/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230914.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, September 14, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 185 Headlines 3M COMPANY: Bane PFAS Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama 3M COMPANY: Castor PFAS Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama 3M COMPANY: Frechtman Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals 3M COMPANY: Kidney Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 7TH STREET: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Henao Suit Alleges ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Prescott Sues Over Mislabeled Shakes, Powders AEROVIRONMENT INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Oct. 30 AEROVIRONMENT INC: Bissing Sues Over Drop in Share Price AKEBIA THERAPEUTICS: Oct. 18 Oral Argument in Consolidated Suit Set ALLWELL BEHAVIORAL: Settles Data Breach Class Action for $650,000 ALPHABET INC: Faces Copyright Class Action Over Google AI Chatbot AMERICAN INCOME: Cost Sues Over Unpaid Proper Compensations AMERICAN INCOME: Ridge Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensations AMERICAN TUNA: Craig Has Until Sept. 18 to File Class Cert Reply ANAERGIA INC: SMK Law and Bates Barristers File Class Action ASHLEY FURNITURE: DuraBlend Uphostery Misleads Customers BARRIO BROS: Faces Greenfield Suit Over Unpaid Minimum Wages BHP GROUP: High Court's Jurisdiction in Dam Disaster Suit Discussed BRADLEY UNIVERSITY: Eddlemon Suit Seeks Class Certification BRETT DINOVI: Philbin Suit Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification BRYAN SKILLED: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Broodie Alleges BURGER KING: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Whopper Sandwiches CAMP LEJEUNE: Plaintiff Seeks Reconsideration of July 19 Order CANADA: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Privacy Breach CAPITAL COURIER: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Burkhard Suit Alleges CARDONE CAPITAL: Investor's Daughter Sues Over Business Scheme CIGNA CORP: Faces Class Suit Over Wrongful Insurance Claims Denial CLOROX CO: Faces Class Action Over Water Pitcher Packaging Claims COCINAS Y CALAVERAS: Faces Rauda Wage-and-Hour Suit in Calif. CORNERTSONE BUILDING: Continues to Defend Water Island Merger Suit CURVATURE LANDSCAPES: Bonds Seeks Landscapers' Overtime Pay CVS HEALTH: 9th Cir. Affirms Denial of Class Certification CYPRESS CREEK: Morales Sues Over Contaminated Gasoline DELTA PACKING: Barbosa Bid to Certify Class Partly OK'd DIGITAL MEDIA: Loses Bifurcation Motion in TCPA Class Action DIREXION SHARES: Averts Securities Class Action Over ETFs DOLAR SHOP: Must Oppose Li Opening Bid by Sept. 27 DRAFTKINGS INC: Continues to Defend Daily Fantasy Class Suit DRAFTKINGS INC: Continues to Defend GNOG Putative Class Suit DRAFTKINGS INC: Continues to Defend Turley Class Suit EAST COAST ASSEMBLERS: Fails to Pay Proper OT, Peachlyn Claims EDGEWELL PERSONAL: Parties Seek to Extend Class Cert. Deadlines EDWARD-ELMHURST HEALTH: Faces Privacy Class Action in Illinois EGS FINANCIAL: Lyle Seeks More Time to File Class Certification Bid EHEALTH INC: Consolidated Shareholder Suit Over SEC Filing Ongoing EL CENTRO DEL: Leal Files Suit in W.D. Texas ELECTROLUX HOME: Anderson Sues Over Dangerous Defective Ranges ENT AND ALLERGY: Clement Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ESAFETY SUPPLIES: Cromitie Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York EVANSTON INSURANCE: Bid to Dismiss GPI Class Suit Tossed EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Aikens Sues Over False Credit Reporting FATE THERAPEUTICS: Faces Hadian Suit Over Janssen Deal FIELDALE FARMS: Panel Vacates $57M Fee Award in $181M Settlement FIFTY WEST: Morse Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class FIVE-STAR AUDIOVISUAL: Johnson Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices FMR LLC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Hanson Suit Alleges FORD MOTOR: Sued Over Defective Explorer Rear Subframe Assembly FORESTERS LIFE: Velez Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action G.E.S. Bakery: Pre-Class Cert Discovery Filing Due Dec. 31, 2024 GEICO CORP: Faces Class Action Over Privacy Breach Allegations GEN DIGITAL INC: Continues to Defend Lau Class Suit in N.D. Cal. GENERAL ATLANTIC: Faces Franchi Suit Over Veto Right GEORGIA-CAROLINA STUCCO: Court Tosses Conditional Certification Bid GILEAD SCIENCES: Continues to Defend Consumer Protection Class Suit GLOBAL RESOURCES: Fact Discovery in Bassaw Due Dec. 22 GOLDMAN SACHS: Mintz Attorneys Discuss Securities Fraud Suit Ruling GOOGLE LLC: Bid to Seal Class Cert Briefing OK'd in Rodriguez Suit GOOGLE LLC: Judge Moves to Decertify Google Play Class Action GOOGLE LLC: Loses Bid for Summary Judgment vs Cabrera GREEN DOT: Koffsmon Securities Suit Over SEC Filings Ongoing H. STERN JEWELERS: Martin Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York HAL LEONARD LLC: Cromitie Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York HAWAIIAN AIRLINES: Parties Seek to Seal Certain Exhibits HEALTHY PAWS: Court Tosses Bids to File 4th & 5th Amended Complaint HOST INTERNATIONAL: Seeks to Reschedule Class Certification Hearing HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA: Franz Files Suit in C.D. California IN GOOD COMPANY: Clement Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York INDIANA: DCS Faces Class Action Over Foster Case System INTEL CORP: Class Action Suit Mulled Over Chip Bug Vulnerability IPREH LLC: Fails to Provide Proper Overtime Wages, Burton Says JACOBS SOLUTIONS: Evans Suit Removed to W.D. Washington JDC HEALTHCARE: Lee Seeks to Continue Class Cert. Bid Deadline JOHN HANCOCK: Linhart Allowed to File Document Under Seal JOHNS HOPKINS: Lynch Suit Removed to D. Maryland KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP: Class Action Over Flushable Wipes Certified KRAFT HEINZ: Adams Seek to Certify Class of Florida Purchasers LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN: Court OK's Preliminary Certification LAZARO INC: Clement Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York LEE & LOW BOOKS: Jones Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York LIVE NATION: Motion to Compel Arbitration in Antitrust Suit Denied LUIS DE LA AGUILERA: Benes Suit Removed to S.D. Florida LUX GLOBAL: Cantu Suit Removed to C.D. California MAGIC MONEY: Class Action Settlement Notification Program Begins MAIDEN HOLDINGS: Securities Suit Over Stock Price Drop Ongoing MARIACHI CONNECTION: Mercedes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York MATTERPORT INC: Lynch Class Status Bid Partly OK'd MAVIS TIRE: Plaintiffs Seek Conditional Collective Certification MDL 3052: Court Tosses Bid for Prelim. Class Settlement Approval META PLATFORMS: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Oct. 1, 2024 META PLATFORMS: Hartman Suit Removed to S.D. Illinois METAL TRANSPORTATION: Guimaraes Suit Removed to D. New Jersey MICHAEL KORS: Faces Class Action in Illinois Over ADA Violations MIKE BLOOMBERG: Wood Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class MMM CONSUMER BRANDS: Andrade Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. MORBRO LOGISTICS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Villanueva Says NAPCO SECURITY: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Oct 30 NASSAU COUNTY, NY: Court OK's Settlement Deal in Abbananto NORTHWOOD HEALTHCARE: Motion for Conditional Certification Granted NUTRICOST: Faces False Advertising Class Action Suit PALISADES ACQUISITION: Court Allows FDCPA Class Action to Proceed PANDA EXPRESS: Settles Class Action Over Hidden Delivery Fees PAPA JOHN'S: Averts Class Action Over Website Tracking Software PHILLIPS 66: Final Certification of Settlement Class Sought PREMIERFIRST HOME: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due May 3, 2024 PREMIUM VELOCITY: Williams Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime PRIDE OF STEEL: Mendoza Sues Over Supervisors' Unpaid Wages PRIME SEAMLESS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Holland Alleges RADIUS GLOBAL: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Butts Alleges RAISING CANE'S: Abdulhadi Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website RIPPLE LABS: Bids to Seal Docs in Zakinov Suit Partly OK'd RUNYON GROUP: Faces Kascel Wage-and-Hour Suit in California SECURIX LLC: Faces Class Action Over Uninsured Vehicle Statutes SELECT REHABILITATION: Plaintiffs Seek to Vacate Scheduling Order SEMPER LASER: Martinez Suit Seeks to Certify Sales Manager Class SIG SAUER: Parties Must File Stipulation of Dismissal by Sept. 15 SMH HEALTH CARE: Does Not Properly Pay Nurses, Rockett Says SOUTH PIE COMPANY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Kingham Alleges ST. CAMILLUS: Filing for Class & Collective Certs Due Dec. 22 STATE FARM: Court Narrows Claims in Ellis Suit SUMO LOGIC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Sept. 26 SYSCO SACRAMENTO: Parties in Fite Must File Status Report TARGET CORP: Boyd Sues Over Mislabeled Beauty Products TARGET CORP: Faces Broodie Suit Over Misleading Product Labels TARGET CORPORATION: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Dec. 14 TEVA PHARMA: Class Cert Oral Argument in Halman Set for Sept. 18 TIERRA VIVA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Catota Suit Alleges UNDER ARMOUR: Faces Consolidated Shareholder Suit Over SEC Filings UNISWAP LABS: New York Court Dismisses Cryptocurrency Class Action UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Federal Court Revives ERISA Class Action UNITED STATES: Johnston Balks at Student Loan Payments' Resumption UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS: Burak Saues Over Data Breach UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA: Faces Class Action Over Data Breach URS MIDWEST: Rodriguez Wins Class Certification Bid USCELLULAR CORP: Continues to Defend Stockholder Suit in Illinois UTAH DEPARTMENT: Maxfield Seeks Conditional Class Status VASSAR COLLEGE: Faces Class Action Over Gender Pay Gap VISA INC: Averts Class Action Over Foreign Exchange Fees WANRONG TRADING: Zhu Seeks Initial Approval of Class Settlement WHEATLEIGH CORP: Class Action Settlement Gets Prelim. Court Okay WHITE CASTLE: Must Face BIPA Class Action, Court Rules ********* 3M COMPANY: Bane PFAS Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama -------------------------------------------------- The case styled Bryan Bane, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 3M Company, et al., Case No. 01-CV-2023-902324.00, was removed from the Circuit Court for the Tenth Judicial Circuit, Jefferson County, Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Southern Division on August 14, 2023. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Alabama assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-01058-JHE to the proceeding. The case arises from 3M and certain other Defendants' alleged conduct in designing, manufacturing, and/or selling aqueous film-forming foams and/or firefighter turnout gear. The Plaintiffs allege the products, which were used in firefighting activities, contain toxic chemicals known as perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, thereby causing injury to Plaintiffs. Headquartered in St Paul, Minnesota, 3M is one of the world's largest manufacturers of aqueous film-forming foams. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: M. Christian King, Esq. Harlan I. Prater, IV, Esq. W. Larkin Radney, IV, Esq. Wesley B. Gilchrist, Esq. LIGHTFOOT, FRANKLIN & WHITE, L.L.C. The Clark Building 400 North 20th Street Birmingham, AL 35203-3200 Telephone: (205) 581-0700 E-mail: cking@lightfootlaw.com hprater@lightfootlaw.com lradney@lightfootlaw.com wgilchrist@lightfootlaw.com 3M COMPANY: Castor PFAS Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama ---------------------------------------------------- The case styled RALPH CASTOR JR, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY, et al., Case No. 01-CV-2023- 902328.00, was removed from the Circuit Court for the Tenth Judicial Circuit, Jefferson County, Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Southern Division on August 14, 2023. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Alabama assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-01062-NAD to the proceeding. The case arises from 3M and certain other Defendants' alleged conduct in designing, manufacturing, and/or selling aqueous filmforming foams and/or firefighter turnout gear. The Plaintiffs allege the products, which were used in firefighting activities, contain toxic chemicals known as perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, thereby causing injury to Plaintiffs. Headquartered in St Paul, Minnesota, 3M is one of the world's largest manufacturers of aqueous film-forming foams. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: M. Christian King, Esq. Harlan I. Prater, IV, Esq. W. Larkin Radney, IV, Esq. Wesley B. Gilchrist, Esq. LIGHTFOOT, FRANKLIN & WHITE, L.L.C. The Clark Building 400 North 20th Street Birmingham, AL 35203-3200 Telephone: (205) 581-0700 E-mail: cking@lightfootlaw.com hprater@lightfootlaw.com lradney@lightfootlaw.com wgilchrist@lightfootlaw.com 3M COMPANY: Frechtman Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals ----------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Frechtman, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCK EYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC. DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;) DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDIE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as Successor-in-interest to the Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); and ABC CORPORATIONS (1-50), Case No. 2:23-cv-04413-RMG (D.S.C., Sept. 1, 2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his career and was diagnosed with ulcerative colitis and/or other medical conditions as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq. John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq. WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER P.A. 125 Half Mile Road, Suite 100 Red Bank, NJ 07701 Phone: 732-855-6060 Facsimile: 732-726-4860 3M COMPANY: Kidney Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ----------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Kidney and Wendy Kidney, his wife, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCK EYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC. DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;) DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDIE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDIE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as Successor-in-interest to the Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); and ABC CORPORATIONS (1-50), Case No. 2:23-cv-04415-RMG (D.S.C., Sept. 1, 2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff Robert Kidney regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career, and was diagnosed with prostate cancer and/or other medical conditions as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq. John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq. WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER P.A. 125 Half Mile Road, Suite 100 Red Bank, NJ 07701 Phone: 732-855-6060 Facsimile: 732-726-4860 7TH STREET: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Henao Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------- JORGE E. HENAO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 7TH STREET APARTMENTS LLC; GHULAM USMAN; and ZEE LARKAN, individually, Defendants, Case No. 0:23-cv-61691-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Aug. 31, 2023) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Henao was employed by the Defendants as a maintenance employee. 7TH AVE APTS was founded in 1990. The company's line of business includes the operation of apartment buildings. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, PA. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd. Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Prescott Sues Over Mislabeled Shakes, Powders ------------------------------------------------------------------ STEVEN PRESCOTT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, Defendant, Case No. 5:23-cv-04348-NC (N.D. Cal., Aug. 24, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for breach of express warranty, unjust enrichment/restitution, and for violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California False Advertising Law, California Unfair Competition Law. The putative class action arises from Defendant's alleged abuse of consumer trust by marketing its popular "Glucerna" brand shakes and powders as nutritional and "formulated specifically for diabetics" even though they contain sucralose and other key ingredients shown to deregulate blood sugar, worsen diabetes, and even cause it, among other harms. The Plaintiff seeks, on his behalf and on behalf of similarly situated consumers, monetary recovery of the premium consumers paid for the products due to the false and deceptive labeling, consistent with permissible law (including, for example, damages, restitution, disgorgement, and any applicable penalties solely as those causes of action so permitted). Abbott Laboratories is an American multinational medical devices and health care company with headquarters in Abbott Park, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shireen M. Clarkson, Esq. Bahar Sodaify, Esq. Alan Gudino, Esq. Ryan Ardi, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C. 22525 Pacific Coast Highway Malibu, CA 90265 Telephone: (213) 788-4050 Facsimile: (213) 788-4070 E-mail: sclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com bsodaify@clarksonlawfirm.com agudino@clarksonlawfirm.com rardi@clarksonlawfirm.com AEROVIRONMENT INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Oct. 30 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Johnson Fistel, LLP notifies investors of AeroVironment, Inc. ("AeroVironment" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: AVAV) a securities class action lawsuit has been filed. The lawsuit seeks to recover losses on behalf of investors who acquired securities within the class period. Investors who acquired securities during the class period, June 29, 2021 and December 7, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period") are encouraged to review the following information. If you would like more information and want to join the class action please click or copy and paste the following link: https://www.johnsonfistel.com/investigations/aerovironment There is no cost or obligation to you. Complaint Allegations: The complaint alleges that on December 7, 2021, AeroVironment announced second quarter results below market estimates and reduced revenue guidance for the remainder of the fiscal year from a range of $560 million to $580 million to a range of $440 million to $460 million. AeroVironment also lowered its EBITDA guidance from $105 million to $110 million to $59 million to $65 million. Following this news, AeroVironment's stock declined the following day by nearly 30% to close at $57.98/share causing significant losses to shareholders at the time. What can Investors Do: Shareholders who incurred losses during the class period, have until October 30, 2023, to move the court to become a lead plaintiff in this action. A lead plaintiff will act on behalf of all other class members in directing the class-action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the class-action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share any potential future recovery of the class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Johnson Fistel, LLP is a shareholder rights law firm representing individual and institutional investors in shareholder derivative and securities class action lawsuits. For more information, visit their website http://www.johnsonfistel.com. Contact: Johnson Fistel, LLP Jim Baker, 619-814-4471 Investor Relations jimb@johnsonfistel.com or Frank Johnson, 619-309-4405 fjohnson@johnsonfistel.com [GN] AEROVIRONMENT INC: Bissing Sues Over Drop in Share Price -------------------------------------------------------- JESSE JOSEPH BISSING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AEROVIRONMENT, INC.; WAHID NAWABI; and KEVIN PATRICK MCDONNELL, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-01160 (E.D. Va., Aug. 30, 2023) is a federa1 securities class action on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired AeroVironment securities between June 29, 2021 and December 7, 2021, inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws (the "Class"). According to the complaint, the Defendants provided overwhelming positive statements to investors while, at the same time, disseminating materially false and misleading statements and concealing material adverse facts concerning procurement delays, supply chain issues, staffing shortages and possession of a record backlog. This caused the Plaintiff and other shareholders to purchase AeroVironment's securities at artificially inflated prices. The truth emerged on December 7, 2021, when AeroVironment issued a press release announcing its second quarter earnings. In pertinent part, the Defendants announced they were reducing their guidance for fiscal 2022 from $560 and $580 million down to $440 and $460 million due allegedly to supply chain constraints due to COVID-19, extended procurement cycles tied to the Continuing Resolution, and staffing shortages. Investors and analysts reacted immediately to AeroVironment's revelation. The price of AeroVironment's common stock declined dramatically. From a closing market price of $79.95 per share on December 6, 2021, AeroVironment's stock price fell to $57.98 per share on December 7, 2021, a decline of nearly 27 percent in the span of just a single day, says the suit. AEROVIRONMENT, INC. designs, develops, and produces small unmanned aircraft and fast charge systems for electric industrial vehicle batteries. The Company offers long range tracking antenna, sensors, and missile systems. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 1101 Vermont Ave. NW, Suite 700 Washington, D.C., 20005 Telephone: (202) 524-4290 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 Email: etripodi@zlk.com - and - Adam M. Apton, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 Email: aapton@zlk.com AKEBIA THERAPEUTICS: Oct. 18 Oral Argument in Consolidated Suit Set ------------------------------------------------------------------- Akebia Therapeutics Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the fiscal period ending June 30, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 28, 2023, that the oral argument for the consolidated stockholder class suits is scheduled to be held on October 18, 2023. On July 15, 2021, a purported former Keryx stockholder filed a putative class action in the Supreme Court of the State of New York against Akebia, a current officer of Akebia (John P. Butler), a former officer of Akebia (Jason A. Amello), former directors of Akebia (Muneer A. Satter, Scott A. Canute, Michael D. Clayman, Maxine Gowen, Duane Nash, Ronald C. Renaud, Jr., and Michael S. Wyzga), a current director of Akebia (Cynthia Smith), a former director and officer of Keryx (Jodie P. Morrison), a former officer of Keryx (Scott A. Holmes) and former directors of Keryx (Michael Rogers, Kevin J. Cameron, Steven C. Gilman, Daniel P. Regan, Mark J. Enyedy, and Michael T. Heffernan, some of whom are current members of our Board of Directors). The action is captioned Loper v. Akebia Therapeutics, Inc., et al., or the Loper Action. The complaint in the Loper Action alleges that the registration statement filed in connection with the Merger contained allegedly false and misleading statements or failed to disclose certain allegedly material information in violation of Section 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. It alleges, among other things, that Akebia failed to disclose heightened safety risks that allegedly threatened the prospects of the Phase 3 PRO2TECT clinical trial and the commercial viability of vadadustat. The complaint in the Loper Action seeks damages including interest thereon, an award of plaintiffs' and the class' costs and expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees, and rescission, disgorgement, or such other equitable or injunctive relief that the Court deems appropriate. On August 16, 2021, another purported former Keryx stockholder filed a putative class action making substantially similar allegations and asserting the same claims as the Loper Action, also in the Supreme Court of the State of New York against Akebia and many of the same individual defendants named in the Loper Action. The action is captioned Panicho v. Akebia Therapeutics, Inc., et al., or the Panicho Action. On September 13, 2021, the parties in the Loper Action and Panicho Action entered into a joint stipulation and proposed order, which provided for the consolidation of the two actions under the caption In re Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. Securities Litigation, or the Consolidated State Action. On October 27, 2021, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint in the Consolidated State Action. On January 10, 2022, defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint in its entirety. Briefing on defendants' motion to dismiss was completed on April 22, 2022. Oral argument was held on October 7, 2022, and the Court dismissed the complaint without prejudice on October 17, 2022, giving plaintiffs thirty days to amend their complaint. On November 16, 2022, plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint, asserting the same claims and seeking the same relief as the consolidated complaint. On January 18, 2023, defendants moved to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint in its entirety. Briefing on defendants' motion to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint was completed on April 5, 2023. Oral argument is currently scheduled to be held on October 18, 2023. Akebia Therapeutics, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses on the development and commercialization of therapeutics for patients with kidney diseases. The company was founded in 2007 and is headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts. ALLWELL BEHAVIORAL: Settles Data Breach Class Action for $650,000 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Allwell Behavioral Health agreed to pay $650,000 to resolve claims it failed to prevent a 2022 data breach. The settlement benefits individuals who received a data breach notification from Allwell Behavioral Health regarding the March 2022 data breach. Plaintiffs in the class action accused Allwell of failing to protect their information from a March 2022 data breach. As a result of Allwell's alleged negligence, cybercriminals gained access to sensitive personal information including Social Security numbers, the data breach class action lawsuit contends. Allwell Behavioral Health is a non-profit behavioral health agency that operates in southeastern Ohio. Allwell hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $650,000 settlement to resolve the data breach class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the Allwell Behavioral Health settlement, class members can receive a $50 flat-rate payment which may be increased or decreased depending on the number of valid claims filed. The settlement also allows class members to claim additional compensation of up to $4,000 for unreimbursed monetary losses and up to five hours of lost time. Lost time is compensated at a rate of $25 per hour and contributes to the $4,000 reimbursement cap for monetary losses. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Sept. 11, 2023. The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for Nov. 9, 2023. In order to receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by Oct. 11, 2023. Class members who did not receive a Notice ID and still wish to submit a claim must do so by Oct. 2, 2023. Who's Eligible Individuals who received a data breach notification from Allwell Behavioral Health regarding the March 2022 data breach Potential Award $4,050 Proof of Purchase Receipts, bank statements, reports or other documentation supporting the class member's claim, including receipts or other documentation not "self-prepared" by the class member. "Self-prepared" documents, such as handwritten receipts, are insufficient to receive reimbursement, but can be considered to add clarity or support other submitted documentation. Claim Form CLICK HERE TO FILE A CLAIM » NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 10/11/2023 Case Name McKittrick, et al. v. Allwell Behavioral Health Services, Case No. CH2022-0174, in the Ohio Court of Common Pleas for Muskingum County Final Hearing 11/09/2023 Settlement Website AllwellDataSettlement.com Claims Administrator Allwell Data Breach Settlement c/o Atticus Administration PO Box 64053 St. Paul, MN 55164 AllwellDataSettlement@atticusadmin.com 800-203-0592 Class Counsel Terence R Coates Jonathan T Deters Dylan J Gould MARKOVITS STOCK & DEMARCO LLC Joseph M Lyon THE LYON FIRM Matthew R Wilson MEYER WILSON CO LPA Brittany Resch TURKE & STRAUSS LLP Defense Counsel David E Williamson David J Shannon Gregory P Graham MARSHALL DENNEHEY [GN] ALPHABET INC: Faces Copyright Class Action Over Google AI Chatbot ----------------------------------------------------------------- MoginRubin disclosed that allegations have lingered for centuries in far-off corners of the literary world that legendary poet and playwright William Shakespeare, the Bard of Avon, stole some of his most famous works. Broad rejection of such claims has been around as long as they have. Now, another Bard has been accused of stealing the writings of others. Google Bard -- Google's artificial intelligence chatbot -- is trained on misappropriated copyrighted data and private information from services including Gmail and Google Search, plaintiffs charge in a suit filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (J.L., et al. v. Alphabet Inc., Google Deepmind, and Google LLC, No. 3:23-cv-3440, N.D. Calif.). Google's general counsel has been quoted in news reports saying the suit is baseless. The company has always been clear and transparent about its use of public information to train its AI services, he said. Bard vs. ChatGPT Google's answer to the popular ChatGPT service, Google Bard pulls real-time information from websites, databases, and other works, whereas, when asked, ChatGPT itself says its responses are "based on the text that I was trained on up until my knowledge cutoff date in September 2021." The chatbot adds, "I don't have real-time access to external information ..." Bard also notes the sources it draws its answers from, while ChatGPT has been known to make things up, including case law. Similar cases have been brought against ChatGPT owner OpenAI (see further down), which reportedly is also being investigated by the FTC for possible unfair and deceptive practices. The Washington Post wrote about a 20-page "demand for records" from the agency which wants to know how OpenAI addresses risks related to its AI models. FTC Chair Lina M. Kahn said in an April 25 statement that federal agencies are watching how AI may be used for nefarious and illegal purposes. "We already see how AI tools can turbocharge fraud and automate discrimination, and we won't hesitate to use the full scope of our legal authorities to protect Americans from these threats," said Chair Khan. "Technological advances can deliver critical innovation — but claims of innovation must not be cover for lawbreaking. There is no AI exemption to the laws on the books, and the FTC will vigorously enforce the law to combat unfair or deceptive practices or unfair methods of competition." Kahn made her comments in a statement jointly released by the FTC, the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Adults and Children in Proposed Class Adult and minor plaintiffs in the proposed Google Bard class action are identified only by their initials. One of the adult plaintiffs is described as a best-selling author and journalist. The other is described as a professor and actor who is active on social media. Others include minors who play games online and connect with family and friends via Google Hangouts and other platforms. Different plaintiffs use Gmail, Google's search engine, YouTube, Google Play, Google Bard, online dating services, and various social media platforms, like Facebook, Snapchat, Instagram, and X (formerly Twitter). For years, the plaintiffs claim, Google DeepMind and its parent company, Alphabet, have been secretly harvesting the data of hundreds of millions of Americans from sources that include social media posts, subscription-based services, and pirate book publishers in order to train their commercial artificial intelligence products, including Google Bard. The range of data at issue in the suit is expansive. Personal and professional information, creative and copyrighted works, including audio, video and written material, photographs, and even personal email are allegedly included. This is virtually the entirety of the digital footprint of proposed class members, the complaint says. The companies could have obtained this information legally, plaintiffs say, but opted to scrape it from unassuming users without consent or compensation. Google's action is allegedly contrary to its own warnings of AI risks and those of the Federal Trade Commission. Google's Privacy Policy Change The complaint maintains that Google quietly updated its privacy policy to reassert that everything shared on the internet is fair game to be used for commercial purposes. Huge collections of public, published, and private data are useful in training AI-boosted "large language models," or LLMs, to communicate like humans. Especially useful are people's conversations. In addition to misappropriating data from subscription services and pirated books, Google allegedly scrapes data from its own platforms, like Gmail and Google Search. Further, since Google's training data comes from a wide range of news and media sources -- some of which lack credibility -- the spread of misinformation is more likely, the suit maintains. Among the allegations is that Google is committing copyright infringement through its generative AI text-to-music capabilities. This appears to be the first such claim. As for causes of action, the suit says Alphabet and the other defendants have violated California's Unfair Competition Law and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Additional counts include negligence, invasion of privacy, intrusion upon seclusion, conversion, larceny/receipt of stolen property, and unjust enrichment. On behalf of other similar individuals, the plaintiffs seek injunctive relief in the form of a temporary freeze on Google's commercial development and use of its products until it has implemented practices to honor copyrights and privacy. They also seek damages, restitution, and disgorgement. ChatGPT Also Draws Suits The Google Bard suit joins at least two other class actions filed this summer alleging illegal use of copyrighted materials to train bots. Best-selling authors Paul Tremblay and Mona Awad filed a similar proposed class action in the Northern District against ChatGPT company OpenAI, Inc., on June 28, 2023 (Tremblay, et al. v. OpenAI, Inc., et al., No. 3:23-cv-03223, N.D. Calif.). Tremblay authored "The Cabin at the End of the World." Awad's works include "13 Ways of Looking at a Fat Girl" and "Bunny." According to the suit: "When ChatGPT was prompted to summarize books written by each of the Plaintiffs, it generated very accurate summaries. . . . The summaries get some details wrong. These details are highlighted in the summaries. This is expected, since a large language model mixes together expressive material derived from many sources. Still, the rest of the summaries are accurate, which means that ChatGPT retains knowledge of particular works in the training dataset and is able to output similar textual content. At no point did ChatGPT reproduce any of the copyright management information Plaintiffs included with their published works." Comedian and author Sarah Silverman, along with "Ararat" author Christopher Golden, and "Sandman Slim" author Richard Kadrey, sued OpenAI for copyright violations on July 7, 2023. Silverman, who claims OpenAI violated the copyright of her memoir, titled "The Bedwetter," says in the proposed class action that the company likely used a pirated version of the work. Others speculate a synopsis of the memoir could have been pulled from descriptions and reviews on the web (Silverman, et al. v. OpenAI, et al.,, No. 3:23-cv-03415-AMO, N.D. Calif.) Comparisons are being made to lawsuits brought several years ago against another Google service. Authors' claims of infringement against Google Books were rejected, resulting in a 2015 opinion from the Second Circuit in Google's favor. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case. Authors Guild v. Google 721 F.3d 132 (2nd Cir. 2015) A highly publicized example of the tension between antitrust and competition, specifically in the labor market, is the ongoing strike between members of the Writers Guild of America and the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers. One aspect of the dispute is the use of AI to create or rewrite scripts. Writers don't want their original works to be used to train writing bots, either. In general, the WGA issued a report which they say details how "deregulation and the growing dominance of streaming have laid the groundwork for a media landscape where three companies -- Disney, Amazon, and Netflix -- are poised to be the new gatekeepers of media." Increased use of AI-generated content, and how to regulate that use, is reportedly a key sticking point in the negotiations. [GN] AMERICAN INCOME: Cost Sues Over Unpaid Proper Compensations ----------------------------------------------------------- Mine' Caglar Cost, individually and on behalf of all other Aggrieved Employees v. AMERICAN INCOME LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a California Stock Corporation; GLOBE LIFE INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., a California Stock Corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV21244 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Sept. 1, 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 Producer from March 25, 2022 through November 30, 2022, and as a Supervisor from November 30, 2022 through the present. American Income Life Insurance Company operates as an international seller of insurance policies with locations in Southern California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq. Diana Zadykyan, 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 diana@hbklawyers.com AMERICAN INCOME: Ridge Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensations -------------------------------------------------------------- Nora Ridge, individually and on behalf of all other Aggrieved Employees v. AMERICAN INCOME LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a California Stock Corporation; GLOBE LIFE INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., a California Stock Corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV21244 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Sept. 1, 2023), is brought pursuant to the California Labor Code as a result of the Defendants failure to pay the Plaintiff pay overtime and double time. 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 Compliance Specialist on or about February 09, 2019. The Defendants are providers of outpatient diagnostic and interventional radiology services across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq. Cathy Gonzalez, 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 cathy@hbklawyers.com AMERICAN TUNA: Craig Has Until Sept. 18 to File Class Cert Reply ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFFREY CRAIG, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. AMERICAN TUNA, INC. AND WORLD WISE FOODS, LTD., Case No. 3:22-cv-00473-RSH-MSB (S.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order modifying the briefing schedule in connection with the Plaintiff's motion for class certification and to shorten the deadline for Plaintiff to respond to expert discovery served by American Tuna: -- Deadline for Plaintiff to respond Sept. 1, 2023 to RFP Set 2: -- Deadline for American Tuna to file Sept. 11, 2023 its opposition to the Motion for Class Certification: -- Deadline for Plaintiff to file his Sept. 18, 2023 reply to the Motion for Class Certification: On August 7, 2023, the Plaintiff filed his motion for class certification. The Plaintiff's reply brief is due on September 4, 2023. Also on August 7, 2023, the Plaintiff disclosed an expert, Donald May, whom he intends to use to support the Motion for Class Certification. On August 10, 2023, American Tuna served its Second Set of Requests for Production to Plaintiff, seeking materials related to Dr. May's opinions and qualifications. American Tuna requested Plaintiff respond to the RFP Set 2 by September 21, 2023, so American Tuna would be able to review the responsive materials prior to filing its opposition to the Motion for Class Certification. American Tuna is an American-certified sustainable pole & line albacore tuna, hand-processed in Oregon, owned by fishermen. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Aug. 16, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qXaarF at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: William P. Keith, Esq. Hannah B. Stetson, Esq. KLEIN & WILSON 4770 Von Karman Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 631-3300 Facsimile: (949) 631-3703 E-mail: wkeith@kleinandwilson.com hstetson@kleinandwilson.com - and - Scott L. Metzger, Esq. DUCKOR METZGER & WYNNE 101 West Broadway, Suite 1700 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 209-3000 Facsimile (619) 209-3043 E-mail: metzger@dmwplc.com ANAERGIA INC: SMK Law and Bates Barristers File Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ SMK Law P.C., a Canadian investor rights law firm, and Bates Barristers on Aug. 29 disclosed that the statement of claim filed against filed in the proposed class action lawsuit against Anaergia Inc. ("Anaergia" or the "Company") (TSX: ANRG) (OTC: ANRGF) has been amended to reflect the latest developments at the Company. The claim, which was initially filed on March 27, 2023, seeks certification on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities, wherever they may reside or be domiciled, who acquired Anaergia shares: (a) in the company's June 2021 IPO; (b) in the distribution by the company in April 2022; or (c) on the secondary markets between June 7, 2021, and November 8, 2022. Certain persons are excluded based on their relationship with the defendants. The claim alleges that throughout the class period, defendants made material misrepresentations regarding the Company's financial condition and prospects. These misrepresentations caused Galaxy shares to be distributed and traded at artificially inflated prices, resulting in signficant damage to investors. Interested parties can access the claim by visiting the SMK Law website. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Anaergia shares and suffered a loss or would like to learn more about the claim please contact SMK Law by email at info@smklawyers.ca or by filling out this contact form. About SMK Law P.C. SMK Law P.C. is a Canadian investor rights law firm representing institutional and individual investors. The firm is led by Soheil Karkhanechi who has decades of leadership experience in the securities and asset management industries in Canada and the US. About Bates Barristers Paul Bates acts as senior counsel for leading law firms in Canada and England in high-stakes business litigation, class actions, and appeals. Contacts SMK Law P.C. Soheil Karkhanechi (416) 551-7346 info@smklawyers.ca www.smklawyers.ca [GN] ASHLEY FURNITURE: DuraBlend Uphostery Misleads Customers -------------------------------------------------------- Arias Sanguinetti Stahle & Team LLP has filed a class action lawsuit against Ashley Furniture Industries Inc. and Ashley Homestores Ltd. alleging deception, false advertising, and fraud. The class action alleges that Ashley Furniture intentionally misleads consumers by calling its DuraBlend upholstery "blended leather" and making it have as close an appearance to true leather as possible, even though it is not leather and merely incorporates a small fraction of leather scraps and fiber. In addition, the class action alleges that the DuraBlend material fails to stand up to normal wear and tear, and instead easily peels and flakes off, revealing a rough, off-white layer underneath. The Ashley Furniture DuraBlend lawsuit seeks to represent a Class of all persons who purchased furniture with DuraBlend upholstery from Ashley Furniture in California on or after December 22, 2011. The class action requests restitution and punitive damages under California consumer protection laws, as well as a court order to stop Ashley Furniture from making false advertisements of its DuraBlend upholstery. The DuraBlend class action lawsuit has been featured in television news, with interview of partner Mikael H. Stahle on abc7news in Chicago. Arias Sanguinetti Stahle & Team LLP is seeking to expand the class action to include consumers in other states in addition to California. [GN] BARRIO BROS: Faces Greenfield Suit Over Unpaid Minimum Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ BENJAMIN GREENFIELD, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BARRIO BROS., LLC and TACO HEIGHTS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-01651 (N.D. Ohio, Aug. 24, 2023) is a collective action instituted by Plaintiff as a result of Defendants' practices and policies of not paying tipped, non-exempt employees, including Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees, the applicable minimum wage for all of the hours worked in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act. The Plaintiff asserts that Defendants have lost the ability to use the tip credit and therefore must compensate him and all similarly situated workers at the full minimum wage rate, unencumbered by the tip credit, and for all hours worked. In other words, Defendants must account for the difference between the wages paid to him and all similarly situated workers and the minimum wage rate, says the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a server and/or bartender at Defendants' Barrio restaurant located in Cleveland Heights, Ohio from approximately May 2021 to August 2021. Barrio Bros., LLC owns and operates a chain of restaurants, each under the trade name "Barrio."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew S. Grimsley, Esq. Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq. Lori M. Griffin, Esq. THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC The Heritage Building, Suite 250 34555 Chagrin Boulevard Moreland Hills, OH 44022 Telephone: (216) 696-5000 Facsimile: (216) 696-7005 E-mail: matthew@lazzarolawfirm.com anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com lori@lazzarolawfirm.com BHP GROUP: High Court's Jurisdiction in Dam Disaster Suit Discussed ------------------------------------------------------------------- Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner BCLP on Aug. 30 disclosed that in the High Court's recent judgment in Município de Mariana & Ors v BHP Group (UK) Limited & Anor the Court found that England was "clearly the appropriate forum" to determine whether Vale SA, a Brazilian company, should share liability with the BHP Group in a class action claim being brought in the English High Court as the result of the 2015 Brazilian Fundao Dam disaster. The claim was brought as a CPR Part 7 High Court action, with a large number of claimants listed on one claim form, and is not a representative action or subject to a Group Litigation Order. BACKGROUND More than 732,000 Brazilians are bringing claims in a class action against the BHP Group for damages arising from the collapse of the Fundao Dam in Brazil. The Fundao Dam was used to store waste produced by the mining operations of Samarco Minderacao SA ("Samarco"), which was the Brazilian vehicle for a joint venture between Brazilian company Vale SA ("Vale") and Anglo-Australian BHP Group ("BHP"). The dam collapsed in 2015, causing significant environmental and property damage, and claiming 19 lives. The Brazilian public prosecutor has estimated the cost of remediation and compensation at a minimum of £25 billion. Claims for compensation were originally brought in Brazil against Samarco's directors, Samarco, and BHP's Brazilian subsidiary. In 2018 a class action claim was brought by a number of Brazilian individuals and businesses against BHP's publically listed English and Australian parent companies in the English High Court. The claim was brought as a CPR Part 7 High Court action, with a large number of claimants listed on one claim form. In 2020 the English High Court initially rejected jurisdiction over these class action claims, considering they would be "irredeemably unmanageable" and have "a very significantly deleterious impact indeed upon the scarce resources of the English courts". However, in 2022, this decision was overturned by the Court of Appeal, who found that there was a realistic prospect of a trial yielding a real and legitimate advantage to the claimants, which outweighed the disadvantages for the parties in terms of expense and the wider public interest in terms of court resources. BHP then unsuccessfully applied for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court. APPLICATION In 2022 BHP brought Part 20 claims against Vale, arguing that Vale should share liability for any damages that BHP was ordered by the English High Court to pay to the class action claimants. Vale challenged the English High Court's jurisdiction in respect of the Part 20 claims. In particular, Vale argued that Brazil was the natural forum for claims made under Brazilian law, brought against a Brazilian company, in relation to losses sustained in Brazil by Brazilian claimants, due to the collapse of a dam in Brazil, owned and operated by a Brazilian joint venture with two Brazilian shareholders almost a decade ago. BHP argued that the Part 20 claims almost mirrored the main class action claims against BHP, and that there would be significant factual and legal overlap between the claims. BHP further argued that it would be in the interests of justice, proportionality and efficiency to have the class action claims and the Part 20 claim tried together in the English Court. JUDGMENT Mrs Justice O'Farrell found that England was "clearly the appropriate forum" for the trial of Part 20 claim. The existence of the class action proceedings against BHP, and the significant overlap between those class action proceedings and the Part 20 claim, gave rise to a "real and substantial" connection to the English jurisdiction. Further, the absence of any ongoing proceedings in Brazil that could be used as a vehicle for determining Vale's liability to BHP demonstrated that "England now offers the only forum in which a single trial of the claims and the Part 20 claims is available". The Court noted that although it would be possible for parallel proceedings to be commenced by BHP against Vale in Brazil, "that would give rise to a multiplicity of proceedings and the risk of irreconcilable judgments". LOOKING FORWARD The Fundao Dam proceedings are one of a number of class action claims proceeding through the English High Court that have been brought against English parent companies by non-English claimants relating to environmental disasters in other jurisdictions. Other examples include a class action claim being brought by a number of Zambian individuals and entities against Vedanta Resources plc in relation to damage caused by its subsidiary's mining operations at the Nchanga Copper Mine in Zambia, and a class action being brought by the Okpabi and the Bille Communities of the Niger Delta against Shell in relation to damage caused by oil spills from its subsidiary's oil pipeline operations in Nigeria. There is therefore an established precedent of the English High Court asserting its jurisdiction over class action claims brought in relation to environmental disasters that have taken place in other jurisdictions. This recent judgment in the Fundao Dam proceedings appears to set a new high watermark. Not only can English parent companies now face liability in English High Court class action proceedings relating to an environmental disaster in another jurisdiction, but so too can other non-English parties who may have contributed to that disaster. The English High Court's willingness to assert jurisdiction over these class action proceedings, combined with this recent indication that it is willing to extend that jurisdiction to non-English defendants, means that we are likely to see increased numbers of claimant cohort groups (typically backed by English or US funders) bringing environmental class actions proceedings in the English High Court. [GN] BRADLEY UNIVERSITY: Eddlemon Suit Seeks Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ORION EDDLEMON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BRADLEY UNIVERSITY, an Illinois not-for-profit corporation, Case No. 1:20-cv-01264-CRL-JEH (C.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. Certifying the proposed Class pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: -- The Tuition Class "All students and former students of Bradley University who paid, or on whose behalf payment was made for tuition for on- campus classes for the Spring 2020 Semester;" Those students who received scholarships, grants, and/or assistantships that covered 100% of tuition are excluded from the Tuition Class. -- The Activity Fee Class "All students and former students of Bradley University who paid, or on whose behalf payment was made, for an Activity Fee for the Spring 2020 Semester" 2. Appointing Eddlemon as the Class Representative; and 3. Appointing undersigned counsel as Class Counsel, pursuant to Rule 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Bradley is a private university in Peoria, Illinois. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 16, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Eqzcm4 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew T. Peterson, Esq. Brian W. Warwick, Esq. Janet R. Varnell, Esq. VARNELL & WARWICK, P.A. 1101 E. Cumberland Ave., Ste. 201H, No. 105 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (352) 753-8600 E-mail: mpeterson@vandwlaw.com jvarnell@vandwlaw.com bwarwick@vandwlaw.com BRETT DINOVI: Philbin Suit Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RACHEL PHILBIN, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated, v. BRETT DINOVI & ASSOCIATES, L.L.C., Case No. 1:21-cv-20402-CPO-AMD (D.N.J.), the Plaintiff requests the Court to enter an order granting conditional certification of the claims arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act(claims I-III of the complaint) and Class Certification of the claims arising under New Jersey statutory law (claims IV-V of the complaint). Brett provides behavioral consultation and leadership training. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 17, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LamITr at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Markos, Esq. Gerald J. Williams, Esq. WILLIAMS CEDAR, LLC 8 Kings Highway West, Suite B Haddonfield, NJ 08033 Telephone: (856) 470-9777 E-mail: cmarkos@williamscedar.com gwilliams@williamscedar.com BRYAN SKILLED: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Broodie Alleges --------------------------------------------------------- TONIESHA BROODIE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BRYAN SKILLED HOME CARE INC.; and CATHY MADDEN, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-06497 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 30, 2023) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Broodie was employed by the Defendants as a health care professional. BRYAN SKILLED HOME CARE INC. is a licensed home care services agency in New York providing innovative personal care, nursing and physical therapy to patients in the home servicing Nassau, Suffolk, and Queens counties. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian S. Schaffer, Esq. Dana M. Cimera, Esq. FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP 28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 300-0375 BURGER KING: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Whopper Sandwiches ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that a U.S. judge has rejected Burger King's bid to dismiss a lawsuit claiming that it cheated hungry customers by making its Whopper sandwich appear larger than it actually is. U.S. District Judge Roy Altman in Miami said Burger King must defend against a claim that its depiction of Whoppers on in-store menu boards mislead reasonable customers, amounting to a breach of contract. Customers in the proposed class action accused Burger King of portraying burgers with ingredients that "overflow over the bun," making it appear the burgers are 35% larger and contain more than double the meat than the chain serves. Burger King, a unit of Restaurant Brands International (QSR.TO), countered that it wasn't required to deliver burgers that look "exactly like the picture," but the judge said it was up to jurors to "tell us what reasonable people think." In his decision made public on Aug. 25, Altman also let the customers pursue negligence-based and unjust enrichment claims. He dismissed claims based on TV and online ads, finding none in which Burger King promised a burger "size," or patty weight, and failed to deliver it. "The plaintiffs' claims are false," Burger King said in a statement on Aug. 29. "The flame-grilled beef patties portrayed in our advertising are the same patties used in the millions of Whopper sandwiches we serve to guests nationwide." A lawyer for the plaintiffs was not immediately available for comment. Earlier efforts to mediate a settlement proved unsuccessful. McDonald's (MCD.N) and Wendy's (WEN.O) are defending against a similar lawsuit in the Brooklyn, New York federal court. The plaintiffs' lawyer there on Aug. 28 cited Altman's opinion to justify letting that case continue. Taco Bell, a unit of Yum Brands (YUM.N), was sued in July in the Brooklyn court for selling Crunchwraps and Mexican pizzas that allegedly contain only half as much filling as advertised. Each lawsuit seeks at least $5 million in damages. The case is Coleman et al v Burger King Corp, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, No. 22-20925. [GN] CAMP LEJEUNE: Plaintiff Seeks Reconsideration of July 19 Order -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Camp Lejeune Water Litigation v. United States of America, Case No. 7:23-cv-00897-RJ (E.D.N.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for reconsideration of July 19, 2023 order. Accordingly, maintain the Order that forces the parties to consolidate without the power of an MDL or under the Rule 23 mechanism for doing so, and without citation to any direct or indirect authority to do so, would be in violation of well-established Fourth Circuit precedent. This would create an error by the court that is direct, obvious, and observable given the impact this decision has already had on the matters involved in this litigation. The actions arise out of the injuries suffered by thousands of service members, civilian workers, and family members who were exposed to contaminated water at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune (Camp Lejeune). For more than three decades, toxic chemicals escaped from fuel tanks, industrial facilities, and other sources on and around Camp Lejeune and seeped into the groundwater below. By drinking, cooking with, bathing in, and otherwise coming into contact with that water, hundreds of thousands of men and women working and residing on base were exposed to these chemicals, greatly increasing their risk of contracting cancer and the myriad other life-destroying diseases they are known to cause. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 16, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/4604axr at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roy T. Willey, IV, Esq. Blake G. Abbott, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO, LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (843) 834-4712 E-mail: blake@akimlawfirm.com roy@akimlawfirm.com CANADA: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Privacy Breach ------------------------------------------------------ Angelica Dino, writing for Canadian Lawyer, reports that the federal court has authorized the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) to issue a notice of certification of a class action lawsuit, concerning an alleged privacy breach between March and December 2020. Todd Sweet, as the representative plaintiff, initiated a class action against the CRA and the federal government. He alleged that the government breached class members' privacy by not properly safeguarding confidential personal and financial information electronically housed within various online government portals. He further contended that these inadequate safeguards allowed bad actors to access the online accounts of Canadians absent their consent, view confidential and private details, and, in many cases, apply for Canada Emergency Response Benefits (CERB). The federal court has granted certification of the class action lawsuit. The affected individuals are those who used the government's online accounts, including CRA's "My Account" and "My Service Canada" accounts, accessed via GCKey between March 1, 2020, and December 31, 2020. The class action lawsuit demands compensation for the alleged breach of privacy and credit monitoring services that may be required to repair the harm caused. The government has denied wrongdoing, and a trial will determine the outcome. As of now, the trial date is pending. The CRA has issued a notice of certification to inform potentially affected individuals about their rights and options in the class action lawsuit. The class action includes all persons whose personal or financial information was disclosed without authorization in government online accounts during the specified timeframe. Class members meeting the defined criteria are automatically included unless they opt out. To opt-out, individuals must notify the class counsel, Rice Harbut Elliott LLP, by mail or email by November 27, indicating their decision not to participate. Opting out retains the right to sue the government individually while remaining in the class action means potential compensation will be determined collectively. Participation in the lawsuit incurs no upfront costs. The class is represented by Rice Harbut Elliott LLP. Detailed case information, including documents and updates, can be found on the firm's website. [GN] CAPITAL COURIER: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Burkhard Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------- Anthony Burkhard, individually and for others similarly situated v. Capital Courier Services, LLC (CCS), Case No. 1:23-cv-03598 (N.D. Ga., Aug. 14, 2023) seeks unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Maryland Wage and Hour Law, and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. The Plaintiff was employed by CCS as one of its Straight Time Employees, working as Medical Courier in Maryland, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, and West Virginia. The Plaintiff and the other Straight Time Employees regularly worked more than 40 hours a week but they were not paid overtime wages. Instead, CCS adopted a uniform straight time for overtime pay scheme under which Straight Time Employees received the same hourly rate for all hours worked, including those after 40 in a workweek, says the Plaintiff. Headquartered in Kennesaw, Georgia, CCS provides specialized courier services for the medical and healthcare industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy Stephens, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, PA 191 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 4200 P.O. Box 57007 Atlanta, GA 30343-1007 Telephone: (404) 965-1682 E-mail: jstephens@forthepeople.com - and – Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and – Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com CARDONE CAPITAL: Investor's Daughter Sues Over Business Scheme -------------------------------------------------------------- Francisco Alvarado, writing for The Real Deal, reports that the daughter of a deceased investor is taking over a monumental legal battle against Grant Cardone, the controversial social media influencer who's built a vast multifamily empire based in Aventura. Christine Pino recently filed a class action lawsuit in Los Angeles federal court against Cardone and his firm, Cardone Capital, on the heels of her father's death, The New Republic reported. Her dad, Luis Pino, had filed a similar complaint against Cardone and his company that was dismissed in 2021, and then reinstated last year following an appeal, as previously reported by The Real Deal. The New Republic framed its profile of Cardone as a deep dive into the Louisiana-born scientologist's sales tactics, which some critics have denounced as unethical and unprofessional. Christine Pino's lawsuit "offers an inside look at a get-rich-quick scheme that could help enable the next housing market crash," the article's subhead states. In addition to dissecting Christine Pino's complaint, The New Republic also interviewed former tenants of apartment complexes and buildings Cardone has bought. They relayed horror stories about their experiences with their new landlord. Cardone's real estate strategy entails buying top-tier multifamily buildings and rental communities with leveraged debt, and then selling small ownership stakes in the properties to retail investors through funds he manages. Cardone collects fees from the acquisition, management and disposition of the assets. Cardone recruits investors via social media, business seminars and an annual conference featuring A-list celebrities who sit down for fireside chats with him. Last year, former President Donald Trump headlined Cardone's 10X Growth Conference at the Diplomat Beach Resort in Hollywood. On Instagram, TikTok, YouTube and other platforms, Cardone is constantly posting videos of his lavish lifestyle and his ostentatious tastes, such as showing off his collection of Richard Mille designer watches. In 2021, Cardone paid $28 million to fashion designer Tommy Hilfiger for a Golden Beach mansion. A year later, he dropped $40 million for a beachside home in Malibu. According to Christine Pino's lawsuit, her father, who lived in Inglewood, California, invested $5,000 in one of Cardone Capital's real estate funds after attending a Cardone event in 2019. Like her father's complaint, her lawsuit alleges Cardone misled investors in social media posts geared to entice prospective investors. Cardone also allegedly consistently over-promised investor returns, downplayed their financial liability and was not completely forthright about the fees he collected, Chrstine Pino's lawsuit states. Cardone refused to adjust his sales tactics despite receiving a warning from the Securities and Exchange Commission, Christine Pino alleges. [GN] CIGNA CORP: Faces Class Suit Over Wrongful Insurance Claims Denial ------------------------------------------------------------------ Abraham Jewett, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that Cigna systematically, wrongfully and automatically denies insurance claims for patients needing necessary medical procedures that are owed to them under Cigna's health insurance policies, a new class action lawsuit alleges. Plaintiff Hannah Veinbergs claims Cigna has developed an algorithm that enables its doctors to "automatically deny payments in batches of hundreds or thousands at a time for treatments that do not match certain preset criteria." The plaintiff argues the algorithm, called procedure-to-diagnosis -- or PXDX -- is able to evade the legally required individual physician review process for insurance claims. "Relying on the PXDX system, Cigna's doctors instantly reject claims on medical grounds without ever opening patient files, leaving thousands of patients effectively without coverage and with unexpected bills," the Cigna class action states. The plaintiff wants to represent a nationwide class and California subclass of individuals who have purchased health insurance from Cigna, from the beginning of the applicable liability period to the present. Cigna doctors denied more than 300,000 payment requests using PXDX method within two months last year, class action says Veinbergs claims Cigna doctors denied more than 300,000 payment requests using its PXDX method over a period of two months last year, while allegedly spending an average of only 1.2 seconds "reviewing" each request. "Cigna failed to use reasonable standards in evaluating the individual claims of Plaintiff and the Class members and instead allowed its doctors to sign off on the denials in batches," the Cigna class action states. Veinbergs claims Cigna is guilty of unjust enrichment, intentional interference with contractual relations and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and of violating California's Unfair Competition Law. The plaintiff is demanding a jury trial and requesting declaratory and injunctive relief along with an award of, compensatory, incidental or consequential damages, and punitive or exemplary damages for herself and all class members. A separate complaint was filed against Cigna in 2017 -- and unsealed in 2020 -- over claims the company submitted fraudulent claims to Medicare Advantage and overbilled by more than $1.4 billion from between 2012 and 2017. Have you purchased health insurance from Cigna? Let us know in the comments. The plaintiff is represented by Michael R. Reese, George V. Granade and Charles D. Moore of Reese LLP, and Kevin Laukaitis of Laukaitis Law LLC. The Cigna claims class action lawsuit is Veinbergs v. Cigna Corp., et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-01540, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. [GN] CLOROX CO: Faces Class Action Over Water Pitcher Packaging Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jelisa Castrodale, writing for Food & Wine, reports that a California man has filed a class action lawsuit against the manufacturer of a popular water filtration system, alleging that it doesn't remove potentially hazardous substances from drinking water or reduce the levels of those contaminants as effectively as its packaging claims. According to the 71-page legal filing obtained by Reuters, Nicholas Brown paid $15 for a Brita Everyday Water Pitcher in early 2022. He claims that he made this purchase because of some of the statements printed on the Brita pitcher's packaging, including "FRESH FILTER = FRESHER WATER" and "Reduces 30 contaminants including Lead, Benzene, Mercury, Cadmium, Asbestos, and More." In the lawsuit, Brown alleges that those claims are "false," and he states that "the Product does not remove or reduce common contaminants [. . .] to below lab detectable limits." He also alleges that the filters do not remove or reduce "highest risk, notorious, or prevalent contaminants" from tap water, including two types of PFAS, also known as forever chemicals. (According to a study published in the August 2023 edition of the journal Environment International, at least one type of PFAS may be present in up to 45% of the drinking water in the United States.) "Unfortunately, the Products are not nearly as effective as Defendant deliberately leads people to believe, causing consumers to overpay millions and forego more effective alternatives," the lawsuit continues. "In this way, Defendant has not only bilked millions of dollars from consumers in ill-gotten gains, but Defendant has put the health and welfare of millions of consumers and their families at risk." The website TopClassActions reports, although Brown is currently the only plaintiff, he wants the class to include any consumer who has purchased Brita-branded dispensers, filters, and water pitchers within an applicable time period, as well as any California-based consumers who have bought those products within the past four years. Brown and his attorneys have alleged that Brita has violated California's False Advertising Law and its Unfair Competition Law, as well as "unjust enrichment and breach of warranty." He has asked for a jury trial, as well as financial and punitive damages for both himself and any other eligible members of the class. Representatives for Brita, which is owned by the Clorox Company, say that it "[looks] forward to defending ourselves vigorously" against Brown's allegations. "Brita takes the transparency of the variety of water filtration options we offer seriously," the company said in a statement sent to Nextar Media. "Our products include a standard filtration option that improves taste and odor of tap water and is certified to reduce identified contaminants as communicated. For those consumers looking for water filters certified to reduce PFOS or PFOA, the Brita Elite pour-through and Brita Hub are both certified to reduce PFOS/PFOA, as well as lead and other identified contaminants." [GN] COCINAS Y CALAVERAS: Faces Rauda Wage-and-Hour Suit in Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------- ALEXANDRA RAUDA, an individual, on behalf of herself, all other aggrieved employees, and the general public, Plaintiff v. COCINAS Y CALAVERAS LLC, a California limited liability company; MERCADO COCINA MEXICANA, LLC, a California limited liability company; MERCADO ON LAKE, LLC, a California limited liability company; MERCADO ON 3RD LLC, a California limited liability; MERCADO ON CAHUENGA LLC, a California limited liability company; MERCADO MANHATTAN BEACH LLC, a California limited liability company; YXTA COCINA MEXICANA LLC, a California limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 23STCV20340 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Aug. 24, 2023) arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful labor policies and practices in violation of the California Labor Code. The suit challenges Defendants' employment practices with their non-exempt, hourly restaurant workers, including Plaintiff, employed in the State of California, based on the policy and practice of failing, among other things, to provide payment for all hours worked at the applicable legal rates, legally compliant meal and rest breaks, earned wages, including overtime pay, failing to reimburse for necessary business expenditures, for violations of reporting time pay, and failing to provide accurate wage statements and waiting time penalties from June 16, 2022 to the present. The Plaintiff worked as a server and bartender from approximately May of 2018 to February 18, 2023 at the Defendants' restaurant in Pasadena, California. The Defendants are doing business in the state of California as Mexican themed and inspired full-service restaurants.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael H. Boyamian, Esq. Alfred Movsesyan, Esq. BOYAMIAN LAW, INC. 550 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 1500 Glendale, CA 91203-1922 Telephone: (818) 547-5300 Facsimile: (818) 547-5678 E-mail: michael@boyamianlaw.com alfred@boyamianlaw.com CORNERTSONE BUILDING: Continues to Defend Water Island Merger Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Cornerstone Building Brands, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30,2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2023, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Water Island Merger class suit in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. In June 2023, a purported former stockholder filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware alleging that the Company's disclosures issued in connection with the CD&R Merger were materially misleading in violation of Section 14(a) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint is captioned Water Island Merger Arbitrage Institutional Commingled Master Fund, L.P. v. Cornerstone Building Brands et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00701 (D. Del.). The complaint alleges that the Company's directors and officers issued misleading disclosures, which caused stockholders to approve the CD&R Merger at an unfair price. The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages, interest, attorneys' fees, expenses, and costs. The Company does not believe these claims have merit and intend to vigorously defend against them. Cornerstone is the largest manufacturer of exterior building products in North America and is engaged in both the new construction and the repair and remodel markets for residential and commercial customers.[BN] CURVATURE LANDSCAPES: Bonds Seeks Landscapers' Overtime Pay ----------------------------------------------------------- Randall Bonds, individually and for others similarly situated v. Curvature Landscapes & Design, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-03601-MLB (N.D. Ga., Aug. 14, 2023), seeks unpaid overtime wages and other damages from the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff worked for Curvature as a landscaper in Georgia. He and other Day Rate Workers at Curvature regularly worked more than 40 hours a week but were not paid overtime wages. Instead, Curvature implemented a uniform day rate pay scheme where Plaintiff and the Day Rate workers were paid a flat amount for each day worked regardless if they worked more than 40 hours in a workweek. This practice violates the FLSA, Plaintiff alleges. Curvature is a Georgia corporation headquartered at Sugar Hill, Georgia. It provides a full range of landscaping services, including hardscaping, lawn aeration, patio construction, landscape lighting services, and water features.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy Stephens, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, PA 191 Peachtree Street, N.E. Suite 4200 P.O. Box 57007 Atlanta, GA 30343-1007 Telephone: (404) 965-1682 E-mail: jstephends@forthepeople.com - and – Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713)- 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and – Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com CVS HEALTH: 9th Cir. Affirms Denial of Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------------- James F. Bogan III, Esq., of Kilpatrick Townsend, disclosed that recently, in Mier v. CVS Health, No. 22-55665, 2023 WL 4837851 (9th Cir., July 28, 2023), the Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of class certification of fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims based on flaws in the conjoint analysis prepared by the putative class representative's expert witness. In Mier, Joseph Mier filed a putative class action against CVS, asserting fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims (among other claims) based on the "price premium" received by CVS for its allegedly deceptive hand sanitizer label touting that the sanitizer "kills 99.99% of germs." To satisfy Rule 23's predominance requirement, Mier presented a conjoint analysis prepared by John Krosnick, Ph.D. The district court ruled that the damages model did "not adequately account for market supply and thus cannot measure class-wide damages based on market value." 2023 WL 4837851, at *1. Mier appealed, contending that the model provided a "Comcast-compliant damages model" supporting his allegations of class-wide harm. The Ninth Circuit panel disagreed and affirmed the district court's ruling. The panel started its analysis by setting out the measure of damages for fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims, which is "the difference between what the consumer paid for the product and what the product's market value would have been but for the misrepresentation." Id. (emphasis added). Reviewing the record evidence, the panel ruled that the "damages model does not adequately account for market supply and thus cannot measure class-wide damages based on market value," for the following reasons: (1) the evidence showed, contrary to the model, "that market supply fluctuated during the class period," and, even assuming the supply remained fixed throughout the Covid 19 pandemic, the class damages period extended back to 2016, and the model "did not calculate a supply curve for pre-pandemic months"; (2) the model did "not account for how a change in market demand from removing the [allegedly false label] would affect market supply"; and (3) the expert relied on market testimony that CVS "did not consider label claims in its pricing decisions," but, assuming that testimony was accurate, it "could reasonably suggest there was no price premium at all." Id. The panel concluded that "Mier failed to establish a class-wide damages model for his fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims" and affirmed the denial of class certification as to those claims. Id. at *2. [GN] CYPRESS CREEK: Morales Sues Over Contaminated Gasoline ------------------------------------------------------ LEONARDO MORALES, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CYPRESS CREEK GAS & WASH, CORP., Defendant, Case No. CACE-23-017452 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial, Broward Cty., Aug. 24, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for breach of contract, breach of implied contract, and negligence due to alleged unlawful business practices. On June 28, 2023, Plaintiff purchased 93 grade gasoline in the amount of $87.59 from Defendant. The following day, Plaintiff noticed that his vehicle's Check Engine light was on and that the vehicle was running rough and was idling low as if the vehicle was ready to shut off. The Plaintiff immediately took his vehicle to Mercedes Benz of Fort Lauderdale to get it checked out. He was informed by an employee of Mercedes Benz of Fort Lauderdale that his vehicle contained contaminated gasoline that was mixed with water and that the main fuel pump and the second fuel pump would need to be replaced. Through Defendant's provision of services, it knows or should have known that it must protect Plaintiff's vehicle by supplying non-contaminated gasoline to consumers or at least shutting off the supply of contaminated gasoline so that Plaintiff are not at risk of using the affected pumps, says the suit. Cypress Creek Gas & Wash, Corp. is a Florida corporation, with its principal place of business located in Fort Lauderdale.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq. Jennifer G. Simil, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 907-1136 Facsimile: (855) 529-9540 E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com ien@iibraellaw.com DELTA PACKING: Barbosa Bid to Certify Class Partly OK'd ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as IRMA BARBOSA and CECILIA MATA, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, v. DELTA PACKING COMPANY OF LODI, INC. AKA "DELTA FRESH" SALINAS FARM LABOR CONTRACTOR, INC.; ERNIE COSTAMAGNA, an individual, ANNAMARIE COSTAMAGNA, and individual, and DOES 1–20, Case No. 2:20-cv-01096-TLN-KJN (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Troy L. Nunley granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification as to the Auto-Deduction Class but denying the Plaintiffs' motion as to the Rest Break Class and Unpaid Minimum Wage Class. -- The parties are ordered to file a Joint Status Report within 30 days of the electronic filing date of this Order, detailing proposed dates for a supplemental scheduling order. The Plaintiffs allege they were previously employed by Salinas and worked at Delta's packaging plant in Lodi, California as agricultural workers. Salinas is a labor contractor and provides general laborers to Delta during their cherry packing season. Barbosa claims she worked for Defendants for nine seasons, 2009 through 2018, in various positions but most recently as a sorter. Mata claims she worked for Defendants for one season, in 2016, as a sorter. The Plaintiffs allege several of Defendants' wage and hour policies violated California law by not compensating employees for all hours worked. Specifically, the Plaintiffs allege Defendants automatically deducted thirty-minutes from their timecard's meal breaks, even though Defendants routinely denied employees timely meal breaks or did not provide employees with full thirty-minute meal breaks. The Plaintiffs also allege the Defendants required employees to work during mandatory rest breaks. Finally, the Plaintiffs allege Defendants required employees to don and doff protective gear and complete other work-related tasks while off-the-clock. The Plaintiffs' putative "Class 1," labeled the "Auto-Deduction Class" Includes: "All non-exempt individuals who are or have been employed by Defendants at the Delta Packing Company of Lodi, Inc. packing plant in Lodi, California at any time since May 29, 2016, whose time records show auto-deducted 30-minute meal periods." The Plaintiffs' putative "Class 2," labeled the "Rest Break Class" includes: "All non-exempt individuals who are or have been employed by Defendants at the Delta Packing Company of Lodi, Inc. packing plant in Lodi, California at any time since May 29, 2016, who were subject to policies requiring work during rest periods." The Plaintiffs' putative "Class 3," labeled the "Unpaid Minimum Wage Class" includes: "All non-exempt individuals who are or have been employed by the Defendants at the Delta Packing Company of Lodi, Inc. packing plat in Lodi, California at any time since May 29, 2016, who were required to don and doff and complete other work tasks off-the- clock." Delta is a grower, packer, and shipper of California Fresh Cherries, Wine Grapes, Grape Juice, and Wine. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 16, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Z2hrmC at no extra charge.[CC] DIGITAL MEDIA: Loses Bifurcation Motion in TCPA Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Eric J. Troutman, Esq., of Troutman Amin, LLP, disclosed that real quick, the folks over at Digital Media Solutions -- where have I heard that name? -- and SolidQuote, LLC lost a bifurcation motion in a TCPA class action that shows just how tough these cases can be to defend. In Klassen v. DMS, 2023 WL 5497865 (D. Colo. Aug. 23, 2023) -- speaking of Colorado! -- defendants claimed the Plaintiff had initiated an inbound call to DMS who then transferred it to SolidQuote. The Plaintiff, however, disagreed: "Plaintiff argues that the Defendants misrepresent the facts of the case and that Plaintiff never called DMS or consented to receive calls from them." Regardless, Defendants argued that they should not be subject to crushing class discovery–extremely expensive and burdensome–until the issue of what really happened with the phone call from/to Plaintiff is resolved. While I couldn't agree more, the Court disagreed. Determining that there were overlapping issues between merits and certification (without identifying them) the Court found "Defendants have not identified any unique prejudice they would suffer if discovery is not bifurcated and class discovery is not stayed." I mean, seems like wasting $100k in fees and costs dealing with discovery that might not ultimately matter is pretty prejudicial. But . . . While this ruling is pretty awful, it is actually a useful too for discussion. Many times TCPA Defendants are frustrated with a cost of the proceeding or feel strongly that because Plaintiff did this or that the case should immediately end. Unfortunately it doesn't always work that way. And while the folks at Troutman Amin, LLP often pull off a miracle or two, there is no guarantee a case is ever going to go the way it should go. As a reminder, if you want to put yourself in the best position to understand the state of the TCPA and TCPA litigation be sure to request a copy of the 2023 TCPA Annual Review presented by TrustedForm. This things is loaded with great information–breaking down hundreds of cases. And it is totally free. Just ask for one. Or swing by the Troutman Amin, LLP stage at contact.io! Chat soon. [GN] DIREXION SHARES: Averts Securities Class Action Over ETFs --------------------------------------------------------- Amy D. Roy, Esq., Robert A. Skinner, Esq., J. William (Will) Piereson, Esq., and Ethan R. Fitzgerald, Esq., of Ropes & Gray, disclosed that a Ropes & Gray litigation team secured a victory on behalf of Direxion Shares ETF Trust -- a major sponsor of leveraged and inverse exchange traded funds (ETFs) -- and its adviser, directors, and officers in a years-long dispute with a plaintiff who had brought a securities class action seeking millions in damages arising from alleged losses in several Direxion ETFs at the outset of the Covid pandemic. The ETFs are sophisticated investment products that seek to track a multiple, or the inverse of a multiple, of the performance of an underlying benchmark or index—here, indices that were exposed to gold and silver mining industries. The plaintiff brought claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act and Sections 9(a)(2), 9(f), 10(b), 18(a) and 20A and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act, alleging not only that the ETFs' disclosures were misleading, but also that the defendants engaged in market manipulation and insider trading. On August 25, 2023, Judge Valerie E. Caproni of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the suit with prejudice. Judge Caproni's opinion adopted Ropes & Gray's arguments that Direxion's robust disclosures -- including about the risks of investing for periods of longer or shorter than a single trading day -- barred the plaintiffs' claims that the defendants had committed actionable misrepresentations, and that there were no facts alleged to support plaintiffs' market manipulation and insider trading theories. The Ropes & Gray team consisted of litigation & enforcement partners Amy Roy and Rob Skinner and associates Will Piereson and Ethan Fitzgerald. [GN] DOLAR SHOP: Must Oppose Li Opening Bid by Sept. 27 -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Li et al., v. The Dolar Shop Restaurant Group LLC, et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-01953 (E.D.N.Y., Filed April 20, 2016), the Hon. Magistrate Judge Taryn A. Merkl entered an order setting the following briefing schedule. -- The Plaintiffs' opening motion Aug. 30, 2023 is due by: -- Defendants' opposition is due by: Sept. 27, 2023 -- The Plaintiffs' reply is due by: Oct. 11, 2023 The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.[CC] DRAFTKINGS INC: Continues to Defend Daily Fantasy Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ DraftKings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2023, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Daily Fantasy Sports multi-district class suit. Nelson Steiner filed suit against the Company and FanDuel Inc. in Florida state court on November 9, 2015. The action was subsequently transferred to In Re: Daily Fantasy Sports Litigation (Multi-District Litigation) (the "MDL"), and Mr. Steiner's action was consolidated into the MDL's amended complaint, which, in February 2016, consolidated numerous actions (primarily purported class actions) filed against the Company, FanDuel, and other related parties in courts across the United States. By June 23, 2022, the MDL was resolved, except for Mr. Steiner's action, and the court officially closed the MDL docket on July 8, 2022. Mr. Steiner brings this action as a concerned citizen of the state of Florida alleging that, among other things, defendants' daily fantasy sports contests are illegal gambling under the state laws of Florida and seeks disgorgement of "gambling losses" purportedly suffered by Florida citizens on behalf of the state. On June 23, 2022, the MDL court remanded Mr. Steiner's action to the Circuit Court for Pinellas County, Florida. Plaintiff has not yet filed an amended pleading. The Company intends to vigorously defend this suit. DraftKings Inc. is a digital sports entertainment and gaming company, headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. [BN] DRAFTKINGS INC: Continues to Defend GNOG Putative Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ DraftKings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2023, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Golden Nugget Online Gaming, Inc. ("GNOG Inc.") putative class suit. On August 12, 2022, a putative class action was filed in Nevada state District Court in Clark County against Golden Nugget Online Gaming, Inc., the Company and one of its officers and two affiliates, as well as former officers or directors and the former controlling stockholder of GNOG Inc. and Jefferies LLC. The lawsuit asserts claims on behalf of a putative class of former minority stockholders of GNOG Inc. alleging that certain former officers and directors of GNOG Inc. and its former controlling stockholder (Tilman Fertitta and/or Fertitta Entertainment, Inc.) breached their fiduciary duties to minority stockholders of GNOG Inc. in connection with the GNOG Transaction, and the other defendants aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. On November 1, 2022, defendants filed motions to dismiss the action on the procedural grounds of improper forum and lack of personal jurisdiction over certain defendants or, in the alternative, to stay the action pending resolution of parallel proceedings in the Delaware Court of Chancery. On May 24, 2023, the court (i) granted the motions to dismiss for improper forum with respect to GNOG Inc. and its former officers and directors other than Mr. Fertitta, as well as Jefferies LLC, (ii) denied the motions to dismiss for improper forum with respect to the Company and its officer and two affiliates, as well as Mr. Fertitta and Fertitta Entertainment, Inc., and (iii) granted the non-dismissed defendants' alternative request to stay the action for at least nine months pending resolution of parallel proceedings in the Delaware Court of Chancery. On June 29, 2023, the plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the court's order insofar as it found certain claims subject to a Delaware forum requirement, which motion remains pending. On September 9, 2022, two similar putative class actions were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery against former directors of GNOG Inc. and its former controlling stockholder, one of which also names the Company and Jefferies Financial Group, Inc. as defendants. These pending actions in Delaware assert substantially similar claims on behalf of a putative class of former minority stockholders of GNOG Inc. alleging that certain former officers and directors of GNOG Inc. and its former controlling stockholder (Tilman Fertitta) breached their fiduciary duties to minority stockholders of GNOG Inc. in connection with the GNOG Transaction, and one of the actions also alleges that the Company aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. On October 12, 2022, the Delaware Court of Chancery consolidated these two actions under the caption In re Golden Nugget Online Gaming, Inc. Stockholders Litigation. The Company intends to vigorously defend against these claims. DraftKings Inc. is a digital sports entertainment and gaming company, headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. [BN] DRAFTKINGS INC: Continues to Defend Turley Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------- DraftKings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2023, that the Company continues to defend the Turley class suit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. On January 9, 2023, Simpson G. Turley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a purported class action against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that he was a contestant in the Company's daily fantasy showdown contest for the January 2, 2023, NFL game between the Cincinnati Bengals and the Buffalo Bills (the "Bengals-Bills Game"). The Bengals-Bills Game was postponed and eventually cancelled due to Damar Hamlin collapsing during the game. Plaintiff alleges that he was winning prizes in multiple showdown contests at the point in time that the Bengals-Bills Game was cancelled (with 5:58 remaining in the first quarter). Plaintiff alleges that, instead of paying out the prize money, the Company refunded entry fees to contestants that entered showdown or flash draft fantasy contests. On May 8, 2023, plaintiff Turley and a new plaintiff (Erik Ramos) filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint. On June 12, 2023, DraftKings filed a motion to dismiss the claims asserted by both plaintiffs or, in the alternative, strike the flash draft allegations. Plaintiffs filed an opposition on July 17, 2023. Defendant was granted leave to file a reply, which is due on August 3, 2023. The plaintiffs assert claims for breach of contract, unfair and deceptive acts and practices, false advertising, and unjust enrichment. Among other things, plaintiffs seek statutory damages, monetary damages, punitive damages, attorney fees and interest. The Company intends to vigorously defend this case. DraftKings Inc. is a digital sports entertainment and gaming company, headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. [BN] EAST COAST ASSEMBLERS: Fails to Pay Proper OT, Peachlyn Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- CHARLESTON PEACHLYN, individually and for others similarly situated v. EAST COAST ASSEMBLERS, INC. d/b/a NATIONAL ASSEMBLERS, INC., Case No. 9:23-cv-81180 (S.D. Fla., Aug. 24, 2023) is a collective action lawsuit against the Defendant to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Peachlyn worked for National Assemblers as an assembler and trainer from approximately February 2017 until March 2023. While working as an Assembler, National Assemblers paid him under its piece rate pay scheme, paying him a set amount (ranging from $3-$42) for each item he assembled and failed to pay him overtime when he worked more than 40 hours in a workweek, says the Plaintiff. East Coast Assemblers, Inc., d/b/a National Assemblers, Inc., provides professional assembly services to retail stores, like Walmart, across the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C. Ryan Morgan, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, PA 20 N. Orange Ave., 16th Floor P.O. Box 4979 Orlando, FL 32802-4979 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (407) 245-3401 E-mail: rmorgan@forthepeople.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com EDGEWELL PERSONAL: Parties Seek to Extend Class Cert. Deadlines --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KENNETH GLASSMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. EDGEWELL PERSONAL CARE, LLC, Case No. 3:21-cv-07669-RS (N.D. Cal.), the Parties file a stipulated request for order extending class certification deadlines. On August 19, 2022, counsel for Plaintiff propounded the first set of interrogatories on Defendant. On October 19, 2022, the Defendant, by and through its counsel of record, served responses and objections to the interrogatories. On August 4, 2023, counsel for Plaintiff received the deposition transcript of Defendant's 30(b)(6) witness and determined that the Defendant's interrogatories were in need of supplementation. On August 8, 2023, counsel for Plaintiff requested that Defendant supplement its responses to the interrogatories. On August 9, 2023, counsel for Defendant agreed to supplement its responses to the interrogatories, but due to the complex issues at play would need a few weeks to do so. On August 31, 2022, the Court entered an Initial Case Management Scheduling Order that states in pertinent part that "on or before August 31, 2023, Plaintiff will file a motion for class certification, along with any expert reports upon which Plaintiff relies upon in its motion." The Parties propose the following amendment to the Scheduling Order: Event Current Proposed Plaintiff's motion for class Aug. 31, 2023 Sept. 14, 2023 certification and disclosure of expert reports deadline Plaintiff's experts' discovery Oct. 30, 2023 Nov. 13, 2023 completion deadline Defendant's opposition to the Nov. 14, 2023 Nov. 28, 2023 motion for class certification and disclosure of expert reports deadline Defendant's experts' discovery Jan. 15, 2024 Jan. 29, 2024 completion deadline Plaintiff's reply to Jan. 29, 2024 Feb. 12, 2024 Defendant's opposition to class certification and disclosure of rebuttal expert reports deadline Plaintiff's motion for class Feb. 15, 2024 Feb. 29, 2024 certification hearing Edgewell is an American multinational consumer products company. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Aug. 16, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Ev14p7 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy J. Peter, Esq. Lisa Omoto, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 1617 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1550 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (267) 536-2145 Facsimile: (215) 277-5771 E-mail: tpeter@faruqilaw.com lomoto@faruqilaw.com - and - Neal J. Deckant, Esq. Brittany S. Scott, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ndeckant@bursor.com bscott@bursor.com - and - Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq. Shireen M. Clarkson, Esq. Katherine A. Bruce, Esq. Kelsey J. Elling, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C. 22525 Pacific Coast Highway Malibu, CA 90265 Telephone: (213) 788-4050 Facsimile: (213) 788-4070 E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com sclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com kbruce@clarksonlawfirm.com kelling@clarksonlawfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Thomas H. Davis, Esq. Logan T. Fancher, Esq. Megan McCurdy, Esq. STINSON LLP 1201 Walnut, Suite 2900 Kansas City, MO 64106 Telephone: (816) 691-3439 Facsimile: (816) 412-1100 Email: thomas.davis@stinson.com megan.mccurdy@stinson.com logan.fancher@stinson.com - and - Danielle K. Lewis, Esq. HAWKINS PARNELL & YOUNG LLP Telephone: (415) 766-3200 Facsimile: (415) 766-3250 33 New Montgomery, Suite 800 San Francisco, CA 94105 E-mail: dlewis@hpylaw.com EDWARD-ELMHURST HEALTH: Faces Privacy Class Action in Illinois -------------------------------------------------------------- David Beasley, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a class action lawsuit accuses suburban Chicago health and hospital company Edward-Elmhurst Health of violating patients' privacy rights by allegedly allowing patient healthcare information to be traced and shared by Facebook's Tracking Pixel software. Edward-Elmhust operates web portal that allows patients to book medical appointments, locate physicians and treatment facilities and other services, according to the suit filed in Cook County Circuit Court. The company also has a web-based portal, MyChart. "Unbeknownst to Plaintiffs and Class Members, however, Defendant had embedded the Facebook Tracking Pixel on its Web Properties which automatically transmits to Facebook every click, keystroke and detail about their medical treatment," the suit alleges. "Pixel allows the private information that Plaintiffs and Class Members provide to Defendant to be unlawfully disclosed to Facebook alongside the individual's unique and persistent Facebook ID." Edward-Elmhurst "effectively planted a bug on Plaintiffs' and Class Members' web browsers and compelled them to unknowingly disclose their private, sensitive and confidential health-related communications with Defendant to Facebook," the suit states. "Defendant utilized the Pixel and CAPI data for marketing purposes in an effort to bolster its profits." Patients did not provide written authorization permitting the company to release their information to Facebook nor were they told the information was shared, the suit alleges. The disclosure violated the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPPA) of 1996, the suit contends. "Lest there be any doubt of the illegal nature of Defendant's practice, the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) at HHS has made clear, in a recent bulletin that the unlawful transmission of such protected information violates HIPAA's privacy rule," the suit says. The practice also violates the Illinois Eavesdropping Statute and the state's Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, according to the suit. It seeks an injunction barring Edward-Elmurst from continuing to violate patient privacy rights, plus unspecified actual and punitive damages and attorney fees. The plaintiffs are represented by Ryan F. Stephan, Teresa M. Becvar and Michael Casas, of Stephan Zouras LLP, of Chicago. [GN] EGS FINANCIAL: Lyle Seeks More Time to File Class Certification Bid ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIMOTHY LYLE, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. EGS FINANCIAL CARE, INC. f/k/a, NCO FINANCIAL SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-03014-SCJ (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting his motion for extension of time to file his motion for class certification. The Plaintiff request the Court allowing him to file his motion for class certification on a date to be determined by the Court and set forth in any case management order after the completion of the Initial Case Management Conference. On July 7, 2023, Plaintiff commenced this action by filing his Class Action Complaint with the Court. EGS is a debt collection agency. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 16, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PqMRA9 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: John A. Love, Esq. LOVE CONSUMER LAW 2500 Northwinds Parkway, Suite 330 Alpharetta, GA 30009 Telephone: (404) 855-3600 E-mail: tlove@loveconsumerlaw.com - and - Eric H. Weitz, Esq. Max S. Morgan, Esq. THE WEITZ FIRM, LLC 1515 Market Street, 1100 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (267) 587-6240 Facsimile: (215) 689-0875 E-mail: eric.weitz@theweitzfirm.com max.morgan@theweitzfirm.com - and - Michael L. Greenwald, Esq. Aaron D. Radbil, Esq. GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC 5550 Glades Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 826-5477 E-mail: mgreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com EHEALTH INC: Consolidated Shareholder Suit Over SEC Filing Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------------ EHealth, 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, that it is facing a consolidated securities class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On April 8, 2020 and April 30, 2020, two purported class action lawsuits were filed against the Company, its then-chief executive officer, Scott N. Flanders, its then-chief financial officer, Derek N. Yung, and its then-chief operating officer, David K. Francis. The cases are captioned "Patel v. eHealth, Inc., et al.," Case No. 5:20-cv-02395 (N.D. Cal.) and "Bertrand v. eHealth, Inc. et al.," Case No. 4:20-cv-02967 (N.D. Cal.). The complaints allege, among other things, that the company and Messrs. Flanders, Yung and Francis made materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material information regarding its accounting and modeling assumptions, rate of member churn and its profitability during the alleged class period of March 19, 2018 to April 7, 2020. The complaints allege that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, seeking compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and such other relief as the court deems proper. On June 24, 2020, the court consolidated the above-referenced matters under the caption "In re eHealth Securities Litig., Master File No." 4:20-cv-02395-JST (N.D. Cal.). The court also appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel for the consolidated matter. An Amended Complaint was filed on August 25, 2020, which defendants moved to dismiss on October 23, 2020. Defendants' motion, which plaintiff opposed, was granted in part and denied in part on August 12, 2021. The court dismissed plaintiff's claims to the extent premised upon alleged misrepresentations or omissions relating to churn but denied Defendants' motion with respect to alleged misstatements regarding purported operating costs. On October 1, 2021, the company filed an answer denying in part and admitting in part the remaining allegations and denying any wrongdoing. On November 11, 2021, plaintiff's counsel filed a suggestion of death with respect to the lead plaintiff Billy White. Plaintiff's counsel published notice regarding the appointment of a new lead plaintiff on January 17, 2022. On November 9, 2022, the court appointed Chicago & Vicinity Laborers' District Council Pension Fund as the new lead plaintiff and approved plaintiff's selection of counsel. On November 29, 2022, the new lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's counsel filed a supplement to the amended complaint, replacing the names of the prior lead plaintiff and counsel and incorporating new lead plaintiff's previously filed certification. On December 22, 2022, the company, Mr. Flanders, and Mr. Yung moved for judgment on the pleadings as to the remaining claims. Mr. Francis also moved for judgment on the pleadings the same day, and joined the motion by the company, Mr. Flanders, and Mr. Yung. The motions for judgment on the pleadings were fully briefed by February 9, 2023 and were scheduled for a hearing on April 13, 2023. On April 5, 2023, the court vacated the hearing on the motions and stated its intent to issue a decision based on the parties' written briefing. On April 25, 2023, a consortium of putative class members filed a motion to intervene in the case, prior to the expiration of the applicable statute of repose, to preserve their individual rights. On May 5, 2023, a defendants' statement of non-opposition to the consortium's limited motion to intervene and a stipulation with it regarding same were filed. eHealth, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and its consolidated subsidiaries is a private online health insurance marketplace with a technology and service platform that provides consumer engagement, education and health insurance enrollment solutions. EL CENTRO DEL: Leal Files Suit in W.D. Texas -------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against El Centro Del Barrio. The case is styled as Dawn Leal, on behalf of herself and all those similarly situated v. El Centro Del Barrio d/b/a CentroMed, Case No. 5:23-cv-01092 (W.D. Tex., Aug. 30, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Contract. El Centro Del Barrio, Inc. is a Medical Group that has 2 practice medical offices located in San Antonio, Texas.[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 ELECTROLUX HOME: Anderson Sues Over Dangerous Defective Ranges -------------------------------------------------------------- Myron Anderson and Brenda Weaver, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. ELECTROLUX HOME PRODUCTS, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-00560-RJC-SCR (W.D.N.C., Aug. 31, 2023), is brought with regard to the Defendant Electrolux ranges under the Electrolux, AEG, Frigidaire, and Kenmore brand names (the "Ranges") which contained dangerous defects that were concealed by the Defednant. The Plaintiffs and the Class are purchasers of the Ranges, that include dangerous latent defects in the design, or in the manufacture, of their front-mounted burner control knobs that make the Ranges susceptible to unintentional actuation (the "Defect"). When the knobs on the Ranges are accidentally and inadvertently contacted, the Ranges actuate without warning and cause the ignition of gas Range burners and heating of electric Range cooktops unbeknownst to the consumer. This unintentional actuation of the Ranges thus creates hazardous conditions--leaking gas or heating electric cooktops to extreme temperatures--and serious risk of fire, property damage, and personal injury. The Ranges span several model numbers, but they all contain the same defect and are all subject to unintentional actuation. All the Ranges, gas and electric, contain the same, or substantially similar, front mounted burner control knobs which are identically or similarly designed and, as a result, are prone to, and do, rotate as a result of minor, inadvertent contact causing them to unintentionally actuate. The defective condition of the Ranges is the result of the minimal depression required to push the burner control knobs in and low force the knobs need to travel to the "on" position, which is inadequate to prevent unintentional actuation. In other words, the ease with which the knobs can be pushed in and rotated without resistance fails to prevent the Ranges from being actuated inadvertently. Since at least 2013, Electrolux has known that its Ranges were susceptible to unintentional actuation. Consumers have filed numerous incident reports about the Defect with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (the "CPSC"), which the CPSC has in turn sent to Electrolux. Consumers have also filed complaints with Electrolux directly via online product reviews posted to Electrolux's website and indirectly via reviews posted to the websites of third party retailers. Because the existence of the Defect was concealed by Electrolux, Plaintiffs and the Class were deceived and deprived of the benefit of their bargain. A range that turns on without a consumer's knowledge has no value because it cannot be used safely. Alternatively, the Ranges have far less value than promised at the point of sale, because a range prone to unintentional actuation, and the attendant risk of harm, is less valuable than one that operates safely, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs purchased the Defendants ranges. Electrolux Home Products is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters in Charlotte, North Carolina.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jean S. Martin, Esq. Michael F. Ram, Esq. Marie N. Appel, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN 711 Van Ness Ave, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94102 Email: jeanmartin@forthepeople.com mram@forthepeople.com mappel@forthepeople.com - and - Alan M. Feldman, Esq. Edward S. Goldis, Esq. Zachary Arbitman, Esq. FELDMAN SHEPHERD WOHLGELERNTER TANNER WEINSTOCK & DODIG, LLP 1845 Walnut Street, 21st Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 567-8300 Fax: (215) 567-8333 Email: afeldman@feldmanshepherd.com egoldis@feldmanshepherd.com zarbitman@feldmanshepherd.com ENT AND ALLERGY: Clement Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against ENT and Allergy Associates, LLP. The case is styled as Vincent Clement, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. ENT and Allergy Associates, LLP., Case No. 1:23-cv-06527 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 31, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. ENT and Allergy Associates -- https://www.entandallergy.com/ -- specializes in ear, nose, and throat services with our team of physicians, specialists, and experts. Book your appointment today.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com ESAFETY SUPPLIES: Cromitie Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against ESafety Supplies, Inc. The case is styled as Seana Cromitie, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. ESafety Supplies, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-07745 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 31, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. eSafety Supplies -- https://www.esafetysupplies.com/ -- offers work safety products and protective apparel for personal and industrial use.[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 EVANSTON INSURANCE: Bid to Dismiss GPI Class Suit Tossed -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GLEIBERMAN PROPERTIES, INC., a California corporation doing business as MG Properties Group, v. EVANSTON INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois corporation, Case No. 3:23-cv-00356-JLS-SBC (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Janis L. Sammartino entered an order (1) Denying the Defendant's motion to dismiss; and (2) Granting the Plaintiff's motion for Partial summary judgment. -- The Court denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss and grants the Plaintiff's motion for Partial Summary Judgment. -- The Court finds that Defendant Evanston Insurance Company had and has a duty to defend Plaintiff Gleiberman Properties, Inc., d/b/a MG Properties in connection with the underlying action entitled Christian Yu v. Gleiberman Properties, Inc., San Diego Superior Court Case No. 37-2021-00008418-CU-OR-CTL. -- The Court finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated that the Yu Complaint gives rise to the potential for coverage, and that Defendant has failed to establish that the Policy's exclusions serve to bar coverage. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 15, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3P5w5VU at no extra charge.[CC] EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Aikens Sues Over False Credit Reporting ------------------------------------------------------------- Aisha Aikens, individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., TRANS UNION, LLC, LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS, INC., and VALIDIFI, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-13833 (D.N.J., Aug. 31, 2023), is brought for damages arising from the Defendants' violations the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") as a result of the Defendant who reported the Plaintiff as reported which is false. On a date better known to each Bureau, it prepared and issued consumer reports concerning the Plaintiff that included the Account. For some or all of the period from April 2023 through June 2023, Plaintiff was being reported as deceased by each Bureau. The period of time may be longer or shorter, Plaintiff is not completely sure. On May 31, 2023, Plaintiff applied for credit with non-party Capital One Bank, N.A., and was denied credit. The Plaintiff was denied as she was listed by each Bureau as deceased. Due to this deceased marking, Experian and TransUnion were also showing Plaintiff as not having a credit score. The Plaintiff is not deceased. The Plaintiff was not deceased between April and June 2023, either. The reporting of her being deceased is inaccurate. The Social Security Administration (SSA) provides the Department of Commerce's National Technical Information Service (NTIS) a public file of death information. NTIS distributes the public file of death information, also known as the public Death Master File (DMF), to other agencies and private organizations, including consumer reporting agencies. each Bureau has a data exchange agreement with the SSA and/or NTIS to receive updated death information. Each Defendant failed to cross-check the DMF to verify whether Plaintiff was a part of the catalog of social security numbers that belong to deceased individuals. Had each Bureau maintained reasonable procedures it would have realized that Plaintiff is not deceased. Had each Bureau attempted to timely verify if Plaintiff was deceased, it would have realized she was in fact alive. Despite the falsity and their actual or constructive knowledge thereof, Defendants reported false and inaccurate adverse information on the consumer report of the Plaintiff. Defendants knew or should have known the information was inaccurate. At minimum, Defendants demonstrated a reckless disregard for the true facts. These actions by Defendants caused extensive damage to Plaintiff, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a resident of the State of New Jersey, County of Camden. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., is a consumer reporting agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eliyahu Babad, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 x121 Email: EBabad@SteinSaksLegal.com FATE THERAPEUTICS: Faces Hadian Suit Over Janssen Deal ------------------------------------------------------ Fate Therapeutics, 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 securities class action lawsuit filed by purported stockholder of the company against the company and certain of its officers captioned "Hadian v. Fate Therapeutics, Inc. et al." in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on January 20, 2023. On May 4, 2023, the court appointed a different purported stockholder of the company to serve as lead plaintiff in the Securities Action. On July 24, 2023, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint alleges that the company violated the federal securities laws by making allegedly false and/or misleading statements and/or omissions in its public disclosures dating back to August 2020 relating to the company's collaboration agreement with Janssen Biotech, Inc. Fate Therapeutics, Inc. is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company dedicated to bringing off-the-shelf, multiplexed-engineered, iPSC-derived natural killer and T-cell product candidates to patients for the treatment of cancer and autoimmune disease. FIELDALE FARMS: Panel Vacates $57M Fee Award in $181M Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Scott Holland, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a federal appeals panel has plucked, for now, a $57 million fee award given to the attorneys behind part of massive antitrust litigation accusing poultry producers of conspiring to control and inflate chicken prices. The panel said a lower court judge failed to properly consider lesser amounts the plaintiffs' lawyers have agreed to accept in class actions elsewhere, particularly in the West Coast states of the federal Ninth Circuit court. The U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals opinion, issued Aug. 30, agreed with objectors who argued U.S. District Judge Thomas Durkin didn't properly evaluate the fee request as part of a $181 million settlement. Judge Diane Sykes wrote the opinion; Judges Michael Brennan and Doris Pryor concurred. Durkin finalized the fee award in October 2022 for attorneys who represented consumers and other "end users" of chicken in a consolidated legal action. The "end users" case was distinct from litigation on behalf of so-called "direct purchasers," a group that includes wholesalers, supermarkets and other retailers. Attorneys representing the end users include Shana E. Scarlett, of the firm of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, of Berkeley, California, and Brent W. Johnson, of the firm of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, of Washington, D.C., along with other attorneys from those firms. In addition to incentive awards for named plaintiffs, the lawyers sought more than $60 million in fees, and $8.75 million more to reimburse them for the cost of pursuing the litigation; they told the judge their actual expenses exceeded $9 million. At the time, Durkin said he analyzed the filing of one of two objectors who sought discovery related to the fee requests, following which he ordered disclosure about fee awards in other antitrust litigation and the firms' agreements with named plaintiffs. That objector insisted the fee "request was 'exorbitant' and 'substantially above-market,' and demanded that 'there must be consequences' for such 'selfish' conduct." But in this instance, Durkin said the "request here is well within the range of awards" the firms have earned since 2016. Class member John Andren appealed that ruling through attorneys Theodore Frank and Frank Bednarz, of the Hamilton Lincoln Institute Center for Class Action Fairness, renowned as among the most successful in America at assailing allegedly unfair and excessive fee awards under class action settlements. Sykes said Judge Durkin "followed the appropriate method in determining the fee award" but noted the appeals panel was allowed to review the final decision to determine if it revealed an abuse of judicial discretion. Noting Durkin "has done a fine job of shepherding" the complex litigation, the panel determined his "evaluation fell short in two areas: the consideration of bids made by class counsel in auctions, and the weight assigned to out-of-circuit decisions." On appeal, Andren argued Durkin improperly discounted bids one of the firms made in auctions as too old to be useful. Andren said the forecasting approach to fee assessment "requires the courts to examine the bargain that would have been struck at the outset of the litigation" Sykes wrote, and the lawsuit started in September 2016. The class counsel argued the U.S. Seventh Circuit views auctions skeptically and noted the firm didn't win the bids in question. The appeals panel noted Durkin also discounted the bids because of their declining fee scale award structures, ostensibly in accordance with federal appeals precedent, but Sykes said no Seventh Circuit panel has "categorically rejected consideration of" such bids and said they can sometimes be advantageous. She further said it didn't matter that only one of the involved firms made the bids and that they were unsuccessful. "The bids were made in pursuit of appointment and reflect the price of co-class counsel's legal services in antitrust litigation," Sykes wrote. "It was error to suggest that this court has cast doubt on the consideration of declining fee scale bids in all cases." Andren also argued Durkin should've included in his analysis fee awards in similar cases in the Ninth Circuit, noting the firms regularly bid for appointment as class counsel in that circuit. The panel said Durkin properly gave less weight to fee awards issued at the conclusion of a case when trying to assess a bargain that might've been struck at the outset, but said he still "should not have categorically assigned less weight to Ninth Circuit cases in which counsel was awarded fees under a megafund rule," a system that caps fees when recovery exceeds a certain figure. Although the Seventh Circuit has rejected megafund rules, Sykes wrote, "continued participation in litigation in the Ninth Circuit is an economic choice that informs the price of class counsel's legal services and the bargain they may have struck." The panel vacated the award and remanded the request for legal fees, suggesting Durkin reappropriate the weight given to auction bids and Ninth Circuit litigation while also allowing him to re-evaluate Andren's request to order additional discovery on the expert reports class counsel submitted to bolster their request. "We recognize that the district court has lived with this complex litigation for a long time," Sykes wrote in conclusion. "It reviewed and considered our court's complicated law in this area, and it was correct to invite briefing on close questions. Ordinarily, this would place its decisions within the zone of discretion to which we would defer. But given the record as considered under our admittedly intricate law, the arrived-upon figure of one-third of the net settlement warrants greater explanation and consideration of the information described above." The case is IN RE: BROILER CHICKEN ANTITRUST LITIGATION END USER CONSUMER PLAINTIFF CLASS, v. FIELDALE FARMS CORPORATION, et al. (No. 22-2889) (7th Cir.) [GN] FIFTY WEST: Morse Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEVIN MORSE, v. FIFTY WEST BREWING COMPANY LLC, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00377-DRC (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: (1) Certifying a class under Rule 23 for Plaintiff's state law Claims: Count 3: Failure to Pay Minimum Wage under Ohio Const. Art. II, Sec. 34(a); Count 4: Untimely Payment of Wages under R.C. § 4113.15; Count 5: Damages under R.C. § 2307.60; and Count 6: Unjust Enrichment; (2) Appointing Plaintiff as class representative; (3) Appointing the undesigned counsel as class counsel; (4) Approving the proposed form of notice, attached as Exhibit B; (5) Authorizing Plaintiff to send the proposed notice to the class members via both U.S. mail and email; (6) Permitting a 60-day period in which class members may opt-out or otherwise exclude themselves. The Plaintiff Kevin Morse brought this action for wage and hour violations arising from the Defendants' unlawful retention of employee tips during the height of the Covid-19 pandemic. Specifically, the Plaintiff has alleged that Defendants violated state law1 by: (1) retaining tips earned by employees and distributing them to managers and supervisors in violation of R.C. section 4113.15, Ohio's Prompt Pay Act and (2) utilizing a tip credit towards Fifty West's state and federal minimum wage obligations while at the same time requiring tipped employes to participate in a tip pool including employees who do not customarily and regularly receive tips, in violation of both the Prompt Pay Act and Ohio Const. Art. II, Sec. 34(a), Ohio's Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act. The Plaintiff further contends that these violations unjustly enriched Defendants and resulted in damages compensable under R.C. section 2307.60. The Plaintiff requests that the Court issue an order certifying the following class (consisting of two subclasses) for determination of these state law claims: -- All hourly employees who customarily and regularly received tips that worked for Defendants at any time between March 1, 2020, and June 5, 2021. -- Class Action Subclass 1: All hourly employees who have been employed by Defendants as a bartender, cashier, or utility at any time between March 16, 2020, and May 9, 2020, during which time Defendants paid the minimum wage and during which time the employee did not receive all of the tips to which the employee was entitled. -- Collective Action Subclass 2: All tip-credited employees (i.e., any employee who received a tip-credit wage, or in other words an hourly rate below the federal and state minimum wage, and as to whom the employer was relying on a tip credit (which is lawful to make up the difference between the hourly rate and the federal and state minimum wage) who have been employed by Defendants at any time between May 10, 2020, and June 5, 2021, who participated in a tip pool with employees who do not customarily and regularly receive tips and/or who did not receive all of the tips to which they were entitled. The Plaintiff further requests that the Court: (1) designate him Class Representative; (2) designate the undersigned counsel as Class Counsel; (3) approve the proposed form of notice, attached as Exhibit B; (4) authorize Plaintiff to send the proposed notice to class members via both U.S. mail and email; and (5) Permit a 60-day period in which class members may opt-out or exclude A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 16, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3EpO3NW at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian J. Butler, Esq. MEZIBOV BUTLER 615 Elsinore Place, Suite 105 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 621-8800 Facsimile: (513) 621-8833 E-mail: bbutler@mezibov.com FIVE-STAR AUDIOVISUAL: Johnson Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices ----------------------------------------------------------------- CONNOR JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all other Aggrieved Employees; Plaintiff v. FIVE-STAR AUDIOVISUAL, INC., a Illinois Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 23STCV20366 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Aug. 24, 2023) arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful labor policies and practices in violation of the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff asserts the Defendants' failure to provide employment records; failure to pay overtime and double time; failure to provide rest and meal periods; failure to pay minimum wage; failure to keep accurate payroll records and provide itemized wage statements; failure to pay reporting time wages; failure to pay split shift wages; failure to pay all wages earned on time; failure to pay all wages earned upon discharge or resignation; failure to reimburse necessary, business-related expenses; and failure to provide notice of paid sick time and accrual. Representative Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants with the job title of Audio Video Event Technician from April 1, 2022 until April 11, 2023. Five-Star Audiovisual, Inc. is an in-house audio-video service provider operating throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq. Cathy Gonzalez, Esq. Raffi Tapanian, Esq. HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN LAWYERS, APC 801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 970 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 696-2306 Facsimile: (818) 696-2307 E-mail: haig@hbklawyers.com cathy@hbklawyers.com raffi@hbklawyers.com FMR LLC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Hanson Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- ISAAC HANSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FMR LLC d/b/a FIDELITY INVESTMENTS, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-12028 (D. Mass., Aug. 31, 2023) seeks to hold the Defendant responsible for the injuries it inflicted on the Plaintiff and approximately 371,000 similarly situated persons due to its's impermissibly inadequate data security, which caused the personal information of the Plaintiff and those similarly situated to be exfiltrated by unauthorized access by cybercriminals between May 29 and May 30, 2023. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that prior to and through the date of the Data Breach, the Defendant obtained the Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII and then maintained that sensitive data in a negligent and reckless manner. As evidenced by the Data Breach, the Defendant inadequately maintained its network, platform, software, and technology partners—rendering these easy prey for cybercriminals. The identities of the Plaintiff and Class Members are in jeopardy—all because of the Defendant's negligence. Plaintiff and Class Members now suffer from a heightened and imminent risk of fraud and identity theft and must now constantly monitor their financial accounts, says the suit. FMR LLC, doing business as Fidelity Institutional Asset Management, operates as a financial services corporation. The Company offers investment management, retirement options, brokerage, financial planning, and wealth management services. Fidelity Investments serves individuals and institutions worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Garret D. Lee, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN 155 Federal Street, Suite 1502 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (857) 383-4906 Facsimile: (813) 223-5402 Email: glee@forthepeople.com - and - John A. Yanchunis, Esq. Ra O. Amen, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 North Franklin Street 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 Facsimile: (813) 223-5402 Email: JYanchunis@forthepeople.com Ramen@forthepeople.com FORD MOTOR: Sued Over Defective Explorer Rear Subframe Assembly --------------------------------------------------------------- Corrado Rizzi, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that Ford Motor Company faces a proposed class action that alleges certain 2020-present model year Explorers are defective in that they are equipped with a rear subframe assembly with only one rear axle horizontal mounting bolt. Do you own or lease a 2020-present Ford Explorer or 2021-2022 Lincoln Aviator? Let us know here. The 46-page lawsuit accuses Ford of failing to disclose to the public "material facts and a safety concern" about the Explorer models at issue, namely that the rear subframe assembly is attached with only one mounting bolt that can easily fail, upon which the rear driveshaft assembly -- including the rear differential and axle half-shafts -- can suddenly and violently disconnect from the vehicle. "As a result, a driver will lose control of the Class Vehicle while driving, drastically increasing the risk of collision due to the driver's inability to maintain steering, braking, and speed control," the filing says, calling the alleged Ford bolt defect "a significant safety hazard" that endangers drivers, passengers and pedestrians alike. Even before the rear horizontal mounting bolt fails completely, it may display signs of stress and possibly deform, the suit adds, explaining that symptoms of a deteriorating rear subframe assembly include wheel misalignments, premature wear, pulling to the side while braking and clunking or rattling noises. Per the case, Ford has sold and leased the Explorers at issue with a three-year/36,000-mile new vehicle limited warranty that purports to cover the rear subframe assemblies. However, drivers have complained that when their vehicle's rear subframe assembly requires repair or replacement, Ford has refused to provide a free fix, even when the issues crop up within the warranty period, the lawsuit says. According to the suit, Ford has been aware of the rear subframe problem since at least 2019 "and likely several years prior." As evidence, the case points to the automaker's presale design and testing of the newly re-designed 2020 Explorer ST, whose specs show that Ford knew that "Explorers, especially on higher horsepower and torque-rated vehicles and rear-wheel drive vehicles, require two rear axle mounting bolts." The lack of two rear axle mounting bolts on certain 2020-present Explorer models stems from supply chain issues experienced by the automaker during the COVID-19 pandemic, the complaint relays. Despite this, Ford "has not returned to [the] use of two rear-axle mounting bolts as a cost-saving measure," the suit alleges. The lawsuit accuses Ford of intentionally attempting to conceal the rear subframe assembly problem and "other malfunctions," namely through technical service bulletins made available to only authorized repair facilities, not vehicle owners or lessees. In April 2022, Ford issued a safety recall report for certain 2020-2022 Explorer ST 2.3L vehicles, explaining that the cars were "equipped with suspect rear axle bolts and an older version of Electronic Park Brake Software," the case shares. Ford stated in the recall notice that the rear axle horizontal mounting bolt may fracture and that the bearing area may deform, causing increased bending stress on the bolt and leading to fatigue failure, the suit relays. However, Ford "only partially explained" the risk of the rear axle bolt breaking, stating that if the bolt breaks, the driveshaft may become disconnected, resulting in loss of transmission torque on the rear wheels necessary to hold the car in park, which could cause the vehicle to roll while parked, the lawsuit states. "Ford ignored the other obvious possibility: that the driveshaft/half shafts may become disconnected while the car is moving," the case adds, noting that Ford's purported fix was not a replacement of the defective lone-bolt assemblies but a parking brake software update meant to address a bolt failure only while the vehicles are parked. The lawsuit looks to cover all persons and entities in the United States who bought or leased a 2020-present Ford Explorer equipped with a rear subframe assembly attached to the vehicle with only one rear axle horizontal mounting bolt.[GN] FORESTERS LIFE: Velez Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAGDA VELEZ, Individually, and on Behalf of the Class, v. FORESTERS LIFE INSURANCE AND ANNUITY COMPANY, a New York Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, Inclusive, Case No. 2:22-cv-08932-ODW-MRW (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying the case as class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23: -- The Class "All owners of Defendant's life insurance policies issued or delivered in California, with currently living insureds, that Defendant lapsed or terminated for nonpayment of premium on or after January 1, 2013, without first providing every notice, grace period, and offer of designation required by Cal. Ins. Code, sections 10113.71 and 10113.72. -- The 60-Day Grace Period Sub-Class "All members of the Class defined above, who were not provided at least a 60-day grace period in the policy contract and in practice prior to lapse or termination of a class policy for nonpayment of premium. Cal. Ins. Code, section 10113.71(a)." -- The 30-Day Notice of Pending Lapse Sub-Class: "All members of the Class defined above, who were not provided a notice of pending lapse, via first-class United States mail, at least 30-days prior to the effective date of termination of a class policy for nonpayment of premium. Cal. Ins. Code, section 10113.71(b);" and -- The Third-Party Designee Sub-Class: "All members of the Class defined above, who were not provided an annual option, in writing, permitting the designation of a third-party to receive notices of pending lapse or termination of the policy for nonpayment of premium. Cal. Ins. Code, section 10113.72;" 2. Appointing Plaintiff Magda Velez as the Class Representative; and 3. Appointing the law firms of Nicholas & Tomasevic, LLP and Winters & Associates as Class Counsel. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to comply with California Insurance Code sections 10113.71 and 10113.72. The Plaintiff only seeks to certify her non-monetary equitable claims, i.e., her claims for Declaratory Relief or Judgment, and her request for injunctive relief under the UCL for policies where the policy insured is still alive. Foresters allegedly made a fateful decision not to apply The Statutes to California life insurance policies sold before 2013 (i.e., before enactment of The Statutes). A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 15, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Egjg62 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig M. Nicholas, Esq. Alex Tomasevic, Esq. NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP 225 Broadway, 19th Floor San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 325-0492 Facsimile: (619) 325-0496 E-mail: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org - and - Jack B. Winters, Jr., Esq. Sarah Ball, Esq. WINTERS & ASSOCIATES 8489 La Mesa Boulevard La Mesa, CA 91942 Telephone: (619) 234-9000 Facsimile: (619) 750-0413 E-mail: jackbwinters@earthlink.net sball@einsurelaw.com G.E.S. Bakery: Pre-Class Cert Discovery Filing Due Dec. 31, 2024 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Marquez v. G.E.S. Bakery, Inc. d/b/a Strauss Bakery, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-07955 (N.D.N.Y., Filed Dec. 29, 2022), the Hon. Judge Allyne R. Ross entered an order on motion for extension of time to complete discovery. -- The parties will serve their first Sept. 29, 2023 pre-class certification production requests and interrogatories on or before: -- Responses no later than: Nov. 17, 2023 -- The parties will serve their pre-class Oct. 20, 2023 certification notices of deposition no later than: -- Pre-class certification depositions Dec. 29, 2023 of the parties shall be completed no later than: -- Pre-class certification discovery Dec. 31, 2024 shall be completed by: -- The parties will initiate their motion Nov. 17, 2023 for collective certification in accordance with the Individual Rules of the District Judge no later than: -- The parties will initiate their motion March 15, 2024 for collective certification in accordance with the Individual Rules of the District Judge no later than: The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.[CC] GEICO CORP: Faces Class Action Over Privacy Breach Allegations -------------------------------------------------------------- Mika Pangilinan, writing for Insurance Business, reports that GEICO is set to confront a nationwide class action lawsuit after allegedly compromising its customers' privacy through the unauthorized release of their driver's license numbers that were later used by identity thieves to secure fraudulent unemployment benefits. US District Judge Kiyo Matsumoto delivered the decision to proceed with the lawsuit in Brooklyn, Reuters reported, upholding a magistrate judge's recommendation that the case move forward. The accusations against GEICO are rooted in its practice of auto-populating driver's license numbers when users enter details such as names, addresses, and birth dates during the process of obtaining insurance quotes online. According to the lawsuit, criminals exploited this practice and breached the company's system between November 24, 2020, and March 1, 2021, using the license numbers and other personal details to fraudulently apply for unemployment benefits under victims' names. Plaintiffs further argued that GEICO's failure to secure their data exposed them to increased risks of identity fraud, requiring them to spend time and resources on monitoring their financial accounts and credit profiles. In her decision, Matsumoto said it would be premature to accept GEICO's contention that it could not be held directly responsible for the plaintiffs' injuries, noting that the theft had merely been a part of a "concerted campaign by fraudsters" targeting the online quotation systems of insurance companies. Matsumoto had accepted US Magistrate Judge Sanket Bulsara's recommendation that the insurer must defend itself against claims that it had been negligent and violated the federal Driver's Privacy Protection Act. She also endorsed the recommendation to dismiss claims that GEICO had violated a New York state consumer protection law and committed negligence "per se," according to Reuters. Earlier in August, some employees at the Berkshire Hathaway subsidiary said they were worried that their personal information may have been leaked after a third-party vendor was impacted by a data breach involving file transfer software MOVEIt. [GN] GEN DIGITAL INC: Continues to Defend Lau Class Suit in N.D. Cal. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Gen Digital Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30,2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2023, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Lau class suit in the Northern District of California. On December 12, 2022, a putative class action, Lau v. Gen Digital Inc. and Jumpshot Inc., was filed in the Northern District of California alleging violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, California Invasion of Privacy Act, statutory larceny, unfair competition and various common law claims related to the provision of customer data to Jumpshot. On February 24, 2023, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss, which is still pending. At this stage, the Company is unable to assess whether any material loss or adverse effect is reasonably possible as a result of this action or estimate the range of any potential loss. The Company disputes these claims and intend to defend them vigorously. Gen Digital Inc. is a computer software company headquartered in Tempe, Arizona. GENERAL ATLANTIC: Faces Franchi Suit Over Veto Right ---------------------------------------------------- ANTHONY FRANCHI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GENERAL ATLANTIC L.P.; GUY ABRAMO; VENKAT BHAMIDIPATI; JAMES CAREY; MARK DZIALGA; JOSH FELDMAN; RENE KERN; LARRY KUTSCHER; JAMES LAPLAINE; JAMES MATTHEWS; JILL SMART; and LISA TROE, Defendants, and HIRERIGHT HOLDINGS CORPORATION, Nominal Defendant, Case No. 2023-0890 (Del. Ch., Aug. 30, 2023) seeks declaratory relief invalidating a provision of the stockholders agreement between HireRight and General Atlantic, dated October 28, 2021 (the "Stockholders Agreement"), that gives General Atlantic a veto right over the Board's ability to hire or fire the Company's Chief Executive Officer pursuant to the Delaware General Corporation Law. GENERAL ATLANTIC L.P. provides investment platform. The Company invests in consumer, financial services, health care, life sciences, and technology sectors. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kimberly A. Evans, Esq. Robert Erikson, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 3801 Kennett Pike, Suite C-305 Wilmington, DE 19807 Telephone: (302) 499-3600 Email: kim@blockleviton.com robby@blockleviton.com GEORGIA-CAROLINA STUCCO: Court Tosses Conditional Certification Bid ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES YARBROUGH and VICTOR LOPEZ-REED, et al., V. GEORGIA-CAROLINA STUCCO, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-00070-JRH-BKE (S.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge J. Randal Hall entered an order: -- Denying without prejudice the Plaintiff Lopez-Reed and the Defendant's joint motion for entry of judgment; and -- Denying the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification. The Plaintiffs filed the present collective action complaint against Defendant on June 1, 2022. The Plaintiffs, who are former employees of Defendant, allege Defendant violated the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). According to the Plaintiffs, the Defendant failed to pay Plaintiffs [and other hourly employees] an overtime premium for hours worked over forty each week." A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 16, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Z4L0En at no extra charge.[CC] GILEAD SCIENCES: Continues to Defend Consumer Protection Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Gilead Sciences Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30,2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2023, that the Company continues to defend itself from the consolidated consumer protection class suits. The Company, along with Bristol-Myers Squibb Company ("BMS"), Johnson & Johnson, Inc. ("Johnson & Johnson"), and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. ("Teva") have been named as defendants in class action lawsuits filed in 2019 and 2020 related to various drugs used to treat HIV, including drugs used in combination antiretroviral therapy. Plaintiffs allege that the Company (and the other defendants) engaged in various conduct to restrain competition in violation of federal and state antitrust laws and state consumer protection laws. The lawsuits, which have been consolidated, are pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The lawsuits seek to bring claims on behalf of direct purchasers consisting largely of wholesalers and indirect or end-payor purchasers, including health insurers and individual patients. Plaintiffs seek damages, permanent injunctive relief and other relief. In the second half of 2021 and first half of 2022, several plaintiffs consisting of retail pharmacies, individual health plans and United Healthcare, filed separate lawsuits effectively opting out of the class action cases, asserting claims that are substantively the same as the classes. These cases have been coordinated with the class actions. In March 2023, the District Court granted our motion to hold separate trials as to (i) the allegations against the Company and Teva seeking monetary damages relating to Truvada and Atripla ("Phase I") and (ii) the allegations against them and, in part, Johnson & Johnson, seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief relating to Complera ("Phase II"). In May 2023, it settled claims with the direct purchaser class and the retailer opt-out plaintiffs for $525 million, which it agreed to pay in the second half of 2023. The settlement agreements are not an admission of liability or fault by the Company, and are subject to a number of other conditions including, with respect to the preliminary settlement agreement between the Company and the direct purchaser class, court approval. From May 2023 through June 2023, a jury trial was held on the remaining plaintiffs’ Phase I allegations. The jury returned a complete verdict in Gilead’s favor. Trial on the Phase II claims has not yet been scheduled. While the Company believes the Phase II claims are without merit, it cannot predict the ultimate outcome. Gilead Sciences is an American biopharmaceutical company that focuses on researching and developing antiviral drugs used in the treatment of HIV/AIDS, hepatitis B, hepatitis C, influenza, and COVID-19, including ledipasvir/sofosbuvir and sofosbuvir. GLOBAL RESOURCES: Fact Discovery in Bassaw Due Dec. 22 ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHIVAN BASSAW, Individually, and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. GLOBAL RESOURCES REGISTRY, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-03481-VEC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Valerie Caproni entered a civil case management plan and scheduling order. -- The parties are free to withhold consent without adverse substantive consequences. If all parties consent, the remaining paragraphs need not be completed. -- In addition, they shall submit to the Court a fully executed Notice, Consent, and Reference of a Civil Action to a Magistrate Judge, available at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/2018-06/AO-3.pdf, within three days of submitting this Proposed Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order. -- Initial disclosures pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) shall be completed no later than 14 days from the date of this Order. a. All fact discovery shall be completed no later than December 22, 2023. b. All expert discovery, including reports, production of underlying documents, and depositions, shall be completed no later than February 5, 2024. The Plaintiff proposes that their class certification motion be filed on or before December 29, 2023; that Defendant shall have until on or before January 26, 2024, to file opposition papers: and Plaintiff shall have until on or before February 9, 2024, to file any reply. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 15, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45HCLA6 at no extra charge.[CC] GOLDMAN SACHS: Mintz Attorneys Discuss Securities Fraud Suit Ruling ------------------------------------------------------------------- Jason C. Vigna, Esq., and Aaron R. Megar, Esq., of Mintz, disclosed that on August 10, 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit took an important step in Arkansas Teacher Retirement System v. Goldman Sachs Group toward clarifying the circumstances in which federal class action plaintiffs can -- and cannot -- rely on mere presumptions to proceed to the merits phases of logically weak securities fraud cases. Typically, when a company's stock price drops as a result of bad news, securities plaintiffs' lawyers look to see what, if anything, the company previously disclosed about the subject -- searching for a misstatement or arguably misleading omission that might serve as the basis for a lawsuit to recover some of the lost value, on the theory that fraudulently-induced market misunderstandings previously inflated the stock's price, which fell to its "correct" value only after the "truth" revealed by the news became known. While it would be practically impossible to base a common law fraud class action on such an earlier misstatement or omission -- because only investors who actually read the prior materials could satisfy the "reliance" element of a fraud claim and be eligible to participate -- in 1988 the Supreme Court ruled in Basic v. Levinson that investors seeking to recover losses under Section 10(b) of the federal Securities Exchange Act can invoke a presumption of reliance based on a "fraud-on-the-market" theory where: (i) the alleged misrepresentation was publicly known; (ii) the misrepresentation was material, and (iii) the company's stock traded in an efficient market such as a major stock exchange. The fraud-on-the-market theory presumes that the impact of alleged misrepresentations -- and all other publicly-known information -- is, in essence, "baked into" a stock's price and, thereby, indirectly relied-on by all investors. While Basic's presumptions might be justified in a situation where a company is alleged to have made affirmatively false statements (concerning, for example, its financial situation or results of operations), defendants have long argued that such presumptions are unjustified where plaintiffs rely on supposedly misleading omissions to support their case -- or on statements issued at such a high level of generality that it is difficult to imagine investors basing actual investment decisions on them. (For Basic's presumptions to make sense, a misstatement or omission must actually be significant enough to prop up a stock's price -- and by roughly the same amount as its eventual drop.) That is the situation in which Goldman Sachs found itself in 2010, when the company's stock price fell after the SEC announced that it was initiating an enforcement action alleging that Goldman improperly marketed investments in a privately-offered collateralized debt obligation vehicle called Abacus 2007 AC-1 without disclosing that a hedge fund that helped select assets for the vehicle was at the same time shorting those assets. Not surprisingly, plaintiffs could point to no previous public statements about Abacus as being misleading, because Goldman had not previously discussed it publicly at all. Nevertheless, a group of plaintiffs sued the company for federal securities fraud, alleging that generalized public statements like "Our clients' interests always come first" and "We have extensive procedures and controls that are designed to identify and address conflicts of interest, including those designed to prevent the improper sharing of information among our businesses" were actionably misleading because they omitted to note that Goldman nonetheless was allegedly mismanaging certain conflicts. In the years following Basic, courts had acknowledged that it established only a presumption of reliance that defendants should be permitted to rebut before a class is certified by presenting evidence that any alleged misstatements or omissions did not, in fact, artificially inflate its stock price. How, exactly, a defendant could do so was left largely unexplained, however -- and conceptually difficult, since whether an alleged misstatement or omission is material (i.e., likely to affect a reasonable investor's decisions) has been deemed a "merits" question not appropriately decided at the class certification stage of a case. In Arkansas Teacher Retirement System, Goldman attempted to rebut the presumption of price impact / reliance by presenting expert reports showing that: (i) on 36 dates prior to the allegedly "corrective" news about the SEC action, media outlets discussed transactions that raised questions about Goldman's ability to manage conflicts of interest but the company's stock price did not decrease on any of those dates (leading to the inference that the company's stock price eventually dropped not because investors learned that Goldman's prior statements about possessing conflicts procedures and placing its clients' interests first were false, but because investors were concerned about the consequences of the newly-disclosed SEC proceeding); and (ii) in none of the 880 analyst reports issued about Goldman between the time it first discussed its conflicts procedures and the time the SEC enforcement action was announced was there any discussion of the company's conflicts management statements (leading to the inference that those statements played no role in supporting Goldman's stock price throughout the period, while issues actually discussed in the analyst reports might very well have). The district court found those showings unconvincing, however – or altogether irrelevant, because they went to the issue of materiality, rather than reliance. Goldman appealed to the Second Circuit and, in 2021, all the way to the Supreme Court. As we've discussed in a prior post here, the Supreme Court ruled that certainty is not required when deciding whether to certify a class based on a Basic presumption; "[t]he district court's task is simply to assess all of the evidence of price impact -- direct and indirect -- and determine whether it is more likely than not that the alleged misrepresentations had a price impact. That is so regardless of whether the evidence is also relevant to a merits question like materiality." In doing so, "courts 'should be open to all probative evidence on that question -- qualitative as well as quantitative -- aided by a good dose of common sense.'" In remanding for a new analysis to be done, the Supreme Court pointedly explained that, "[t]he generic nature of a misrepresentation will be important evidence of a lack of price impact, particularly in cases proceeding under [an] inflation-maintenance theory. Under that theory [plaintiffs typically] point to a negative disclosure about a company and an associated drop in its stock price; allege that the disclosure corrected an earlier misrepresentation; and then claim that the price drop is equal to the amount of inflation maintained by the earlier misrepresentation. But that final inference -- that the back-end price drop equals front-end inflation -- starts to break down when there is a mismatch between the contents of the misrepresentation and the corrective disclosure. That may occur when the earlier misrepresentation is generic (e.g., "we have faith in our business model") and the later corrective disclosure is specific (e.g., "our fourth quarter earnings did not meet expectations"). Under those circumstances, it is less likely that the specific disclosure actually corrected the generic misrepresentation, which means that there is less reason to infer front-end price inflation -- that is, price impact -- from the back-end price drop." Notwithstanding the Supreme Court's commentary, on remand the district court again decided to permit the plaintiffs to proceed past class certification, finding that Goldman's statement that it had extensive procedures and controls designed to identify and address conflicts of interest was sufficiently "non-generic" to support a claim, the 36 prior disclosures of potential conflicts identified by Goldman's experts were less significant that the "corrective" Abacus disclosure, and the 880 analyst reports that never mentioned Goldman's conflicts disclosures were not in themselves compelling -- even if they did suggest that Goldman's compliance "statements were [not] consciously relied upon, in the moment, by investors evaluating Goldman." In its August 10, 2023 opinion on appeal from that decision, the Second Circuit ruled that the district court erred both as a matter of fact and of law. As the Second Circuit explained, if Goldman's conflicts-related compliance statements were never consciously relied upon, "how, then, can it be that the statement[s] impacted Goldman's stock price?" While the district court seemed to believe that Goldman's stock price would have dropped if the company had disclosed the alleged Abacus conflict of interest at the time it generically announced its conflicts compliance procedures, the Second Circuit held that it was legally improper to ask what would have happened if the actual, specific, "corrective" disclosure was made earlier: the Supreme Court's pointed discussion of the generic nature of certain disclosures indicates that courts should concern themselves only with what would have happened if a defendant earlier spoke truthfully at the same level of generality that it actually did. In the Second Circuit's view, the 880 analyst reports giving no heed to Goldman's statement that its compliance procedures address conflicts of interest made it unlikely that an allegedly more truthful but equally generic statement would have impacted Goldman's stock price. The Second Circuit's decision is important not only because it has now given defendants a helpful example of how they might rebut the presumptions articulated in Basic v. Levinson, but also because it has expressly reminded courts that Basic's presumptions can and should be questioned where, as in the Goldman case: "(1) there is a considerable gap in front-end and back-end genericness [in the defendants' alleged statements]; (2) the corrective disclosure did not directly refer . . . to the [first] alleged misstatement, and (3) the plaintiff claims, as plaintiffs claim here, that a company's generic . . . disclosure was misleading by omission." We anticipate that the Goldman decision will be cited in many, many putative securities fraud cases to come and serve as a valuable precedent for issuers seeking to defeat a motion for class certification. [GN] GOOGLE LLC: Bid to Seal Class Cert Briefing OK'd in Rodriguez Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANIBAL RODRIGUEZ, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GOOGLE LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-04688-RS (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Richard Seeborg entered an order granting request for omnibus motion to seal class certification briefing. -- The Parties may initially submit material sought to be sealed in connection with the class certification motion and any related Daubert motions via email, and need not file an administrative motion to seal; and -- No later than October 12, 2023, the Parties shall file an omnibus motion to seal material related to the class certification briefing and any related Daubert motions, attaching (a) proposed public versions of previously sealed documents and (b) versions of such documents in which material sought to be sealed has been highlighted. Google is an American multinational technology company focusing on artificial intelligence, online advertising, search engine technology, cloud computing, computer software, quantum computing, e-commerce, and consumer electronics. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 15, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44zaAm3 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark C. Mao, Esq. Beko Reblitz-Richardson, Esq. BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 44 Montgomery Street, 41st Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 293 6858 E-mail: mmao@bsfllp.com brichardson@bsfllp.com - and - William Christopher Carmody, Esq. Shawn J. Rabin, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 1301 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 336-8330 E-mail: bcarmody@susmangodfrey.com srabin@susmangodfrey.com - and - John A. Yanchunis, Esq. Ryan J. McGee, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com rmcgee@forthepeople.com The Defendant is represented by: Benedict Y. Hur, Esq. Simona Agnolucci, Esq. Eduardo E. Santacana, Esq. Noorjahan Rahman, Esq. Argemira Florez, Esq. Harris Mateen, Esq. WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP One Front Street, 34th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 858-7400 E-mail: bhur@willkie.com sagnolucci@willkie.com esantacana@willkie.com nrahman@willkie.com aflorez@willkie.com hmateen@willkie.com GOOGLE LLC: Judge Moves to Decertify Google Play Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Adam Kovac, writing for TheMessenger, reports that a United States District Court judge has moved to decertify a class action lawsuit against Google that alleged the Google Play store overcharged Android mobile app customers. In November of 2022, Judge James Donato of the US District Court, Northern District of California gave the go-ahead for the case to proceed as a class action suit. At the time, a testimony from an expert witness called by the plaintiffs, Hal Singer, supported the class action decision. But on Aug. 28, Judge Donato wrote in an order that his own certification order should be thrown out, as a separate order, also announced on Aug. 28, excludes Singer's testimony as an expert witness for the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs had cited an economic theory advanced by Singer, who is a managing director at consulting firm Econ One and adjunct professor of economics at the McDonough School of Business at Georgetown University, in their bid to have the case classified as a class action. Google had objected to a formulation used by Singer called the "pass-through" model, which claims to show that by maintaining a monopoly on apps sold on Android devices through the Google Play store, Google had inflated prices for users. "The Court has now excluded Dr. Singer's pass through formula and his opinions based on the application of that formula in this litigation," Judge Donato wrote in the order. "The pass-through formula was an essential element of the consumer plaintiffs' argument in support of certification. Consequently, the order granting certification should be vacated." Despite Judge Donato's reversal, the class action certification can't be thrown out immediately due to Google's pending appeal of the certification. [GN] GOOGLE LLC: Loses Bid for Summary Judgment vs Cabrera ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RENE CABRERA, et al., v. GOOGLE LLC, Case No. 5:11-cv-01263-EJD (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Edward J. Davila entered an order: -- Denying the Defendant's Motion for summary judgment; -- Denying Defendant's motion to Strike experts; and -- Granting in Part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion for class Certification. Specifically, the Court certifies the Location Targeting Class and Search Bundled Clicks Subclass. However, Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden of showing that common questions predominate as to the Non-Smart Priced Clicks, AFMA Clicks, and mGDN Clicks Subclasses, so the Court declines to certify those subclasses. The Court's denial as to those three subclasses is without prejudice, and Plaintiffs may renew their motion for class certification after addressing the issues identified in this Order. The action involves a long-running dispute between Defendant Google LLC and advertisers who used its AdWords program. In this dispute, Plaintiffs Rene Cabrera and RM Cabrera Company, Inc. allege that Google failed to properly apply Smart Pricing discounts and failed to limit advertisements to the geographic locations that advertisers were targeting. The Court has issued multiple opinions in this matter extending back over a decade and has summarized the facts on several occasions. Cabrera is a Florida citizen who co-owns RMC (formerly known as Training Options). Google is an American multinational technology company focusing on artificial intelligence, online advertising, search engine technology, cloud computing, computer software, quantum computing, e-commerce, and consumer electronics. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 15, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3L4QVDz at no extra charge.[CC] GREEN DOT: Koffsmon Securities Suit Over SEC Filings Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------ Green Dot Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission August 7, that an alleged class action entitled "Koffsmon v. Green Dot Corp., et al.," Case No. 19-cv-10701-DDP-E (December 18, 2019, C.D. Cal.) was filed against the company and two of its former officers. The suit asserts purported claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act for allegedly misleading statements regarding the company's business strategy. Plaintiff alleges that defendants made statements that were misleading because they allegedly failed to disclose details regarding its customer acquisition strategy and its impact on its financial performance. The suit is purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of Green Dot securities between May 9, 2018 and November 7, 2019, and seeks compensatory damages, fees and costs. Green Dot Corporation and its consolidated subsidiaries is a financial technology and registered bank holding company providing a broad set of financial services to consumers and businesses including debit, checking, credit, prepaid, and payroll cards, as well as robust money processing services, such as tax refunds, cash deposits and disbursements. H. STERN JEWELERS: Martin Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against H. Stern Jewelers, Inc. The case is styled as Damian Martin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. H. Stern Jewelers, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-06546 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 31, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. HStern -- https://www.hstern.net/ -- is recognized for its unique and innovative jewelry collections.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 1 University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com HAL LEONARD LLC: Cromitie Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hal Leonard, LLC. The case is styled as Seana Cromitie, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Hal Leonard, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-07743 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 31, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Hal Leonard LLC -- http://www.halleonard.com/contactus.do-- is an American music publishing and distribution company founded in Winona, Minnesota.[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 HAWAIIAN AIRLINES: Parties Seek to Seal Certain Exhibits --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RIKI O'HAILPIN, NINA ARIZUMI, ROBERT ESPINOSA, ERWIN YOUNG, PUANANI BADIANG, SABRINA FRANKS, RONALD LUM, DAN SAIKI, and BRANDEE AUKAI, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. HAWAIIAN AIRLINES, INC. and HAWAIIAN HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-00532-JAO-RT (D. Haw.), the Parties move the Court, pursuant to Local Rule 5.2, granting them leave to file under seal Exhibits 1–2, 5, 7–31, and 33 filed in support of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify classes and appoint counsel. Throughout discovery, Defendants have produced numerous documents relevant to class certification. Plaintiffs have included 34 exhibits in support of their class certification motion. Hawaiian Airlines is the largest operator of commercial flights to and from the U.S. state of Hawaii. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Aug. 16, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Ep9tuh at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James Hochberg, Esq. JAMES HOCHBERG, A.A.L. LLLC Bishop Street Tower, Ste. 2100 700 Bishop Street Honolulu, HI 96813 Telephone: (808) 256-7382 E-mail: jim@jameshochberglaw.com - and - John C. Sullivan, Esq. Austin R. Nimocks, Esq. Jace Yarbrough, Esq. S|L LAW PLLC 610 Uptown Blvd., Ste. 2000 Cedar Hill, TX 75104 Telephone: (469) 523-1351 Facsimile: (469) 613-0891 E-mail: john.sullivan@the-sl-lawfirm.com austin.nimocks@the-sl-lawfirm.com jace.yarbrough@the-sl-lawfirm.com - and - Walker Moller, Esq. SIRI | GLIMSTAD 700 S. Flower St., Ste. 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 376-3739 E-mail: wmoller@sirillp.com HEALTHY PAWS: Court Tosses Bids to File 4th & 5th Amended Complaint ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN BENANAV, et al., v. HEALTHY PAWS PET INSURANCE LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-00421-LK (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Lauren King entered an order regarding motions to amend complaint and motion to voluntarily dismiss named plaintiff. -- The Court denies the Plaintiffs' motions to file a fourth and fifth amended complaint and will defer its ruling on the motion to dismiss Mr. Bryan Gage, until the conditions above have been satisfied. -- The Court further orders that these conditions must be satisfied no later than September 14, 2023. Finally, the Court reopens discovery for the sole and limited purpose of complying with this Order. In March 2020, Plaintiff Steven Benanav filed this action. Benanav, along with later-added Plaintiffs Bryan Gage, Monica Kowalski, Lindsay Purvey, Stephanie Caughlin, and Katherine Thomas assert individual and putative class action claims against Defendant Healthy Paws Pet Insurance, LLC for misleading them into believing that their pet insurance premiums would increase only as the costs of veterinary medicine increased. In reality, their insurance costs increased substantially as a result of other undisclosed factors, including the age of their pets, the Plaintiffs contend. Healthy Paws markets and administers pet insurance policies to consumers on behalf of insurance companies, including Markel American Insurance Company, ACE American Insurance Company, Indemnity Insurance Company of North America, and Westchester Fire Insurance Company. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 15, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3swdt9H at no extra charge.[CC] HOST INTERNATIONAL: Seeks to Reschedule Class Certification Hearing ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAN FRANKENSTEIN, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the HMSHOST 401(k) RETIREMENT SAVINGS PLAN AND TRUST, v. HOST INTERNATIONAL, INC.; HMSHOST 401(k) RETIREMENT SAVINGS PLAN AND TRUST RETIREMENT COMMITTEE; COLEMAN LAUERBACH; and DOES NO. 1-10, Whose Names Are Currently Unknown, Case No. 8:20-cv-01100-PJM (D. Md.), the Defendant asks the Court to reschedule class certification hearing. On August 3, 2023, at the Parties' request, the Court rescheduled an evidentiary hearing on class certification in this matter from August 16, 2023, to September 21, 2023 at 2pm. An important third-party witness, Christopher Baumann, recently informed Defendants’ counsel that he is unable to attend the hearing on that date. Mr. Baumann represents the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and will provide direct testimony regarding the perspective of SEIU and its members on the relief sought by Plaintiff. Mr. Baumann and the remaining witnesses scheduled to testify at the upcoming hearing are available in the afternoon of September 19 and the afternoon of September 22, 2023. Host International provides catering services to travelers. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Aug. 15, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3YVWo5c at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Reginald Geoeke, Esq. Michelle Webster, Esq. Nancy G. Ross, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 1999 K Street NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 263-3241 Facsimile: (202) 263-5241 E-mail: rgoeke@mayerbrown.com mwebster@mayerbrown.com nross@mayerbrown.com HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA: Franz Files Suit in C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hyundai Motor America. The case is styled as John Franz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Hyundai Motor America, Case No. 8:23-cv-01640-JVS-ADS (C.D. Cal., Aug. 31, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Contract Dispute. Hyundai Motor America -- http://www.hyundaiusa.com/us/en-- doing business as Hyundai Motor North America is the operating subsidiary that oversees all operations of Hyundai Motor Company in Canada, Mexico, and the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric Marc Poulin, Esq. POULIN WILLEY ANASTOPOULO LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Phone: (803) 222-2222 Fax: (843) 494-5536 Email: eric.poulin@poulinwilley.com IN GOOD COMPANY: Clement Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against In Good Company HG, Inc. The case is styled as Vincent Clement, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. In Good Company HG, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-06542 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 31, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. In Good Company Hospitality (GC Hospitality Group) -- https://igchospitality.com/home/ -- is committed to creating vibrant and unparalleled hospitality destinations – with venues in Manhattan, Brooklyn, and Queens.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com INDIANA: DCS Faces Class Action Over Foster Case System ------------------------------------------------------- Erica Finke, writing for WSBT, reports that a nationwide nonprofit has sued Indiana over the way the state handles children within its foster care system. The class-action lawsuit was filed in federal court, the lawsuit contends that the state's practices within the Department of Child Services leave children in the foster care system takes too long and threatens their safety and stability. The suit claims DCS is violating federal and constitutional law. Ten children are listed in the lawsuit that alleges the Department of Child Services, its director, and Governor Eric Holcomb all failed the state's children in the system. "This is not a system that has gotten better, it's in fact gotten worse," said Marcia Lowry, A Better Childhood Executive Director. 66 pages detail the alleged systematic failures of the Department of Child Services. The lawsuit from nationwide non-profit A Better Childhood, claims violations of the 14th Amendment, the Child Welfare Act, and Americans with Disabilities Act. It alleges DCS' practices and policies leave children in the foster care system too long and threatens their safety and stability. "Indiana has one of the highest rates of re-entry into care of any place in the country. Something is really wrong with a system that is not paying attention to the children. But is paying attention to cutting its population, to not spending money on kids," said Lowry. Lowry says they're looking to add to the 10 plaintiffs on the lawsuit, who she says are representative of the problems Indiana needs to address. Jenna Hullett from Starke County is listed in the lawsuit on behalf of an 8-year-old boy under the pseudonym, "Miles M." Hullett was the foster mom for 4-year-old Judah Morgan who was abused and killed by his biological father in October 2021 over potty training. While the suit doesn't directly address Judah, it says "Miles" and his siblings were home at the time of their stepbrother's murder. Lowry says they've made changes to child services in other states through litigation. "In states that may have some policies that some people might disagree with, you still can fix the system if you care about kids and that's just not happening in Indiana," said Lowry. DCS declined an interview with WSBT 22. [GN] INTEL CORP: Class Action Suit Mulled Over Chip Bug Vulnerability ---------------------------------------------------------------- Francisco Pires, writing for Tom's Hardware, reports that Intel may soon find itself with its back against a proverbial wall following the disclosure of the "Downfall" chip vulnerability earlier in August. According to a class action aggregator, there's now an open interest in pursuing a lawsuit against Intel for damages relating to the Downfall vulnerability. That isn't surprising, given that fixing the bug can result in up to 39% less performance in some workloads and impacts what could number in the billions of processors. Called by law firm Bathaee Dunne LLP, the class action investigation (which is still garnering interest, plaintiffs, and information) aims to force Intel to compensate customers for "the loss of value, reduced performance, security issues and other damages stemming from the Downfall vulnerability." Intel's Downfall is another high-impact, difficult-to-mitigate vulnerability that attacks speculative execution -- a feature of modern CPUs that aims to predict what data and/or operations will be necessary for a workload to be completed before the information is even required. Speculative execution thus aims to keep that information readied and easily accessible for processing. Still, as the amount of vulnerabilities in speculative execution scenarios increases, we've also seen a trend where fixing these issues has a correspondingly negative impact on performance. For now, it appears Intel's mitigations for Downfall have an average performance cost around the 39% mark. Intel itself said performance could decline by as much as 50% in certain scenarios, showcasing just how important speculative execution is for a modern CPU's performance. Considering how the vulnerability affects Intel processors ranging from 6th-gen (Skylake) to 11th-gen (Rocket Lake), including Xeon products based on the same architectures, the amount of affected Intel CPUs will likely be in the billions. The argument for the class action lawsuit stems from the fact that affected users (like Intel) are left between a rock and a hard place: They paid 100% of a CPU's cost (which, in Intel's lineup, translates into an expected performance). But now, users have to choose between leaving their systems vulnerable to the Downfall speculative execution attack (not good) or taking a substantial hit to performance on workloads that matter to them (not great, either). But in this case, keeping the vulnerability unaddressed could have a real impact on businesses and users. According to security researcher Danial Moghimi (who initially disclosed Downfall), the vulnerability would allow malicious third-party apps and services to steal sensitive information, including passwords, financial details, and even cloud-stored data. Considering how AMD also has had its fair share of vulnerabilities (such as Inception, Squip, and its recent "Divide by zero" bug), it remains to be seen whether something similar will be aiming for the red team's bottom line as well. [GN] IPREH LLC: Fails to Provide Proper Overtime Wages, Burton Says -------------------------------------------------------------- Samantha Burton, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. IPREH, LLC d/b/a Innovative Production USA, Case No. 4:23-cv-04132-SLD-JEH (C.D. Ill., Aug. 14, 2023), accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. The Plaintiff was employed by IPREH at its facility in Galesburg, Knox County, Illinois. She worked as a non-exempt employee paid on an hourly basis. Within the last three years, Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees were not paid for all of the time spent donning and doffing their sanitary clothing and other protective equipment, washing their hands, or for associated travel. Headquartered in South Dakota, IPREH manufactures, packages, distributes, and sells food products in various locations across the United States and operates a facility in Galesburg, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert P. Kondras, Jr., Esq. Taryn R. Dissett, Esq. HASSLER KONDRAS MILLER LLP 100 Cherry St. Terre Haute, IN 47807 Telephone: (812) 232-9691 Facsimile: (812) 234-2881 E-mail: kondras@hkmlawfirm.com tdissett@hkmlawfirm.com JACOBS SOLUTIONS: Evans Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Eric Evans, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JACOBS SOLUTIONS INC., a Delaware corporation; CH2M HILL, INC., a Florida corporation; and DOES 1-50, Case No. 23-2-13977-1 SEA was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington for the County of King, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on Aug. 30, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-01352. The Complaint set forth the following four causes of action against Defendants: Wage Theft; Failure to Pay All Compensation Owed; Injunctive Relief; and Declaratory Relief.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Peter H. Nohle, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 520 Pike Street, Suite 2300 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 206-405-0404 Facsimile: 206-405-4450 Email: peter.nohle@jacksonlewis.com - and - Daniel Crowner, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 520 Pike Street, Suite 2300 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 206-405-0404 Facsimile: 206-405-4450 Email: Daniel.Crowner@jacksonlewis.com JDC HEALTHCARE: Lee Seeks to Continue Class Cert. Bid Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TABATHA LEE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. JDC HEALTHCARE, PLLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-01134-E (N.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff files amended unopposed motion to continue Local rule 23.2 deadline for her motion for class certification. The Plaintiff requests that the Court continue the deadline under LR 23.2 until March 1, 2024, which is the date the Parties agreed on in their Joint Rule 26(f) Status Report. On May 17, 2023, the Plaintiff file suit alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") for Defendant's use of text message calls after she had asked that Defendant stop calling her. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant caused multiple telemarketing text message calls to be transmitted to Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in 5283 after Plaintiff had requested that Defendant stop sending her text messages. The Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of similarly situated individuals: "All persons within the United States who, within the four years prior to the filing of this Complaint, 1 (1) were sent a text message from the Defendant or anyone on Defendant's behalf, (2) regarding Defendant's goods, products, or services, (3) to person's residential telephone number, (4) after making a request to Defendant to not receive future text messages." JDC provides health care services. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 15, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PlUgAJ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roger L. Mandel, Esq. JEEVES MANDEL LAW GROUP, P.C. 2833 Crockett St., Suite 135 Fort Worth, TX 76107 Telephone: (214) 253-8300 E-mail: rmandel@jeevesmandellawgroup.com - and - Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 1400 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 400-4713 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com JOHN HANCOCK: Linhart Allowed to File Document Under Seal --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BARBARA LINHART, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. JOHN HANCOCK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY (U.S.A.) and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-02117-TJH-RAO (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Terry J. Hatter, Jr. entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' application to file under seal: The following unredacted document shall be filed under seal pursuant to Local Rule 79-5: 1. Amended Exhibit 17 to the Declaration of Christopher R. Pitoun in Support of Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of Class Representative and Class Counsel. John Hancock is a Boston-based insurance company. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 16, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3L3RUUf at no extra charge.[CC] JOHNS HOPKINS: Lynch Suit Removed to D. Maryland ------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Dwayne Lynch, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Case No. 24-C-23-000527 was removed from the Circuit Court of Maryland for Baltimore City, to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland on Aug. 31, 2023, and assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-02390-GLR. The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts three claims: two claims under the Maryland Wage and Hour Law ("MWHL"), and one claim under the Maryland Wage Payment and Collections Law ("MWPCL"). All three of the claims are premised on Plaintiff's central allegation that JHH utilizes clock rounding that is allegedly unlawful. The Complaint assert claims under the MWHL for allegedly unpaid: minimum wages; and overtime wages.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Emmett F. McGee, Jr., Esq. Yedidyah Charner, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 2800 Quarry Lake Drive, Suite 200 Baltimore, MD 21209 Phone: 410.415.2003 (direct) Facsimile: 410.415.2001 Email: emmett.mcgee@jacksonlewis.com jed.charner@jacksonlewis.com KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP: Class Action Over Flushable Wipes Certified ---------------------------------------------------------------- David Carrigg, writing for Vancouver Sun, reports that the Supreme Court of B.C. has certified a class-action lawsuit against Kimberly-Clark, the maker of flushable wipes and many other products. According to a ruling by Justice Sharon Matthews, Kimberly-Clark began an investigation in August 2020 into consumer complaints that some flushable wipes made at its facility in South Carolina smelled bad. "It investigated the cause of a three-month upward trend in consumer complaints about odours in flushable wipes," Matthews wrote. "In September 2020, Kimberly-Clark stopped production on Line 2 of the Beech Island production facility. It found P. gergoviae (bacteria) in some wipes produced on that line and found that a sanitization cabinet used on Line 2 had occasionally malfunctioned after it was rebuilt in early 2020." All wipes sold by retailers in Canada come from the Beach Island facility. That month, the company recalled wipes that came from Line 2 between Feb. 7 and Sept. 14, 2020. This included just over 1.8 million wipes distributed in Canada. According to court records, a B.C. woman, Linda Bowman, purchased some of those wipes in July 2020 from Costco. Bowman alleges that she used them several times a day on various parts of her body and developed inflamed hair follicles and sores in her pubic region. Bowman was the representative plaintiff seeking certification of the class action over the bacterial-contaminated wipes with bacteria and later recalled by the company. Kimberly-Clark opposed the certification, saying that as soon as it became aware of the contamination the company recalled the items, refunded costs and settled claims for personal injury. In Canada there were 11,651 refunds issued for a total $214,290. Kimberly-Clark received 149 claims for personal injury in Canada. Kimberly-Clark "asserts that the efforts it made and expenses it has incurred to do so address the goals of class proceedings -- access to justice, efficient use of judicial resources, and behaviour modification -- more effectively than certifying this class action will," Matthews wrote. A medical expert hired by Kimberly-Clark challenged Bowman's affidavit and said that he could not determine that the flushable wipes caused the symptoms she described because she has not been tested for P. gergoviae and was not diagnosed with a medical condition as a result of using the flushable wipes. A medical expert hired by Bowman stated P. gergoviae had the potential to cause serious infections and contaminated products were not fit for human use. Matthews ruled that a class action in the personal injury subclass was certified and could proceed. [GN] KRAFT HEINZ: Adams Seek to Certify Class of Florida Purchasers -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SANDRA ADAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE KRAFT HEINZ COMPANY, Case No. 5:22-cv-00290-GAP-PRL (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting the motion for class certification, appointing her as class representative and her attorneys as counsel for the Class. The Plaintiff move the Court to certify a class of Florida purchasers of liquid water enhancers, represented as containing only "NATURAL FLAVOR WITH OTHER NATURAL FLAVOR," sold by The Kraft Heinz Company under the MiO brand. The Plaintiff filed this action on June 24, 2022, alleging that the standalone representation "NATURAL FLAVOR WITH OTHER NATURAL FLAVOR" was false and misleading because the Products "contain the artificial and/or synthetic flavoring ingredient 'Malic Acid.'" Kraft is an American multinational food company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 16, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3r3Kc5N at no extra charge.[CC] 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 LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN: Court OK's Preliminary Certification ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL COYNE, et al., v. LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, Case No. 2:22-cv-00475-APG-VCF (D. Nev.), the Hon. Judge Andrew P. Gordon entered an order granting preliminary certification and circulation of notice, defined as: "Las Vegas Police Protective Association (PPA) members who have worked one or more Scheduled Overtime Shifts since February 1, 2019, that required the officer to perform uncompensated pre-shift and/or post-shift work consisting of transporting equipment between the shift site and another designated location;" -- The plaintiffs must revise the proposed notice consistent with the order; -- The plaintiffs must serve the revised notice and proposed consent to join forms by first class mail and email; -- The potential plaintiffs shall have 90 days from the date of mailing of the notice and consent-to-sue forms to submit their opt-in forms. The Plaintiffs Daniel Coyne, David Denton, and Sean Bollig filed this lawsuit in state court under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Nevada law on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated peace officers employed by defendant Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (LVMPD). The plaintiffs allege that LVMPD has failed to pay overtime for pre-and post-shift activities for scheduled overtime shifts, such as reporting to designated facilities to collect specialized equipment, inspecting and refueling department vehicles, and returning equipment and vehicles. LVMPD is a combined city and county law enforcement agency for the City of Las Vegas and Clark County, Nevada. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 15, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qQunzv at no extra charge.[CC] LAZARO INC: Clement Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lazaro, Inc. The case is styled as Vincent Clement, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Lazaro, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-06512 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 31, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Lazaro Inc. sells two product lines.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com LEE & LOW BOOKS: Jones Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lee & Low Books, Inc. The case is styled as Damon Jones, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Lee & Low Books, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-07756 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 31, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Lee & Low Books -- https://www.leeandlow.com/ -- is the largest multicultural children's book publisher in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com LIVE NATION: Motion to Compel Arbitration in Antitrust Suit Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------ Mogin Rubin, in an article for Mondaq, disclosed that adding to its woes, investors claim losses because Live Nation did not disclose anticompetitive conduct. Live Nation and its subsidiary, Ticketmaster ("Live Nation") have successfully used mandatory arbitration clauses to shield them against consumer class actions, but a change in their purchasing terms has brought an end to that winning streak. A federal judge found a newly inserted mandatory mass arbitration clause unfair to ticket-buying consumers and denied Live Nation's motion to compel arbitration of an antitrust action. In the same federal court, the Central District of California, Live Nation investors sued it for hiding anticompetitive practices, saying each revelation of such conduct immediately damaged stock prices. News of these developments join recent reports that the Department of Justice is on the verge of suing Live Nation and Ticketmaster for abusing their power in the live music and ticketing markets. The DOJ reportedly will seek to split up the two, which merged in 2010. The investors included the precipitous drop in stock prices following this news in their list of stock-damaging revelations. Live Nation's conduct has been criticized for years now by consumers, regulators, legislators, and others. They were operating under a 10-year consent decree, which was extended due to evidence of violations. Ticket-Buyers Avoid Arbitration In the ticket-buyer case, Skot Heckman v. Live Nation Entertainment (No. CV 22-0047-GW-GJSx, C.D. Calif.) plaintiffs objected to being forced into starting the adjudication of their antitrust claims via mass arbitration bellwether trials. In his August 10 ruling, U.S. District Judge George H. Wu discussed many ways the specific clause was unfair to consumers, noting how it differed from clauses enforced by courts in similar cases. In Oberstein v. Live Nation, for example, the Ninth Circuit affirmed rulings sending a case brought by Taylor Swift fans to arbitration, writing that Ticketmaster's terms of use were clear. But the arbitration clause in Oberstein was different from that in Heckman, language Judge Wu found too confusing and incomplete for consumers. Oberstein v. Live Nation Ent., Inc., No. 2:20-cv-03888-GW-(GJSx), 2021 WL 4772885 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 20, 2021), aff'd, 60 F.4th 505 (9th Cir. 2023). Live Nation changed the Ticketmaster terms of use while Oberstein was pending. They did so when they switched from the JAMS arbitration company to New Era ADR -- which offers standardized mass arbitrations. With the change in arbitration services came a change in the terms of use. After examining the New Era clause, Judge Wu said the language delegating claims to an arbitrator in mass arbitration posed a "serious risk of being fundamentally unfair to claimants," showing elements of "substantive unconscionability." Live Nation's method of making the switch was a concern, too. The judge said it displayed "an extreme amount of procedural unconscionability far above and beyond a run-of-the-mill contract-of-adhesion case." He commented that the terms were changed: "(1) to bring about a significant change in the parties' agreement (from individual, bilateral arbitration to mass arbitration); (2) unilaterally; (3) in the midst of ongoing litigation; (4) to be applied retroactively to already accrued claims; (5) without giving any notice to existing customers about this major change and (6) while burying the true nature of this change in New Era's difficult-to-parse Rules." Unfair Surprise, Untenable Expectations Making the change without notice was an "unfair surprise" to the customers. "[B]ecause it would seem trivially easy to provide customers with such notice, Defendants' failure to do so suggests a degree of intentionality and/or oppression," wrote Judge Wu. He added, though, that even if ticket purchasers were to review the terms "it is doubtful that they would understand that they were agreeing to resolve their claims in a novel mass arbitration procedure." The language doesn't even mention mass arbitration. Expecting ticket purchasers to navigate the complex multi-step process and conduct analysis to avoid mass arbitration was "untenable," he determined. Due Process and Precedent Plaintiffs said New Era's mass arbitration procedures operate like Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) regarding representative class actions, but without due process. The procedure requires a neutral to apply precedent from the bellwether proceedings to all cases in mass arbitration, they say, binding claimants to rulings regardless of when their case was filed. Live Nation countered that absentee claimants would not be bound by earlier arbitration proceedings as they would be in a class action. Live Nation said New Era's mass arbitration was more like an MDL, in which parties can depart from bellwether rulings. The term "precedent" means applying a ruling is discretionary, the company said. While finding the rules do not necessarily require a neutral to apply precedent across the board without discretion, Judge Wu said use of "precedent" in mass arbitrations "raises a host of issues." Even if a neutral can exercise discretion, the rules do not provide any guidance, he wrote, but they do say a neutral has "sole discretion" to batch cases by category for mass arbitration. This also concerned Judge Wu. "This unchecked power on the part of the neutral, combined with the ambiguity contained in the Rules, is uniquely problematic when considering that Precedent could be applied to thousands of claims at once," Judge Wu wrote. The defendants cited a case finding mass arbitration protocol fair. Judge Wu pointed out, though, that claimants in that matter could opt out – the ticket purchasers cannot. Coupling his finding that the mass arbitration protocol may be fundamentally unfair to the plaintiffs with his criticism of a lack of discovery rights, the arbitrator-selection provisions, and the limited rights of appeal afforded by the protocol, Judge Wu denied Live Nation's motion to compel arbitration. "Materially False and Misleading Statements" On August 4, in the same court in Los Angeles, investors filed a?proposed class action citing numerous instances in which Live Nation failed to disclose allegedly anti-competitive business practices, conduct that caused investors significant losses. In addition to Live Nation and Ticketmaster, the investors named Live Nation's CEO and CFO as defendants. Donley, et al. v. Live Nation, et al., No. 2:23-cv-06343-RGK-AS, C.D. Calif. The suit was filed under the Securities Exchange Act on behalf of anyone who purchased or acquired Live Nation securities between Feb. 23, 2022, and July 28, 2023. Throughout that period, Live Nation made "materially false and/or misleading statements" and failed to disclose important adverse information, the complaint reads. Live Nation failed to disclose that it engaged in anticompetitive conduct, including charging supra-competitive fees and demanding talent commit to extended contracts. The investors say the defendants also retaliated against venues that didn't use Ticketmaster. During this time Live Nation could have been investigated and penalized by regulators for such conduct (which reports say may happen this year), damaging their reputation (and stock value) in the process. Live Nation's "positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis," the suit says. "As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages." Further, the complaint says the statutory safe harbor that applies to companies' forward-looking statements to the SEC and investors does not protect these defendants. The false statements were not characterized as forward-looking and were not delivered with cautionary language, plaintiffs say. Alternatively, if safe harbor is applied, defendants are liable for them because all of the statements were written by people who knew they were false or misleading, or they weren't run by an executive who would have known they were false, the investors maintain. The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, costs, and a jury trial. [GN] LUIS DE LA AGUILERA: Benes Suit Removed to S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled JOEL BENES, JOHN MCCLURE, and DANIEL VALDES, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. LUIS DE LA AGUILERA, AIDA LEVITAN, BERNARDO B. FERNANDEZ, JR., KIRK WYCOFF, HOWARD FEINGLASS, and WAYNE K. GOLDSTEIN, Case No. 2023-CA-019611, was removed from the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on August 14, 2023. The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned Case No. 1:23-CV-23069 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged breach of their fiduciary duties which resulted in the dilution of the value of Plaintiffs' common stock and voting power. The Defendants are current and former directors of U.S. Century Bank which is headquartered in Doral, Florida. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Scott J. Link, Esq. Kara Rockenbach Link, Esq. LINK & ROCKENBACH, PA 1555 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 930 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Telephone: (561) 847-4408 Fascimile: (561) 855-2891 Email: scott@linkrocklaw.com kara@linkrocklaw.com tina@linkrocklaw.com LUX GLOBAL: Cantu Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Tanya Cantu, and others similarly situated v. LUX GLOBAL INC., a California corporation d/b/a TOPLUX NUTRITION, Case No. 23STCV09635 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-07192. The Plaintiffs filed the Class Action Complaint in a State Action on April 28, 2023, asserting violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act against Lux. The Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint on August 23, 2023 asserting violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act and the Video Privacy Protection Act.[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 MAGIC MONEY: Class Action Settlement Notification Program Begins ---------------------------------------------------------------- A notification program began on Aug. 29 as ordered by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (the "Court") to alert those who purchased Magic Money for the Astroworld Festival 2021 of refunds available because of a class action settlement. More information is available in the notices and settlement agreement available on the website or by calling the telephone number listed below. The lawsuit arose after the second day of the Astroworld Festival 2021, which was to take place on November 6, 2021, in Houston, Texas, was canceled due to a mass casualty event the night before. The Plaintiffs state Defendants owed them a refund and other damages because they purchased Magic Money intended for use during both days of the Astroworld Festival 2021. Magic Money was the only payment method for the rides and carnival games at the Astroworld Festival 2021. Plaintiffs asserted various claims against Defendants, including those for breach of contract and deceptive trade practices. Defendants deny all of Plaintiffs' claims. Specifically, Defendants disagree with the allegations and maintain that they have many defenses and are not liable to Plaintiffs and that Plaintiffs are not entitled to any refunds or other damages. Nevertheless, because litigation would be time-consuming and result in high costs and expenses, Plaintiffs and Defendants have agreed to settle the lawsuit and provide refunds to those who purchased Magic Money for the festival. Notices informing settlement class members about their legal rights are scheduled to be distributed to some members by email and to be published in the Houston Chronicle, leading up to a hearing on December 1, 2023, when the Court will consider whether to grant final approval to the class action settlement. The Court appointed Derek H. Potts, Potts Law Firm, LLP, of Houston, Texas as Settlement Class Counsel to represent settlement class members. Those affected by the class action settlement can expect to receive certain refunds or reimbursements for their Magic Money purchases, if they are eligible and comply with the applicable claims or dispute processes. Certain deadlines and instructions are subject to change, and the website must be checked for updated information. Alternatively, settlement class members can request to be excluded from or object to the settlement. The deadline to be excluded or object is October 15, 2023. More information regarding the case (Brenda Wong, et al. v. Magic Money LLC, et al., Civil Action No. 4:21-cv-04169, in the United States District Court of the Southern District of Texas) and class action settlement can be attained by calling the Potts Law Firm at 713-963-8881 or by visiting the website at www.magicmoneyrefund.com, where notices and the settlement agreement may be accessed. Those affected may also write to the Potts Law Firm at magicmoneyrefund@potts-law.com. /URL: http://www.magicmoneyrefund.com[GN] MAIDEN HOLDINGS: Securities Suit Over Stock Price Drop Ongoing -------------------------------------------------------------- Maiden Holdings, Ltd. 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 putative class action complaint was filed against Maiden Holdings, Arturo M. Raschbaum, Karen L. Schmitt, and John M. Marshaleck in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on February 11, 2019 is currently ongoing. On February 19, 2020, the court appointed lead plaintiffs, and on May 1, 2020, lead plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint. The Amended Complaint asserts violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 (and Section 20(a) for control person liability) arising in large part from allegations that Maiden failed to take adequate loss reserves in connection with reinsurance provided to AmTrust Financial Services, Inc. Plaintiffs further claim that certain of Maiden Holdings' representations concerning its business, underwriting and financial statements were rendered false by the allegedly inadequate loss reserves, that these misrepresentations inflated the price of Maiden Holdings' common stock, and that when the truth about the misrepresentations was revealed, the company's stock price fell, causing plaintiffs to incur losses. On September 11, 2020, a motion to dismiss was filed on behalf of all defendants. On August 6, 2021, the court issued an order denying, in part, defendants' motion to dismiss, ordering Plaintiffs to file a shorter amended complaint no later than August 20, 2021, and permitting discovery to proceed on a limited basis. On February 7, 2023, the District Court denied plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the District Court's decision denying plaintiffs' objection to the Magistrate Judge's December 2021 ruling on discovery. Maiden Holdings is a Bermuda-based holding company that provides a full range of legacy services to small insurance companies, particularly those in run-off or with blocks of reserves that are no longer core, working with clients to develop and implement finality solutions including acquiring entire companies that enable our clients to meet their capital and risk management objectives. MARIACHI CONNECTION: Mercedes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Mariachi Connection, Inc. The case is styled as Luis Mercedes, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. The Mariachi Connection, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-07708-JPO (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 30, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Mariachi Connection, Inc. -- https://www.mariachiconnection.com/ -- is a fashion accessories store in San Antonio, Texas Unique shop with apparel & accessories for mariachi signers & flamenco dancers, plus instruments.[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 MATTERPORT INC: Lynch Class Status Bid Partly OK'd -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHAWN LYNCH, v. MATTERPORT, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-03704-WHA (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William Alsup entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. -- A class of all enrolled MSPs when Matterport launched its Capture Services program is CERTIFIED, solely to this issue: whether or not the MSP terms of service prevent a claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing based on Matterport's operation of its Capture Services program. The Plaintiff Shawn Lynch is appointed representative of the class. The plaintiff's claim is tied to the MSP terms of service and what it offered. All MSPs necessarily agreed to the MSP terms of service when signing up, and thus whether or not Matterport's Capture Services program was disclaimed by those same terms is an issue common to every MSP, leaving aside whether or not each individual MSP could bring such a claim in the first place. In this putative class action, the Plaintiff asserts two business tort claims premised on false and deceptive advertising. Plaintiff now moves to certify a class under Rule 23 for those two claims. The Plaintiff Shawn Lynch alleges that Matterport’s marketing of its MSP program was deceptive. After making financial investments to be eligible for (and then enrolling in) the MSP program, he saw few of the benefits that incentivized him to join. Furthermore, Lynch alleges that Matterport also launched another program, Matterport Capture Services, which competed directly with MSPs and further hindered his MSP business by taking away his clients. The Plaintiff purchased a Matterport 3D camera and corresponding cloud storage subscription in March 2018, and became an MSP a month later in April 2018. The Plaintiff seeks class certification for both claims on the following class definition: "All persons in the United States who, within the applicable statute of limitations, (a) did not previously own a Matterport 3D camera, (b) applied online through Matterport’s website and became an MSP, and (c) purchased a Matterport 3D camera or Matterport Cloud3 services in connection with becoming an MSP, or incurred other expenses to start or operate their MSP business." Matterport operates as a software company. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 16, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/482KTgG at no extra charge.[CC] MAVIS TIRE: Plaintiffs Seek Conditional Collective Certification ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUSTIN WASHINGTON, JAMES CARTER, TIFFANY HAMMOND, GAVIN MOHRING, and ALCIDES CORTES, on behalf of themselves, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class, v. MAVIS TIRE SUPPLY LLC d/b/a MAVIS DISCOUNT TIRE, Case No. 1:22-cv-10999-PGG-JLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for conditional collective certification and for court facilitation of notice Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b). Mavis is an American chain of automotive service centers. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 15, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3R9eazU at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1180 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 MDL 3052: Court Tosses Bid for Prelim. Class Settlement Approval ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as In Re: Kia Hyundai Vehicle Theft Litigation, Case No. 8:22-ml-03052-JVS-KES (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge James V. Selna entered an order: -- Granting the motion for class certification; and -- Denying the motion for preliminary settlement approval. The Plaintiffs may file an amended motion for preliminary settlement approval within 21 days of this order. The Court is concerned about the potential $10,000,000 reversion to the Defendants if claims do not reach $50 million. Given that most class members are not likely to be made whole, the Court believes it would be fairer to Class members to provide increased payouts if this eventuality occurs without any reversion. Finally, the Court sees no basis to require Class members seeking to opt-out of the Settlement to provide data beyond their identity and ownership of the Class Vehicle. The Court will not approve any further requirement. The Consumer Class Plaintiffs move for preliminary approval of their class action settlement and class certification with Defendants Hyundai Motor Company, Hyundai Motor America, KIA Corporation, and KIA America, Inc. The Defendants do not oppose the motion. In accordance with the Court's order, Class Counsel submitted a supplemental declaration, and the Governmental and Insurance Entities submitted their positions on the Settlement. The Court heard oral argument on August 15, 2023. This multi-district litigation concerns Plaintiffs' allegations that Defendants knowingly sold more than nine million Hyundai and Kia Class Vehicles that do not contain vital safety components that, in connection with other design flaws, fail to implement Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards promulgated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Specifically, each Class Vehicle suffers from a series of design flaws that allow thieves to steal it in less than ninety seconds, including: (i) the steering columns do not contain adequately secured collars or casings, allowing easy access to the ignition assembly; (ii) the ignition lock cylinders do not have a locking mechanism and can therefore be easily removed with minimal force, and in so doing, leaves the ignition switch intact; (iii) the exposed ignition switch can be started with any set of pliers or a USB connector; and (iv) the Class Vehicles do not contain engine immobilizers. The Plaintiffs allege that, because of the Theft Prone Defect, Class Vehicles are at increased risk of theft or forced entry. The alleged Theft Prone Defect has existed since the first Class Vehicles were sold. Beginning in 2020, a group of teenagers in Milwaukee, who dubbed themselves the "Kia Boyz," discovered the alleged Defect and began to post videos showing how to steal Class Vehicles in a matter of seconds. The Proposed Settlement Class The proposed settlement defines the Settlement Class as: "all persons or entities who purchased or leased a Class Vehicle in the United States (including Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, and Guam). The settlement defines "Class Vehicle" as all MY211-2022 Kia and Hyundai vehicles manufacutred without an engine immobilizer that were sold in the United States (including Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, and Guam), including: 2011-2022 Accent; 2011-2022 Elantra; 2013-2020 Elantra GT; 2013-2014 Elantra Coupe; 2011-2012 Elantra Touring; 2011-2014 Genesis Coupe; 2018-2022 Kona; 2020-2021 Palisade; 2011-2022 Santa Fe; 2013-2018 Santa Fe Sport; 2019 Santa Fe XL; 2011-2019 Sonata; 2011-2022 Tucson; 2012-2017, 2019-2021 Veloster; 2020-2021 Venue; 2011-2012 Veracruz; 2011-2021 Forte; 2021-2022 K5; 2011-2020 Optima; 2011-2021 Rio; 2011-2021 Sedona; 2021-2022 Seltos; 2011-2022 Soul; 2011-2022 Sorento; and 2011-2022 Sportage." Settlement Amount The proposed Settlement creates a common fund of up to $145 million for certain out-of-pocket losses arising from the theft or attempted theft of a Class Vehicle and other expenses arising from obtaining the Software Upgrade, antitheft Software Upgrades for eligible Class Vehicles, reimbursement for the purchase of steering wheel locks made before the Software Upgrade was available, and cash payments to Class members whose Class Vehicles are ineligible for the Software Upgrade for their purchase of steering wheel locks and other anti-theft systems for their Class Vehicles. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 16, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3R6wk5F at no extra charge.[CC] META PLATFORMS: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Oct. 1, 2024 ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER L. COOK, d/b/a JL Cook, JL Cook Sculptor, and SNAKEARTS.COM, v. META PLATFORMS, INC., f/k/a FACEBOOK, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-02485-AMO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín entered an amended scheduling order as follows: Event Parties' Proposed Date Initial Disclosures June 16, 2023 Parties file proposed Protective Order, Aug. 11, 2023 ESI Protocol, Discovery Order Deadline to amend pleadings and add Jan. 15, 2024 parties Motion for Class Certification Oct. 1, 2024 (including expert reports or declarations in support thereof) Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Dec. 2, 2024 Class Certification (including expert reports or declarations in support thereof) Reply in Support of Plaintiff's Feb. 3, 2025 Motion for Class Certification (including rebuttal expert reports or declarations in support thereof) Meta owns and operates Facebook, Instagram, Threads, and WhatsApp, among other products and services. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 14, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sFS9yv at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq. Rachel K. Tack, Esq. Michael J. Laird, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 1100 IDS Center 80 South 8th Street Telephone: (612) 341-0400 Facsimile: (612) 341-0400 E-mail: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com rachel.tack@zimmreed.com michael.laird@zimmreed.com - and - Hrag A. Alexanian, Esq. Jonathan L. Hardt, Esq. James F. Mcdonough, Esq. ROZIER HARDT MCDONOUGH PLLC 712 W. 14th Street, Suite C Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (210) 289-7541 E-mail: hrag.alexanian.com hardt@rhmtrial.com jim@rhmtrial.com The Defendant is represented by: Randi W. Singer, Esq. Todd Larson, Esq. David R. Singh, Esq. WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP 767 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10153 Telephone: (212) 310-8000 Facsimile: (212) 310-8007 E-mail: randi.singer@weil.com todd.larson@weil.com david.singh@weil.com META PLATFORMS: Hartman Suit Removed to S.D. Illinois ----------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Rebecca Hartman, Joseph Turner, R.H., a minor, by and through her Guardian and Next Friend Rebecca Hartman, E.T., a minor, by and through his Guardian and Next Friend Joseph Turner, on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated, known and unknown v. Meta Platforms, Inc., Case No. 23-LA-0787 was removed from the Illinois Circuit Court, St. Clair County, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois on Aug. 31, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-02995 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. Meta Platforms, Inc. -- https://about.meta.com/ -- doing business as Meta, and formerly named Facebook, Inc., and TheFacebook, Inc., is an American multinational technology conglomerate based in Menlo Park, California.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendant is represented by: Daniel Thomas Fenske, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 71 S. Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 701-8926 Email: dfenske@mayerbrown.com METAL TRANSPORTATION: Guimaraes Suit Removed to D. New Jersey ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Edgar Guimaraes & Donnell Clarke, and others similarly situated v. METAL TRANSPORTATION LLC; CENTURY EXPRESS; EVANS DELIVERY COMPANY, INC and ABC CORPS. 1-10 and JOHN/JANE DOES 1-10, Case No. ESX-L-4685-23 was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey Law Division, Essex County, to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on Aug. 30, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-13183. A Defendant may remove an action from state court if the federal District Court has original jurisdiction over the action. This Court has original jurisdiction over this action under the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA").[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Steven R. Rowland, Esq. Kenneth L. Moskowitz, Esq. BROWN MOSKOWITZ & KALLEN P.C. One Main Street, Suite 101 Chatham, NJ 07928 Phone: (973) 376-0909 Fax: (973) 376-0903 Email: srowland@bmk-law.com klm@bmk-law.com MICHAEL KORS: Faces Class Action in Illinois Over ADA Violations ---------------------------------------------------------------- Abraham Jewett, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that Michael Kors failed to make its website fully accessible to and independently usable by individuals who are blind or visually impaired, a new class action lawsuit alleges. Plaintiff Sumaya Hussein claims individuals who are blind or visually impaired are denied full and equal access to Michael Kors' website due to alleged access barriers to screen-reading software that is used by the visually impaired to scan the internet. Hussein argues the alleged access barriers on Michael Kors' website deny individuals who are blind or visually impaired with equal access to its goods and services, in an alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). "Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its goods and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the (ADA)," the Michael Kors class action states. Hussein wants to represent a nationwide class of individuals who are blind or visually impaired and who have been denied access to the equal enjoyment of goods and services on Michael Kors' website. Access barriers on Michael Kors' website include missing alt-text, incorrectly formatted lists, says class action Access barriers to screen-reading software on Michael Kors' website include missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, and unannounced pop ups, among other things, the Michael Kors class action alleges. "These access barriers effectively denied Plaintiff the ability to use and enjoy Defendant's website the same way sighted individuals do," the Michael Kors class action states. The plaintiff is demanding a jury trial and requesting injunctive and declaratory relief along with an award of nominal damages for herself and all class members. A separate class action lawsuit was filed against Michael Kors in May by a trio of consumers arguing the company uses false prices as a reference point for advertised sales on items at its outlet store. Have you been denied equal access to the goods and services offered on Michael Kors' website? Let us know in the comments! The plaintiff is represented by Yaakov Saks of Stein Saks, PLLC. The Michael Kors website class action lawsuit is Hussein v. Michael Kors (USA) Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-05803, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. [GN] MIKE BLOOMBERG: Wood Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DONNA WOOD, ET AL., individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, v. MIKE BLOOMBERG 2020, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-02489-LTS-GWG (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: (1) Certifying the proposed classes pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3); (2) Appointing Class Representatives; (3) Appointing Outten & Golden LLP and Shavitz Law Group, P.A. as Class Counsel, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. 23(g); and (4) Directing the parties to confer regarding an appropriate notice for the classes and submit a stipulation regarding the notice, or a letter detailing any disputes, within 30 days of the Court's Order. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 16, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45E0Yrm at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Justin M. Swartz, Esq. Michael C. Danna, Esq. Hannah Cole-Chu, Esq. Theanne Liu Svedman, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 245-1000 Facsimile: (646) 509-2060 E-mail: jms@outtengolden.com mdanna@outtengolden.com hcolechu@outtengolden.com tliusvedman@outtengolden.com - and - Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. Tamra C. Givens, Esq. Michael J. Palitz, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 951 Yamato Road, Suite 285 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 447-8888 Facsimile: (561) 447-8831 E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com MMM CONSUMER BRANDS: Andrade Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against MMM Consumer Brands, Inc. The case is styled as Jesu Andrade, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. MMM Consumer Brands, Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2023-0009352 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Aug. 30, 2023). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." MMM Consumer Brands, Inc. doing business as Tracy FC is voted as the best youth soccer organization.[BN] MORBRO LOGISTICS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Villanueva Says ------------------------------------------------------------ AMBER VILLANUEVA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MORBRO LOGISTICS; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 23STCV20861 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles, Cty., Aug. 30, 2023) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses. Plaintiff Villanueva was employed by the Defendants as a delivery driver. MORBRO LOGISTICS is a freight shipping and trucking company in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Han, Esq. Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq. Lizette Rodriguez, Esq. JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION 751 N. Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 101 Pasadena, CA 91103 Telephone: (818) 230-7502 Facsimile: (818) 230-7259 NAPCO SECURITY: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Oct 30 -------------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Aug. 29 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of NAPCO Security Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: NSSC) between November 7, 2022 and August 18, 2023, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for NAPCO investors under the federal securities laws. To join the NAPCO class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=18559 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) NAPCO failed to address any material weaknesses with internal controls regarding COGS and inventory; (2) NAPCO downplayed the severity of material weaknesses regarding their internal controls; (3) NAPCO's unaudited financial statements from September 30, 2022 to the present included "certain errors" such as overstating inventory and understanding net COGS, resulting in overstated gross profit, operating income and net income for each period; (4) as a result, NAPCO would need to restate its previously filed unaudited financial statements for certain periods; and (5) as a result, Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October 30, 2023. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=18559 or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. CONTACT: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40thFloor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] NASSAU COUNTY, NY: Court OK's Settlement Deal in Abbananto ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RENEE ABBANANTO et. Al, v. COUNTY OF NASSAU, Case No. 2:19-CV-1102-JMW (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge James M. Wicks entered an order granting the parties' motion for approval of the Settlement Agreement. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' claims are dismissed with prejudice. The settlement agreement must be submitted to the legislature for approval within 10 days of the Court's approval under Cheeks. The parties shall file a Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice in both cases once 30 days have elapsed from the final settlement payment from Defendant and the Court will direct the Clerk’s Office to close these cases thereafter. The lodestar cross-check affirms that the requested attorney's fee of $766,666.67, which is exactly one-third of the settlement amount, is fair and reasonable, the Court says. The Plaintiffs -- male and female Police Communications Operators (“PCOs”) and Police Communications Operators Supervisors ("PCOSs") -- allege that Defendant County of Nassau subjected them to a system of illegal employment practices. The Davidson case is a series of cases that involve allegations of Equal Pay Act ("EPA"), New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), and federal and state wage and hour violations, while others involve allegations of Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") violations. After extensive negotiations between the parties, they have now chosen to resolve these two remaining actions. Nassau County is an affluent inner suburban county located on Long Island, immediately to the east of New York City. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 14, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47OYqs5 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Louis D. Stober, Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICES OF LOUIS D. STOBER, JR., LLC 98 Front Street Mineola, NY 11501 The Defendant is represented by: Deanna Darlene Panico, Esq. Rhoda Yohai Andors, Esq. BEE READY FISHBEIN HATTER & DONOVAN, LLP 170 Old Country Road, Suite 200 Mineola, NY 11501 - and - Susan M. Tokarski, Esq. NASSAU COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE One West Street Mineola, NY 11501 - and - Aaron Edward Kaplan, Esq. Leslie Catherine Perrin, Esq. CSEA INC. 143 Washington Avenue Albany, NY 12210 NORTHWOOD HEALTHCARE: Motion for Conditional Certification Granted ------------------------------------------------------------------ Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Esq., Jennifer A. Riley, Esq., and Kathryn Brown, Esq., of Duane Morris, disclosed that in Gifford v. Northwood Healthcare Group LLC et al., No. 22-CV-04389 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 21, 2023), Judge Sarah D. Morrison of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio granted plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of a wage & hour collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Sec. 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). Through sworn declarations and documentary evidence of defendants' meal break policy, the Court found plaintiff showed a "strong likelihood" that she was similarly-situated to potential collective action members who may elect to join the lawsuit. The ruling adds to the body of case law applying the Sixth Circuit's new standard for notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs in putative FLSA collective actions announced in Clark v. A&L Homecare and Training Center, LLC, 68 F.4th 1003 (6th Cir. 2023), and ought to be required reading for any employers involved in wage & hour litigation. Case Background On December 15, 2022, plaintiff filed a Complaint against Northwood Healthcare Group, LLC and Garden Healthcare Group, LLC, two entities operating healthcare facilities in Ohio. Plaintiff allegedly worked at two such facilities as a non-exempt Licensed Practical Nurse. The lawsuit targeted the defendants' meal break practices. Plaintiff contended that due to staffing shortages and the demands of patient care, she did not receive a full, uninterrupted 30-minute ("bona fide") meal break on a regular basis. As alleged in the Complaint, defendants automatically deducted 30 minutes of time from her hours worked even when she did not receive a bona fide meal break, resulting in unpaid overtime compensation. On behalf of herself and similarly situated other employees, Plaintiff brought claims asserting failure to pay overtime wages under the FLSA, failure to pay overtime wages under the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act ("OMFWSA"), failure to keep accurate payroll records under the OMFWSA and failure to pay wages timely under the Ohio Prompt Pay Act. On March 15, 2023, plaintiff filed a motion for conditional certification of a collective action. On May 15, 2023, defendants opposed the motion on the merits and urged the Court to delay ruling until the Sixth Circuit issued its opinion in Clark. On May 19, 2023, the Sixth Circuit in Clark announced a more rigorous standard for authorizing notice of an FLSA lawsuit to other employees. Abandoning the prior standard of a "modest factual showing" of similarly situated status, the standard in Clark requires plaintiffs to establish a "strong likelihood" that they are similarly situated to potential other plaintiffs. Days later, in her reply brief filed on May 23, 2023, plaintiff argued that the evidence she presented in her motion satisfied the new standard in Clark. The Court's Decision The Court determined that the evidence provided in support of plaintiff's motion satisfied the "substantial likelihood" standard announced in Clark. Specifically, plaintiff provided her own sworn declaration and the sworn declarations of six individuals who had filed consents to join the lawsuit as opt-in plaintiffs. Together, plaintiff and the other declarants worked at six of the 14 facilities plaintiff sought to include in her lawsuit. The Court found the declarations told a consistent story of employees not receiving overtime pay for those occasions when patient care needs required employees to skip or cut short their designated 30 minutes for a meal break, even after employees complained to management about being undercompensated. Plaintiff also submitted evidence of employee handbooks in effect at the six facilities at which the declarants had worked for the defendants. The Court found that the handbooks reflected nearly identical policies on overtime compensation and meal breaks. For example, the meal break policy in the various employee handbooks stated that employees who worked through their meal breaks would receive pay for their time, whether the work was authorized or not. Defendants argued that plaintiff's evidence fell short of identifying a "companywide" policy. Defendants pointed out that the declarants had no personal knowledge of the meal break practices in effect at facilities operated by defendants at which they had not worked. The Court disagreed. It opined that plaintiff presented enough evidence of a unified theory of conduct by defendants, notwithstanding that the declarants did not represent former employees at all of the facilities the plaintiff sought to include in the lawsuit. The Court concluded that the evidence "establishes to a certain degree of probability" that the plaintiff, the individuals who had already filed consents to become opt-in plaintiffs, and the other potential plaintiffs performed the same tasks, were subject to the same policies and were unified by a common theory underlying their causes of action. Id. at 8. In so ruling, the Court authorized plaintiff to send notice to all current and former hourly, non-exempt direct care employees of defendants who had a meal break deduction applied to their hours worked in any workweek in which they were paid for at least 40 hours of work during a three-year lookback period and through the final disposition of the case. Implications For Employers The Court's ruling in Gifford demonstrates that application of the Sixth Circuit's "strong likelihood" standard is highly dependent on the evidence presented by a plaintiff. By contrast, under the prior standard, courts routinely granted plaintiffs' motions to authorize notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs. Employers with operations in Ohio, Tennessee, Michigan and/or Kentucky should keep a close watch on Gifford and other cases applying the Sixth Circuit's new standard in FLSA litigation. [GN] NUTRICOST: Faces False Advertising Class Action Suit ---------------------------------------------------- Kelsey McCroskey, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a proposed class action claims Nutricost has misled consumers by falsely advertising that a two-capsule serving of its magnesium dietary supplement contains 420 milligrams of magnesium glycinate. The 23-page lawsuit says that despite prominent representations on the supplement's front and back labels, in particular that each two-capsule serving contains 420 milligrams of magnesium glycinate, it is "physically impossible" to fit that amount of magnesium derived from magnesium glycinate in the capsules used by Nutricost. The suit argues that approximately 3,000 milligrams of magnesium glycinate would be needed to provide 420 milligrams of magnesium, but the size 00 capsules used by Nutricost for a recommended serving of its supplement "cannot physically fit 3,000 [milligrams] of powder regardless of its density," particularly as the capsules also contain other ingredients that further lower the magnesium content. The case contends that, in light of the foregoing, the supplements at issue may contain magnesium derived from another source, such as magnesium oxide -- an "inferior and less desirable" source that nevertheless has a higher concentration of magnesium than magnesium glycinate. According to the complaint, the supplement's alleged mislabeling violates state law as well as the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which declares that a food products is misbranded if its label includes a false or misleading statement. The plaintiff, a New York resident, claims she would not have paid as much for the magnesium glycinate supplements, or purchased them at all, had she known "the true nature and composition of the magnesium content." The lawsuit looks to represent anyone in the United States who purchased Nutricost magnesium glycinate supplements at any time since August 25, 2019. [GN] PALISADES ACQUISITION: Court Allows FDCPA Class Action to Proceed ----------------------------------------------------------------- Joseph M. DeFazio, Esq., Jonathan P. Floyd, Esq., Stefanie H. Jackman, Esq., and Ethan G. Ostroff, Esq., of Troutman Pepper, in an article for Lexology, disclosed that on August 18, a judge in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York granted the plaintiff's motion for class certification for alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA) relating to an allegedly improper debt assignment notification. In McCrobie v. Palisades Acquisition XVI, LLC, the plaintiff incurred a credit card debt, which was later assigned to a new creditor. In 2007, the new creditor commenced an action to recover the debt and obtained a default judgment against the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed that because the summons and complaint had been mailed to an old address, he had no knowledge of the action or the default judgment. The default judgment was later assigned to Palisades Acquisition. In 2014, an attorney from defendant Houslanger & Associates signed an income execution on behalf of Palisades Acquisition representing that it had the right to execute upon the judgment. Palisades Acquisition subsequently recovered $572.45 by executing on the plaintiff's income. In 2015, the plaintiff contacted Houslanger & Associates and requested the chain of title that proved Palisades Acquisition had the right to enforce the default judgment. Houslanger & Associates provided a copy of the bill of sale of the portfolio, which did not reference the plaintiff or the default judgment. Based on this information, the plaintiff filed a motion to vacate the judgment, which was granted. The garnished money was returned to the plaintiff, but the vacated judgment was later reinstated because the motion had been untimely. The plaintiff never repaid the garnished money. In 2015, the plaintiff filed suit asserting that Palisades Acquisition and its attorneys' enforcement of the default judgment violated the FDCPA. The plaintiff argued that Palisades Acquisition did not take the steps required to enforce the judgment. Specifically, the plaintiff argued that for an assignment of a judgment to take effect, the assignor must notify the judgment debtor of the assignment. While an employee of Palisades Acquisition testified that when it purchases a new debt portfolio, it will typically send an introductory letter to the debtors, the employee did not know whether Palisades Acquisition's predecessors in interest sent a notice of assignment to the plaintiff. The plaintiff moved to certify a putative class consisting of debtors included in the debt portfolio at issue who were subject to allegedly unlawful collection efforts by Houslanger & Associates and had money taken from them through either an income execution or a bank account garnishment. The defendants objected. After the magistrate judge heard oral argument, the parties submitted additional briefing to address whether the plaintiff has standing in light of TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S. Ct. 2190 (2021). The magistrate judge issued a report & recommendation finding that the plaintiff had standing and the class should be certified. The defendants again objected. After briefing, the district court judge adopted the magistrate judge's report & recommendation. Both the magistrate and district judges found that the plaintiff had standing because the defendants allegedly deprived the plaintiff of more than $500 for several months by enforcing a default judgment in a manner that allegedly violated the FDCPA and state law. Further, the plaintiff alleged that the defendants still claim that they have a right to enforce that judgment if they so choose. The district court judge also agreed that the proposed class satisfied the requirements for class certification. [GN] PANDA EXPRESS: Settles Class Action Over Hidden Delivery Fees ------------------------------------------------------------- Bailey Schulz, writing for USA TODAY, reports that Panda Express may owe you more than just a free fortune cookie. Customers who placed a delivery order may be entitled to compensation -- either money or free food -- after the American Chinese fast food chain agreed to settle a class action lawsuit that claimed "hundreds of thousands" of customers paid hidden delivery fees with "false and misleading" disclosures. Customers who placed a delivery order through the Panda Express website or app between July 17, 2020 and Feb. 16, 2022 with a service fee charge may be entitled to relief and can submit a claim online, according to the settlement administrator's website. Why was Panda Express sued? The lawsuit alleges the company misrepresented the cost of delivery by advertising low-price deliveries -- usually for $2.95 -- but then tacking on a 10% "service charge" for delivery customers. Panda did not admit to any wrongdoing but agreed to settle the class action for $1.4 million. Spokespeople did not immediately respond to a request for comment. How to submit a claim The court will decide whether to approve the settlement on Nov. 8. While appeals may delay any payments, eligible customers who were charged a service fee should submit a claim no later than Jan. 10, 2024 to receive either a cash payment or up to two free medium entrée vouchers that can be redeemed on Panda Express' website or app. The cash payments will vary, based on how many customers submit claims. The settlement administrator's website says each recovery is expected to exceed $10. [GN] PAPA JOHN'S: Averts Class Action Over Website Tracking Software --------------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Brown, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Papa John's International Inc. defeated a proposed class action alleging it tracked users' interactions with its website without their consent in violation of the Pennsylvania Wiretap Act. The US District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania didn't have personal jurisdiction over Papa John's because the company didn't have the constitutionally minimum contacts with the state, Judge J. Nicholas Ranjan said on Aug. 28. Plaintiff Jordan Schnur failed to show that Papa John's use of "session-replay" tracking software on its website was expressly aimed at Pennsylvania, Ranjan said, dismissing the lawsuit without leave to amend. [GN] PHILLIPS 66: Final Certification of Settlement Class Sought ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Marvin B. Dinsmore, et al., on behalf of themselves, and all others similarly situated, v. Phillips 66 Company, Case No. 6:22-cv-00044-JFH (E.D. Okla.), the Class Representatives ask the Court to enter an order: (1) granting final certification of the Settlement Class: "All non-excluded persons or entities who: (1) received Late Payments from Defendant (or Defendant’s designee) for oil-and- gas proceeds from Oklahoma wells; or whose proceeds were escheated to a government entity by Defendant; or whose proceeds from Oklahoma wells were held in suspense by Defendant on or before March 10, 2023; and (2) who have not already been paid statutory interest on the Late Payments or on the amounts held in suspense by Defendant on or before March 10, 2023. A "Late Payment" for purposes of this class definition means payment of proceeds from the sale of oil or gas production from and an oil-and-gas well after the statutory periods identified in Okla. Stat. tit. 52, section 570.10(B)(1) (i.e., commencing not later than six (6) months after the date of first sale, and thereafter not later than the last day of the second succeeding month after the end of the month within which such production is sold). Late Payments do not include: (a) payments of proceeds to an owner under Okla. Stat. tit. 52, section 570.10(B)(3) (minimum pay); (b) prior period adjustments; or (c) pass-through payments. Excluded from the Class are: (1) Defendant, its affiliates, predecessors, and employees, officers, and directors; (2) agencies, departments, or instrumentalities of the United States of America or the State of Oklahoma; and (3) any Indian tribe as defined at 30 U.S.C. section 1702(4) or Indian allottee as defined at 30 U.S.C. section 1702(2);" (2) finally approving the Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate, and in the best interests of the Settlement Class; and (3) finally approving the Notice to Class Members. The Class Representatives are Marvin B. Dinsmore and Sheridan Downey, III, as Administrators of the Estate of David D. Dinsmore and the Estate of Margaret D. Dinsmore. Phillips 66 is an American multinational energy company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 17, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45HA95O at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Reagan E. Bradford, Esq. Ryan K. Wilson, Esq. BRADFORD & WILSON PLLC 431 W. Main Street, Suite D Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 698-2770 E-mail: reagan@bradwil.com ryan@bradwil.com –and– James U. White, Jr., Esq. WHITE, COFFEY AND FITE, P.C. Oklahoma City, OK 73154 Telephone: (405) 842-7545 E-mail: jwhite@wcgflaw.com PREMIERFIRST HOME: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due May 3, 2024 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAHARA CAMPBELL, et al., v. PREMIERFIRST HOME HEALTH CARE INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-00199-ALM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Kimberly A. Jolson entered a scheduling order asv follows: Close of Opt-In Discovery: November 17, 2024 Close of All Fact Discovery: March 1, 2024 Deadline to File Motion for May 3, 2024 Rule 23 Class Certification and/or Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Certification Motion: Dispositive Motion Deadline: May 3, 2024 Premier operates in the Hospital & Health Care industry. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 15, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3R3FKik at no extra charge.[CC] PREMIUM VELOCITY: Williams Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ DARREN LAMONT WILLIAMS, individually, and on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PREMIUM VELOCITY AUTO, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-00901 (M.D. Tenn., Aug. 24, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant willfully and, with reckless disregard to established FLSA requirements, failed to pay Plaintiff and those similarly situated the applicable overtime compensation rates of pay for their "off the clock" work hours within weekly pay periods. The Plaintiff and those similarly situated worked as hourly-paid employees for Defendant during the relevant statutory period. Premium Velocity Auto, LLC operates Jiffy Lube oil change shops in Tennessee and in numerous other states across the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. James L. Holt, Jr., Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT OWEN & BRYANT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Telephone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 754-8524 E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com jholt@jsyc.com PRIDE OF STEEL: Mendoza Sues Over Supervisors' Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- WINNER MENDOZA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. A PRIDE OF STEEL CORP., a New York Corporation, and SHOSHANA SILVER, an individual, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-06359 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 24, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, for violations of the New York Labor Law and the Wage Theft Prevention Act, and for violations of the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York Commissioner of Labor. The lawsuit seeks applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and costs. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a supervisor from approximately October 2017 through October 2022. His job included supervising other contractors, driving trucks with tools and supplies to project sites, cleaning, and any other task or job that he was assigned at any given time. A Pride of Steel Corp. operates as a construction and home improvement company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Erik M. Bashian, Esq. BASHIAN & PAPANTONIOU, P.C. 500 Old Country Road, Ste. 302 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 279-1554 Facsimile: (516) 213-0339 E-mail: eb@bashpaplaw.com - and - Nolan Klein, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF NOLAN KLEIN, P.A. 5550 Glades Road, Ste. 500 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (954) 745-0588 E-mail: klein@nklegal.com PRIME SEAMLESS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Holland Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- JACOB HOLLAND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PRIME SEAMLESS GUTTERS & ROOFING, LLC; and ANDREW JOHNSON, Defendants, Case No. 5:23-cv-01099 (W.D. Tex., Aug. 31, 2023) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Holland was employed by the Defendants as an installer. PRIME SEAMLESS GUTTERS & ROOFING, LLC providing roofing, siding, and sheet metal services and installation. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. Lauren E. Braddy, Esq. Alan Clifton Gordon, Esq. Carter T. Hastings, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 101 N. Shoreline Blvd. Suite 610 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 Email: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com lauren@a2xlaw.com cgordon@a2xlaw.com carter@a2xlaw.com RADIUS GLOBAL: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Butts Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- WAYNE BUTTS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RADIUS GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 0:23-cv-02663-PJS-TNL (D. Minn., Aug. 9, 2023) seeks to hold the Defendant responsible for the harms it caused and will continue to cause the Plaintiff and other similarly situated persons in the massive and preventable cyberattack purportedly discovered by the Defendant on June 1, 2023, in which cybercriminals infiltrated the Defendant's inadequately protected network servers and accessed highly sensitive protected health information/personally identifiable information that was being kept unprotected. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that Defendant failed to properly secure and safeguard the Plaintiff's and Class Members' protected health information and personally identifiable information stored within the Defendant's information network, including, without limitation, full names, treatment information, provider names, patient identification numbers, health insurance information, treatment cost information, health insurance numbers and social security numbers. As a result, the Plaintiff's and Class Members' PHI/PII was compromised through disclosure to an unknown and unauthorized third party -- an undoubtedly nefarious third party seeking to profit off this disclosure by defrauding the Plaintiff and Class Members in the future. Plaintiff and Class Members have a continuing interest in ensuring that their information is and remains safe and are entitled to injunctive and other equitable relief. RADIUS GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LLC provides debt recovery services and customer contact solutions. The Company offers customers relationship, healthcare revenue cycle, and delinquency management services, as well as debt collection and account recovery solutions. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. David Goodwin, Esq. Joe E. Nelson, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC Canadian Pacific Plaza 120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 333-8844 Email: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com jnelson@gustafsongluek.com - and - Daniel Srourian, Esq. SROURIAN LAW FIRM, P.C. 3435 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 1710 Los Angeles, CA 94607 Telephone: (213) 474-3800 Facsimile: (213) 471-4160 Email: daniel@slfla.com RAISING CANE'S: Abdulhadi Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- Ali Abdulhadi, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. RAISING CANE'S RESTAURANTS, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-07201 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 31, 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, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. ("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.raisingcanes.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 fast-food restaurant that offers the website www.raisingcanes.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 RIPPLE LABS: Bids to Seal Docs in Zakinov Suit Partly OK'd ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as VLADI ZAKINOV, et al., v. RIPPLE LABS, INC., et al., Case No. 4:18-cv-06753-PJH (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton entered an order: -- granting in part and denying in part the parties' first motion to Seal; -- granting in part and denying the parties' second motion to seal; and -- denying the parties' third motion to seal. Specifically, the first motion to seal is granted as to the limited redactions of email addresses in exhibits 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, and 23, as to the limited redactions of user names in exhibit 43, and as to the limited redaction of the declarant’s city of residence in exhibit 64. The first motion to seal is denied on all other bases. The second motion to seal is granted as to exhibit 8, and as to the limited redactions in exhibits 26-51. The second motion to seal is denied on all other bases. The third motion to seal is denied in its entirety. The parties are directed to file public versions of the briefs, declarations, and exhibits, consistent with this order, no later than September 1, 2023. The suit is a securities case. In connection with plaintiffs' motion for class certification, the parties filed three motions to seal. Ripple Labs operates as an enterprise blockchain company. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 15, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sHkm84 at no extra charge.[CC] RUNYON GROUP: Faces Kascel Wage-and-Hour Suit in California ----------------------------------------------------------- MOLLY KASCEL, individually and on behalf of all other Aggrieved Employees; Plaintiff v. THE RUNYON GROUP, INC., a California Corporation, RUNYON GROUP, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, TELLER LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 23SMCV03965 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Aug. 24, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for alleged violations of the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff alleges Defendants' failure to provide employment records; failure to pay overtime and double time; failure to provide rest and meal periods; failure to pay minimum wage; failure to keep accurate payroll records and provide itemized wage statements; failure to pay reporting time wages; failure to pay split shift wages; failure to pay all wages earned on time; failure to pay all wages earned upon discharge or resignation; failure to reimburse necessary, business-related expenses; and failure to provide notice of paid sick time and accrual. Representative Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants with the job title of Stylist & Operations from May 6, 2022 until April 30, 2023. The Runyon Group, Inc. operates as a women's clothing store.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq. Raffi Tapanian, Esq. HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN LAWYERS, APC 801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 970 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 696-2306 Facsimile: (818) 696-2307 E-mail: haig@hbklawyers.com raffi@hbklawyers.com SECURIX LLC: Faces Class Action Over Uninsured Vehicle Statutes --------------------------------------------------------------- Kelsey McCroskey, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a proposed class action claims Securix, LLC's program to enforce state uninsured vehicle statutes has violated consumers' constitutional rights to due process and allowed the company to reap millions in fees without any legal authority to do so. The 20-page lawsuit says that the Georgia-based company, which operates public safety programs in a number of states, contracts with government entities and cities to implement its "diversion program" for identifying, ticketing and collecting fees from vehicle owners who the system determines to be uninsured. However, Securix, "[p]retending to be law enforcement," uses equipment to analyze photos of vehicles' license plates and subsequently tickets registered vehicle owners, with neither consideration for who was driving nor any investigation as to whether the driver was lawfully insured, the suit alleges. "Reducing the number of uninsured vehicles on the public roadways is a laudable goal," the case says. "Trampling on the rights of vehicle owners is not and [Securix's] Diversion Program does just that." To detect uninsured vehicles, the defendant's system utilizes automated license plate readers (ALPRs), which can be mounted on traffic lights, road signs or police cars, the complaint states. When an ALPR captures an image of a license plate, Securix runs the plate number against a variety of databases to determine whether the car is insured, the filing relays. As the lawsuit tells it, if Securix concludes that a vehicle is uninsured, the company will then mail to the registered owner a ticket that, per the suit, is misrepresented as a legitimate traffic citation from the city police department. According to the suit, Securix's practices are illegal as many states prohibit the use of ALPRs to enforce uninsured vehicle laws, including the plaintiffs' home state of Mississippi. In addition, Mississippi's uninsured vehicle statutes merely require that an automobile is insured and do not specify whether the registered owner, driver or another party must have the requisite insurance, the case relays. The complaint further explains that law enforcement officers can only issue a vehicle insurance statute violation in relation to a roadblock used to enforce traffic laws or upon stopping an automobile for a separate infraction. Securix, in "blatant violation" of these rules, issues tickets that are not connected to any kind of stop at all, let alone a lawful one, the filing argues. The lawsuit summarizes that "[the defendant] merely takes pictures of license plates, unlawfully runs the information through the State's verification system, and sends out Tickets." What's more, the suit charges that the company's "diversion program" is "egregiously" deceptive. According to the case, Securix "goes to great lengths" to mislead citizens into believing that the city operates the program, and that the citations are sanctioned and issued by the police department. For example, the complaint shares, the tickets mailed to vehicle owners bear the name of the city, rather than that of the defendant, and include what appears to be a sworn affidavit from a law enforcement officer stating that the registered owner has violated the state's uninsured vehicle law. The tickets also indicate that a court date has been set, though no case has actually been filed, the lawsuit adds. Additionally, the mailed tickets threaten suspension of the citizen's driver's license unless they provide proof of insurance, appear in court or pay a fee, the filing says. Per the suit, the listed telephone number and website that a vehicle owner can use to pay the fee are operated by Securix, which collects all payments and only transfers a portion to the city. "Acting under color of law, [Securix] handles everything from detection of the alleged violation to collection of the fee," the case claims. "Put simply, for alleged uninsured vehicle infractions, [the defendant] becomes the police department." The lawsuit looks to represent anyone in the United States to whom Securix sent a ticket alleging a violation of a state's uninsured vehicle statute. [GN] SELECT REHABILITATION: Plaintiffs Seek to Vacate Scheduling Order ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTINE MCLAUGHLIN, CRYSTAL VANDERVEEN, and JUSTIN LEMBKE, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SELECT REHABILITATION LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-00059-HES-MCR (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs files a motion for leave of court to submit an amended case management report, enlarge all deadlines, continue the trial and for the court to schedule a Rule 16 pretrial scheduling conference. The Plaintiffs request that the Court grant her motion, including a) continuing the trial, b) vacating the current scheduling order and all related deadlines. The Plaintiffs further request the Court to issue an order compelling the Defendant to submit their proposed Amended Case Management Report and schedule, and/or schedule a Rule 16 Pretrial Scheduling Conference, Ordering Defendant to appear for the purpose of crafting a new and realistic case schedule and scheduling Order and new trial date, as well as to address a reasonable opt in plaintiff discovery plan and any other outstanding and related issues. The operative complaint in the action is Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint, asserting two Counts of violations of the Fair Labor Standards (FLSA) and one count of violations of the IMWL alleging that Plaintiffs and the classes of Program Managers (PMs) and Therapists worked off-the-clock without overtime compensation. Select provides physical, occupational and speech therapy, proprietary optical scanning and electronic medical records. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 15, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PkdJ4M at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mitchell Feldman, Esq. FELDMAN LEGAL GROUP 6916 W. Linebaugh Ave #101 Tampa, FL 33625 Telephone: (813) 639-9366 Facsimile: (813) 639-9376 E-mail: mlf@feldmanlegal.us - and - Benjamin Lee Williams, Esq. WILLIAMS LAW P.A. 464 Sturdivant Ave Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 Telephone: (904) 580-6060 Facsimile: (904) 417-7494 E-mail: bwilliams@williamslawjax.com SEMPER LASER: Martinez Suit Seeks to Certify Sales Manager Class ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ADRIENNE MARTINEZ AND CHELSEA-ANN SHORT, on behalf of themselves, and all other plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown, v. SEMPER LASER HOLDINGS LLC DENVER, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, MARCOS PEIXOTO, INDIVIDUALLY, KRISTEN CAVERLY PEIXOTO, INDIVIDUALLY AND STELLA QUEEN, INDIVIDUALLY, Case No. 1:23-cv-00320-DDD-STV (D. Colo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: a) granting their unopposed motion and stipulation for Stage-One Conditional Certification of Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Collective Action and Notice to Members of the Plaintiff Class: "All past and present Sales Managers who, since February 3, 2020, worked for one or more of the Defendants and were paid on a salary basis;" b) approving the proposed Notice and Consent forms and electronic Notice scripts; c) requiring Defendants to provide Plaintiffs' counsel with a list of the Putative Class members, with personal contact information, within 14 days of the Court's Order and entry of a Protective Order; d) concurrent with the production of the list of Putative Class members, requiring Defendants to provide a certification, via declaration, as to the accuracy and completeness of said list; e) approving the proposed Opt-In schedule; and f) for such other relief requested herein and as the Court deems appropriate under the circumstances. On February 3, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed their claims for unpaid wages and other relief pursuant to the FLSA. On April 17, 2023, the Defendants answered the Complaint. 6. Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) and supporting case law, Plaintiffs move this Court to conditionally certify the Plaintiff Class as defined below and approve and allow sending of Notice to the Plaintiff Class consisting of: A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 15, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Elfb0e at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Samuel D. Engelson, Esq. John William Billhorn, Esq. BILLHORN LAW FIRM 7900 E. Union Ave., Suite 1100 Denver, CO 80237 Telephone: (720)-386-9006 53 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1137 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312)-853-1450 SIG SAUER: Parties Must File Stipulation of Dismissal by Sept. 15 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Glasscock v. Sig Sauer, Inc., Case No. 6:22-cv-03095 (W.D. Mo., Filed April 18, 2022), the Hon. Judge Stephen R. Bough entered an order granting the joint motion to stay deadlines. -- The parties shall file a stipulation of dismissal or status report on or before September 15, 2023. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other Fraud. Sig is a provider and manufacturer of firearms, electro-optics, ammunition, airguns, suppressors, and remote controlled weapons stations.[CC] SMH HEALTH CARE: Does Not Properly Pay Nurses, Rockett Says ----------------------------------------------------------- EDWARD ROCKETT, individually and for others similarly situated v. SMH HEALTH CARE, INC. d/b/a SARASOTA MEMORIAL HEALTH CARE, Case No. 8:23-cv-01910 (M.D. Fla., Aug. 24, 2023) arises from the Defendant's bonus pay scheme in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act by depriving Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members of overtime wages at rates not less than one and a half times their regular rates of pay for the hours they worked over 40. Plaintiff Rockett worked for SMH as a registered nurse in Venice Beach and Sarasota, Florida from approximately August 2021 until December 2022. SMH Health Care, Inc. is a regional medical center headquartered in Sarasota, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C. Ryan Morgan, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, PA 20 N. Orange Ave., 16th Floor P.O. Box 4979 Orlando, FL 32802-4979 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (407) 245-3401 E-mail: rmorgan@forthepeople.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 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 SOUTH PIE COMPANY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Kingham Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- BRIAN KINGHAM, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. SOUTH PIE COMPANY, INC.; HOLBROOK PIZZA COMPANY, INC. d/b/a DOMINO’S PIZZA; and BEN HALIL GOZALICI, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-12022-NMG (D. Mass., Aug. 31, 2023) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Kingham was employed by the Defendants as a delivery driver. SOUTH PIE COMPANY, INC. owns and operates Domino's franchise stores in Massachusetts. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel A. Martin, Esq. WALSH LAW 1050 Connecticut Ave. NW, Ste. 500 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 780-3014 Facsimile: (202) 780-3678 Email: smartin@alexwalshlaw.com ST. CAMILLUS: Filing for Class & Collective Certs Due Dec. 22 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Laskowski v. St. Camillus Nursing Home Company, Inc. et al., Case No. 5:22-cv-00799 (N.D.N.Y. Filed July 28, 2022), the Hon. Judge Therese Wiley Dancks entered an order extending class certification deadlines: -- Mediation to be completed by: Nov. 1, 2023 -- Pre-class certification Nov. 17, 2023 discovery due: -- Discovery motions regarding Dec. 1, 2023 pre-class certification issues due: -- Class and collective certification Dec. 22, 2023 motions due: The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act involving collection of unpaid wages. St. Camillus offers long term care and rehabilitation services.[CC] STATE FARM: Court Narrows Claims in Ellis Suit ---------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREA ELLIS, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 6:22-cv-01005-RBD-DCI (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Roy B. Dalton Jr. entered an order that: 1. The Defendant's motion to dismiss is granted in part only to the extent that the Court finds the first-filed doctrine applies. To the extent it seeks dismissal and in all other respects, it is denied in part. 2. The case is stayed. 3. The Clerk is directed to administratively close the file. 4. By Monday, October 16, 2023, and every sixty days thereafter, the parties are directed to file a joint status report on the progress of the Williams case. 5. The parties are further DIRECTED to notify the Court immediately on resolution of class certification in Williams. In the putative class action, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has a pattern of undervaluing the actual cash value it pays its insureds for total-loss vehicles, breaching their insurance policies. State Farm offers vehicle, auto, accident, homeowners, condo owners, renters, life and annuities, fire and casualty, health, disability, flood, business, and boat insurance products and services. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 16, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3L6wWnX at no extra charge.[CC] SUMO LOGIC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Sept. 26 ------------------------------------------------------------ Monteverde & Associates PC has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. 5:23-cv-3665, on behalf of former public common shareholders of Sumo Logic, Inc. ("Sumo Logic" or the "Company") who held Sumo Logic securities as of the record date, April 3, 2023 (the "Class Period"), and who were harmed by Sumo Logic and its officers' alleged violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), in connection with the acquisition of Sumo Logic by an affiliate of Francisco Partners Management, L.P. (the "Merger"). Under the terms of the Merger, each share of Sumo Logic common stock owned was converted into the right to receive $12.05 in cash per share (the "Merger Consideration"). The Complaint alleges that the Merger Consideration was inadequate and that the Definitive Proxy Statement issued by the Company with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 5, 2023, provided stockholders with materially incomplete and misleading information in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Merger was completed on May 12, 2023. Mr. Juan Monteverde is available to personally discuss this case with you, and if you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September 26, 2023. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/sumo-logic-inc. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. Monteverde & Associates PC is 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 2017-2022 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. 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] SYSCO SACRAMENTO: Parties in Fite Must File Status Report ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GLEN FITE, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SYSCO SACRAMENTO, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 2:21-cv-01633-DJC-AC (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Daniel J. Calabretta entered an order on the joint stipulation in support of production of potential class list. 1. The Court approves the Parties' stipulated opt-out procedure and Belaire Notice. 2. The costs of the Belaire Notice mailing shall be split evenly between the Parties. 3. The Parties shall file a further joint status report within 90 days, at which point such Belaire West administration and productions should be complete, and the Parties can inform the Court of the status of discovery and the expected filing date of Plaintiff’s motion for class certification. On September 10, 2021, the Plaintiff filed a putative class action complaint against the Defendants for violation of the Business & Professions Code Section 17200. On February 13, 2023, the Plaintiff filed the operative Second Amended Complaint (SAC), pursuant to the Court's Order and the Parties' prior stipulation. The Plaintiff propounded written discovery seeking the identification and contact information of all non-exempt persons who are employed or have been employed by Defendant in the State of California at any time from September 10, 2017, to the present. Sysco distributes a full line of food, specialty items, and a wide variety of non-food products. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 14, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Pk26L0 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stan S. Mallison, Esq. Hector R. Martinez, Esq. Daniel C. Keller, Esq. MALLISON & MARTINEZ 1939 Harrison Street, Suite 730 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 832-9999 Facsimile: (510) 832-1101 E-mail: StanM@TheMMLawFirm.com HectorM@TheMMLawFirm.com Dkeller@TheMMLawFirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Jennifer C. Terry, Esq. Brittany M. Hernandez, Esq. Armine Antonyan, Esq. REED SMITH LLP 355 South Grand Ave, Suite 2800 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 457-8000 Facsimile: (213) 457-8080 E-mail: Jennifer.terry@reedsmith.com bmhernandez@reedsmith.com aantonyan@reedsmith.com TARGET CORP: Boyd Sues Over Mislabeled Beauty Products ------------------------------------------------------ PEARLIE BOYD; ALBERTO CAMACHO; DIEISHA HODGES; MONIC SERRANO; SIENNA GUERRERO-BROWN; STEPHANIE PUCKETT; GENNA UNLEY; CONNIE WILSON; CAMI MCEVERS; LAURIE CAHILL; HARMONY DEFLORIO; JOSLYN SANDERS; MARSHA SOLMSSEN; and JESSICA BRODISKI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TARGET CORP., Defendant, Case No. 0:23-cv-02668-KMM-DJF (D. Minn., Aug. 29, 2023) is a class action against Target for misleading consumers through its "Target Clean" label, which it has applied to a large number of beauty products, many of which are not as "clean" as Target represents and contain harmful or unwanted. The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that by labeling certain unclean products, or products that contain harmful or unwanted ingredients as "Target Clean," Target has caused significant harm to consumers looking for cleaner beauty products for both them and the environment. The Target Clean label on the TruBlend Foundation impacted the Plaintiffs' decision to purchase the product and she would not have purchased the product, or would have purchased the product under different terms, had she known the TruBlend Foundation contained some unwanted or harmful ingredients, says the suit. TARGET STORES, INC. operates as department stores. The Company offers women's, men's, and children's clothing, cosmetics, footwear, fragrances, toys, games, electronic appliances, and home furnishings. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq. Rachel K. Tack, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 1100 IDS Center 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 341-0400 Facsimile: (612) 341-0844 Email: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com rachel.tack@zimmreed.com - and - Christopher D. Jennings, Esq. Tyler B. Ewigleben, Esq. JOHNSON FIRM 610 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 300 Little Rock, AK 72201 Telephone: (501) 372-1300 Email: chris@yourattorney.com tyler@yourattorney.com TARGET CORP: Faces Broodie Suit Over Misleading Product Labels -------------------------------------------------------------- Erica Broodie, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Target Corporation, Case No. 3:23-cv-00955 (M.D. Fla., Aug. 14, 2023), accuses the Defendant of violating the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and committing false and misleading advertising, fraud, and breach of express warranty. The Plaintiffs and class members purchased Target's berry pomegranate flavored water enhancer which it advertised as made only from natural flavoring ingredients. Target is selling the product under its Market Pantry brand. The product's front label bears the statements, "Berry Pomegranate" and "Natural Flavor with Other Natural Flavor." Such label is misleading as majority of the product's ingredients are artificial, says the suit. Target operates nearly 2,000 stores in the United States and almost 130 in Florida, selling a wide range of products, including those under the private label Market Pantry brand. Its principal place of business is located in Minnesota.[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: (516) 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 TARGET CORPORATION: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Dec. 14 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Chen, et al., v. Target Corporation, Case No. 0:21-cv-01247 (D. Minn., Filed May 19, 2021), the Hon. Judge Dulce J. Foster entered an order modifying scheduling order as follows: -- The Plaintiff's Expert Disclosures are Nov. 30, 2023 due on or before: -- The Class Certification Motion Dec. 14, 2023 is due on or before: -- The Defendant's Expert Disclosures Jan. 11, 2024 are due on or before: -- Nondispositive Motions Related to Feb. 1, 2024 Fact Discovery are due on or before: -- Expert Depositions shall be Feb. 22, 2024 completed on or before: -- Fact Discovery shall be completed Feb. 22, 2024 on or before: -- Nondispositive Motions Related to March 1, 2024 Expert Discovery are due on or before: --Dispositive Motions are due on March 14, 2024 or before: The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Diversity-Fraud. Target is an American retail corporation that operates a chain of discount department stores and hypermarkets.[CC] TEVA PHARMA: Class Cert Oral Argument in Halman Set for Sept. 18 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HALMAN ALDUBI PROVIDENT AND PENSION FUNDS LTD. v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-04660-KSM (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Karen Spencer Marston entered an order that the Court will hold oral argument on Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification on September 18, 2023, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 16B. Teva is an Israeli multinational pharmaceutical company that specializes primarily in generic drugs. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 15, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45TzVYX at no extra charge.[CC] TIERRA VIVA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Catota Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- MARISA CATOTA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TIERRA VIVA, INC.; and EDUARDO LOPEZ, Defendants, Case No. 4:23-cv-03187 (S.D. Tex., Aug. 29, 2023) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Catota was employed by the Defendants as a front-of-house employee. TIERRA VIVA, INC. operates a restaurant called El Pueblito Patio, located in Houston, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Travis Gasper, Esq. GASPER LAW PLLC 1408 N. Riverfront Blvd., Suite 323 Dallas, TX 75207 Telephone: (469) 663-7736 Facsimile: (833) 957-2957 Email: travis@travisgasper.com UNDER ARMOUR: Faces Consolidated Shareholder Suit Over SEC Filings ------------------------------------------------------------------ Under Armour, 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 consolidated securities suit captioned " In re Under Armour Securities Litigation" in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. On November 6 and December 17, 2019, two putative securities class actions were filed in said court against the company and certain of its current and former executives captioned "Patel v. Under Armour, Inc.," No. 1:19-cv-03209-RDB and "Waronker v. Under Armour, Inc.," No. 1:19-cv-03581-RDB. On September 14, 2020, the court issued an order consolidating the Patel and Waronker cases. The operative complaint in the consolidated securities action, was filed on October 14, 2020. It asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, against the company and under Section 20A of the Exchange Act. It alleges that the defendants supposedly concealed purportedly declining consumer demand for certain of the company's products between the third quarter of 2015 and the fourth quarter of 2016 by making allegedly false and misleading statements regarding the company's performance and future prospects and by engaging in undisclosed and allegedly improper sales and accounting practices, including shifting sales between quarterly periods allegedly to appear healthier. It also alleges that the defendants purportedly failed to disclose that the company was under investigation by and cooperating with the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission since July 2017. The class period identified in the suit is September 16, 2015 through November 1, 2019. Discovery in the Consolidated Securities Action commenced on June 4, 2021 and is currently ongoing. On July 23, 2021, the company filed an answer denying all allegations of wrongdoing and asserting affirmative defenses to the claims asserted. On December 1, 2021, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking, among other things, certification of the class they are seeking to represent in the Consolidated Securities Action. On September 29, 2022, the court granted the plaintiffs' class certification motion. Under Armour, Inc. is a developer, marketer and distributor of branded athletic performance apparel, footwear and accessories. UNISWAP LABS: New York Court Dismisses Cryptocurrency Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------------ Derek Andersen, writing for Coin Telegraph, reports that the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York has dismissed a class-action suit against Uniswap Labs and its CEO, foundation and venture capital backers brought by plaintiffs who claimed they lost money due to scam tokens on the decentralized cryptocurrency exchange. Judge Katherine Polk Failla, who handed down the dismissal, is also hearing the Securities and Exchange Commission's case against Coinbase. The suit was brought by six individuals who bought tokens on Uniswap between December 2020 and March 2022. They argued on behalf of a "nationwide class of users" that Uniswap Labs controlled liquidity pools on the protocol, including those created by the scammers they lost money to. The suit was filed in April 2022. The defendants were demanding the recission of the (smart) contracts they entered into to buy the scam tokens, with compensation, under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The plaintiffs argued that their claim was backed up by the fact that Uniswap held "liquidity provider funds and newly created tokens in Uniswap's proprietary core contracts," used routers it controlled to process transactions on the protocol and issued liquidity tokens when pools were created. In addition, the plaintiffs held that the defendants "likely" held at least 88% of the Uniswap governance tokens, although they had no actual knowledge of token ownership. The judge said in her order that neither side knew the identities of the scammers, and in place of suing the scammers for unlawful solicitation, the plaintiffs were suing the defendants for statements made on social media: "Undaunted, they now sue the Uniswap Defendants and the VC [venture capital] Defendants, hoping that this Court might overlook the fact that the current state of cryptocurrency regulation leaves them without recourse, at least as to the specific claims alleged in this suit." The court did not overlook that fact: "The Court declines to stretch the federal securities laws to cover the conduct alleged, and concludes that Plaintiffs' concerns are better addressed to Congress than to this Court." The judge commented in more general terms as well. Writing about the plaintiffs' allegations concerning the core and router contracts, she said: "[I]t defies logic that a drafter of computer code underlying a particular software platform could be liable under Section 29(b) [ of the Exchange Act] for a third-party's misuse of that platform." The judge cited the unsuccessful class action brought against Coinbase in 2022 for unregulated securities sales in her reasoning. She dismissed the case with prejudice, meaning the case cannot be retried. Community commenters noted with pleasure that the decision showed a considerable depth of understanding of decentralized finance. [GN] UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Federal Court Revives ERISA Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- American Hospital Association disclosed that a three-judge panel in federal court partially revived a class action lawsuit against UnitedHealth Group subsidiary United Behavioral Health, reversing an earlier decision from 2020. Rehearing their initial decision in favor of UHG, the panel in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit now ruled that some policyholders may be entitled to relief from United Behavioral Health because of an alleged breach of the organization's fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, along with wrongful denial of benefits. AHA and other stakeholders filed an amicus brief urging the panel to reconsider its earlier decision in favor of UHG. [GN] UNITED STATES: Johnston Balks at Student Loan Payments' Resumption ------------------------------------------------------------------ RACHEL SPEARS JOHNSTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; MIGUEL ANGEL CARDONA; SECRETARY OF EDUCATION; VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY; VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL; and NELNET STUDENT LOAN SERVICER a/k/a NELNET INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-00930 (M.D. Tenn., Aug. 31, 2023) seeks to redress the scheduled resumption of iniquitous conspiracy among the Defendants in a scheme to control and suppress working class achievement. According to the complaint, in March 2020, student loans payments on principal and interest were subject to a federally imposed hiatus, which has been extended multiple times, and is set to expire on September 1, 2023. The Supreme Court of the United States in Biden v. Nebraska on June 2023, decided to bar President Biden's overture to effectuate sweeping student loan forgiveness by executive action, and deciding in favor of the objecting conservative states and individuals who argued that they would unfairly share liability for debt they did not agree to assume. After the COVID-19 pandemic payment pause, new student loan servicers similarly appeared to fill the vacuum. As of July 2023, the majority of student loans are currently administered by servicers. Access to information were barred by unusual difficulties peculiar to searches regarding student debt. The student debt is routinely packaged and sold to investors as student loan asset-backed securities in a mechanism that appears closely akin to the heinous mortgage-backed security packaging scheme. Federal loans are packaged with private loans, securitized, and sold to investors based on rating, says the suit. The Plaintiff then seeks to restrain the Defendants from effectuating the resumption of student loan payments. The U.S. is a country of 50 states covering a vast swath of North America, with Alaska in the northwest and Hawaii extending the nation’s presence into the Pacific Ocean. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachel Spears Johnston, Esq. Email: rachel.spears.johnston@gmail.com UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS: Burak Saues Over Data Breach --------------------------------------------------------- KATHERINE BURAK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS CHAN MEDICAL SCHOOL, Defendant, Case No. 4:23-cv-40105-DHH (D. Mass., Aug. 30, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the Plaintiff's and other similarly situated plan members and beneficiaries' sensitive information, including full names; dates of birth, and Social Security numbers ("personally identifiable information" or "PII"). The Plaintiff alleged in the complaint that the Defendant failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class Members PII - and failed to even encrypt or redact this highly sensitive information. This unencrypted, unredacted PII was compromised due to the Defendant's negligent and careless acts and omissions and their utter failure to protect Class Members' sensitive data. Hackers targeted and obtained the Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII because of its value in exploiting and stealing the identities of Plaintiff and Class Members. The present and continuing risk to victims of the Data Breach will remain for their respective lifetimes. As a result, the PII of the Plaintiff and Class Members was compromised through disclosure to an unknown and unauthorized third party, says the suit. THE UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS CHAN MEDICAL SCHOOL is a public medical school in Worcester, Massachusetts. It is part of the University of Massachusetts system. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Randi Kassan, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC 100 Garden City Plaza Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (212) 594-5300 Email: rkassan@milberg.com - and- David K. Lietz, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC 5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW Washington, D.C. 20015-2052 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Facsimile: (202) 686-2877 Email: dlietz@milberg.com UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA: Faces Class Action Over Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------ FOX 9 reports that a class action lawsuit has been filed against the University of Minnesota in federal court over a massive data breach that was made public. The lawsuit is being brought by a former student and a former university employee who fear their personal data may be in the breach. The university didn't explicitly confirm the breach, but administrators discussed their investigation. The university has turned to law enforcement after a hacker claimed to steal 7 million Social Security numbers from the college. Some of the information, posted on the dark web, includes details dating back to 1989. Experts say people who think they may have been included in the breach should freeze their credit to protect themselves. [GN] URS MIDWEST: Rodriguez Wins Class Certification Bid ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ISRAEL RODRIGUEZ, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, and as an aggrieved employee pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act, v. URS MIDWEST, INC., a Delaware corporation; UNITED ROAD SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 5:20-cv-02365-JWH-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge John W. Holcomb entered an order granting motion for class certification. 1. Rodriguez's instant Motion for Class Certification is granted. 2. The parties are directed to confer forthwith and to file no later than September 1, 2023, a Joint Status Report that provides the Court with their jointly proposed case schedule or, if the parties cannot agree, their respective competing proposed case schedules and the reasons for their disagreement 3. A Scheduling Conference is SET for September 15, 2023, at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 9D of the Ronald Reagan Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse, 411 W. 4th Street, Santa Ana, California. The Court also certifies the following six Subclasses of Defendants' current and former employees: (a) the Off the Clock Subclass "All individuals who work or worked as non-exempt or hourly Car Haulers for Defendants in the state of California at any time from January 31, 2017, until the date of the order granting class certification;" (b) the Cell Phone Business Expense Subclass "All individuals who work or worked as non-exempt or hourly Car Haulers of Defendants in the state of California at any time from January 31, 2017, until the date of the order granting class certification, who were required to utilize their personal cell phones for business purposes;" (c) the Safety Tools and Gear Business Expense Subclass "All individuals who work or worked as non-exempt or hourly employees of Defendants in the state of California at any time from January 31, 2017, until the date of the order granting class certification, who purchased safety tools and gear in order to discharge their duties for Defendants;" (d) the Uniform Maintenance Business Expense Subclass "All individuals who work or worked as non-exempt or hourly employees of Defendants in the state of California at any time from January 31, 2017, until the date of the order granting class certification, who were required to wear and maintain uniforms in order to discharge their duties for Defendants;" (e) the Waiting Time Subclass "All individuals who worked as nonexempt or hourly Car Haulers of Defendants at any time from January 31, 2017, until the date of the order granting class certification; and (f) the Wage Statement Subclass "All individuals who work or worked as non-exempt or hourly employees of Defendants at any time from April 2, 2018, until the date of the order granting class certification." In opposing the Motion, the Defendants also challenge the definition of three of the proposed classes: (1) the Safety Tools and Gear Expense Subclass; (2) the Uniform Maintenance Business Expense Subclass; and (3) the Wage Statement Subclass. In particular, the Defendants contend that the proposed class definitions are overly broad because they are not limited to car haulers. The Court is not persuaded that any of these three subclasses is overly broad. The Safety Tools and Gear Business Expense Subclass is limited to only "non-exempt or hourly employees who purchased safety tools and gear for business purposes," and the Uniform Maintenance Business Expenses Subclass is limited to only "non-exempt or hourly employees who were required to wear uniforms as part of their employment with Defendants." Therefore, each of these subclasses is narrowly defined to include only those to whom the challenged policies applied. Finally, because the Wage Statement Subclass is derivative of other classes, that class definition is limited to only those class members whose injuries track the challenged policies in the instant action. The Defendants URS Midwest, Inc. and United Road Services, Inc. oppose Rodriguez's Motion. URS Midwest employed Rodriguez as a non-exempt, hourly employee from August 28, 2015, to April 2, 2018. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 15, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45N8DTV at no extra charge.[CC] USCELLULAR CORP: Continues to Defend Stockholder Suit in Illinois ----------------------------------------------------------------- United States Cellular Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2023, that the Company continues to defend itself from the putative stockholder class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. On May 2, 2023, a putative stockholder class action was filed against TDS and UScellular and certain current and former officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The Complaint alleges that certain public statements made between May 6, 2022 and November 3, 2022 (the "potential class period") regarding UScellular's business strategies to address subscriber demand violated Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of stockholders who purchased TDS equity securities during the potential class period and demands unspecified monetary damages. UScellular is unable at this time to determine whether the outcome of this action would have a material impact on its results of operations, financial condition, or cash flows. UScellular intends to contest plaintiffs' claims vigorously on the merits. UScellular is a wireless telecommunications service provider that purportedly operates in 21 states that collectively represent a total population of 32 million. UTAH DEPARTMENT: Maxfield Seeks Conditional Class Status -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEEANNE MAXFIELD, an individual, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, et al., v. UTAH DEPARTMENT OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL, as a subdivision and/or agency of the STATE OF UTAH; CADE MEIER an individual; TIFFANY CLASON, an individual; JEFF L. COLVIN, an individual; SALVADOR PETILOS, an individual; ANGELA MICKLOS, an individual; RUTHANNE OAKEY FROST, an individual; TIM BEARDALL, an individual; MAN DIEP, an individual; JOHN BARRAND, an individual; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 4:21-cv-00099-DN-PK (D. Utah), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1) conditionally certifying collective for purposes of notice and Discovery: "All individuals operating or managing a liquor store in the State of Utah through a Type 3 Package Agency but who were not paid as a W-2 employee from July 31, 2020, to the present;" 2) directing the issuance of judicially approved notice to potential collective members via email, text, or other method; and 3) directing the defendants to provide contact information for potential collective members. The employees are required to take part in regular and periodic training, the conditions of the purchase, inventory and sale of alcohol by employees are all strictly controlled. Employees are required to conform to a detailed employee handbook. Employees are required to submit daily, weekly, monthly, and quarterly reports, and are required to use Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (DABC) forms and methods including DABC software. On September 15, 2021, the Plaintiffs commenced this collective action against the State of Utah through its DABC and several related individuals, alleging that the DABC willfully misclassified individuals operating Type 3 Package Agencies as independent contractors and failed to pay them minimum wage and overtime in accordance with the FLSA. The Plaintiffs include JAY CLAYTON, an individual, and on behalf of all others similarly situated; CHEREE KAHRS, an individual, and on behalf of all others similarly situated; JODI ROWLEY, an individual, and on behalf of all others similarly situated; BARBARA ADAMS, an individual, and on behalf of all others similarly situated; MICHAEL WYRICK, an individual, and on behalf of all others similarly situated; VICTORIA BOWER, an individual, and on behalf of all others similarly situated; HEATHER DAWN HART, an individual, and on behalf of all others similarly situated; BOYD BROTHERSEN, an individual, and on behalf of all others similarly situated; SAMMI WILCOX, an individual, and on behalf of all others similarly situated; ALISON CICALA, an individual, and on behalf of all others similarly situated; CALVIN OCKEY, an individual, and on behalf of all others similarly situated; LISA OCKEY, an individual, and on behalf of all others similarly situated. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 15, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3EkesfL at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Wesley D. Felix, Esq. Zachary Weyher, Esq. Erika M. Larsen, Esq. PIA HOYT, LLC 170 S. Main Street, Suite 1100 Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Telephone: (801) 350-9000 E-mail: wfelix@piahoyt.com zweyher@piahoyt.com elarsen@piahoyt.com VASSAR COLLEGE: Faces Class Action Over Gender Pay Gap ------------------------------------------------------ As classes began, most of the women full professors at Vassar College spoke out about long-standing pay discrimination, culminating in their filing on Aug. 30 of a class action lawsuit. The case, filed by 5 named plaintiffs along with 35 additional women full professor supporters, claims pervasive and long-standing gender-based disparities in pay between Vassar's male and female full professors. A copy of the lawsuit, along with the statement of the 35 supporters affirming the pattern of pay discrimination at Vassar and expressing their support for the class action, can be found here. The professors allege that Vassar has known for years that it unlawfully pays men more than women, and has for years refused to adequately address the discrimination. Vassar is one of the Seven Sisters, a group of historically women's colleges founded on the promise of gender equity. According to the professors, average salary data reflect a gender pay gap at Vassar in every year for the last two decades. Most troublingly, the professors allege this gap has grown over time, with the most recent data reflecting a 10 percent gender pay disparity at Vassar. The gender pay gap is only one of multiple long-term inequitable practices at the College, including substantial differences in the starting salaries of men and women, a merit ratings system that is biased against women, and a discriminatory promotion system that systematically prevents or delays the advancement of women professors relative to their male counterparts who are considered for and promoted earlier than comparable women. The lawsuit describes how women professors at Vassar have attempted for at least 15 years to work discreetly and collaboratively with the College to remedy the gender pay gap, but that the College has both ignored the problem and taken steps to decrease the level of pay transparency in recent years, in an apparent attempt to mask the disparity. "It's unfortunate we have to be here, but standing up for the rights of women is part of why these professors came to teach at Vassar in the first place," said Jessica Ramey Stender, Policy Director and Deputy Legal Director at Equal Rights Advocates and co-counsel representing the plaintiffs. "These women have dedicated much of their lives to teaching, to this college, and to uplifting students at a school founded on values of gender equality. They deserve to be paid fairly and equally." Co-counsel Kelly Dermody of Lieff Cabraser stated, "Plaintiffs—and all Vassar female full professors—are leaders in their fields and highly regarded by both their contemporaries and their students. For too long, Vassar has refused to equitably value their contributions to the College. We hope this case will prompt Vassar to finally live up to the storied role in the movement for gender equality that it so publicly claims." Named Plaintiffs Wendy Graham (Professor of English), Maria Höhn (Professor Emerita of History), Mia Mask (Professor of Film), Cindy Schwarz (Professor of Physics), and Debra Zeifman (Professor of Psychological Science) explained their motivation in bringing this lawsuit on behalf of other Vassar professors: "Through this action, we seek to achieve what we were prevented from accomplishing through private internal channels: gender equity for ourselves and other female full faculty, and the adoption of fair processes to ensure that future generations of faculty are paid, promoted, and evaluated fairly." The Plaintiffs: Plaintiff Wendy Graham is a Professor of English. Information about her areas of study and accomplishments is available here. Plaintiff Maria Höhn is a Professor Emerita of History. Information about her areas of study and accomplishments is available here. Plaintiff Mia Mask is a Professor of Film. Information about her areas of study and accomplishments is available here. Plaintiff Cindy Schwarz is a Professor of Physics. Information about her areas of study and accomplishments is available here. Plaintiff Debra Zeifman is a Professor of Psychological Science. Information about her areas of study and accomplishments is available here. To speak with counsel, contact Blake Case at (601) 832-6079 or blake@emccommunications.com. About Equal Rights Advocates Equal Rights Advocates fights for gender justice in workplaces and schools across the country. Since 1974, they have been fighting on the front lines of social justice to protect and advance rights and opportunities for women, girls, and people of all gender identities through groundbreaking legal cases and bold legislation that sets the stage for the rest of the nation. Additional information about Equal Rights Advocates is available at https://www.equalrights.org/. Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP Lieff Cabraser is one of the country's most successful firms exclusively representing plaintiffs in civil litigation, including in some of the most significant employment cases of the last decade. Partners Kelly Dermody and Michelle Lamy, co-counsel here, represent female workers in both the Goldman Sachs gender discrimination class action that resulted in a $215 million settlement for women at the company (Chen-Oster v. Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, No. 10-cv-6950-AT-RWL), and in the Google gender pay equity litigation that resulted in a $118 million settlement for women at Google (Ellis v. Google LLC, No. CGC-17-561299). Kelly also represented plaintiffs in the high-tech wage conspiracy case alleging an agreement among prominent technology companies not to poach each other's employees, which resulted in settlements totaling $435 million (In re: High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation, 11-cv-2509-LJK). Additional information about Lieff Cabraser is available at https://www.lieffcabraser.com/. Contacts Blake Case (601) 832-6079 blake@emccommunications.com [GN] VISA INC: Averts Class Action Over Foreign Exchange Fees -------------------------------------------------------- Natalie Hanson, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that finding repeated failures to prove Visa misrepresented its foreign exchange fees for overseas purchases, a federal judge on Aug. 30 tossed a class action against the credit giant with prejudice. U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers said that plaintiffs in the class action, claiming Visa committed violations of consumer protection laws, failed to fix key issues with their claims after multiple attempts. She closed the case, finding that "further amendment would be futile." The class action filed in 2021 centered on claims that Visa charges higher prices than what are reasonable for credit card transactions processed overseas. According to the plaintiffs, the company charged inflated amounts on foreign transactions, called foreign exchange fees, when they used their cards. They said they also filed multiple lawsuits against their banks, claiming breach of their cardholder agreements over the foreign exchange rates they said they saw on their bank statements. Rogers said in a six-page order issued on Aug. 30 that the threshold issue revolved around whether the plaintiffs adequately proved they relied on the misrepresentations they say Visa made about foreign exchange fees charged for transactions processed outside the United States. To prove a company misrepresented its services or made false statements, plaintiffs must adequately demonstrate that they relied on deceptive or misleading statements while doing business with the company. The plaintiffs say in filings that they had no reason to believe that foreign exchange rates applied to their billing statements were "anything other than wholesale market rates selected in good faith." But Rogers said that was insufficient evidence to plead reliance on any misrepresentation by Visa. "Plaintiffs do not allege having reviewed the cardmember agreements with the banks that issued their Visa-branded credit cards or otherwise becoming aware of Visa's FX rate-related conduct," Rogers wrote "Nor do plaintiffs point to any specific misrepresentations by Visa, instead simply alluding to Visa not having provided them with 'the whole truth.'" Rogers said the plaintiffs' claims therefore failed as a matter of law, without having provided the proof she asked for. This failure also proved fatal for the claims under state consumer protection statutes, and a quasi-contract claim. The judge said that the plaintiffs have had multiple opportunities to fix the deficiencies in their claims as she had asked, and therefore dismissed the case with prejudice. Attorneys for both parties did not respond to requests for comment before press time. [GN] WANRONG TRADING: Zhu Seeks Initial Approval of Class Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Zhu v. Wanrong Trading Corp., Case No. 1:18-cv-00417-ENV-MMH (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting joint motion for preliminary class settlement at the Court's convenience. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 16, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3EIaj5P at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John Troy, Esq. Aaron Schweitzer, Esq. Tiffany Troy, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 110 Flushing, NY 11355 Telephone: (718) 762-1324 Facsimile: (718) 762-1342 E-mail: troylaw@troypllc.com WHEATLEIGH CORP: Class Action Settlement Gets Prelim. Court Okay ---------------------------------------------------------------- Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly disclosed that where a plaintiff brought a class action alleging Massachusetts wage law violations on her own behalf and on behalf of other similarly situated wait staff employees, her motion for preliminary approval of a settlement agreement should be allowed based on the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the proposed settlement. "Plaintiff Arleta Mongue, a former wait staff employee of the defendant The Wheatleigh Corporation, which was owned and/or operated by the remaining defendants L. Linfield Simon, Susan Simon, and Marc Wilhelm (collectively, 'Defendants'), brings this class action alleging Massachusetts wage law violations on her own behalf and on behalf of other similarly situated wait staff employees. The parties have consented to this court's jurisdiction (Dkt. No. 14). . . . Presently before the court is Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement (Dkt. No. 157), which Defendants oppose (Dkt. No. 163) . . . "The court finds that consideration of each of the factors enumerated in Rule 23(e) counsels in favor of a finding of fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy with respect to the proposed settlement. . . . ". . . Defendants argue that Class Counsel has not adequately represented the Class because of an inherent conflict that arose by virtue of his concurrent representation of the Individual Plaintiffs, Plaintiff, and the Class where he negotiated an aggregate settlement for all cases and may have done so without informed consent. Defendants note that they are not impugning Class Counsel's conduct or motives. Rather, they argue that even the appearance of divided loyalties is contrary to Class Counsel's responsibility to unnamed class members. . . . "The court here finds that Class Counsel does not have conflicts of interest with the Class by nature of his concurrent representation of the Individual Plaintiffs. … "The court preliminarily finds that the proposed settlement was negotiated at arm's length. . . . "The court preliminarily finds that the relief provided to the Class as a result of the settlement is adequate. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2)(C). As set forth above, pursuant to the settlement, $243,918.80 would go into the settlement fund to be disbursed to the 43 individuals who fall within the Class definition and are entitled to participate in the settlement. This figure represents 129% of the disputed wages, and the average projected settlement check is approximately $5,672.53. This is significant monetary relief. . . . "If this action were not resolved now, the costs, risks, and delay of continued litigation could be substantial. This case has already been pending for five years, and Defendants continue to vigorously contest liability, maintaining that their tip pool policy was legal and that they provided proper written notice before utilizing the service rate by prominently displaying a Massachusetts Wage and Hour Law poster from the Office of the Attorney General. Plaintiff disputes the legality of the tip pool policy, denies any recollection of ever seeing the poster, and maintains that even if Defendants displayed the poster as they claim it was insufficient to satisfy the notice requirements. The risk and expense of continued litigation could outweigh any additional recovery Plaintiff might obtain from a litigated outcome, and Defendants could be expected to appeal any verdict favorable to the Class, resulting in further delay and the risk that a favorable verdict could be overturned on appeal. Even under the best-case scenario, the Class would receive nothing for years, and, under the worst case would never recover. . . . "Here, Class Counsel intends to request $92,893.20 in attorneys' fees. This represents 27.2% of the total $341,812.00 of the [Gross Settlement Fund (GSF)] going to settle the class claims, which falls within the range of an appropriate percentage of the fund ('POF') reward. However, taking into consideration the three Individual Cases as well as this case, Class Counsel would be recovering $272,893.20 in attorneys' fees, which represents 49.6% of the total GSF. The court will scrutinize the high POF Class Counsel is seeking to recover from the vantage point of the total GSF at the fairness hearing, and any motion for attorneys' fees should include a lodestar analysis with appropriate accompanying documentation. Nevertheless, at this point, the court finds that this factor weighs in favor of a finding of reasonableness. . . . "The court preliminarily finds that the proposed settlement treats Settlement Class Members equitably. . . . Here, each Settlement Class Member's allocation is determined by the total number of regular and overtime hours he or she worked and what he or she was paid versus what he or she should have been paid for those hours. Because this allocation of settlement dollars approximates the proportion of damages suffered by each person, the agreement treats the class members equitably. . . . "Defendants argue that the court should revisit class certification for a number of reasons, including: (1) the proposed class fails to satisfy the 'numerosity' requirement under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1) because the number of class members will be less than 40 once the J-1 interns, who received a form DS-7002, are removed, and the DS-7002 satisfied the Massachusetts notice requirement for paying the service rate; (2) there is no numerosity because there is no evidence that distributions were made from the tip pool to unqualified employees after December 17, and less than twenty Class members were hired before that date; (3) Mongue's employment began outside the statute of limitations period; (4) Defendants provided sufficient notice by posting the Massachusetts wage and hour poster; and (5) Mongue does not have standing because the evidence demonstrates that she received sufficient compensation to satisfy minimum wage requirements meaning that, even if she received insufficient notice, she cannot establish monetary or other cognizable harm beyond a mere statutory violation. Regarding the first four arguments, Defendants waived them by agreeing to settle. They could have pursued these defenses but instead chose to settle. They are not entitled to litigate legal defenses they waived by agreeing to a settlement. The fifth argument touches on this court's subject matter jurisdiction. However, it, too, is unavailing, insofar as Class Counsel calculated that Mongue was injured and suffered damages of $7,023.43 (Dkt. No. 158-2). . . . "The court authorizes Plaintiff to select the Settlement Administrator, which shall be Optime Administration, LLC located in Brockton, MA, if available and able to provide claims administration services in this action. . . . "For the above-stated reasons, Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement (Dkt. No. 157) is granted insofar as Plaintiff seeks an order preliminarily approving the settlement of this class action as reflected in the parties' December 22, 2021, and December 23, 2021, emails and enforced by this court. . . ." Mongue v. The Wheatleigh Corporation, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 02-377-23) (28 pages) (Robertson, U.S.M.J.) (Civil No. 3:18-cv-30095-KAR) (Aug. 23, 2023). [GN] WHITE CASTLE: Must Face BIPA Class Action, Court Rules ------------------------------------------------------ Wisconsin Law Journal reports that that the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling in the case styled Latrina Cothron v. White Castle System, Inc. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Case Name: Latrina Cothron v. White Castle System, Inc. Case No.: 20-3202 Officials: Sykes, Chief Judge, and Easterbrook and Brennan, Circuit Judges. Focus: Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act-Class Action Cothron is a manager at a White Castle restaurant in Illinois, where she's required to use her fingerprint for access to the restaurant's computer system. Following each fingerprint scan, her biometric data is collected and sent to a third-party vendor for verification purposes. Cothron alleges that White Castle neglected to obtain her written consent prior to implementing this fingerprint scanning system, consequently violating the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, specifically 740 ILCS 14/1. In response, she initiated a proposed class-action lawsuit, seeking to represent all Illinois-based White Castle employees affected by the situation. White Castle contended that a claim would have arisen under the Act the moment Cothron first utilized her fingerprint for the system after the law's enactment in 2008. This viewpoint rendered her lawsuit untimely. Cothron, on the other hand, argued that each unauthorized fingerprint scan represented a distinct violation of the statute, leading to a fresh claim with each scan. The district judge dismissed White Castle's assertion of a "one time only" occurrence but opted to allow an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. 1292(b). The Seventh Circuit Court then posed the question to the Illinois Supreme Court, seeking clarification: Should claims under sections 15(b) and 15(d) be considered as accruing each time a private entity scans an individual's biometric identifier and transmits such data to a third party, respectively, or should they only be deemed to accrue upon the initial scan and transmission? Affirmed. Decided 08/23/23 [GN] ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2023. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***