeth May have continuously held, and been the beneficial owners of, GGI stock since June 10, 2022, including prior to the redemption deadline, and were entitled to redeem their GGI shares. Plaintiff Virgil Ecoffey has continuously held, and been the beneficial owner of, GGI stock since September 29, 2021, including prior to the redemption deadline, and was entitled to redeem his GGI shares. Plaintiff Terry Jandreau has held, and been the beneficial owner of, GGI stock since November 18, 2021, including prior to the redemption deadline, and was entitled to redeem his GGI shares. Defendant Sponsor is a Delaware limited liability company and an affiliate of The Gores Group, LLC. The Sponsor was incorporated in 2020 and is based in Boulder, Colorado. The Legacy Polestar Defendants include Automotive Holding Limited, Polestar Automotive Pte. Ltd., Polestar Holding AB, Polestar Automotive Holding UK Limited, and PAH UK Merger Sub Inc., The Controller Defendants formed GGI, then a Delaware company and now a foreign company renamed Polestar, as a special purpose acquisition company. The Controller Defendants took GGI public as a shell company and subsequently merged it with private company Legacy Polestar in the Merger.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael J. Barry, Esq. Kelly L. Tucker, Esq. David Wissbroecker, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. 123 Justison Street, 7th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 622-7000 Facsimile: (302) 622-7100 E-mail: mbarry@gelaw.com ktucker@gelaw.com - and - Brian J. Robbins, Esq. Gregory E. Del Gaizo, Esq. Mario D. Valdovinos, Esq. Randall J. Baron, Esq. Benny C. Goodman III, Esq. Erik W. Luedeke, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 5060 Shoreham Place, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92122 Telephone: (619) 525-3990 - and - Michael Klausner, Esq. 559 Nathon Abbott Way Stanford, CA 94305 Telephone: (650) 740-1194 E-mail: klausner@stanford.edu HARLEY-DAVIDSON: Zariczny Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Frederick Zariczny, on behalf of himself, all other similarly situated, and the general public v. HARLEY-DAVIDSON, INC., a Wisconsin corporation, and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV12316 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Aug. 30, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-07188. On behalf of himself and the putative class, Plaintiff asserts claims for: Strict Products Liability — Design Defect — Consumer Expectation; Strict Products Liability — Design Defect — Risk-Benefit; Strict Products Liability — Design Defect — Failure to Warn; Products Liability — Negligence; Express Warranty; Implied Warranty of Merchantability; Implied Warranty of Fitness for Particular Purpose; Unfair Business Practices; and Consumer Legal Remedies Act.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Dommond E. Lonnie, Esq. Abirami Gnanadesigan, Esq. DYKEMA GOSSETT LLP 444 South Flower Street, Suite 2200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 457-1800 Facsimile: (213) 457-1850 Email: DLonnie@dykema.com AGnanadesigan@dykema.com HCA HEALTHCARE: Warren Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII & PHI --------------------------------------------------------------- Lisa Warren, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HCA Healthcare, Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-00925 (M.D. Tenn., Aug. 30, 2023), is brought arises out of the Defendant’s failure to safeguard the Personally Identifiable Information ("PII") and Protected Health Information ("PHI") (together, "Private Information") of the patients from hospitals and physician groups that it owned or operated. The Defendant’s failure to safeguard information resulted in unauthorized access to its information systems on or around July 2023, and the compromised and unauthorized disclosure of that Private Information, causing widespread injury and damages to Plaintiff and the proposed Class members. As a result of this data breach ("Breach"), the Private Information of patients at hospitals and medical facilities owned or operated by Defendant, were stolen and "made available by an unknown and unauthorized party on an online forum." The list of information exposed from the breach includes: "Patient name, city, state and zip code; Patient email, telephone number, date of birth, gender; and Patient service date, location and next appointment date." The Defendant’s investigation concluded, "that the list contains 27 million rows of data that includes information for approximately 11 million HCA Healthcare patients." As a result of Defendant’s failure to safeguard Plaintiff’s and Class members Private Information, Plaintiff and Class members now face a lifetime risk of identity theft due to the nature of the information lost, and a diminution in the value of their private data, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a patient of Grand Strand Medical Center which is an affected facility listed in Defendant’s Data Security Incident announcement. The Defendant is a healthcare organization "comprised of 182 hospitals and 2,300+ sites of care in 20 states and the United Kingdom."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Blake G Abbott, Esq. Paul Doolittle, Esq. POULIN WILLEY & ANASTOPOULO 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Phone: (803) 222-2222 Email: blake@akimlawfirm.com pauld@akimlawfirm.com - and - Mark P. Chalos, Esq. Kenneth S. Byrd, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 222 2nd Ave S #1640 Nashville, TN 37201 Phone: 615-313-9000 Email: mchalos@lchb.com kbyrd@lchb.com - and - Jason L. Lichtman, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLC 250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10013-1314 Phone: 212-355-9500 Email: jlichtman@lchb.com - and - Michael W. Sobol, Esq. Jalle H. Dafa, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLC 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 Phone: 415-956-1000 Email: msobol@lchb.com jdafa@lchb.com HEILIND ELECTRONICS: Hess Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ Iedia Hess, other similarly situated persons employed v. HEILIND ELECTRONICS, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-07200 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 31, 2023), is brought under the California IWC Wage Order No. 4 or a substantially similar Wage Order and the California Labor Code as a result of the Defendants failure to pay minimum wage and overtime work. The Plaintiff was told when hired that the position would not include overtime. However, after she started working for the Defendant, she was given a workload that could only be completed with overtime work. She therefore worked longer than usual hours, including more than 8 hours in a day and more than 40 hours in a week. the Defendant told the Plaintiff that the company did not pay overtime and that overtime would be volunteering for the company. This reflects an intentional and willful failure of the company to pay wages in compliance with the law. The Plaintiff was routinely required to present for work about 30 minutes before the official starting time, and was not paid for working and being available during such times. The Plaintiff routinely worked overtime, putting in 60 hours per week at times. Yet, she was only paid for 40 hours of work per week. the Plaintiff was repeatedly called and required to do work during her unpaid 30-minute meal period, but was not paid for the work performed during that time nor paid a premium as required by California law for non-compliance with meal period rules in the Cal. Labor Code and Industrial Wage Orders. the Defendant not only failed to pay the overtime rate for overtime hours worked, but failed to pay anything at all for such hours. In this way the Defendant violated both the overtime and minimum wage rules, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt employee paid by the hour. Heilind Electronics is one of the world's leading distributors for interconnect, electromechanical, and sensor products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clayeo C. Arnold, Esq. Joshua H. Watson, Esq. CLAYEO C. ARNOLD, PC 865 Howe Avenue Sacramento, CA 95825 Phone: (916) 777-7777 Facsimile: (916) 924-1829 Email: jwatson@justice4you.com HENSEL PHELPS: Trochez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Claudia Trochez, individually, and on behalf of all other aggrieved employees v. HENSEL PHELPS CONSTRUCTION CO., a Colorado Corporation; HENSEL PHELPS DEVELOPMENT, LLC, a Delaware Company; HENSEL PHELPS PARENT 1 INC., a Delaware Corporation; HENSEL PHELPS PARENT 2 INC., a Delaware Corporation; HENSEL PHELPS SERVICES, LLC a Delaware Company; and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV21068 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles cty., Aug. 31, 2023), is brought seeking penalties under Labor Code for failure to pay minimum wages and overtime wages. The Defendants violated various provisions of the California Labor Code. The Defendants implemented policies and practices which led to unpaid wages resulting from Defendant's: failure to accurately pay overtime wages, failure to pay minimum wages; failure to provide meal periods before the end of the fifth hour worked and failure to pay an additional hour's of pay in lieu of providing a meal period before the end of the fifth hour worked; failure to authorize and permit rest breaks for every four hours or major fraction thereof worked and failure to pay an additional hour's of pay in lieu of providing a rest period; failing to pay all wages earned and owed upon separation from Defendant's employ; and failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements; knowingly and intentionally failing to maintain accurate and complete records; and failure to indemnify for necessary business expenses, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed as General Foreman. Plaintiff's duties as a General Foreman included making timesheets, work plans, transporting employees, and ensuring the safety of Printed on recycled paper. HENSEL PHELPS DEVELOPMENT, LLC is a Delaware Company operating in and authorized to conduct business in the State of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ronald W. Makarem, Esq. Samuel Almon, Esq. Daniel J. Bass, Esq. MAKAREM & ASSOCIATES APLC 11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2440 Los Angeles, CA 90025-1760 Phone: (310) 312-0299 Fax: (310) 312-0296 HILTON HOTELS: SCOTUS to Take Up Issue of Fail-Safe Classes ----------------------------------------------------------- Alison Frankel of Reuters reports that in almost every federal appellate circuit in the U.S., class action plaintiffs who try to premise their class definition on a defendant's liability will be bounced out of court without a backward glance. That's because most circuits categorically prohibit so-called fail-safe classes, in which class membership is based on wrongdoing by the defendant. The easiest way to understand the concept is by example. In a securities class action, for instance, a fail-safe class would be defined as "all investors who were defrauded by Company X." Class membership, as you can see, rests on the merits of the allegations against Company X. The problem with such circular classes is that they leave defendants open to follow-on litigation. Consider the fail-safe investor class suing Company X in my example above. Let's say Company X litigates the class action all the way to a judgment that it is not liable for fraud. Great for Company X, right? But not as great as you might think. That's because, under the fail-safe class definition, the judgment in favor of Company X means that no Company X investors are actually class members. And that, in turn, means that no investors, except for the name plaintiffs in the class action, are bound by Company X's exoneration. Despite prevailing on its liability in the class action, Company X might nevertheless have to fend off a succession of suits by individual investors who would have been in the class if the company had been found liable. For defendants, in other words, fail-safe classes are a lose-lose proposition, which is why most appellate courts have adopted a free-standing rule to bar them. Only two federal circuits have refused to endorse a categorical prohibition on fail-safe classes: the 5th Circuit, in a 2012 case involving servicing fees levied against bankrupt mortgage holders, and the District of Columbia Circuit, in a ruling last April in a retirement benefits case against Hilton Hotels. Hilton (HLT.N) has now asked the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the issue of fail-safe classes, which it says is of "exceptional legal importance." The hotel chain's lawyers at Simpson Thacher & Bartlett argued in an Aug. 21 petition for Supreme Court review that unless the justices resolve the split, prospective class action plaintiffs will be incentivized to shop for a forum where they can win certification of a class that, by definition, gives plaintiffs a second chance to sue defendants who win liability judgments. The plaintiffs' lawyer in the Hilton retirement benefits case, Stephen Bruce of the Stephen R. Bruce Law Offices, did not respond to a phone message requesting comment. Hilton also did not respond to my query. I predicted back in April, when I told you about the D.C. Circuit's ruling, that Hilton might ask for Supreme Court review. I also said, however, that the appellate judges in Hilton's case -- Patricia Millett, Sri Srinivasan and Harry Edwards – downplayed the significance of their holding that fail-safe classes are not categorically prohibited. Millett's opinion stressed that the federal procedural rule for class actions, Rule 23, already includes requirements that will preclude certification of almost every proposed fail-safe class. She and her colleagues said it was preferable to apply Rule 23 as written rather than to deploy a free-standing prohibition that is "textually untethered and potentially disuniform." That language, I said, might discourage the Supreme Court from taking the case. But Hilton has offered the justices an alternative reason to grant review: The D.C. Circuit, it argued, should not have allowed plaintiffs to appeal the trial court decision denying class certification because their lawyer failed to seek interlocutory appeal after two previous rejections. Hilton's petition asserted that plaintiffs' third bid for class certification was not materially different than their second rejected motion. And the third class-certification ruling from U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly of Washington, D.C., Hilton said, was not much different than her second decision, which said the class was impermissibly defined as a fail-safe class. The D.C. Circuit concluded that plaintiffs hadn't surrendered their right to seek an interlocutory appeal by waiting until the third go-round because Kollar-Kotelly had explicitly invited their lawyer to try to reformulate the class definition. Only in her third ruling, the appeals court said, did the trial judge definitively shut the door on further attempts to certify the class, so it would have been premature for the plaintiffs to appeal before then. Hilton told the Supreme Court that the D.C. Circuit's analysis is at odds with decisions from other circuits that have refused to allow plaintiffs to seek interlocutory appeals based on successive class certification decisions. Those appellate courts, including the 3rd, 7th and 9th Circuits, have said that plaintiffs can't be allowed a new chance at an appeal every time the trial court denies a renewed motion for class certification. The 7th Circuit laid down a categorical rule against such appeals in a 2007 decision, concluding that "the time limit would not be worth anything if it restarted with each new motion." The 9th Circuit, in a 2020 ruling, held that class action litigants may only appeal successive trial court decisions on class certification when the new ruling materially changes the status quo – by granting certification after a previous denial, for instance, or by changing the composition of the class. Most recently, the 3rd Circuit aligned earlier this month with the 9th Circuit, writing that plaintiffs are allowed to seek interlocutory class certification appeals "only when the modified order materially alters the original order granting (or denying) class certification." Hilton said that on this issue, as well as the fail-safe class prohibition, the Supreme Court must step in to be sure that federal appeals courts are all on the same page. The justices have been stingy about reviewing class action issues of late, refusing to resolve a clear circuit split on incentive fees for lead plaintiffs and to take up the issue of whether classes can be certified if more than a handful of class members have not been injured. We'll see if Hilton can reverse that trend. [GN] HIMS HEALTH: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hims Health And Wellness. The case is styled as Kevin Yan Luis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Hims Health And Wellness, Case No. 1:23-cv-07650-AT (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 29, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Hims -- https://www.forhims.com/ -- is a one-stop telehealth service for men's wellness and care, providing treatment options for hair loss, ED & 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 HOLTGER BROS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Heesacker Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- JACK HEESACKER, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HOLTGER BROS., INC., Defendant, Case No. 23-cv-1134 (E.D. Wis., Aug. 28, 2023) is an action against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, provide meals, and provide accurate wage statements. Plaintiff Heesacker was employed by the Defendant as a laborer. HOLTGER BROS., INC. was founded in 1946 and is a family owned and operated turnkey utility contractor. David C. Zoeller, Esq. Aaron J. Bibb, Esq. HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C. Post Office Box 2155 Madison, Wisconsin 53701-2155 Telephone: (608) 257-0040 Facsimile: (608) 256-0236 Email: dzoeller@hq-law.com abibb@hq-law.com HOSPITALITY STAFFING: Faces Data Breach Class Action Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Anne Bucher, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that plaintiff Joshua Cariola filed a class action lawsuit against Hospitality Staffing Solutions LLC. Why: The staffing company allegedly failed to implement adequate safeguards to protect sensitive employee data, leaving it vulnerable to a cyberattack. Where: The Hospitality Staffing Solutions lawsuit was filed in Georgia federal court. Hospitality Staffing Solutions LLC is facing a class action lawsuit in the wake of a targeted cyberattack that allegedly compromised the highly employee data of more than 100,000 employees and former employees. The information compromised in the data breach includes personally identifying information (PII) such as names, addresses, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, and financial account information, the Hospitality Staffing Solutions lawsuit explains. Hospitality Staffing Solutions lawsuit says company failed to adequately protect employee data Plaintiff Joshua Cariola claims that Hospitality Staffing Solutions maintained its computer system and network in a manner that left it vulnerable to cyber attacks and failed to take steps to protect employees' PII from a potential data breach. By failing to adequately protect employees' PII, the staffing company failed to comply with industry standards and with Federal Trade Commission guidelines for data security practices, Cariola alleges. "Armed with the private information accessed in the data breach, data thieves can commit a variety of crimes" in the putative class members' names, such as opening bank accounts, taking out loans, obtaining medical services, filing fraudulent tax returns, and giving false information to police during arrest, the Hospitality Staffing Solutions lawsuit says. As a result, those affected by the Hospitality Staffing Solutions data breach have suffered and will continue to suffer injuries such as "loss of time, mitigation expenses, and anxiety" over the potential misuse of their PII, Cariola alleges. Plaintiff says he lost time and money due to Hospitality Staffing Solutions data breach Cariola says he received a letter from Hospitality Staffing Solutions dated August 1 informing him about the data breach, in which unauthorized actors reportedly accessed employees' PII during a cyberattack between March 2 and June 2. The letter notified him that he could reach out to the Federal Trade Commission and/or his state's attorney general for more information about how to protect himself from identity theft. On June 22, Cariola says he found out $1,500 had been deducted from an account that he provided to the staffing company in order to receive his pay. To date, he says he has not been reimbursed for this money, and he has spent significant time and money dealing with the harms posed by the data breach. The Hospitality Staffing Solutions lawsuit asserts claims for negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and breach of fiduciary duty. Has your personal information been compromised in a data breach? Tell us what you think about this Hospitality Staffing Solutions lawsuit in the comments! Cariola is represented by James M. Evangelista of Evangelista Worley LLC and Carl V. Malstrom of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLC. The Hospitality Staffing Solutions lawsuit is Joshua Cariola v. Hospitality Staffing Solutions LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-03689-AT, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division. [GN] HOT TOPIC: Faces Zuccaro Class Suit Over Fake Limited Time Sales ---------------------------------------------------------------- JAMIE ZUCCARO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HOT TOPIC, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-01242-MO (D. Or., Aug. 25, 2023) alleges that the Defendant advertises fake sales, fake list prices, and fake limited time sales, in violation of the Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Act. By advertising regular list prices and supposedly time-limited discounts, the Defendant's website creates an illusion that consumers are receiving a limited-time discount if they buy now. In truth, however, the Defendant's Products are always on sale, and these sales persist indefinitely. Everything about the Defendant's price and purported discount advertising is false. The list prices Defendant advertises are not actually the Defendant's regular prices (the prices it usually charges), because the Defendant's Products are always available for less than that, the Plaintiff says. As a result, the Defendant's listed prices are not the Defendant's true prices, or former prices, or the prevailing market prices for the Defendant's Products. Nor are its purported price reductions true price reductions. The Plaintiff and Oregon Subclass members would not have purchased the Products at the prices they paid, if they had known that the advertised prices and discounts were false, the suit asserts. The Plaintiff seeks, on behalf of herself and the Oregon Subclass, the greater of statutory damages of $200 or actual damages; punitive damages; appropriate equitable relief and/or restitution; and attorneys' fees and costs. Ms. Zuccaro bought items from the Defendant from its website, HotTopic.com Hot Topic makes, sells, and markets clothing and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Grace Bennett, Esq. Jonas Jacobson, Esq. Christin Cho, Esq. Simon Franzini, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 656-7066 E-mail: jonas@dovel.com christin@dovel.com simon@dovel.com grace@dovel.com IMMUNITYBIO INC: Salzman Suit Over Anti-Tumor Drug Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------------- ImmunityBio, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2023, that on June 30, 2023, a putative securities class action complaint, captioned "Salzman v. ImmunityBio, Inc. et al.," No. 3:23-cv-01216-BEN-WVG, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California against the company and three of its officers and/or directors, asserting violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Stemming from the company's disclosure on May 11, 2023 that it had received a Complete Response Letter from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA CRL) stating, among other things, that it could not approve the company's (Biologics License Application) BLA for its product candidate, "Anktiva" in combination with BCG for the treatment of patients with BCG-unresponsive NMIBC with CIS with or without Ta or T1 disease, in its present form due to deficiencies related to its pre-license inspection of the company's third-party CMOs, the complaint alleges that the defendants had previously made materially false and misleading statements and/or omitted material adverse facts regarding its third-party clinical manufacturing organizations and the prospects for regulatory approval of the BLA. ImmunityBio, Inc. is a clinical-stage biotechnology company developing next-generation therapies and vaccines that complement, harness, and amplify the immune system to defeat cancers and infectious diseases. We strive to be a vertically-integrated immunotherapy company designing and manufacturing our products so they are more effective, accessible, more conveniently stored, and more easily administered to patients. INFOCISION INC: Williams Suit Seeks OT Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------- ANGELA WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. INFOCISION INC., Case No. 5:23-cv-01633 (N.D. Ohio, Aug. 22, 2023) alleges that the Defendant failed to pay its Call Center Representative and Communicators for all work performed and for hours worked in excess of 40 per week, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant does not compensate its CCRs for all work performed. Instead, the Defendant requires its CCRs to perform compensable work tasks before their scheduled shifts when they are not logged into the Defendant's timekeeping system. In particular, the Defendant required its CCRs to begin work before their scheduled shifts and perform several off-the-clock tasks, including booting up computers, logging into numerous software programs, and logging into phones. The CCRs only clocked in and received compensation after this preliminary work was completed, though they were required to perform this work in order to be "phone ready" when their scheduled shifts began, the lawsuit asserts. Despite its ability to track the amount of time the Plaintiff and other CCRs spend in connection with the pre-shift boot-up and login process and technical downtime, the Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff and other CCRs for the off-the-clock work they performed each shift, thus breaching its contracts with its CCRs, the lawsuit alleges. The CCRs who elect to participate in this FLSA collective action seek compensation for all off-the-clock, pre-shift work performed for the Defendant, and for all hours worked in excess of 40 per week, an equal amount for liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiff Angela Williams worked for the Defendant as an hourly remote CCR from October 2021 until August 2023. The Defendant provides a full spectrum of direct marketing services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew L. Turner, Esq. Kathryn E. Milz, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 E-mail: mturner@sommerspc.com INSURANCE CORP: Customer Sues Over Third-Party Rebate Coverage -------------------------------------------------------------- Susan Lazaruk, writing for Vancouver Sun, reports that an ICBC customer has launched a class-action lawsuit for a rebate of third-party liability premiums paid for out-of-province coverage during the period British Columbians couldn't leave the province because of the COVID lockdown. The Insurance Corp. of B.C. was negligent and "unjustly enriched" itself by collecting those premiums for out-of-province coverage for May 1, 2021, to July 1, 2021, according to the lawsuit filed in B.C. Supreme Court. The insurer "caused the plaintiff and the proceeding class to pay to ICBC for an insurance product which did not exist," alleged the lawsuit, filed on behalf of 2.5 million insured drivers. The lawsuit has to be certified as a class action by the courts before it can proceed. ICBC has yet to file its response, but in an emailed statement said it's "simply untrue" there were no liability risks for B.C. drivers during those two months. B.C. law requires drivers to carry third-party liability coverage, it added. The representative plaintiff, Erik Watson-Hurthig of Vancouver, wants ICBC to return the $40 he paid for third-party premiums for those two months, beginning when ICBC introduced no-fault insurance on May 1, 2021, and ending with the return of non-essential travel, on July 1, 2021. Under B.C.'s no-fault insurance, B.C. drivers no longer require third-party liability insurance to protect themselves from being sued for causing an accident against another B.C. driver because B.C.-insured drivers can no longer sue one another. But third-party insurance is still necessary when British Columbians drive in some U.S. states and other parts of Canada where the possibility of lawsuits continue, or for the possibility the driver damages property other than another vehicle in or out of B.C. Mandatory basic insurance for B.C. drivers includes a minimum of $200,000 in third-party liability and extended coverage up to $5 million is optional for a higher premium. Watson-Hurthig paid $220 in 2021 for 12 months of third-party liability coverage, or about $20 a month, his lawyer, Nathan McQuarrie said in an email. The claim said non-essential travel was restricted in B.C. from March 19, 2020, until June 15, 2021, by ministerial orders and that from June 15, 2021, to July 1, 2021, "recreational travel outside B.C. was not permitted." It said travel restrictions were also imposed by the Canadian and U.S. governments. "As a result of the travel restrictions during the restricted period, ICBC was charging premiums for third-party liability coverage that could not be used by any ICBC insureds during the restricted period," the claim says. The claim said Watson-Hurthig expected ICBC to refund that portion of his premiums, but a year later, in May 2022, "no such rebate arrived." "The plaintiff did not need to pay the premiums as there existed no reason to maintain third-party coverage during the period in which he could not leave the territorial boundaries of British Columbia," it said. "However, ICBC charged the plaintiff premiums for third-party liability coverage for bodily injury and property damage, when it was impossible for the plaintiff to be liable for third-party damages under B.C.'s no-fault regime." McQuarrie said there are 2.5 million potential class members based on B.C. residents who paid premiums for those two months and did not operate a vehicle outside of B.C. between May 1, 2021, and July 1, 2021. The claim said in addition to a rebate for the premiums paid, which would vary for individual drivers depending on their age and driving record and if they opted for extended coverage, it was seeking damages for ICBC's alleged negligence and breach of contract as well as punitive damages. McQuarrie said those amounts can vary. ICBC said in its email it issued two rebates for a total of $950 million to drivers to offset the reduction of risks caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, including travel restrictions. And there were times when some B.C. drivers were allowed to leave the province in their vehicles during the pandemic and they would have needed third-party liability coverage for those trips, it said. [GN] INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Sued Over Faulty System -------------------------------------------- Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2023, that it is facing a class action filed on December 18, 2015, where a former individual customer filed a purported complaint against IB LLC, IBG, Inc., and Thomas Frank, Ph.D., the company's Executive Vice President and Chief Information Officer, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. The complaint alleges that a purported class of IB LLC's customers were harmed by alleged "flaws" in the computerized system used to close out (i.e., liquidate) positions in customer brokerage accounts that have margin deficiencies. The complaint seeks, among other things, undefined compensatory damages and declaratory and injunctive relief. On September 28, 2016, the District Court issued an order granting the company's motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety, and without providing plaintiff leave to amend. On September 28, 2017, the plaintiff appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On September 26, 2018, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff's claims of breach of contract and commercially unreasonable liquidation but vacated and remanded back to the District Court plaintiff's claims for negligence. On November 30, 2018, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. The company filed a motion to dismiss the new complaint on January 11, 2019, which was denied on September 30, 2019. On December 9, 2019, the company filed a motion requesting that the District Court certify to the Connecticut Supreme Court two questions of Connecticut law directly relevant to the motion to dismiss. The Court denied the company's motion to certify on May 15, 2020. The plaintiff served a motion for class certification on March 18, 2022. The motion is now fully briefed. The court has not yet set a date for oral argument. On March 25, 2022, the plaintiff also filed a motion for leave to amend his complaint, which was granted on July 5, 2022. The plaintiff filed his third amended complaint on July 14, 2022. The company's answer was filed on July 26, 2022. Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. is a Delaware holding company whose primary asset is its ownership of approximately 24.8% of the membership interests of IBG LLC, which, in turn, owns operating subsidiaries. IBG, Inc. together with IBG LLC and its consolidated subsidiaries, is an automated global electronic broker specializing in executing and clearing trades in stocks, options, futures, foreign exchange instruments, bonds, mutual funds exchange-traded funds and precious metals on more than 150 electronic exchanges and market centers around the world and offering custody, prime brokerage, securities and margin lending services to customers. KAISER FOUNDATION: Mercado Sues Over Unpaid Proper Compensations ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bert Mercado, individually and on behalf of all other Aggrieved Employees v. KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS, a Nonprofit Corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV20894 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Aug. 30, 2023), is brought pursuant to the California Labor Code as a result of the Defendants failure to pay the Plaintiff proper compensations. The Defendants failed to provide employment records in violation of Labor Code; failed to pay overtime and double time in violation of Labor Code and the applicable Wage Orders; failed to provide rest and meal periods in violation of Labor Code, and the applicable Wage Orders; failed to pay minimum wage in violation of Labor Code, and the applicable Wage Orders; failed to keep accurate payroll records and provide itemized wage statements in violation of Labor Code, and the applicable Wage Orders, failed to pay reporting time wages in violation of California Code of Regulations, Title 8; failed to pay split shift wages in violation of California Code of Regulations failed to pay all wages earned on time in violation of Labor Code; failed to pay all wages earned upon discharge or resignation in violation of Labor Code; failed to reimburse necessary, business related expenses in violation of Labor Code; failed to provide notice of paid sick time and accrual in violation of Labor Code; employers, and individuals acting on behalf of employers, violating or causing to be violated a section of the Labor Code or any Wage Order in violation of Labor Code, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants with the job title of Registered Nurse on May 5, 2008. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals is a Nonprofit Corporation, licensed to do business and actually doing business in the State of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq. Melissa Robinson, Esq. HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN LAWYERS, APC 801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 970 Glendale, CA 91203 Phone: 1-818-696-2306 Facsimile: 1-818-696-2307 Email: haig@hbklawyers.com melissa@hbklawyers.com KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Court Narrows Claims in Securities Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Kandi Technologies Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2023, that a motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part in September 2022. Discovery is ongoing as to the remaining claims and defendants. This is in regards to a June 2020 putative securities class action was filed against Kandi and certain of its current and former directors and officers in California federal court. This action was transferred to the New York federal court in September 2020, Kandi moved to dismiss in March 2021, and that motion was granted in October 2021. The plaintiff in this case subsequently filed an amended complaint, Kandi moved to dismiss that complaint in January 2022. Kandi Technologies Group, Inc. is a producer and manufacturer of electric vehicle products, EV parts, and off-road vehicles for sale in the Chinese and the global markets. It is headquartered in Jinhua City, Zhejiang Province, People's Republic of China and conducts its primary business operations through its wholly-owned subsidiaries, Zhejiang Kandi Vehicles Co., Ltd. and SC Autosports, LLC and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Kandi America Investment, LLC. KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Seeks Dismissal of Shareholder Suit ------------------------------------------------------- Kandi Technologies Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2023, that it moved to dismiss a December 2020 putative securities class action filed against Kandi and certain of its current officers in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.in February 2022. Said motion remains pending. The complaint generally alleges violations of the federal securities laws based on claims made in a report issued by Hindenburg Research in November 2020, and seeks damages on behalf of a putative class of shareholders who purchased or acquired Kandi’s securities prior to March 15, 2019. Kandi Technologies Group, Inc. is a producer and manufacturer of electric vehicle products, EV parts, and off-road vehicles for sale in the Chinese and the global markets. It is headquartered in Jinhua City, Zhejiang Province, People's Republic of China and conducts its primary business operations through its wholly-owned subsidiaries, Zhejiang Kandi Vehicles Co., Ltd. and SC Autosports, LLC and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Kandi America Investment, LLC. KANKAKEE HOSPITALITY: Karnes Files Rule 23 Class Certification Bid ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERICA KARNES, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated individuals, v. KANKAKEE HOSPITALITY, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Case No. 2:22-cv-02253-CSB-EIL (C.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff files motion for Rule 23 Class Certification. The proposed classes are ascertainable, sufficiently numerous, and satisfy commonality, typicality, and adequacy requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), and otherwise satisfy the predominance and superiority requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3), the Plaintiff contends. Within the past 5 years Defendant has required at least 195 of its employees, including Plaintiff, to scan their fingers on a Timeco Systems biometric timekeeping device ("Timeco device") for the purpose of monitoring and maintaining the amount of time worked by these individuals. However, prior to collecting, using, possessing, and/or obtaining this biometric information and/or biometric identifiers (biometrics), the Defendant failed to first obtain written consent from Plaintiff and all other employees who were required to scan their fingerprints on the Timeco device. The Complaint alleges that Defendant committed violations of Illinois law under the Illinois Biometric Privacy Act. The Defendant operates the Hilton Garden Inn - a hotel located in Kankakee, Illinois. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 15, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OUZPVf at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jordan Richards, Esq. USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS - JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC 1800 SE 10th Ave. Suite 205 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Telephone: (954) 871-0050 E-mail: jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com natalie@usaemploymentlawyers.com lawclerk@usaemploymentlawyers.co The Defendant is represented by: Matthew L. Mcbride III, Esq. 161 N. Clark, Suite 1600 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (847) 394-3300 E-mail: mmcbride@mcbridelawpc.com KERN COUNTY, CA: Parties May Amend Settlement Deal in T.G. Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as T.G. et al., v. KERN COUNTY, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00257-CDB (E.D. Cal.), the Court entered an order on stipulated request to amended final approval order and modify settlement agreement as follows: -- The Court grants the parties' stipulated request to modify the class action settlement agreement to the extent of incorporating the Second Addendum and the set extended timetable. -- Likewise, the Court finds that the settlement agreement remains fundamentally fair, adequate and reasonable, with the incorporation of the parties' proposed amendment. The case involves a governmental participant, and implementation of the Schools Plan is a vital component of the injunctive relief sought by the Plaintiffs. On June 5, 2020, the Court granted final approval of the parties' proposed class action settlements and granted Plaintiffs' motion for fees and costs. On June 5, 2020, the Court granted final approval of the parties' proposed class action settlements and granted Plaintiffs' motion for fees and costs. Kern is a county located in the U.S. state of California and spans the southern end of the Central Valley. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 15, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47VLVe7 at no extra charge.[CC] LEBANON VALLEY: Fails to Refund Tuition Fees, Alunni Says --------------------------------------------------------- DOMINIC ALUNNI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LEBANON VALLEY COLLEGE, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-01424-CCC (M.D. Pa., Aug. 25, 2023) is a class action for damages and restitution resulting from the Defendant's retention of the tuition and fees paid by the Plaintiff and the other putative Class members for in-person education and services not being provided. According to the complaint, on March 2020, in response to the outbreak of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, the virus that causes the COVID-19 disease, the Defendant, like many other colleges and universities, transitioned to remote online-only education, canceled on-campus recreational events, canceled student activity events, and ordered students to refrain from going on campus. As a result, all on-campus education, services, and amenities were no longer available to Defendant's students for the remainder of the Spring 2020 semester. Accordingly, the Defendant's students lost the benefits of the bargain for services and the experience they paid for but could no longer access or use following the school’s transition to remote learning in March 2020, says the suit. By not giving prorated refunds for tuition or fees charged for on-campus education and services not provided, the Defendant breached its contracts with its students or was otherwise unjustly enriched. It is unfair and unlawful for the Defendant to retain tuition and fees for campus-based in-person education and services not being provided and to pass the financial losses on to its students, the suit asserts. LEBANON VALLEY COLLEGE is a private college founded in 1866. LVC is composed of three colleges that offer dozens of major fields for undergraduate students, as well as a number of graduate programs. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary F. Lynch, Esq. Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq. Nicholas A. Colella, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 Facsimile: (412) 231-0246 Email: gary@lcllp.com jamisen@lcllp.com nickc@lcllp.com MARATHON PETROLEUM: Law Firm to File Class Suit After Refinery Fire ------------------------------------------------------------------- Gina Swanson, writing for WDSU News, reports that a local law firm is drafting a class-action suit against Marathon. Attorneys with Wright and Gray say they have received at least 50 calls after the refinery fire in Garyville. There is also a leak of the toxic chemical naphtha. "We have heard several people say that they're starting to have some respiratory issues and issues with their eyes and things of that nature. All of the stuff that comes with a chemical exposure," said attorney Daryl Gray. His firm is trying to determine the legal exposure for Marathon after a chemical leak and large fire sent black smoke plumes into the air. Gray says with cases like this it's better to take action sooner rather than later "Legal action needs to take place quickly, because you want to preserve whatever evidence is out there to make sure we can tell the full story," Gray said. Beyond health concerns, Gray says the fire impacted people's livelihoods with evacuations and closures near the refinery for several hours. "Whenever you have a situation like this that requires evacuation and or area to be shut down, you're going to have concerns from business owners in the area losing profits." The firm is still on a fact-finding mission for now to get to the bottom of how the fire started and if it was preventable. "We don't know what brought this whole situation about, but it comes from some form of negligence," Gray said. His firm is working on a petition for damages that should be filed in the coming days. Officials from Marathon maintain there were no off-site impacts from the fire. We reached out to them about the potential legal action. So far the company has not responded. [GN] MAXIMUS INC: Fails to Protect Patients' Info, Valiente Says ----------------------------------------------------------- Heriberto Valiente, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Maximus, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-23281 (S.D. Fla, Aug. 27, 2023) alleges that the Defendant failed to protect the personally identifiable information and personal health information from unauthorized access by cybercriminals on June 12, 2023. The PII and PHI included first and last names, addresses, account numbers, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, medical information, such as medical treatments, provider name, dates of service, diagnosis/procedures, account or record numbers, health insurance information, and/or prescriptions. Though promptly aware of this breach, the Defendant only notified the Plaintiff of the Data Breach in a letter dated August 11, 2023. According to the Breach Notice, the unauthorized access was the result of using MOVEit Transfer, a third-party software application. By allowing their PII and PHI to be compromised, the Plaintiff, on behalf of his children, was deprived of the full monetary value of their information in connection with their relationship with the Defendant, the suit asserts. The Plaintiff, Plaintiff's children and the Class suffered and will continue to suffer damages including loss of their information and loss of money and costs incurred because of increased risk of identity theft. The Plaintiff was a beneficiary of any relationship between the vendors and the Defendant. Maximus provides administrative and healthcare services to the Florida Healthy Kids Corporation to support Florida's health insurance program for children.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William Wright, Esq. THE WRIGHT LAW OFFICE, P.A. 515 N Flagler Dr Ste P300 West Palm Beach FL 33401 Telephone: (561) 514-0904 E-mail: willwright@wrightlawoffice.com - and - Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412 Great Neck NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 268-7080 E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com MEXICAN BISTRO: Suries Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation ---------------------------------------------------------- FANCISCO SURIEL, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. MEXICAN BISTRO CORP. d/b/a LA CATRINA MEXICAN BISTRO, LA CATRINA MEXICAN GRILL CORP. d/b/a LA CATRINA MEXICAN BISTRO, and ANGEL TEJADA, individually, Case No. 1:23-cv-07600 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 27, 2023) alleges that the Defendants fail to pay minimum and overtime wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. From May 2021 to November 2021, the Plaintiff worked 45 hours per week, and was paid $240 per week. This salary was not inclusive of overtime hours worked. Rather, the Plaintiff was only paid for the first 40 hours that he worked, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks all unpaid wages, unlawfully retained tips, pre and post judgment interest, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and all other appropriate legal and equitable relief. The Plaintiff also brings this action against Angel Tejada for engaging in retaliatory behavior against the Plaintiff under the FLSA and the NYLL. The Plaintiff commenced his employment with the Defendants on May 4, 2021. La Catrina is a Mexican restaurant.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob Aronauer, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER 225 Broadway, 3rd Floor New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 323-6980 MIDVALE INDEMNITY: 7th Circuit Affirms Class Action Dismissal ------------------------------------------------------------- Wisconsin Law Journal reports that on Aug. 22, 2023, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the case styled Alp Baysal v. Midvale Indemnity Company. Midvale implemented an "instant quote" feature on their websites, allowing individuals to receive quick auto insurance quotes upon providing basic identification details. The system automatically filled in certain data, including the applicant's driver's license number. Interestingly, by inputting a stranger's name and home address, one could trigger the form to unveil the driver's license number of that unrelated individual. Due to suspicious activities implying misuse, Midvale halted the autofill function and informed those whose information had been inappropriately exposed. In response, three individuals who had received these notifications initiated a class action lawsuit under the Driver's Privacy Protection Act, denoted as 18 U.S.C. 2721–25. The district court determined that the plaintiffs lacked standing due to their inability to demonstrate a concrete harm resulting from the disclosure, and this absence of harm could not be linked to the exposure itself. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld this decision, noting that even the applicability of the Act in this context is dubious. The Act's main provisions are aimed primarily at state officials rather than private entities. Moreover, a driver's license number is not inherently invasive or potentially embarrassing; it represents a neutral piece of information sourced from public records. This detail is commonly known to numerous private actors and is willingly shared with banks, insurers, hotels, and similar entities. The plaintiffs have not convincingly alleged that Midvale's revelation of their driver's license numbers led to any form of harm. Additionally, the release of a number commonly used by both public and private entities does not align with any established legal tort. Affirmed. Decided 08/22/23 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Case Name: Alp Baysal v. Midvale Indemnity Company Case No.: 22-1892 Officials: Sykes, Chief Judge, and Easterbrook and Ripple, Circuit Judges. Focus: Driver's Privacy Protection Act-Class Action [GN] MIDVALE INDEMNITY: Dismissal Ruling in Privacy Suit Discussed ------------------------------------------------------------- Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP disclosed that on August 22, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a proposed class action alleging that defendant insurance companies leaked the plaintiffs' drivers license numbers, holding that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue the insurance companies. In a split decision, the majority opinion held that plaintiffs failed to establish standing to bring a lawsuit under the Driver's Privacy Protection Act (DPPA) based on the unauthorized disclosure of their driver's license numbers through a form on defendant's website. The majority held that plaintiffs failed to allege a concrete injury, writing that allegations that plaintiffs are worried about future identity theft stemming from the disclosure are insufficient for standing, focusing on legitimate reasons why driver's license numbers are commonly exposed to third-parties. The majority further held that plaintiffs failed to allege that false unemployment benefit applications submitted in their name were traceable to the disclosure of their driver's license number, dooming their standing claim. In a dissent, Judge Kenneth Ripple disagreed with the majority's conclusion that plaintiffs failed to make sufficient allegations to justify standing, reasoning that the DPPA contemplates a private right of action for the types of harms suffered by the plaintiffs and that plaintiffs adequately alleged that they suffered harm from false unemployment benefit applications submitted as a result of the driver's license number leak. The case is styled ALP BAYSAL, THOMAS MAXIM, and SANDRA ITALIANO v. MIDVALE INDEMNITY COMPANY and AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, S.I. A copy of the ruling is available at: https://buckleyfirm.com/sites/default/files/InfoBytes%20-%207th%20Circuit%20affirms%20dismissal%20of%20proposed%20Driver%E2%80%99s%20Privacy%20Protection%20Act%20class%20action%202023.08.24.pdf [GN] MIDVALE INDEMNITY: Maurice Wutscher Discusses Privacy Suit Ruling ----------------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Miller, Esq., of Maurice Wutscher LLP, in an article for Lexology, disclosed that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently affirmed a trial court's dismissal of a purported data leak class action alleging unauthorized disclosure of driver's license numbers. In so ruling, the Court held that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate a concrete injury traceable to the disclosure of their driver's license numbers, and therefore lacked Article III standing. The case is Baysal v. Midvale Indemnity Company An auto insurance company created an "instant quote" feature on their websites. Anyone who supplied basic identifying information could receive a quote for auto insurance. Each site would autofill some information, including the number of the applicant's driver's license. Anyone could enter a stranger's name and home address, which caused the form to disclose the number of the stranger's driver's license. The insurer discontinued the autofill feature after observing unusual activity suggesting misuse and notified people whose information had been disclosed improperly. Three consumers who received the insurer's notice filed a purported class action under the federal Driver's Privacy Protection Act (DPPA), 18 U.S.C. 2721–25. The trial court held that the consumers lacked standing, having failed to show a concrete injury traceable to the disclosure. On appeal, the consumers contended that the disclosure injured them by causing worry and anxiety, which led to other steps, such as paying for credit monitoring. However, the Seventh Circuit held that worry and anxiety are not the kind of concrete injury essential for Article III standing. See Wadsworth v. Kross, Lieberman & Stone, Inc., 12 F.4th 665, 668–69 (7th Cir. 2021). Additionally, the Court noted that the expense of credit-monitoring did not stem from the asserted wrong because a driver's license number cannot be used to obtain credit in someone else's name. See Amnesty International USA, 568 U.S. 398, 416 (2013). The consumers also alleged that bogus unemployment insurance claims were filed in New York in the names of two of them, but the Seventh Circuit observed that the complaint was silent on what harm came from the purported insurance claims or how knowledge of a driver's license number could facilitate this kind of fraud. A suit fails for lack of standing unless the complaint plausibly alleges concrete injury caused by the asserted wrong. See, e.g., Department of Education v. Brown, 143 S. Ct. 2343 (2023). Here, the Court held that the complaint did not do so. In response, the consumers maintained that a violation of the DPPA is enough by itself to establish standing because Congress provided for an award of "liquidated damages" when actual damages cannot be shown. 18 U.S.C. §2724(b)(1). However, the Seventh Circuit held that this line of argument is incompatible with TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S. Ct. 2190 (2021), and Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (2016). Specifically, Spokeo and TransUnion rejected the proposition that Congress can create standing just by requiring payment in the absence of an injury. Nevertheless, the Court pointed out that these decisions did mandate that courts should respect a legislative determination that concrete harms need remedies. The DPPA here does not identify any particular compensable harm, so the Court noted that TransUnion and Spokeo say that, in this situation, courts should inquire whether what the plaintiff asserts as an injury has a historical or common-law analog. The Seventh Circuit could not identify any states that make disclosure of a driver's license number tortious and remarked that the consumers could not either. The Court reasoned that this is because a driver's license number is not potentially embarrassing or an intrusion on seclusion; it is a neutral fact derived from a public records system, a fact legitimately known to many private actors and freely revealed to banks, insurers, hotels, and others. Accordingly, the Seventh Circuit concluded that the consumers did not plausibly allege that the insurer's disclosure of their driver's license numbers caused them any injury, and the disclosure of a number in common use by both public and private actors does not correspond to any tort. Thus, the Court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the consumers' claims for lack of standing. [GN] MORENITA FRUIT: Romero Suit Seeks Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- ARACELI VAZQUEZ ROMERO, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. LA MORENITA FRUIT MARKET CORP (D/B/A LA GUADALUPE FRUITS & VEGETABLES), GABINO ARTURO RAMOS, and PAMELA RAMOS MEJIA, Case No. 1:23-cv-06300 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 22, 2023) seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York Labor Law as well as seeks "spread of hours" pay for any day in which Plaintiff had to work over 10 hours a day, pursuant to the "Spread of Hours Wage Order", including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring the Plaintiff Vazquez and other employees to work in excess of 40 hours per week without providing the minimum wage and overtime compensation required by federal and state law and regulations. Plaintiff Vazquez's pay did not vary even when she was required to stay later or work a longer day than her usual schedule. For example, starting in May 2022, the Defendants required the Plaintiff Vazquez to work up to an additional 4 hours past her scheduled departure time two times a month and did not pay her for the additional time she worked. The Defendants also never granted Plaintiff Vazquez any breaks or meal periods of any kind, the suit says. Plaintiff Vazquez seeks certification of this action as a collective action on behalf of herself, individually, and all other similarly situated employees and former employees of the Defendants pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b). Plaintiff Vazquez was employed by the Defendants at La Guadalupe Fruit & Vegetable from March 2022 until May 24, 2023. La Morenita is a mini market located in the neighborhood of Sunset Park, Brooklyn.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Catalina Sojo, Esq. CSM LEGAL, P.C 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 MURPHY OIL: Customers File Class Action Over Gas Overcharges ------------------------------------------------------------ Abraham Jewett, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that consumers recently filed class action lawsuits against Murphy Oil USA, Speedway LLC, Love's Travel Stops & Country Stores and Fred Meyer Stores. Why: The Murphy Oil, Speedway and Love's lawsuits claim the trio knowingly overcharges drivers who purchase premium motor fuel at their gas stations. Fred Meyer is accused of failing to refund customers who use a debit card to prepay for more gas than they end up pumping into their vehicles. Where: The gas station class action lawsuits affect consumers nationwide. Consumers recently targeted gas station companies with class action lawsuits, claiming they are not getting the benefit of their bargain at the pump. The consumers claim individuals who purchase premium gasoline end up with residual amounts of regular gas as part of the first gallon pumped into their vehicles due to a single-nozzle fuel dispensing system. The gas station companies are accused of not only knowing they overcharge their customers, but actively choosing not to issue them refunds despite there being no law in place saying they cannot. Murphy Oil knowingly overcharges drivers who purchase premium fuel, class action says A consumer filed a class action lawsuit against Murphy Oil USA in June, arguing drivers who purchase premium fuel at the company's gas stations receive a "significant" amount of regular or mid-grade gas as part of their first gallon pumped. The consumer claims Murphy Oil uses a single-nozzle fuel dispensing system for its gas pumps that he argues retains a residual amount of motor fuel after each completed pump, which is then passed onto the next driver. "Premium customers regularly paid the premium price for the first gallon of motor fuel for which they did not receive a gallon of premium motor fuel in return," the Murphy Oil class action states. Murphy Oil is accused of knowing it allegedly overcharges its customers and making an active choice not to issue them refunds despite no laws allegedly preventing them from doing so. Speedway knowingly overcharges premium gasoline purchasers, class action says A consumer filed a class action lawsuit against Speedway in June, arguing the company overcharged drivers from 36 states who purchased premium motor fuel from its gas stations. The consumer claims drivers who purchase premium motor fuel from Speedway gas stations on a pump someone used right before them to purchase regular or mid-grade gas typically receive about one-third of a gallon of the lesser-grade gas as part of the first gallon. Speedway is accused of knowing it allegedly overcharges drivers who purchase premium motor fuel but actively choosing not to refund them for the difference despite no law existing saying they cannot. "Speedway has made a business decision to retain the overcharge as a profit as opposed to refunding the same to premium customers," the Speedway class action states. Love's overcharges customers who purchase premium gasoline, class action says A consumer filed a class action lawsuit against Love's Travel Stops & Country Stores in June, arguing the company overcharges customers who purchase premium motor fuel at its gas stations. Love's is accused of using a single-nozzle fuel system for its gas pumps that allegedly causes them to retain a significant amount of motor fuel at the end of each pump, causing the following driver to allegedly get the excess as part of their first gallon. The consumer argues that around 70% of drivers fill up with regular or mid-grade fuel, meaning those who purchase premium gasoline often end up receiving the lesser-grade fuel as part of their first gallon. "Premium customers, therefore, regularly paid the premium motor fuel price for a gallon that contained a significant amount of lower-grade motor fuel," the Love's class action states. Fred Meyer fails to refund customers who prepay for more gas than they pump, class action claims In other news involving a gas station, a consumer filed a class action lawsuit Fred Meyer Stores earlier in August, arguing it fails to refund gas station customers who use a debit card to prepay for gas and then pump less than they paid for. Fred Meyer is accused of telling its customers they will receive a credit back to their account for any fuel they prepaid for that does not end up being pumped but failing to actually do so. In addition, the consumer behind the complaint argues they also received a double charge on their debit card account on more than one occasion after prepaying for gasoline at a Fred Meyer gas station. "Fred Meyer's actions in retaining the value of Mr. Shields' and putative class members' unpumped gasoline and double charges for gasoline were and are capable of deceiving a substantial portion of the public," the Fred Meyer class action states. [GN] MY HERO DELI: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Castro Alleges ------------------------------------------------------- ELVIN CASTRO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MY HERO DELI, INC.; DOMINICK FARESE; and ANTHONY FARESE, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-06398 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 27, 2023) is an action against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, provide meals, and provide accurate wage statements. Plaintiff Castro was employed by the Defendants as a staff. is a retail establishment selling prepared foods, located at North Merrick, County of Nassau and State of New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary Rosen, Esq. ROSEN LAW LLC 216 Lakeville Road Great Neck, NY 11020 Telephone: (516) 437-3400 Email: grosen@rosenlawllc.com NEW YORK TIMES: Attorneys' Fee Award Delays Settlement Approval --------------------------------------------------------------- Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Esq., and Katelynn Gray, Esq., of Duane Morris, disclosed that in Moses v. N.Y. Times Co., No. 21-2556, 2023 WL 5281138 (2d Cir. Aug. 17, 2023), Objector-Appellant Eric Isaacson ("Isaacson") was successful in appealing an order of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York approving a class action settlement, and attorneys' fee award, and an incentive award in a class action against the New York Times (the "NYT") alleging violations of California's Automatic Renewal Law. The Second Circuit's opinion is a case study for corporate counsel on the attributes of class action settlements that courts are apt to reject during the approval process. Background Of The Case Plaintiff Maribel Moses ("Moses") brought a class action on behalf of similarly-situated subscribers in California against the NYT alleging it violated the California Automatic Renewal Law ("ARL") by enrolling consumers who sign up for a NYT subscription, either through its website or the App, in a renewing subscription without providing the requisite disclosures and authorizations. The parties engaged in informal discovery and mediation right off the bat and reached an agreement which settled the claims of 876,606 persons. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, NYT agreed to implement business reforms to comply with the ARL, and to provide class members with Access Codes valid for a one-month free subscription to a NYT product, or a pro rata cash payment. A $1.65 million non-reversionary settlement fund was established to pay all approved claims, attorneys' fees of up to $1.25 million, and a court-approved incentive award to Moses of up to $5,000. The district court preliminarily approved the settlement agreement on May 12, 2021 and conditionally certified the class for settlement purposes. Of the 876,606 persons, three class members, including Isaacson, objected to the settlement. Isaacson's arguments were focused on the fairness of the settlement, the attorneys' fees calculation, and the lawfulness of the incentive award. In approving the settlement, the district court applied a presumption of fairness standard and found it was reached in "arm's-length negotiation between experienced, capable counsel . . . after a nine-hour mediation before a neutral third party." Id. at 8. The district court further found the relief afforded to the class was "commensurate with the harm alleged" and that the incentive award was appropriate under Second Circuit precedent. Id. at 9. With respect to the proposed attorneys' fee award, the district court found the Access Codes were not coupons under the Class Action Fairness Act's ("CAFA") coupon settlement provisions, which includes various restrictions on the award of attorneys' fees. Instead, the district court looked to the value of the entire settlement in determining whether the award was appropriate and ruled that given its face value of $5,563,000, $1.25 million in attorneys' fees (22.5% of the total face value of the settlement) was reasonable. The attorneys' fee award constituted 76% of the $1.65 million settlement fund. Isaacson appealed the judgement to the Second Circuit. Second Circuit's Decision To Vacate The District Court's Judgment In vacating the district court's judgement, a three-judge panel of the Second Circuit agreed with Isaacson that the district court applied the wrong legal standard when it approved the proposed settlement and wrongly concluded that the Access Codes were not "coupons" under the CAFA. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) requires court approval when settling claims of a certified class and provides that a district court may only approve a class-wide settlement after a hearing and only on finding that it is "fair, reasonable, and adequate." Acknowledging the nine factors historically used to evaluate the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of a class settlement, and without displacing them, the panel pointed to the 2018 revisions to Rule 23(e)(2), which include a list of four considerations district courts must evaluate, one of which is whether the "proposal was negotiated at arm's length." The inclusion of this factor, the panel held, "prohibit courts from applying a presumption of fairness to proposed settlements arising from an arms-length agreement." Id. at 13. Instead, the panel explained, courts must consider all four factors outlined in Rule 23(e)(2) "holistically," which includes, among other considerations, taking into account the terms of any proposed award of attorney's fees. Id. Isaacson argued, and the panel agreed, that the district court erred when it presumed the proposed settlement was fair because it was reached in an arm's-length negotiation, and further abused its discretion when it failed to evaluate such fairness in light of the attorneys' fee and incentive awards. Notably, the panel opined "the error does not automatically require the reversal of the settlement's approval", and that it is "possible" the district court's errors could be "harmless." Id. at 22. In this case however, the panel found the error could not be "written off as harmless" given the fee awards were "intimately intertwined with the settlement." Id. at 22-23. In fact, the panel pointed out that the amount of attorneys' fees and incentive payment awarded directly impacted the amount of funds available for pro rata distribution to class members. As such, the district court was required to consider these fees, not just separately, but together with the other requisite considerations. With respect to the attorneys' fee award, the panel agreed with Isaacson that the Access Codes were coupons "under the plain meaning of the word," i.e., digital vouchers provided to class members valid only for "select products or services." Id. at 29, 32. The fact that the class members had the option to take cash relief was not of import, the panel found. As such, since the Access Codes were coupons, the district court was required to apply the CAFA's coupon settlement provisions when calculating the attorneys' fee awards, which looks to the redemption value of the coupons, as opposed to the face value of the settlement. On remand, the panel said the district court must evaluate the settlement both in light of the fee award and comply with the CAFA's coupon settlement requirements when determining the amount of such an award. The one argument of Isaacson's shot down by the panel was his challenge to the approval of the $5,000 incentive award. It refused to reverse established precedent in the Second Circuit or depart from Rule 23, which allows incentive awards that are fair and appropriate. The panel ultimately vacated and remanded the district court's order approving the settlement and the attorneys' fees award. At that same time, it did not opine on the fairness of the settlement or suggest that it must be overturned. Implications For Corporate Defendants The Second Circuit's ruling is a perfect example of how an attorneys' fee award that is not thought through can serve to delay, and potentially derail, the class action settlement process. It is not enough to simply consider it on its own, but the proposed attorneys' fee award must be considered holistically with all the Rule 23(e)(2) factors in determining whether the ultimate proposal is fair, reasonable, and adequate. [GN] NEW YORK: Home Health Care Aides Sue Over Unpaid Overtime --------------------------------------------------------- Raga Justin, writing for Times Union, reports that home health care aides filed a lawsuit against the state Department of Labor that seeks to have the agency re-open investigations into workers' claims of systemic overtime wage theft that were allegedly abandoned because of union agreements. Home care workers, traditionally low-paid, have been urging state lawmakers for higher wages and more protections in their industry, which provides often round-the-clock care for elderly and disabled New Yorkers. The class-action lawsuit was filed on behalf of numerous workers from New York City and alleges that the home care agencies that employ them "systematically steal their wages by paying them for only 13 of the 24 hours of each shift, even when the aides do not receive at least five hours of uninterrupted sleep and three hours for meal breaks." As a result of the extra labor, home aides often make less than minimum wage and receive little overtime pay, leading hundreds to appeal to the Department of Labor to recover those wages. According to the lawsuit and related court documents, filed in state Supreme Court in Albany, the department conducted investigations into claims of wage theft and found "overwhelming" corroborating evidence that employers were willfully depriving employees of fair labor conditions and compensation. But the agency, which began investigating several similar complaints in 2019, closed its investigations in April, citing a new agency policy that they would no longer investigate claims made by workers whose unions had entered into mandatory arbitration agreements with employers -- if the union agreements cover the aides' claims. The plaintiffs, some of whom said they were unaware that their union was opening claims on their behalf and that they had not seen a fraction of what they were owed returned to them, said that without the state Department of Labor agreeing to intervene, they "have no meaningful recourse for obtaining their unpaid wages and no effective mechanism for ending the egregious wage theft that pervades the home care industry." The court filing comes as the Department of Labor has faced scrutiny in a separate but related matter of diminished wage recovery, an effort the agency is tasked with that has faltered in recent years. ProPublica recently reported that thousands of wage theft victims in New York have gone without their full pay for years, even when their employers were ordered to fully compensate them. The story found the understaffed Department of Labor has failed to fully recover millions in back wages for those workers. Home care agencies are allowed to skirt overtime and minimum wage provisions under the "13-hour rule," an interpretation of Labor Law that allows agencies to pay live-in caregivers who work 24-hour days for only 13 hours, as long as the aides get eight hours of uninterrupted sleep and three hours of meal breaks. But the lawsuit alleges that the department had repeatedly failed to enforce that rule, tacitly allowing home care agencies to reap the benefits of paying for a 13-workday without any of the other worker protections. The five plaintiffs suing the department are all women in their 60s who have "struggled to meet their basic needs and those of their families," the lawsuit claimed. According to estimates, the majority of home care workers are women of color and many are immigrants. New York faces a home care worker shortage that ranks among the worst in the country. Despite the new litigation, the Department of Labor has continued to pursue investigations of employers underpaying home care employees. In early August the department announced two settlements totaling $113,800 in cases in which employers in Brooklyn and Staten Island had denied adequate sleep time to home care aides during 24-hour shifts -- and underpaid them for hours worked. The agency said its Division of Worker Protection has more than 50 active investigations involving home health care agencies allegedly committing wage and work-hours violations. The agency said that in the past decade it has recovered and dispersed more than $360 million in owed wages and identified more than a million misclassified workers. [GN] NEWELL BRANDS: Faces Class Action Over Orthodontic Pacifiers ------------------------------------------------------------ Kelsey McCroskey, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a proposed class action lawsuit claims the makers of NUK pacifiers have misled consumers by falsely representing that their "orthodontic" pacifiers promote healthy oral and orofacial development in children. The 36-page lawsuit says that Newell Brands, Inc. and Graco Children's Products, Inc. -- who together sell NUK-brand pacifiers -- have violated New York law by deceptively using the term "orthodontic" in advertising and on product packaging to convey that the items improve dental health development by correcting improperly positioned teeth and jaws. However, contrary to the products' representations, NUK "orthodontic" pacifiers "cannot and do not" improve or support healthy oral and orofacial development and, in fact, put children at a greater risk of developing several kinds of dental malocclusions -- that is, deviations from ideal teeth alignment, the suit alleges. The NUK pacifiers are sold through online retailers such as Amazon and in stores including Target, Walgreens, CVS, Walmart, Buybuy Baby and Safeway, the case relays. Per the complaint, the products at issue include at least: NUK Orthodontic Pacifiers; NUK Space Orthodontic Pacifiers; NUK Latex Orthodontic Pacifiers; NUK Sports Orthodontic Pacifiers; NUK Confetti Orthodontic Pacifiers; NUK Fashion Orthodontic Pacifiers; NUK Sensitive Orthodontic Pacifiers; and NUK Juicy Orthodontic Pacifiers. According to the filing, statements on the packaging claim the pacifiers have a "100% baby approved orthodontic shape" that "Naturally Fits Baby's Mouth for Healthy Oral Development." On the NUK website, the defendants similarly represent that the "orthodontic" pacifiers are "flatter to allow more room for a natural sucking motion, slimmer to reduce pressure on the jaw and teeth, and narrower to prevent teeth misalignment," the lawsuit adds. The suit argues, however, that marketing a pacifier as "orthodontic" is misleading because "no pacifier is capable of promoting oral development," and prolonged pacifier use can cause substantial harm by impeding a child's dental and orofacial structural growth. As the case tells it, clinical studies consistently show that "there is no advantage or benefit" to using a so-called "orthodontic" pacifier over a traditional one, as continued use of an "orthodontic" product leads to the same risks and harms associated with a persistent non-nutritive sucking habit. "Children who use pacifiers to continue non-nutritive sucking habits have an increased risk of dental malocclusions . . . of primary teeth, which, in turn, may interfere with a child's chewing, swallowing, speech, and jaw development and function," the complaint explains. "Dental malocclusions and teeth misalignment may also have a significant adverse effect on a child's psychosocial development, self-image, and social well-being." The filing contends that despite "ample dental and orthodontic studies and literature demonstrating the contrary," the companies behind NUK pacifiers consistently represent their "orthodontic" products as supportive of healthy dental development and omit the material facts that the items can be detrimental to children's oral and orofacial growth. The lawsuit looks to represent anyone who purchased NUK "orthodontic" pacifiers in New York within the applicable statute of limitations period. [GN] ORIGIN MATERIALS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Oct. 24 ----------------------------------------------------------------- The securities litigation law firm of Kuznicki Law PLLC issues this alert to shareholders of Origin Materials, Inc. (NYSE: ORGN), if they purchased the Company's securities between February 23, 2023, and August 9, 2023, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Shareholders have until October 24, 2023 to file lead plaintiff applications in the securities class action lawsuit. Shareholders are encouraged to contact us at https://kclasslaw.com/cases/securities/nyse-orgn/, by calling toll-free at 1-833-835-1495 or by email (dk@kclasslaw.com). Kuznicki Law PLLC is committed to ensuring that companies adhere to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Daniel Kuznicki, Esq. Kuznicki Law PLLC 45 Central Avenue, Suite 344 Cedarhurst, NY 11516 Email: dk@kclasslaw.com Phone: (347) 696-1134 Cell: (347) 690-0692 Fax: (347) 348-0967 https://kclasslaw.com [GN] ORIGIN MATERIALS: Faces Class Action Over Securities Law Violations ------------------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of securities of Origin Materials, Inc. (NASDAQ: ORGN, ORGNW) between February 23, 2023 and August 9, 2023, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important October 24, 2023 lead plaintiff deadline. SO WHAT: If you purchased Origin securities during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Origin class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=18703 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email [email protected] or [email protected] for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October 24, 2023. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions, but are merely middlemen that refer clients or partner with law firms that actually litigate the cases. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants made false and/or misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose to investors that: (1) Origin would not be able to meet its previously announced timeline for the construction of the Origin 2 plant; (2) demand for PX had dropped such that it would not be the production focus of Origin 2; (3) Origin could not construct Origin 2 at its previously disclosed cost; (4) Origin could not construct Origin 2 at the scale it had previously identified; and (5) 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. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. To join the Origin class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=18703 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email [email protected] or [email protected] for information on the class action. No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 www.rosenlegal.com [GN] ORIGIN MATERIALS: Faces Soto Suit Over 66.5% Stock Price Drop ------------------------------------------------------------- Antonio F. Soto, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Origin Materials, Inc., Richard J. Riley, John Bissell, and Nate S. Whaley, Case No. 2:23-cv-01816-WBS-JDP (E.D. Cal., Aug. 25, 2023) is a class action against all the Defendants for violating Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of the class of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Origin securities between February 23, 2023, and August 9, 2023, inclusive. According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Defendants misled investors by failing to disclose that (1) Origin would not be able to meet its previously announced timeline for the construction of the Origin 2 plant; (2) demand for paraxylene (PX) had dropped such that it would not be the production focus of Origin 2; (3) Origin could not construct Origin 2 at its previously disclosed cost; and (4) Origin could not construct Origin 2 at the scale it had previously identified. As a result of the materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failures to disclose, Origin's securities traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. On August 9, 2023, after the market closed, Origin announced that it was significantly delaying the timeline for construction on its Origin 2 commercial plant and changing the product slate at Origin 2 from a focus on PX to a focus on furandicarboxylic acid (FDCA). On this news, Origin's stock price fell $2.88 per share, or 66.5%, to close at $1.45 per share on August 10, 2023. The Plaintiff and the Class have sustained damages because they purchased Origin stock at an inflated price, which declined in value as a result of the corrective disclosures, the lawsuit asserts. Origin is a sustainable materials company founded in 2008 by chemical engineering students at the University of California, Davis.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob A. Walker, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 400 Concar Drive San Mateo, CA 94402 Telephone: (650) 781-0025 E-mail: jake@blockleviton.com ORRICK HERRINGTON: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Jensen Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT D. JENSEN, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE, LLP, Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-04433-KAW (N.D. Cal., Aug. 28, 2023) seeks to hold the Defendant responsible for the harms caused to the Plaintiff and the Class regarding the massive and preventable data breach of Defendant's inadequately protected computer network. According to the complaint, on March 13, 2023, hackers infiltrated and accessed the inadequately protected computer systems of the Defendant and stole the sensitive personal information of over 152,818 of those individuals. Following an investigation, the Defendant determined that cybercriminals gained unauthorized access to its systems on March 7, 2023. As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and the Class have suffered damages. Plaintiff has experienced a flood of spam telephone calls from unknown persons since the Data Breach. Now that their Personal Information has been released into the criminal cyber domains, the Plaintiff and the Class are at imminent risk of identity theft. And this will continue, as they must spend their time being extra vigilant, due to Defendant's failures, to try to prevent being victimized for the rest of their lives, says the suit. ORRICK HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP operates as an international law firm. The Firm's areas of practice include finance, corporate and technology, compensation and benefits, global infrastructure, litigation, and real estate. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert S. Green, Esq. Emrah M. Sumer, Esq. GREEN & NOBLIN, P.C. 2200 Larkspur Landing Circle, Suite 101 Larkspur, CA 94939 Telephone: (415) 477-6700 Facsimile: (415) 477-6710 Email: gnecf@classcounsel.com - and - William B. Federman, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave. Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com PALANTIR TECH: Consolidated Cupat Shareholder Suit Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------------- Palantir Technologies Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2023, that on September 15, 2022, a putative securities class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, captioned "Cupat v. Palantir Technologies Inc., et al.," Case No. 1:22-cv-02384, naming the company and certain current and former officers and directors as defendants. The suits allege false and misleading statements about Palantir's business and prospects, and purport to allege claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and seek unspecified damages and remedies under Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20(A) of the Exchange Act and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act. This action was subsequently were consolidated as "Cupat v. Palantir Technologies Inc., et al.," Lead Civil Action No. 1:22-cv-02834-CNS-SKC, consolidated with civil actions 1:22-cv-02805-CNS-SKC and 1:22-cv-02893-CNS-SKC. Palantir Technologies Inc. builds and deploys software platforms that serve as the central operating systems for its customers. PALANTIR TECH: Consolidated Shareholder Suit on SEC Filing Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------------ Palantir Technologies Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2023, that on November 4, 2022, a putative securities class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, captioned "Shijun Liu, individually and as Trustee of the Liu Family Trust 2019 v. Palantir Technologies Inc., et al.," Case No. 1:22-cv-02893, respectively, naming the company and certain current and former officers and directors as defendants. The suit alleges false and misleading statements about Palantir's business and prospects, and purport to allege claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and seek unspecified damages and remedies under Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20(A) of the Exchange Act and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act. This action was subsequently consolidated as "Cupat v. Palantir Technologies Inc., et al.," Lead Civil Action No. 1:22-cv-02834-CNS-SKC, consolidated with civil actions 1:22-cv-02805-CNS-SKC and 1:22-cv-02893-CNS-SKC. Palantir Technologies Inc. builds and deploys software platforms that serve as the central operating systems for its customers. PANDA EXPRESS: Agrees to Settle Delivery Fee Class Action for $1.4M ------------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Panda Express agreed to pay $1.4 million to resolve claims it charged illegal service fees on delivery orders. The settlement benefits consumers who placed a delivery order through Panda Express' website or mobile app between July 17, 2020, and Feb. 16, 2022, and were charged a service fee in connection with their order. According to the class action lawsuit, Panda Express customers were misled about delivery fees and related expenses. Consumers claim they were harmed when Panda Express charged unexpected service fees on delivery orders. Panda Express is an American Chinese fast-food restaurant with locations around the country. Panda Express hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $1.4 million settlement to resolve the delivery fee class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the settlement, class members can receive either a cash payment or two product vouchers. Cash payments will vary depending on the number of participating class members, but are capped at $10 each. Vouchers are redeemable for one medium entree through Panda Express' mobile app. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Sept. 8, 2023. The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for Nov. 8, 2023. In order to receive a settlement payment, class members must submit a valid claim form by Jan. 10, 2024. Who's Eligible Consumers who placed a delivery order through Panda Express' website or mobile app between July 17, 2020, and Feb. 16, 2022, and were charged a service fee in connection with their order. Potential Award $10 cash payment or two entree vouchers Proof of Purchase N/A Claim Form CLICK HERE TO FILE A CLAIM » NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 01/10/2024 Case Name Ross, et al. v. Panda Restaurant Group Inc., et al., Case No. 21STCV03662, in the California Superior Court for Los Angeles County Final Hearing 11/08/2023 Settlement Website DeliveryServiceFeeSettlement.com Claims Administrator Ross v. Panda Settlement Administrator PO Box 5113 Portland, OR 97208-5113 855-954-2165 Class Counsel Jeffrey Kaliel KALIELGOLD PLLC Defense Counsel Mark Kemple GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP [GN] PRECISION DRILLING: 3rd Cir. Reverses Decision in FLSA Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Stacy Thomas, writing for Human Resources Director, reports that a recent court decision on a "donning and doffing" case involving oil rig workers will make employers more vulnerable to Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) lawsuits, a class action attorney said. The case in question, Tyger v. Precision Drilling Corp., is a class action suit in which oil rig workers for Precision Drilling Corp. wanted to be paid for time spent "donning and doffing" gear before and after work. Precision argued that they shouldn't have to, under the Portal-to-Portal Act, which defines "preliminary" and "postliminary" work activities as non-compensatory. The District Court agreed and dismissed the case. But in an Aug. 16 decision, the Appeals Court for the Third Circuit rejected that decision. "If you're a worker, or you're a plaintiff's lawyer, and you read this case, you're very gung-ho about it, because it says that this is the sort of case that can stick in the court," Gerald L. Maatman, Duane Morris' class-action chair, told HRD. "This is a very pro-plaintiff ruling -- it makes it harder if you're an employer to comply with the law." Law alone can't decide if safety gear is 'indispensable' or 'intrinsic' The decision is significant because it means lawsuits against employers around payment for safety gear donning and doffing, and related activities, will be decided case-by-case and based on whether they are deemed to be "intrinsic" or "integral" to primary work, he said. The Precision oil rig workers are required by workplace safety rules to wear protective gear including flame-retardant coveralls and steel-toed shoes, and to walk to and from changing stations to safety meeting locations. If their case makes it to trial, a jury will decide if those activities should be compensated. "What I thought was telling about the case is that the Third Circuit reversed a very substantial ruling, a ruling involving a case where 1,000 people were involved," said Maatman, who is based in Chicago. "This ruling suggests that it depends on the job, depends on the circumstances. So, if compliance with the law is tough, this ruling makes it even tougher." In a similar case in 2022, a judge decided workers should not be paid by Amazon for walking through metal detectors before and after work, as that activity was deemed preliminary and postliminary by the judge. What is 'integral' protective gear? In a discussion around what determines "intrinsic" or "integral" activities, the appeals court decided that rules of law alone cannot decide if employees should be paid for time in question -- it is a matter of "circumstance and fact", says Maatman. If an employer is brought to court over a dispute, they will no longer be able to depend on the Port-to-Port Act as a defence. In its decision, the appeals court defined what constitutes protective gear that is integral or intrinsic to work and therefore eligible for compensation. Location was identified as relevant, meaning whether employees could don and doff at home could be important to a decision. The court stated that not all employees needed to change at work for it to be compensable; the question is whether workers have a "meaningful option" to change at home. If they do not, then it can be considered integral. Precision attempted to claim that its workers' safety gear was generic, therefore not integral to work, but the appeals court disagreed: "The more specialized the gear, the more likely it is integral… But even generic gear can be intrinsic. Precision tries to equate 'intrinsic' with 'unique' or at least 'unusual.' That is not so: balls are common to many sports but are still integral to them," the judge's decision read. Workplace safety gear guidelines for HR In light of this decision, Maatman said, it's important for HR professionals to look at their compensation and overtime policies around donning and doffing, or any other preliminary or postliminary activities, to assess whether they could be integral to employees' work. If the employees are unionized, it needs to be determined if the collective bargaining agreement addresses this issue, and if not, if it should be. In non-union scenarios, employers will have some judgment calls to make, he says. "One of the things that's important to realize is that the Department of Labor takes a very expansive view of what an employer's obligations are, and will interpret the laws in a way that are very pro-worker," Maatman said. "What is so difficult here, from a compliance standpoint, is it's not a hard and fast rule. So it's going to be different for every employer, it's going to be different for every job. Judgments will have to be made by corporations as to their compliance strategies." [GN] PROBUILD CONSTRUCTION: Kennedays Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling --------------------------------------------------------------- Llinos Kent and Logan Tennyson, of Kennedays, disclosed that in the recent decision of Wadren Pty Ltd v ProBuild Constructions (Aust) Pty Ltd & Ors [2023] VSC 348, the Supreme Court of Victoria provided some useful guidance on the extent of the Court's powers to order preliminary discovery of insurance documents and information in circumstances where an insured is in liquidation. Whilst it is clear that the Court will order the discovery of insurance policies to enable prospective plaintiffs to assess what insurance cover is available to the prospective defendant, it is not a foregone conclusion that it will order discovery or information relevant to the extent of cover available more generally or coverage correspondence between insureds and insurers. In this article, we provide a summary of the decision and consider the key findings. Key findings Preliminary discovery under rr 32.03 and 32.05 Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 Vic (Rules) does not extend to information about the likely recovery of a claim. The Supreme Court of Victoria rejected the plaintiffs' submission that 'rule 32.05 enables an applicant who believes that he or she may have a cause of action to obtain sufficient information to know whether the risk of litigation is worthwhile'. Summary of decision The facts On or about 21 March 2014, Wadren Pty Ltd (Wadren) and Probuild Constructions (Aust) Pty Ltd (Probuild), the First Defendant in these proceedings, entered into a contract, where Probuild was to undertake construction works for the Pacific Werribee Shopping Centre (Centre). Wadren and QIC Werribee Pty Ltd (QIC) are co-owners of the Centre. The works were completed by Probuild in 2017. Wadren subsequently alleged that there were extensive structural and non-structural defects at the Centre, allegedly caused by Probuild. Wadren claimed the damage caused by the defects would amount to between $331,800,000 and $356,800,000 (Claim). On 23 February 2022, Probuild went into voluntary administration. On 21 July 2022, a deed of company arrangement was executed. Accordingly, before commencing proceedings against Probuild, Warden and QIC needed to ascertain: whether proceedings could be commenced; who should be named as defendants; and what relief will be available (which depended on whether any relevant policies responded to the Claim). Application for preliminary discovery Probuild had the benefit of professional indemnity policies with a combined limit of liability of $50,000,000 for any one occurrence and in the aggregate for all claims made during the period of insurance. In summary, Warden and QIC sought preliminary discovery of documents to identify: AIG's co-insurers and Probuild's excess layer insurers; the nature and content of any insurance policy; whether the policy provides cover to Probuild, including details of the extent of any claims that have been made and paid out on the policies. Additionally, a copy of Probuild's notification of the claim to its insurers; whether any other claims have been made upon the applicable professional indemnity insurance policy/ies, including details of any settlements of such claims. The judgment The Court determined that preliminary discovery does not extend to information about the likely recovery of a claim, and rejected the plaintiffs' argument that the relevant rules allow prospective plaintiffs to test whether litigation will be "worthwhile". The Court agreed with the plaintiffs that insurers are required to disclose documents evidencing confirmation or denial of indemnity, as they are a class of documents sought to go to what defences may be available to insurers, and relate to the question of whether the plaintiffs have the right to obtain relief. However, the Court disagreed that plaintiffs are entitled to disclosure of information in relation to whether limits of indemnity, available under the primary professional indemnity policies, have been eroded. The Court stated there was a distinction to be drawn between: what information is sufficient to enable plaintiffs to decide whether to commence a proceeding; and documents relating to the question of whether the plaintiffs have the right to obtain relief. The Court concluded that an applicant is entitled to documents evidencing: what defences are available to the respondent; the possible strength of those defences; the extent of the respondent's breach; and the likely quantum of any damages award. The Court found that documents "should not be produced merely for the purpose of determining the extent of claims that have been made on any particular policy or the amount of funds that may be available if the plaintiffs are ultimately successful in this proceeding" (at [129]). The Supreme Court of Victoria has taken a narrower approach to the basis for preliminary discovery than that adopted in the Federal Court. In another matter where the insured was in liquidation, Thawey J was of the view that grounds for disclosure included obtaining information about the financial circumstances of the insured defendant in order to assess whether to proceed against the defendant (Watson v Dixon Advisory and Superannuation Services Ltd (ACN 103 071 665) [2022] FCA 1273). In that case, Thawey J ordered partial discovery of the policy so that the applicant could have sufficient information to inform it as to whether it: was commercially viable to prosecute the claim; and should seek leave to proceed against the respondent. Thawey J concluded this included providing details of policy wording as to liability, details of the exclusions, relevant sub-limits and limits, to include overall limits of the policies in question. Thawey J rejected insurers' argument that to provide this information would provide a commercial advantage to the class action in negotiations, allowing the applicant to tailor its claims to avoid engaging the exclusions. Comment The decision provides useful guidance on the extent of the Court's powers to order preliminary discovery of insurance documents and information. Although a Court will order the discovery of insurance policies to enable prospective plaintiffs to assess what insurance cover is available to the prospective defendant, certainly in Victoria it is unlikely to order discovery or information relevant to the extent of cover available more generally (to include erosion of limits) or coverage correspondence between insureds and insurers. However, the Federal Court jurisdiction may differ, with recent decisions ordering discovery of policy information to allow parties to assess the commercial viability of pursuing a claim. Such orders are of course at the Federal Court's (broad) discretion. Certain commercially sensitive insurance documents and information, such as whether the limits of indemnity available under the policies have been eroded by other claims, are unlikely to be ordered to be discovered to prospective plaintiffs. Despite this judgment, we expect that prospective plaintiffs will continue to seek discovery of insurance documents and information, testing the present position, in order to obtain information to determine the extent of their possible recovery. This is likely to occur in cases where the prospective defendant is in liquidation or in class actions, most likely through preliminary discovery applications (though of course there are other mechanisms for discovery available). [GN] PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, McDaniel Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- JERRY MCDANIEL and BARBARA C. CRUCIATA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION and MAXIMUS FEDERAL SERVICES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-11939-NMG (D. Mass., August 23, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, breach of third-party beneficiary contract, negligence per se, unjust enrichment, and declaratory and injunctive relief. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the Plaintiffs and similarly situated customers stored within their network systems following a data breach determined approximately May 27, 2023, through May 31, 2023. The Defendants also failed to timely notify the Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the PII of the Plaintiffs and Class members were compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. Progress Software Corporation is a software company, with its principal place of business located at 15 Wayside Road, Suite 4, Burlington, Massachusetts. Maximus Federal Services, Inc. is a company that provides appeals services in support of Medicare, headquartered in McLean, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kristen A. Johnson, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO 1 Faneuil Hall Square, 5th Floor Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 482-3700 Facsimile: (617) 482-3003 E-mail: kristen@hbsslaw.com - and - Steve W. Berman, Esq. Sean R. Matt, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com sean@hbsslaw.com - and - Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq. GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA 4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490 Cincinnati, OH 45242 Telephone: (513) 345-8291 Facsimile: (513) 345-8294 E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com - and - Charles Schaffer, Esq. Nicholas J. Elia, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 592-1500 Facsimile: (215) 592-4663 E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com nelia@lfsblaw.com - and - Joseph M. Lyon, Esq. THE LYON FIRM 2754 Erie Ave. Cincinnati, OH 45208 Telephone: (513) 381-2333 Facsimile: (513) 766-9011 E-mail: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com - and - Jeffrey Brown, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 E-mail: JBrown@LeedsBrownLaw.com - and - Jason Sulzer, Esq. THE SULZER LAW GROUP 270 Madison Avenue, Suite 1800 New York, NY 10016 E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Trigg Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- ROXANNE TRIGG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:23-cv-01632-CEF (N.D. Ohio, Aug. 22, 2023) sues the Defendant for failing to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information that it collected and maintained from her and the Class Members as part of its regular business practices. At the time of the Data Breach –– approximately May 19, 2023, through June 1, 2023 –– the Defendant retained the Plaintiff's Private Information in its system. The Private information includes names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, telephone numbers, email addresses, and financial information. On August 1, 2023, the Defendant began sending the Plaintiff and other Data Breach victims a Notice of Data Breach letter. As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and tens of thousands of Class Members, suffered concrete injury including lost or diminished value of their Private Information; lost opportunity costs associated with attempting to mitigate the actual consequences of the Data Breach; invasion of privacy; loss of benefit of the bargain; an increase in spam calls, texts, and/or emails; and the continued and certainly increased risk to their Private Information. The Plaintiff is at a present risk and will continue to be at increased risk of identity theft and fraud for years to come, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of those similarly situated to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' Private Information that it collected and maintained, and for failing to provide timely and adequate notice to the Plaintiff and other Class Members that their information had been subject to the unauthorized access by an unknown third party and precisely what specific type of information was accessed. The Plaintiff seeks remedies including compensatory damages and injunctive relief including improvements to the Defendant's data security systems, future annual audits, and adequate credit monitoring services funded by the Defendant. The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former customers of the Defendant. The Defendant provides insurance products such as auto and property insurance.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John A. Love, Esq. LOVE CONSUMER LAW 2500 Northwinds Parkway, Suite 330 Alpharetta, GA 30009 Telephone: (404) 855-3600 Facsimile: (404) 301-2300 E-mail: tlove@loveconsumerlaw.com - and - Maureen M. Brady, Esq. MCSHANE & BRADY, LLC 1656 Washington Street, Suite 120 Kansas City, MO 64108 Telephone: (816) 888-8010 Facsimile: (816) 332-6295 E-mail: mbrady@mcshanebradylaw.com - and - Sharon J. Zinns, Esq. ZINNS LAW, LLC 4243 Dunwoody Club Drive, Suite 104 Atlanta, GA 30350 Telephone: (404) 882-9002 E-mail: sharon@zinnslaw.com QUEENSLAND: Youth Advocates Mull Suit Over Detaining of Children ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tanisha Williams, writing for SBS, reports that youth justice advocates and lawyers are looking into a class action lawsuit against the Queensland government who may have been illegally detaining children for decades. The state government rushed controversial new laws through parliament that will allow children to be locked up in adult prisons and watch houses for the next three years. Queensland's youth justice minister, Di Farmer, told media that the legislation, which requires a suspension of the state's Human Rights Act, followed advice from the state's solicitor general. It has been reported by The Guardian that the advice indicates children had previously been unlawfully detained. "There's no transparency or accountability in relation to what that legal advice is," said human rights lawyer Debbie Kilroy. "I'd strongly suggest that the government make that advice public, so at least we can understand what has been done and why it has been done, because it looks very racially motivated." The amendments were tabled by Police Minister Mark Ryan on Aug. 23 during debate on a Child Protection Bill, and passed through parliament late on Aug. 24. Buried amongst 57 pages of amendments, the Queensland government also made provisions to retroactively exempt itself from litigation for any likely unlawful practice in the past. Earlier in August, a Queensland court ordered the immediate transfer of three children who had been locked up in watch houses for extended periods. The government conceded it had no lawful basis for detaining them in police holding cells. "We are concerned as always, as lawyers are and hopefully the community, about retrospective laws," says Ms Kilroy. "It's not good . . . so we want to have a look at that and in these amendments. "It's about appropriate orders [not being] made under those sections of the Act to hold children. "We need to look at that legally, because 30 years is a long time. That's a lot of children that have been harmed and held illegally in the watch house without the relevant orders made by a court." Ms Kilroy said she and her organisation, Sisters Inside, are working with KCs at the moment on possible litigation. "We are very concerned about the harms being perpetrated on children and those children are Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children." Queensland Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk defended Labor's decision to fast-track the proposed law changes, saying it was "standard practice" and that it was their duty "to keep to community safe." But advocates say "draconian" laws for children are not the answer. "We've got to stop harming children," says Ms Kilroy. "If we want to live in a community, where we're all safe, then all harm must end for everybody." [GN] RECKITT BENCKISER: $30MM Class Settlement Hearing Set on Oct. 19 ---------------------------------------------------------------- If you purchased and/or paid for some or all of the price of Suboxone or its AB-rated generic equivalents, you could receive a payment from a class action lawsuit. Your rights may be affected by a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit filed against Defendants Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceutical, Inc., Reckitt Benckiser Group plc (the "Reckitt Defendants"), and Indivior, Inc. ("Indivior") (collectively, the "Defendants") regarding the prices paid for Suboxone (Co-Formulated Buprenorphine/Naloxone). The case name is In Re: Suboxone (Buprenorphine Hydrochloride and Nalaxone) Antitrust Litigation, Civil Action No. 2:13-md-02445-MSG (E.D. Pa.) (the "Lawsuit"). The Lawsuit, which is pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, claims that Defendants violated state antitrust, consumer protection and unjust enrichment laws in the United States, harming competition and causing class members to overpay for Suboxone. Defendants deny that they violated any laws. The Court dismissed the claims against the Reckitt Defendants. The Court has preliminarily approved a proposed settlement between the Class and Indivior (the "Settlement"). The proposed Settlement will provide for the payment of $30 million (the "Settlement Fund") to resolve the Class claims against Indivior. The full text of the proposed Settlement Agreement, dated as of August 14, 2023, is available at www.SuboxAntitrust.com. The Court has scheduled a hearing to decide whether to approve the Settlement, the plan for allocating the Settlement Fund to the End Payor Class, and the request of Class Counsel for payment of attorneys' fees, reimbursement of expenses, and service awards to the End Payor Plaintiffs to be paid from the Settlement Fund (the "Fairness Hearing"). The Fairness Hearing is scheduled for October 19, 2023, at 1:30 p.m., before Judge Mitchell S. Goldberg at the James A. Byrne U.S. Courthouse, 601 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Who Is Included? You may be a member of the End Payor Class if you are an individual or entity who purchased and/or paid for some or all of the purchase price for Co-Formulated Buprenorphine/Naloxone ("Suboxone") in AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OK, OR, PA, PR, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY, and DC between December 22, 2011 and August 21, 2023 (the "Class Period"). A more detailed notice, including the exact Class definition and exceptions to Class membership, is available at www.SuboxAntitrust.com. Your Rights and Options DO NOTHING: If you did not request exclusion from the Class by April 17, 2022, you are a member of the Class and by doing nothing you will remain in the Class, but will not be entitled to share in any distribution from the Settlement Fund. You will be bound by any decision of the Court in this Lawsuit, including rulings on the Settlement. SUBMIT A CLAIM FORM: If you did not exclude yourself from the Class prior to the April 17, 2022 deadline and believe you are a Class Member, you will need to complete and return a Claim Form to obtain a share of the Net Settlement Fund. The Claim Form, and information on how to submit it, are available on the website, www.SuboxAntitrust.com. Claim Forms must be postmarked (if mailed) or received (if submitted online) on or before February 17, 2024. EXCLUDE YOURSELF FROM THE CLASS: If you exclude yourself from the Class (i.e., opt out), you will not be bound by any orders and judgments of the Court on the issues and you will not give up your right to sue Indivior as part of any other lawsuit for the issues raised in this case. The deadline to exclude yourself from the Class is October 12, 2023. Specific instructions on how to request exclusion are included in the Long-Form Notice available on the website, www.SuboxAntitrust.com. OBJECT TO THE SETTLEMENT: If you object to all or any part of the Settlement, the request for attorneys' fees, reimbursement of expenses, or the award of service awards to named End Payor Plaintiffs, or desire to speak in person at the Fairness Hearing, you must file a written letter of objection and/or a notice of intention to speak along with a summary statement with the Court and with Co-Lead Counsel and counsel for the Defendants by October 5, 2023. Specific instructions are included in the Long-Form Notice available on the website, www.SuboxAntitrust.com. Want More Information? Go to www.SuboxAntitrust.com, call 1-877-311-3735, email info@SuboxAntitrust.com, or write to Settlement Administrator 54388, c/o A.B. Data, Ltd., P.O. Box 173080, Milwaukee, WI 53217. The deadlines contained in this Notice may be amended by Court Order, so check the Settlement website for any updates. Please do not call the Court or the Clerk of the Court for information about the Settlement. [GN] RITE AID: Faces Anderson Suit Over Illegal Wiretapping ------------------------------------------------------ MARYLOU ANDERSON; AUTUMN BLAZE; CALDER DUFFY; and NASHERE MCGEE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. RITE AID CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-03332 (E.D. PA., Aug. 25, 2023) alleges violation of the Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act. According to the complaint, unbeknownst to Tracked Users, Rite Aid employs tracking tools on the Website, https://riteaid.com/ which intercept communications between Tracked Users and the Website. The tracking tools, which were created by Google and Meta (collectively referred to herein as the "Tracking Entities") send the Tracking Entities information relating to Tracked Users' searches on the Website. The Website does not provide Tracked Users with notice that the Website's use of a Search Bar would cause their Queries to be shared with the Tracking Entities, that viewing items or adding items to a cart will result in detailed information about those items being intercepted by the Tracking Entities, or that such interceptions will be used to benefit the Defendant and Tracking Entities separate from the services being rendered to the Visitor, the suit alleges. RITE AID CORPORATION operates retail drugstores. The Company is also involved in pharmacy benefit management marketing prescription plans and selling other managed health care services to employers, health plans and their members, and government-sponsored employee benefit programs. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Russell D. Paul, Esq. Jacob M. Polakoff, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 Email: rpaul@bm.net jpolakoff@bm.net - and - Mark S. Reich, Esq. Courtney Maccarone, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 55 Broadway, 4th Floor, Suite 427 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 Email: mreich@zlk.com cmaccarone@zlk.com ROBLOX CORP: Faces Class Action Over Gambling Websites' Charges --------------------------------------------------------------- John Nowacky, writing for Game Is Hard, reports that plaintiffs Rachelle Colvin, Danielle Sass, and their minor children have filed a class action lawsuit against Roblox Corporation, Satozuki, Studs, and RBLXWild. The lawsuit claims that these companies use the Roblox platform to enable minors to gamble with the site's digital currency, Robux. The class action was filed in federal court in California. According to the lawsuit, minors first need to acquire Robux within the Roblox system, which can be obtained through purchases using money, a parent's credit card, or a gift card. Once the minor has Robux, they can access the defendants' gambling websites outside of Roblox and use the virtual casino to gamble with their Robux. Roblox allegedly keeps track of these electronic transfers and is aware of each transaction that occurs within its ecosystem. While minors can potentially win and increase their Robux through gambling, the lawsuit states that it is more likely for them to lose Robux in the process. Roblox allegedly profits from this gambling activity by charging a 30% fee to exchange Robux back into cash for the gambling websites. The class action claims that this alleged scheme generates millions in annual cash fee payments for Roblox. This lawsuit comes after Roblox recently agreed to pay $10 million as part of a class action settlement to resolve claims that it took advantage of children by allowing excessive purchases and subsequently deleting related content to cover it up. The plaintiffs are represented by Weitz and Luxenberg, PC and Johnson Firm. The case is Colvin, et al. v. Roblox Corp., et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-04146, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. [GN] SCULPTOR CAPITAL: Juan Monteverde Investigates Proposed Rithm Sale ------------------------------------------------------------------ Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner of the class action firm Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a national securities firm rated Top 50 in the 2018-2021 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report and headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating: Sculptor Capital Management Inc. (NYSE: SCU), relating to its proposed sale to Rithm Capital Corp. Under the terms of the agreement, Class A SCU shareholders are expected to receive $11.15 in cash per share they own. Click here for more information: https://monteverdelaw.com/case/sculptor-capital-management-inc. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. American National Bankshares Inc. (Nasdaq: AMNB), relating to its proposed sale to Atlantic Union Bankshares Corp. Under the terms of the agreement, AMNB shareholders will receive 1.35 shares of Atlantic per share they own. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/american-national-bankshares-inc. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. New Relic, Inc. (NYSE: NEWR), relating to its proposed sale to Francisco Partners. Under the terms of the agreement, NEWR shareholders will receive $87.00 in cash per share they own. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/new-relic-inc. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. Reata Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Nasdaq: RETA), relating to its proposed sale to Biogen, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, RETA shareholders are expected to receive $172.50 in cash per share they own. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/reata-pharmaceuticals-inc. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. About Monteverde & Associates PC We are a national class action securities and consumer litigation law firm that has recovered millions of dollars for shareholders and is committed to protecting investors and consumers from corporate wrongdoing. Monteverde & Associates lawyers have significant experience litigating Mergers & Acquisitions and Securities Class Actions, whereby they protect investors by recovering money and remedying corporate misconduct. Mr. Monteverde, who leads the legal team at the firm, has been recognized by Super Lawyers as a Rising Star in Securities Litigation in 2013, 2017-2019 and a Super Lawyers Honoree in Securities Litigation in 2022-2023. He has also been selected by Martindale-Hubbell as a 2017-2023 Top Rated Lawyer. Our firm's recent successes include changing the law in a significant victory that lowered the standard of liability under Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act in the Ninth Circuit. Thereafter, our firm successfully preserved this victory by obtaining dismissal of a writ of certiorari as improvidently granted at the United States Supreme Court. Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian, 139 S. Ct. 1407 (2019). Also, over the years the firm has recovered or secured over a dozen cash common funds for shareholders in mergers & acquisitions class action cases. If you own common stock in any of the above listed companies and wish to obtain additional information and protect your investments free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4405 New York, NY 10118 United States of America jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN] SMASHTECH LLC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Camacho Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- ANDREA CAMACHO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SMASHTECH, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:23-cv-01060 (W.D. Tex., Aug. 25, 2023) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls. SMASHTECH, LLC is a marketing and advertising company offering technology marketing services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com Telephone: (954) 400-4713 STEADMAN PARKING: Talbot Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ STEVEN TALBOT, individually and on behalf of all putative class members v. STEADMAN PARKING SERVICES, LLC, CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK, INC., E. C. I. BLDG. CORP. and ALFRED STEADMAN, Case No. 654058/2023 (N.Y. Sup., Aug. 22, 2023) seeks to recover prevailing wages, daily overtime and supplemental benefits for work that he performed on Con Edison and ECI projects, pursuant to the New York Common law as well as seeks for unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime, unpaid wages, unpaid spread-of-hours premiums, unreimbursed business expenses and for the Defendants' failure to provide proper wage notices and wage statements, pursuant to New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff was compensated on a biweekly basis at all relevant times and thus did not receive timely wages despite being a manual worker. The Plaintiff additionally seeks to recover untimely wage compensation and other damages pursuant to NYLL for Defendants' failure to properly pay him his wages within seven calendar days after the end of the week in which those wages were earned. The Plaintiff further brings claim for unpaid call-in pay pursuant to NY Comp. Codes R. & Regs. against Defendants Steadman Parking Services LLC and Alfred Steadman. Mr. Talbot worked for the Defendants as a flagger and spotter from July or August 2015 through August 30, 2017. Steadman is in the business of reserving parking spaces and providing construction flagging services for customers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brent E. Pelton, Esq. Taylor B. Graham, Esq. Kristen E. Boysen, Esq. PELTON GRAHAM LLC 111 Broadway, Suite 1503 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 385-9700 Facsimile: (212) 385-0800 E-mail: Pelton @PeltonGraham.com Graham@PeltonGraham.com Boysen@PeltonGraham.com TD AMERITRADE: Faces Data Breach Class Action in Nebraska --------------------------------------------------------- Skye Witley, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that personal investment companies TD Ameritrade Inc. and its parent Charles Schwab Corp. neglected cybersecurity protections that would have prevented cyberthieves from taking sensitive customer data, according to a lawsuit filed in Nebraska federal court. Approximately 61,000 TD Ameritrade customers had Social Security numbers, financial account information, and other sensitive data exfiltrated by hackers, said the proposed class action filed in the US District Court for the District of Nebraska. The data was stolen after cybercriminals exploited a vulnerability in the MOVEit file-transfer system, used by businesses and government agencies to move data. Since the hacking campaign began in June, more than a dozen companies have been hit with class actions seeking retribution over exposed information. Plaintiff Keren Jeanfort said in the complaint that exposure of her private data increases her risk of suffering from financial fraud or identity theft and is seeking recovery for the diminished value of her information and time spent addressing the breach. TD Ameritrade ignored cybersecurity best practices such as regular security audits that are recommended by the industry and government agencies including the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, the complaint said. Charles Schwab, which acquired TD Ameritrade in 2019, was also named as a defendant in the lawsuit. "Generic and conclusory allegations are often devoid of accuracy and context," Schwab spokesperson Tatiana Stead said in an emailed comment to Bloomberg Law responding to the suit. "Our focus is protecting our clients. We do that by not only standing by them in such matters but by thoroughly investigating any incident that may affect them," Stead said. Both companies are accused of negligence, unjust enrichment, and breach of implied contract. The law firm Wagstaff & Cartmell is representing Jeanfort. Attorneys for Schwab and TD Ameritrade have not yet entered an appearance. The case is Jeanfort v. TD Ameritrade, Inc., D. Neb., No. 8:23-cv-00380, complaint filed 8/25/23. [GN] TD AMERITRADE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Jeanfort Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- FORTUNO JEANFORT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TD AMERITRADE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 8:23-cv-00381 (D. Neb., Aug. 28, 2023) seeks to redress the Defendant's unlawful, willful and wanton failure to protect the personal identifiable information of the Plaintiff and the Class that was exposed in a major data breach of the Defendant's files saved on the MOVEit server in violation of its legal obligations. According to the complaint, between May 28, 2023 and May 30, 2023, an unknown actor gained access to TD Ameritrade's files that were saved on its MOVEit server. As a result, Plaintiff and the Class Members have had their personal identifiable information exposed. It is believed that the well-known Russian cybergang, CL0P is the source of the attack. Due to the Defendant's negligence, cybercriminals obtained everything they need to commit identity theft and wreak havoc on the financial and personal lives of thousands of individuals, says the suit. TD AMERITRADE, INC. provides investment advisory and brokerage services. The Company offers custody, investment management, and financial planning services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Email: gklinger@milberg.com - and - William B. Federman, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 TD AMERITRADE: Fails to Secure Consumers' Info, Jeanfort Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- KEREN JEANFORT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TD AMERITRADE, INC., and THE CHARLES SCHWAB CORPORATION, Case No. 8:23-cv-00380 (D. Neb., Aug. 25, 2023) contends that the Defendants failed to reasonably secure, monitor, and maintain Personally Identifiable Information provided by consumers. The private information includes names, Social Security numbers, financial account information, dates of birth, other government identification numbers, and other personal identifiers of consumers. On May 30, 2023, the Defendants became aware of an alert issued by Progress Software addressing a critical vulnerability affecting MOVEit, a software tool used widely by businesses and government agencies, including the Defendants, to transfer data. With no explanation for their nine-week delay, on August 3, 2023, the Defendants started notifying the approximately 61,000 unfortunate customers whose PII was stolen over two months ago. To date, the Defendants have not revealed most of the findings of the investigation it commissioned, the Plaintiff claims. As a result, the Plaintiff and other consumers suffered present injury and damages in the form of identity theft, loss of value of their PII, out-of-pocket expenses and the value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the unauthorized access, exfiltration, and subsequent criminal misuse of their sensitive and highly personal information. The Plaintiff and Class Members seek to remedy these harms and prevent any future data compromise on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated persons whose personal data was compromised and stolen as a result of the Data Breach and remains at risk due to inadequate data security. Plaintiff Jeanfort is a resident and citizen of Florida, where he intends to remain. He received a "Notice of Data Breach" letter dated August 3, 2023, on August 22, 2023 from "TD Ameritrade Client Services." TD Ameritrade is a stockbroker that offers an electronic trading platform for the trade of financial assets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tyler W. Hudson, Esq. Eric D. Barton, Esq. WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL, LLC 4740 Grand Avenue, Suite 300 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 701-1100 E-mail: thudson@wcllp.com ebarton@wcllp.com - and - David S. Almeida, Esq. Elena Belov, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 849 W. Webster Avenue Chicago, IL 60614 Telephone: (312) 576-3024 E-mail: david@almeidalawgroup.com elena@almeidalawgroup.com TENNECO INC: Motion to Compel Arbitration in ERISA Suit Denied -------------------------------------------------------------- Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Esq., and Derek Franklin, Esq., of Duane Morris, disclosed that in Parker, et al. v. Tenneco Inc., et al., Case No. 2:23-CV-10816 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 21, 2023), Judge George Steeh of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan denieda motion to compel arbitration based on finding an ERISA class action waiver in an arbitration agreement unenforceable. The Court determined that Plaintiffs' breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim under the ERISA "seeks relief for the [Benefits] plan as a whole," and that "the harm (and the recovery) is to the Plan, rather than to plaintiffs specifically." Id. at 14-15. In turn, the Court concluded that compelling arbitration and enforcing the class action waiver would prevent plan participants from seeking plan-wide remedies conferred by the ERISA statute. For these reasons, the Parker decision is instructive for employers seeking to implement an enforceable class action wavier and configure arbitration agreements that are best suited to account for the possibility of a class action waiver being nullified. Case Background The group of Plaintiffs in the Parker lawsuit were led by Tanika Parker, a current employee of DRiV Automotive Inc. ("DRiV"), and Andrew Farrier, a former worker for Tenneco Inc. ("Tenneco"). DRiV and Tenneco were two of several affiliated entities named as Defendants in the case. Parker and Farrier, participants in ERISA-covered 401(k) plans (the "Plans") sponsored by their respective employers, alleged that Defendants breached their fiduciary duties under the ERISA by failing to prudently monitor and control the Plans' investments and expenses. Defendants moved to compel arbitration of Plaintiffs' claims on an individual basis, pursuant to an Arbitration Procedure adopted by the Plans containing language barring participants from bringing ERISA claims as a group or class. The Arbitration Procedure also provided that, if the class action waiver was found unenforceable or invalid by a court, the entire arbitration procedures would become null and void. Eastern District of Michigan Opinion In denying Plaintiffs' motion to compel arbitration, Judge Steeth ruled that the class action waiver within the Arbitration Procedure was unenforceable because it "limits a participant's substantive right under ERISA by prohibiting plan participants from bringing suit." Id. at 15. The Court's reasoning cited an April 2022 Sixth Circuit decision in Hawkins v. Cintas Corp., 32 F.4th 625, 630 (6th Cir. 2022), which held that breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims under the ERISA are "brought in a representative capacity on behalf of the plan as a whole." Id. at 10. The Court also quoted the explanation in the Hawkins decision that, although an ERISA breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim is typically brought by individual plaintiffs, "it is the plan that takes legal claim to the recovery, suggesting that the claim really 'belongs' to the Plan," and that "an arbitration agreement that binds only individual participants cannot bring such claims into arbitration." Id. at 12. Consistent with that rationale, the Court in Parker held that the ERISA class action waiver in the Arbitration Procedure at issue was unenforceable because it would preclude Plan participants from pursuing "plan-wide remedies" provided for under the ERISA statute that cannot be waived by an agreement. Id. at 15. According to the Court, this would occur by the class action waiver "(1) prohibiting participants from bringing suit in a representative capacity on behalf of the plan, and (2) limiting relief to losses attributable to individual participant accounts, as opposed to plan-wide remedies." Id. Given that the Arbitration Procedure provided that it "shall be rendered null and void in all respects" if the class action waiver were to be "found unenforceable or invalid by the court," the Court declared the entire Arbitration Procedure null and void and denied Defendants' motion to compel arbitration. Id. at 15-16. Implications for Class Action Defendants As federal courts continue to issue decisions limiting the application of class action waivers relative to claims under the ERISA, it remains critical for businesses and employers to regularly review their arbitration agreements and class action waiver language to ensure legal compliance. Any business trying to implement an enforceable class action waiver should carefully consider the potential risks of extending that language to cover plan mismanagement claims under the ERISA. Businesses should also review their arbitration procedures to ensure they are best positioned to function independently of a potentially unenforceable class action waiver. [GN] TRILLIUM COMMUNITY: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Hopkins Says -------------------------------------------------------------- JENNIFER HOPKINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRILLIUM COMMUNITY HEALTH PLAN, INC.; PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION; and PERFORMANCE HEALTH TECHNOLOGY, LTD., Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-01259-YY (D. Or., Aug. 28, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for their failure to properly secure and safeguard personally identifiable information including, but not limited to, the Plaintiff's and Class Members' names, dates of birth, social security numbers, demographic information, addresses, member and plan ID numbers, email addresses, authorization information, diagnosis and procedure codes, and claim and billing information. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that despite the Defendants' duties to Plaintiff and Class Members related to and arising from its cloud hosting and secure file transfer services and applications involving MOVEit, the Defendants stored, maintained, and hosted the Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information on its MOVEit transfer services software that was negligently and 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 PH Tech. These security vulnerabilities existed as far back as 2021. As a result of the breach, unauthorized third-party cybercriminals gained access to and obtained Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII. Allegedly, the Defendants' unreasonable and inadequate data security practices that resulted in the Data Breach, Plaintiff and Class Members are at a current and ongoing risk of identity theft and have suffered numerous actual and concrete injuries and damages. TRILLIUM COMMUNITY HEALTH PLAN INC. operates as a medical insurance firm. The Company provides health insurance plans for individuals, families, and small businesses. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew S. Kirkpatrick, Esq. KIRKPATRICK LAW, LLC 7505 SE 18th Avenue Portland, OR 97202 Telephone: (503) 901-8739 Facsimile: (503) 894-7846 Email: MattK@MKirkpatrickLaw.com ULTIMATE FIGHTING: To Appeal Class Cert. Ruling in Antitrust Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Michael McCann, writing for Sportico, reports that do workers have an inherent right to see their compensation grow at the same rate as their company's revenue? There's no law or case precedent in the U.S. that compels that result. But in a new court filing, UFC warns Cung Le, et al. v. Zuffa (UFC) could trigger novel and disruptive economic rules for American businesses. On Aug 23, UFC petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for permission to appeal a district court judge's class certification of an antitrust lawsuit brought by six former UFC fighters. UFC contends Judge Richard Boulware's Aug. 10 order could "unleash a new breed of antitrust class actions" that pose "drastic and unprecedented consequences" and "put courts in the role of effectively setting compensation" for workers. Boulware certified a class that consists of over 1,200 fighters who were in one or more UFC bouts that took place, or were broadcast, in the U.S. from Dec. 16, 2010, to June 30, 2017. As the plaintiffs see it, UFC has abused its position as the leading MMA promotions company to pay fighters less. They depict UFC as a monopsony, with too much market control over the buying of elite pro MMA fighters' services. UFC seeks for the Ninth Circuit to intervene and reverse the class certification, arguing the case presents "an important opportunity to clarify the certification requirements for class actions alleging suppression of compensation." The petition criticizes Boulware for "embracing" an "unprecedented theory" that UFC has violated antitrust law "by not increasing the compensation of fighters in direct proportion" to growth in revenues. UFC warns this theory will incentivize "workers and contractors" in other industries to claim injury under antitrust law if their "individual compensation levels did not grow at the same rate as the company's overall revenue." MMA and pro sports in general are obviously different from many workplaces, but a court ruling on worker compensation in one situation can become precedent for others. Although UFC fighters' compensation levels vary by how often a fighter fights and wins, fighters collectively receive a smaller share of revenue compared to players in the four major team-based sports (NFL, NBA, MLB and NHL). But UFC has pushed back, noting UFC fighter compensation has increased by over 600% since 2005. NFL, NBA, MLB and NHL players have also unionized and negotiated shares of revenue as part of the give-and-take of collective bargaining. UFC fighters are contractors who individually negotiate compensation. UFC insists grouping fighters together fails to meet the necessary elements of class certification under federal law. Such grouping, UFC argues, "erroneously" glosses over "individualized differences" in fighters' contracts. Some superstars, like Conor McGregor or Jon Jones, have earned many millions of dollars while less prominent and less successful fighters earn far less. Even if the aggregate pool of compensation for fighters would be higher with a greater share of revenue, UFC contends "that proves nothing about the impact on each individual fighters' pay." The fighters therefore shouldn't be in the same litigation class, UFC argues. UFC also depicts the fighters' calculation of alleged damages of $1.6 billion, which under antitrust law could be automatically trebled to $4.8 billion, as illogically excessive. Those figures "vastly exceed" the $235 million in net income Zuffa—UFC's owner and operator—reported during the class period. That net income would only cover about 15% of $1.6 billion and just 5% of $4.8 billion. The former fighters will contest these arguments in a forthcoming court filing. They'll likely stress Boulware supported many of their arguments and illuminate anti-competitive features of MMA earning opportunities. UFC would probably respond by emphasizing how competing MMA promotions have landed lucrative media and broadcast contracts and how some prominent fighters have turned down UFC to join rivals. In May, Francis Ngannou rejected what was reportedly the largest UFC contract offer outside of McGregor to join the Professional Fighters League. It's difficult to envision a comparable athlete in football, basketball, baseball or hockey turning down the NFL, NBA, MLB or NHL, respectively, for another league. Le v. Zuffa has been in court since 2014 and will probably remain in litigation for several more years. A settlement is always a possibility. Minor league baseball players who sued MLB over wages in 2014 reached a settlement with the league last year. But negotiating a settlement could prove challenging. If UFC agrees to change its business model to peg fighter compensation to revenue, it's not clear how that would individually impact fighters or those who work other jobs at UFC.[GN] UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL: Two Suits Over Student Fee Refunds Tossed ---------------------------------------------------------------- WFTV9 reports that adding to a series of similar rulings across the state, an appeals court on Aug. 25 rejected two lawsuits alleging the University of Central Florida should be required to refund money to students because of a campus shutdown early in the COVID-19 pandemic. A panel of the 6th District Court of Appeal turned down arguments that UCF breached contracts by not providing on-campus services funded by student fees. Students Sara Goldstein and Shaunna Wilson were the named plaintiffs in the potential class-action lawsuits. The Aug. 25 decisions only gave a detailed explanation of the Goldstein case, saying a circuit judge dismissed it based on sovereign immunity, a legal concept that helps shield government agencies from liability. Under sovereign immunity, agencies can face lawsuits if it is shown that contracts have been breached. But the appeals court said "Goldstein's complaint incorporates no such documents containing express terms requiring UCF to provide on-campus or in-person services in exchange for the fees." "We are mindful of the effects COVID-19 had on the loss of certain college experiences for thousands of students across the state," said the eight-page ruling, written by Judge John Stargel and joined by Judges Carrie Ann Wozniak and Jared Smith. "We are also mindful of the additional responsibilities at state institutions of higher learning to accommodate the health, safety, and education needs of their students during the pandemic. There is simply no basis for us to ignore sovereign immunity in this matter, and UCF has taken no action requiring us to apply the breach of contract exception." The UCF lawsuits were among numerous cases filed against colleges and universities in Florida and across the country after campuses were temporarily shut down because of the pandemic, forcing students to take classes remotely. Many of the lawsuits have focused on seeking refunds of fees that students paid for such things as transportation, health-care and athletic services that were not provided because of the shutdowns. Florida appellate courts have issued a series of rulings rejecting lawsuits filed against schools including the University of Florida, Florida International University, Florida Atlantic University, Florida A&M University, Miami Dade College and the private University of Miami. Amid the swirl of cases, the state Supreme Court said in July it will hear arguments in a lawsuit filed by University of Florida graduate student Anthony Rojas. The 1st District Court of Appeal ruled in favor of UF in that case. Read: UCF police report uptick in scams targeting students But one exception has been a class-action lawsuit filed against the University of South Florida by student Valerie Marie Moore. The 2nd District Court of Appeal last year refused a request by USF to dismiss the case, and the Supreme Court on Jan. 5 declined to take up an appeal by USF. Hillsborough County Circuit Judge Darren Farfante in August certified the USF case as a class action. In the Aug. 25 ruling in the Goldstein lawsuit against UCF, the 6th District Court of Appeal drew a distinction with the University of South Florida case. "Unlike the instant (Goldstein) case, Moore proffered documents including student registration agreements that stated, 'By clicking 'Submit Changes' below, I am entering into a legal, binding contract with USF' and incorporated university publications and registration policies that could include express promises to provide specific services in exchange for the payment of tuition," Stargel wrote. [GN] VALLEY NATIONAL: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, White Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- BRIDGETTE WHITE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. VALLEY NATIONAL BANCORP dba VALLEY BANK, Case No. 8:23-cv-01897-SDM-AEP (M.D. Fla., Aug. 22, 2023) sues the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard personally identifiable and financial information of the Plaintiff and the Class members, including names, dates of birth, home addresses, phone numbers, Social Security numbers, and email addresses. In the course of its business, the Defendant is entrusted with an extensive amount of the Plaintiff's and the Class members' PII, which the Defendant then shared with its vendor Progress Software. Between May 27, 2023, and May 31, 2023, an intruder gained entry to The Defendant's vendor's database, accessed Plaintiff's and the Class members' PII, and exfiltrated information. The Defendant did not notify the Plaintiff and the Class members of the incident until July 25, 2023. The Plaintiff and the Class members now face a lifetime risk of identity theft, which is heightened here by the loss of Social Security numbers, says the suit. Allegedly, the Defendant disregarded the rights of the Plaintiff and the Class members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to take and implement adequate and reasonable measures to ensure their 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 in the possession of its vendor, the Plaintiff alleges. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons whose PII was compromised because of the Defendant's failure to: adequately protect their PII; warn of the Defendant's inadequate vendor related information security practices; effectively oversee, supervise, and secure equipment and the database containing protected PII using reasonable and effective security procedures free of vulnerabilities and incidents; and adequately supervise and oversee its vendor with whom it shared the Plaintiff's and the Class Members' PII. The Defendant operates a national bank with approximately $64 billion in assets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 400-4713 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and - Rachel Dapeer, Esq. DAPEER LAW, P.A. 20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 610-5223 E-mail: rachel@dapeer.com VERITIV CORP: Juan Monteverde Investigates Proposed Clayton Sale ---------------------------------------------------------------- Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner of the class action firm Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a national securities firm rated Top 50 in the 2018-2021 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report and headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating: Veritiv Corp. (NYSE: VRTV), relating to its proposed sale to an affiliate of Clayton, Dubilier & Rice LLC. Under the terms of the agreement, VRTV shareholders will receive $170.00 in cash per share they own. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/veritiv-corp. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. Chase Corp. (NYSE: CCF), relating to its proposed sale to an affiliate of investment funds managed by KKR. Under the terms of the agreement, CCF shareholders are expected to receive $127.50 in cash per share they own. Click here for more information: https://monteverdelaw.com/case/chase-corp. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. American Equity Investment Life Holding Co. (NYSE: AEL), relating to its proposed sale to Brookfield Reinsurance. Under the terms of the agreement, AEL shareholders are expected to receive 0.49707 shares of Brookfield and $38.85 in cash per share they own. Click here for more information: https://monteverdelaw.com/case/american-equity-investment-life-holding-co. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. Arlington Asset Investment Corp. (NYSE: AAIC), relating to its proposed sale to Ellington Financial Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, AAIC shareholders will receive 0.3619 shares of Ellington and $0.09 in cash per share they own. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/arlington-asset-investment-corp. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. About Monteverde & Associates PC We are a national class action securities and consumer litigation law firm that has recovered millions of dollars for shareholders and is committed to protecting investors and consumers from corporate wrongdoing. Monteverde & Associates lawyers have significant experience litigating Mergers & Acquisitions and Securities Class Actions, whereby they protect investors by recovering money and remedying corporate misconduct. Mr. Monteverde, who leads the legal team at the firm, has been recognized by Super Lawyers as a Rising Star in Securities Litigation in 2013, 2017-2019 and a Super Lawyers Honoree in Securities Litigation in 2022-2023. He has also been selected by Martindale-Hubbell as a 2017-2023 Top Rated Lawyer. Our firm's recent successes include changing the law in a significant victory that lowered the standard of liability under Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act in the Ninth Circuit. Thereafter, our firm successfully preserved this victory by obtaining dismissal of a writ of certiorari as improvidently granted at the United States Supreme Court. Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian, 139 S. Ct. 1407 (2019). Also, over the years the firm has recovered or secured over a dozen cash common funds for shareholders in mergers & acquisitions class action cases. If you own common stock in any of the above listed companies and wish to obtain additional information and protect your investments free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4405 New York, NY 10118 United States of America jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN] WORKERS CREDIT: Prelim. Approval of Class Settlement Sought ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIOMY ENCARNACION, Individually and on Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated, v. WORKERS CREDIT UNION, DOES 1 THROUGH 100, Case No. 4:21-cv-40077-MRG (D. Mass.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement and certification of settlement class. Workers Credit provides solutions to help business process debit cards, credit cards, and mobile payments. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 15, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3L0aFrO at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christine M. Craig, Esq. SHAHEEN & GORDON PA 353 Central Ave, Ste 200 Dover, NH 03821 E-mail: CCraig@ShaheenGordon.com - and - Elaine S. Kusel, Esq. Richard D. McCune, Esq. MCCUNE LAW GROUP, MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO VERCOSKI KUSEL WECK BRANDT, APC 3281 East Guasti Road, Suite 100 Ontario, CA 91761 Telephone: (909) 557-1275 Facsimile: (909) 557-1275 E-mail: esk@mccunewright.com rdm@mccunewright.com XOOM ENERGY: Summary Judgment Bid vs Mirkin Partly Granted ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUSANNA MIRKIN and BORIS MIRKIN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. XOOM ENERGY, LLC, and XOOM ENERGY NEW YORK, LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-02949-ARR-RER (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Allyne R. Ross entered an order granting in part and denying in part Xoom's motion for summary judgment. "Specifically, I grant summary judgment for XOOM as to Boris Mirkin's claim for breach of contract because he was neither a party to nor a third-party beneficiary of the contract," Judge Ross said. I deny summary judgment as to Susanna Mirkin's claim for breach of contract because she contracted to receive residential electricity from XOOM and there is a genuine dispute as to whether XOOM breached the contract, the Judge added. The Plaintiffs Susanna Mirkin and Boris Mirkin, a married couple residing together in Brooklyn, bring this putative class action against the defendants The Mirkins' amended complaint asserts a claim for breach of that contract, alleging that XOOM charged them exorbitant rates. Following discovery, XOOM moved for summary judgment, principally arguing that it had no contract with Boris Mirkin and that it did not breach its contract with Susanna Mirkin. In 1996, New York deregulated its energy markets with the goal of fostering competition and lowering rates for consumers. Pls.’ 56.1 ¶¶ 48–50. Deregulation allowed the proliferation of ESCOs like XOOM, which purchase energy from producers on the wholesale market and sell it to consumers. In March 2013, Boris Mirkin applied under his wife's name to receive residential electricity service through XOOM's SimpleFlex variable rate plan. XOOM is an independent energy retailer that supplies natural gas, electricity and renewable energy to residential, small business, mid-market and large commercial customers. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 14, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47OeJoZ at no extra charge.[CC] ********* 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 ***