/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230918.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, September 18, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 187 Headlines 2U INC: Favell False Advertising Suit Ongoing in California Court 48 ROCKEFELLER: Grande Suit Stayed Pending Outcome of Mediation A1 ABSOLUTE: Loses Bid to Nix Davis Suit for Failure to State Claim ALLIED WASTE: Bid for More Time to Meet & Confer Granted in Part ALPHABET INC: Seeks Leave to File Supplemental Memo in Class Suit AMAZON.COM INC: Abbott Sues Over Refund and Exchange Policy AMERICAN HONDA: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to Feb. 1, 2024 AMERICAN HONDA: Filing of Class Cert Declaration Extended in Cadena AMPLIFY ENERGY: Court OK's Settlement Deal Over Oil Spill Incident APPLE INC: Faces Bodenburg Class Suit Over Cloud Storage Capacity ARBY'S RESTAURANT: Alongis Sues Over Misleading Menu Items ARCTIC GLACIER: Settles Securities Class Suit for $13.75M ASCENDANT CAPITAL: Ma Class Suit Stayed ATC HEALTHCARE: Court Narrows Claims in Whitfield Suit AVANT HEALTHCARE: Byron Files Labor Class Action in Fla. AVAYA HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Fletcher Securities Class Suit AVEN FINANCIAL: Brock Sues Over Unauthorized Personal Info Access B&B TRANSPORT: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Extended to June 28, 2024 BAI WEI: Huang Suit Seeks Conditional Collective Certification BANK OF AMERICA: Allegedly Opens Unauthorized Accounts, Suit Says BANK OF AMERICA: Conaway Sues Over Unauthorized Account Application BIG PICTURE: Galloway Consent Bid for Extension of Time OK'd BOTSWANA: Must Face Class Action Over Soldiers' Pension Funds BRANDON ADAM: Fails to Pay OT, Spread-of-Hours Wages Under FLSA BROOKS PUBLIC: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Walker Alleges BURGER KING: Faces Class Suit Over Burger Sizes' False Ads CASE WESTERN: Lozada Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Feb. 23, 2024 CEDAR REALTY: Consolidated Shareholder Suit Dismissed CEDAR REALTY: Krasner Shareholder Suit Over Merger Ongoing CHRISTIAN PRINSLOO: Faces Class Action Over Stolen Guns CLASSPASS INC: Settles Class Suit for $1.89M Over Concierge App CLEAN HARBORS: Velasquez Labor Suit Removed to E.D. California CLEARSTAR INC: Byam-Hunte Must File Class Cert Bid by Oct. 30 CMG MEDIA: Court Enters Scheduling Order in Hawkins Class Suit CO-DIAGNOSTICS INC: GTL Class Certification Bid Partly OK'd COINBASE INC: Court Dismisses Class Suit Over Uniswap COLGATE-PALMOLIVE CO: Class Cert Bids in Dorsey Due Sept. 26 COLGATE-PALMOLIVE CO: Class Cert Bids in Patora Due Sept. 26 CORTEVA INC: Loses Bid to Dismiss Cockerill's 2nd Amended Complaint COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA: Sued Over Patients' Private Info Disclosure CREDIT UNION: Seeks More Time to Oppose Class Certification Bid DAN LIU: Bid to Exclude Expert Reports Denied as Moot DAVID BUNT: Cobb Suit Seek Rule 23 Class Certification DAVID ESQUIVEL: Jones' Class Cert Bid Referred to Magistrate Judge DELTA AIRLINES: Settles COVID Cancellation Class Action Lawsuit DELTA STAR: Wilson Must File Class Cert Reply by Oct. 27 DOLEX DOLLAR: Continuance of Class Certification Deadlines Sought DYCK-O'NEAL INC: Hernandez Files FCRA Suit in E.D. Virginia E. GLUCK CORPORATION: Castro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York EAGLE NATIONAL: Court Certifies Class Suit Over RESPA Kickback EBY LLC: Wright TCPA Suit Transferred to M.D. Pennsylvania EDWARD JONES: Court Amends Scheduling Order in Anderson Suit ELASTOS FOUNDATION: Bid to Deny Class Certification Tossed as Moot ELLIS HOSPITAL: Patient Care Worker Class Conditionally Certified EMBRY-RIDDLE AERONAUTICAL: Lopez Files Bid for Class Certification ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Faces Antitrust Charges Over Generic Meds EVERBRIDGE INC: Sylebra Shareholder Suit Ongoing in California EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Ct. Sets Scheduling Conference in White Suit EXXON MOBIL: Ramirez Wins Class Certification Bid F21 OPCO LLC: Ishaq Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII & PHI FACEBOOK INC: Class Action Over "Microtargeting" Can Proceed FAIR COLLECTIONS: Dhadwal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York FIELD ASSET: Valdez Suit Remanded to San Diego Superior Court FITNESS OUTLET: Castro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York FLORIDA HEALTH: Morgan Suit Removed to M.D. Florida FLORIDA HEALTH: Suit Removed to M.D. Florida FLOWERS FOODS: Partial Bid to Junk Salgado FAC Tossed FORD MOTOR: Collier Sues Over Vehicles' Mounting Bolt Defect FORT BELVOIR: Court Tosses Bid to Dismiss Fischer Suit FUNKO INC: Court Appoints Pension Trust as Lead Plaintiff in Studen GAMESTOP INC: Cook Appeals Case Dismissal to 3rd Cir. GENERAC HOLDINGS: Baltimore Product Suit Consolidated GENERAC HOLDINGS: Basler Product Suit Consolidated GENERAC HOLDINGS: Consolidated Shareholder Suit Ongoing GENERAC HOLDINGS: Haak Warranty Suit Ongoing in Florida Court GENERAC HOLDINGS: Hufton Product Suit Consolidated GENERAC HOLDINGS: Kates Product Suit Consolidated GENERAC HOLDINGS: Locatell Product Suit Consolidated GENERAC HOLDINGS: Moon Product Suit Consolidated GENERAL ATLANTIC: Faces Franchi Suit Over Stockholders' Agreement GENWORTH LIFE: Behrens Sues Over Disclosure of Private Information GIFTROCKET INC: Must File Class Cert Denial Bid by Sept. 22 GOLDMAN SACHS: Class Cert Evidentiary Hearing Set for Dec. 13 GOLDMAN SACHS: Court Decertifies Investors Class Action Suit GOLDMAN SACHS: Court Terminates Bid to Certify Class w/o Prejudice GOLDMAN SACHS: Plaut Must File Renewed Class Cert Bid by Sept. 29 GOOGLE LLC: Court Dismisses Class Suit Over Healthcare Data Privacy GROUP 1001: Faces Weigan et al. Suit Over Alleged Data Breach GSK CONSUMER: Faces Emergen-C False Advertising Class Action HARD ROCK: Carpenter Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Class HARD ROCK: Lassoff Sues Over Unlawful Promotional Schemes HARTFORD LIFE: Fails to Safeguard Clients' Info, Washington Alleges HELBIZ INC: Court Allows Investor Class Action Suit to Proceed HOME DEPOT: Collins Suit Seeks Certification of Class Claims HOME DEPOT: Must Respond to Collins Class Cert. Bid by Sept. 20 HOWARD MEMORIAL: Jones Seeks to Modify Scheduling Order HV GLOBAL: Ramirez Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses HYUNDAI MOTOR: Bright Sues Over Defective Charging Couplings IDEXX DISTRIBUTION: Has Until Oct. 16 to Reply to Dula Complaint INFINITY PHARMACEUTICALS: Dilbarian Sues Over Inflated Share Price INSURANCE AUSTRALIA: Slater and Gordon Mulls Class Action INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Faces Suit Over Data Breach Exposure INVERNESS COUNTY, OR: Court Tosses Bid for Appointment of Counsel IOVATE HEALTH: Schoonover Bid to Certify Class Partly OK'd J. CREW GROUP: Champagne Sues Over Consumer Privacy Law Violations JAN-PRO FRANCHISING: Court Vacates Hearing in Roman Suit JASON WEIDA: Chianne Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses JIM JUSTICE: Plaintiffs' Class Status Bid Partly OK'd KALAVERAS SL INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Garcia Alleges KEURIG GREEN: Valenzuela Asked to Demonstrate Article III Standing KIMBERLY CLARK: High Court Certifies Flushable Wipes' Class Suit KIRKLAND'S INC: Continues to Defend Gennock Class Suit KIRKLAND'S INC: Continues to Defend Miles Class Suit in California KIRKLAND'S INC: Continues to Defend Sicard Class Suit in S.D.N.Y. KNIX WEAR: Faces Spencer Class Suit Over Underwear False Ads KTA INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Dobbs Suit Alleges LABORATORY CORP: Howard Suit Transferred to M.D. North Carolina LELY NORTH: Class Settlement in Kruger Suit Wins Final Approval LELY NORTH: Court Refuses to Increase Kruger's Class Rep. Award MARATHON DIGITAL: Faces Shareholder Suit Over SEC Reports MARATHON PETROLEUM: Faces Suit Over Refinery Fire in Louisiana MAXLINEAR INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Oct. 30 MCGRATH RENTCORP: Class Settlement in Grogan Suit Wins Prelim. OK MEMORIAL HEART: Allen Sues Over Alleged Data Breach MERIDIAN SENIOR: Loses Bid to Move Bradenberg Suit to S.D. Illinois META PLATFORMS: Court Certifies Beaulieu Discrimination Class Suit MINDGEEK USA: Suit Seeks Leave to File Documents Under Seal MINDGEEK USA: Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses MISSISSIPPI BEHAVIORAL: Class Cert Discovery Deadline Due Nov. 17 MONSANTO CO: Roundup Class Action Hearing Begins in Melbourne Court MULTIMATIC TENNESSEE: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Taylor Says NAPCO SECURITY: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in NY NATIONAL ENTERPRISE: Brinkley FDCPA Suit Removed to M.D. Florida NESTLE USA: Bid to Continue Case Schedule Deadlines Tossed NEW JERSEY BEST: Bautista Sues Over Laborers' Unpaid Wages NEW SOUTH WALES: Faces Class Suit Over Varroa Mite Eradication NEW YORK, NY: Two Protesters with Ga. Ties Included in Settlement NINE ENERGY: Fails to Pay Junior Operators' OT Wages Under FLSA NUTRICOST: Cohen Sues Over Mislabeled Magnesium Dietary Supplements ONEOK FIELD: Settles Dinsmore Oil Revenue Suit for $850,000 ORLANDO, FL: Benitez Suit Seeks OT Wages for District Chiefs PATRICIAS MORRIS: Torres Seeks Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA PLAN BENEFIT: Appellate Court Certifies Employees Mega-Class Suit PROCTER & GAMBLE: Jonathan Jagher Named Settlement Class Counsel PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Casey Sues Over Disclosure of Private Info PROTERRA INC: Faces Tirado Suit Over Alleged Stock Price Scheme QANTAS AIRWAYS: ACCC Sues for Selling Tickets on Cancelled Flights QANTAS AIRWAYS: Class Suit Seeks Refunds for 2020 Cancelled Flights REALPAGE INC: Haynes Sues Over Rental Housing Market Price-fixing RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CA: Faces Goff Suit Over Underpayment of OT Wages ROBLOX CORP: Exposes Children to Illegal Gambling, Colvin Claims SA HOSPITAL: Flowers Sues Over Mass Layoff Without Prior Notice SIGNET BUILDERS: Vanegas Stayed Pending Interlocutory Appeal Ruling SPIRIT AIRLINES: Denies Flight Attendants' Benefits, Warwas Claims STATE FARM: Denies Burglary Theft Claims, Class Suit Says STATE FARM: Fails to Pay Sales Taxes, Title Transfer Fees TALCOTT RESOLUTION: Fails to Protect Customer’s Info, Guitang Says TARGET CORP: Faces Class Action Over "Target Clean" Product Labels TESLA INC: Faces Suit Over Unlimited Free Supercharging Claims TSG INTERACTIVE: Tucker Seeks Damages Over Data Breach UNITED STATES: Pregnant Employees Discrimination Suit Recertified UNIVERSAL STUDIOS: Class Suit Over Trailer's False Ads Explored UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA: Dittberner Files Suit Over Data Breach VEGGIE GRILL: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages, Zavalza Suit Alleges VESYNC CORP: Faces Chen Suit Over Mislabeled Air Purifiers VROOM INC: Holbrook Shareholder Suit Consolidated VROOM INC: Hudda Shareholder Suit Consolidated VROOM INC: Zawatsky Shareholder Suit Consolidated WALGREEN EASTERN: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due March 1, 2024 WALT DISNEY: Disneyland Magic Key Holders Await Settlement Details WELLS FARGO: Easton Loses Class Certification Bid WESTERN DIGITIAL: Bax Sues Over Defective Solid-State Drives WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION: Salas Files Suit in C.D. California WILLIAMS & ASSOCIATES: Class Settlement in Alfonso Gets Initial Nod [*] Settlement Claims Submission Deadline in Fraud Suits Scheduled ********* 2U INC: Favell False Advertising Suit Ongoing in California Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- 2U, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2023, that a consumer class action suit captioned "Favell, et al. v. University of Southern California and 2U, Inc.," filed on December 20, 2022 is still ongoing. Plaintiffs Iola Favell, Sue Zarnowski, and Mariah Cummings filed a putative class action in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, against the University of Southern California and the Company on behalf of "all students who were enrolled in an online graduate degree program at USC Rossier, from April 1, 2009 through April 27, 2022." They purported to allege violations of California's False Advertising Law (FAL), Cal. Civ. Code Sec. 17500, California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Cal. Civ. Code Section 17200, California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), Cal. Civ. Code Sec. 1770, as well as for unjust enrichment related to the use of USC Rossier's rankings in certain marketing materials. On February 3, 2023, the company removed the case to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Then, on March 8, 2023, the company filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing, among other things, that all of plaintiffs' allegations lacked merit and that certain claims for relief could not be brought in federal court in light of other allegations Plaintiffs had made. On March 28, 2023, before the court could rule on that motion, plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint, dropping the challenged claims for relief and instead asserting only a single cause of action under the CLRA. It was based on the same factual allegations as the original complaint but seeks declaratory relief, actual damages, incidental damages, consequential damages, compensatory damages, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees and costs in connection with their CLRA claim. On March 28, 2023, Plaintiffs also filed a separate class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, reasserting the FAL, UCL, and CLRA claims they dropped from the federal lawsuit. The state court lawsuit is based on the same factual allegations as the federal lawsuit. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief, restitution, and attorneys' fees and costs in connection with the claims in state court. On April 17, 2023, the company moved to dismiss the First Amended Complaint in its entirety, arguing that all of plaintiffs' claims lack merit. On May 4, 2023, the company removed the lawsuit from state court to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, and plaintiffs later filed a motion to remand it back to state court. On July 6, 2023, the court held a hearing on the company's motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint and the plaintiffs' motion to remand and issued a ruling granting the company's motion to dismiss with leave to amend and denying plaintiffs' motion to remand. On July 28, 2023, plaintiffs filed amended complaints, adding an additional plaintiff and more detailed allegations but otherwise reasserting the same claims in each case. 2U, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, is an online education platform that provides access to education in partnership with 250 top-ranked global universities and other leading organizations by offering online learning opportunities, including open courses, executive education offerings, boot camps, micro-credentials, professional certificates as well as undergraduate and graduate degree programs. 48 ROCKEFELLER: Grande Suit Stayed Pending Outcome of Mediation --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Grande v. 48 Rockefeller Corp., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-01593-PGG-JLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Paul G. Gardephe entered an order staying the Grande case pending the outcome of the scheduled mediation. -- By September 20, 2023, the parties will file a joint letter informing the Court whether the mediation was successful. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 22, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3syU3Rx at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1180 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com A1 ABSOLUTE: Loses Bid to Nix Davis Suit for Failure to State Claim ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAVELLE DAVIS, JEANETTE SMITH, & LYNETTE OLIVER, v. A1 ABSOLUTE BEST CARE, LLC & COLLETTE BRANCH, Case No. 1:23-cv-00516-CFC (E.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Jay C. Zainey entered an order denying the Defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Furthermore, the Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs lacked proper giving proper notice of the two additional Plaintiffs. The Court finds no merit to this argument. The Court has previously held oral argument regarding the potential formation of a class of these two potential claimants. Also, the Defendants admit that they had proper notice in the conclusion of their motion. The Court notes that at this stage in the litigation process that it does not have an opinion on the merits of the Plaintiffs' claims beyond the 12(b)(6) analysis. However, in view of the Plaintiffs' complaint in a light most favorable to the Plaintiffs, their claim for relief is at least plausible and the Defendants’ motion is denied, the Court says. The Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit to recover unpaid wages and overtime that they are alleging were not properly documented and possibly deleted from their timesheets. Specifically, the Plaintiffs allege they were deprived of minimum wage and overtime pay to which they were entitled. The Plaintiffs allege that A1 improperly recorded and edited their timesheets to reduce the number of hours they worked. Plaintiffs allege that A1 wanted to avoid paying them for time that A1 would not eventually be reimbursed through Medicaid and therefore altered their timesheet. A1 is a company founded to provide companionship services to Medicaid recipients who participate in the New Opportunities Waivers ("NOW") program. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 22, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45WDAFe at no extra charge.[CC] ALLIED WASTE: Bid for More Time to Meet & Confer Granted in Part ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as QIHAI CHEN; DUALTONE AUTOMOTIVE, INC., on behalf of themselves and a class of all others similarly situated, v. ALLIED WASTE SYSTEMS, INC., et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-00099-JO-WVG (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William V. Gallo entered an order granting in part and denying in part joint motion requesting additional time to meet and confer. On August 21, 2023, the Plaintiffs Qihai Chen and Dualtone Automotive, Inc. and Defendant Allied Waste Systems, Inc. filed their second Joint Motion Requesting Additional Time to Meet and Confer regarding potential discovery disputes. Accordingly, the parties shall contact the Court, in accordance with Section IV of U.S Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo’s Civil Chambers Rules, with their remaining discovery disputes, if any, no later than September 8, 2023. The parties are cautioned that further extensions of time are unlikely to be granted. The parties also request in their Joint Motion to extend the Scheduling Order deadlines for class certification, fact discovery, and expert designations by 30-45 days. Allied Waste offers collection and disposal of refuse systems. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 22, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3EsB9hW at no extra charge.[CC] ALPHABET INC: Seeks Leave to File Supplemental Memo in Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re ALPHABET, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 3:18-cv-06245-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Defendants file an administrative motion seeking leave to file supplemental memorandum on recent decision. The Defendants move the Court pursuant to Civil Local Rules 7-11 and 7-3 for leave to file a memorandum on the recent decision Arkansas Teacher Retirement System v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., Case. 2023 WL 5112157 (2d Cir. Aug. 10, 2023) and its implications for the Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class. Alphabet is an American multinational technology conglomerate holding company headquartered in Mountain View, California. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Aug. 23, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Pxjfkn at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Boris Feldman, Esq. Doru Gavril, Esq. Elise Lopez, Esq. Jon Fougner, Esq. Olivia Rosen, Esq. FRESHFIELDS BRUCKHAUS DERINGER US LLP 855 Main Street Redwood City, CA 94063 Telephone: (650) 618-9250 E-mail: boris.feldman@freshfields.com doru.gavril@freshfields.com elise.lopez@freshfields.com jon.fougner@freshfields.com olivia.rosen@freshfields.com - and - Mary Mcnamara, Esq. Edward Swanson, Esq. Britt Evangelist, Esq. Carly Bittman, Esq. SWANSON & McNAMARA LLP 300 Montgomery Street, Suite 1100 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 477-3800 E-mail: mary@smllp.law ed@smllp.law britt@smllp.law carly@smllp.law - and - Ignacio E. Salceda, Esq. Benjamin M. Crosson, Esq. Stephen B. Strain, Esq. WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C. 650 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050 Telephone: (650) 493-9300 Facsimile: (650) 565-5100 E-mail: isalceda@wsgr.com bcrosson@wsgr.com sstrain@wsgr.com AMAZON.COM INC: Abbott Sues Over Refund and Exchange Policy ----------------------------------------------------------- LAURA ABBOTT; SIMA HERNANDEZ; MELISSA URBANCIC; and JILL CAPPEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AMAZON.COM, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-01372 (W.D. Wash., Sept. 5, 2023) is an action against the Defendant for charging consumers for returned items in violation of its own refund and exchange policies' terms. According to the complaint, Amazon's Returns Policies promise that a customer can return most items sold or fulfilled by Amazon within 30 days for a full refund. However, Amazon routinely fails to deliver on its promise of free, no hassle returns and instead re-charges customers who have returned items within the return window, despite Amazon's own records establishing that it has received such items. This practice both breaches its contract with its customers and is unfair and deceptive, causing those who take notice of the re-charges frustration and hours of lost time in dealing with Amazon customer service representatives to reverse these improper charges. Worse, these practices result in substantial unjustified monetary losses by those who either do not notice these re-charges, are deterred by the inconvenience of having to figure out what happened and how to fix it, or are unable to convince Amazon to fulfill the terms of its agreed Returns Policies, says the suit. AMAZON INC. offers online shopping services. The Company retails products such as television, computers, shoes, jewellery, books, toys, video games, grocery, clothing, and other products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew Hosen, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 1109 First Avenue, Suite 210 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 905-7075 Facsimile: (206) 905-7100 Email: aliciacobb@quinnemanuel.com matthosen@quinnemanuel.com - and - Andrew H. Schapiro, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 191 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 2700 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 705-7400 Facsimile: (312) 705-7401 Email: andrewschapiro@quinnemanuel.com - and - Aaron M. Zigler, Esq. ZIGLER LAW GROUP, LLC 308 S. Jefferson Street | Suite 333 Chicago, IL 60661 Telephone: (312) 673-8427 Email: aaron@ziglerlawgroup.com AMERICAN HONDA: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to Feb. 1, 2024 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as WINNIE CLARK, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., and HONDA MOTOR COMPANY LTD., a Japanese corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-03147-AB-MRW (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Andre Birotte Jr. entered an order granting joint stipulation to continue litigation deadlines: Event Current New Deadline Deadline Deadline to complete Sept. 16, 2023 Sept. 16, 2023 settlement conference Close of fact discovery Sept. 14, 2023 Dec. 20, 2023 Motion for class Nov. 1, 2023 Feb. 1, 2024 certification, and supporting expert reports Opposition to motion for Feb. 1, 2024 May 1, 2024 class certification and supporting expert reports Close of expert discovery Apr. 1, 2024 July 1, 2024 Reply brief re: motion for May 1, 2024 Aug. 1, 2024 class certification and rebuttal expert reports Hearing on class June 1, 2024 Aug. 30, 2024 certification motion American Honda develops and manufactures automobiles. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 22, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44KYO82 at no extra charge.[CC] AMERICAN HONDA: Filing of Class Cert Declaration Extended in Cadena ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KATHLEEN A. CADENA, et al., v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, INC., et al. Case No. 2:18-cv-04007-MWF-MAA (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald entered an order extending deadline for the Defendant to file declaration Required by local rule 79-5.2.2(b) re: plaintiffs' motion for class certification and exhibits. American Honda is the North American subsidiary of the Honda Motor Company. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 21, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3EqfrLF at no extra charge.[CC] AMPLIFY ENERGY: Court OK's Settlement Deal Over Oil Spill Incident ------------------------------------------------------------------ Amplify Energy Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2023, that on August 25, 2022, the company reached an agreement in principle with plaintiffs in a putative class action pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California to resolve all civil claims against the company and its subsidiaries related to the Orange County oil spill occurred on 2 October 2021, off the coast of Huntington Beach in Southern California where a pipeline operated by Amplify leaked an estimated 25,000 gallons of crude oil into the ocean, causing significant environmental damage and affecting local marine wildlife. The settlement amount is $50.0 million and was preliminarily approved by the court on December 7, 2022 and granted final approval on April 24, 2023. The company, Beta Operating Company, LLC, and San Pedro Bay Pipeline Company were named as defendants in said class action in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint on January 28, 2022 and an amended complaint on March 21, 2022. Plaintiffs asserted claims against the company, Beta Operating Company, LLC, San Pedro Bay Pipeline Company, MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company, Dordellas Finance Corp., the MSC Danit (proceeding in rem), Costamare Shipping Co. S.A., Capetanissa Maritime Corporation of Liberia, V.Ships Greece Ltd., and the COSCO Beijing (proceeding in rem). The company filed a third-party complaint on February 28, 2022, an amended complaint on June 21, 2022, and second amended complaint on October 5, 2022. Amplify Energy Corp. is engaged in the acquisition, development, exploitation and production of oil and natural gas properties located in Oklahoma, the Rockies, federal waters offshore Southern California, East Texas/North Louisiana and the Eagle Ford. Its properties consist primarily of operated and non-operated working interests in producing and undeveloped leasehold acreage and working interests in identified producing wells. APPLE INC: Faces Bodenburg Class Suit Over Cloud Storage Capacity ----------------------------------------------------------------- Abraham Jewett of Top Class Actions reports that Apple failed to deliver the cloud storage capacity promised to consumers who made monthly iCloud subscription payments, a new class action lawsuit alleges. Plaintiff Lisa Bodenburg claims Apple delivers 5GB less cloud storage than what is originally promised to iCloud+ subscribers since it allegedly deducts from the amount 5GB of free storage automatically given to all Apple device owners. Bodenburg argues Apple iCloud subscribers were under the impression they were purchasing memory storage -- sold in 50GB, 200GB or 2TB -- that would be in addition to the original 5GB of free storage, rather than including it. "In this way, Apple shortchanged all putative class members 5 GB of storage every month of their paid subscriptions," the Apple class action states. Bodenburg wants to represent a nationwide class of consumers who paid for an Apple iCloud subscription from Sept. 1, 2019, or Sept. 1, 2020, depending on the claims. Apple breached contractual promise with iCloud+ subscribers, class action says Bodenburg argues Apple breached its contractual promise with its iCloud+ subscribers by allegedly not delivering on what it had promised and advertised to them. "Plaintiff, who like all putative class members paid Apple for an iCloud storage subscription for which Apple failed to deliver the promised storage capacity," the Apple class action states. Bodenburg claims Apple is guilty of breach of contract and of violating California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law and Consumers Legal Remedies Act. In another case involving Apple, a group of consumers who filed a class action lawsuit against Apple in 2014 asked a federal judge in California to grant them class certification last year for claims they were deceived by Apple about the personal storage capacity of its older devices. The plaintiff is represented by Roy A. Katriel of The Katriel Law Firm PC, and Ralph B. Kalfayan and Ian D. Krupar of The Kalfayan Law Firm APC. The Apple cloud storage class action lawsuit is Bodenburg v. Apple Inc., Case No. 5:23-cv-04409, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. [GN] ARBY'S RESTAURANT: Alongis Sues Over Misleading Menu Items ---------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH ALONGIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ARBY'S RESTAURANT GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-06593 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 5, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for unfair and deceptive trade practices for selling the Overstated Menu Items based on materially false and misleading advertisements concerning the amount and quality of meat contained therein. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff purchased an Arby's Classic Roast Beef, Double Roast Beef, Half Pound Roast Beef, Classic Beef 'N Cheddar, Double Beef 'N Cheddar, Half Pound Beef 'N Cheddar, and/or Smokehouse Brisket menu item (the "Overstated Menu Items"), from an Arby's located in New York during the period September 5, 2020, through the date of the final disposition of this action. Arby's uses photographs in its advertisements that make it appear that the Overstated Menu Items contain approximately 100 percent more meat than what the actual sandwiches that customers receive contain. Arby's does this by placing all of the meat in a sandwich used for a photoshoot to the front of the sandwich and positioning the meat with props so that it appears much larger in size than the actual sandwich provided to customers. The Defendant deceptively misrepresents the quality of the roast beef in its advertisements for the Overstated Menu Items in that it shows the meat as rare roast beef in its advertisements when the roast beef regularly served to customers is not rare roast beef, the suit alleges. Arby's Restaurant Group, Inc. owns and operates a chain of fast food restaurants. The Company offers sandwiches, burgers, salads, drinks, and desserts, sliders, chocolate milk, and fries. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James C. Kelly, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF JAMES C. KELLY 244 5th Avenue, Suite K-278 New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 920-5042 Email: jkelly@jckellylaw.com - and - Anthony J. Russo, Jr., Esq. ANTHONY J. RUSSO, JR., P.A. D/B/A THE RUSSO FIRM 301 West Atlantic Avenue, Suite 0-2 Delray Beach, FL 33444 Telephone: (844) 847-8300 Email: anthony@therussofirm.com ARCTIC GLACIER: Settles Securities Class Suit for $13.75M --------------------------------------------------------- Stikeman Elliott reports that Arctic Glacier Income Fund has announced settlement of the securities class action filed against it in Canada for alleged misrepresentations relating to the sale of publicly traded securities in both the primary and secondary market. In its press release issued on February 8, 2012, the Fund announced, "The settlement of $13.75 million will be entirely funded by Artic Glacier's insurers, without the Fund admitting liability or making any monetary contribution." The case was the second of only two cases thus far to have been granted leave to commence an action pursuant to Part XXIII.1 of the Ontario Securities Act (OSA) which provides for a statutory cause of action for secondary market investors. The settlement, which remains subject to court approval, comes on the heels of a decision by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice which granted the defendants leave to appeal the order certifying the action as a class proceeding but which denied the defendants' motion for leave to appeal the order granting leave to proceed under the OSA. DISCLAIMER: This publication is intended to convey general information about legal issues and developments as of the indicated date. It does not constitute legal advice and must not be treated or relied on as such. Please read our full disclaimer at www.stikeman.com/legal-notice. [GN] ASCENDANT CAPITAL: Ma Class Suit Stayed --------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KINNIE MA INDIVIDUAL RETIREMENT ACCOUNT, DEAN CROOKS, JEFFERY S. GRAMM INDIVIDUAL RETIREMENT ACCOUNT, STACY GREASOR INDIVIDUAL RETIREMENT ACCOUNT, CORRI RENE EDEN, CATHERINE KOMINOS, KAREN LOCH, VICTOR WADE INDIVIDUAL RETIREMENT ACCOUNT, ROBERT A. STONE LIVING TRUST, DATED JANUARY 9, 1992, AS AMENDED MAY 24, 2005, SHIRLEY STONE LIVING TRUST, DATED JANUARY 9, 1992, AS AMENDED MAY 24, 2005, KAZUE M. BELL, LORETTA DEHAY, and THE STANLEY S. AND MILLICENT R. BARASCH LIVING TRUST, v. ASCENDANT CAPITAL, LLC, ET AL., Case No. 1:19-cv-01050-RP (W.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Susan Hightower entered an order that the action is stayed and all pending deadlines are vacated. -- The Motion by Defendants Jeffry Schneider, David Gentile, Ascendant Capital, LLC, Ascendant Alternative Strategies, LLC, and DJ Partners LLC to Stay Proceedings Pending Resolution of Related Criminal Case is granted. -- The parties are ordered to file an agreed joint status report every three months updating the Court on the status of Gentile and Schneider's criminal case. -- The first status report to the District Court must be filed on or before November 21, 2023. -- The Court further entered an order that the Clerk remove the case from this Magistrate Judge Hightower's docket and return it to the docket of the Honorable Robert Pitman. -- The Plaintiffs Kinnie Ma IRA, Dean Crooks, Jeffery S. Gramm IRA, Stacy Greasor IRA, Corri Rene Eden, Catherine Kominos, Karen Loch, Robert A. Stone Living Trust, Shirley Stone Living Trust, Victor Wade IRA, Kazue M. Bell, The Stanley S. and Millicent R. Barasch Living Trust, and Loretta DeHay allege that they are victims of a $1.8 billion Ponzi scheme. Plaintiffs are investors who purchased limited partnership interests in individual funds sponsored and managed by GPB Capital Holdings, LLC. Consolidated Class Action Complaint. The Plaintiffs allege that they were promised dividends of 8% or more from the funds' operating profits, but were paid instead from their own invested capital. The Court orders that this case remain stayed until Gentile and Schneider either are sentenced or acquitted or the charges against them are dismissed. Ascendant is a private investment & advisory services firm focused on the residential whole loan mortgage market. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 21, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45UflaG at no extra charge.[CC] ATC HEALTHCARE: Court Narrows Claims in Whitfield Suit ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as PATRICE WHITFIELD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ATC HEALTHCARE SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-05005-JMA-LGD (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Joan M. Azrack entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's motion for dismissal of Whitfield's Complaint for lack of subject matter pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) and for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6)of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, the Defendant's motion to strike is denied without prejudice to reassertion, if appropriate, at the class certification stage. The Plaintiff's negligence per se is dismissed with prejudice, but her remaining claims shall be litigated before the Court. The Court finds that Plaintiff has sufficiently pled facts to support her claims for: (1) negligence; (2) breach of an implied contract; (3) unjust enrichment; (4) declaratory and injunctive relief; and (5) violation of BIPA. At this early, pre-discovery stage, it is not clear whether or to what extent Plaintiff's Rule 23 class or subclass could be certified. The Plaintiff is an Illinois citizen who was employed by Defendant from October 2015 through August 2019. The Defendant is a Georgia-based limited liability healthcare staffing company with its principal place of business in Lake Success, New York. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 22, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3EqUvUz at no extra charge.[CC] AVANT HEALTHCARE: Byron Files Labor Class Action in Fla. --------------------------------------------------------- LUCINDA BYRON and LATOYA LEWIS, on behalf of themselves, those similarly situated, and the Proposed Rule 23 Class, Plaintiffs v. AVANT HEALTHCARE PROFESSIONALS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 6:23-cv-01645 (M.D. Fla., Aug. 28, 2023) seeks relief for Defendant's violations of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, Defendant obtained the labor of Plaintiffs and the Class members through threats of serious harm, through a scheme to make Plaintiffs and members of the Class believe they would suffer serious harm, and through threatened abuse of legal process, including immigration processes and through the terms and administration of its contract with employees. The Plaintiffs and others similarly situated were not paid at least minimum wage for all hours worked in their final week of work because they were required to kick back their wages to Defendant. By requiring Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees to return their wages to Defendant, Defendant failed to pay wages "finally and unconditionally", as required by the FLSA, says the suit. Plaintiffs Lewis and Byron are registered nurses who were formerly employed by Defendant. Plaintiff Lewis is a citizen of Jamaica and a legal permanent resident of the United States while Plaintiff Byron is a citizen of St. Vincent and the Grenadines and also a legal permanent resident of the United States. Avant Healthcare Professionals, LLC is a recruitment and staffing company that hires healthcare workers from other countries to work at various healthcare facilities around the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Janet R. Varnell, Esq. Brian W. Warwick, Esq. Pamela G. Levinson, Esq. Jeffrey Newsome, Esq. VARNELL & WARWICK, P.A. 400 N Ashley Drive, Suite 1900 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (352) 753-8600 E-mail: jvarnell@vandwlaw.com - and - Juno Turner, Esq. David H. Seligman, Esq. Rachel W. Dempsey, Esq. TOWARDS JUSTICE P.O. Box 371689, PMB 44465 Denver, CO 80237-5680 Telephone: (720) 441-2236 E-mail: juno@towardsjustice.org david@towardsjustice.org rachel@towardsjustice.org - and - Anna P. Prakash, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 4700 IDS Center 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 256-3200 Facsimile: (612) 215-6870 E-mail: aprakash@nka.com AVAYA HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Fletcher Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Avaya Holdings Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending July 31,2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 8, 2023, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Fletcher securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. On January 3, 2023, Jeffrey A. Fletcher, et al., filed a putative securities class action complaint (Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-00003) in the United States District Court Middle District of North Carolina, naming Avaya Holdings Corp. and certain of the Company's current and former officers as defendants. The complaint alleged violations of the Exchange Act, based on allegedly false or misleading statements related to the Company's internal control over financial reporting, the effectiveness of our internal controls over our whistleblower policies and ethics and compliance program and our financial condition. The plaintiffs sought awards of compensatory damages, among other relief and their costs and attorneys' and experts' fees. On February 28, 2023, the plaintiff voluntarily filed for dismissal of the action without prejudice, as to all defendants. At this time, the Company is not able to predict the ultimate outcome of this matter, however, an adverse outcome could have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Avaya provides software products for business collaboration and contact center management.[BN] AVEN FINANCIAL: Brock Sues Over Unauthorized Personal Info Access ----------------------------------------------------------------- ANNETTE BROCK and GEORGE SANTOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AVEN FINANCIAL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-04443 (N.D. Cal., Aug. 28, 2023) is a data breach class action arising from Defendant's failure to implement and maintain reasonable security practices to protect consumers' sensitive personal information. On July 17, 2023, an unauthorized third party accessed Defendant's system containing personal information and exfiltrated Plaintiffs' and the Class members' personally identifiable information, including their names, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, dates of birth, and other personal information. The Defendant's "Notice of Data Breach" letter sent to Plaintiffs and other affected customers on July 28, 2023, was misleading and inadequate and did not provide great detail regarding how the Data Breach occurred. Further, the Defendant's letter failed to indicate whether any information accessed and/or exfiltrated by the unauthorized person was recovered, says the suit. The complaint asserts that the Defendant breached its duty by, inter alia, failing to implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices to protect the private information from unauthorized access and storing and retaining Plaintiffs' and Class members' personal information on inadequately protected systems. It also breached that duty by failing to monitor, test and ensure third-parties to which it gave access to customer data had adequate security controls, the suit alleges. Aven Financial, Inc. is a financial company, creditor, or lender that partners with Coastal Community Bank to issue and/or service Visa credit cards, loans, or credit products linked to homeowners' home equity.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Mona Amini, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com mona@kazlg.com B&B TRANSPORT: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Extended to June 28, 2024 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRUCE WILLIAM BALLINGER, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. B & B TRANSPORT, INC.; and DOES 1 thru 50, inclusive, Case No. 1:22-cv-01607-ADA-HBK (E.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their joint stipulation to stay proceedings pending mediation or to continue class certification and related deadlines by 90 days: Class Certification Current Date New Date Class Certification Discovery Feb. 5,2024 June 4, 2024 Deadline Deadline to File Class Feb. 29, 2024 June 28, 2024 Certification Motion Deadline to File Opposition June 29, 2024 Aug. 28, 2024 for Class Certification Deadline to File Reply for May 29, 2024 Sept. 30, 2024 Class Certification Deadline to Advise the Court May 29, 2024 Sept. 30, 2024 of Settlement Hearing Date on Motion for July 11, 2024 Dec. 15, 2024 Class Certification 1. A mediation has been scheduled for March 8, 2024, with Steven Rottman, which was the first date available that the Parties could attend. 2. In order to preserve judicial economy, as well as to prevent any unnecessary discovery and litigation costs to Plaintiff and Defendant, all proceedings, including but not limited to written discovery, depositions, and all motions, including the class certification hearing set on July 11, 2024, at 1:00 p.m. in Courthouse 6 in front of the Honorable Helena M. Barch-Kuchta, and all deadlines related to such hearing shall be stayed pending the mediation scheduled on March 8, 2024. 3. If this mediation is cancelled or delayed, the current deadlines will be reset by the court by order to avoid prejudice to any party. 4. Nothing in this order is intended to limit or waive any defenses the Defendant may have or assert to any of the claims alleged by Plaintiff, nor limit or waive any rights the parties may have. B&B is an active carrier in Fresno, California. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Aug. 22, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/485Ee50 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric B. Kingsley, Esq. Liane Katzenstein Ly, Esq. Jessica Bulaon, Esq. KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC 16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200 Encino, CA 91436 Telephone: (818) 990-8300 Facsimile: (818) 990-2903 E-mail: eric@kingsleykingsley.com liane@kingsleykingsley.com jessi@kingsleykingsley.com - and - Emil Davtyan, Esq. DAVTYAN LAW FIRM, INC. 400 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 700 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818)875-2008 Facsimile: (818)722-3974 E-mail: emil@davtyanlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Katherine Den Bleyker, Esq. John D. Wu, Esq. O'HAGAN MEYER 550 S. Hope St., Ste 2400 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (312) 422-6100 E-mail: KDenBleyker@ohaganmeyer.com JWu@ohaganmeyer.com BAI WEI: Huang Suit Seeks Conditional Collective Certification -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as YE MING HUANG, v. BAI WEI LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-03618-GEKP (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: (1) Directing the Defendants within 14 days of the entry of this Order to produce a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet (.xlsx file) containing, for ALL of Defendant's current and former non- exempt and non-managerial employees employed at any time from September 9, 2019 (three years prior to the filing of the Complaint in this matter) through the date when the Court decides upon this motion (the "Collective"): a. A unique numerical identifier b. Last name; c. First name; d. Nickname(s) (if any); e. Last known address (street address, with apartment number if applicable); f. Last known address (city, state, ZIP code); g. Last known telephone number; h. Last known e-mail address; i. Last known WhatsApp, WeChat ID and/or Facebook usernames; j. Primary language; k. Employment start date; l. Employment end date; and m. Position; (2) Authorizing that notice of the right of Collective members to opt into this matter under Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act be disseminated, in all Primary Languages identified in the Collective List and in English, via first- class U.S. mail, email, text message, website or social media messages, chats, or posts, to all members of the Collective within twenty-one (21) days after receipt of the Collective List; (3) Authorizing an opt-in period of ninety (90) days from the day of dissemination of the Notice (the "Opt-In Period"); (4) Authorizing the Plaintiff to publish the Notice on Plaintiff's Counsel's website, and for Plaintiff's Counsel to establish on its website an electronic Consent Form submission; (5) Authorizing the publication of an abbreviated form of the Notice to social media groups specifically targeting the Chinese-speaking American immigrant worker community; (6) Directing the Defendant to post the Notice in all identified Primary Languages, and in English, in a conspicuous and unobstructed location at Defendant's premises at 1038 Race Street, Philadelphia, PA 19107 likely to be seen by all currently-employed members of the Collective, to remain posted throughout the Opt-In Period; and (7) Directing the publication of an abbreviated form of the Notice, in any identified Primary Language and/or English, at Defendants' expense, by social media and by newspaper should the Collective List be incomplete, or should more than 20) of the direct-mailed notices be returned as undeliverable with no forwarding address. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 22, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3P8kjK5 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tiffany Troy, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 110 Flushing, NY 11355 Telephone: (718) 762-1324 E-mail: troylaw@troypllc.com BANK OF AMERICA: Allegedly Opens Unauthorized Accounts, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- JESSICA STRIPLING AND MIEDO DONQUE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. (BANA), Case No. 1:23-cv-06829 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 1, 2023) alleges that BANA violated Electronic Funds Transfers Act each time that it opened unauthorized accounts, including credit cards, debit cards, checking accounts, and savings accounts, without the consent of the Plaintiffs and Class Members, since such accounts were not requested or applied for by the Plaintiff and Class Members. The Plaintiffs contend that for nearly a decade, Bank of America flouted its duty to its customers and the law by opening accounts that customers did not authorize. On top of this, Bank of America charged customers monthly fees for the maintenance of these "phantom" accounts, enriching itself and causing harm to its customers. On April 6, 2023, Ms. Stripling received a letter from BANA indicating that certain items deposited into a BANA checking account that she did not authorize, have any knowledge of, and had never used, had been returned unpaid. BANA opened unauthorized accounts for the Plaintiffs Stripling and Donque without their consent. They seek to represent themselves and other similarly situated customers who had unauthorized accounts opened in their names without their consent by BANA since January 1, 2012. As a result of this conduct, the Plaintiffs and the Classes seek all relief, including actual damages and compensation for fees associated with the unauthorized accounts, incidental and consequential damages, punitive damages in an amount adequate to deter such conduct in the future, injunctive relief, prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs, says the suit. Ms. Stripling has been a BANA customer for approximately the last 3.5 years. She has maintained a single BANA checking account during that period. The Defendant is engaged in the business of providing retail banking services to consumers.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Hassan Zavareei, Esq. Andrea R. Gold, Esq. Cort Carlson, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 2000 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 1010 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 919-5852 Facsimile: (202) 973-0950 E-mail: agold@tzlegal.com hzavareei@tzlegal.com ccarlson@tzlegal.com BANK OF AMERICA: Conaway Sues Over Unauthorized Account Application ------------------------------------------------------------------- David Conaway, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Bank of America, N.A., Bank of America Corporation, and Does 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-00542 (W.D.N.C., Aug. 29, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants under the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, the Truth in Lending Act, and the Fair Credit Reporting Act seeking redress for Plaintiff and Class Members whose names BoA opened accounts for without their authorization or knowledge. Plaintiff Conaway seeks to represent a class of Bank of America consumers who had accounts opened for them by BoA without their knowledge or authorization from January 1, 2012 through July 31, 2023 and suffered harm as a result. The accounts include banking products such as credit cards, checking and savings accounts with associated debit cards, and other similar banking products, and were opened by BoA to boost new account openings and to generate unlawful fees. As a result, BoA engineered a fee-generating machine that produced profits for the corporation at the significant expense of its Class Members, says the Plaintiff. Because of its systemic practice of opening accounts without Class Members' knowledge or consent, BoA was able to report higher account holder metrics, thereby creating a false sense of business growth and earnings. BoA continued this practice for 10 years, during which it continued to profit off the untold number of fraudulent checking and savings accounts it had assigned to Class Members, the suit asserts. Bank of America, N.A. is an American investment bank and financial services holding company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary W. Jackson Esq. Thomas M. Wilmoth, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JAMES SCOTT FARRIN 555 South Mangum Street Suite 800 Durham, NC 27284 Telephone: (919) 688-4991 E-mail: gjackson@farrin.com twilmoth@farrin.com - and - Lesley E. Weaver, Esq. Anne K. Davis, Esq. Joshua D. Samra, Esq. BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP 1330 Broadway, Suite 630 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 445-4003 Facsimile: (415) 445-4020 E-mail: lweaver@bfalaw.com adavis@bfalaw.com jsamra@bfalaw.com - and - Steve A. Schwartz, Esq. Beena M. McDonald, Esq. CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP One Haverford Center 361 West Lancaster Avenue Haverford, PA 19041 Telephone: (610) 642-8500 Facsimile: (610) 649-3633 E-mail: steveschwartz@chimicles.com bmm@chimicles.com BIG PICTURE: Galloway Consent Bid for Extension of Time OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RENEE GALLOWAY, et al., as individuals and as representatives of the classes, v. BIG PICTURE LOANS, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-00406-REP (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Robert E. Payne entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' consent motion for extension of time. Big Picture is a tribal entity owned direct lender for installment loans. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 22, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3R6fyUd at no extra charge.[CC] BOTSWANA: Must Face Class Action Over Soldiers' Pension Funds ------------------------------------------------------------- Mpho Mokwape, writing for Mmegionline, report that a lawsuit led by former commander of the Botswana Defence Force (BDF) Lieutenant General Gaolathe Galebotswe, several brigadiers, colonels and other retired senior officers has now been ruled as a class action. A class action is a legal proceeding in which one or more plaintiffs bring a lawsuit on behalf of a larger group, known as the class. In 2019 many retired soldiers launched a lawsuit against the BDF's decision to move their Pension Fund to a new pension scheme in terms of the Botswana Public Officers Pension Fund (BPOPF), a decision that they were not pleased with. They accused the government of forced transfer. The defendants in the matter are the Attorney General, the BDF and the Ministry of Defence and Security. On Sept. 5, the parties met before Justice Michael Leburu of the Gaborone High Court for final case management before the matter started and the defendants' attorney Advocate Sidney Pilane requested the judge to explain why he ruled that the lawsuit was a class action. [GN] BRANDON ADAM: Fails to Pay OT, Spread-of-Hours Wages Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- JAIME VILLAVICENCIO, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. BRANDON ADAM SECURITY SERVICES, INC, Case No. 9:23-cv-06567 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 1, 2023) seeks to recover overtime compensation and unpaid spread-of-hours wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, as recently amended by the Wage Theft Prevention Act, and related provisions from Title 12 of New York Codes, Rules and Regulations. From November 2022 until July 28, 2023, the Plaintiff worked 84 hours per week, 12 twelve hours per day, seven days per week. He took a day off every two weeks. He was paid $20 per hour or $1,600.00 per week, the underpayment per week was $400.00. The Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff overtime compensation at rates of one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, the Plaintiff alleges. The Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages as well as applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorney's fees, and costs. The Plaintiff further seeks certification of this action as a collective action under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) on behalf of themselves, individually, and all other similarly situated employees and former employees of the Defendant. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants to work as a security guard. Brandon Adam provide security services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lina Stillman, Esq. STILLMAN LEGAL P.C 42 Broadway, 12th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 203-2417 E-mail: www.StillmanLegalPC.com BROOKS PUBLIC: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Walker Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL WALKER, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, et al. v. BROOKS PUBLIC SAFETY LLC, and BROOKS NETWORK SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 7:23-cv-00568-TTC (W.D. Va., Sept. 1, 2023) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the Virginia Overtime Wage Act. The Plaintiff and those similarly situated often worked over 40 hours a week. Mr. Walker was paid by Brooks Public Safety at the rate of $52,000 per year. He worked, on average, 50 hours per week, with some weeks reaching closer to 60 hours per week but was never paid overtime compensation, the Plaintiff alleges. Despite being paid on a salary basis, the Plaintiff and those similarly situated were non-exempt employees of the Defendant. The Plaintiff and those similarly situated were not employed in any bona fide executive, administrative, or professional capacity, and the Plaintiff and those similarly situated were not salesmen, parts men, or mechanics primarily engaged in selling or servicing automobiles, trucks, or farm implements, the Plaintiff claims. The Plaintiff brings this action as a collective action on behalf of himself and others similarly situated. The Plaintiff asks that if this case is not certified as a collective action that he be permitted to proceed individually with his claims. The lawsuit also seeks to recover liquidated damages, triple damages where available, and other applicable damages brought pursuant to federal and state wage laws. Mr. Walker was employed as an Installer by Brooks Public Safety from December 1, 2022 until June 13, 2023. Brooks installs video, computer, surveillance, light, sound, connectivity, and mounting solutions for police, sheriffs, EMS, and security vehicles.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brittany M. Haddox, Esq. Monica L. Mroz, Esq. L. Leigh Rhoads, Esq. STRELKA EMPLOYMENT LAW 4227 Colonial Avenue Roanoke, VA 24018 Telephone: (540) 283-0802 E-mail: brittany@strelkalaw.com monica@strelkalaw.com leigh@strelkalaw.com - and - Craig J. Curwood, Esq. Zev H. Antell, Esq. BUTLER CURWOOD, PLC 140 Virginia Street, Suite 302 Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 648-4848 E-mail: craig@butlercurwood.com zev@butlercurwood.com BURGER KING: Faces Class Suit Over Burger Sizes' False Ads ---------------------------------------------------------- Sakina Kaukawala of Pinkvilla reports that Burger King is now being sued over the size of their burgers. Customers have been accused of being duped by the fast-food chain by receiving burgers that are substantially smaller than advertised. While Burger King has long been recognized for its slogan "Have it your way," many consumers appear to be dissatisfied with its present method. The Lawsuit The lawsuit, filed by an unhappy customer in Florida, claims that Burger King has engaged in deceptive tactics by purposefully producing burgers that are less than the claimed size. According to the customer, this behavior not only defrauds consumers of what they feel they are paying for, but it also violates consumer protection regulations. Smaller Whopper Burger The plaintiff alleged that the Burger King in dispute, located in Miami, was serving whopper burgers that were far smaller than the size advertised on the menu. According to the lawsuit, the burger size is an important aspect of the value offered to customers, and Burger King has been knowingly misrepresenting the size to increase revenues. Violation of Florida Law Burger King's actions, according to the customer's lawyers, are a clear violation of Florida law, which specifically bans deceptive and unfair acts in consumer transactions. If the charges are found to be true, the fast-food company could face substantial financial ramifications. Burger King's Response Burger King has filed a response to the complaint, denying any wrongdoing and claiming that their burgers are cooked in accordance with standardized procedures and criteria. According to the company, the approximate weight of their burgers before cooking is clearly stated on their menu, and any discrepancies in size are attributable to natural variations that occur throughout the cooking process. However, the plaintiff's attorneys contend that the size differences are systematic and not the consequence of cooking changes. They allege that there is evidence that Burger King purposefully reduces the size of its burgers in order to save money. If this is proven during the lawsuit process, it will most likely strengthen the customer's case. Conclusion This Burger King lawsuit is not the first of its sort in the fast-food business. Several similar cases have been launched in recent years against other big fast-food restaurants, accusing them of deceptive practices concerning the size of their items. These lawsuits underline the need for industry responsibility as consumers become more concerned about the transparency and integrity of the food they consume. [GN] CASE WESTERN: Lozada Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL LOZADA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:20-cv-02336-DAR (N.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order -- Certifying the action as a class action; -- Appointing Plaintiff as class representative; -- Appointing Plaintiff's counsel Leeds Brown Law, P.C., the Sultzer Law Group, P.C., and Goldenberg Schneider, L.P.A., as Class Counsel; -- Authorizing the parties to confer and submit a proposed and agreed-upon notice and publication order to effective notice to class members; and -- Any other relief the Court deems just or necessary. Case Western is a private research university in Cleveland, Ohio. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 23, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PxqybX at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Tompkins, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873-9550 E-mail: mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com - and - Jeffery S. Goldenberg, Esq. GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, L.P.A. 4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490 Cincinnati, OH 45242 Telephone: (513) 345-8291 E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com - and - Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. Jeremy Francis, Esq. THE SULTZER LAW GROUP, P.C. 270 Madison Avenue, Suite 1800 New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 969-7810 E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com francisj@thesultzerlawgroup.com CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Feb. 23, 2024 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MONTESANO v. CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA, Case No. 1:20-cv-01496 (D.D.C., Filed June 8, 2020), the Hon. Judge Dabney L Friedrich entered a scheduling order as follows: -- Fact discovery shall open immediately Jan. 26, 2024 and close on: -- The plaintiffs' motion for class Feb. 23, 2024 certification shall be filed on or before: -- The defendant shall file its opposition March 29, 2024 to class certification on or before: -- The plaintiffs shall file any reply in April 19, 2024 support of class certification on or before: -- Initial expert disclosures shall occur June 5, 2024 on or before: -- Rebuttal expert disclosures shall occur July 5, 2024 on or before: -- Expert discovery shall close on: Aug. 2, 2024 -- The parties shall submit any Aug. 16, 2024 dispositive motions on or before: -- The parties shall submit their Sept. 13, 2024 opposition to any dispositive motions on or before: -- The parties shall file any replies Oct. 11, 2024 in support of their dispositive motions on or before: The nature of suit states Diversity-Breach of Contract. Catholic University is a private Roman Catholic research university in Washington, D.C.[CC] CEDAR REALTY: Consolidated Shareholder Suit Dismissed ----------------------------------------------------- Wheeler Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2023, that on August 1, 2023, the Montgomery County Circuit Court, Maryland, issued a decision and order granting defendants' motions to dismiss, without leave to amend with regards to "In Re: Cedar Realty Trust, Inc. Preferred Shareholder Litigation," Case No. 1:22-cv-1103, in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland against its subsidiary Cedar Realty Trust, Inc. On April 8, 2022, a purported holder of outstanding Cedar preferred stock filed a putative class action complaint against Cedar, Cedar's Board of Directors prior to the Cedar Acquisition and the company entitled "Sydney, et al. v. Cedar Realty Trust, Inc., et al.," (Case No. C-15-CV-22-001527). On May 6, 2022, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. On May 11, 2022, Cedar, former Board of Directors of Cedar and the company removed the Sydney action to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, Case No. 8:22-cv-01142-GLR. On May 16, 2022, the court ordered that a hearing on the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction be held on June 22, 2022. The court consolidated the motion for preliminary injunction. On June 23, 2022, following a hearing, the court issued an order denying the motion for preliminary injunction, holding that the plaintiffs in both cases were unlikely to succeed on the merits and that plaintiffs had not established that they would suffer irreparable harm if the injunction was denied. By order dated July 11, 2022, the court consolidated said case and set an August 24, 2022 deadline for the plaintiffs to file a consolidated amended complaint. Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint on August 24, 2022. The amended complaint alleges on behalf of a putative class of holders of Cedar's preferred stock, among other things, claims for breach of contract against Cedar and Cedar's former Board of Directors with respect to the articles supplementary governing the terms of Cedar's preferred stock, breach of fiduciary duty against Cedar's former Board of Directors, and tortious interference and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty against the company. On October 7, 2022, defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. Plaintiffs opposed the motion to dismiss and filed a motion to certify a question of law to Maryland's Supreme Court. Wheeler Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc. is a Maryland corporation that serves as the general partner of Wheeler REIT, L.P. The latter owned and operated seventy-five retail shopping centers and four undeveloped properties in South Carolina, Georgia, Virginia, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Florida, Connecticut, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Maryland, West Virginia and Oklahoma. CEDAR REALTY: Krasner Shareholder Suit Over Merger Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------------- Wheeler Real Estate Investment Trust, 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 case "Krasner v. Cedar Realty Trust, Inc., et. al.," filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Case No. 2:22-cv-06945 against its subsidiary Cedar Realty Trust, Inc. is currently ongoing. On October 14, 2022, a purported holder of Cedar's outstanding preferred stock filed a putative class action against Cedar, the Board of Directors prior to the Cedar acquisition by Wheeler Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc., and the company in Nassau County Supreme Court, New York logged Case No. 613985/2022). The complaint alleges on behalf of a putative class of holders of Cedar's preferred stock, among other things, claims for breach of contract against Cedar and the former Board of Directors with respect to the articles supplementary governing the terms of Cedar's preferred stock, breach of fiduciary duty against the former Board of Directors, and tortious interference and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty against the company. The complaint seeks, among other relief, an award of monetary damages, attorneys' fees, and expert fees. Defendants removed the case to a federal court. On April 24, 2023, the federal court granted plaintiff's motion to remand the case to the Nassau County Supreme Court. Defendants have sought leave from the appellate court for permission to appeal the remand decision. Defendants have filed motions in the Nassau County action to dismiss or stay the case based both on the pendency of the lawsuit in Maryland in which the same claims were asserted by other preferred stockholders and on the merits. Plaintiff has opposed the motions. The court had a hearing on the motions on August 23, 2023. Wheeler Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc. is a Maryland corporation that serves as the general partner of Wheeler REIT, L.P. The latter owned and operated seventy-five retail shopping centers and four undeveloped properties in South Carolina, Georgia, Virginia, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Florida, Connecticut, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Maryland, West Virginia and Oklahoma. CHRISTIAN PRINSLOO: Faces Class Action Over Stolen Guns ------------------------------------------------------- Keely Goodall, writing for Capetalk 567 AM, reports that Christian Prinsloo is responsible for bringing more than 2000 stolen guns into the Cape Flats and making a profit selling them to gangsters. What has followed is gang warfare, grief, and suffering for the residents of the Cape Flats - his actions are linked to the deaths of 89 children. He was sentenced to 18 years in prison in 2016, on charges of racketeering, corruption, and money laundering. However, he has been out on parole since August 2020 after serving only three years and 10 months of his sentence, as he benefitted from President Ramaphosa's special remissions program. Prinsloo's release shocked and traumatised the families of his many victims. It really is quite a travesty of justice. Jason Whyte, Director in GunFree SA's legal team -- Norton Rose Fulbright It creates the impression that corrupt activity that results in civilian death just goes substantially unpunished. Jason Whyte, Director in GunFree SA's legal team -- Norton Rose Fulbright He says that the class action lawsuit that is being launched against Prinsloo will hopefully give the grieving families some kind of closure. GunFree SA decided to represent about a dozen families as a "class", instead of fighting on behalf of individuals. The Cape Flats today are still awash with these stolen firearms, devastating poor families who continue to lose loved ones and breadwinners. [GN] CLASSPASS INC: Settles Class Suit for $1.89M Over Concierge App --------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that ClassPass agreed to a settlement of over $1.8 million to resolve a class action lawsuit claiming it listed non-partner businesses on its ClassPass Concierge platform without their consent. The settlement benefits non-ClassPass Partners who were listed on ClassPass through ClassPass Concierge between Aug. 1, 2020, and June 29, 2023. According to the class action lawsuit, ClassPass wrongfully listed beauty and wellness businesses on its ClassPass Concierge website and mobile app, which allows consumers to request appointments. Plaintiffs in the case claim their businesses were listed without their consent, in violation of federal and state laws. ClassPass is a paid platform that allows consumers to book fitness classes and salon or spa appointments. ClassPass hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $1.89 million settlement to resolve the class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the settlement, class members can receive an equal share of the net settlement fund. No payment estimates are available at this time. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Oct. 3, 2023. The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for Oct. 3, 2023. In order to receive settlement payments, class members must submit a valid claim form by Sept. 7, 2023. Who's Eligible Non-ClassPass Partners who were listed on ClassPass through ClassPass Concierge between Aug. 1, 2020, and June 29, 2023 Potential Award TBD Proof of Purchase N/A Claim Form CLICK HERE TO FILE A CLAIM » NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 09/07/2023 Case Name Tipsy Nail Club LLC, et al. v. ClassPass Inc., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-08662-AT, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Final Hearing 10/03/2023 Settlement Website ClassPassSettlement.com Claims Administrator ClassPass Settlement c/o RG/2 Claims Administration LLC P.O. Box 59479 Philadelphia, PA 19102-9479 classpasssettlement@rg2claims.com 866-742-4955 Class Counsel Raphael Janove Adam Pollock Max Rodriguez POLLOCK COHEN LLP Joshua D Snyder Benjamin J Eichel BONI ZACK & SNYDER LLC Defense Counsel Dale M Cendali Robyn E Bladow KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP [GN] CLEAN HARBORS: Velasquez Labor Suit Removed to E.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled Reginaldo Velasquez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CLEAN HARBORS ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC., a Massachusetts Corporation and CLEAN HARBORS, INC., a Massachusetts Corporation and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. CU23-01830, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Solano, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on August 16, 2023. The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned Case No. 2:23-at-00796 to the proceeding. The case arises from Clean Harbors' alleged failure to pay wages, including overtime, failure to provide meal periods and rest periods, and other violations of the Labor Code. Headquartered in Massachusetts, Clean Harbors provides comprehensive hazardous and non-hazardous waste management services to clients across North America.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Alexander M. Chemers, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 239-9800 E-mail: zander.chemers@ogletree.com CLEARSTAR INC: Byam-Hunte Must File Class Cert Bid by Oct. 30 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Byam-Hunte v. ClearStar, Inc. et al., Case No. 8:23-cv-00274 (M.D. Fla., Filed Feb. 8, 2023), the Hon. Judge Amanda Arnold Sansone entered an endorsed order granting motion for extension of time. -- The Plaintiff's motion for class certification due by October 30, 2023. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. ClearStar is a technology and service provider that supports background screening for companies.[CC] CMG MEDIA: Court Enters Scheduling Order in Hawkins Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FELECIA HAWKINS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. CMG MEDIA CORPORATION (d/b/a COX MEDIA GROUP), Case No. 1:22-cv-04462-JPB (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge J.P. Boulee entered an order modifying the time limits for adding parties, amending the pleadings, filing motions, completing discovery and discussing settlement are as set out in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of the Court. The case is assigned to a six-month discovery period. Discovery shall be bifurcated. The first three months of discovery shall relate to class certification discovery, and the final three months of discovery shall relate to the merits. Discovery will not open until the Court resolves the pending Motion to Compel. CMG Media is an American media conglomerate principally owned by Apollo Global Management in conjunction with Cox Enterprises. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 22, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3EvsrzD at no extra charge.[CC] CO-DIAGNOSTICS INC: GTL Class Certification Bid Partly OK'd ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GELT TRADING LTD., v. CO-DIAGNOSTICS, INC.; DWIGHT EGAN; JAMES NELSON; EUGENE DURENARD; EDWARD MURPHY; RICHARD SERBIN; REED BENSON; and BRENT SATTERFIELD, Case No. 2:20-cv-00368-JNP-DBP (D. Utah), the Hon. Judge Jill N. Parrish entered an order partially granting the motion for class certification, appointment of class representative, and appointment of class counsel: (1) Gelt Trading Ltd. is certified as class representative; (2) Class representatives' counsel, Armstrong Teasdale, LLP, Marcus Neiman Rashbaum & Pineiro LLP, and Fasano Law Firm, PLLC, are appointed co-class counsel; and (3) the proposed class of all those who purchased the securities of Co-Diagnostics between May 1, 2020 and May 14, 2020, inclusive, and who were damaged thereby, is certified. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, lead plaintiff Gelt moves for the court to order (i) the certification of a class of investors in Co-Diagnostics, Inc. defined as all those who purchased the securities of Co-Diagnostics between May 1, 2020, and May 15, 2020, inclusive, and who were damaged thereby Co-Diagnostics is a Utah Corporation that develops and sells diagnostic tests for several diseases, including zika virus, tuberculosis, hepatitis B and C, malaria, dengue fever, and HIV. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 18, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3L8Iyqv at no extra charge.[CC] COINBASE INC: Court Dismisses Class Suit Over Uniswap ----------------------------------------------------- Jesse Coghlan of Cointelegraph reports that A United States District Court judge has called ETH a commodity in her dismissal of a class-action lawsuit against the decentralized exchange Uniswap. In an Aug. 30 dismissal order of the case brought by Uniswap users who claimed they lost money due to scam tokens on the exchange, Judge Katherine Polk Failla wrote ETH and Bitcoin were "crypto commodities." The distinction was also part of her reasoning for dismissing the case -- Failla said she wasn't convinced by an argument that Uniswap's token sales were subject to the Exchange Act. Interestingly, Failla is also the judge overseeing the SEC lawsuit against Coinbase. She has also had previous experience in overseeing other crypto cases in the past, including one involving Tether and Bitfinex. While her comment is not a distinct ruling on Ether's legal classification in the U.S., it comes as other judges have made decisions on cryptocurrencies such as a July ruling classing XRP as a security when sold to institutional investors. In recent years, two U.S. financial regulators, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission have tussled over jurisdiction concerning cryptocurrencies. SEC Chair Gary Gensler once claimed that "everything other than Bitcoin" is a security under his agency's remit. Meanwhile, the CFTC has laid claim to ETH and other cryptocurrencies as commodities -- per a suit it filed against Binance in March for alleged Commodities Exchange Act violations. However, U.S. lawmakers are yet to decide how the SEC or CFTC will be handed authority over crypto. Multiple bills to provide digital asset regulatory clarity are inching their way through Congress that vary in how to divvy authority between the two regulators. Some, such as the Financial Innovation and Technology for the 21st Century Act, aim to create a process for categorizing cryptocurrencies into either securities or commodities. Others explicitly hand power to a regulator, such as the Digital Commodity Exchange Act, which sees crypto spot exchanges registered and regulated under the CFTC. The Digital Asset Market Structure Bill, meanwhile, would see cryptocurrencies undergo SEC certification to prove adequate decentralization before being given commodity status. [GN] COLGATE-PALMOLIVE CO: Class Cert Bids in Dorsey Due Sept. 26 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dorsey, et al., v. Colgate Palmolive Company, Case No. 7:23-cv-01426-VB (S.D.N.Y), the Hon. Judge Vincent L. Briccetti entered an order that all deadlines stayed motion for preliminary approved of class action settlement and class certification due Sept. 26, 2023. Colgate-Palmolive is an American multinational consumer products company. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 18, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3EoeIuj at no extra charge.[CC] Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. SULTZER LAW GROUP P.C. 270 Madison Ave Suite 1800 New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (347) 657-5533 E-mail: thesultzerlawgroup.com COLGATE-PALMOLIVE CO: Class Cert Bids in Patora Due Sept. 26 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Patora v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., Case No. 7:23-cv-01426-VB (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Vincent L. Briccetti entered an order that all deadlines stayed motion for preliminary approved of class action settlement and class certification due Sept. 26, 2023. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 18, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3EpF4w2 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. SULTZER LAW GROUP P.C. 270 Madison Ave Suite 1800 New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (347) 657-5533 E-mail: thesultzerlawgroup.com CORTEVA INC: Loses Bid to Dismiss Cockerill's 2nd Amended Complaint ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ROBERT F. COCKERILL, et al., Plaintiffs v. CORTEVA, INC., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 21-3966 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Michael M. Baylson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denies the Defendants' motion to reconsider the Court's order accepting the Plaintiffs' filing of a Second Amended Complaint, and motion to dismiss it in its entirety. Congress gave federal courts significant responsibilities when it passed ERISA. Public policy demands that the Court take proper and plausible allegations seriously to vindicate the rights Congress sought to protect through the act. The crux of the Plaintiffs' allegations is a significant failure to disclose material facts resulting from the DuPont-Corteva "Spin Off" transaction pertaining to employees' continued eligibility for benefits under their ERISA plan. If the Plaintiffs' allegations are correct, ERISA is the proper remedial statute, which allows the Court to award broad equitable remedies. The Defendants have filed a pair of motions attempting again to defeat this putative class action prior to certification. The first is a motion to reconsider the Court's order accepting the Plaintiffs' filing of a Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"), complaining of manifest injustice. The second is a motion to dismiss the SAC in its entirety, which relitigates several issues the Court previously addressed. Neither convinces Judge Baylson that he must intervene to disrupt the progression of the case or halt it altogether. First, he is unconvinced that permitting the SAC will result in the complete restart of litigation that the Defendants protests. Given that no broad expansion of the classes would result, he says the Defendants considerably exaggerate the burden that permitting this new complaint would create for them. Judge Baylson has considered the remaining arguments in the Motion for Reconsideration (and the reply) and concluded they are without merit. None establish a clear error of law or manifest injustice in allowing the Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint. Second, Judge Baylson holds that multiple arguments raised by the Defendants in their Motion to Dismiss are retreads of those the Court addressed last year. To the extent that the Defendants' arguments are duplicative of their arguments in the original motion to dismiss (in some cases, explicitly), they are dismissed. The new arguments that the Defendants raise fail to move the needle. For these reasons, Judge Baylson denies both motions. No legal error or manifest injustice warrants reconsideration and many of the issues raised in the Motion to Dismiss are fit for disposition in a summary judgment motion or trial instead (if at all). An appropriate order follows. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 1, 2023 Memorandum is available at https://tinyurl.com/4s6ww4bh from Leagle.com. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA: Sued Over Patients' Private Info Disclosure ------------------------------------------------------------------ JANE DOE, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA d/b/a SANTA CLARA VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER, Defendant, Case No. 5:23-cv-04411-NC (N.D. Cal., Aug. 25, 2023) is brought pursuant to the California Invasion of Privacy Act, the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, and the Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act arising from Defendant's systematic violation of the medical privacy rights of patients and users of Defendant's services, exposing highly sensitive personal information to Facebook without Plaintiff and other patients' or users’ knowledge or consent. According to the complaint, the Defendant disclosed protected health information through the deployment of various digital marketing and automatic software tools embedded in its website and patient portal that purposefully and intentionally disclose personal health information to Facebook, Google, and other third parties who exploit that information for advertising purposes. The Defendant's use of these tools caused personally identifiable information and the contents of communications exchanged between actual and prospective patients with Defendant to be automatically redirected to Facebook, Google, and other third parties in violation of those patients' reasonable expectations of privacy, their rights as patients, and their rights as citizens of California, says the suit. County of Santa Clara d/b/a Santa Clara Valley Medical Center operates multiple hospitals and clinics, including Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, O'Connor Hospital, St. Louise Regional Hospital, Valley Health Center San Jose, Valley Health Center Sunnyvale, Valley Health Center Gilroy, and Valley Health Center Milpitas. It also owns and operates both a website and patient portal for its patients, which can be accessed at https://scvmc.scvh.org/.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Caddell, Esq. Cynthia B. Chapman, Esq. Amy E. Tabor, Esq. CADDELL & CHAPMAN 628 East 9th Street Houston, TX 77007-1722 Telephone: (713) 751-0400 Facsimile: (713) 751-0906 E-mail: mac@caddellchapman.com cbc@caddellchapman.com aet@caddellchapman.com - and - Foster C. Johnson, Esq. Joseph Ahmad, Esq. Nathan Campbell, Esq. AHMAD, ZAVITSANOS, & MENSING, PLLC 1221 McKinney Street, Suite 2500 Houston, TX 77010 Telephone: (713) 655-1101 E-mail: fjohnson@azalaw.com jahmad@azalaw.com ncampbell@azalaw.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. TURKE & STRAUSS LLP 613 Williamson St., Suite 201 Madison, WI 53703 Telephone: (608) 237-1775 Facsimile: (608) 509-4423 E-mail: sam@turkestrauss.com raina@turkestrauss.com CREDIT UNION: Seeks More Time to Oppose Class Certification Bid --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRENDA L. LUCERO, HEATHER BARTON, ILONA KOMPANIIETS and CYNTHIA HURTADO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CREDIT UNION RETIREMENT PLAN ASSOCIATION, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CREDIT UNION RETIREMENT PLAN ASSOCIATION, THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CREDIT UNION RETIREMENT PLAN ASSOCIATION and JOHN DOES 1-30, Case No. 3:22-cv-00208-jdp (W.D. Wis.), the Defendants file an unopposed motion for extension of time to file opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification The Defendants Credit Union Retirement Plan Association (CURPA), the Board of Directors of the Credit Union Retirement Plan Association, and the Board of Trustees of Retirement Plans (improperly named as the Board of Trustees of the Credit Union Retirement Plan Association), by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby request an unopposed seven day extension of time, through and including September 5, 2023, to file their Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. On July 14, 2023, Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class Certification. The Defendants’ Opposition to the Motion for Class Certification is currently due on August 28, 2023. Moreover, the Defendants request that Plaintiffs also be granted a comparable extension, through and including September 19, 2023, to submit their reply. Counsel for Defendants conferred with counsel for Plaintiffs, and Plaintiffs do not oppose this request. The Defendants' request is being made in good faith, an extension will not result in any undue delay or prejudice, and thus, good cause exists for Defendants' requested extension. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Aug. 23, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45WEmSK at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Lynn Estes Calkins, Esq. Chelsea A. McCarthy, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 800 17th Street N.W., Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 457-7041 E-mail: lynn.calkins@hklaw.com chelsea.mccarthy@hklaw.com DAN LIU: Bid to Exclude Expert Reports Denied as Moot ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cheng, et al., v. Dan Liu, et al., Case No. 4:20-cv-01726 (D.S.C., Filed May 1, 2020), the Hon. Judge Joseph Dawson, III entered an order denying as moot the Defendants' motion to exclude the Report and Testimony of Plaintiffs' Expert Ivan Cardillo and the Defendants' Motion to Exclude the Report and Opinions of Plaintiffs' Expert Victor Gao. -- As to Cardillo, the Defendants seek to exclude his report as well as his deposition testimony and affidavits, on the grounds that: (1) Mr. Cardillo's report fails the standard for admissibility under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert because he is unqualified as a legal or accounting expert to address the subjects on which he opines, and his opinions will not help the trier of fact understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, are not based on sufficient facts or data, and are not the product of reliable principles or methods reliably applied to the case; (2) Mr. Cardillo's report represents an attempt by Plaintiffs to admit otherwise inadmissible evidence by improperly embedding such evidence into an "expert report"; and (3) Mr. Cardillo offers opinions on issues of law that are the province of the Court and are not the proper subject for expert opinion. -- The Defendants contend "Cardillo's opinions and testimony relate directly to the issue of class certification and class certification is the purpose for which they are offered." -- Equally, as to Gao, Defendants seek to exclude his expert report from consideration of the Court's determination of class certification, on the grounds that: (1) Mr. Gao's report fails the standard for admissibility under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the Daubert rule because his proffered opinions are unreliable and not the product of specialized knowledge required to address the subjects on which he opines; (2) Mr. Gaos report represents an attempt by Plaintiffs to admit otherwise inadmissible evidence by improperly embedding such evidence into an "expert report;" and (3) Mr. Gao offers opinions on issues of law. -- Given this Court has denied Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, the Court denies Defendants' motions seeking to exclude Cardillo and Gao's expert reports from consideration of the Court's determination of class certifiction as moot. The nature of suit states Contract -- Stockholders Suits.[CC] DAVID BUNT: Cobb Suit Seek Rule 23 Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Homer D. Cobb, IV, v. David W. Bunt, Ben Richardson, Michael Pelkey, Case No. 4:23-cv-00109-CDL (M.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for class certification. The Plaintiff contends that under Rule 23 Federal Civil Procedure, he has been illegally arrested on Jury 21, 2023. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 22, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sKBERZ at no extra charge.[CC] DAVID ESQUIVEL: Jones' Class Cert Bid Referred to Magistrate Judge ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as RANDY JONES, DON CARTER, ROBERT WINTERS, and JOHN BOATFIELD, v. DAVID R. ESQUIVEL and HOWARD JEFFERSON ATKINS, Case No. 1:23-cv-00112-TAV-SKL (E.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Thomas A. Varlan entered an order that the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is referred to the Honorable Susan K. Lee, Chief United States Magistrate Judge, for her consideration and determination or report and recommendation, as may be appropriate. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 17, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45NyE5K at no extra charge.[CC] DELTA AIRLINES: Settles COVID Cancellation Class Action Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Deanna Dewberry, writing for News10NBC, reports that if Delta Airlines canceled your flight during the pandemic and refused to give you a refund, you may have money coming your way. If Delta canceled your non-refundable flight between March 1, 2020, and April 30, 2021, and gave you a credit instead of a refund, you may be eligible. Plaintiffs say the airline should have refunded them for flights canceled because of COVID restrictions. The airline has agreed to settle the class action lawsuit but has not agreed to wrongdoing. Click here to file a claim. https://airlineticketsettlement.com/Login [GN] DELTA STAR: Wilson Must File Class Cert Reply by Oct. 27 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAX WILSON, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated; v. DELTA STAR, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive; Case No. 3:21-cv-07326-LB (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered an order as follows: -- The Defendant's opposition to the motion Sept. 28, 2023 for class certification shall be filed on or before: -- The Plaintiff's reply in support of his Oct. 27, 2023 Motion for class certification shall be Filed on or before: Delta Star manufactures electrical power products of all sizes for utilities, industrials, and municipalities. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 18, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PlOnn1 at no extra charge.[CC] DOLEX DOLLAR: Continuance of Class Certification Deadlines Sought ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALMA GARCIA, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, v. DOLEX DOLLAR EXPRESS, INC., a Texas corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 2:23-cv-02013-MEMF-AS (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff file an ex parte application for continuance of class certification deadlines, expert discovery, and related trial deadlines. 1. Class Certification -- Motion for Class Certification Deadline, currently set for August 25, 2023, to be continued to November 17, 2023; 2. Class Certification -- Opposition Deadline, currently set for September 15, 2023, to be continued to December 8, 2023; 3. Class Certification Deadline – Reply Deadline, currently set for October 6, 2023, to be continued to December 29, 2023; 4. Class Certification Motion Hearing, currently set for on October 27, 2023 to be continued to January 19, 2024; 5. Fact Discovery Cut-Off, currently set for November 1, 2023, to be continued to January 24, 2024; 6. Expert Disclosure (Initial), currently set for November 8, 2023, to be continued to January 31, 2024; 7. Expert Disclosures (Rebuttal), currently set for November 22, 2023, to be continued to February 14, 2024; 8. Expert Discovery Cut-Off, currently set for December 6, 2023, to be continued to February 28, 2024; 9. Last Date to Hear Motions, currently set for January 25, 2024, to be continued to April 18, 2024; The Plaintiff Alma Garcia requests that the Court enter an Order providing a continuance of certain deadlines in this case. Dolex is an international financial services company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 21, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PsirNK at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan M. Genish, Esq. Miriam L. Schimmel, Esq. Joana Fang, Esq. BLACKSTONE LAW, APC 8383 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 745 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 622-427 E-mail: jgenish@blackstonepc.com mschimmel@blackstonepc.com jfang@blackstonepc.com The Defendant is represented by: Daniel B Chammas, Esq. Min K. Kim, Esq. FORD & HARRISON LLP 350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2300 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 237-2400 Facsimile: (213) 237-2401 E-mail: dchammas@fordharrison.com mkim@fordharrison.com DYCK-O'NEAL INC: Hernandez Files FCRA Suit in E.D. Virginia ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dyck-O'Neal, Inc. The case is styled as Fredis Antonio Hernandez, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated consumers v. Dyck-O'Neal, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-01029-AJT-IDD (E.D. Va., Aug. 3, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Dyck-O'Neal, Inc. -- https://dyckoneal.com/ -- is a debt collector based on mortgage insurance, banking, legal and real estate.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Casey Shannon Nash, Esq. James Patrick McNichol, Esq. Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq. KELLY GUZZO PLC 3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202 Fairfax, VA 22030 Phone: (703) 424-7571 Fax: (703) 591-0167 Email: casey@kellyguzzo.com pat@kellyguzzo.com kkelly@kellyguzzo.com E. GLUCK CORPORATION: Castro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against E. Gluck Corporation. The case is styled as Felix Castro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. E. Gluck Corporation, Case No. 1:23-cv-07847 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 5, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. E. Gluck Corporation -- https://egluck.com/ -- is an American watch manufacturer headquartered in Little Neck, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB 380 North Broadway, Suite 300 Jericho, NY 11753 Phone: (718) 740-5060 Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com EAGLE NATIONAL: Court Certifies Class Suit Over RESPA Kickback -------------------------------------------------------------- RESPA News reports that in the U.S. District Court of the District of Maryland, Eagle National Bank filed motions to exclude expert witness testimony, seeking summary judgment in its favor on all claims, and to decertify the previously established Eagle Class in a suit claiming it received kickbacks for referring business to Genuine Title. In a prior court proceeding, the plaintiff established class certification in her claim that Eagle National violated RESPA by receiving free or heavily discounted marketing materials and services in exchange for referrals to Genuine Title. Though the statute of limitations had initially passed, the plaintiffs were able to establish equitable tolling because an employee of one of the involved entities allegedly created two sham companies to conceal the violation and prevent discovery in a timely manner. [GN] EBY LLC: Wright TCPA Suit Transferred to M.D. Pennsylvania ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Lawrence Wright, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. EBY, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-02921 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on Sept. 5, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-01466-MEM to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. EBY -- https://shop.join-eby.com/ -- is a membership-based company driving profits with purpose.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Max Morgan, Esq. THE WEITZ FIRM, LLC 1515 Market Street, Suite #1100 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Phone: (267) 587-6240 Fax: (215) 689-0875 Email: max.morgan@theweitzfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Frederick P. Santarelli, Esq. Steven C. Tolliver Jr., Esq. ELLIOTT GREENLEAF & SIEDZIKOWSKI, P.C. 925 Harvest Drive Union Meeting Corporate Center V Blue Bell, PA 19422 Phone: (215) 977-1024 Fax: (215) 977-1099 Email: fpsantarelli@elliottgreenleaf.com sct@elliottgreenleaf.com EDWARD JONES: Court Amends Scheduling Order in Anderson Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDWARD ANDERSON, et al., v. EDWARD D. JONES & CO., L.P., et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-00714-DJC-AC (E.D. Cal.), Hon. Judge Daniel J. Calabretta entered an order granting the Defendants' motion to amend the scheduling order. -- Fact discovery is reopened for the limited purpose of permitting Defendants to depose Zach Paul, Gary McCoy, and Bradley Malone. Defendants will have until September 14, 2023, to conduct these depositions. All other deadlines remain unchanged. The Court will not entertain a motion to extend the class certification motion deadline absent a showing of good cause. In accordance with the above and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY Edward D. Jones is a financial services firm. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 18, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qVpfdr at no extra charge.[CC] ELASTOS FOUNDATION: Bid to Deny Class Certification Tossed as Moot ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK OWEN and JAMES WANDLING, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. ELASTOS FOUNDATION, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-05462-GHW-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered an order denying as moot Defendants' motion to deny class certification. On October 11, 2022, the Defendants Elastos Foundation, Rong Chen, and Feng Han filed their motion to deny class certification pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. On July 27, 2023, the Plaintiffs Mark Owen and James Wandling filed an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of their proposed class action settlement, including certification of a proposed settlement class, also pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. (Dkt. 206.) Elastos is a non-profit organization developing open-source web services for a decentralized, blockchain-powered internet. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 21, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PalkBs at no extra charge.[CC] ELLIS HOSPITAL: Patient Care Worker Class Conditionally Certified ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DENISE DAVELLA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ELLIS HOSPITAL, INC., doing business as Ellis Medicine, Case No. 1:20-cv-00726-MAD-ATB (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Mae A. D'Agostino entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to conditionally certify a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action: "All hourly, non-exempt patient care workers (including Registered Nurses, Licensed Vocational Nurses, Patient Care Technicians, and other workers with similar direct patient care responsibilities) employed by Defendant Ellis Hospital Inc., d/b/a Ellis Medicine at any time from June 30, 2017, through resolution of this action (the "Putative Collective Members" or "Patient Care Workers")." -- The Court further orders that the issuance of notice to the collective is authorized, limited as set forth in the accompanying Memorandum-Decision and Order -- The Court further orders that within 10 days of this Decision, Defendant shall produce in electronic format the contact information, names and last known addresses consistent with the foregoing decision, for all patient care workers employed by Defendant from June 30, 2017, to present. -- The Court further orders that the parties confer and submit to the Court a joint proposed notice to all class members within 30 days of the date of this Memorandum-Decision and Order. On April 29, 2022, the Plaintiff Davella filed a third amended complaint against Defendant Ellis Hospital, doing business as Ellis Medicine, alleging violations of FLSA and New York Labor Law ("NYLL") for failure to pay full compensation. The Defendant filed an answer on May 12, 2022. Presently before the Court are Plaintiffs' motion for conditional collective certification and Court-authorized notice to similarly situated individuals. The Defendant's response in opposition, and Plaintiffs' reply. The Defendant has four medical centers in its system: (1) Ellis Hospital; (2) McClellan Street Health Center; (3) Bellevue Woman's Center; and (4) Medical Center of Clifton Park. Ellis is a Hospitals & Clinics, and Healthcare company. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 21, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Z5Uz5I at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carolyn Hunt Cottrell, Esq. Ori Edelstein, Esq. John J. Nestico, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 The Defendant is represented by: Michael D. Billok, Esq. Eric M. O'Bryan, Esq. BOND, SCHOENECK & KING, PLLC 268 Broadway, Suite 104 Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 EMBRY-RIDDLE AERONAUTICAL: Lopez Files Bid for Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as GUILLERMINA LOPEZ, v. EMBRY-RIDDLE AERONAUTICAL UNIVERSITY, INC., Case No. 6:22-cv-01580-PGB-LHP (M.D. Fla.), the Defendant files an unopposed motion for extension of time to respond to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b), Embry-Riddle moves this Court for a 21-day extension of time through and including September 15, 2023, to respond to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification. On June 7, 2023, ERAU served its First Requests for Production of Documents and its First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff. The Plaintiff's responses to these discovery requests were due before or on July 7, 2023. The Plaintiff requested an extension until July 21, 2023, to respond to the Defendant's discovery requests. The Defendant agreed to the extension. The Plaintiff requested a second extension until July 28, 2023, to respond to the Defendant's discovery requests. The Defendant approved of the extension with an agreement from Plaintiff's counsel that they would not oppose a reasonable request from Defendant for an extension to respond to the Motion for Class Certification. The Plaintiff filed her Motion for Class Certification on August 4, 2023. The Defendant conducted the deposition of named Plaintiff Guillermina Lopez on August 16, 2023. Embry–Riddle is a private university focused on aviation and aerospace programs. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 18, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Re2fAS at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Markham R. Leventhal, Esq. Jason H. Gould, Esq. Allison O. Kahn, Esq. Irma Reboso Solares, Esq. Sean W. Hughes, Esq. CARLTON FIELDS, P.A. Suite 400 West 1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 965-8100 Facsimile: (202) 965-8104 E-mail: mleventhal@carltonfields.com jgould@carltonfields.com akahn@carltonfields.com isolares@carltonfields.com shughes@carltonfields.com ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Faces Antitrust Charges Over Generic Meds ------------------------------------------------------------- Endo International PLC 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 antitrust claims against its subsidiary Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. (EPI) are currently ongoing. In August 2021, a putative class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against Takeda Pharmaceuticals, EPI and others, alleging violations of federal antitrust law in connection with the settlement of certain patent litigation related to generic versions of Colcrys(R) (colchicine). In particular, the complaint alleged, among other things, that a distribution agreement between Takeda and Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. (PPI), with respect to an authorized generic, was in effect an output restriction conspiracy where the plaintiffs' asserted claims under Section 1 and Section 2 of the Sherman Act and sought damages, treble damages and attorneys' fees and costs. In November 2021, the plaintiffs dismissed all claims against EPI and in December 2021, the court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. In January 2022, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. In February 2022, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which the court granted in part and denied in part in March 2022. Endo International PLC is an Ireland-domiciled specialty pharmaceutical company that conducts business through its operating subsidiaries. EVERBRIDGE INC: Sylebra Shareholder Suit Ongoing in California --------------------------------------------------------------- Everbridge, 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 putative class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on April 2022, against the company, Jaime Ellertson, Patrick Brickley, and David Meredith (the company's former Chief Executive Officer) filed by Sylebra Capital Partners Master Fund Ltd, Sylebra Capital Parc Master Fund, and Sylebra Capital Menlo Master Fund. In September 2022, Sylebra filed an amended and restated complaint that alleges violations of the federal securities laws by the company and certain of its officers and directors arising out of purported misrepresentations in the information the company provided to investors regarding the company's organic and inorganic revenue growth, and the status of integrating acquisitions, which allegedly artificially inflated the price of the company's stock during the period from November 4, 2019 to February 24, 2022. In October 2022, the company filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit on various grounds, including failure to plead any actionable misstatement or omission, failure to establish scienter, and failure to meet the pleading requirements of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act and other applicable law. On May 9, 2023, the Court granted the company's motion to dismiss each of the claims, dismissing the First Amended Complaint in its entirety, without prejudice. Sylebra filed a Second Amended Complaint on June 30, 2023. Everbridge, Inc., a Delaware corporation, is a global software company with operations in the United States, United Kingdom, Norway, China, Netherlands, Canada, New Zealand, France, India, and other countries. EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Ct. Sets Scheduling Conference in White Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as NIKIA S. WHITE, v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., et al. Case No. 2:23-cv-05591-DSF-PVC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dale S. Fischer entered an order setting scheduling conference. -- Scheduling Conference The scheduling conferences will be held in the First Street Courthouse, courtroom 7D, 350 West 1st St., Los Angeles, CA. -- Notice to be Provided by Counsel The Plaintiff's counsel or, if plaintiff is appearing pro se, defendant's counsel, must provide this Order to any parties who first appear after the date of this Order and to parties who are known to exist but have not yet entered appearances. -- Disclosures to Clients Counsel are ordered to deliver to their respective clients a copy of this Order and of the Court's trial order, which will contain the schedule that the Court sets at the scheduling conference. -- Court's Website Copies of this and other orders of this Court that may become applicable to this case are available on the Central District of California website, at www.cacd.uscourts.gov, under "Judge's Procedures and Schedules." A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 18, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Pn97KZ at no extra charge.[CC] EXXON MOBIL: Ramirez Wins Class Certification Bid ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PEDRO RAMIREZ, JR., Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, REX W. TILLERSON, ANDREW P. SWIGER, JEFFREY J. WOODBURY, and DAVID S. ROSENTHAL, Case No. 3:16-cv-03111-K (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Ed Kinkeade entered an order certifying the following class: "All persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Exxon Mobil Corporation common stock between February 24, 2016, and October 28, 2016 (the date of the sole alleged Corrective Disclosure whose impact on Exxon Mobil's stock price Defendants failed to rebut), inclusive, and were damaged thereby." Excluded from the class are Defendants and their families, the officers and directors of Exxon Mobil, at all relevant times, members of their immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns, and any entity in which Defendants have or had a controlling interest. The Court appoints Lead Plaintiff Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters Pension Fund as class representative and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as class counsel. Finally, the Court finds that the Northern District of Texas is a desirable forum for this class action at least because of the Court's familiarity with the case, and because a high number of the acts complained of occurred in substantial part in this District. Lead Plaintiff Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters Fund brings this putative class action against the Defendants alleging violations of section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, and Securities and Exchange Commission. ExxonMobil is an American multinational oil and gas corporation. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 21, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/4852iW0 at no extra charge.[CC] F21 OPCO LLC: Ishaq Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII & PHI ------------------------------------------------------------ Qudsiyyah Ishaq, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. F21 OPCO LLC dba FOREVER 21, Case 2:23-cv-07390 (C.D. Cal., Sept. 6, 2023), is brought against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Personally Identifiable Information ("PII") and Protected Health Information ("PHI") of approximately 539,207 current and former employees, without limitation, their names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, bank account numbers, and information regarding employee health plans including enrollment information and premiums paid. The Plaintiff also alleges Defendant failed to provide timely, accurate, and adequate notice to Plaintiff and similarly situated current and former employees ("Class Members") that their PII and PHI had been lost and precisely what type of information was unencrypted and is now in the possession of unknown third parties. On March 20, 2023, Defendant "identified a cyber incident that impacted a limited number of systems." The Defendant launched an investigation which revealed that "an unauthorized third party accessed certain Forever 21 systems as various times between January 5, 2023 and March 21, 2023." Furthermore, the "findings from the investigation indicated the unauthorized third party obtained select files from certain Forever 21 systems during this time period." More than five months later, Defendant issued a "Notice of Data Breach," dated August 29, 2023, to those whose PII may have been impacted. By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the PII and PHI of Plaintiff and Class Members, Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that information from unauthorized access and intrusion. Defendant admits that the unencrypted PII and PHI that the attacker viewed and took included individuals' names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, bank account numbers, and information regarding employee health plans including enrollment information and premiums paid. This PII and PHI was compromised due to Defendant's negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and the failure to protect the PII and PHI of Plaintiff and Class Members. In addition to Defendant's failure to prevent the Data Breach, after discovering the breach, Defendant waited more than five months to report it to the states' Attorneys General and affected individuals. Defendant has not informed Plaintiff or Class Members what the specific vulnerabilities and root causes of the breach are. As a result of this delayed response, Plaintiff and Class Members had no idea their PII and PHI had been compromised, and that they were, and continue to be, at significant risk of identity theft and various other forms of personal, social, and financial harm. The risk will remain for their respective lifetimes, says the complaint. The Plaintiff Ishaq's PII and PHI was compromised and disclosed as a result of the Data Breach. The Defendant is a clothing and accessories retailer that operates 540 outlets worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: M. Anderson Berry, Esq. Gregory Haroutunian, Esq. Brandon P. Jack, Esq. CLAYEO C. ARNOLD A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 6200 Canoga Avenue, Suite 375 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Phone: (747) 777-7748 Fax: (916) 924-1829 Email: aberry@justice4you.com gharoutunian@justice4you.com bjack@justice4you.com FACEBOOK INC: Class Action Over "Microtargeting" Can Proceed ------------------------------------------------------------ Om Chaturvedi, writing for Techstory, reports that a class action lawsuit accusing Facebook of permitting advertisers to engage in discriminatory practices has received the green light to proceed. The Supreme Court of Canada recently declined to hear an appeal filed by the social media giant, allowing the case to return to the Quebec Superior Court. The lawsuit, which could potentially involve thousands of Quebec residents, challenges Facebook's role in enabling advertisers to target users based on demographic factors such as age and gender. In this report, we will delve into the details of the case, its implications, and the potential outcomes for both the plaintiffs and Facebook. The origins of this legal battle trace back to 2019, when concerns over Facebook's advertising practices came to light. Advertisers on the platform were accused of employing "microtargeting" techniques to direct ads specifically to users based on their age or gender. The lawsuit was initiated shortly after a CBC News investigation exposed nearly 100 employers, including government entities, posting microtargeted job ads on Facebook. This revelation raised questions about potential violations of Canadian human rights law, as employers are generally prohibited from restricting job ads based on characteristics such as age, gender, race, or religion unless it is a legitimate job requirement or part of a specific initiative. In December 2020, following calls from the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the Ontario Human Rights Commission, Facebook introduced new rules for advertisers in Canada. These rules aimed to prevent discrimination in ads for jobs, housing, and credit services. While these regulations were designed to prevent advertisers from targeting such ads based on demographic criteria, they did not prohibit microtargeting for other types of advertisements. The Class Action Suit The class action suit was initially filed in the name of Lyse Beaulieu, who, between 2017 and 2019, was actively searching for a job on Facebook and other online platforms while being between the ages of 63 and 65. The suit faced initial rejection by the Quebec Superior Court due to concerns that the class definition was overly broad, potentially encompassing "several thousand if not millions of members." However, this decision was overturned by the Quebec Court of Appeal. The Quebec Court of Appeal's decision opened the door for crucial questions to be addressed, including the emergence of new forms of discrimination in the digital realm, the potential liability of social media platforms for third-party advertisements, and the platform's ability to control the content of ads displayed on their platform. With the Supreme Court's recent refusal to hear Facebook's appeal, the Quebec Court of Appeal's ruling now stands. The case will return to the Quebec Superior Court, where a new judge will be assigned to preside over the proceedings. The official notice of the class action is expected to be published in the autumn. The refusal of the Supreme Court to hear Facebook's appeal marks a significant development in this ongoing legal battle. As the case proceeds, several potential outcomes and implications come into play: 1. Financial Consequences: Facebook faces the possibility of significant financial repercussions, as the class action could lead to damages estimated at $100 million, according to the law firm spearheading the lawsuit. 2. Legal Precedent: This case has the potential to set a precedent in Canada regarding the responsibility of social media platforms for the content and targeting practices of advertisers using their services. 3. Privacy and Discrimination: The case also shines a light on the broader issues of privacy and discrimination in digital advertising, prompting discussions on the need for regulations and oversight in this arena. 4. Corporate Response: Meta, Facebook's parent company, is likely to face scrutiny and public attention as the case progresses. The company's response to the lawsuit and its efforts to address the concerns raised may impact its public image. The class action lawsuit against Facebook alleging discriminatory advertising practices has been granted permission to proceed by the Supreme Court of Canada. This decision brings the case back to the Quebec Superior Court and marks a significant step in addressing concerns about microtargeting and discrimination in digital advertising. The outcome of this lawsuit has the potential to reshape the landscape of digital advertising regulations and may have substantial financial consequences for Facebook. As the legal proceedings unfold, the world will be watching closely to see how this case develops and its implications for the tech industry and user privacy. [GN] FAIR COLLECTIONS: Dhadwal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fair Collections & Outsourcing Of New England, Inc. The case is styled as Akshit Dhadwal, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Fair Collections & Outsourcing Of New England, Inc., Case No. 2381CV02513 (Mass. Super. Ct., Middlesex Cty., Sept. 5, 2023). The case type is stated as "Torts." Fair Collections & Outsourcing (FCO) -- https://www.fco.com/ -- is a leading national rental housing debt collections agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sergei Lemberg, Esq. LEMBERG & ASSOCIATES, LLC 1100 Summer Street, 3rd Floor Stamford, CT 06905 Phone: (203) 653-2250 Fax: (888) 953-6237 Email: slemberg@lemberglaw.com FIELD ASSET: Valdez Suit Remanded to San Diego Superior Court ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALMA ANGELICA CHAVEZ VALDEZ, v. FIELD ASSET SERVICES, INC., et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-01085-W-KSC (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Thomas J. Whelan entered an order remanding the Valdez case to the San Diego Superior Court. The Court finds it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's lawsuit. In light of the remand, the Defendants' motion to dismiss is terminated as moot. On April 17, 2023, Plaintiff Alma Angelica Chavez Valdez filed a complaint in the San Diego Superior Court alleging four causes of action. On June 10, 2023, Defendants removed the case to this Court asserting jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). On July 17, 2023, the Defendants filed their response and on July 19, 2023, Valdez filed her response. The Court finds the matter appropriate for resolution on the papers. Field Asset is a property preservation, restoration and inspection services business. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 17, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qZ8JZS at no extra charge.[CC] FITNESS OUTLET: Castro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Fitness Outlet, Inc. The case is styled as Felix Castro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. The Fitness Outlet, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-07866 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 5, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Fitness Outlet, Inc. -- https://www.thefitnessoutlet.com/ -- operates as a fitness center. The Company offers treadmills, elliptical trainers, home gyms, exercise bikes, dumbbells, weights and benches, wellness and rehabilitation, rowers, cadio, rubber flooring, gaming furniture, and other related products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB 380 North Broadway, Suite 300 Jericho, NY 11753 Phone: (718) 740-5060 Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com FLORIDA HEALTH: Morgan Suit Removed to M.D. Florida --------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jennifer Morgan, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. FLORIDA HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER, INC. d/b/a Tampa General Hospital, Case No. 23-CA-014396 was removed from the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County, Florida, to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida on Sept. 5, 2023, and assigned Case No. 8:23-cv-01993-TPB-TGW. The Plaintiff alleges that on May 31, 2023, Defendant "detected unusual activity on its computer system," whereby it discovered that Plaintiff's "PII and/or PHI was accessed and exposed to unauthorized third parties during a data breach of Defendant's system" (the "Data Incident")." The Plaintiff alleges that personally identifying information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI") impacted includes "names, addresses, phone numbers, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, health insurance information, medical record numbers, patient account numbers, dates of service and/or limited treatment information used by TGH for its business operations." Based on these allegations, Plaintiff asserts four causes of action against TGH: negligence; breach of implied contract; unjust enrichment; and violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act ("FDUTPA").[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Julie Singer Brady, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 200 South Orange Avenue, Suite 2300 Orlando, FL 32801 Phone: 407.649.4000 Facsimile: 407.841.0168 Email: jsingerbrady@bakerlaw.com Secondary email: mrios@bakerlaw.com - and - Casie D. Collignon, Esq. Sarah A. Ballard, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 1801 California Street, Suite 4400 Denver, CO 80202 Phone: 303.861.0600 Facsimile: 303.861.7805 FLORIDA HEALTH: Suit Removed to M.D. Florida -------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, and John Doe, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons v. FLORIDA HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER, INC. D/B/A TAMPA GENERAL HOSPITAL, a Florida Non-Profit Corporation, Case No. 23-CA-014344 was removed from the Circuit Court for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County, Florida, to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida on Sept. 5, 2023, and assigned Case No. 8:23-cv-01988-CEH-AEP. Based on these allegations, the Plaintiffs assert eight causes of action against TGH: violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act ("FDUTPA"); negligence; breach of express contract; breach of implied contact in fact; invasion of privacy (electronic intrusion); unjust enrichment; breach of confidence; and breach of fiduciary duty.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Julie Singer Brady, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 200 South Orange Avenue, Suite 2300 Orlando, FL 32801 Phone: 407.649.4000 Facsimile: 407.841.0168 Email: jsingerbrady@bakerlaw.com Secondary email: mrios@bakerlaw.com - and - Casie D. Collignon, Esq. Sarah A. Ballard, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 1801 California Street, Suite 4400 Denver, CO 80202 Phone: 303.861.0600 Facsimile: 303.861.7805 FLOWERS FOODS: Partial Bid to Junk Salgado FAC Tossed ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as James Salgado, v. Flowers Foods Incorporated, et al., Case No. 4:22-cv-00420-JGZ (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Jennifer G. Zipps entered an order denying the Defendants' partial motion to dismiss Salgado's first amended complaint. Salgado has sufficiently stated a cognizable claim under the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) for the timely payment of overtime wages. His AWA overtime claim does not conflict with the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA's) purpose or remedies. Moreover, the class certification and collective action procedures are not so incompatible as to render the congressional intent behind the FLSA meaningless or to require the dismissal of equally purposeful state wage claims. The Defendants seek dismissal of Plaintiff's state-law claim for overtime wages, arguing state law does not provide for overtime, does not incorporate federal overtime provisions, and, if it did, the state law would be preempted by federal law. In 2016, James Salgado began working for Holsum Bakery and its parent company, Flowers Foods, as a bakery distributor. As a distributer, Salgado delivers fresh baked goods to local retailers, operating out of a Tucson distribution center run by Holsum. In addition to delivery, distributors stock and arrange merchandise, remove damaged goods, and place advertising materials in retail locations. In his First Amended Complaint (FAC), Salgado alleges that, over the past three years, the Defendants have misclassified their distributors as independent contractors and failed to pay regular and overtime wages. Flowers Foods produces and markets packaged bakery food products. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 21, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LcoVOj at no extra charge.[CC] FORD MOTOR: Collier Sues Over Vehicles' Mounting Bolt Defect ------------------------------------------------------------ JOHN COLLIER and KRYSTA RENFRO, individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-05778 (W.D. Wash., Aug. 28, 2023) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all persons in the United States who purchased or leased any 2020 to present Ford Explorer vehicle equipped with a rear subframe assembly attached to the vehicle via only one rear axle horizontal mounting bolt that is defectively designed and manufactured. This is a consumer class action concerning a failure to disclose material facts and a safety concern to consumers. Specifically, Ford designed and manufactured two different rear subframe assemblies for the Explorer: one with two rear axle horizontal mounting bolts and one with only one bolt. The one-bolt assembly found in Class Vehicles is defectively designed and manufactured because the single bolt can fail. The failure is due to the increased bending stress on that single bolt, which leads to the sudden and violent disconnection of the rear driveshaft assembly, says the suit. The Defendant's failure to disclose the mounting bolt defect and its associated safety risks has caused Plaintiffs and putative class members to lose the use of their vehicles and/or incur costly repairs that have conferred an unjust substantial benefit upon Defendant. Had Defendant disclosed the mounting bolt defect, Plaintiffs and Class Members would not have purchased or leased the Class Vehicles, would have paid less for them, or would have required Defendant to replace, or pay for the replacement of, the defective rear subframe assemblies with a non-defective version before their warranty periods expired, the suit asserts. Ford Motor Company is an American multinational automobile manufacturer headquartered in Dearborn, Michigan.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jason T. Dennett, Esq. Kaleigh N. Boyd, Esq. TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC 1200 5th Avenue, Suite 1700 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 682-5600 Facsimile: (206) 682-2992 E-mail: jdennett@tousley.com kboyd@tousley.com - and - Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq. Jason L. Lichtman, Esq. Muriel Kenfield-Kelleher, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10013-1413 Telephone: (212) 355-9500 E-mail: jselbin@lchb.com jlichtman@lchb.com mkenfieldkelleher@lchb.com - and - Andrew R. Kaufman, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 222 2nd Avenue South, Suite 1640 Nashville, TN 37201 Telephone: (615) 313-9000 E-mail: akaufman@lchb.com - and - Russell D. Paul, Esq. Abigail J. Gertner, Esq. Amey J. Park, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 E-mail: rpaul@bm.net agertner@bm.net apark@bm.net - and - Ketan A. Patel, Esq. CORPUS LAW PATEL, LLC P.O. Box 724713 Atlanta, GA 31139 Telephone: (678) 597-8020 E-mail: kp@corpus-law.com FORT BELVOIR: Court Tosses Bid to Dismiss Fischer Suit ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Chief Petty Officer JOHN FISCHER and ASHLEY FISCHER, et al., v. FORT BELVOIR RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITIES LLC, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00286-RDA-LRV (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Rossie D. Alston Jr. entered an order that the Defendants' motion to dismiss is denied and their alternative motion to strike is granted. The Court finds that striking these allegations is appropriate. The Plaintiffs essentially conflate the conduct of Clark Realty, a non-party, with that of its successor property managers, MMS and MMS Army. The Plaintiffs are military servicemembers and their spouses who reside or resided at Fort Belvoir. The Defendant Fort Belvoir Residential Communities LLC ("FBRC") is the landlord for the privatized military housing at issue here. The Defendant Michaels Management Services, Inc. ("MMS") is a former property manager for Fort Belvoir, and Defendant MMS Army, LLC ("MMS Army") is the current property manager. The Plaintiffs claim that they endured reprehensibly poor housing conditions while they or their spouses were serving this country. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 21, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3L8alHF at no extra charge.[CC] FUNKO INC: Court Appoints Pension Trust as Lead Plaintiff in Studen ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JONATHAN STUDEN, v. FUNKO, INC., et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-00824-JLR (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge James L. Robart entered an order: -- Granting the Pension Trust's motion to appoint lead plaintiff and Counsel; -- Denying Mr. Studen's motion to appoint lead plaintiff and counsel; -- Denying Mr. Haddock's motion to appoint lead plaintiff and counsel. -- Appointing the Pension Trust as lead plaintiff, Robbins Geller as lead counsel, and Keller Rohrback as liaison counsel. This putative securities fraud class action is brought against Funko and two of its executive officers, Defendants Andrew Perlmutter and Jennifer Fall Jung, on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Funko common stock between May 6, 2022, through March 1, 2023, inclusive. The putative class members bring claims for violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. During the Proposed Class Period, the putative class alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material, adverse facts about Funko's business and operations, including the planned move of Funko’s distribution center from Everett, Washington to Buckeye, Arizona and the planned upgrade of Funko's enterprise resource planning software system. The putative class further alleges that Defendants' false and/or misleading statements and omissions artificially inflated and/or maintained the prices of Funko’s common stock, and when the truth about Funko's business initiatives was ultimately disclosed, "the price of Funko common stock fell precipitously," causing the putative class members to suffer significant losses. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 17, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3L9Psff at no extra charge.[CC] GAMESTOP INC: Cook Appeals Case Dismissal to 3rd Cir. ----------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Amber Cook filed an appeal from the District Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated August 28, 2023 entered in the lawsuit entitled AMBER COOK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GAMESTOP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-01292-NR, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. This putative class action is the latest in a series of lawsuits filed across the U.S. against online retailers over the alleged use of Session Replay Code. Session Replay Code allows website operators to record, save, and replay website visitors' interactions with a website, including "all mouse movements, clicks, scrolls, zooms, window resizes, keystrokes, text entry, and numerous other forms of a user's navigation and interaction through a website." On September 8, 2022, Plaintiff Amber Cook brought this latest installment on behalf of herself and those similarly situated after she allegedly browsed for products on Defendant GameStop, Inc.'s public website. She claims that GameStop used Session Replay Code to record her "mouse movements, clicks, keystrokes (such as text being entered into an information field or text box), URLs of web pages visited, and/or other electronic communications in real-time." According to her, GameStop's conduct violates the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act and constitutes the tort of intrusion upon seclusion. On December 16, 2022, the Plaintiff filed her first amended complaint against the Defendant. On January 16, 2023, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the said complaint. On August 28, 2023, Judge J. Nicholas Ranjan entered a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting Defendant's motion to dismiss the first amended complaint with prejudice. The appellate case is captioned as Amber Cook v. GameStop Inc., Case No. 23-2574, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on Aug. 29, 2023.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant AMBER COOK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Nicholas Colella, Esq. Patrick D. Donathen, Esq. Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq. Kelly K. Iverson, Esq. Gary F. Lynch, Esq. Elizabeth Pollock-Avery, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 Defendant-Appellee GAMESTOP INC is represented by: Jeffrey G. Landis, Esq. Sheri B. Pan, Esq. ZWILLGEN 1900 M Street NW, Suite 250 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 706-5203 - and - Adam T. Petrun, Esq. CAFARDI FERGUSON WYRICK & WEIS 2605 Nicholson Road Building II, Suite 2201 Sewickley, PA 15143 Telephone: (412) 515-8900 - and - William J. Wyrick, Esq. THE LYNCH LAW GROUP 501 Smith Drive, Suite 3 Cranberry Township, PA 16066 Telephone: (412) 515-8900 GENERAC HOLDINGS: Baltimore Product Suit Consolidated ----------------------------------------------------- Generac Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, that in August 8, 2022, that on March 3, 2023, a motion was filed to transfer "Baltimore, et al. v. Generac Power Systems, Inc.," Case No. 23-cv-00217 (E.D. N.C.) and other pending putative class actions seeking relief for alleged harm purportedly arising in connection with a Generac clean energy product, to a proposed multidistrict litigation. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issued orders that ultimately resulted in all of the putative class actions being coordinated and consolidated for pretrial proceedings before the Honorable Lynn S. Adelman in the Eastern District of Wisconsin. On July 19, 2023, Judge Adelman issued an order giving plaintiffs in these actions 45 days to file a consolidated master complaint and Generac Power and the company 60 days thereafter to respond to the consolidated master complaint. These complaints assert claims for breaches of warranty, tort-based, statutory, and unjust enrichment claims against Generac Power and/or the company and seek to recover damages, including consequential damages, that plaintiffs and putative classes allegedly incurred. In some of these cases, the company as well as Generac Power has been named as a defendant. Generac Holdings Inc. is a global designer and manufacturer of a wide range of energy technology solutions for power generation equipment, energy storage systems, energy management devices & solutions, and other power products and services serving the residential, light commercial, and industrial markets. GENERAC HOLDINGS: Basler Product Suit Consolidated -------------------------------------------------- Generac Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, that in August 8, 2022, that on March 3, 2023, a motion was filed to transfer "Basler, et al. v. Generac Power Systems, Inc.," Case No. 22-cv-01386 (E.D. Wisc.) and other pending putative class actions seeking relief for alleged harm purportedly arising in connection with a Generac clean energy product, to a proposed multidistrict litigation. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issued orders that ultimately resulted in all of the putative class actions being coordinated and consolidated for pretrial proceedings before the Honorable Lynn S. Adelman in the Eastern District of Wisconsin. On July 19, 2023, Judge Adelman issued an order giving plaintiffs in these actions 45 days to file a consolidated master complaint and Generac Power and the company 60 days thereafter to respond to the consolidated master complaint. Said putative class actions were filed by consumers of Generac clean energy products between November 21, 2022 and July 5, 2023. These complaints assert claims for breaches of warranty, tort-based, statutory, and unjust enrichment claims against Generac Power and/or the company and seek to recover damages, including consequential damages, that plaintiffs and putative classes allegedly incurred. In some of these cases, the company as well as Generac Power has been named as a defendant. Generac Holdings Inc. is a global designer and manufacturer of a wide range of energy technology solutions for power generation equipment, energy storage systems, energy management devices & solutions, and other power products and services serving the residential, light commercial, and industrial markets. GENERAC HOLDINGS: Consolidated Shareholder Suit Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------- Generac Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, that in August 8, 2022, that on December 1, 2022, the Oakland County Voluntary Employees' Beneficiary Association and Oakland County Employees' Retirement System filed a putative securities class action lawsuit against the company and certain of its officers in the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Said complaint asserts claims for alleged violation of federal securities law related to disclosures of quality issues in Generac Power's clean energy product, reliance on channel partners, and accounting for warranty reserves. The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of individuals who purchased or otherwise acquired common stock between April 29, 2021 and November 1, 2022 and seek unspecified compensatory damages and other relief on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the company's stock. On March 14, 2023, the court consolidated said action into another case. On May 30, 2023, the court appointed a lead plaintiff. On July 31, 2023, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint. Generac Holdings Inc. is a global designer and manufacturer of a wide range of energy technology solutions for power generation equipment, energy storage systems, energy management devices & solutions, and other power products and services serving the residential, light commercial, and industrial markets. GENERAC HOLDINGS: Haak Warranty Suit Ongoing in Florida Court ------------------------------------------------------------- Generac Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, that in August 8, 2022, that on October 28, 2022, Daniel Haak filed a putative class action lawsuit against Generac Power in the Middle District of Florida. The complaint alleges breaches of warranty, tort-based, and unjust enrichment claims against Generac Power relating to the sale and performance of certain clean energy products, and seeks to recover damages, including consequential damages, that the plaintiff and putative class allegedly incurred. Generac Holdings Inc. is a global designer and manufacturer of a wide range of energy technology solutions for power generation equipment, energy storage systems, energy management devices & solutions, and other power products and services serving the residential, light commercial, and industrial markets. GENERAC HOLDINGS: Hufton Product Suit Consolidated -------------------------------------------------- Generac Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, that in August 8, 2022, that on March 3, 2023, a motion was filed to transfer "Hufton, et al., v. Generac Power Systems, Inc., et al.," Case No. 23-cv-02462 (N.D. Cal.) and other pending putative class actions seeking relief for alleged harm purportedly arising in connection with a Generac clean energy product, to a proposed multidistrict litigation. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issued orders that ultimately resulted in all of the putative class actions being coordinated and consolidated for pretrial proceedings before the Honorable Lynn S. Adelman in the Eastern District of Wisconsin. On July 19, 2023, Judge Adelman issued an order giving plaintiffs in these actions 45 days to file a consolidated master complaint and Generac Power and the Company 60 days thereafter to respond to the consolidated master complaint. Said putative class actions were filed by consumers of Generac clean energy products between November 21, 2022 and July 5, 2023. These complaints assert claims for breaches of warranty, tort-based, statutory, and unjust enrichment claims against Generac Power and/or the company and seek to recover damages, including consequential damages, that plaintiffs and putative classes allegedly incurred. In some of these cases, the company as well as Generac Power has been named as a defendant Generac Holdings Inc. is a global designer and manufacturer of a wide range of energy technology solutions for power generation equipment, energy storage systems, energy management devices & solutions, and other power products and services serving the residential, light commercial, and industrial markets. GENERAC HOLDINGS: Kates Product Suit Consolidated ------------------------------------------------- Generac Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, that in August 8, 2022, that on March 3, 2023, a motion was filed to transfer "Kates v. Generac Power Systems, Inc., et al., Case No. 23-cv-00892 (E.D. Wisc.) and other pending putative class actions seeking relief for alleged harm purportedly arising in connection with a Generac clean energy product, to a proposed multidistrict litigation. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issued orders that ultimately resulted in all of the putative class actions being coordinated and consolidated for pretrial proceedings before the Honorable Lynn S. Adelman in the Eastern District of Wisconsin. On July 19, 2023, Judge Adelman issued an order giving plaintiffs in these actions 45 days to file a consolidated master complaint and Generac Power and the company 60 days thereafter to respond to the consolidated master complaint. Said putative class actions were filed by consumers of Generac clean energy products between November 21, 2022 and July 5, 2023. These complaints assert claims for breaches of warranty, tort-based, statutory, and unjust enrichment claims against Generac Power and/or the company and seek to recover damages, including consequential damages, that plaintiffs and putative classes allegedly incurred. In some of these cases, the company as well as Generac Power has been named as a defendant. Generac Holdings Inc. is a global designer and manufacturer of a wide range of energy technology solutions for power generation equipment, energy storage systems, energy management devices & solutions, and other power products and services serving the residential, light commercial, and industrial markets. GENERAC HOLDINGS: Locatell Product Suit Consolidated ---------------------------------------------------- Generac Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, that in August 8, 2022, that on March 3, 2023, a motion was filed to transfer "Kathryn Locatell v. Generac Power Systems, Inc., et al.," Case No. 23-cv-00203 (E.D. Cal.) and other pending putative class actions seeking relief for alleged harm purportedly arising in connection with a Generac clean energy product, to a proposed multidistrict litigation. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issued orders that ultimately resulted in all of the putative class actions being coordinated and consolidated for pretrial proceedings before the Honorable Lynn S. Adelman in the Eastern District of Wisconsin. On July 19, 2023, Judge Adelman issued an order giving plaintiffs in these actions 45 days to file a consolidated master complaint and Generac Power and the Company 60 days thereafter to respond to the consolidated master complaint. Said putative class actions were filed by consumers of Generac clean energy products between November 21, 2022 and July 5, 2023. These complaints assert claims for breaches of warranty, tort-based, statutory, and unjust enrichment claims against Generac Power and/or the company and seek to recover damages, including consequential damages, that plaintiffs and putative classes allegedly incurred. In some of these cases, the company as well as Generac Power has been named as a defendant Generac Holdings Inc. is a global designer and manufacturer of a wide range of energy technology solutions for power generation equipment, energy storage systems, energy management devices & solutions, and other power products and services serving the residential, light commercial, and industrial markets. GENERAC HOLDINGS: Moon Product Suit Consolidated ------------------------------------------------ Generac Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, that in August 8, 2022, that on March 3, 2023, the plaintiff in "Moon v. Generac Power Systems, Inc., et al.," Case No. 22-cv-09183 (N.D. Cal.) filed a motion to move the case and all other pending putative class actions seeking relief for alleged harm purportedly arising in connection with a Generac clean energy product, to a proposed multidistrict litigation. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issued orders that ultimately resulted in all of the putative class actions being coordinated and consolidated for pretrial proceedings before the Honorable Lynn S. Adelman in the Eastern District of Wisconsin. On July 19, 2023, Judge Adelman issued an order giving plaintiffs in these actions 45 days to file a consolidated master complaint and Generac Power and the company 60 days thereafter to respond to the consolidated master complaint. These complaints assert claims for breaches of warranty, tort-based, statutory, and unjust enrichment claims against Generac Power and/or the company and seek to recover damages, including consequential damages, that plaintiffs and putative classes allegedly incurred. In some of these cases, the company as well as Generac Power has been named as a defendant. Generac Holdings Inc. is a global designer and manufacturer of a wide range of energy technology solutions for power generation equipment, energy storage systems, energy management devices & solutions, and other power products and services serving the residential, light commercial, and industrial markets. GENERAL ATLANTIC: Faces Franchi Suit Over Stockholders' Agreement ----------------------------------------------------------------- ANTHONY FRANCHI, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated public stockholders, Plaintiff v. GENERAL ATLANTIC (IC), L.P., PAUL G. STAMAS, BOB BENNETT, DEBORAH DUNNAM, MATTHEW HAMILTON, DAVID MANGUM, PRESTON MCKENZIE, RAPH OSNOSS, and DIEGO RODRIGUEZ, Defendants, and ENGAGESMART, INC. Nominal Defendant, Case No. 2023-0882 (Del. Ch., Aug. 28, 2023) seeks declaratory relief invalidating a provision of the Stockholders' Agreement between EngageSmart and General Atlantic dated September 22, 2021 that prohibits EngageSmart from hiring or firing the Company's chief executive officer without General Atlantic's prior written consent. EngageSmart and General Atlantic are parties to the Stockholders' Agreement entered into in connection with EngageSmart's IPO. The CEO Approval Right allegedly violates Section 141(a) of the Delaware General Corporation Law because it unlawfully gives a major investor a veto right over the hiring and firing of the CEO. At all times since the IPO, General Atlantic has owned a majority of EngageSmart's common stock. EngageSmart is named as a nominal defendant in its capacity as signatory to the Stockholders' Agreement. Plaintiff Franchi is a stockholder of EngageSmart. General Atlantic is a Delaware limited partnership.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kimberly A. Evans, Esq. Robert Erikson, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LL 3801 Kennett Pike, Suite C-305 Wilmington, DE 19807 Telephone: (302) 499-3600 E-mail: kim@blockleviton.com robby@blockleviton.com - and - Joel Fleming, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 398-5600 GENWORTH LIFE: Behrens Sues Over Disclosure of Private Information ------------------------------------------------------------------ Peter Behrens, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Genworth Life Insurance Company, Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-00515-HEH (E.D. Va., Aug. 15, 2023) alleges claims against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, and for violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. The class action arises from the Defendant's failure to safeguard Consumers' highly sensitive private information as exposed and unauthorizedly disclosed in the data breach on May 29, 2023 and May 30, 2023. The Defendant's investigation concluded that the private information compromised in the data breach included Plaintiff's and approximately 2.5-2.7 million other individuals' information. Moreover, Plaintiff Behrens seeks an award of monetary damages and injunctive and declaratory relief from Defendant's failure to adequately protect their highly sensitive private information. Genworth Life is a Richmond, Virginia-headquartered life insurance company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lee A. Floyd, Esq. Sarah G. Sauble, Esq. BREIT BINIAZAN, PC 2100 E. Cary Street, Suite 310 Richmond, VA 23223 Telephone: (804) 351-9040 (757) 670-3939 E-mail: Lee@bbtrial.com Sarah@bbtrial.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq. Steven Sukert, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com cardoso@kolawyers.com sukert@kolawyers.com - and - Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com GIFTROCKET INC: Must File Class Cert Denial Bid by Sept. 22 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gracie Baked LLC, et al., v. GiftRocket, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-04019 (E.D.N.Y., Filed July 8, 2022), the Hon. Judge Rachel P. Kovner entered an order as follows: -- Per the Court's bundling rule, defendants may serve their motion to deny class certification on plaintiffs by Sept. 22, 2023 (but the motion shall not be filed on the docket at that time). -- The Plaintiffs may serve a response on defendants by Oct. 13, 2023 (but the response shall not be filed on the docket at that time). -- The Defendants may serve a reply, if any, on plaintiffs by Oct. 20, 2023. -- The parties shall file all documents associated with the fully- briefed motions with the Court by Oct. 20, 2023. The suit alleges violation of the Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act).[CC] GOLDMAN SACHS: Class Cert Evidentiary Hearing Set for Dec. 13 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SJUNDE AP-FONDEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, INC., LLOYD C. BLANKFEIN, HARVEY M. SCHWARTZ, and R. MARTIN CHAVEZ, Case No. 1:18-cv-12084-VSB-KHP (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Katharine H. Parker entered an order scheduling an evidentiary hearing and oral argument on the motion to certify class on December 13, 2023. In the event the parties agree that an evidentiary hearing as to class certification is not needed, they shall advise the Court by joint letter no later than December 6, 2023, in which case only an oral argument will be held. Goldman is an American multinational investment bank and financial services company. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 17, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3R2urXD at no extra charge.[CC] GOLDMAN SACHS: Court Decertifies Investors Class Action Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ ABA Banking Journal reports that in a unanimous (3-0) decision, a Second Circuit panel decertified an investor class action against Goldman Sachs, concluding it rebutted the presumption of reliance with evidence the generic alleged misstatements had not impacted the company's stock price. To prevail on a claim under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, a plaintiff must prove, among other things, a material misrepresentation or omission by the defendant and the plaintiff's reliance on that misrepresentation or omission. As to reliance, plaintiffs may invoke the "Basic presumption" -- a rebuttable presumption that an investor presumptively relies on a misrepresentation if it was reflected in the market price at the time of his transaction. This dispute spans more than a decade, has been presented to the Second Circuit four times, and reached the Supreme Court. In 2010, the Security and Exchange Committee brought an enforcement action against Goldman. In response, Shareholder plaintiffs filed a putative securities-fraud class action in 2010, alleging Goldman maintained an artificially inflated stock price by making statements about conflicts management -- "we have extensive procedures and controls that are designed to identify and address conflicts of interest" -- and publishing aspirational business principles -- "integrity and honesty are at the heart of our business." Goldman Sachs' stock price did not go up when the challenged statements were made. It did drop following the alleged corrective disclosures. At class certification, the shareholders invoked the Basic presumption. Goldman presented expert evidence showing: dozens of pre-corrective disclosure statements criticizing the company's conflicts practices did not cause the stock price to drop; and news of the regulatory actions caused the stock drops, rather than the corrective disclosures. Goldman also argued the statements were so generic they could not impact its stock price. The district court certified the class, which the Second Circuit affirmed. In 2021, the Supreme Court ruled, in an 8-1 decision written by Justice Amy Barrett, that courts should consider the genericness of challenged statements at the class certification stage. The Court reasoned where plaintiffs are proceeding on an "inflation maintenance" theory -- meaning they are using a stock drop that occurred when a statement is allegedly corrected, rather than an increase when the statement was made to show the statement's price impact -- the court should consider whether the statement and the correction sufficiently "match." The Court also reasoned the severity of the mismatch between the two may cast doubt on whether the price movement results from the challenged statement. After the Supreme Court's decision, the Second Circuit remanded the case to the district court, which certified the proposed class again. Applying the Supreme Court's Goldman decision, the court concluded Goldman's alleged misstatements were "not so generic as to diminish their power to maintain pre-existing price inflation." Afterward, the Second Circuit granted Goldman's Rule 23(f) petition for interlocutory review. ABA and a group of trades (Amici) urged the Second Circuit to reverse the district court’s certification order because it: misconstrued the Supreme Court's opinion; understated the generality of Goldman's alleged misstatements; and did not properly consider whether narrow disclosures made years later "mismatched" the generic and aspirational front-end statements at issue. The Second Circuit reversed the district court's class certification order and remanded with instructions to decertify the class. The Second Circuit ruled the district court misapplied inflation maintenance theory and failed to rebut the Basic presumption by a preponderance of the evidence. The Second Circuit concluded there was "an insufficient link between the corrective disclosures and the alleged misrepresentations." The Second Circuit first explained the district court erred in construing Goldman's generic statements of business principles along with the challenged statements about conflicts controls. It reasoned those statements were made "in separate reports at separate times" with no evidence the statements "piggybacked" off each other. As to Goldman's statements about conflicts management, the Second Circuit ruled the district court misapplied its precedent on the inflation-maintenance theory recognized in In re Vivendi Securities Litigation (2016). According to that theory, a plaintiff can show a defendant's misstatement affected the defendant's stock price if it caused the price to remain at an inflated level -- i.e., by preventing an inflated stock price from dropping. The Second Circuit explained such an inference is possible where the corrective event has "directly rendered false" a company's earlier misstatement. However, the Second Circuit noted if the corrective disclosures do not identify the alleged misrepresentations as false, then the inference "is on shakier ground." In its view, the Supreme Court's Goldman decision "requires courts pay special attention to mismatches in specificity between a misstatement and corrective disclosure." The Second Circuit observed "not one of the corrective disclosures here expressly identifies either the business principles statements or conflicts disclosure." It explained there was a "considerable gap in specificity" between the alleged misstatements and corrective disclosures. Rather than asking what would have happened had defendants spoken truthfully "at an equally generic level," the Second Circuit explained the district court erred by substituting the details and severity of the purported "corrective disclosures" in place of the generic alleged misstatements. Bottom Line: For securities class actions surviving a motion to dismiss, the class certification motion is typically the next opportunity for defendants to defeat the class claims. The Second Circuit's decision makes clear courts must carefully consider a defendant's price impact defense. [GN] GOLDMAN SACHS: Court Terminates Bid to Certify Class w/o Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Plaut v. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-12084 (S.D.N.Y., Filed Dec. 20, 2018), the Hon. Judge Katharine H. Parker entered an order terminating motion to certify class without prejudice and subject to renewal and rebriefing. The nature of suit states Other Statutes – Securities / Commodities / Exchange. Goldman is an American multinational investment bank and financial services company. GOLDMAN SACHS: Plaut Must File Renewed Class Cert Bid by Sept. 29 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Plaut v. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-12084 (S.D.N.Y., Filed Dec. 20, 2018), the Hon. Judge Katharine H. Parker entered an order as follows: -- The Plaintiff's renewed motion for class Sept. 29, 2023 certification (with their expert report in support of class certification) shall be submitted: -- The Defendants' opposition brief (with their Oct. 30, 2023 expert report) is due: -- The Plaintiff's reply brief is due: Dec. 15, 2023 -- Oral argument and an evidentiary Jan. 10, 2024 hearing on class certification will be held on: The nature of suit states Other Statutes – Securities / Commodities / Exchange. Goldman is an American multinational investment bank and financial services company.[CC] GOOGLE LLC: Court Dismisses Class Suit Over Healthcare Data Privacy ------------------------------------------------------------------- Amy M. Magnano and Michael J. Madderra of Morgan Lewis report that in a major victory for privacy professionals, technology companies, and those intending to use healthcare data to feed artificial intelligence algorithms, the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently rejected a putative class action regarding the collection and exchange of anonymized healthcare data. The lawsuit, filed against Google and the University of Chicago Medical Center, sought damages for the collection and use of the plaintiff's healthcare data, alleging, among other things, that the university breached contractual obligations within its privacy notice and that Google impermissibly was capable of reidentifying patients because of its vast data network. The case has wide-reaching implications for the use of anonymized healthcare data for research and other applications. [GN] GROUP 1001: Faces Weigan et al. Suit Over Alleged Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------- CARY WEIGAND, CHERYL SCHMIDT and CALVIN SCHMIDT, individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons v. GROUP 1001 INSURANCE HOLDINGS, LLC; GROUP 1001 RESOURCES, LLC; CLEAR SPRING LIFE AND ANNUITY COMPANY; and DELAWARE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:23-cv-01452-RLY-TAB (S.D. Ind., Aug. 16, 2023) accuses the Defendants of collective failures to adequately safeguard Plaintiff and class members' private information, resulting in a data breach. On or about February 9, 2023, and possibly as early as November 30, 2022, the Defendants' systems were illegally accessed by third party cybercriminals during which the private information of Plaintiff and Class Members had been compromised. This class action alleges that the Defendants committed multiple violations, including breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, negligence, and invasion of privacy. Based in Zionsville, Indiana, Group 1001 is an insurance holding company which, through its subsidiaries, offers an array of protection and wealth accumulation products.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lynn A. Toops, Esq. COHEN & MALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 Facsimile: (317) 636-2593 E-mail: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com GSK CONSUMER: Faces Emergen-C False Advertising Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Abraham Jewett, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that GSK Consumer Health falsely advertises that its Emergen-C brand raspberry-flavored immune-supporting beverage mix contains "natural fruit flavors," a new class action lawsuit alleges. Plaintiff Eunice Jernigan claims the raspberry taste for the Emergen-C product is "derived in part from artificial flavoring ingredients." Jernigan argues the Emergen-C product contains the artificial ingredient D-Malic Acid, which he alleges has been revealed through laboratory testing, and, in part, by the listing of Malic Acid in small print on the ingredients list. "D-Malic Acid is an artificial flavor because it imparts the taste of fruits including raspberries to the Product, rendering 'Natural fruit flavors' and 'Flavored Fizzy Drink Mix with other Natural Flavors' false and misleading by omission," the Emergen-C class action states. Jernigan wants to represent a Florida class of consumers who have purchased the Emergen-C raspberry flavored immune supporting beverage mix within the statute of limitations. Emergen-C ingredients list does not make clear malic acid is artificial, class action claims Jernigan argues consumers who review the ingredients list will not be aware that the malic acid found in the Emergen-C product is an artificial flavoring ingredient, due to L-malic acid occurring naturally in raspberries. "The combination of DL-Malic Acid with sugars is not equivalent to any natural fruit flavors and natural raspberry flavors," the Emergen-C class action states. Jernigan claims GSK Consumer Health is guilty of fraud and breach of express warranty, and of violating the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and a state statute regarding false and misleading advertising. The plaintiff is demanding a jury trial and requesting declaratory relief along with an award of monetary, statutory and/or punitive damages for herself and all class members. A separate class action lawsuit was filed against GSK Consumer Health in June by a consumer arguing the company sells misleadingly labeled Theraflu Emergen-C convenience packs. Have you purchased an Emergen-C raspberry flavored immune supporting beverage mix? Let us know in the comments. The plaintiff is represented by William Wright of The Wright Law Office PA and Spencer Sheehan of Sheehan & Associates PC. The Emergen-C class action lawsuit is Jernigan v. GSK Consumer Health Inc., Case No. 6:23-cv-01640, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. [GN] HARD ROCK: Carpenter Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Class ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Carpenter v. Hard Rock Cafe International (STP), Inc., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-04224 (N.D. Ga., Filed Oct. 24, 2022), the Hon. Judge Amy Totenberg entered an order granting motion to certify class under Fair Labor Standards Act. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act involving minimum wage or overtime compensation.[CC] HARD ROCK: Lassoff Sues Over Unlawful Promotional Schemes --------------------------------------------------------- SAMUEL LASSOFF, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HARD ROCK INTERNATIONAL INC., HARD ROCK CAFE INTERNATIONAL (USA), INC., SEMINOLE HARD ROCK SUPPORT SERVICES, LLC, BOARDWALK 1000, LLC d/b/a HARD ROCK HOTEL & CASINO ATLANTIC CITY, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-12407 (D.N.J., Aug. 29, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for violation of the Consumer Fraud Acts of the United States, breach of contract, conversion, unjust enrichment, and fraudulent concealment & tolling arising from Defendants' unlawful business practices. According to the complaint, the Defendants engaged in a secret and inherently self-concealing conspiracy that did not reveal facts sufficient to put Plaintiffs and the other Class members on inquiry notice. Specifically, the Defendants intentionally conducted their fraud/scheme outside of public scrutiny. For example: Defendants regularly attended invitation-only industry events, where revenue management, pricing strategies, and best practices were discussed behind closed doors; and individual Casino Defendants had private communications and meetings to discuss promotions. The Defendants intentionally hid from Plaintiffs and the other Class members the requirements of their promotions. The Defendants also affirmatively misrepresented through omissions, half-truths, and misrepresentations, how they determined promotions and comp dollars. Through Defendants knowing and active concealment of their misconduct from their gambling patrons, Plaintiffs and the other Class members did not receive information that should have put them, or any reasonable consumer standing in their shoes, on sufficient notice of potential collusion worthy of further investigation. The Plaintiff visited Atlantic City, New Jersey, and received numerous gift incentives, offers and promotions from one or more Defendants during the Class period, including within the four years preceding the filing of this Complaint. Hard Rock International Inc. is a hospitality and entertainment company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel Lassoff, Esq. LASSOFF LAW LLC 5006 Wellington Ave., Suite 2343 Ventnor, NJ 08406 Telephone: (609) 375-7491 E-mail: lawfirm25@aol.com HARTFORD LIFE: Fails to Safeguard Clients' Info, Washington Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------- JATAVEYA WASHINGTON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. HARTFORD LIFE AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 3:23-cv-01164-MPS (D. Conn., Sept. 1, 2023) sues the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the Plaintiff's and other similarly situated Hartford clients' employees' sensitive information, including full names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, home states, and zip codes. The Defendant failed to warn the Plaintiff and Class Members of the Defendant's inadequate information security practices; and effectively secure hardware containing protected PII using reasonable and effective security procedures free from vulnerabilities and incidents. As a result of the Defendant's conduct, the Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered injury. These injuries include invasion of privacy; lost or diminished value of PII; lost time and opportunity costs associated with attempting to mitigate the actual consequences of the Data Breach; loss of benefit of the bargain; and the continued and certainly increased risk to their personal Identifiable Information, says the suit. The Plaintiff and Class Members seek to remedy these harms and prevent any future data compromise on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated persons whose personal data was compromised and stolen as a result of the Data Breach and who remain at risk due to Defendant's inadequate data security practices. The Plaintiff and Class Members are entitled to compensatory and consequential damages suffered as a result of the Data Breach. They are also entitled to injunctive relief requiring the Defendant to strengthen its data security systems and monitoring procedures; submit to future annual audits of those systems and monitoring procedures; and continue to provide adequate credit monitoring to all Class Members. The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former employees at companies that contracted with the Defendant for the provision of insurance and/or other employee benefits. Hatford provides "life, health, home, business, and accident insurance to individuals, families, groups, and businesses across the world.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq. Erin Green Comite, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP The Helmsley Building 230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 223-6444 Facsimile: (212) 223-6334 E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com ecomite@scott-scott.com - and - Clayeo C. Arnold, Esq. M. Anderson Berry, Esq. Gregory Haroutunian, Esq. Brandon P. Jack, Esq. ARNOLD LAW FIRM 865 Howe Avenue Sacramento, CA 95825 Telephone: (916) 239-4778 Facsimile: (916) 924-1829 E-mail: aberry@justice4you.com gharoutunian@justice4you.com bjack@justice4you.com HELBIZ INC: Court Allows Investor Class Action Suit to Proceed -------------------------------------------------------------- Martin Young, writing for Coin Telegraph, reports that a United States federal court has allowed a nearly three-year-long class-action lawsuit against the creators of HelbizCoin to go ahead. The class-action suit was first brought against Helbiz, Helbiz CEO Salvatore Palella, and its partners in 2020, with an amended complaint filed in March 2022. The case involves an Italian electric scooter-sharing company HelBiz that raised $38.6 million in an ICO and issued an ERC-20 token with one of the founders of Ethereum, Anthony Di Iorio, in 2018, according to the complaint. A group of investors, numbering as many as 20,000, alleged that HelbizCoin was a rug pull and fraudulent pump-and-dump scheme, with the firm making false statements and promises to induce people to purchase the coins. They claimed that Helbiz kept most of the money from the ICO for itself. On Sept. 1, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York partially ruled in favor of investors who filed the class-action suit, with the court granting the motions to dismiss in part and denied them in part. The court, however, dismissed all claims against certain defendants entirely, including Paysafe, Skrill, Decentral and Alphabit, finding a lack of personal jurisdiction over Paysafe and Alphabit. The court also dismissed some claims against the remaining defendants for failure to state a claim, including breach of contract, tortious interference, and certain securities claims. However, Judge Louis Stanton also ruled that plaintiffs adequately stated claims for fraud, price manipulation, violations of securities laws, commodities laws, the RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) Act, and unjust enrichment against some defendants. "Among other matters, the case found that the ERC-20 token is a security under federal law," the investor's lawyer Michael Kanovitz told Cointelegraph. The investors' lawsuit was initially dismissed by a lower court judge in January 2021, citing a 2010 Supreme Court precedent that limited the extraterritorial reach of federal securities laws, according to a report from Reuters. However, the case was revived in October 2021 when a 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found the lower court judge erred in its decision, and an amended complaint was filed in March 2022. In emailed comments to Cointelegraph, Kanovitz also pointed out that the complaint included a number of charts that use the Ethereum ledger to "prove spoof trading in the ICO." It also included evidence of multiple "genesis wallets" that were provided to the initial investors in Ethereum, such as Mr. Di Iorio, he said before adding: "It is a compelling story that shows how blockchain transparency can be used to flush out criminals." Kanovitz elaborated, stating that "encountering multiple genesis wallets is like a fingerprint that points to one of only a few people in the world. Moreover, these genesis wallets also engaged in similar behavior in ICOs that Di Iorio publicly backed, such as EOS." The complaint alleged that Di Iorio, an advisor to Helbiz, published false and misleading statements about the HelbizCoin ICO in Bitcoin Magazine but did not provide evidence that he made the statements. "This is a speculative conclusion at best and thus fails to adequately allege that Di Iorio made false or misleading statements," the ruling read. [GN] HOME DEPOT: Collins Suit Seeks Certification of Class Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEREMY COLLINS, individually and on behalf of all members of the public similarly situated, v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 8:22-cv-00847-CJC-DFM (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for certification of Plaintiff's class claims. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants intentionally manipulated the return of merchandise purchased by customers, refunding a lower price than for which the merchandise was purchased by using the circumstances of the Pandemic, i.e., the rise in the cost of building materials. Users of the Defendant's stores who were members of Home Depot's Pro Xtra Program and who made purchases defined as Qualifying Purchases could not be reimbursed for what they had originally paid for the goods if they did not possess an original paper receipt, despite the stated and advertised benefits of the Pro Xtra Program, including electronic tracking of all purchases, which obviated the need to keep and produce a physical receipt whenever a customer and member of the program sought to return an item. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants manipulated their return system in order to illegally and unfairly profit on all returns without paper receipts, when the Defendants had possession of the original purchase receipt or transaction information stored in their electronic system, available for employees at all point-of-sale registers, as was advertised. The Plaintiffs and Class members, namely building contractors who purchase large volumes of goods for their business or livelihood, have suffered financial loss due to Defendant's fraudulent manipulation of product returns. The Plaintiff brings class claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 on behalf of the following Class, as defined below: (1) Class: All Home Depot customers who were members of the Pro Xtra Program between August 2020 to the present nationwide (in the United States of America, including all 50 states and all territories of the United States) who sought to return purchased items using their Pro Xtra account and who were deprived of the full value of their returned items. Home Depot is a home improvement retailer in the United States. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 21, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44OlLra at no extra charge.[CC] HOME DEPOT: Must Respond to Collins Class Cert. Bid by Sept. 20 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEREMY COLLINS, individually and on behalf of all members of the public similarly situated, v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 8:22-cv-00847-CJC-DFM (C.D. Cal.), the Defendant requests that the Court continue the hearing on Plaintiff Collins' motion for class certification and extend deadline for its response and for Plaintiff's reply papers. -- Home Depot's Response to Plaintiff's Sept. 20, 2023 Motion for Class Certification: -- The Plaintiff's Reply in Support of Oct. 20, 2023 Motion for Class Certification: -- Hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Nov. 3, 2023 Class Certification: On August 21, 2023, the Plaintiff filed his motion for class certification, setting a hearing date for September 18, 2023, and Home Depot's deadline to respond to the Motion is August 28, 2023. In the Joint Report of Early Meeting, filed on February 15, 2023, the Parties agreed to an extended briefing schedule, which provided Home Depot 45 days to respond to any class certification motion and 30 days for Plaintiff’s reply papers. Home Depot is an American multinational home improvement retail corporation that sells tools, construction products, appliances, and services, including fuel and transportation rentals A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Aug. 23, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45M3Z91 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Julia Romano, Esq. S. Stewart Haskins II, Esq. Misty L. Peterson, Esq. Mandi Goodman, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1600 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 218-4014 Facsimile: (213) 443-4310 E-mail: jromano@kslaw.com shaskins@kslaw.com mpeterson@kslaw.com mgoodman@kslaw.com HOWARD MEMORIAL: Jones Seeks to Modify Scheduling Order ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BARBARA JONES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, V. HOWARD MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, Case No. 4:23-cv-04010-SOH (W.D. Ark.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting her motion to modify the scheduling order to extend the motion for class certification filing deadline. The Plaintiff seeks modification of the Court's Final Scheduling Order to extend the deadline by which Plaintiff must file her motion for class certification based on recent developments in this case which give rise to good cause for this Court to grant Plaintiff's motion. On March 7, 2023, the Court issued its Initial Scheduling Order, which stated that the Court's standard deadline for motion for class certification was 90 days after the parties' Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) conference. In March 2023, Plaintiff and Defendant Howard Memorial Hospital fully briefed Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, which the Court denied on March 28, 2023. On April 4, 2023, counsel for Plaintiff and Defendant. The Parties filed their Joint Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) Report on April 11, 2023. The Court issued its Final Scheduling Order on April 20, 2023. The Final Scheduling Order states that the deadline to file motions for class certification is no later than 90 days after the Rule 26(f) conference. Howard provides comprehensive patient-focused services that are delivered by a skilled staff of medical professionals. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 18, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3P40aF7 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thiago M. Coelho WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC 3055 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 381-9988 Facsimile: (213) 381-9989 E-mail: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com HV GLOBAL: Ramirez Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as NELSON RAMIREZ, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated; v. HV GLOBAL MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, an unknown business entity, HV GLOBAL GROUP, INC., an unknown business entity; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 5:21-cv-09955-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying the following Class and Subclasses: Class: "All current and former hourly-paid or non-exempt employees who worked for HV Global Management Corporation within the State of California at any time during the period from November 3, 2018 up to the deadline, to be determined by the Court at a later date, by which class members may opt-out after being provided notice of certification;" Meal Period Premiums Subclass: "All current and former hourly paid or non-exempt employees who worked for Defendant within the State of California at any time during the Class Period who did not receive a meal period premium;" Rest Period Premiums Subclass: "All current and former hourly paid or non-exempt employees who worked for Defendant within the State of California at any time during the Class Period who did not receive a rest period premium;" On-Site Rest Break Subclass: "All current and former hourly paid or non-exempt employees who worked for Defendant within the State of California at any time during the Class Period who were required to remain on company premises during rest breaks;" Regular Rate Subclass: "All current and former hourly paid or non-exempt employees who worked for Defendant within the State of California at any time during the Class Period who earned non-discretionary bonuses, commissions, incentives and/or other forms of non- discretionary payment, which was not used to calculate the regular rate of pay used to calculate the overtime rate for the payment of overtime wages;" Premium Subclass: "All current and former hourly paid or non-exempt employees who worked for Defendant within the State of California at any time during the Class Period who received non-discretionary bonuses, commissions, incentives and/or other forms of non-discretionary payment during the same period for which they earned a premium payment made pursuant to California Labor Code section 226.7 at any time during the Class Period;" Off-the-Clock Subclass: "All current and former hourly-paid or non-exempt employees who worked for Defendant within the State of California at any time during the Class Period who were not paid all minimum and overtime wages earned due to work performed off-the-clock;" Unreimbursed Business Expenses Subclass: "All current and former hourly-paid or non-exempt employees who worked for Defendant within the State of California at any time during the Class Period who incurred necessary business-related expenses, including, purchasing clothing and shoes to meet Defendant's dress code policy and using their personal cell phone for work purposes;" 2. Appointing Plaintiff Nelson Ramirez as the Class Representative; 3. Appointing the following individuals as Class Counsel: Edwin Aiwazian, Tara Zabehi, Brittany Shaw, and Margaux Gundzik of Lawyers for Justice, PC; 4. Requiring HV Global to provide to Plaintiff's Counsel an up-to- date list of all potential class members, including their names, last four digits of their social security numbers, last known telephone numbers, last known e-mail addresses, and last known residential and mailing addresses, within 30 days following the date the Court grants class certification; and The Plaintiff Ramirez moves for certification on behalf of all nonexempt, hourly-paid individuals employed by HV Global Management Corporation in California during the proposed class period. HV Global's uniform and company-wide policies, practices, and procedures fail to properly compensate employees for all time worked, fail to provide legally compliant meal and rest periods, and fail to compensate employees with the meal and rest period premiums to which they are entitled, systematically require its employees to perform work off-the-clock and require putative class members to incur unreimbursed business-related expenses. These policies and practices are not individualized, and compliance with them is not voluntary. HV Global Management Corporation is a subsidiary of Marriott Vacation Ownership. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 18, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3R6H7N3 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edwin Aiwazian, Esq. Tara Zabehi, Esq. Brittany Shaw, Esq. Margaux Gundzik, Esq. LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 265-1020 Facsimile: (818) 265-1021 E-mail: edwin@calljustice.com tara@calljustice.com brittany@calljustice.com m.gundzik@calljustice.com HYUNDAI MOTOR: Bright Sues Over Defective Charging Couplings ------------------------------------------------------------ JANE CHANG BRIGHT, SHANE MAHON, PETER CONHEIM, and KINGSLEY BARNIE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HYUNDAI MOTOR COMPANY, LTD., HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, INC., KIA AMERICA, INC., KIA CORPORATION, GENESIS MOTOR, LLC, and GENESIS MOTOR AMERICA LLC, Defendants, Case No. 8:23-cv-01602 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 25, 2023) is a class action brought by the Plaintiffs to redress Defendants' alleged violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and the consumer-protection statutes of their respective states and to seek recovery for Defendants' breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, unjust enrichment, and fraudulent concealment. This is a class action lawsuit brought by Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and a national class of current and former owners and lessees of the following vehicles: the Hyundai Ioniq 5, Hyundai Ioniq 6, Kia EV6, Kia Niro EV, Kia Niro PHEV, and Genesis GV60. The case refers to the overheating charging coupling and intermittent-charging issue as the defect. The Defendants advertise particular charging times for the Class Vehicles, and owners and lessees rely on those representations when deciding to purchase or lease. If an owner or lessee cannot count on their electric vehicle to charge consistently and predictably at the advertised rate, the vehicle's value is severely compromised and the ability to use the vehicle when needed is undermined, says the suit. As a result of Defendants' unfair, deceptive and/or fraudulent business practices, owners and/or lessees of the Class Vehicles, including Plaintiffs, have suffered an ascertainable loss of money and/or property and/or value. And aggravating circumstances exist: Defendants continue to willfully make false representations about the Class Vehicles' charging times even though they are aware of the defect and have taken affirmative steps to limit charging speeds, the suit asserts. Hyundai Motor Company Ltd. is a multinational automotive manufacturer.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alison M. Bernal, Esq. NYE, STIRLING, HALE, MILLER & SWEET, LLP 33 West Mission Street, Suite 201 Santa Barbara, CA 9310 Telephone: (805) 963-2345 Facsimile: (805) 284-9590 E-mail: alison@nshmlaw.com - and - Matthew D. Schelkopf, Esq. Joseph B. Kenney, Esq. SAUDER SCHELKOPF 1109 Lancaster Avenue Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (610) 200-0581 Facsimile: (610) 421-1326 E-mail: mds@sstriallawyers.com jbk@sstriallawyers.com - and - William H. Anderson, Esq. HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC 5353 Manhattan Circle, Suite 204 Boulder, CO 80303 Telephone: (303) 800-9109 Facsimile: (844) 300-1952 E-mail: wanderson@hfajustice.com - and - Simon Wiener, Esq. HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC 68 Harrison Avenue, Suite 604 Boston, MA 02111 Telephone: (202) 921-4567 Facsimile: (844) 300-1952 E-mail: swiener@hfajustice.com IDEXX DISTRIBUTION: Has Until Oct. 16 to Reply to Dula Complaint ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MARNELLE MAC DULA, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated employees, Plaintiff v. IDEXX DISTRIBUTION, INC., a Massachusetts Corporation; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-01819-CKD (E.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California extends time for Idexx to file responsive pleading. The Plaintiff filed her Class Action Complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Sacramento, assigned Case No. 23CV005044 on July 19, 2023. On Aug. 25, 2023, the Defendant removed the Action to this Court under the Class Action Fairness Act. The Defendant sent a meet and confer letter to the Plaintiff outlining the arguments for its proposed Rule 12 motion to her Complaint. The Parties have agreed to extend the time for the Defendant to respond to the Complaint by 45 days, thus establishing a new response date to Oct. 16, 2023. They have established this new due date to provide the Parties with more time for the Plaintiff to propose a First Amended Complaint, to further meet and confer in regard to the potential Rule 12 motion, and for her to complete her evaluation of whether to file a remand motion. The Parties agree that, in entering into this stipulation, the Plaintiff will not be considered to be waiving any right to file a motion seeking remand or otherwise considered to be seeking affirmative relief that could be construed as waiving her right to file a motion seeking remand or any basis therefore. They agree that, in entering the stipulation, the Defendant is not waiving any rights to file a Motion to Dismiss or waiving any defenses and is making no representation as to the adequacy of any First Amended Complaint. The Parties agree that the Defendant has until Oct. 16, 2023, to respond to the Plaintiff's Complaint and the Plaintiff will provide a draft First Amended Complaint to the Defendant on Sept. 15, 2023. Judge Delaney so ordered. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 1, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/mry6f2fa from Leagle.com. Galen T. Shimoda -- attorney@shimodalaw.com -- Justin P. Rodriguez -- jrodriguez@shimodalaw.com -- Brittany V. Berzin -- bberzin@shimodalaw.com -- Shimoda & Rodriguez Law, PC, Elk Grove, CA, Attorneys for Plaintiff MARCELLE MAC DULA. ALEXANDRA M. ASTERLIN -- alexandra.asterlin@ogletree.com -- KYLE A. WENDE -- kyle.wende@ogletree.com -- OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C., Sacramento, CA, Attorneys for Defendant IDEXX DISTRIBUTION, INC. INFINITY PHARMACEUTICALS: Dilbarian Sues Over Inflated Share Price ------------------------------------------------------------------ TYLER DILBARIAN, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INFINITY PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ADELINE PERKINS; and LAWRENCE BLOCH, JR., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-11865 (D. Mass., Aug. 15, 2023) seeks to remedy violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. For over a year, the Defendants allegedly pushed the false narrative that Infinity's flagship product, eganelisib, was proceeding apace in its clinical studies as a treatment for breast cancer. Specifically, Infinity touted two clinical studies: (1) MARIO-4, a randomized, double-blind Phase 3 study; and (2) MARIO-P, a platform study to evaluate additional combinations and indications where eganelisib might increase the effectiveness of available therapies. Plaintiff Tyler Dilbarian purchased Infinity shares at artificially inflated prices between January 5, 2022 and July 24, 2023 and suffered damages as a result of the federal securities law violations and false and/or misleading statements and/or material omissions, says the suit. Defendant Infinity is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive offices located at 110 Massachusetts Avenue, Floor 4, Cambridge, MA. Infinity's shares trade on the Nasdaq Global Select Market under the ticker symbol INFI. Infinity is a clinical stage innovative biopharmaceutical company dedicated to developing novel medicines for people with cancer. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sean K. Collins, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SEAN K. COLLINS 184 High Street, Suite 503 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (855) 693-9256 Facsimile: (617) 227-2843 E-mail: sean@neinsurancelaw.com - and - Brian P. Murray, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 230 Park Avenue, Suite 358 New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 682-5340 Facsimile: (212) 884-0988 E-mail: bmurray@glancylaw.com - and - Shane Rowley, Esq. ROWLEY LAW PLLC 50 Main Street, Suite 1000 White Plains, NY 10606 Telephone: (914) 400-1920 Facsimile: (914) 301-3514 E-mail: srowley@rowleylawpllc.com INSURANCE AUSTRALIA: Slater and Gordon Mulls Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Keely McDonough, writing for LSJ Online, reports that one of Australia's largest insurance companies is the latest target of Slater and Gordon's class action lawyers, after the corporate regulator launched an action last month over claims that hundreds of thousands of people were misled about the price of their home and contents policies. Slater and Gordon announced on 31 August that it is investigating potential class actions against two subsidiary companies of the Australian Insurance Group (IAG), claiming customers were misled about loyalty discounts on home insurance issued under the RACV, SGIO and SGIC brands. The move comes after the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) filed an action in the Federal Court against IAG -- its second over pricing discounting failures in less than three months. Slater and Gordon said the companies renewed over one million home insurance policies between 2017 and 2022 and policyholders were promised a range of "loyalty discounts" but were not informed that those discounts were offset by a "loyalty tax" built into the base premium. Slater and Gordon Class Actions Associate Henry Hamilton-Lindsay said that an "algorithm" was used by the insurers to determine which customers were least likely to switch to a different insurer in response to increased premiums. "[The subsidiary companies] Insurance Australia Limited (IAL) and Insurance Manufacturers of Australia Pty Limited (IMA) used an algorithm to determine who was most likely to renew their policy and took steps to increase those customers' base premiums, despite them often being long-term customers," Hamilton-Lindsay said. "We believe that there may be hundreds of thousands of Australians who thought they were receiving discounts by remaining loyal IAL and IMA home insurance customers, but in reality, were being charged hundreds of dollars more each year as a result of that loyalty." "We believe that money belongs in the pockets of everyday Australians, particularly given the rising cost of living." In a statement, IAG said its subsidiary companies would defend ASIC proceedings and "[did] not agree" they had misled customers. "IAL and IMA maintain they have delivered on loyalty promises made to customers, do not agree that they have misled customers about the extent of the discounts they would receive, and intend to defend the proceedings," the statement said. Slater and Gordon has an extensive track record of success in class actions and group proceedings, and this investigation comes off the back of its consumer credit insurance class actions against the big four banks, which settled for a combined $176 million. Past and present IAL, IMA RACV, SGIO and SGIC customers who held a home and/or contents insurance policy are invited to register their interest in the class action investigation here. [GN] INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Faces Suit Over Data Breach Exposure ------------------------------------------------------------ Christopher Brown of Bloomberg Law reports that International Business Machines Corp. failed to protect the personal information of millions of people that was exposed in a data breach connected to a cyberattack on Progress Software Corp.'s MOVEit file-transfer app, a proposed federal class action said. Jennifer Wedeking alleged that IBM negligently chose to use the MOVEit software to handle the transfer of sensitive information even though the software contained significant security vulnerabilities, and despite being on notice that other file transfer programs have been subjected to criminal hacking in the past. Information exposed in the breach included names, Social Security numbers, Medicaid and Medicare ID numbers. [GN] INVERNESS COUNTY, OR: Court Tosses Bid for Appointment of Counsel ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Williams v. Inverness County Jail Medical Staff et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-01360 (D. Or., Filed Sept. 14, 2021), the Hon. Judge Ann L. Aiken entered an order denying motion for appointment of counsel, as this action is stayed pending the resolution of class certification in Clark v. Multnomah Cty., Case No. 3:21-cv-501-AA. -- The Plaintiff may renew his motion once the stay in this action is lifted. The nature of suit states Prisoner Petitions -- Habeas Corpus -- Civil Rights.[CC] IOVATE HEALTH: Schoonover Bid to Certify Class Partly OK'd ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as EMILEY SCHOONOVER, Individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals, v. IOVATE HEALTH SCIENCES U.S.A. INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-01487-FLA-AGR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha entered an order granting in part the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. -- The court grants in part Plaintiff's motion for class certification and certifies the following class: "All persons who, on or after February 13, 2017, purchased in- store in the state of California for household use and not for resale or distribution, Defendant's Six Star Pre-Workout Explosion and/or Defendant's Six Star Pre-Workout Explosion Ripped products in a 32-ounce container." -- The motion is denied as to Defendant's 20-ounce containers and online purchases. -- The court appoints McGuire Law, P.C to serve as Class Counsel and appoints Plaintiff as Class Representative. -- The Defendant's Request for Judicial Notice is denied as moot. Finally, the court does not find that any difficulties—such as identifying class members—weighs against certification. The Plaintiff alleges this empty space—or "slack fill" -- is non-functional and serves no purpose other than to mislead consumers about how much product they are purchasing. Furthermore, the Plaintiff alleges the Defendant's packaging violates both state and federal laws that prohibit nonfunctional slack-fill. Based on these allegations, the Plaintiff asserts claims under: (1) California's Unfair Competition Law; (2) California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act; (3) California's Fair Advertising Law; and (4) unjust enrichment. Iovate offers nutritional supplements products. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 21, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qV5OBB at no extra charge.[CC] J. CREW GROUP: Champagne Sues Over Consumer Privacy Law Violations ------------------------------------------------------------------ COURTNEY CHAMPAGNE, POLINA IOFFE, and STASSA MARK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. J. CREW GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-07231-CM (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 15, 2023) arises out of the Defendant's violations of the California Credit Card Privacy Law, the Massachusetts Credit Card Privacy Law, and the Rhode Island Credit Card Privacy Law. Plaintiffs Champagne, Ioffe, and Mark, like so many others, purchased items at J. Crew locations in California, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island, and gave away their email addresses, believing it was required to make a credit card purchase. But it was not, and their inboxes paid the price. J. Crew sends them not only their receipts but also promotional emails on a nearly daily basis, says the suit. Headquartered in New York, J. Crew Group, LLC is a limited liability company that operates hundreds of retail clothing stores throughout the United States. The company manufactures, markets, advertises, and distributes its Products under the J. Crew brand throughout the United States, including California. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joshua Arisohn, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: jarisohn@bursor.com - and - L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Stefan Bogdanovich, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com sbogdanovich@bursor.com JAN-PRO FRANCHISING: Court Vacates Hearing in Roman Suit -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GLORIA ROMAN, GERARDO VASQUEZ, and JUAN AGUILAR, v. JAN-PRO FRANCHISING INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. 3:16-cv-05961-WHA (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William Alsup entered an order: -- vacating hearing on defendant's motion to compel. -- denying as moot the Plaintiffs' administrative motion to shorten time for the hearing on defendant's motion to compel. The Court said, "The Defendant has waived its right to compel arbitration against the absent class members by seeking in court to litigate the merits of its franchise scheme on a system-wide basis, i.e., on a class-wide basis. Having done so and having now seen how the judicial winds are blowing, defendant should not be allowed to reverse field and play the arbitration card Roman v. Jan-Pro Franchising Int'l, Inc., 342 F.R.D. 274, 291 (N.D. Cal. 2022). The Defendant recognizes as much, explaining in its briefing: "This Court's decision that JPI waived its contractual right to arbitrate any claims brought against it by the unit franchisees was error" "A prior order already denied leave for reconsideration of the class certification order. The Defendant also appealed the class certification order pursuant to Rule 23(f), and our court of appeals denied defendant permission to do so, the Court added." On August 2, 2022. It was based on a tentative order filed May 13, 2022, which explained the class would be certified and arbitration against absent class members would be deemed waived. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 21, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sDYnz3 at no extra charge.[CC] JASON WEIDA: Chianne Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Chianne D., et al., v. Jason Weida, in his official capacity as Secretary for the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00985-MMH-LLL (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 on behalf of a statewide class and two subclasses defined as: "All Florida Medicaid enrollees who are members of either of the two subclasses listed below and who on or after March 31, 2023, have been or will be found ineligible for Medicaid coverage." Subclass A: Individuals issued a written notice that includes no reason code or only uses reason code(s) that do not identify the eligibility factor(s) Defendants relied on to determine the individual is ineligible for Medicaid. For purposes of this definition, eligibility factors are age, residency, income, assets or other non-cash resources, receipt of Social Security Administration benefits, Medicare enrollment, citizenship, immigration status, or Social Security Number, disability status, pregnancy, and incarceration status. Subclass B: Individuals issued a written notice that relies on a reason code that states the individual or household is over income for Medicaid eligibility but does not identify the household income used in the eligibility determination or the applicable income standard. The Plaintiffs also move the Court to appoint their counsel as class counsel for the class and subclasses pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g). The class is composed of tens of thousands of low-income children, parents, and aged, blind, and disabled adults who have been or will be found ineligible for Medicaid without the timely and adequate notice required by the Due Process Clause of Constitution and the Medicaid Act. The lawsuit challenges the standardized notices Defendants use to inform individuals they are no longer eligible for Medicaid. Among other things, the notices do not clearly state which household members are losing Medicaid coverage, include no individualized information about the enrollees who are losing coverage, and rely on standardized "reason codes" that communicate only an ultimate conclusion, without explaining the agency's decision. As a result, Medicaid enrollees, including the named Plaintiffs, have been unable to understand whether and why their Medicaid coverage is ending, preventing them from successfully appealing Defendants’ decision. Following the end of the pandemic-related Medicaid continuous coverage requirement, the Defendants are now using these notices to redetermine Medicaid eligibility of almost five million Floridians. Florida Agency is the state agency responsible for oversight of Florida's Medicaid program. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 22, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PrvnmV at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Katy DeBriere, Esq. Miriam Harmatz, Esq. Lynn Hearn, Esq. FLORIDA HEALTH JUSTICE PROJECT 3900 Richmond Street Jacksonville, FL 32205 Telephone: (352) 496-5419 E-mail: debriere@floridahealthjustice.org harmatz@floridahealthjustice.org hearn@floridahealthjustice.org - and - Sarah Grusin, Esq. Miriam Heard, Esq. Amanda Avery, Esq. Jane Perkins, Esq. NATIONAL HEALTH LAW PROGRAM 1512 E. Franklin Street, Suite 110 Chapel Hill, NC 27541 Telephone: (919) 968-6308 E-mail: grusin@healthlaw.org heard@healthlaw.org avery@healthlaw.org perkins@healthlaw.org JIM JUSTICE: Plaintiffs' Class Status Bid Partly OK'd ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JONATHAN R., et al., v. JIM JUSTICE, et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-00710 (S.D.W. Va.), the Hon. Judge Joseph R. Goodwin entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification and appointment of class counsel: -- This matter shall proceed as a class action with one General Class and one ADA Subclass. Membership in the certified class and subclass is defined as follows: The General Class: "All West Virginia foster children who are or will be in the foster care custody of DHHR or its successor agency;" and The ADA Subclass: "All members of the General Class who have physical, intellectual, cognitive, or mental health disabilities, as defined by federal law." The following Named Plaintiffs, by their next friends, are appointed as class representatives for the General Class: Jonathan R., by his next friend, Sarah Dixon; Anastasia M., by her next friend, Cheryl Ord; Serena S., by her next friend, Sarah Dixon; Theo S., by his next friend, L. Scott Briscoe; Garrett M., by his next friend, L. Scott Briscoe; Gretchen C., by her next friend, Cathy Greiner; Dennis R., by his next friend, Debbie Stone; Chris K., Calvin K., and Caroline K., by their next friend, Katherine Huffman; Karter W., by his next friend, L. Scott Briscoe; and Ace L., by his next friend, Isabelle Santillion. Additionally, the following Named Plaintiffs, by their next friends, are appointed as class representatives for the ADA Subclass: Jonathan R., by his next friend, Sarah Dixon; Anastasia M., by her next friend, Cheryl Ord; Serena S., by her next friend, Sarah Dixon; Theo S., by his next friend, L. Scott Briscoe; Garrett M., by his next friend, L. Scott Briscoe; Gretchen C., by her next friend, Cathy Greiner; Dennis R., by his next friend, Debbie Stone; Karter W., by his next friend, L. Scott Briscoe; and Ace L., by his next friend, Isabelle Santillion. Finally, the following attorneys are appointed as co-counsel to represent both the General Class and ADA Subclass: Attorneys from A Better Childhood, Inc.; Attorneys from Shaffer & Shaffer, PLLC; and Attorneys from Disability Rights of West Virginia. The Plaintiffs' claims, challenging systemic deficiencies in West Virginia's foster care system, are tailor-made for class resolution. As the Fourth Circuit illustrated, "reforming foster care case-by-case would be like patching up holes in a sinking ship by tearing off the floorboards." The Plaintiffs are twelve current and former foster care children who challenge several key aspects of West Virginia's child welfare system. The Plaintiffs paint a grim picture of a deeply flawed system that inflicts on vulnerable children much of the same abuse and neglect that it was designed to redress. The Plaintiffs allege that as a result of Defendants' inept administration of foster care, they "have been abused and neglected, put in inadequate and dangerous placements, institutionalized and segregated from the outside world, left without necessary services, and forced to unnecessarily languish in foster care for years." A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 17, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45ULxe3 at no extra charge.[CC] KALAVERAS SL INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Garcia Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- GILBERT GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KALAVERAS SL INC.; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 23STCV21347 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Sept. 5, 2023) is an action against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, provide meals and rest periods, and provide accurate wage statements. Plaintiff Garcia was employed by the Defendants as a bartender. KALAVERAS SL INC. owns and operates a restaurant located in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zachary M. Crosner, Esq. Jamie Serb, Esq. BRANDON BROUILLETTE, ESQ (SBN 273156) CROSNER LEGAL, PC 9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (866) 276-7637 Facsimile: (310) 510-6429 Email: zach@crosnerlegal.com jamie@crosnerlegal.com KEURIG GREEN: Valenzuela Asked to Demonstrate Article III Standing ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, SONYA VALENZUELA, Plaintiff v. KEURIG GREEN MOUNTAIN, INC., Defendant, Case No. 22-cv-09042-JSC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California orders the Plaintiff to submit a memorandum demonstrating her Article III standing. Pending before the Court is the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint (SAC). Upon review of the SAC and the parties' submissions, Judge Corley has questions as to whether the Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged Article III standing. She is not yet satisfied the Plaintiff has alleged a concrete harm sufficient to support constitutional standing. Accordingly, the Plaintiff will submit a memorandum demonstrating her Article III standing to pursue the claims in federal court. The Defendant may file a response by Sept. 21, 2023. Oral argument on the Defendant's motion to dismiss is continued from Sept. 7, 2023, to Sept. 26, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 8, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco. The Court will address standing at that hearing as well. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 1, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/rkrp8e2h from Leagle.com. KIMBERLY CLARK: High Court Certifies Flushable Wipes' Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- NonWovens Industry reports that the Supreme Court of British Columbia has certified a class-action lawsuit against Kimberly-Clark Corp. on behalf of citizens who claim to have suffered personal injury after using Kimberly-Clark's Cottonelle Flushable Wipes and Cottonelle GentlePlus Flushable Wipes. The class that was certified were those people who purchased Kimberly-Clark's wipes and were injured by those wipes, Slater Vecchio LLP lawyer Justin Giovannetti told BIV in an interview. The class that was not certified was the one that included people who simply purchased the wipes but were not injured, he adds. "The claims of the personal injury subclass are certified, including claims they have as members of the economic subclass," wrote Justice Sharon Matthews in her Aug. 28 judgment. "The claims of the economic subclass members who are not also personal injury subclass members are not certified." Representative plaintiff Linda Bowman filed her lawsuit after Kimberly-Clark recalled its flushable skin care wipes manufactured between February 7, 2020 and Sept. 14, 2020, after some of these wipes were found to have been contaminated with Pluralibacter gergoviae, a bacteria that can cause serious infections, according to Giovannetti, who represented Bowman. Individuals with weakened immune systems are most vulnerable to being infected by Pluralibacter gergoviae, he adds. Bowman testified that she began purchasing Kimberly-Clark's flushable wipes in 2020 and provided a receipt for a large package purchased from Costco on July 17, 2020, according to the judgment. "She deposed that she used the wipes several times a day because of underlying health conditions including ulcerative colitis," Matthews wrote. "She deposed that she developed inflamed hair follicles and sores in her pubic region. She deposed that her pre-existing back and general body pain worsened. She also developed inflamed skin follicles in other areas where she uses the wipes including her mouth, nose, arms, breasts, and buttocks. She deposed that the inflammation is painful." Certification is the stage of a class action proceeding where the court determines whether a case should proceed as a class action. Class actions allow a group of individuals with similar claims to be represented collectively in a single lawsuit. The certification process does not make determinations on liability or damages. "Next we have to give notice to all of the class members," Giovannetti said. "Then, after that notice period expires, anybody who is a class member who did not opt out during that notice period, which typically is 90 days or so, they're automatically class members." [GN] KIRKLAND'S INC: Continues to Defend Gennock Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------- Kirkland's Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending July 29,2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 6, 2023, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Gennock class suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. The Company was named as a defendant in a putative class action filed in April 2017 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, Gennock v. Kirkland's, Inc. The complaint alleged that the Company, in violation of federal law, published more than the last five digits of a credit or debit card number on customers' receipts and sought statutory and punitive damages and attorneys' fees and costs. On October 21, 2019, the District Court dismissed the matter and ruled that the Plaintiffs did not have standing based on the Third Circuit's recent decision in Kamal v. J. Crew Group, Inc., 918 F.3d 102 (3d. Cir. 2019). Following the dismissal in federal court, on October 25, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a Praecipe to Transfer the case to Pennsylvania state court, and on August 20, 2020, the court ruled that the plaintiffs have standing. The Company appealed that ruling, and on April 27, 2022, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania granted the Company's petition for permission to appeal. On May 16, 2023, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania ruled that plaintiffs lacked standing under Pennsylvania law and dismissed plaintiffs' complaint. The Company continues to believe that the case is without merit and will continue to vigorously defend itself in the event the Pennsylvania Supreme Court takes the case on appeal. Kirkland's, Inc. is a retailer of home decor and furnishings based in Tennessee. KIRKLAND'S INC: Continues to Defend Miles Class Suit in California ------------------------------------------------------------------ Kirkland's Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending July 29,2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 6, 2023, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Miles class suit in the Superior Court of California. The Company was named as a defendant in a putative class action filed in May 2018 in the Superior Court of California, Miles v. Kirkland's Stores, Inc. The case has been removed to United States District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint alleges, on behalf of Miles and all other hourly Kirkland's employees in California, various wage and hour violations and seeks unpaid wages, statutory and civil penalties, monetary damages and injunctive relief. Kirkland's denies the material allegations in the complaint and believes that its employment policies are generally compliant with California law. On March 22, 2022, the District Court denied the plaintiff’s motion to certify in its entirety, and on May 26, 2022, the Ninth Circuit granted the plaintiff's petition for permission to appeal. The Court has stayed the entire case pending the appeal. The Company continues to believe the case is without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against the allegations. Kirkland's, Inc. is a retailer of home decor and furnishings based in Tennessee. KIRKLAND'S INC: Continues to Defend Sicard Class Suit in S.D.N.Y. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kirkland's Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending July 29,2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 6, 2023, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Sicard class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Company was named as a defendant in a putative class action filed in August 2022 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Sicard v. Kirkland's Stores, Inc. The complaint alleges, on behalf of Sicard and all other hourly store employees based in New York, that Kirkland's violated New York Labor Law Section 191 by failing to pay him and the putative class members their wages within seven calendar days after the end of the week in which those wages were earned, rather paying wages on a bi-weekly basis. Plaintiff claims the putative class is entitled to recover from the Company the amount of their untimely paid wages as liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. The Company believes the case is without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against the allegations. Kirkland's, Inc. is a retailer of home decor and furnishings based in Tennessee. KNIX WEAR: Faces Spencer Class Suit Over Underwear False Ads ------------------------------------------------------------ ERIN SPENCER and NICKOLE GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. KNIX WEAR INC., KNIX WEAR LLC, KNIX WEAR CALIFORNIA LLC, KNIX WEAR US, INC., and KNIX SAN DIEGO UTC, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-07823 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 1, 2023) alleges that the Defendants made material misrepresentations and false statements that their reusable feminine hygiene underwear and apparel are sustainable, 100% per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances free, fluorine free, and tested and cleared for harmful substances. The class action suit is brought by the Plaintiffs on behalf of consumers who purchased the Defendants' reusable feminine hygiene underwear and apparel, which are used to manage menstruation by collecting and/or absorbing menstrual fluid. The Plaintiffs contend that Knix represented to consumers that its "PFAS-free" representations were based on independent testing by third-party labs posted on Knix's website that allegedly did not detect the presence of PFAS or organic fluorine in the tested products, but that testing was only as good as the detection limits used by the labs, and was not sufficient to support a marketing claim that the Underwear are 100% free of PFAS, fluorine or other toxic chemicals. PFAS, also known as "forever chemicals," are a category of highly persistent and potentially harmful man-made chemicals that have been associated with numerous negative health effects for humans and harmful environmental impacts. As a direct and intended result of Knix's advertising and marketing, Ms. Spencer purchased multiple styles of the Underwear, including Knix Super Leakproof High Rise, Cotton Modal Super Leakproof High Rise, and the Super Leakproof Dream Short, which she used according to these products' specifications. In November of 2022, Ms. Spencer learned that testing had been performed on the Underwear and that samples of the Underwear tested positive for PFAS. The Plaintiffs and Class Members did not receive the full benefit of their bargain. They paid for the Underwear that was promised to be "100% PFAS free," but the Underwear they received may contain PFAS in amounts that are detectable using testing methods with more sensitive detection limits than those used by Knix's independent third-party testing labs, the lawsuit alleges. The Plaintiff Spencer purchased the Underwear from Knix's official website: www.knix.com in November 2021. Knix designs, formulates, manufactures, markets, advertises, distributes, and sells women's apparel, including the Underwear, which is an alternative to traditional disposable menstrual products such as pads and tampons.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mitchell Breit, Esq. Erin J. Ruben, Esq. J. Hunter Bryson, Esq. Harper T. Segui, Esq. Rachel Soffin, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 405 East 50th Street New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (347) 668-8445 E-mail: mbreit@milberg.com eruben@milberg.com jbryson@milberg.com hsegui@milberg.com rsoffin@milberg.com KTA INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Dobbs Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------ DORIS C. DOBBS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KTA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-02559 (W.D. Tenn., Sept. 5, 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 Dobbs was employed by the Defendant as a delivery driver. KTA, INC. provides delivery services for Federal Express Ground Delivery in the State of Tennessee and in other locations. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: J. Russ Bryant, Esq. Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. James L. Holt, Jr., Esq. J. Joseph Leatherwood IV, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT OWEN & BRYANT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Telephone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 754-8524 Email: gjackson@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com jholt@jsyc.com jleatherwood@jsyc.com LABORATORY CORP: Howard Suit Transferred to M.D. North Carolina --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, CONNIE HOWARD, YADIRA YAZMIN HERNANDEZ, and DEBORAH REYNOLDS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA, LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS, and META PLATFORMS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-02773-WHO (N.D. Cal.), Judge William H. Orrick of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, transfers the Action to the Middle District of North Carolina. On June 5, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint against Labcorp and Meta, which the Plaintiffs identified as related to In Re Meta Pixel Healthcare Litigation, 3:22-cv-3580-WHO-VKD ("Consolidated Action"). On July 26, 2023, the Plaintiffs and the parties in the Consolidated Action jointly moved the Court to relate the Action to the Consolidated Action, so that the claims against Meta could be consolidated with the Consolidated Action. Meta -- with the Moving Parties' consent -- moved to sever the claims against Meta in the Action so that they could be related to and consolidated with the Consolidated Action. On Aug. 16, 2023, the Court related the Action to the Consolidated Action. On Aug. 23, 2023, the Court granted Meta's unopposed motion to sever the Plaintiffs' claims against Meta into the Consolidated Action, leaving behind their claims against Labcorp in the Action. Labcorp filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims against Labcorp arguing, among other things, that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Labcorp, "a Delaware corporation with its headquarters in Burlington, North Carolina." Burlington, North Carolina is located within the Middle District of North Carolina. The Plaintiffs believe the Court can exercise personal jurisdiction over Labcorp, but also believe that transferring the Action to the Middle District of North Carolina now is in the best interest of putative class members and that a transfer will save judicial resources. Any transfer would result in the adjudication of Labcorp's claims in the Middle District of North Carolina but would not disturb the Court's previous ruling severing and consolidating the Plaintiffs' claims against Meta into the Consolidated Action. The Moving Parties (Plaintiffs and Defendant Labcorp), through their respective counsel and subject to the Court's approval, that the Action be transferred to the Middle District of North Carolina pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1406(a). Judge Orrick so ordered. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 1, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/598mv4cc from Leagle.com. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP, Michael W. Sobol -- msobol@lchb.com -- San Francisco, CA, Attorneys for the Plaintiffs. Brian Levin, LEVIN LAW, P.A., Miami, Florida, Matthew R. Wilson -- mwilson@meyerwilson.com -- MEYER WILSON, P.A., Columbus, Ohio, Attorneys for the Plaintiffs. HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, Vassi Iliadis -- vassi.iliadis@hoganlovells.com -- Los Angeles, California, LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP, Douglas I. Cuthbertson -- dcuthbertson@lchb.com -- (pro hac vice), Margaret J. Mattes -- mmattes@lchb.com -- New York, NY, HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, Allison Holt Ryan -- allison.holt-ryan@hoganlovells.com -- (pro hac vice), Adam A. Cooke -- adam.a.cooke@hoganlovells.com -- (pro hac vice), Washington, D.C., Attorneys for Defendants Laboratory Corporation of America and Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings. LELY NORTH: Class Settlement in Kruger Suit Wins Final Approval --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JARED KRUGER, MARK VAN ESSEN, LYNN KIRSCHBAUM, DONNA and ROBERT KOON, and SCHUMACHER DAIRY FARMS OF PLAINVIEW LLC, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LELY NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 0:20-cv-00629-KMM/DTS (D. Minn.), Judge Katherine Menendez of the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota grants the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Class Settlement, Attorneys' Fees, Costs, Expenses, and Service Awards and the Class Counsel's Motion for Attorney's Fees, Costs, Expenses and Service Awards. Plaintiffs Jared Kruger, Mark Van Essen, Lynn Kirschbaum, Donna and Robert Koon, and Schumacher Dairy Farms of Plainview LLC ("Settlement Class Representatives") brought the class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons in the United States or its territories who purchased or leased a new Lely Astronaut A4 robotic milking machine. They alleged that the A4 Robot was defective, resulting in mounting problems and costs in contradiction to what Defendants Lely North America, Inc., Lely Holding B.V., Maasland N.V., Lely Industries N.V., and Lely International N.V. (collectively "Lely") had represented. After engaging in discovery and subsequent mediation, the Parties reached a settlement and filed the instant Motion seeking the Court's final approval of the agreement. On Jan. 4, 2023, the Court ordered that the Settlement Agreement, including the exhibits attached thereto, are preliminarily approved as fair reasonable, and adequate in accordance with Rule 23(e). Further, it found that it will likely certify the class for purpose of judgment on the Settlement. The Court thus directed the Settlement Administrator and the Parties to carry out the Notice Plan in conformance with the Settlement Agreement and to perform all other tasks that Settlement Agreement requires. According to the declaration of Richard Simmons, submitted with the Final Approval Motion, the appointed Settlement Administrator issued the Court-approved Class Notice by first class mail to the Settlement Class Members, and by email to Settlement Class members who had an email address available. The Class Notice advised Settlement Class Members of the material terms of the Settlement and that the Class Counsel would seek attorney's fees of up to one-third of the upper-threshold of the Cash Fund (including providing the precise amount requested), reimbursement for their costs and expenses in an amount up to $300,000, and Service Awards as follows: (1) $50,000 for Class Representative Jared Kruger; (2) $25,000 for Class Representative Mark Van Essen; and (3) $15,000 each for Settlement Class Representatives Lynn Kirschbaum, Donna and Robert Koon, and Schumacher Dairy Farms of Plainview LLC. Pursuant to the deadlines established by the Court in its Jan. 4, 2023 order, the Class Notice also notified Settlement Class Members that the deadline to submit objections to the Settlement or to opt-out of the Settlement Class was April 4, 2023. On March 14, 2023, the Class Counsel filed their Fee Motion seeking one-third of the upper-threshold of the Cash Fund ($21,433,333.33), reimbursement for costs and expenses ($264,245.39), and the above stated Service Awards for each Class Representative. No Class Members objected to the Settlement, the Class Counsel's fees and expenses, or the service awards requested. Likewise, no opt-out requests were received. In fact, the Settlement was overwhelmingly supported by the Settlement Class Members, as the Settlement Class Members owning approximately 96% of the eligible A4 robots chose to participate in the Settlement. On July 13, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed their Final Approval Motion. On July 24, 2023, the Court held a Final Approval Hearing to consider the pending motions. The Settlement Class is defined as follows: All persons in the United States or its territories who purchased or leased a new Lely Astronaut A4 Robot. Judge Menendez concludes that the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and approves the Settlement. As of the Effective Date, the Releasing Parties will be deemed to have, and by operation of this Order and the contemporaneously entered Final Judgment will have, waived any and all Released Claims against the Released Parties, as defined in the Settlement Agreement. Judge Menendez dismisses the Action with prejudice except the Court retains exclusive jurisdiction over the Action and the Parties, attorneys, and Settlement Class Members with respect to the administration, interpretation, and effectuation or enforcement of the Settlement Agreement, the Order granting the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Class Counsel's Motion for Attorney's Fees, Costs, Expenses and Service Awards, and the contemporaneously entered Final Judgment. Judge Menendez then agrees that awarding a percentage of the fund is appropriate, the costs and expenses were reasonably incurred and are reimbursable from the fund, and the service awards are reasonable. She awards the requested attorney's fees, costs, expenses, and service awards. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 1, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/wnwsc4zb from Leagle.com. LELY NORTH: Court Refuses to Increase Kruger's Class Rep. Award --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JARED KRUGER, MARK VAN ESSEN, LYNN KIRSCHBAUM, DONNA and ROBERT KOON, and SCHUMACHER DAIRY FARMS OF PLAINVIEW LLC, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LELY NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 0:20-cv-00629 (KMM/DTS) (D. Minn.), Judge Katherine Menendez of the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota denies Kruger's request for the Court to modify the settlement and increase his class representative award. The matter is before the Court on the Plaintiffs' Consent Motion for Approval of Settlement. The Court has approved the final settlement by separate order. Judge Menendez addresses the request of one of Kruger, to modify the agreed-upon settlement to increase his service award. Kruger submitted a letter to the Court a few days ahead of the Final Approval Hearing expressing his dissatisfaction with the final settlement and his concerns about the process by which the settlement was achieved. He also submitted a letter from his father detailing similar concerns. Kruger then appeared at the hearing and addressed the Court. He expressed frustration at what he and his family had experienced using the robotic milking machines. Kruger also described dissatisfaction with the value of the cash payout to the class members, a number that was lower than hoped for because so many class members chose to participate in the settlement. And finally, he discussed that he believed he was essential to the success of the litigation and to the achieving of any settlement at all, and therefore his service award should be greater. Judge Menendez appreciates that Kruger came to Court to express his concerns. But she is unable to give him the relief he seeks. Judge Menendez has not found any authority by which it can increase such a payment. Nor would she be comfortable tinkering with one part of a complex settlement by doing so. Therefore, she declines Kruger's request for the Court to modify the settlement and increase his class representative award. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 1, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/48bz792r from Leagle.com. MARATHON DIGITAL: Faces Shareholder Suit Over SEC Reports --------------------------------------------------------- Marathon Digital Holdings, 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 putative class action complaint filed on March 30, 2023, in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, against the company and present and former senior management, alleging claims under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 arising out of its announcement of accounting restatements on February 28, 2023. The defendants' time to respond has been extended until after the appointment of a lead plaintiff. To date, no lead plaintiff has been appointed. Marathon Digital Holdings, Inc. and subsidiaries is a digital asset technology company that produces or "mines" digital assets with a focus on the blockchain ecosystem and the generation of digital assets. MARATHON PETROLEUM: Faces Suit Over Refinery Fire in Louisiana -------------------------------------------------------------- 1012 reports that a New Orleans law firm is drafting a class-action suit against Marathon, saying they received at least 50 calls after the refinery fire in Garyville, Louisiana, reports WDSU News. The firm is trying to determine the legal exposure for Marathon after a chemical leak and large fire sent black smoke plumes into the air. "We have heard several people say that they're starting to have some respiratory issues and issues with their eyes and things of that nature," says Daryl Gray with Wright and Gray. "All of the stuff that comes with a chemical exposure." [GN] MAXLINEAR INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Oct. 30 -------------------------------------------------------------- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC a nationally recognized law firm, notifies investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against MaxLinear, Inc. ("MaxLinear" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: MXL) and certain of its officers. Class Definition: This lawsuit seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired MaxLinear securities between June 6, 2023 and July 6, 2023, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site: bgandg.com/mxl. Case Details: The Complaint alleges that the Prospectus and other solicitations relating to the Merger concealed and failed to disclose material fact. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that: (1) there had been a material downturn in the semiconductor industry and rising interest rates; (2) MaxLinear had determined to unilaterally terminate the Merger in the event the Merger was approved by Chinese regulatory authorities; (3) MaxLinear intended to argue that certain conditions in Article 6 of the Merger Agreement had not been satisfied as required by May 5, 2023 (i.e., before the Class Period) as a basis to terminate the Merger; and (4) as a result of (1)-(3), defendants had materially misrepresented the viability of the Merger, the purported benefits of the Merger, and the likelihood that the Merger would be consummated. What's Next? A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint, you can visit the firm's site: bgandg.com/mxl or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Law Clerk and Client Relations Manager, Yael Nathanson of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 332-239-2660. If you suffered a loss in MaxLinear you have until October 30, 2023 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Why Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman: Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a nationally recognized firm that represents investors in securities fraud class actions and shareholder derivative suits. Our firm has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors nationwide. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. View source version on businesswire.com:https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20230904786217/en/ CONTACT: Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC Peretz Bronstein or Yael Nathanson 332-239-2660 |info@bgandg.com [GN] MCGRATH RENTCORP: Class Settlement in Grogan Suit Wins Prelim. OK ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ROBERT GROGAN and HELENA CRUZ, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MCGRATH RENTCORP, Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-00490 (C.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Alex G. Tse of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, grants the Plaintiffs' renewed motion for preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement. The matter came before the Court on the Plaintiffs' renewed motion for preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement of the Action between Plaintiffs Robert Grogan and Helena Cruz, individually and on behalf of the Settlement Class, and Defendant McGrath Rentcorp as set forth in the Parties' Settlement Agreement and Release. Having duly considered the motion and all supporting papers, including the Settlement and the amended proposed notices, Judge Tse finds that the Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and within the range of possible approval; and he is likely to be able to approve the proposed Settlement pursuant Rule 23(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. He grants preliminary approval of the Settlement. Pursuant to Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Judge Tse preliminarily certifies, for purposes of the Settlement only, the following Settlement Class: "All persons whose personal information, which may include health information, was potentially exposed to unauthorized access as a result of an Incident affecting Defendant's computer network that occurred in 2021." He appoints (i) Turke & Strauss, LLP, Paronich Law, LLP, and Meyer Wilson Co., LPA, as the Class Counsel; and (ii) Robert Grogan and Helena Cruz as the Class Representatives of the Settlement Class. He approves the Class Notice, as more fully described in the Agreement. He directs the Parties and the Settlement Administrator to complete all aspects of the Class Notice no later than Sept. 22, 2023, in accordance with the terms of the Agreement. The Fairness Hearing is set for Feb. 2, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. No later than Oct. 2, 2023, the Class Counsel must file papers in support of their application for attorneys' fees and expenses, and the incentive awards to the Class Representatives. No later than Jan. 12, 2024, which is 21 Days before the Final Approval Hearing, the Plaintiffs must file papers in support of final approval of the Settlement and respond to any written objections. The Defendant may (but is not required to) file papers in support of final approval of the Settlement, so long as it does so by no later than Jan. 19, 2024. The Court may continue the Final Approval hearing from time-to-time without further notice to the Settlement Class Members. Not later than Jan. 12, 2024, which is 21 days before the Final Approval Hearing, the Defendant will file a declaration with the Court stating that it has provided the notice required under CAFA. The Objection Deadline and Opt-Out Deadline is Nov. 6, 2023. All Settlement Class Members who do not opt out in accordance with the terms set forth in the Agreement will be bound by all determinations and judgments concerning the Settlement. The following are the deadlines by which certain events must occur: Sept. 22, 2023 - Notice Deadline Oct. 2, 2023 - Deadline for the Class Counsel to file Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Incentive Awards Nov. 6, 2023 - Deadline for Settlement Class Members to file Objections or submit Requests for Exclusion; Deadline for Settlement Class Members to submit Claims Nov. 13, 2023 - Deadline for Settlement Administrator to provide the Class Counsel with a declaration that Class Notice has been disseminated, identifying the number of Requests for Exclusion, and the number of Claims received to date. Jan. 12, 2024 - Deadline for the Defendant to file a Declaration with the Court affirming that it has provided notice pursuant to CAFA. Jan. 12, 2024 - Deadline to file Motion and Memorandum in Support of Final Approval, including responses to any Objections. Feb. 2, 2024, at 10 a.m. - Final Approval Hearing Judge Tse approves Kroll as the Settlement Administrator. The counsel are authorized to use all reasonable procedures in connection with approval and administration of the Settlement that are not materially inconsistent with the Order or the Agreement, including making, without further approval of the Court, minor changes to the form or content of the Class Notice and Claim Form, and other exhibits that they jointly agree are reasonable and necessary. The Court reserves the right to approve the Agreement with such modifications, if any, as may be agreed to by the Parties without further notice to the Settlement Class Members. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 1, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yckyp6v3 from Leagle.com. MEYER WILSON CO., LPA Matthew R. Wilson -- mwilson@meyerwilson.com -- Michael J. Boyle, Jr. -- mboyle@meyerwilson.com -- Columbus, OH. TURKE & STRAUSS LLP Samuel J. Strauss -- sam@turkestrauss.com -- Raina Borrelli -- raina@turkestrauss.com -- Madison, WI. MEMORIAL HEART: Allen Sues Over Alleged Data Breach --------------------------------------------------- GISELE REED ALLEN, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MEMORIAL HEART INSTITUTE, LLC d/b/a THE CHATTANOOGA HEART INSTITUTE, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-00179 (E. D. Tenn., Aug. 15, 2023) arises from the Defendant's failure to implement reasonable security protections sufficient to prevent an eminently avoidable cyberattack, unauthorized actors compromised Defendant's network and accessed thousands of patient files containing highly-sensitive personally identifying information. Beginning on or around March 8, 2023, Defendant's patients' sensitive personal and medical data was compromised when unauthorized actors were able to breach Defendant's network and access files. However, the Defendant has not disclosed how long the unauthorized actors has accessed Plaintiff's and current and former patient' highly sensitive PII stored on Defendant's systems, only stating that Defendant discovered the Data Breach on April 17, 2023. It also failed to promptly notify Plaintiff and Class members that their PII was exfiltrated due to Defendant's security failures virtually ensured that the unauthorized third parties who exploited those security lapses could monetize, misuse and/or disseminate that PII before Plaintiff and Class members could take affirmative steps to protect their sensitive information, says the suit. The Plaintiff alleges claims against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, bailment, unjust enrichment, and for violations of several state data breach and consumer protection statutes. Memorial Heart Institute is a medical group providing cardiac healthcare and cardiothoracic surgical healthcare services in eastern Tennessee. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Andrew Mize, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Ste. 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com amize@stranchlaw.com - and - Daniel O. Herrera, Esq. Nickolas J. Hagman, Esq. Paige L. Smith, Esq. CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP 135 S. LaSalle, Suite 3210 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 782-4880 Facsimile: (312) 782-4485 E-mail: dherrera@caffertyclobes.com nhagman@caffertyclobes.com psmith@caffertyclobes.com MERIDIAN SENIOR: Loses Bid to Move Bradenberg Suit to S.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, SHARON BRADENBERG, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiffs v. MERIDIAN SENIOR LIVING, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-03198 (C.D. Ill.), Judge Sue E. Myerscough of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois, Springfield Division: a. grants Bradenberg's Unopposed Motion to Lift Stay; b. denies the Defendant's Motions for Reconsideration of the Court's Denial of Meridian's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint, to Transfer Case to the Southern District of Illinois, and for Leave to File a Reply Brief; and c. denies proposed Intervenor Plaintiff Roxann Hall's Motion to Intervene. The case involves novel legal questions about a novel state law: Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act, or "BIPA." Bradenberg alleges her employer, Meridian, violated that law when Meridian allegedly transmitted her scanned fingerprint to its timekeeping vendor without her consent. Bradenberg also alleges that Meridian violated the law when Meridian collected, stored, disseminated, or used her fingerprints or other personal identifying information without consent. Bradenberg filed a class action complaint articulating these allegations in the Circuit Court for the Seventh Judicial Circuit, Sangamon County, Illinois on June 10, 2020. Meridian removed the case to this Court on Aug. 3, 2020, pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 1453(b) and under 28 U.S.C. Sections 1441 and 1446. Meridian then moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing, as relevant to the Motion for Reconsideration, that Bradenberg's claims were untimely and that she assumed the risk of a breach of BIPA by Meridian. The Court rejected each of Meridian's arguments, agreeing with Bradenberg in holding (1) BIPA claims are subject to the five-year statute of limitations articulated in 735 ILCS 5/13-205 and (2) that the primary assumption of risk doctrine is not available to BIPA defendants under Illinois law because BIPA is a strict liability statute. In the month following the Court issuing its ruling on the Motion to Dismiss, various parties filed additional motions. On Oct. 14, 2021, proposed Intervenor Hall filed a Motion to Intervene in this case. Hall filed her own action in the Circuit Court for the First Judicial Circuit, Williamson County, Illinois, which Meridian then removed to the Southern District of Illinois in Case Number 21-cv-55. In her case, Hall alleges that Meridian similarly violated BIPA through the use of fingerprint scanning, like Bradenberg's claims, and through the use of retina scanning, unlike Bradenberg's claims. Then, on Oct. 15, 2021, Meridian filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the Opinion on the Motion to Dismiss and followed that up 12 days later with a Motion to Transfer to the Southern District of Illinois. Upon further briefing of Meridian's Motion for Partial Reconsideration, the Court determined that relevant legal issues to this case were pending in decisions in Tims v. Black Horse Carriers, Inc., 2023 IL 127801; Marion v. Ring Container Techs., LLC, No. 3-20-0184; and White Castle System, Inc. v. Cothron, No. 20-8029 (7th Cir. filed Oct. 13, 2020). Those cases were either pending before the Illinois Supreme Court or with certified questions to the Illinois Supreme Court from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals regarding (1) the appropriate statute of limitations to be applied to BIPA claims and (2) when BIPA claims accrue. This Court determined, sua sponte, that a stay in this case pending those decisions and answers to those questions was appropriate and stayed this case until those questions were resolved. The Illinois Supreme Court has now issued final decisions in both Tims v. Black Horse Carriers, Inc., -- N.E.3d --, 2023 IL 127801 (Ill. 2023) and Cothron v. White Castle System, Inc., -- N.E.3d --, 2023 IL 128004 (Ill. 2023). In Tims, the Court held that the five-year catch-all of limitations set out in 735 ILCS 5/13-205 applies to BIPA claims. In Cothron, the Court held that a separate claim accrues under BIPA each time a private entity scans or transmits an individual's biometric identifier or information in violation of section 15(b) or 15(d). The questions which formed the basis of the stay entered by this Court having now been answered, Bradenberg's Unopposed Motion to Lift Stay is granted, and Judge Myerscough turns to the Motion for Partial Reconsideration, the Motion to Intervene, and the Motion to Transfer. Meridian asks the Court to partially reconsider the previous Order on two grounds, arguing as incorrect the Court's application of the five-year statute of limitations to Bradenberg's claims and conclusion that the primary assumption of risk defense is not available to BIPA defendants. Judge Myerscough opines that the Illinois Supreme Court has made clear that the five-year statute of limitations articulated in 735 ILCS 5/13-205 applies to BIPA claims like Bradenberg's. Because that is the same conclusion this Court previously reached, Meridian's request for reconsideration is denied. Meridian's request for reconsideration regarding primary assumption of risk is also denied. It would be nonsensical for the Court to allow Meridian to argue the primary assumption of risk defense while simultaneously prohibiting Bradenberg from arguing. The issue of whether BIPA is a strict liability statute was squarely before the Court. Also before the Court is a Motion by proposed Intervenor Hall. Hall is currently litigating her own case against Meridian in Southern District of Illinois Case Number 21-cv-55, and she requests the Court allows her to intervene in this matter. Hall's request is denied because it is untimely. Judge Myerscough need not, and in her discretion does not, consider the remaining elements under Rule 24(b). Roxann Hall's Motion to Intervene is denied. Finally, Judge Myerscough turns to Meridian's Motion to Transfer to the Southern District of Illinois. Among other things, she finds that Bradenberg's claims against Meridian stem from her employment at Meridian's facilities in Newton, Illinois which is in Jasper County, Illinois. While that location is in the Southern District of Illinois, Bradenberg's claims are styled as a class action representing potential class plaintiffs from all Meridian facilities throughout Illinois, including those in the Central District of Illinois. So, to the extent Meridian argues that all of the material events occurred in the Southern District and all of the evidence and parties are located there, such argument fails to include any evidence and any parties from the facilities outside the Southern District. Meridian's Motion to Transfer is denied. In sum, Meridian has not carried its burden on Reconsideration or to Transfer. Hall has similarly not carried her burden to show why she has a sufficient interest in the litigation to allow her to intervene. Judge Myerscough also notes that premises of the previously order stay are resolved. Therefore, the Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion to Lift Stay is granted, the Defendant's Motion for Leave to File a Reply Brief is granted, and the Clerk is directed to docket the attached Proposed Reply as the Defendant's Reply nunc pro tunc Oct. 29, 2021. Hall's Motion to Intervene is denied. The Defendant's Motion for Partial Reconsideration is denied. The Defendant's Motion to Transfer Case is denied. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 1, 2023 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/34sbz2fh from Leagle.com. META PLATFORMS: Court Certifies Beaulieu Discrimination Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Emilie Bergeron of Montreal Gazette reports that the Supreme Court of Canada is refusing to hear Facebook's challenge to an authorization of class action against it in Quebec, allowing the case to move forward. A Quebec woman, Lyse Beaulieu, argues she has been discriminated against during her job search because old Facebook policies allowed advertisers to target certain age groups at the expense of others. Facebook has since changed its policy, but Beaulieu, who was 63 to 65 years old during her job search, filed for a class action involving all Facebook users located in Quebec who, since April 11, 2016, "have been explicitly excluded by Facebook's ad services" because of their race, sex, marital status, age, origin or social situation. Quebec Superior Court refused such a class action, but the decision was reversed in the Court of Appeal. Facebook therefore turned to the Supreme Court, which announced on August 31, 2023 that it will not consider the case. Meta, Facebook's parent company, declined to comment on the Supreme Court's decision. [GN] MINDGEEK USA: Suit Seeks Leave to File Documents Under Seal ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANE DOE on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. MINDGEEK USA INCORPORATED, MINDGEEK S.A.R.L., MG FREESITES, LTD (D/B/A PORNHUB), MG FREESITES II, LTD, MG CONTENT RT LIMITED, AND 9219- 1568 QUEBEC, INC. (D/B/A MINDGEEK), Case No. 8:21-cv-00338-CJC-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff files an application for leave to file documents under seal. The Plaintiff seeks to file completely under seal Exhibits 1-9, 11-19, and 21-22 to the class certification motion. The Plaintiff also seeks to file partially under seal the highlighted portions of Plaintiff's memorandum in support of the class certification motion, insofar as it contains reference to material contained in the sealed exhibits. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 21, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PraoRd at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Davida Brook, Esq. Krysta Kauble Pachman, Esq. Halley josephs, Esq. Amy B. Gregory, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 789-3100 Facsimile: (310) 789-3150 - and - Steve Cohen, Esq. POLLOCK COHEN LLP 60 Broad St., 24th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 337-5361 MINDGEEK USA: Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANE DOE on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. MINDGEEK USA INCORPORATED, MINDGEEK S.A.R.L., MG FREESITES, LTD (D/B/A PORNHUB), MG FREESITES II, LTD, MG CONTENT RT LIMITED, AND 9219- 1568 QUEBEC, INC. (D/B/A MINDGEEK), Case No. 8:21-cv-00338-CJC-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, certifying the following class and subclasses regarding Plaintiff's claims as follows: -- Child Victim Class "All persons who were under the age of 18 when they appeared in a video or image that has been uploaded or otherwise made available for viewing on any website owned or operated by MindGeek from February 19, 2011, through the present;" and -- California Child Victim Subclass "Members of the Child Victim Class residing in California who were under the age of 18 when they appeared in a video or image that has been uploaded or otherwise made available for viewing on any website owned or operated by MindGeek from February 19, 2011, through the present" The Plaintiff moves, alternatively, for the certification of the following Alternative Classes: -- TOS8 Audit Subclass "Members of the Child Victim Class who appeared in a video or image catalogued by MindGeek as violating its TOS8 and/or reported to NCMEC in MindGeek_00493462, MindGeek_00486117, MindGeek_00336419, and MindGeek_00336420;" -- California TOS8 Audit Subclass "Members of the Child Victim Class residingin California who appeared in a video or image catalogued by MindGeek as violating its TOS8 and/or reported to NCMEC in MindGeek_00493462, MindGeek_00486117, MindGeek_00336419, and MindGeek_00336420." The injunction that each of the above classes seek under Rule 23(b)(2) is to enjoin MindGeek from uploading or otherwise making available visual depictions of sexually explicit content onto its websites without obtaining government-issued identification confirming that all performers are over the age of eighteen. The Plaintiff also moves the Court to appoint Plaintiff as class representative of the Child Victim Class and each subclass. The Plaintiff further moves the Court to appoint Susman Godfrey L.L.P. as class counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 21, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PqV8Uq at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Davida Brook, Esq. Krysta Kauble Pachman, Esq. Halley W. Josephs, Esq. Amy Gregory, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 789-3100 Facsimile: (310) 789-3150 E-mail: dbrook@susmangodfrey.com kpachman@susmangodfrey.com hjosephs@susmangodfrey.com agregory@susmangodfrey.com - and - Steve Cohen, Esq. POLLOCK COHEN LLP 60 Broad St., 24th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 337-5361 E-mail: SCohen@pollockcohen.com MISSISSIPPI BEHAVIORAL: Class Cert Discovery Deadline Due Nov. 17 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAQUAY JACKSON AND DANA RICE INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS, V. MISSISSIPPI BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-00697-CWR-LGI (S.D. Miss.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending the class certification discovery deadline and the filing deadline for the plaintiffs' motion for class certification for the following reasons: -- The parties ask that the Court extend the class certification discovery deadline until November 17, 2023, and the deadline for the plaintiffs to file their motion for certification to January 19, 2024, though they may move to certify before that date. -- In this case, the plaintiffs allege that MBHS violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by not paying them overtime for hours worked over 40 each workweek. -- In addition to their individual claims, they intend to ask the Court to certify a class of allegedly similarly situated individuals. -- After MBHS answered the plaintiffs' complaint, the parties worked together to submit an agreement that tolls the statute of limitations for members of the putative class, which the Court entered on March 22, 2023. The Defendant provides behavioral rehabilitation services. A copy of the Parties' order dated Aug. 17, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3P3YKuh at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Karen Kithan Yau, Esq. Elisabeth Schiffbauer, Esq. GETMAN, SWEENEY & DUNN, PLLC 260 Fair Street Kingston, NY 12401 E-mail: kyau@getmansweeney.com eschiffbauer@getmansweeney.com - and - Christopher W. Espy, Esq. ESPY LAW, PLLC Jackson, MS 13722 E-mail: chris@espylaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Adam H. Gates, Esq. Spence J. Flatgard, Esq. Gabrielle Wells, Esq. WATKINS & EAGER PLLC The Emporium Building 400 East Capitol Street Jackson, MS 39201 Telephone: (601) 965-1900 E-mail: agates@watkinseager.com sflatgard@watkinseager.com gwells@watkinseager.com MONSANTO CO: Roundup Class Action Hearing Begins in Melbourne Court ------------------------------------------------------------------- Melissa Brown, writing for ABC News, reports that the Federal Court in Melbourne has begun hearing a class action against the manufacturers of one of the world's biggest selling weed killers, Roundup. The class action involves 800 Australians who have been diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The nine week trial will hear from expert witnesses about whether glyphosate, a broad-spectrum herbicide which is the key ingredient in Roundup, is carcinogenic to humans and can cause non-Hodgkin lymphoma. If that is accepted by the court, it will then be asked whether the manufacturers, Monsanto and its Australian division Huntsman Chemical Company (previously Monsanto Australia) were negligent regarding the risks posed by its products. Outside court, Maurice Blackburn Lawyers national head of class actions, Andrew Watson, said most of his clients were exposed to Roundup through their work in the agricultural sector, but some were domestic users who used the weed killer around their properties. "Our lead applicant, Mr (Kelvin) McNickle is a person who worked for his family's vegetation management business spraying weeds on the side of highways and so on for effectively every day for 20 years," Mr Watson said. "Monsanto and parent company Bayer have behaved like many multi-nationals confronted with this situation," he said. "They've done everything they can to disparage . . . the science which shows that their product is a dangerous product to human health and they've done everything they can to put profit before people." Lead applicant's cancer has returned In his opening address for the applicants, Andrew Clements KC told the court Mr McNickle was first diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) in May 2018 and underwent chemotherapy and radiation treatment before going into remission in 2019. But the court heard the 40-year-old, who now lives in Caloundra in Queensland, was diagnosed with NHL a second time, just six weeks ago. Mr Clements told the court Mr McNickle was also exposed to two of Monsanto's Roundup products -- Roundup Herbicide and Roundup Bioactive -- throughout his childhood when he helped his father kill weeds on their property near Coffs Harbour in New South Wales. It was alleged he had direct contact with the products as they dripped or leaked onto his skin and clothes as well as through mist which would get onto his skin, into his eyes and onto his clothes. Mr Clements told the court the active ingredient in both products was glyphosate and they contained other surfactants to help increase the absorption of Roundup into plants. He said those surfactants also increased absorption through human skin into the bloodstream. Mr Clements alleged glyphosate caused genetic mutations in human lymphocytes that caused NHL as well as damaging human DNA which he alleged also caused NHL. "Mr McNickle contends that any use of, or exposure to, Roundup Herbicide and Roundup Bioactive increases an individual's risk of developing NHL and could cause an individual to develop NHL," Mr Clements told the court. "The greater the duration and/or intensity of exposure of Roundup Herbicide and Roundup Bioactive, the greater the increase in the exposed individual's risk of developing NHL." He said Mr McNickle and the other class action members would not have to prove which particular exposure or dose caused their cancer, citing lung cancer trials against tobacco companies where applicants did not have to prove the precise mechanism through which cigarettes caused cancer, but instead relied on the scientific evidence in the field. "Mr McNickle contends that the body of epidemiological literature provides generally supportive evidence that exposure to glyphosate and/or GBFs increases an individual's risk of developing NHL and, therefore, that glyphosate and/or GBFs are carcinogenic to humans." Defence to question reliability of scientific evidence Mr Clements said the defendants would tell the court about how studies that showed glyphosate may be carcinogenic were flawed and that they would take an approach he described as "ignore the smoke, there is no fire here". In the defence's opening submissions, Steven Finch SC confirmed the majority of Monsanto's response would focus on the reliability of scientific studies into glyphosate. "We make no apology at all for concentrating on flaws of studies that are dangled in front of Your Honour," Mr Finch told the court. He warned Justice Michael Lee not to "fall into the trap" that finding that something was capable of causing cancer meant "it might cause cancer", saying that particular finding also meant that it might not cause cancer. "That's the other half of 'might'," Mr Finch said. "A key failure that infects the whole of the applicants' case … is to fail to grapple with this point." He said it was a complex case and Justice Lee would have to "marshall a lot of findings of fact". The product continues to be sold in Australia, and Monsanto's parent company Bayer insists Roundup is safe. [GN] MULTIMATIC TENNESSEE: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Taylor Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- HEATHER DAWN TAYLOR, Individually, and on behalf of herself and other similarly situated current and former employees v. MULTIMATIC TENNESSEE, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00054 (M.D. Tenn., Sept. 1, 2023) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation and other damages owed to the Plaintiff and other similarly situated hourly-paid production employees, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendant has had a common practice of requiring, inducing, expecting, encouraging, and/or suffering and permitting, the Plaintiff and those similarly situated to perform work "off the clock" prior to the beginning of their scheduled shifts as well as after the ending of their scheduled shifts without compensating them for such compensable time, either by failing to record such work time into its time keeping system or "editing-out" such compensable time from its time keeping system, during all times material to this action, the Plaintiff asserts. In addition, the Defendant had a policy and practice of failing to compensate the Plaintiff and those similarly situated for what supposed to be a 20-minute meal break per shift. The Defendant allegedly had another policy and practice related to the so-called 20-minute meal break that required the Plaintiff and those similarly situated to leave the facility's lunch room and report to their respective work stations at the sound of a whistle two minutes prior to the end of their twenty-minute lunch break which, in turn only provided an 18-minute unpaid meal break. Considering it took more than a minute to travel from their respective work stations to the facility's lunch room, they only had an "effective" unpaid meal break of 17 minutes or less; meaning the unpaid 20-minute unpaid meal periods are/were compensable under the FLSA guidelines, the Plaintiff claims. The Plaintiff brings this case as a multi-plaintiff action on behalf of herself and potential Plaintiffs pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) to recover from the Defendant unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, statutory penalties, attorney's fees and costs, and other related damages. The Plaintiff, Heather Dawn Taylor, has been employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid production employee. The Defendant owns and operates a manufacturing plant in Lewisburg, Tennessee.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Russ Bryant, Esq. Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. James L. Holt, Jr., Esq. J. Joseph Leatherwood IV, 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 jleatherwood@jsyc.com NAPCO SECURITY: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in NY --------------------------------------------------------------- Napco Security Technologies Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending June 30,2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 8, 2023, that the Company continues to defend itself from a securities class suit filed in New York. On August 29, 2023, a purported class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York against the Company, its Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, and its Chief Financial Officer, alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with statements made in the Company's quarterly reports on Form 10-Q for the quarters ended September 30, 2022, December 31, 2022 and March 31, 2023 (the "10-Q's"). The Company previously announced that it was going to restate the financial statements contained in the 10-Qs. The Company intends to vigorously defend against the action. Napco Security Technologies, Inc. manufactures electronic security devices, fire detection products, access control systems, and digital lock equipment used in residential, commercial, institutional, and industrial installations. [BN] NATIONAL ENTERPRISE: Brinkley FDCPA Suit Removed to M.D. Florida ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case is styled as Denise Brinkley, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. National Enterprise Systems, Inc., Case No. 2023-CA-001122 was removed from the Clay County, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida on Aug. 3, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-00913-MMH-MCR to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. National Enterprise Systems -- https://www.nes1.com/ -- is an account receivable collection agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer Gomes Simil, Esq. Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC 110 S.E. 6TH Street, Suite 1700 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 628-5793 Fax: (954) 507-9974 Email: jen@jibraellaw.com jibrael@jibraellaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Barbara Fernandez, Esq. HINSHAW & CULBERTSON, LLP 2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd 4th Flr Coral Gables, FL 33134-6044 Phone: (305) 358-7747 Fax: (305) 577-1063 Email: bfernandez@hinshawlaw.com NESTLE USA: Bid to Continue Case Schedule Deadlines Tossed ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Walker v. Nestle USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-00723 (S.D. Cal., Filed April 19, 2019), the Hon. Judge Daniel E. Butcher entered an order denying the Parties' joint motion to continue case schedule deadlines without prejudice. -- Any request for a briefing schedule on the motion for class certification must be raised with Judge Lorenz's Chambers. -- After a briefing schedule has been issued, the parties may file another joint motion to amend the case schedule if good cause exists. The nature of suit state Diversity Action. Nestle USA produces and distributes food and beverage products.[CC] NEW JERSEY BEST: Bautista Sues Over Laborers' Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- LEONARDO BAUTISTA, on his own behalf, and on behalf of all similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs v. NEW JERSEY BEST LAWN, SPRINKLERS & FENCING, LLC aka NEW JERSEY LAWN, SPRINKLERS AND FENCING LLC, aka NEW JERSEY LAWN AND IRRIGATION SUPPLY LIMITED, LLC and all other affiliated entities and/or joint employers, all whose true names are unknown, DANIELLE SESSA, Individually, and VINCENT SESSA, Individually, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-04558 (D.N.J., Aug. 15, 2023) arises out of the Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law and associated provisions of the New Jersey Administrative Code as well, as the New Jersey Wage Payment Law. Plaintiff Bautista became employed by Defendants, full-time, as a non-exempt laborer, in or about 2002, and worked for Defendants until in or about January 2021. He routinely worked between 75 and 80 hours per work week, working seven days per week. However, the Defendants willfully failed to pay Plaintiff proper wages for all the hours he worked, says the suit. NJ Best Lawn owns and/or maintains a landscaping company and performs jobs, including but not limited to lawn and landscaping, sprinkler installation and repair, fencing, snow removal throughout New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew I. Glenn, Esq. Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq. JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A. 300 Carnegie Center, Suite 150 Princeton, NJ 08540 Telephone: (201) 687-9977 Facsimile: (201) 595-0308 E-mail: AGlenn@JaffeGlenn.com JJaffe@JaffeGlenn.com NEW SOUTH WALES: Faces Class Suit Over Varroa Mite Eradication -------------------------------------------------------------- Helena Burke of abc.net.au reports that beekeepers who have had their hives killed to stop the spread of the varroa mite are seeking up to $140 million in losses and damages from the New South Wales government. Honey and pollination businesses in an upcoming class action say they have been financially crippled and inadequately compensated. Among those is small business owner Dolfi Benesh, who says he has lost between $200,000 and $300,000 since the NSW government forcibly euthanased his bees last October. "The bees were loaded with honey ready for the spring and I was ready to expand the business to get more hives," Mr Benesh said. "That's when I get a phone call -- 'We're going to come and kill your bees within a week's time get ready.' "As soon as you don't have your own honey fresh to put on the table … your sales drop by 50 per cent." The varroa mite is a parasite that latches onto bees. If left untreated, it weakens and eventually kills them. Australia was the last inhabited continent free of varroa until the mite was detected in hives at Newcastle in June last year. No country has ever been able to successfully eradicate the mite once it has entered the bee population. Despite this, the NSW government has pursued an eradication strategy. More than 40 million bees have been euthanised across the state over the past 14 months. Mr Benesh's 53 hives were among those. He was given about $30,000 in compensation by the state government. But like many other beekeepers part of the upcoming class action, Mr Benesh said this only covered the immediate cost of the hives, not the loss of business from producing no honey. "As time goes by, I see the losses piling up," he said. "I want to be properly compensated. Not having bees takes all the profitability from the business." Lead lawyer of the Sydney law firm bringing the class action, Stewart Levitt, said the state government was "basically destroying small businesspeople" by offering "inadequate" compensation for the losses caused by destroying hives. "We've estimated that the compensation so far of around $19 million for affected apiarists falls short of the mark between $77 million and $140 million," Mr Levitt said. Beekeepers 'traumatised' For many beekeepers, the devastation of the NSW government's attempts to eradicate varroa is not just financial. The Evans family are not part of the legal action but felt "traumatised" after workers from the state governments' Department of Primary Industries arrived in the middle of the night to euthanase their hives. While their bees had tested negative for varroa, another beekeepers' hive within 10 kilometres tested positive for the mite putting the Evans family farm in the governments' Red Zone where all bees are killed. "It just destroyed us. It was terrible," James Evans said. Under the state government's current varroa eradication policy, beekeepers like the Evans family who are in the 'Red Zone' are banned from having hives on their property for at least three years. Mr Evans and his mother Andrea recently planted an edible forest on their Hunter region property, which was set to bloom this spring. But without their bees to pollinate it, the forest lays dormant. "It's really stumped us," Mr Evans said. "Even if the native bees are still around, they're not sufficient enough to pollinate our fruit forest." Is eradication still possible? The beekeeping industry remains divided on the best path forward for dealing with varroa. The Australian Honey Bee Industry Council (AHBIC) met on August 30, 2023 to discuss whether the government should continue trying to eradicate the mite or whether it should move to a management approach, where varroa is treated more like it is in other countries. The ABC understands that AHBIC was unable to reach a consensus among its member groups at the meeting. Varroa first arrived in New Zealand in 2000. Since then, beekeepers there have learnt to live with the mite. Miticide strips are placed in hives twice a year killing 99.9 per cent of varroa without harming bees. Mark Goodwin is a bee scientist who helped lead New Zealand through its varroa response. Dr Goodwin said that while eradication of the mite was not impossible in Australia "in theory", the rapid spread of the mite in recent weeks indicates it may now be too late. "The scenario of eradication is complicated enough but you also need to be very, very confident about where varroa is and isn't before you go down that track," he said. "If this was New Zealand, we would not have gone to eradication unless we were absolutely confident that we knew everywhere varroa was." The NSW Department of Primary Industries says it is euthanasing hives to try and obtain "the most accurate available picture of the mite's location, movement and containment." "NSW DPI will always consider options to support our honey and pollination-dependent industries where a risk assessment shows it is safe to do so," the department said. The ABC understands that several emergency meetings are planned in the coming days between the beekeeping industry and the state and federal government to reassess Australia's approach to varroa. [GN] NEW YORK, NY: Two Protesters with Ga. Ties Included in Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- John Ruch, writing for Saporta Report, reports that at least two protesters with Georgia ties are among hundreds eligible for more than $20 million in settlements from two New York City police misconduct class action lawsuits -- a legal strategy that has yet to be used here despite some similarities with "Cop City" and Black Lives Matter cases. One of the class-action protesters is Jim "Fergie" Chambers Jr., the Cox scion who recently broke from his family over their support of the Atlanta public safety training center. He may add a $21,500 settlement to a fortune of over $200 million he says he is devoting to radical causes, including the "Vote to Stop Cop City" effort. The New York settlements, announced in February and July, drew headlines for their size and evidence of coordinated police misconduct against 2020 protests about the Minneapolis police murder of George Floyd. As in Atlanta cases involving Black Lives Matter and "Cop City" protests, the allegations involved police retaliation against speech the officers did not like, political framing of protesters as "outside agitators" worthy of an aggressive response, and a context of a long pattern of police misconduct going back many years. New York isn't the only city seeing such class-action suits. In March, the city of Philadelphia agreed to a $9.25 million payout to 343 protesters and residents allegedly targeted by a police assault during 2020's George Floyd demonstrations there. However, class-action suits are a tactic requiring special circumstances and lots of resources, according to attorneys involved in the New York and local protest cases. Drago Cepar Jr. is the attorney representing 19 plaintiffs in what may be the largest pending local case alleging retaliatory arrests of protesters. That case -- also dating to 2020's Black Lives Matter movement -- has consolidated a series of separate complaints. That's different from a class action, where attorneys represent an entire "class" or group of people rather than individuals. Cepar says a class-action approach in police misconduct cases is tough because it requires "more of a 'cookie-cutter' fact pattern" where virtually the same exact thing happened to every complainant. Another reason that the approach may not be used in Atlanta currently, he says, is that "it takes quite some manpower and funding to be able to scour through thousands of videos [of protests], which would be a building block for this type of litigation." Exactly that kind of work, conducted by a private investigative firm, is what attorneys in one of the New York cases touted as historic in scale and key to the settlement. That case, Sow v. City of New York, has a class of approximately 1,380 protesters involved in 18 separate protests across the city over a week in 2020. Several attorneys teamed up in a "task force" to sue the City and brought on the research arm of an "unconventional architecture practice" called SITU to analyze more than 6,000 videos from civilian and police sources to show what they say is a pattern of brutality and other misconduct. "Far from being a case of a few bad apples, the widespread nature of the misconduct, coupled with the lack of meaningful investigation or discipline, paints the picture of a police department in need of deep operational and cultural reform," said the attorneys in a joint press release July 20 announcing a settlement agreement. Under the terms -- which are pending court approval -- each class member would receive $9,950, while the City would not admit wrongdoing. The attorneys claim the total payout "will be the largest amount paid to protesters in a class action in this nation's history." Elena L. Cohen of Cohen&Green, one of the attorneys on the team, said she cannot identify individual class members because they all had their cases dismissed and sealed. However, she said she believes there is one member from Georgia. A large amount of video evidence was important in the other major class action, Sierra v. City of New York, which focused on the treatment of more than 300 people at a 2020 protest in the Bronx's Mott Haven neighborhood. Allegations were based on the police "kettling" or entrapping protesters who were then "brutally assaulted," according to class attorneys. One of those attorneys, Ali Frick of Kaufman Lieb Lebowitz & Frick, told SaportaReport that the police department used "outside agitator" rhetoric in its public defense of officers' actions. Frick did not yet have information on whether any class members are from Georgia. However, Chambers identified himself on social media as a class member and provided SaportaReport with a copy of his settlement notification letter. While active in local political organizing and a member of the Cox family, whose Cox Enterprises and such subsidiaries as the Atlanta Journal-Constitution are Atlanta-based, Chambers currently lives in New Hampshire. Chambers told SaportaReport he was among protesters who were entrapped by police officers and compressed in a kettle maneuver to the point that there was "lots of suffocating," and he had to borrow someone else's inhaler. "Cops were swinging batons indiscriminately. I saw one swinging down on the crowd [while] standing on top of a police cruiser," he said, adding he saw a woman with a broken leg. The kettling was followed by mass arrests where arrestees were left standing outside in the rain for hours without food, water, restrooms or phone calls, he said. Pending court approval, the Mott Haven settlement will pay each protester $21,500 with some gaining an additional $2,500. Their attorneys say they believe it would be the "highest per-person settlement in a mass arrest class action lawsuit in New York City history." Frick told SaportaReport that an "overwhelming amount of video evidence" was important to the success of the protesters' class action, including police body camera footage. She noted the very existence of body cameras is rooted in the demands of the original Black Lives Matter protests of 2014. While processing huge amounts of video can be challenging for protester lawsuits, so can the lack of it. That's an issue in one of the biggest "Cop City" controversies -- the killing of the protester known as Tortuguita by Georgia State Patrol troopers who were not wearing body cameras at the time and do not do so routinely. Frick says the Tortuguita killing "seems to be a very good poster child" for the legal importance of camera footage. That's just the tip of the "Cop City" iceberg and its controversies over domestic terrorism charges and a growing list of legal complaints -- filed or threatened -- from protesters and journalists who claim to be targeted by police retaliation. Frick says the class-action approach is suitable for situations where "essentially the same thing happened to everybody" in a large group -- like in Mott Haven, with "a pre-planned and coordinated assault by police on protesters that happened at one intersection, and it involved hundreds of people." As in Atlanta, other legal tactics are used on behalf of protesters. As WNBC reported earlier this year, those tactics in cases rooted in 2020's protests include a lawsuit from the state's own attorney general seeking federal monitoring of New York City police and more than 600 individual misconduct claims, of which roughly half had been settled for a total of nearly $12 million. In a press release announcing the Sow settlement, another attorney on the team emphasized the scale of the payout and number of protesters involved, rather than the class-action tactic per se, as a "red flag" about the police department's long history of protest suppression. Attorney Wylie Stecklow paraphrased Atlanta's own Martin Luther King Jr.: "While the arc of the moral universe is indeed long, sometimes it needs reform to bend towards justice." [GN] NINE ENERGY: Fails to Pay Junior Operators' OT Wages Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- Aaron Williams, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Nine Energy Service, LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-00287 (S.D. Tex., Sept. 1, 2023) alleges that the Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff time and one-half the regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 during each seven-day workweek, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a junior operator in connection with its oil and gas industry operations, which include completions, wireline, cementing and coiled tubing services. The Plaintiff's job duties entailed manual labor tasks including being on the ground, retrieving pipe and explosives for fracking. Even though the Plaintiff should have been paid an hourly rate as a non-exempt employee pursuant to his job duties, and received overtime pay when he worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff on a salary basis. As a result, the Plaintiff did not receive all overtime pay to which he was entitled. This misclassification, and the resulting underpayment of wages, was in violation of the FLSA, the Plaintiff contends. The Plaintiff files this lawsuit individually and as an FLSA collective action on behalf of all similarly situated current and former employees of the Defendant who were not paid overtime pay for all hours worked over 40 in each seven-day workweek in the time period of three years preceding the date this lawsuit was filed and Forward. The Plaintiff and the Collective Action Members seek all damages available under the FLSA, including back wages, liquidated damages, legal fees, costs, and post-judgment interest. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant from July 11, 2022 to February 21, 2023. Nine Energy provides oil-field services. The Company offers on-shore completion and production services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Melinda Arbuckle, Esq. Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq. WAGE AND HOUR FIRM 5050 Quorum Drive, Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75254 Telephone: (214) 489-7653 Facsimile: (469) 319-0317 E-mail: marbuckle@wageandhourfirm.com rprieto@wageandhourfirm.com NUTRICOST: Cohen Sues Over Mislabeled Magnesium Dietary Supplements ------------------------------------------------------------------- Dalit Cohen, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Nutricost, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-06387-JMA-AYS (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 25, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for fraudulent concealment, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, and violation of the New York General Business Law arising from Defendant's alleged misrepresentations of its Magnesium Glycinate Supplements. According to the complaint, Defendant Nutricost formulates, manufactures, advertises and sells magnesium dietary supplement capsules throughout the United States that purport to contain 420 mg of "Magnesium Glycinate" per a serving of 2 capsules. However, it is impossible to fit 420 mg of magnesium derived from magnesium glycinate in two of the sized capsules Nutricost uses; magnesium glycinate simply possesses far too low a concentration of magnesium to do so. Nutricost prominently displays the total magnesium glycinate contents of its supplements on the front and back of each product's label. In misstating the actual magnesium content of the Supplements, Nutricost violates federal law and regulations designed to prevent deceptive supplement labeling and breaches the express warranty created by its labeling, the suit asserts. Plaintiff Cohen has purchased Nutricost's "Magnesium Glycinate Supplements" in New York within the last four years, including at a Target retail store in September 2022. Nutricost markets, advertises, distributes and sells its Supplements throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sergei Lemberg, Esq. LEMBERG LAW, LLC 43 Danbury Road Wilton, CT 06897 Telephone: (203) 653-2250 Facsimile: (203) 653-3424 E-mail: slemberg@lemberglaw.com ONEOK FIELD: Settles Dinsmore Oil Revenue Suit for $850,000 ----------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Oneok agreed to pay $850,000 to resolve claims that it failed to pay mandatory interest on late payments. The settlement benefits oil and gas well owners who received late payments under the Production Revenue Standards Act (PRSA) for their proceeds from Oklahoma wells or whose proceeds were remitted to unclaimed property divisions of any government entity by the defendant between Feb. 28, 2016, and Feb. 28, 2023, and whose payments did not include the statutory interest required by state law. Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit claim Oneok failed to pay statutory interest on late payments for proceeds from oil and gas production sales. According to the Plaintiffs, Oneok only pays this mandatory interest to owners who demand it. Oneok Field Services Co. is a midstream service provider that controls one of the United States' largest natural gas systems. Oneok hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $850,000 settlement to resolve the interest class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the settlement, class members can receive a cash payment based on the interest Oneok owes them. Exact payments will vary. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Sept. 11, 2023. The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for Oct. 2, 2023. No claim form is required to benefit from the settlement. Class members who do not exclude themselves will automatically receive a settlement distribution. Who's Eligible Oil and gas well owners who received late payments under the PRSA for their proceeds from Oklahoma wells or whose proceeds were remitted to unclaimed property divisions of any government entity by the defendant between Feb. 28, 2016, and Feb. 28, 2023, and whose payments did not include the statutory interest required by state law. Potential Award Varies Proof of Purchase N/A Exclusion Deadline 09/11/2023 Case Name Dinsmore v. Oneok Field Services Co. LLC, Case No. 4:22-cv-00073-GKF-CDL, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma Final Hearing 10/02/2023 Settlement Website Dinsmore-Oneok.com Claims Administrator Dinsmore v. Oneok Settlement c/o JND Legal Administration, Settlement Administrator PO Box 91304 Seattle, WA 98111 info@dinsmore-oneok.com 877-381-0330 Class Counsel Reagan E Bradford Ryan K Wilson BRADFORD & WILSON PLLC James U White Jr JAMES U WHITE JR INC Defense Counsel Timothy J Bomhoff Patrick L Stein MCAFEE & TAFT PC [GN] ORLANDO, FL: Benitez Suit Seeks OT Wages for District Chiefs ------------------------------------------------------------ Felix Benitez et al., Plaintiffs v. CITY OF ORLANDO, FLORIDA, Defendant, Case No. 6:23-cv-01553-CEM-LHP (M.D. Fla., Aug. 15, 2023) is a class action seeking to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and all other relief available under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs are current or former employees of Defendant, the City of Orlando, who work or have worked for Defendant in the position of District Chief. These employees claim that the Defendant violated FLSA by unlawfully depriving their rights to overtime compensation. Pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement, with effective dates of October 1, 2022 through September 30, 2025, these District Chiefs are paid a yearly amount depending on their grade level. However, the CBA states that District Chiefs' bi-weekly pay is calculated based on an hourly rate that is determined by dividing the applicable salary by 2,080 for employees assigned to a 40-hour schedule and by 2,496 for those employees assigned to a 48-hour schedule. As such, District Chiefs are paid on an hourly basis for the number of hours they actually work per week rather than on a salary basis. Moreover, the District Chief's CBA does not reference overtime because the City unlawfully classifies District Chiefs as exempt employees under the FLSA, assert the Plaintiffs. The Defendant is a public agency organized under the laws of the State of Florida, with its principal place of business located at 400 South Orange Avenue, Orlando, FL. It operates the Orlando Fire Department, which is the city department responsible for providing fire suppression and first response emergency medical services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Heidi B. Parker, Esq. Richard Siwica, Esq. EGAN, LEV & SIWICA, P.A. 231 East Colonial Drive Post Office Box 2231 Orlando, FL 32802-2231 E-mail: rsiwica@eganlev.com hparker@eganlev.com - and - Lauren P. McDermott, Esq. Sammy Y. Sugiura, Esq. MOONEY, GREEN, SAINDON, MURPHY & WELCH, P.C. 1920 L Street, NW, STE 400 Washington, DC 20036 E-mail: lmcdermott@mooneygreen.com ssugiura@mooneygreen.com PATRICIAS MORRIS: Torres Seeks Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------------ BRAYNIEL TORRES, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. PATRICIAS MORRIS PARK CORP., a New York corporation, and PATRICIA BORGOGNONE, an individual, Case No. 1:23-cv-07820 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 1, 2023) seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 seq. and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff worked six days per week, 80 hours per week. She Plaintiff was paid $825.00 per week as a flat rate, which is an effective hourly rate of only $10.31 per hour. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants failed to pay her any overtime premium (time and a half) for hours worked in excess of 40 in each workweek and failed to pay the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which she worked 10 hours or more. Accordingly, the Defendants' alleged conduct extended beyond the Plaintiff to all other similarly situated employees, including non-exempt employees working in other departments of the Corporate Defendant business. As part of their regular business practice, the Defendants have willfully engaged in a pattern, policy, and practice of unlawful conduct, in violation of the federal and state rights of the Plaintiffs, similarly situated individuals, and members of the proposed Class by misclassifying them as independent contractors when the Plaintiff was, in fact, an employee. The Plaintiff further seeks certification of this action as a class and collective action on behalf of the Plaintiff individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated employees and former employees of the Defendants. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants from March 2021 until July 2022, took a three-week break, and then worked for the Defendants again from August 22, 2022, until August 1, 2023. She was employed as a kitchen worker. His job was to make cocktails, appetizers, and other such items. Corporate Defendant operates a restaurant known as Patricia's of Morris Park, located at 1082 Morris Park Ave., Bronx, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nolan Klein, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF NOLAN KLEIN, P.A. 5550 Glades Rd., Ste. 500 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (954) 745-0588 E-mail: klein@nklegal.com amy@nklegal.com melanie@nklegal.com PLAN BENEFIT: Appellate Court Certifies Employees Mega-Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Stacy Thomas of Human Resource Director reports that in a landmark court case involving hundreds of thousands of plaintiffs, a U.S. court of appeals has certified a "mega-class action" claim involving employee retirement plans. The decision is a signal that the law is taking Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) claims more seriously, says Duane Morris LLP partner Gerald L. Maatman Jr. The case, Chavez v. Plan Benefit Services, sees almost 300,000 employees of the Training, Rehabilitation & Development Institute suing Plan Benefit Services, Fringe Insurance Benefits, and Fringe Benefit Group (FBG) for alleged mismanagement of funds, mostly through excessive fees. "Employers need to be aware that in certain circumstances, huge benefit cases can be certified as class actions, which pose incredible risks to employers," said Maatman. Fiduciary class-action benefits lawsuits on the rise The past years have seen a "surge" of class-action lawsuits filed under ERISA, Maatman says, with many cases falling under the “excessive fee” category, such as the Chavez case; there have been over 200 such class actions filed since 2020. In 2022, the top 10 ERISA class-action settlements totalled $399.60 million, according to his research. The majority of cases found that ERISA fiduciaries acting on the part of employers breached their duties of loyalty by "among other things, offering expensive or underperforming investment options and charging participants excessive recordkeeping and administrative fees," according to Maatman, adding that in ERISA cases judges often find that the commonality of plan breaches outweighs any arguments against class certification. Since the famous Wal-Mart v Dukes case in 2011, which saw a Supreme Court judge reject a similar mega-class action certification because of "lack of commonality", the bar was considered raised for certifications, Maatman says. The Chavez certification reverses that precedent. "I think most people hearing about this case would have assumed that this is a case that would never be certified," said Maatman. "It's too big. It's too broad. It's too complex. There are too many individual questions. It shows the outer edge of how far a court might go to certify an ERISA class action. So this is an eyebrow-raiser for many people who thought that a court wouldn't go this far, but here we are, and it did." Fiduciary breach of trust and HR management Under FBG's structure, employers paid into two trusts on behalf of their workers: a Contractors and Employee Retirement Trust (CERT), and a welfare and health benefits plan. FBG contracts also included a "Master Trust Agreement" which gave FBG even more control, including determining fees deducted from trusts and allowing it to direct "banks and other entities holding trust funds to pay those fees, including to FBG itself," according to court documents. The Master Trust Agreement also authorized FBG to "calculate and deduct its own fees from employer contributions before remitting premium payments to the carriers." To protect employers from class-action claims due to fraudulent fiduciaries, Maatman recommends HR professionals monitor their third party contractors closely and keep records. "Companies and their plan administrators should exercise reasonable care and undertake precautionary measures to monitor their retirement plans," he said. "Amongst various steps, they should record the findings and outcomes of their monitoring efforts; document whether service providers adhered to professional standards and legal and regulatory requirements, as well as whether vendor controls and procedures worked effectively and benefited the plan." [GN] PROCTER & GAMBLE: Jonathan Jagher Named Settlement Class Counsel ---------------------------------------------------------------- Freed Kanner Partner Jonathan Jagher was appointed as a Settlement Class Counsel in In re Procter & Gamble Aerosol Products Marketing and Sales Practice Litigation, 2:22-MD-3025 (SD OH). On June 16, 2023, Judge Watson of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio granted final approval of a multi-million-dollar settlement reached between Settlement Class Counsel and Procter & Gamble related to the alleged contamination of certain Proctor & Gamble aerosol products with benzene, a human carcinogen and the economic damages to the purchasers of these products. [GN] PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Casey Sues Over Disclosure of Private Info ------------------------------------------------------------- EDWARD J. CASEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION, PENSION BENEFIT INFORMATION, LLC d/b/a PBI RESEARCH SERVICES, TALCOTT RESOLUTION LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, and TALCOTT RESOLUTION LIFE AND ANNUITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-11864 (D. Mass., Aug. 15, 2023) arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's personally identifiable information. According to the letter received by Plaintiff from Pension Benefit Information, LLC, on or around May 31, 2023, Progress Software Corporation, the provider of MOVEit Transfer software disclosed vulnerability in their software that had been exploited by an unauthorized third party. Through the investigation, PBI learned that the third party accessed one of its MOVEit Transfer servers on May 29, 2023 and May 30, 2023. Accordingly, Plaintiff brings this action against Defendants seeking redress for their unlawful conduct and asserting claims for: negligence; breach of third-party beneficiary contract; negligence per se; unjust enrichment; and declaratory judgment. Progress Software Corporation is a Massachusetts-based software company that offers a wide range of software products and services to corporate and governmental entities throughout the United States and the world, including cloud hosting and secure file transfer services such as MOVEit.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kristen A. Johnson, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO 1 Faneuil Hall Square, 5th Floor Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 482-3700 Facsimile: (617) 482-3003 E-mail: kristen@hbsslaw.com - and - Steve W. Berman, Esq. Sean R. Matt, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com ean@hbsslaw.com - and - Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq. GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA 4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490 Cincinnati, OH 45242 Telephone: (513) 345-8291 Facsimile: (513) 345-8294 E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com - and - Charles Schaffer, Esq. Nicholas J. Elia, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 592-1500 Facsimile: (215) 592-4663 E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com nelia@lfsblaw.com - and - Joseph M. Lyon, Esq. THE LYON FIRM 2754 Erie Ave. Cincinnati, OH 45208 Telephone: (513) 381-2333 Facsimile: (513) 766-9011 E-mail: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com PROTERRA INC: Faces Tirado Suit Over Alleged Stock Price Scheme --------------------------------------------------------------- TANYA TIRADO, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. PROTERRA INC., GARETH T. JOYCE, KARINA FRANCO PADILLA, and AMY E. ARD, Case No. 3:23-cv-04528 (N.D. Cal., Sept. 1, 2023) alleges that the Defendants engaged in a scheme to deceive the market that caused the price of Proterra stock to be artificially inflated by failing to disclose and/or misrepresenting the adverse facts in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Following its merger with ArcLight Clean Transition Corp., Proterra billed itself to investors as a promising, market-leader in EV technology. It claimed to have raised a sufficient amount of cash from its special purpose acquisition company ("SPAC")-related operations to support its growth and scaling-up to profitability. At the start of the Class Period, on August 11, 2021, Proterra issued an investor letter describing its financial earnings and operations for the quarter ended June 30, 2021. In pertinent part, Proterra represented that it had "ample cash to fund our growth plans" and "as a result of the additional capital raised in our [merger transaction with ArcLight], we do not expect these investments to have a material impact on our cash needs in the years ahead. Contrary to these claims and representations, on March 15, 2023, Proterra announced it was in violation of a liquidity clause in their secured convertible notes. The Company also announced they may have to qualify an audit report with a "going concern" clause. Although analysts believed at the time that Proterra would be able to secure amendments and/or waivers to the liquidity covenants with their debt holders, the Company failed to do so. On August 7, 2023, after market hours, Proterra announced it had filed for bankruptcy. As the Defendants' misrepresentations and fraudulent conduct were gradually disclosed and became apparent to the market, the artificial inflation in the price of Proterra's stock was removed, and the price of Proterra stock fell, says the suit. The Plaintiff and all persons similarly situated purchased or otherwise acquired Proterra securities between August 11, 2021 to August 7, 2023, inclusive. As a result of their purchases of Proterra stock during the Class Period at artificially inflated prices, the Plaintiff and the other Class members allegedly suffered economic loss, i.e., damages, under the federal securities laws. Proterra designs and manufactures zero-emission electric transit vehicles and electric vehicle ("EV") solutions for commercial applications.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer Pafiti, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 405-7190 E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com QANTAS AIRWAYS: ACCC Sues for Selling Tickets on Cancelled Flights ------------------------------------------------------------------ CH-Aviation reports that the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) has commenced Federal Court legal action against Qantas (QF, Sydney Kingsford Smith), alleging the airline sold tickets on flights it had already cancelled. The allegations are that Qantas sold passengers tickets on more than 8,000 flights cancelled flights between May and July 2022. The ACCC alleges that Qantas continued selling tickets for an average period of two weeks after cancelling flights. However, in one case, it sold tickets on a flight for 47 days after cancelling that flight. The ACCC further alleges that it took Qantas an average of 18 days to inform passengers of the cancelled flights over this period. In one case, the airline took 48 days to tell passengers of a cancellation. The ACCC's investigation began after what was termed a "mass revolt" by impacted passengers. According to the competition agency, they receive more complaints about Qantas than any other Australian business. Separately, a class action is underway against the airline over its refund practices. As part of its investigation, the ACCC served compulsory information notices on Qantas, later finding the airline engaged in "false, misleading or deceptive conduct." The ACCC says the behaviour constitutes thousands of breaches of Australian Consumer Law. According to the ACCC, Qantas cancelled almost one in four flights over May - July 2022, or 15,000 out of 66,000 scheduled flights. Citing a specific flight, QF73 slated to operate between Sydney and San Francisco, CA on July 29, 2022, the ACCC says Qantas sold 21 tickets over 40 days after cancelling the flight. In many of the examples listed, Qantas only stopped ticket sales one day before notifying passengers. While the ACCC alleges Qantas cancelled many of the flights for reasons within their control, such as network optimisation, route withdrawals, or retention of slots at certain airports, ACCC Chairwoman Gina Cass-Gottlieb says the airline is not being prosecuted because it cancelled the flights, but because of its conduct after the cancellations. In a statement, Qantas said it took the allegations seriously. "We have a longstanding approach to managing cancellations for flights, with a focus on providing customers with rebooking options or refunds. It's a process that is consistent with common practice at many other airlines," the statement read. "It's important to note that the period examined by the ACCC between May and July 2022 was a time of unprecedented upheaval for the entire airline industry. We will examine the details of the ACCC's allegations and respond to them in full in court." Qantas's corporate behaviour is facing mounting scrutiny in Australia. The airline group recently declared a record USD1.74 billion Australian dollar (USD1.13 billion) FY2023 net profit, but its fast and loose attitude towards passengers during and after the pandemic is resulting in a growing backlash towards the airline and outgoing CEO, Alan Joyce. The ACCC's action ends a torrid week for the airline, which began with Joyce fronting a Government Senate Select Committee in Melbourne on August 28, where he faced a highly publicised grilling on the airline's refund practices, cost of air fares, and growing outrage about Qantas's role in a political decision to block Qatar Airways (QR, Doha Hamad International) from securing additional capacity to certain Australian airports. In the wake of Joyce's committee appearance, it has emerged the Qantas Group has under-reported refunds owed to passengers from cancelled flights during and after the pandemic by around AUD100 million (USD65 million). Within hours of the news breaking of the ACCC action, Joyce announced that a December deadline to use or lose credits was dropped, and there was now no expiry date. By imposing the deadline, the Qantas Group had stood to trouser around AUD500 million (USD324 million) in unclaimed credits, a move one prominent Qantas critic called "kleptomania at scale." Cass-Gottlieb told Australia-based media that there was no good reason why Qantas did not communicate the cancellations promptly. The maximum penalties for each breach of the Australian Consumer Law before November 9, 2022, is the greater of AUD10 million (USD6.5 million), three times the total benefits that have been obtained and are reasonably attributable or, if the total value of the benefits cannot be determined, 10% of the entity's annual turnover. "The action) will technically relate to multiple breaches on thousands of flights," said Cass-Gottlieb, adding that she hoped the fines imposed would set a new record for the offences. [GN] QANTAS AIRWAYS: Class Suit Seeks Refunds for 2020 Cancelled Flights ------------------------------------------------------------------- Kate Ainsworth and Nassim Khadem, writing for ABC News Australia, report that Alan Joyce thought he was leaving Australia's flying kangaroo in great shape. The final months of 2023 were meant to be the Qantas chief executive's swan song as he prepares to depart the airline after 15 years in the top job. The company had just delivered a $2.5 billion record profit before tax, and had signalled money would be flowing in. The beleaguered airline's finances had done what seemed impossible during the pandemic. But a resurgence in travel and higher airfares took the airline's underlying annual profit to an all-time high. Beneath that great headline, controversy was brewing. Looming questions about Qatar Airways, a class action about flight credits, heated questioning in a Senate inquiry, and a lawsuit by the competition and consumer watchdog saw Qantas fly headfirst into turbulence. Mr Joyce didn't see it coming. But it culminated in an embarrassing about face for the airline -- with Mr Joyce bowing to public pressure and scrapping the expiry dates on more than half a billion dollars' worth of flight credits. His successor, Vanessa Hudson, has been given the unenviable task of picking up the pieces and restoring the Qantas brand that even its board admits has been badly damaged. It started in Qatar When the world shut down in 2020, so did the aviation industry. Qantas was cutting thousands of jobs to keep its head above water. At the time, the federal government was staring into the unknown, and was doing everything in its power to protect Australians, businesses and the economy. Qantas benefited from $2.7 billion worth in federal government assistance during the pandemic to pay its bills -- including $855 million in the JobKeeper wage subsidy. In the months that followed, Mr Joyce has repeatedly said the money was used to keep the business afloat and ruled out paying the money back. Since the end of 2021, demand for travel has been growing, but the number of flights hasn't kept pace, resulting in significantly higher airfares. Last October, Qatar Airways' chief executive Akbar al Baker said the airline wanted more capacity, and bid for an extra 21 weekly flights on top the 28 it already operated in major capital cities. It wasn't until July this year that the federal government confirmed Qatar's application had been blocked. Transport Minister Catherine King has repeatedly said the extra flights were not in the national interest, and the decision was not a commercial one. But Liberal senator and Shadow Finance Minister Jane Hume says "there's been a real lack of explanation as to why it's been taken in the national interest". "We'd like to see the government review that decision or explain to the Australian public why it's a decision that's made in the national interest, because as long as Qatar Airways is locked out of those additional routes, then airfares will stay higher; artificially inflated for longer," Senator Hume said. Then came a class action Fast forward to August 20 -- the week that Qantas would report its profits -- and a law firm announced it was launching a class action against the airline seeking refunds and compensation for customers who had their flights cancelled during 2020. Echo Law alleged Qantas had misled customers about their refund options, withheld funds, and engaged in a "pattern of unconscionable conduct". Qantas completely rejected the allegations, and said it had always made it clear to customers that were entitled to a refund if their flight was cancelled. The timing, however, wasn't great. Just a month earlier, Qantas had launched a campaign to encourage customers to use their remaining $400 million in COVID flight credits held by the airline before they expired on December 31, 2023, all the while the consumer watchdog, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) was at the tail end of its probe into the issue. It also wasn't the first time Qantas' flight credits had made headlines -- it had already extended the expiry date on its travel credits issued in 2020 three times after public backlash. A spotlight on a bumper post-pandemic profit Three days later, Qantas was preparing to report its full-year profit for the 2023 financial year, but it wasn't a smooth start. That morning, Mr Joyce was summonsed to appear before a Senate Committee on the Cost of Living in a matter of days, which Qantas confirmed he would attend. The airline then told investors its underlying pre-tax profit was the highest in its history at $2.5 billion, while confirming it had also placed an order for 24 new aircraft to replace its ageing fleet. During a press conference that on Aug. 31, Mr Joyce got on the front foot to acknowledge that Qantas had disappointed its customers while it recovered from COVID. He admitted the airline's return to flying after the pandemic wasn't as smooth as he would have liked, and said the airline still had work to do. That night, he told ABC's 7.30 that Qantas would be paying corporate tax again in the 2025 financial year. The airline had been making losses for years, and legally claiming back tax credits from the Australian Tax Office. A fiery hearing in pursuit of answers On the afternoon of Monday, August 28, Mr Joyce filed into a room in Victoria's parliament, accompanied by Jetstar CEO Steph Tully, and its corporate affairs chief Andrew McGinnes. The questions came from all sides of politics during a heated 90 minutes of debate — back-and-forth verbal jabs between the executives and senators. After Mr Joyce's opening statement, he was immediately questioned by Senator Hume about Qatar and the federal government's decision to block their extra flight requests, referencing comments by Assistant Treasurer Stephen Jones that it was done to keep Qantas profitable. Mr Joyce told the hearing the national interest should be paramount, and confirmed the airline sent a letter in October 2022 about the proposal, saying it would distort the market. He didn't go into specifics about the letter, but said it mentioned airline capacity was returning, which would push down airfares, and any short term doubling of flights would cause distortion. After 45 minutes of questioning, a revelation came from Ms Tully. The low-cost airline was holding $100 million worth of COVID flight credits, on top of the $370 million held by Qantas, but only for Australian customers. Former Transport Workers' Union boss turned Labor senator Tony Sheldon then asked the trio how many flight credits were owed to overseas customers, before an embarrassing admission: they didn't know. "I think it's less than $100 [million]," Mr Joyce said, after being asked if that was a ballpark figure. Mr McGinnes then interrupted Senator Sheldon, who asked if the value was more than $50 million, saying they would take the question on notice. "I'm honestly not sure. We can come back to you," he said. Mr Joyce was also asked by Greens senator Penny Allman-Payne about a decision to grant Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's son access to Qantas' exclusive Chairman's Lounge. "There are privacy issues where we will not comment on who's in it, who's been offered it, so I will not be making any comments on that, or confirming or denying it," he said. He also declined to answer a follow up question on the topic later in the hearing, when Nationals senator Matt Canavan asked Mr Joyce if he had a conversation with Mr Albanese about membership to the Chairman's Lounge. "I'm not going into any detail, senator, on what, if any, conversations with the prime minister might be about or not about," Mr Joyce curtly replied. Pressure builds over lack of transparency On Aug. 29, Virgin Australia boss Jayne Hrdlicka took aim at the federal government for blocking the Qatar request, and called Mr Joyce's market distortion claim "a bit of nonsense". "You need to add seats where the demand exists, and the constraints are in these major capital cities," she said. "That's where the seats need to come in, and that's what Qatar has applied for." The same day, Flight Centre CEO Graham Turner said the decision defied logic, and was "clearly not" in the national interest. Mr Turner said he was of the understanding that the Department of Transport recommended the minister approve the flight request, but "the story is that it was someone above her that basically had a captain's call, presumably the prime minister". The next day, former ACCC bosses Allan Fels and Rod Sims said the government's decision to block Qatar's flight requests would be detrimental to customers. "If there was a time to allow new entrants, this is it," Mr Sims said. Later in the week, Mr Fels repeated that it was "a very bad decision" and would keep airfares higher. "This decision puts record profits ahead of many other interests, especially consumers and passengers," he said. A headache and a backflip Aug. 31 began with the ACCC confirming it was suing Qantas for allegedly selling tickets for thousands of flights that had already been cancelled between May and July in 2022. In response, Qantas issued a brief statement saying it was taking the allegations seriously. But in the background, Qantas was quietly preparing to make another headline of its own. Four hours after news of the ACCC court action broke, the airline confirmed it was scrapping the expiry date on all COVID flight credits issued before September 30, 2021. Qantas told the ABC that date was chosen because uncertainty around borders and travel restrictions had been resolved — therefore reverted back to conditions that were closer to the airline's pre-COVID policies. Customers with COVID credits were now able to request a cash refund "at any point in the future", while Jetstar customers were able to use their flight vouchers indefinitely. "We're doing this because we've listened," Mr Joyce told customers in a video message. Later that afternoon, Qantas confirmed the value of COVID travel credits impacted by the decision totalled $570 million — which included the amount held by international customers that was the subject of the Aug. 28 fiery hearing. Overall, the airline confirmed it had: $365 million in credits for Qantas customers in Australia $90 million in credits for Jetstar customers in Australia $115 million in credits for Qantas and Jetstar customers overseas It seems that fateful 90-minute senate committee hearing cost Qantas over half a billion dollars. Qantas isn't the only one in the firing line The federal government is under increasing pressure to explain exactly how it arrived at the decision to block Qatar's flight request. Allegations that Mr Albanese ultimately made the decision have been rejected by him, saying it was a decision by the transport minister. Mr Albanese has previously served as the transport minister in various cabinets between December 2007 and September 2013, and was the minister when Mr Joyce began as Qantas boss in 2008. On Sept. 3, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton said Qantas had "tarnished its brand" and the airline had been conducting itself with a "level of arrogance". "I think Alan Joyce has been a very effective CEO of Qantas. He's formed a very close personal relationship with Anthony Albanese and obviously this is a relationship that works two ways," he told Sky News. "When you see the outcome that the decision of the government to stop Qatar [Airways] coming in to compete against Qantas, a decision made by the prime minister, it means that people . . . are literally paying thousands of dollars more for their airline ticket, and I think that's unconscionable." On Sept. 1, Labor's national president and former treasurer Wayne Swan backed calls for an "appropriate review" into the Qatar decision "given all the revelations" -- which was also backed by the Queensland Labor government over the weekend. Meanwhile, the assistant treasurer also walked back his previous comments about the Qatar decision being made by the federal government to protect Qantas' profitability. On Sept. 1, he avoided questions on whether the decision should be reviewed -- instead telling reporters it was a decision made by the transport minister, and those questions should be directed to her. The transport minister was contacted for comment about whether the Qatar decision should be reviewed, but an answer was not received before publication. This won't be the end of it, either Flight Centre took its criticism of the Qatar decision a step further, unveiling a national advertising campaign against the federal government in News Corp papers on Sept. 3. The full-page advertisements read: "More seats drive down prices, let 'em [sic] fly". Mr Turner told The Sunday Mail the campaign would "go for a while . . . unless the government acts". Parliament has also returned for a sitting week, and the Albanese government will be met with mounting pressure for information explaining why the extra Qatar flights were denied after lobbying from Qantas. Nationals Senator Bridget McKenzie has already given notice that she will move for the release of documents provided to the transport minister about Qatar's application, or advice that helped the minister make the decision. Senator McKenzie has also advocated for a Senate inquiry into the decision, but it is unclear if there would be enough support to launch a Senate probe. The Albanese government aviation green paper is also set to be released in the coming week, and is expected to delve further into questions around competition in the aviation industry. Meanwhile, the ACCC has made it clear that it wants the airline to receive a heavy penalty over its ghost flights. On Sept. 1, chairwoman Gina Cass-Gottlieb said she wanted the case to deliver a new record penalty for breaching consumer law, which was set in 2019 when Volkswagen was fined $125 million for deceiving customers over diesel emissions. In other words, a penalty worth hundreds of millions of dollars is possible -- and should the ACCC settle with Qantas instead, it's clear the watchdog wants to make an example out of the airline. Where to from here for Qantas? After the past week, it's likely the airline wants a respite from the -- largely unwanted -- public attention it's received. But the end of a nightmare week came with a benefit to Mr Joyce, who was awarded around $10 million worth of Qantas shares that were deferred from bonuses in past years. Shareholder activist Stephen Mayne says the board needs to sack Mr Joyce and not grant him his bonus. "He clearly has cut quite a few corners," Mr Mayne told ABC News. "The ACCC action was the last straw. The brand is being smacked, the shares are coming off, and you can't have Alan Joyce turning up at the November 3 AGM (annual general meeting). "He needs to be taken off the payroll and out the door before then, and [chairman] Richard Goyder needs to take the helm in interim and review decisions made since COVID struck." Further questions about Mr Joyce's payout will undoubtedly arise when the airline's annual report is released later this month. After serving as CEO for 15 years, he will walk away with $125 million over his reign, and it's up to the Qantas board and its shareholders whether to reward him with a short-term bonus of $4.3 million for the last financial year, on top of other shares he's banked from long-term bonuses and retention schemes. The ongoing bad news for the airline, which even its board acknowledge has damaged the Qantas brand, makes it harder for Mr Joyce to argue that he deserves the bonus -- especially under an environment where the company to date has been able to claim back credits for losses on taxes paid. But there are signs Qantas has heard the public fury being directed its way. On Sept. 3, the airline's board of directors released a statement in response to the ACCC allegations, saying the claims "come at a time when Qantas' reputation has already been hit hard on several fronts". "We want the community to know that we hear and understand their disappointment. We know that the only way to fix it is by delivering consistently. We know it will take time to repair. And we are absolutely determined to do that," the statement read. Is the public any closer to finding out the truth of the Qatar decision? Will future reviews bring about changes that result in greater competition, and if so, how will that impact the future of our flag carriers? Is it even possible for Qantas to return to being a source of national pride and shed its recent moniker of "the lying kangaroo"? Many questions remain unanswered, but as Mr Joyce walks away it's no longer something he needs to ponder. The challenge of restoring the public's trust and steering an iconic Australian brand back onto a steady path is now for Ms Hudson. [GN] REALPAGE INC: Haynes Sues Over Rental Housing Market Price-fixing ----------------------------------------------------------------- MAYA HAYNES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. REALPAGE, INC.; THOMA BRAVO FUND XIII, L.P.; THOMA BRAVO FUND XIV, L.P.; THOMA BRAVO L.P.; APARTMENT INCOME REIT CORP., d/b/a AIR COMMUNITIES; APARTMENT MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS, LLC; AVENUE5 RESIDENTIAL, LLC; BELL PARTNERS, INC.; BH MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC; BOZZUTO MANAGEMENT COMPANY; CAMDEN PROPERTY TRUST; CH REAL ESTATE SERVICES, LLC; CONAM MANAGEMENT CORPORATION; CORTLAND MANAGEMENT, LLC; CWS APARTMENT HOMES LLC; DAYRISE RESIDENTIAL, LLC; ECI GROUP, INC.; EQUITY RESIDENTIAL; FIRST COMMUNITIES MANAGEMENT, INC.; GREYSTAR MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC; HIGHMARK RESIDENTIAL, LLC; INDEPENDENCE REALTY TRUST, INC.; LINCOLN PROPERTY COMPANY; MID-AMERICA APARTMENTS L.P.; MISSION ROCK RESIDENTIAL, LLC; MORGAN PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC; PINNACLE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC; THE RELATED COMPANIES L.P.; RELATED MANAGEMENT COMPANY L.P.; RPM LIVING, LLC; SIMPSON PROPERTY GROUP, LLC; CROW HOLDINGS, LP; TRAMMELL CROW RESIDENTIAL COMPANY; WINDSOR PROPERTY MANAGEMENT COMPANY; WINNCOMPANIES LLC; WINNRESIDENTIAL MANAGER CORP.; AND ZRS MANAGEMENT, LLC; Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-03813-VMC (N.D. Ga., Aug. 26, 2023) alleges that Defendants engaged in a nationwide conspiracy to fix and inflate the price of multifamily rental housing across the U.S. from at least January 2016, through the present, in violation of the Section 1 of the Sherman Act and State Antitrust Statutes. According to the complaint, leveraging their control of the multifamily rental housing market from at least January 2016, Defendants each caused substantial damages to Plaintiff and other members of the Class, whose ability to obtain affordable housing depended on getting competitive prices for the units they rented. Several witness accounts, rental price and occupancy data, economic evidence, and public investigations, confirm this anticompetitive conduct, says the suit. The Defendants' price-fixing conspiracy is per se an unlawful restraint of trade and has resulted in artificially inflated rent prices and a diminished supply of multifamily rental units throughout the United States. The Plaintiff and the Class, who rent multifamily rental units from property managers that use Defendant RealPage's Revenue Management Solutions, paid significant overcharges on rent, and suffered harm from the reduced availability of rental units they could reasonably afford. This suit is brought to recover for that harm. RealPage provides software and services to managers of residential rental apartments.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin A. Gastel, Esq. Tricia R. Herzfeld, Esq. Anthony A. Orlandi, Esq. HERZFELD SUETHOLZ GASTEL LENISKI AND WALL, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 300 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 800-6225 E-mail: ben@hsglawgroup.com tricia@hsglawgroup.com tony@hsglawgroup.com - and - Patrick J. Coughlin, Esq. Carmen A. Medici, Esq. Fatima Brizuela, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP 600 West Broadway, Suite 3300 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 798-5325 Facsimile: (619) 233-0508 E-mail: pcoughlin@scott-scott.com cmedici@scott-scott.com fbrizuela@scott-scott.com - and - Patrick McGahan, Esq. Amanda F. Lawrence, Esq. Michael Srodoski, Esq. G. Dustin Foster, Esq. Isabella De Lisi, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP 156 South Main Street P.O. Box 192 Colchester, CT 06145 Telephone: (860) 537-5537 Facsimile: (860) 537-4432 E-mail: pmcgahan@scott-scott.com alawrence@scott-scott.com msrodoski@scott-scott.com gfoster@scott-scott.com idelisi@scott-scott.com - and - Stacey Slaughter, Esq. Thomas J. Undlin, Esq. Geoffrey H. Kozen, Esq. Stephanie A. Chen, Esq. J. Austin Hurt, Esq. ROBINS KAPLAN LLP 800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2800 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 349-8500 Facsimile: (612) 339-4181 E-mail: sslaughter@robinskaplan.com tundlin@robinskaplan.com gkozen@robinskaplan.com ahurt@robinskaplan.com - and - Swathi Bojedla, Esq. Mandy Boltax, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 888 16th Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 540-7200 E-mail: sbojedla@hausfeld.com mboltax@hausfeld.com - and - Gary I. Smith, Jr., Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3200 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 633-1908 E-mail: gsmith@hausfeld.com - and - Katie R. Beran, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 325 Chestnut Street, Suite 900 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 985-3270 E-mail: kberan@hausfeld.com RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CA: Faces Goff Suit Over Underpayment of OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------- ERIN GOFF, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, Defendants, Case No. 5:23-cv-01643 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 15, 2023), arises out of the Defendant's violations of the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant in the County's fire department from October 2013 to December 2022. However, the Defendant failed to include cash-in-lieu of benefits, differentials, and incentive payments in the "regular rate" of pay used to lawfully calculate and pay overtime wages to employees like Plaintiff. As a result of this alleged practice, Defendant has underpaid overtime wages. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks to recover the underpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and costs of suit. The County of Riverside is a subdivision of the State of California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas J. Ferraro, Esq. Lauren N. Vega, Esq. FERRARO VEGA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS, INC. 3160 Camino del Rio South, Suite 308 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 693-7727 Facsimile: (619) 350-6855 E-mail: nick@ferrarovega.com lauren@ferrarovega.com ROBLOX CORP: Exposes Children to Illegal Gambling, Colvin Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- RACHELLE COLVIN, individually and as next friend of minor Plaintiff, G.D., and DANIELLE SASS, individually and as next friend of minor plaintiff, L.C., and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ROBLOX CORPORATION, SATOZUKI LIMITED B.V., STUDS ENTERTAINMENT LTD., and RBLXWILD ENTERTAINMENT LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-04146 (N.D. Cal., Aug. 15, 2023) accuses the Defendants for maintaining and facilitating an illegal gambling ecosystem that targets children through Roblox's online gaming platform and digital currency. The Plaintiffs allege claims against the Defendants for negligence, unjust enrichment, and negligence per se, and civil conspiracy. They also they accuse the Defendants for violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, the California’s Unfair Competition Law, the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the New York Business Law. Accordingly, Plaintiffs seek monetary damages, restitution, and declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of proposed Classes of minor victims. Roblox Corporation is a corporation existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business located at 970 Park Place, San Mateo, California. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Devin Bolton, Esq. James Bilsborrow, Esq. Aaron Freedman, Esq. WEITZ & LUXENBERG, PC 1880 Century Park East, Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 247-0921 E-mail: dbolton@weitzlux.com jbilsborrow@weitzlux.com afreedman@weitzlux.com - and - Christopher D. Jennings, Esq. Tyler B. Ewigleben, Esq. Winston S. Hudson, Esq. JOHNSON FIRM 610 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 300 Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 372-1300 E-mail: chris@yourattorney.com tyler@yourattorney.com winston@yourattorney.com SA HOSPITAL: Flowers Sues Over Mass Layoff Without Prior Notice --------------------------------------------------------------- LISA FLOWERS, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SA HOSPITAL ACQUISITION GROUP, LLC, D/B/A SOUTH CITY HOSPITAL, Defendant, Case No. 4:23-cv-01079 (E.D. Mo., Aug. 25, 2023) is a class action brought under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act by the Plaintiff on her own behalf and on behalf of the other similarly situated persons against Defendant South City Hospital, her employers, for WARN Act purposes. According to the complaint, on or within 30 days of August 4, 2023, the Defendant made a mass layoff by unilaterally and without proper notice to employees or staff, terminating approximately 563 employees at its facility located in St. Louis, Missouri. The Defendant failed to provide 60 days advance written notice to employees or staff as required by the WARN Act to the affected employees. On August 2, 2023, the Defendant verbally informed the affected employees in the St. Louis facilities that, as of that same day, their services would no longer be required and that they were not required nor allowed to report for work. On August 3, 2023, the Defendant provided written notice to confirm the termination. The Defendant's reduction in forces constituted a mass layoff or plant closing, which became terminations, commencing on August 2, 2023 and occurring within 30 days. As such, Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees, should have received the full protection afforded by the WARN Act, the suit alleges. Plaintiff Flowers was employed by South City Hospital at all relevant times at the St. Louis, Missouri facility. SA Hospital Acquisition Group, LLC, d/b/a South City Hospital, provides healthcare services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John F. Garvey, Esq. Colleen Garvey, Esq. Ellen Thomas, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 701 Market Street, Suite 1510 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 390-6750 Facsimile: (314) 255-5419 E-mail: jgarvey@stranchlaw.com cgarvey@stranchlaw.com ethomas@stranchlaw.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Michael C. Iadevaia, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa Parks Ave. Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Facsimile: (615) 255-5419 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com miadevaia@stranchlaw.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. TURKE & STRAUSS LLP 613 Williamson St., Suite 201 Madison, WI 53703 Telephone: (608) 237-1775 Facsimile: (608) 509-4423 E-mail: sam@turkestrauss.com raina@turkestrauss.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. Amina A. Thomas, Esq. COHEN & MALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 E-mail: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com athomas@cohenandmalad.com SIGNET BUILDERS: Vanegas Stayed Pending Interlocutory Appeal Ruling ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge James D. Peterson of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin stayed the case, JOSE AGEO LUNA VANEGAS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SIGNET BUILDERS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-54-jdp (W.D. Wis.), pending the Seventh Circuit resolution of Signet's interlocutory appeal. The collective action under Fair Labor Standards Act already has a complicated procedural history, most of which the court can skip. The issue of the day concerns whether the principles of personal jurisdiction set out in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, 582 U.S. 255 (2017), for state-law mass torts should be extended to FLSA collective actions. Vanegas seeks to represent a collective of mostly non-U.S. citizens who worked under H-2A guestworker visas for Defendant Signet Builders, Inc., a citizen of Texas. The proposed collective has about 30 potential members who worked in Wisconsin and almost 600 who did their work in other states. Vanegas did his work in Wisconsin, so the Court has specific jurisdiction over Signet for the claims of Vanegas, the only named Plaintiff. The Court conditionally certified the proposed collective, which would allow the Plaintiff's counsel to send notice to all the potential members of the collective and open discovery. In the certification decision, it declined to decide the Bristol-Myers Squibb jurisdictional issue: whether the Court could exercise personal jurisdiction over Signet to decide the claims of workers with no connection to Wisconsin. That jurisdictional issue, so the Court thought at the time, should wait for another day, after the Court saw how many out-of-state members opted in. But Signet is not content to wait, and it has filed a motion pressing the jurisdictional issue. It asks the Court to certify two issues to the court of appeals. First, in an FLSA collective action, is it proper to defer the personal jurisdiction inquiry until after notice to the collective? Second, for a defendant not subject to general jurisdiction, must the district court establish specific personal jurisdiction over each of the claims of the out-of-state opt-in collective members? Signet has convinced the court of the importance of the issue. So Judge Peterson decides the issue (though not in Signet's favor), certifies the questions to the court of appeals, and stays the case pending the outcome of the certification. First, he is persuaded that in the case the ardors of aggregate litigation are sufficiently burdensome that it would be unfair to proceed without deciding whether the court could, ultimately, exercise jurisdiction over the claims of out-of-state opt-in members. Second, Judge Peterson concludes that the jurisdictional principles in Bristol-Myers Squibb do not apply in FLSA collective actions. He concludes that it has specific jurisdiction over Signet because the claims of Luna Vanegas, the sole named Plaintiff, arise from Signet's contacts with Wisconsin. He need not separately consider personal jurisdiction over the claims of the potential out-of-state opt-in plaintiffs. Third, Judge Peterson holds that Luna Vanegas raises the legitimate concern that a stay will injure Plaintiffs if the statute of limitations runs pending the appeal. Signet responds that it does not oppose tolling the statute of limitations for putative collective members during the pendency of the interlocutory appeal. So, to ameliorate potential harm to the Plaintiffs, Judge Peterson tolls the statute of limitations for putative collective members during the pendency of the interlocutory appeal. For these reasons, the order dated Aug. 2, 2023, is amended to decide that the Court has personal jurisdiction over the nationwide FLSA collective action and to certify that decision for interlocutory review under 28 U.S.C. Section 1292. The case is stayed pending the Seventh Circuit resolution of Signet's interlocutory appeal. The statute of limitations for members of the putative collective defined in the Court's Aug. 2, 2023 order is tolled pending the Seventh Circuit resolution of Signet's interlocutory appeal. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 1, 2023 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4z5aj2j9 from Leagle.com. SPIRIT AIRLINES: Denies Flight Attendants' Benefits, Warwas Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ MICHAEL WARWAS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. SPIRIT AIRLINES, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-01367 (D. Nev., Sept. 1, 2023) alleges that Spirit maintains policies, practices and procedures that violate the Family and Medical Leave Act and that Spirit effectively interfere with, restrain, and deny the exercise of or the attempt to exercise FMLA benefits by flight attendants. The Plaintiff seeks damages and declaratory relief on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated Spirit FAs. The Plaintiff also brings individual claims to redress his own wrongful termination. Spirit is a major commercial airline that serves more than 90 destinations across the U.S., Latin America and the Caribbean.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kathryn L. Bain, Esq. BAIN MAZZA & DEBSKI LLP 10300 W. Charleston Blvd., Ste. 13-191 Las Vegas, NV 89135 Telephone: (702) 919-1090 Facsimile: (650) 763-3933 E-mail: kbain@bmdlegal.com - and - Monique Olivier, Esq. Cassidy Clark, Esq. OLIVIER & SCHREIBER LLP 475 14th Street, Suite 250 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 484-0980 Facsimile: (415) 658-7758 E-mail: monique@os-legal.com cassidy@os-legal.com - and - Anna D'Agostino, Esq. MILLER SHAH LLP 225 Broadway, Suite 1830 New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (866) 540-5505 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 E-mail: akdagostino@millershah.com STATE FARM: Denies Burglary Theft Claims, Class Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------- Scott Holland, writing for Cook County Record, reports that an Aurora woman is the latest to initiate a class action against State Farm, alleging the insurer improperly refused to cover customer claims stemming from burglaries and thefts. Takeisha Harrison filed a complaint Aug. 28 in Cook County Circuit Court concerning the renter's policy she obtained Jan. 12, 2021, with a one-year effective window opening March 23. She believed the policy would cover "accidental direct physical loss" to her personal property up to $30,300. She also referenced a personal articles policy effective June 2, 2021, through June 2, 2022, covering seven pieces of jewelry worth a combined $87,900 based on written appraisals she provided to State Farm. According to the complaint, Harrison's Aurora apartment was robbed Oct. 23, 2021, with all the covered jewelry stolen. She said she reported the theft to the Aurora Police Department and State Farm. The complaint details State Farm's claims process, including multiple requests for dozens of supporting documents having Harrison and her daughter sit for sworn examinations. State Farm finally denied the personal articles claim on Sept. 8, 2022, citing "a violation of policy provisions" with a letter asserting Harrison "intentionally concealed and/or misrepresented material facts and/or circumstances relating to this insurance claim" and claiming she repeatedly failed or refused to provide "the records and documents we reasonably and repeatedly demanded." Although Harrison said she can't find the denial letter under the renter's policy, she did provide a Dec. 29, 2022, letter supporting her allegation the denial was on the same grounds as the refusal under the personal articles policy. In a breach of contract claim, Harrison said the renter's policy specifically covered "accidental direct physical loss" to personal property as a result of theft. She offered an alternative to that claim, seeking a declaratory judgment. A third count accuses State Farm of operating in bad faith. Harrison said the majority of residents in her ZIP code are Black, as is she, and alleged the company wouldn't treat its clients who live elsewhere in the same manner. She called for creating a class of possibly "hundreds and likely thousands" of Illinois residents whose ZIP code constitutes a majority of Black residents and who "submitted personal property theft claims on homeowners, renters and personal article policies between August 28, 2018 until the time judgment is entered that were denied for fraud, misrepresentation or failure to cooperate by State Farm." The class allegations open with a count of fraudulent misrepresentation, arguing "State Farm knew it would not pay" theft claims when issuing policies to people who would be eligible for class membership. "Instead, State Farm would employ overly intrusive investigations through their Special Investigations Unit requiring the submission of items and the recorded examinations of both insureds and individuals beyond the insured's control that would not have been required of non-African Americans," Harrison alleged. "After employing these overly intrusive investigative methods, State Farm would deny class member claims on the basis of a failure to cooperate, misrepresentation or fraud." Harrison also alleged a violation of state consumer fraud and deceptive business practices law. In addition to class certification and a jury trial, she seeks a court order that the claimed losses are recoverable under clients' policies and forcing State Farm to pay for said losses. She also seeks compensatory and punitive damages. Steven Mikuzis, of Mag Mile Law, Chicago, is representing Harrison. Other lawsuits facing State Farm include a 32-state class action alleging it fraudulently reduced the amounts paid for cars deemed a total loss and another saying it holds out on interest allegedly owed to Illinois claimants from awards and judgements. [GN] STATE FARM: Fails to Pay Sales Taxes, Title Transfer Fees --------------------------------------------------------- Bernie Pazanowski of Bloomberg Law reports that State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. can't avoid a class action over its failure to pay sales taxes and title transfer fees by paying off the named plaintiff's claim, the Eleventh Circuit said. State Farm said that the payment to Anthony Sos before the class was certified mooted the suit, but the opinion by Judge Andrew L. Brasher said that the class action was saved by the relation-back doctrine. The doctrine recognizes that a plaintiff whose claims are satisfied before class certification can continue pursuing the class action in certain circumstances because the claims relate back to the filing of. [GN] TALCOTT RESOLUTION: Fails to Protect Customer’s Info, Guitang Says -------------------------------------------------------------------- LEE GUITANG, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TALCOTT RESOLUTION LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-01087-SRU (D. Conn., Aug. 15, 2023) arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated Talcott customers' sensitive information. On or about May 31, 2023, Defendant learned that one its IT vendor's networks (Pension Benefit Information, LLC or PBI) had been penetrated by a cyberattack. In response, PBI promptly launched an investigation into the nature and scope of the MOVEit vulnerability's impact on its systems. As a result of its investigation, PBI concluded -- on an undisclosed date -- that the third party accessed one of Defendant's Transfer servers on May 29, 2023 and May 30, 2023 and downloaded data, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons whose personally identifiable information was compromised as a result of Defendant's failure to: adequately protect the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members; warn Plaintiff and Class Members of Defendant's inadequate information security practices; and effectively secure hardware containing protected PII using reasonable and effective security procedures free of vulnerabilities and incidents. Moreover, the Defendant's alleged conduct amounts at least to negligence and violates federal and state statutes including the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. Headquartered in Connecticut, Talcott Resolution is a life insurance and annuity company and solutions-provider that oversees and administers approximately one million contracts and $92 billion in assets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq. Ethan S. Binder, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP The Helmsley Building 230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 223-6444 Facsimile: (212) 223-6334 E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com ebinder@scott-scott.com - and - Anja Rusi, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP 156 South Main Street P.O. Box 192 Colchester, CT 06415 Telephone: (860) 537-5537 Facsimile: (860) 537-4432 E-mail: arusi@scott-scott.com - and - David K. Lietz, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC 5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW Washington, D.C. 20015-2052 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Facsimile: (202) 686-2877 E-mail: dlietz@milberg.com TARGET CORP: Faces Class Action Over "Target Clean" Product Labels ------------------------------------------------------------------ Abraham Jewett, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that Target Corp. misleads consumers about the actual cleanliness of many beauty products it sells that are labeled as "Target Clean," a new class action lawsuit alleges. A group of consumers claims many of the beauty products Target labeled as "Target Clean" contain "harmful or unwanted ingredients" that are "known to cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm." The consumers argue further that, in many cases, the actual manufacturers of beauty products labeled by Target as "Target Clean" do not themselves label, advertise or market them as being "clean" or "free from unwanted" chemicals. "Target has, intentionally and on its own, labeled certain products as 'clean' and free from 'commonly unwanted' chemicals or ingredients," the Target class action states. The group of consumers wants to represent a nationwide class and subclass of consumers from Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Michigan, New Hampshire, New York, Oklahoma and Washington who have purchased a product labeled "Target Clean." Target causes 'significant harm' to consumers looking to purchase cleaner beauty products, class action says The consumers argue Target has caused "significant harm" to customers who are looking to purchase beauty products that are cleaner for both them and for the environment. "Target created and utilized the 'Clean' label for its own profit, marketing the Target Clean label as an easy way for consumers to identify purportedly cleaner products, without having to do any of their own analysis," the Target class action states. The consumers claim Target is guilty of breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, fraud, negligent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment, and of violating a number of state laws. The plaintiffs are demanding a jury trial and requesting declaratory and injunctive relief, along with an award of damages for themselves and all class members. A consumer filed a separate class action lawsuit against Target in August, claiming the company falsely advertised that its Market Pantry-brand berry pomegranate flavored water enhancer contained only natural flavors. Have you purchased a product labeled 'Target Clean'? Let us know in the comments. The plaintiffs are represented by Brian C. Gudmundson and Rachel K. Tack of Zimmerman Reed LLP, and Christopher D. Jennings and Tyler B. Ewigleben of Johnson Firm. The Target Clean class action lawsuit is Boyd, et al. v. Target Corp., Case No. 0:23-cv-02668, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. [GN] TESLA INC: Faces Suit Over Unlimited Free Supercharging Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Harsh, writing for CarBlogIndia, reports that in the latest news, Sean Cohen filed a class action lawsuit against Tesla for its claim of unlimited free Supercharging for 3 years. Tesla is the largest EV maker in the world. It has revolutionized the electric vehicle mass adoption in the last decade. As a result, there are numerous new players that have emerged to challenge its dominance. However, Tesla also keeps getting involved in some issues with customers for its tricky advertisements. This looks like one such case. Let us take a look at the details of this incident. Tesla Lawsuit Against Free Supercharging Ad As per various reports online, Sean Cohen is the plaintiff who is filing this lawsuit. Tesla advertised that it would offer 3 years of unlimited free supercharging to the buyers of the Tesla Model S or Model X who had purchased it between April and June 2023. This case has been removed to a California federal court. Sean mentions that Tesla's advertisement was misleading and false. As a result, the buyers ended up paying more during the time of purchase to make use of this free supercharging offer. This class action states that "Plaintiff would not have purchased a unit of the products, or would have paid a substantially lower price if he had known that the advertising as described herein was false, misleading and deceptive." He also argues that Tesla allegedly knew that the cost to supercharge an electric vehicle is "unquestionably material" to car buyers. "That is clearly why defendant Tesla chose to prominently highlight the ‘3 Years of Free Supercharging' and savings features," the class action further iterates. What We Think While we can't argue about the specifics of this particular case as we don't have all the information, we can definitely understand the plaintiff's perspective. Tesla is famously notorious for coming up with tricky advertisements and claims. As a matter of fact, it doesn't even publicly reveal all the specifications of its EVs so easily. Hence, it is always in the news for ambitious claims. Therefore, we can't say that we were surprised to hear about this latest class action lawsuit. In any case, we can only hope that transparency prevails at the end of the day so that potential buyers don't lose confidence in Tesla's tall claims. [GN] TSG INTERACTIVE: Tucker Seeks Damages Over Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------ Brian Tucker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TSG INTERACTIVE US SERVICES LIMITED CORP. d/b/a POKERSTARS, Case No. 7:23-cv-07265 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 16, 2023) accuses the Defendant of failing to properly secure and safeguard personally identifiable and financial information of Plaintiff and the class members. The Plaintiff and class members' PII were compromised in a data breach that occurred on May 30, 2023 wherein an intruder gained entry to TSG's database. The Plaintiff accuses TSG of negligence and seeks damages and any other relief arising from TSG's violations. TSG Interactive d/b/a PokerStars owns and operates an online gambling platform, with its principal place of business in New York, NY.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachel Dapeer, Esq. DAPEER LAW, P.A. 3331 Sunset Avenue Ocean, NJ 07712 Telephone: (305) 610-5223 E-mail: rachel@dapeer.com - and – Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 400-4713 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com UNITED STATES: Pregnant Employees Discrimination Suit Recertified ----------------------------------------------------------------- Eric Katz of govexec.com reports that p otentially hundreds of Customs and Border Protection employees can move forward as a class in their lawsuit against the agency for alleged discrimination against pregnant staff, after a new ruling that dismissed CBP's objections. The Homeland Security Department component has allegedly discriminated against certain pregnant women for years by forcing them to forfeit some of their duties, according to the lawsuit, which brought its complaint to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. A regional EEOC administrative judge previously ruled in the employees' favor, but CBP rejected the decision and it appealed it rather than notifying other class members of their eligibility to participate in the class action. In a new ruling on August 30, 2023, Carlton Hadden, director of EEOC's Office of Federal Operations, reversed CBP's order rejecting the judge's decision. Instead, Hadden recertified the class, saying the plaintiffs met their thresholds for moving forward. EEOC appeared to suggest the complaints stood on firm ground in their case against the government. Now, any pregnant CBP employee required to enter "temporary light duty," or TLD, since July 2016 would be eligible to join the class. EEOC noted there are more than 500 women who were placed on TLD in that time and may now be eligible to sign their names to the case. According to agency policy and protections afforded by the 1978 Pregnancy Discrimination Act, pregnant employees should only enter light duty status if they request it. Instead, the complainants said, their supervisors required them to surrender some duties as soon as their pregnancies were disclosed. They said temporary light duty status offers fewer chances for overtime and other differential pay, lowers the chances of promotions, allows for fewer training opportunities, makes preferred schedules more difficult to earn and requires the surrendering of their right to carry a firearm. In some cases, they added, employees then have to requalify to carry their gun. Pregnant employees were treated differently than others who went onto the temporary status, they said, as they were never provided an opportunity to prove they could still carry out their normal duties. "When I let my supervisors know I was pregnant, it should have been a moment of shared joy and excitement," said Roberta Gabaldon, a CBP employee and a class agent who helped bring the case. "Instead, I was devastated to endure a humiliating forced reassignment and a complete disregard for my ability to keep working as I was trained to and in a job that I loved. I'm grateful to the EEOC for upholding our class certification and hope that through this decision we can create meaningful change at the agency." CBP, which did not respond to a request for comment, must in the next 15 days "use all reasonable means" to contact all potential class members to inform them of the class certification, the EEOC official ordered. That should include emailing, hand delivery of a notice or mailing a notice to their last known address. The agency has 30 days to once again appeal the decision further up the commission. In its previous appeal, CBP argued it had failed to prove more than the two-dozen employees who have so far signed onto the case faced any discrimination. It also said the complainants lacked "commonality" that is required for a class-action case. If mandatory TLD occurred, it went against agency policy and was required only because supervisors were acting without proper authority, the agency argued. EEOC rejected those arguments, however, noting the women making the complaints suggested they were scared to tell management they were pregnant and they knew of many more colleagues in similar positions. "The agency fails to cite to a single piece of evidence showing that any individual supervisor acted independently regarding the temporary light duty assignment for a class member," Hadden said. EEOC also found employees were "treated in a consistent manner" in duty stations across the country once management found out they were pregnant. "The agency also asserts that its policy stipulates that an employee initiates the request for temporary light duty, but the evidence shows that pregnant employees suffered from a practice to immediately place them onto temporary light duty once a pregnancy was disclosed," Hadden added. He further said the practice had real impacts on class members. "Due to their reassignments into these light duty positions, class agents' compensations were affected, in addition to their abilities to qualify for promotions; take trainings; and bid on positions," Hadden said. If CBP declines to appeal further, it must notify the EEOC field office in New Orleans that it requires a hearing on the merits of the case. "A worker's pregnancy does not define their ability to work, and yet the CBP field offices have operated under that assumption for years," said Joe Sellers, an attorney at Cohen, Milstein, Sellers and Toll who is representing the plaintiffs. "Now that the EEOC has upheld class certification, we can continue to pursue accountability on behalf of our clients and bring the agency's policies in line with the 21st century." [GN] UNIVERSAL STUDIOS: Class Suit Over Trailer's False Ads Explored --------------------------------------------------------------- Jamie Reekie, Esq., Stephen Goldie Esq., and Craig Watt, Esq., of Brodies LLP, in an article for Lexology, disclosed that the blockbuster class action of the year has once again hit the headlines. The main characters are a group of US film buffs on one side and the film giant Universal Studios on the other. The plot centres around the 2019 film Yesterday. A fifteen second segment of a trailer for The Beatles inspired movie featured the actress, Ana de Armas. Come the cinematic release, however, Ms de Armas' character had been cut from the film. Help! Aggrieved, the claimants raised proceedings against Universal, arguing that the trailer amounted to false advertising and that they had been "deceived" into parting with $3.99 to rent the film. Claiming not to have received value for money for their rental fees, the class sued Universal for $5million for false advertising, unjust enrichment and breaches of consumer protection and fair competition law. Let It Be In December 2022 we wrote about the judge's decision to allow the claim to proceed. The studio had argued that the trailer was protected by the US Constitution and the right to free speech and sought to have the claim struck out. That was rejected by the judge who took the view that the trailer was commercial speech, "designed to sell a movie by providing consumers with a preview of the movie". That brought the trailer within the scope of California's False Advertising Law and Unfair Competition Law, and the claim was allowed to continue. Hello, Goodbye Universal were successful in a number of subsequent motions to strike out. On each occasion, though, the court allow the claimants to amend their claim with a view to making it competent. However, following the latest strike out application, the court has again struck out the claim and decided that any further amendment would be pointless. Recently, the claim had been amended and one of the claimants alleged they had rented the movie twice, from two different sources, in anticipation that Ms de Armas might appear in a directors' cut. That anticipation proved unfounded and the claimant was, again, left disappointed. The court found that the claimants did not have standing to make this argument. There was no basis for the claimant to assume that Ms de Armas would be in the version of the film rented from the second provider. Any loss they suffered as a result of the second rental were "self-inflicted" and could not be recovered from Universal. We Can Work it Out As we highlighted in our previous blog on this case, there is a question as to whether consumers in Scotland would go to the lengths of opting-into class actions to recover relatively low sums of money. However, this action puts on the big screen the trend of consumers taking action against corporates when they face unfavourable product outcomes. [GN] UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA: Dittberner Files Suit Over Data Breach --------------------------------------------------------------- Geoff Dittberner and Mary Wint, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. University of Minnesota, Defendant, Case No. 0:23-cv-02630-ECT-LIB (D. Minn., Aug. 25, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, and violation of the Government Data Practices Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant gathers, stores, and uses sensitive information it gathers from students, applicants, employees, and other individuals, including social security numbers. As such, the Defendant has a duty to protect the sensitive data it chooses to store. Despite these requirements and its understanding of the need to implement reasonable security measures to keep students and employees' information safe, the Defendant failed to do so. Instead, a hacker active on the dark web with a username of "niggy" reported that he infiltrated the Defendant's database and gained access to personally identifying information and other sensitive information, including over 7 million unique social security numbers. The stolen information includes data from digitized records initially created as far back as 1989, says the suit. The Plaintiffs, therefore, bring this class action complaint seeking relief for their injuries and those of persons who were similarly impacted by the data breach and inadequate data security. Plaintiff Dittberner applied to attend school as an undergraduate at the University of Minnesota in 2012 while Plaintiff Wint worked at the University of Minnesota as an employee for approximately 20 years.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq. Michael J. Laird, Esq. Rachel K. Tack, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 1100 IDS Center 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 341-0400 E-mail: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com michael.laird@zimmreed.com rachel.tack@zimmreed.com - and - Gary F. Lynch, Esq. Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq. Nicholas A. Colella, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 E-mail: gary@lcllp.com jamisen@lcllp.com nickc@lcllp.com - and - Christopher D. Jennings, Esq. JOHNSON FIRM 610 President Clinton Avenue Suite 300 Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 372-1300 E-mail: chris@yourattorney.com VEGGIE GRILL: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages, Zavalza Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ VILMA ZAVALZA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE VEGGIE GRILL, INC.; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV21183 (Cal. Super., Sept. 1, 2023) alleges that the Defendants failed to pay all wages including minimum wages and overtime wages; provide lawful meal periods or compensation; authorize or permit lawful rest breaks or provide compensation; reimburse necessary business-related costs; provide accurate itemized wage statements; pay wages timely during employment; and pay all wages due upon separation of employment, in violation of the California Labor Code and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders. The Plaintiff seeks monetary relief against the Defendants on behalf of the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated in California to recover unpaid wages, un-reimbursed business expenses, benefits, interest, attorneys' fees, costs and expenses, and penalties. The Plaintiff's proposed class consists of and is defined as: All California citizens currently or formerly employed by the Defendants as non-exempt employees in the State of California at any time between March 7, 20191 and the date of class certification. The Plaintiff also seeks to certify the following subclasses of employees: Waiting Time Subclass: All members of the Class who separated their employment with Defendant at any time between March 7, 2020 and the date of class certification. Veggie Grill is a fast-casual vegan restaurant chain.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel A. Wong, Esq. Kashif Haque, Esq. Jessica L. Campbell, Esq. AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC 9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 379-6250 Facsimile: (949) 379-6251 E-mail: jcampbell@aegislawfirm.com VESYNC CORP: Faces Chen Suit Over Mislabeled Air Purifiers ---------------------------------------------------------- RICK CHEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VESYNC CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-04458 (N.D. Cal., Aug. 29, 2023) asserts claims on behalf of the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated purchasers of Defendant's products for fraud and violation of the California's Unfair Competition Law, California's False Advertising Law, and California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, arising from the false and misleading representations that Defendant made for years about its Levoit-brand EverestAir Smart True HEPA, and Core 300 and Core 300S True HEPA air purifiers, along with their respective replacement filters. According to the complaint, the Defendant represented that the air purifiers are equipped with high efficiency particulate air filters when in fact they were not. The Defendant also represented that the replacement filters it sells for the air purifiers are "H13 True HEPA" filters, when in fact they were not. The Defendant's false and misleading representations induced reasonable consumers like Plaintiff into purchasing the products. Had Plaintiff and all other similarly situated consumers known that, contrary to Defendant's knowing representations, the products did not have HEPA-grade filtration, they would have paid less for the products or not purchased them at all, says the suit. Vesync Corporation designs, develops and sells small home appliances.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Luke Sironski-White, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com lsironski@bursor.com - and - Greg Sinderbrand, Esq. SINDERBRAND LAW GROUP, P.C. 5805 Sepulveda Blvd. #801 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (818) 370-3912 E-mail: greg@sinderbrandlaw.com VROOM INC: Holbrook Shareholder Suit Consolidated ------------------------------------------------- Vroom, 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 currently facing a consolidated complaint with asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and SEC Rule 10b-5 which sought to represent a proposed class of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's securities. Case captioned "Holbrook v. Vroom, Inc. et al.," Case No. 21-cv-2551 assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and SEC Rule 10b-5. Plaintiff sought to represent a proposed class of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's securities during a period from June 9, 2020 to March 3, 2021. In August 2021, the court consolidated the cases under "In re: Vroom, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 21-cv-2477," appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel and ordered a consolidated amended complaint to be filed. The court-appointed lead plaintiff subsequently filed a consolidated amended complaint that reasserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and SEC Rule 10b-5 against the company and certain of its officers, and added new claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act against the company, certain of its officers, certain of its directors, and the underwriters of the company's September 2020 secondary offering. The company filed a motion to dismiss all claims, and briefing of this motion is complete. Vroom, Inc., and its wholly owned subsidiaries is an end-to-end ecommerce platform for the used vehicle industry. VROOM INC: Hudda Shareholder Suit Consolidated ----------------------------------------------- Vroom, 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 currently facing a consolidated complaint with asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and SEC Rule 10b-5 which sought to represent a proposed class of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's securities. Case captioned "Hudda v. Vroom, Inc. et al.," Case No. 21-cv-3296 assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and SEC Rule 10b-5. Plaintiff sought to represent a proposed class of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's securities during a period from June 9, 2020 to March 3, 2021. In August 2021, the court consolidated the cases under "In re: Vroom, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 21-cv-2477," appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel and ordered a consolidated amended complaint to be filed. The court-appointed lead plaintiff subsequently filed a consolidated amended complaint that reasserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and SEC Rule 10b-5 against the company and certain of its officers, and added new claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act against the company, certain of its officers, certain of its directors, and the underwriters of the company's September 2020 secondary offering. The company filed a motion to dismiss all claims, and briefing of this motion is complete. Vroom, Inc., and its wholly owned subsidiaries is an end-to-end ecommerce platform for the used vehicle industry. VROOM INC: Zawatsky Shareholder Suit Consolidated -------------------------------------------------- Vroom, 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 currently facing a consolidated complaint with asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and SEC Rule 10b-5 which sought to represent a proposed class of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's securities. Case captioned "Zawatsky et al. v. Vroom, Inc. et al.," Case No. 21-cv-2477 represents a class who purchased Vroom Shares from November 11, 2020 to March 3, 2021. In August 2021, the court consolidated the cases under "In re: Vroom, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 21-cv-2477," appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel and ordered a consolidated amended complaint to be filed. The court-appointed lead plaintiff subsequently filed a consolidated amended complaint that reasserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and SEC Rule 10b-5 against the company and certain of its officers, and added new claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act against the company, certain of its officers, certain of its directors, and the underwriters of the company's September 2020 secondary offering. The company filed a motion to dismiss all claims, and briefing of this motion is complete. Vroom, Inc., and its wholly owned subsidiaries is a end-to-end ecommerce platform for the used vehicle industry. WALGREEN EASTERN: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due March 1, 2024 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Johnson v. Walgreen Eastern Co., Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-00743 (D. Conn., Aug. 21, 2023), the Hon. Judge Stefan R. Underhill entered a scheduling order as follows: -- Defendant's Answer or Responsive Motion Aug. 30, 2023 due by: -- The Plaintiffs' Amended Pleadings due by: Oct. 31, 2023 -- Discovery due by: Jan. 31, 2024 -- Plaintiffs' Motion for Class March 1, 2024 Certification due by: The nature of suit states Other Labor Litigation. Walgreen Eastern retails pharmaceuticals products. The Company offers prescription drugs, medicines, vitamins and supplements, and personal care.[CC] Walgreen retails pharmaceuticals products. WALT DISNEY: Disneyland Magic Key Holders Await Settlement Details ------------------------------------------------------------------ Katie Dowd, writing for sfgate, reports that Disneyland Magic Key holders will have to wait a bit longer before the details of a class-action settlement are finalized in court. On Aug. 31, a district court judge in California's Central District agreed to extend the deadline for Disney Parks and plaintiff Jenale Nielsen to file a motion for a class-action settlement. They had until Sept. 7 to file the preliminary motion for the court's approval. In July, Disney Parks agreed to settle with Nielsen, a Bay Area woman who filed a class-action suit on behalf of Magic Key holders. Magic Key, which is Disneyland's annual pass program, allows individuals to purchase year-long admission with differing blockout dates depending on how much the pass costs. According to the lawsuit, Nielsen, who lives in Santa Clara County, said Disney made "misleading" statements about the "nature, benefits, and restrictions of the Dream Key Passes." Nielsen said she purchased the highest-tier Dream Key for $1,399 in part because Disneyland's advertising claimed it had "no blockout dates." Two other tiers, Enchant and Believe, were advertised with the line "blockout dates apply." Upon trying to make park reservations, however, Nielsen said she was "disappointed to learn that Disney had already blocked out many days, including all weekend days in the month of November 2021." When Nielsen checked to see if the park was at capacity, she alleged Disneyland was still selling single-day tickets for all days in November 2021. "It was misleading and fraudulent for Disney to sell passes that were advertised as having no blockout dates and not inform Ms. Nielsen and other consumers that Disney was reserving the right to make park reservations 'unavailable' whenever it wanted and even when park reservations are and were actually available," the complaint said. The lawsuit is seeking damages for Nielsen and other individuals who purchased the Dream Key. SFGATE's request for more information about the details of the settlement was not returned by Nielsen's lawyers. If the settlement is approved, affected parties will be contacted per California law. The Dream Key no longer exists as an option in Disneyland's Magic Key program. It was replaced by the Inspire Key, which currently costs $1,599 a year and warns some "pass blockout dates" apply. [GN] WELLS FARGO: Easton Loses Class Certification Bid ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPHINE EASTON, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, a Delaware corporation; WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-06070-AB-RAO (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Andre Birotte Jr. entered an order denying the Plaintiffs motion for class certification and certification of Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Collective action. -- The Court finds that Plaintiff has not demonstrated she has standing to allege a violation based on Wells Fargo's practice of listing "CA Meal/Break Premium Pay," on wage statements, rather than having separate line items for a Meal Break premium and Rest Break premium. -- The Plaintiff has not alleged facts showing an actual injury resulted from combining the meal and rest break premiums, rather than having separate line items. The Plaintiff contends this practice makes it impossible to discern whether an employee is being paid for a meal period or break period. "But apart from her confusion, [Plaintiff] does not allege any real-world consequences flowing from the violation," as Plaintiff is still aware of the wages she is being paid. Mays v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 804 Fed. App'x. The Plaintiff was employed by Wells Fargo as a non-exempt, hourly-paid Loan Adjuster. The Plaintiff seeks to certify the following class: “All persons who are employed or have been employed by Wells Fargo in the State of California during the period of four years prior to the filing of this action through resolution of this action (March 31, 2016 to the present), who have worked as hourly, non-exempt loan adjusters." The Plaintiff also seeks to certify eight (8) subclasses:1 -- Subclass I (Unpaid Wages Subclass): All California residents who worked for Defendant as hourly, non-exempt Loan Adjusters during the Class Period (March 31, 2016 to the present), and who worked at least one shift less than eight (8) hours in a workday and/or more than forty (40) hours in any given week. -- Subclass II (Overtime Subclass): All California residents who worked for Defendant as hourly, non-exempt Loan Adjusters during the Class Period (March 31, 2016 to the present), and who worked at least one shift more than eight (8) hours in any given day and/or more than forty (40) hours in any given week. -- Subclass III (Meal Period Subclass): All California residents who worked for Defendant as hourly, non-exempt Loan Adjusters during the Class Period (March 31, 2016), and who worked at least one shift longer than five (5) hours in a workday -- Subclass IV (Rest Period Subclass): All California residents who worked for Defendant as hourly, non-exempt Loan Adjusters during the Class Period (March 31, 2016 to the present), and worked at least one shift longer than three and a half (3.5) hours in a workday. -- Subclass V (Termination Pay Subclass): "All California residents who worked for Defendant as hourly, non-exempt Loan Adjusters, and whose employment terminated during the Class Period (March 31, 2016 to the present). -- Subclass VI (Wage Statement Subclass): All California residents who worked for Defendant as hourly, non-exempt Loan Adjusters during the Class Period (March 31, 2016 to the present), and who received at least one wage statement from Defendant. -- Subclass VII (Expense Reimbursement Subclass): All California residents who worked for Defendant as hourly nonexempt Loan Adjusters during the Class Period (March 31, 2016 to the present) who incurred at least one business expense in performance of their work duties. -- Subclass VIII (The Unfair Competition Class Subclass): All California residents who worked for Defendant as hourly, nonexempt Loan Adjusters during the Class Period (March 31, 2016 to the present) who were subjected to Defendants’ unlawful, unfair and/or fraudulent business practices due to the Defendants' violations of the California Labor Code and California Wage Orders. The Plaintiff also seeks to conditionally certify a FLSA Collective Action for claims relating to Wells Fargo’s alleged failure to compensate employees for tasks completed while off-the-clock: "All persons who are employed or have been employed by Defendants in the State of California, during the period of four years prior to the filing of this action through resolution of this action (March 31, 2016 to the present), who have worked as hourly, non- exempt Loan Adjusters." Wells Fargo is an American multinational financial services company. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 18, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3EpbXc5 at no extra charge.[CC] WESTERN DIGITIAL: Bax Sues Over Defective Solid-State Drives ------------------------------------------------------------ FRAN BAX, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WESTERN DIGITIAL CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 5:23-cv-04543-SVK (N.D. Cal., Sept. 5, 2023) is an action by the Plaintiff and the Class who bought external and portable solid-state drives (SSDs) from the Defendant, including its SanDisk brand, alleges that the Defendant violates the consumer protection laws of California and New York. According to the complaint, the following lines and models contain a defect that causes customers to lose all of their stored data and prevents them from reliably storing data: SanDisk Extreme Portable SSD V2; SanDisk Extreme Pro Portable SSD V2; WD My Passport SSD; SanDisk Extreme Portable 4TB (SDSSDE61-4T00); SanDisk Extreme Pro Portable 4TB (SDSSDE81-4T00); SanDisk Extreme Pro 2TB (SDSSDE81-2T00); SanDisk Extreme Pro 1TB (SDSSDE81-1T00); and WD My Passport 4TB (WDBAGF0040BGY) (collectively referred to herein as the "Devices"). The Devices become unusable when they are around 50 percent1 capacity, at which point they will start showing read and write errors, as being unformatted, and will unexpectedly wipe and erase any stored data, and become unreadable (the "Defect"). Reformatting the Devices, however, will not resolve the problems. As a result of the Defect, the Devices do not safely, securely, and reliably store consumers' digital files and data, the suit alleges. Numerous consumers have complained about the loss of data stored on the Devices. In May 2023, the Defendant attempted to address its customers' complaints by releasing a firmware update, however, the Devices continued to wipe out and erase valuable data. Defendant released another firmware update in July 2023—version R332G190—however, users complain that even after the firmware update, the Devices prevent the writing of new data and continue deleting existing data. Users have also complained that the replacements offered by the company suffer from the same defect. The Defendant continues to market and sell the Devices notwithstanding the known defect, asserts the suit. Western Digital Corporation is a global provider of solutions for the collection, storage, management, protection and use of digital content, including audio and video. The Company's products include hard drives, solid-state drives, and home entertainment and networking products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq. Rosanne L. Mah, Esq. GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP 1111 Broadway, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 350-9700 Facsimile: (510) 350-9701 Email: rmr@classlawgroup.com rlm@classlawgroup.com WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION: Salas Files Suit in C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Whirlpool Corporation, et al. The case is styled as Orlando Salas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Corebridge Financial, Inc., American General Life Insurance Co., Case No. 5:23-cv-01549-AB-KK (C.D. Cal., Aug. 3, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Contract Dispute. The Whirlpool Corporation -- https://www.whirlpoolcorp.com/ -- is an American multinational manufacturer and marketer of home appliances, headquartered in Benton Charter Township, Michigan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Emrah M. Sumer, Esq. Robert S. Green, Esq. GREEN AND NOBLIN PC 2200 Larkspur Landing Circle Suite 101 Larkspur, CA 94939 Phone: (415) 477-6700 Fax: (415) 477-6710 Email: gnecf@classcounsel.com rsg@classcounsel.com The Defendant is represented by: Rachel E. K. Lowe, Esq. ALSTON AND BIRD LLP 333 South Hope Street, 16th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 576-1000 Fax: (213) 576-1100 Email: rachel.lowe@alston.com WILLIAMS & ASSOCIATES: Class Settlement in Alfonso Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KATYA ALFONSO, v. WILLIAMS & ASSOCIATES d/b/a WILLIAMS STARBUCK, DONALD H. WILLIAMS and DREW J. STARBUCK, Case No. 2:22-cv-00206-CDS-EJY (D. Nev.), the Hon. Judge Cristina D. Silva entered an order granting preliminary approval of class action settlement. -- Preliminary Approval of Proposed Settlement: The Court preliminarily finds that the Settlement of the Action is in all respects fundamentally fair, reasonable, adequate and in the best interests of the Class Members. -- Settlement Class Members: Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3), the Action is preliminarily certified, for settlement purposes only, as a class action on behalf of the following Class members: "All individuals who were sent an initial written communication by the Defendants in an attempt to recover sums due between February 28, 2021, and February 28, 2022. -- Class Certification: The Court preliminarily finds that the Action satisfies the applicable prerequisites for class action treatment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, for purposes of settlement only. -- class Representative and Class Counsel: For purposes of preliminary approval, the Court appoints Plaintiff Katya Alfonso as the Class Representative; and Plaintiff's counsel Gustavo Ponce and Mona Amini of Kazerouni Law Group, APC are appointed as Class Counsel. On April 5, 2023, the Parties executed a Class Action Settlement Agreement. On May 1, 2023, the Plaintiff filed the Settlement Agreement, along with the Plaintiff's Preliminary Approval Motion. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 17, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45Bh70M at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gustavo Ponce, Esq. Mona Amini, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 6069 South Fort Apache Road, Suite 100 Las Vegas, NV 89148 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: gustavo@kazlg.com mona@kazlg.com [*] Settlement Claims Submission Deadline in Fraud Suits Scheduled ------------------------------------------------------------------ Tiffany Soga, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that consumers can file a claim with 10 settlements in September to recover compensation for scams, telemarketing, false advertising and more. NetSpend Prepaid Debit Cards FTC Settlement The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is sending a second round of payments to consumers who were unable to gain access to funds on their NetSpend prepaid debit cards. The FTC settlement benefits consumers who purchased or received a NetSpend card between Jan. 1, 2010, and Aug. 31, 2016, who did not activate their card and who had fees deducted from their card balance. The FTC claims NetSpend delayed or, in some cases, denied the activation of its prepaid debit cards. As a result, consumers were unable to use their cards and access their funds. To add insult to injury, NetSpend allegedly charged fees on prepaid card balances to reduce accessible funds. The deadline to submit a claim with the settlement is Sept. 21, 2023. Journeys Unsolicited Texts $855K Class Action Settlement Journeys agreed to a $850,000 class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims it sent unsolicited telemarketing texts in violation of federal law. The settlement benefits individuals who received at least one text message from Journeys between Dec. 21, 2017, and May 9, 2023, despite sending a "stop" message or other opt-out request. According to plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit, Journeys violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by sending unsolicited text messages to consumers. These messages allegedly advertised Journeys' goods and services, but consumers claim they never consented to receive such messages. The deadline to submit a claim with the settlement is Sept. 21, 2023. Inventure Foods, TGI Friday's False advertising $900K Class Action Settlement Inventure Foods agreed to pay $900,000 to resolve claims it falsely advertised TGI Friday's mozzarella sticks as containing real mozzarella cheese. The settlement benefits consumers who purchased TGI Friday's Mozzarella Sticks Snacks, including TGI Friday's Mozzarella Sticks Snacks Original, TGI Friday's Mozzarella Sticks Snacks Original Flavor and TGI Friday's Mozzarella Sticks Snacks Original Flavor Baked shelf-stable bagged snack-food products between Jan. 1, 2017, to July 31, 2022. Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit claim Inventure Foods falsely advertised various TGI Friday's mozzarella stick products as containing real mozzarella. In reality, the products allegedly contain alternative cheeses. Consumers say they overpaid for the products based on Inventure's misrepresentations. The deadline to submit a claim with the settlement is Sept. 25, 2023. Instagram BIPA $68.5M Class Action Settlement Meta agreed to a $68.5 million class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims that Instagram violated Illinoisians' biometric privacy rights. The settlement benefits Instagram users who used the app in Illinois between Aug. 10, 2015, and Aug. 16, 2023. According to the class action lawsuit, Instagram's biometric tracking violates Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). BIPA standardizes the way businesses can collect, store and use biometric information such as facial scans. Plaintiffs in the case say they didn't receive the proper BIPA disclosures and did not give consent for Meta to collect their biometrics. The deadline to submit a claim with the settlement is Sept. 27, 2023. Optimum, Suddenlink Fees $15M Class Action Settlement Optimum and Suddenlink agreed to pay a combined $15 million to resolve class action lawsuit claims that they charged hidden fees on internet and cable services. The settlement benefits Optimum and Suddenlink customers who were charged a Network Enhancement Fee, Network Access Surcharge, Broadcast Station Programming Surcharge, TV Broadcast Fee, Sports Programming Surcharge and/or Regional Sports Network Fee between July 27, 2018, and May 5, 2023. The class action lawsuit claims Optimum and Suddenlink promised consumers a flat monthly rate for internet and cable services but raised monthly costs through hidden fees. According to the plaintiffs, these fees violated account agreements and raised prices in violation of promotional price promises. The deadline to submit a claim with the settlement is Sept. 5, 2023. Audiophile Music Direct 'Analog-Only' Records Class Action Settlement Audiophile Music Direct has agreed to a settlement to resolve claims it falsely advertised its records as being produced using only analog methods. The class action settlement benefits consumers who purchased and still own new and unused Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab (MoFi) vinyl records marketed as "Original Master Recording" and/or "Ultradisc One-Step" from Audiophile Music Direct or other merchants between March 19, 2007, and July 27, 2022. The company allegedly falsely marketed certain MoFi records as being produced using "analog-only" methods under "Original Master Recording" and "Ultradisc One-Step" labels when they were actually produced using a digital transfer step. The deadline to submit a claim is Sept. 21, 2023. Boohoo, PrettyLittleThing, Nasty Gal Pricing Class Action Settlement Boohoo, PrettyLittleThing and Nasty Gal agreed to pay an undisclosed sum to resolve claims that they used false sale prices to trick consumers into making purchases. The settlement benefits shoppers from states other than California who purchased products from Boohoo, BoohooMan or PrettyLittleThing between April 1, 2016, and June 17, 2022, or from Nasty Gal between Feb. 28, 2017, and June 17, 2022. The retailers allegedly used inflated "original" prices in order to advertise fake sale prices on their items. Consumers claim these fake prices misled them into believing they were getting a good deal on their purchases and convinced them to make purchases they otherwise would not have. No claim form is required to benefit from the settlement. Class members who do not exclude themselves will automatically receive a settlement gift card via email, which they can update using their claim ID on the settlement website. Dole Fruit Bowls False Advertising $4.3M Class Action Settlement Dole agreed to a $4.3 million class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims it falsely advertised its fruit cups as containing "100% juice." The settlement benefits individuals who purchased Dole Cherry Mixed Fruit, Diced Apples, Diced Pears, Diced/Chunk Mango, Papaya Mango, Peach Mango, Mandarin Oranges, Pineapple Tidbits/Slices/Chunks/Crushed, Mixed Fruit, Pineapple Paradise, Red Grapefruit Sunrise, Melon Medley, Tropical Fruit or Diced/Sliced Peaches labeled "in 100% juice" or "in 100% fruit juice" between Jan. 12, 2017, and June 27, 2023. Consumers claim they were misled by Dole's promises that its fruit cups contained "100% juice." In reality, the fruit cups allegedly contained additional non-juice ingredients such as ascorbic acid and citric acid. Plaintiffs in the case say they wouldn't have paid as much for the products if they knew the truth about the false advertising. The deadline to submit a claim with the settlement is Sept. 25, 2023. Consumers do not need proof of purchase to file a claim with this settlement! Curaleaf THC False Advertising $100k Class Action Settlement Curaleaf agreed to pay $100,000 to resolve claims that its CBD drops contain THC despite advertisements to the contrary. The settlement benefits consumers from Oregon who purchased mislabeled Curaleaf Select CBD Drops after June 19, 2021. According to the false advertising class action lawsuit, Curaleaf represented its CBD drops as containing only CBD — the non-psychoactive portion of cannabis and hemp. In reality, the drops allegedly contained THC along with CBD. The deadline to submit a claim with the settlement is Sept. 27, 2023. Giftly Merchant Listing $500K Class Action Settlement Giftly agreed to a $500,000 class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims it used merchant listings on its website without first getting consent from those merchants. The settlement benefits businesses, entities and individuals who were listed on the Giftly website without their agreement. The plaintiffs in the case claim Giftly, an online gift card service, used their businesses as "suggestions" for how to use gift cards but failed to get their consent. According to the class action lawsuit, merchants should have been consulted and compensated for their names being used. The deadline to submit a claim with the settlement is Sept. 25, 2023. [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 ***