/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230919.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, September 19, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 188 Headlines 243 FOOD LLC: Menor Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Faces Glucerna False Advertising Class Action AFNI INC: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Action Suit for $1.8M AMERICAN EQUITY: Juan Monteverde Investigates Brookfield Sale AMERICAN FAMILY: W.D. Wisconsin Dismisses Kowarsky Data Breach Suit ANYWHERE REAL: Settles Two Antitrust Class Action Suits AOSOM LLC: Dawson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York APACHE CANADA: Deadline to Object $7M Proposed Settlement on Oct 19 APACHE CORP: Settles Cancelled Deferred Compensation Class Suit APOLLO GLOBAL: Clement Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct. ATHENE ANNUITY: Seiler Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII AUSTRALIA: Class Settlement in Land Contamination Suit Discussed AUSTRALIA: LCM Discusses Outcome of Class Action Settlement BARBA CONCRETE: Munoz Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages BIB MEDICAL: Faces Ortiz Suit Over Unpaid Overtime for Drivers BLENDJET INC: Figueroa Files Suit in S.D. New York BLENDJET INC: Rittenhouse Sues Over BlendJet 2's Defective Design BP EXPLORATION: Wins Bid for Summary Judgment in McDaniel B3 Suit BP EXPLORATION: Wins Summary Judgments in Cintra & Stallworth Suits BURTON CORPORATION: Morgan Class Suit Removed to D. Vermont CANADA: Amnesty Int'l Provides Update on Black Class Action CANADA: RCMP Members Urge Court to Continue Bullying Suit CARESOURCE: ClassAction.org Investigates MOVEit Data Breach Suit CAVE ENTERPRISES: Parking Areas Inaccessible to Disabled, Suit Says CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Suit Over Disney Carriage Fee Fight CHEMOCENTRYX INC: Homyk Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Investors CHICAGO TRANSIT: Asks Job Seekers' Family Medical Info, Suit Says CHOCOLATE FASHION: Murillo Suit Seeks Restaurant Staff's Unpaid OT CHRISTIAN PRINSLOO: Released From Prison Amid Class Action CMI GROUP: Prosser Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri COMOTO HOLDINGS: Castro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York COX AUTOMOTIVE: Bid to Remand Touch Suit to State Court Granted CRH CALIFORNIA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Castillo Alleges CVS PHARMACY: Faces Class Suit Over Organized Retail Theft DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Oct 31 DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Stock Price Artificially Raised, Mannacio Says DMC LOGISTICS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Jones Alleges DOVENMUEHLE MORTGAGE: Muhammad Sues Over Unpaid Wages DSM-FIRMENICH AG: Controls Fragrance Prices, Peychal Suit Claims DST SYSTEMS: Settles 401(k) Class Action for $124 Million EC FLORAL: Faces Torres Suit Over Unpaid Wages for Laborers ELI LILLY: Manipulates Insulin Market Price, Sheet Metal Suit Says EUROPEAN STONE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Urgiles Alleges F&G ANNUITIES: Fails to Safeguard Customers' Info, Miller Suit Says FIELDALE FARMS: Chicken Price-Fixing Class Action Remanded FIRSTENERGY CORP: Settles Bribery Scheme Class Action for $50MM GANNON UNIVERSITY: Faces Suit Over COVID-19 Tuition Refunds GENERAC HOLDINGS: Faces Consolidated Shareholder Action GENERAC HOLDINGS: Zukas Product Suit Consolidated GENERAL MILLS: Averts Amended Video-Info Sharing Class Action GENERAL MOTORS: Bid to Amend Class Cert Deadlines OK'd in Hurry GENERAL MOTORS: Court Modifies Class Cert. Order in Jefferson Suit GRAZIA ITALIAN: Faces FLSA Ismail Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D. Tex. GREENE COUNTY BANCORP: Oct. 11 Hearing on Final OK of Settlement GRENVILLE CHRISTIAN: Settles Class Suit Over Boarding Students HARRY'S NURSES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Williams Alleges HEALTH CARE SERVICE: Investigation Over Data Breach Conducted HOME SOLUTIONS: Moore Sues Over Unpaid Proper Compensations HOMETRUST MORTGAGE: Clients Get Free Disbursement From Settlement HONEST COMPANY: Consolidated Securities Suit Ongoing HONEST COMPANY: Sida and Yerby Putative Class Suit Ongoing I-HEALTH INC: Warren Sues Over Mislabeled Probiotic Products INSTANT CHECKMATE: Settles Privacy Class Suit for $10M INSURANCE CORP: MLT Aikins Attorneys Discuss Ruling in Privacy Suit J.D.B MARKET: Tepale Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Grocery Workers JHDHA INC: Ruiz Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages JUST PLAY LLC: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York KIMBA INDUSTRIES: Underpays Construction Laborers, Reyes Alleges KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP: Flushable Wipes Class Suit Partially Certified KIRIN TRANSPORTATION: Filing of Proposed Pretrial Order Due Nov. 1 KNIGHT HAWK: Seeks More Time to File Reply on Class Cert Bid KULKEA LLC: Castro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York LABOR SOURCE: Parties Must Submit Joint Class Cert Report & Plan LABOR SOURCE: Plaintiffs Seek Relief from July 12, 2023 Order LABORATORY CORPORATION: Howard Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida LASERSHIP INC: Deadlines to Amend Pleadings Held in Abeyance LENOVO INC: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Extended to Feb. 5, 2024 LIGHTFIRE PARTNERS: Court Tosses Parties' Request to Stay Discovery LOBO'S ENERGY: Rhea Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages LOUIS DREYFUS: Court Sets Nov. 20 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline LUCERO AG SERVICES: Ortiz Files Suit in E.D. California MAPFRE USA: Ma Sues Over Failure to Safeguard Data MARLETTE FUNDING: Happy Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania MDC STEEL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Utria Suit Alleges MERCEDES-BENZ GROUP: Court Dismisses Suit Over Agency Sales Model META PLATFORMS: Court Tosses Bid to Dismiss Gershzon Class Suit META PLATFORMS: High Court Denies Algorithm Discrimination Appeal MIDLAND FINANCIAL: Strucke Files Suit in W.D. Oklahoma MIDLAND FUNDING: Third Circuit Remands Appeal in Hejamadi Suit NASHVILLE, TN: Faces Class Suit Over Sidewalk Ordinance NEW HAMPSHIRE: Bid to Seal Exhibit OK'd in G.K. Class Action NEW RELIC: Juan Monteverde Investigates Proposed Francisco Sale NEW SOUTH WALES: Faces Beekeepers Class Suit Over Varroa Payout NEWPRO OPERATING: Joyce Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct. NORTHERN DYNASTY: $6.38MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Dec. 7 NUWEST GROUP: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due March 15, 2024 O'GRADY-PEYTON: Garchitorena Suit Removed to E.D. California OAK GROVE: Filing for FLSA Conditional Cert. Bid Due March 15, 2024 OKTA INC: Nebraska Investment Council Seeks Class Certification OLLIE'S BARGAIN: Plaintiff Expert Disclosure Due Nov. 27 OMEGA HEALTHCARE: Bids to Amend Pleading Due Nov. 15 OOMA INC: Continues to Defend Chiu Class Suit in Canada OPA ORLAND: Koufou Sues Over Nonpayment of Overtime Wages PACERS RUNNING: Gonzalez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York PALISADES ACQUISITION: McCrobie's Bid for Class Certification OK'd PAPA JOHN'S: Class Cert Bid Filing in Guerra Due April 18, 2024 PATRICK GARRETT: Bid for Provisional Class Status Partly OK'd PEGASYSTEMS INC: Dismissal Bid in Shareholder Class Suit Denied PENNSYLVANIA: Settles Class Suit Over Students With Disabilities PEPSICO INC: Gatorade Protein Bars "Not Healthy," McCausland Claims PERRIGO CO: Shareholders Suit Over Meds Price-Rigging Ongoing PERRIGO COMPANY: Meds Price-Sigging Suit Ongoing in Canadian Court PETALUMA HEALTH CENTER: Gerson Suit Removed to N.D. California PETRO-CHEMICAL TRANSPORT: Saunders Seeks Unpaid OT for Dispatchers PETTICOAT JUNCTION: Rhone Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York PHARMACARE US: Case Management Conference Sched Sought in Corbett PHI KAPPA: Faces Schimborski Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D. Ohio PLATINUM SECURITY: Edwards Sues Over Unpaid Compensations PLS CHECK CASHERS: Calva Sues Over Failure To Pay Overtime PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Marshall Alleges Disclosure of Personal Info PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Smiley Sues Over Compromised Customers' Info PROGRESSIVE UNIVERSAL: Nov. 2 Hearing on Sealed Class Status Bid PROJECTION PRESENTATION: Montano Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. PUETZ EVERGREEN: Rhone Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: ERISA Suit Ongoing in NJ Court QUICK BOX: Parties in Tan Seek to Defer Class Certification Ruling RANGOON RESTAURANT: Naing Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages REALPAGE INC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Hollins Due June 13, 2024 REALREAL INC: Settlement in Shareholder Class Suit Gets Final Nod RENT THE RUNWAY: Continues to Defend Sharma Class Suit in E.D.N.Y. RESTAURANT BRANDS: Faces Suit Over Sherman Act Violations RESTAURANT BRANDS: Plaintiffs' Appeal on Suit Dismissal Tossed REVANCE THERAPEUTICS: Faces Shareholder Suit Over Wrinkle Meds RIVIAN AUTOMOTIVE: Bid for Leave to File Reply Tossed ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due March 8, 2024 ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Nov. 17 ROCK ISLAND: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Sanchez Suit RYZE INC: Faces Len Suit Over Unfair Debt Collection Practices S E PIPE LINE: Lopez Suit Removed to S.D. California S E PIPE LINE: Lopez Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Welder Helpers SANCTUARY SKIN CARE: Gubba Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wage SANTA FE SPRINGS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Sanchez Alleges SANTA MONICA, CA: Murcia Suit Seeks to Certify Damages Classes SBS TRANSPORT: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Feb. 20, 2024 SCOTT SEMPLE: Court Tosses Vega Class Cert Bid w/o Prejudice SEASIDE PALACE: Soleymani Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages SELECT REHABILITATION: McLaughlin Seeks to File and Serve TAC SERENITY ASSISTED: Miller Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Caregivers SG AND ARL VENTURES: Castro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York SHAMROCK TOWING: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Jan. 10, 2024 SHI INT'L: N.J. Court Grants in Part Bid to Dismiss Mantagas Suit SINOVAC BIOTECH: Gestion Sues Over Breach of A Rights Agreement SOLE SPORTS: Castro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York SPARKY'S CONSULTING: Perez Asks Court to Issue Class Member Notice SPIKE INC: Simpkins Suit Removed to W.D. Texas SPORTIE LA LLC: Castro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York STAGE DOLLS: Completion of Fact Discovery Extended to Nov. 8 STALLION EXPRESS: Pires Files Bid for Conditional Certification STANDARD INSURANCE: Schmidt Reply on Class Cert Due Oct. 12 STANDARD INSURANCE: Wins Bid to Seal Exhibits in Schmidt Suit STATE FARM: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Arthur STATE FARM: Joyner Sues Over Improper Total Loss Claim Deductions SUNCOAST CREDIT: Solomon Class Suit Remanded to Florida State Court SUNDEK NATIONAL: Dillon Suit Removed to D. South Carolina SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY: Class Cert Discovery Bids Granted in Part T-MOBILE US: Faces Dale Antitrust Suit Over Sprint Merger T-MOBILE US: Faces Dinkevich Shareholder Suit Over Sprint Merger T.L. CANNON: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Jan. 24, 2024 TARGET CORP: Faces Boyd Class Suit Over Beauty Products' False Ads TESLA INC: Cohen Sues Over Unlimited Free Supercharging False Ads THIRD CIRCUIT: McCarren Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification TMG HEALTH: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Herman Alleges TORRID HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Waswick Class Suit TRANSPAK INC: Viloria Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Brown Must File Class Cert Bid by Feb. 27, 2024 TRULY NOLEN: Arizona Court Tosses Data Breach Class Action UNICREDIT: Court Sets Nov. 13 Class Settlement Opt-Out Deadline UNITED STATES: Astakhov Suit Seeks Class Status UNITED STATES: Women Prisoners Seek Class Certification UNITED WATER: Adoption of 1st Amended Class Cert Sched Order Sought UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA: Shackelford Sues Over Inadequate Security VASSAR COLLEGE: Faces Graham Class Suit Over Gender Pay Gap VAXART INC: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Dec. 1 VETERAN GOVERNMENT: Lyszaz Suit Seeks Call Center Agents' Unpaid OT WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Fails to Properly Pay Employees, Rivera Says WASTE PRO: Settles FCRA Class Action Suit for $150,000 WAYNE COUNTY, MI: Court Dismisses Santana Homeowners Class Suit WEST COAST: Rajeh Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection Practices WHEATLEIGH CORPORATION: Class Settlement in Mongue Gets Initial Nod YES TELEVISION: Faces Class Action Over Unlimited Plan Breach ZIPRECRUITER INC: Parties to Settle FCRA Row in California Court ZUORA INC: $75.5MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Jan. 12 ********* 243 FOOD LLC: Menor Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Adelaido Bello Menor and Alejandrina Carvajal Garcia v. 243 Food LLC d/b/a Associated, ASG Retail I LLC d/b/a Associated, Mazen A Abdeldayem a/k/a Mazi, Lili Dolch and Erin M. Tregarthen, Case No. 718500/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Sept. 7, 2023), is brought against the Defendants for alleged violations of the Federal Labor Standards Act, ("FLSA") and of New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), arising from Defendants' various willful and unlawful employment policies, patterns and/or practices and to recover from Defendants unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment, and post-judgment interest; and/or attorneys' fees and costs. The Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed widespread violations of the FLSA and NYLL by engaging in a pattern and practice of failing to pay their employees, including Plaintiff, compensation for some of their hours worked, and overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek and spread of hours, as well as failing to provide their employees, including Plaintiff, with wage notice at the time of hiring and wage statements, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed as produce workers. 243 Food LLC d/b/a Associated is a grocery store and domestic business corporation incorporated under the laws of New York.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Yongjin Bae, Esq. HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC. 136-20 38th Ave., Suite 10G Flushing, NY 11354 Phone: (718)353-8588 Fax: (718)353-6288 Email: ybae@hanglaw.com ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Faces Glucerna False Advertising Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------------ Abraham Jewett, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that Abbott Laboratories falsely advertises that its Glucerna shakes and powders are "formulated specifically for diabetes," when, in reality, they allegedly contain ingredients that can make the condition worse, a new class action lawsuit alleges. Plaintiff Steven Prescott claims the Glucerna shakes and powders contain sucralose and other key ingredients that have been shown to deregulate blood sugar and worsen or, in some cases, cause diabetes. Prescott argues that, rather than disclose the alleged health risks associated with the Glucerna shakes and powders, Abbott chooses to falsely advertise the products' effects so as to benefit financially. "Defendant's deceptive marketing has proved profitable, and Defendant now enjoys a leading market position in the multi-billion-dollar health foods industry," the Glucerna class action states. Prescott wants to represent a nationwide class and California subclass of consumers who have purchased a Glucerna product within the past four years. WHO advises against using sugar alternatives such as sucralose to treat diabetes, class action says Prescott argues the World Health Organization (WHO) advises against using sugar alternatives, such as the sucralose found in the Glucerna shakes and powders, due to its connection with an "increased risk of type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, and mortality in adults." "On May 15, 2023, the WHO released a set of guidelines urging against the consumption of sucralose, among other non-sugar sweeteners, 'to control body weight or reduce the risk of noncommunicable diseases (NCDs),' including diabetes," the Glucerna class action states. Prescott claims Abbott is guilty of unjust enrichment and breach of express warranty, and of violating California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law and Consumers Legal Remedies Act. The plaintiff is demanding a jury trial and requesting declaratory and injunctive relief along with an award of monetary damages for himself and all class members. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued a warning letter in February to Lyons Magnus -- a third-party manufacturer for Abbott -- after determining the company was in violation of food safety regulations in the wake of a 2022 recall that included Glucerna products, among others. Have you purchased a Glucerna product within the last four years? Let us know in the comments. The plaintiffs are represented by Shireen M. Clarkson, Bahar Sodaify, Alan Gudino and Ryan Ardi of Clarkson Law Firm PC. The Glucerna diabetes class action lawsuit is Prescott v. Abbott Laboratories, Case No. 5:23-cv-04348, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. [GN] AFNI INC: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Action Suit for $1.8M ------------------------------------------------------------------ Drew Zimmerman of The Pantagraph reports that thousands of people whose personal information may have been compromised during a data breach at a Bloomington-based customer relations company could see a modest payout from settlement of a pending class-action lawsuit. A year ago, there were five separate class action lawsuits filed in response to a 2021 data breach that left the personal identifiable information of more than 261,000 exposed. This included the individuals' names, addresses, Social Security numbers and birthdates. In October 2022, the cases were consolidated into one class action complaint over claims of negligence, breach of implied contract, violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act and Deceptive Business Practices Act. Negotiations began the following month until both parties agreed to mediation in January. The plaintiffs are now seeking final approval of a settlement agreement. Afni representatives and attorneys representing the settlement class did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The company, founded in Bloomington in 1936, also has locations in Alabama, Arizona, Kentucky, Mexico and the Philippines. Terms of the proposed settlement, outlined in a court filing last week, would require Afni to pay $1,850,000 into a common fund. Class members would be able to receive a one-time cash payment of $60, subject to proration based on the numbers of claims being filed, or two years of three-bureau credit monitoring and identity theft protection services with the possibility of receiving a reimbursement of up to $5,000 in out-of-pocket losses if such losses can be traced back to the breach. Compensation would be paid to settlement class members who submit a timely and valid claim form approved by the settlement administrator. Members also could claim up to four hours of lost time spent dealing with the data incident at $25 an hour. In exchange for these benefits, all class members who do not opt out of the settlement would release the company from future claims. Afni also would pay up to one third of the settlement fund for attorneys' fees and up to $30,000 in reasonable costs and expenses from the fund. Notice of the settlement was mailed to roughly 250,000 class members with a valid mailing address on file. The agreement had drawn no objections and led to only two requests for exclusion as of early last week. The agreement now awaits final approval from the United State District Court for the Central District of Illinois. [GN] AMERICAN EQUITY: Juan Monteverde Investigates Brookfield Sale ------------------------------------------------------------- Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner of the class action firm Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a national securities firm rated Top 50 in the 2018-2021 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report and headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating: American Equity Investment Life Holding Co. (NYSE: AEL), relating to its proposed sale to Brookfield Reinsurance. Under the terms of the agreement, AEL shareholders are expected to receive 0.49707 shares of Brookfield and $38.85 in cash per share they own. Click here for more information: https://monteverdelaw.com/case/american-equity-investment-life-holding-co. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. Veritiv Corp. (NYSE: VRTV), relating to its proposed sale to an affiliate of Clayton, Dubilier & Rice LLC. Under the terms of the agreement, VRTV shareholders will receive $170.00 in cash per share they own. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/veritiv-corp. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. Arlington Asset Investment Corp. (NYSE: AAIC), relating to its proposed sale to Ellington Financial Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, AAIC shareholders will receive 0.3619 shares of Ellington and $0.09 in cash per share they own. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/arlington-asset-investment-corp. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. Chase Corp. (NYSE: CCF), relating to its proposed sale to an affiliate of investment funds managed by KKR. Under the terms of the agreement, CCF shareholders are expected to receive $127.50 in cash per share they own. Click here for more information: https://monteverdelaw.com/case/chase-corp. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. About Monteverde & Associates PC We are a national class action securities and consumer litigation law firm that has recovered millions of dollars for shareholders and is committed to protecting investors and consumers from corporate wrongdoing. Monteverde & Associates lawyers have significant experience litigating Mergers & Acquisitions and Securities Class Actions, whereby they protect investors by recovering money and remedying corporate misconduct. Mr. Monteverde, who leads the legal team at the firm, has been recognized by Super Lawyers as a Rising Star in Securities Litigation in 2013, 2017-2019 and a Super Lawyers Honoree in Securities Litigation in 2022-2023. He has also been selected by Martindale-Hubbell as a 2017-2023 Top Rated Lawyer. Our firm's recent successes include changing the law in a significant victory that lowered the standard of liability under Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act in the Ninth Circuit. Thereafter, our firm successfully preserved this victory by obtaining dismissal of a writ of certiorari as improvidently granted at the United States Supreme Court. Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian, 139 S. Ct. 1407 (2019). Also, over the years the firm has recovered or secured over a dozen cash common funds for shareholders in mergers & acquisitions class action cases. If you own common stock in any of the above listed companies and wish to obtain additional information and protect your investments free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4405 New York, NY 10118 United States of America jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com Tel: (212) 971-1341 Attorney Advertising. (C) 2023 Monteverde & Associates PC. The law firm responsible for this advertisement is Monteverde & Associates PC (www.monteverdelaw.com). Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. [GN] AMERICAN FAMILY: W.D. Wisconsin Dismisses Kowarsky Data Breach Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge William M. Conley of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss the lawsuit entitled NATHAN KOWARSKY, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN FAMILY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-00377-wmc (W.D. Wis.). The proposed class action arises out of a data breach on Defendant American Family Life Insurance Company's online quote platform. Plaintiff Nathan Kowarsky provided his name, address and driver's license number to American Family to receive an online quote, and hackers later used an automated bot process to obtain that same information. American Family sent a letter notifying the Plaintiff of this breach, as well as the risk that his information could be used to apply for unemployment benefits in his name. Fortunately, to date, the Plaintiff has not been victim to any fraudulent activity or identify theft as a result of the breach, but he still sued, claiming that American Family's alleged failure to take reasonable measures to protect his personal information constitutes invasion of privacy, breach of confidence, breach of implied contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unfair business practices, unjust enrichment, and negligence under Wisconsin law. American Family now moves to dismiss the case for lack of standing and failure to state a claim. Because the Plaintiff failed to plead any concrete injury, the Court will grant the motion and dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. To have standing, under Article III of the Constitution, to sue in federal court, a plaintiff must show (1) that he suffered an injury in fact, (2) which is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant and (3) likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision. Moreover, a plaintiff must demonstrate standing for each of his claims and for each form of relief that he seeks. Here, the Plaintiff seeks damages and injunctive relief. American Family argues that he cannot establish the first element--an injury in fact. The Plaintiff identifies four injuries that he says give him standing to sue for damages and injunctive relief: (1) the heightened threat of future identity theft; (2) anxiety; (3) time spent mitigating that threat; and (4) losing the benefit of his bargain with the Defendant. However, as the Defendant notes, the Court has already concluded that the first three of the Plaintiff's alleged injuries are not sufficiently concrete to satisfy Article III standing, in Baysal v. Midvale Indem. Co., No. 21-CV-394-WMC, 2022 WL 1155295 (W.D. Wis. Apr. 19, 2022). The Court's Baysal decision has now been upheld by the Seventh Circuit in Baysal v. Midvale, No. 22-1812, 2023 WL 5368249 (7th Cir. Aug. 22, 2023). If anything, Judge Conley opines, the Plaintiff's allegations of injury here are even less concrete than those in Baysal. In Baysal, the plaintiff at least attempted to identify instances of identity theft that were supposedly a result of the data breach, including a fraudulent unemployment compensation application, a fraudulently opened brokerage account in plaintiff's name, and an unauthorized purchase. However, both the Seventh Circuit and the Court found these allegations were insufficient to infer that the alleged fraud had occurred because of the plaintiff's driver's license number being shared. Judge Conley points out that the Plaintiff does not attempt to distinguish Baysal or develop any new arguments about Remijas v. Neiman Marcus Group, LLC, 794 F.3d 688, 693 (7th Cir. 2015), Lewart v. P.F. Chang's China Bistro, Inc., 819 F.3d 963 (7th Cir. 2016), or any other controlling case law that the Court did not consider and reject already in the Baysal decision. Nor does he argue that Baysal was incorrectly decided. The Plaintiff does raise one alleged injury that was not raised in Baysal. Moreover, if the Plaintiff is arguing that he was denied the benefit of his bargain by the disclosure of his driver's license number, the Seventh Circuit rejected a similar argument: the disclosure of his driver's license, by itself, is not a traceable, concrete injury sufficient to establish standing. Because the Plaintiff has failed to allege an injury-in-fact sufficient to establish Article III standing, the Court must dismiss his claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Judge Conley, therefore, ordered that: (1) Defendant American Family Life Insurance Company's motion to dismiss is granted, and the Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; and (2) The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment and close this case. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated Aug. 31, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/49yk4dru from PacerMonitor.com. ANYWHERE REAL: Settles Two Antitrust Class Action Suits ------------------------------------------------------- Brooklee Han, writing for Housingwire, reports that real estate giant Anywhere has reached a settlement agreement in two of the major class action antitrust lawsuits facing the housing industry. According to court documents filed on Sept. 5, Anywhere Real Estate and the home sellers suing the firm in both the Moehrl and Sitzer/Burnett cases, which both deal with buyer brokers' commissions, have reached a preliminary settlement agreement, settling all claims in both suits. Before the agreements are finalized they must be approved by the U.S. District Court judges in Illinois (Moehrl) and Missouri (Sitzer/Burnett), who are overseeing the two lawsuits. [GN] AOSOM LLC: Dawson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aosom LLC. The case is styled as Lashawn Dawson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Aosom LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-07882-LJL (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 6, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Aosom -- https://www.aosom.com/ -- specializes in Outdoor Living, Home Decor, Sporting Goods, Health & Beauty and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gabriel Levy, Esq. GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C. 1129 Northern Blvd., Suite 404 Manhasset, NY 11030 Phone: (516) 287-3458 Email: glevy@glpcfirm.com APACHE CANADA: Deadline to Object $7M Proposed Settlement on Oct 19 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Koskie Minsky reports that a proposed settlement has been reached with Apache Canada Ltd. The proposed settlement provides a fund of USD $7m (less approved legal fees, costs and expenses) for compensating class members. The proposed settlement must be approved by the Court in order to be enforceable. There will be a court hearing on October 24, 2023 in Calgary for the Court to assess whether the settlement and fee request should be approved. The deadline to opt out of the class action is October 6, 2023. The deadline to object to the proposed settlement is October 19, 2023. More information about the proposed settlement, the certification of this action and class members rights in this proceeding can be found in this notice or at the Administrator's website: www.mnp.ca/apachesettlement. [GN] APACHE CORP: Settles Cancelled Deferred Compensation Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- CNW Group of Yahoo! Finance reports that a proposed settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit against Apache Corporation, members of its Management Development Committee, and Paramount Resources Ltd., alleging that certain deferred compensation awards were cancelled in breach of contractual agreements with Apache Corporation when Apache Canada Ltd. was sold to Paramount Resources Ltd. On June 25, 2021, the Court of King's Bench of Alberta certified the proceeding as a class action. The Defendants' appeal of that decision was denied by the Court of Appeal of Alberta on November 17, 2022. The class includes all employees of Apache Canada as of August 18, 2017 who were then participating in Apache Corporation's Omnibus Compensation Plan and had outstanding Awards as defined in that Plan. If approved by the Court, the proposed settlement will provide a USD $7 million fund, less approved costs and expenses, to provide financial compensation to Class Members. The settlement proposes that Class Members be compensated on a pro rata basis based on the proportion of the number of deferred compensation awards attributable to each Class Member in relation to the number of deferred compensation awards attributable to all Class Members. A settlement approval hearing will be held at the Court of King's Bench, Calgary Courts Centre, 601 5th Street SW, Calgary, Alberta. That hearing is currently scheduled for October 24, 2023. At the hearing, the Court will consider whether the settlement is fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the Class, and whether to approve the Settlement Agreement. Notice of the settlement approval hearing will be provided to Class Members. If Class Members do not want to participate in the Class Action and the proposed Settlement, if approved, they must remove themselves from the lawsuit ("opt out") by October 6, 2023. Further information about the proposed settlement is available at www.mnp.ca/apachesettlement [GN] APOLLO GLOBAL: Clement Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Apollo Global Management, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Sarah Clement, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Apollo Global Management, LLC, Apollo Management Holdings, LP, Redwood Holdco, LP, Case No. 2023-0904-JTL (Del. Chancery Ct., Sept. 6, 2023). The case type is stated as "Breach of Fiduciary Duties." Apollo Global Management, Inc. -- http://www.apollo.com/-- is an American private equity firm.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Blake Bennett, Esq. Phone: (302) 652-3641 Fax: (302) 652-5379 ATHENE ANNUITY: Seiler Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII --------------------------------------------------------- Noah Seiler, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ATHENE ANNUITY AND LIFE COMPANY, Case No. 4:23-cv-00336-RGE-SBJ (S.D. Iowa, Sept. 6, 2023), is brought against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and to safeguard personally identifiable information including, but not limited to, Plaintiff's and Class Members' name and social security number (collectively, "Private Information" or "PII"). The Defendant's failures have affected—and continue to affect—over 70,410 people. Athene provided the Private Information of its customers to Pension Benefit Information, LLC ("PBI") which provides audit and address services for insurance companies, pension funds, and other organizations. PBI, in turn, utilized Progress Software, the provider of MOVEit Transfer software ("MOVEit"), who, on or about May 31, 2023, disclosed that a system vulnerability had allowed the Private Information of Athene's clients (i.e., the Class Members) to be unlawfully accessed and compromised. Specifically, and according to the Notice Letter from PBI to Plaintiff Noah Seiler (the "Notice"), on May 31, 2023, Progress Software informed PBI that a vulnerability in the MOVEit software had been exploited by an unauthorized third party. According to the Notice, PBI conducted an investigation and found that the unauthorized third party accessed one of PBI's MOVEit Transfer servers on May 29 and May 30, 2023, and had downloaded data containing the Private Information of Athene's customers, including Plaintiff and Class Members (the "Data Breach"). Athene owed a non-delegable duty to Plaintiff and Class Members to implement and to maintain reasonable and adequate security measures to secure, protect and safeguard their Private Information against unauthorized access and disclosure including, but not limited to, ensuring that the third parties that it contracted with likewise implemented appropriate data security protection measures. Athene breached that duty by, among other things, failing to implement and to maintain reasonable security procedures and practices to protect their customers' Private Information from unauthorized access and disclosure. As a result of Athene's inadequate security and breach of their duties and obligations, the Data Breach occurred, and Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was accessed and disclosed. The Plaintiff and Class Members now face a current and ongoing risk of identity theft, which is heightened here by the loss of Social Security numbers--the gold standard for identity thieves, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has been a customer of Athene since October 2013. Athene is a "leading provider of products in the retirement savings market."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas J. Mauro, Esq. CARNEY & APPLEBY LAW FIRM 400 Homestead Building 303 Locust Street Des Moines, IA 50309 Phone: 515-282-6803 Fax: 515-282-4700 Email: mauro@carneyappleby.com - and - David S. Almeida, Esq. Elena A. Belov, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 849 W. Webster Avenue Chicago, Illinois 60614 Phone: (312) 576-3024 Email: david@almeidalawgroup.com elena@almeidalawgroup.com AUSTRALIA: Class Settlement in Land Contamination Suit Discussed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tom Budszus, writing for Alliance News, reports that Litigation Capital Management Ltd on Sept. 4 hailed the outcome of a settlement reached in an Australian class action that it funded. The asset manager specialising in dispute financing solutions said the class action was brought in the Federal Court of Australia against the Commonwealth of Australia on behalf of people who are alleged to have suffered loss and damage as result of the contamination of their land at seven sites around Australia near to military bases by the country's Department of Defence. Litigation Capital said that the Commonwealth of Australia has agreed to pay AUD132.7 million, around GBP68.0 million. The return on invested capital for the company after performance fees was 2.12 under the "investment performance" metrics. Chief Executive Patrick Moloney said: "This settlement is a positive start to the fiscal year, demonstrating the momentum LCM's portfolio has gained over the last six months. We continue to scale our portfolio of investments through increased commitments which are a key indicator of future growth and long term shareholder value." Litigation Capital Management shares were 1.5% lower at 103.42 pence each on Sept. 4 in London. [GN] AUSTRALIA: LCM Discusses Outcome of Class Action Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------- Litigation Finance Journal reports that Litigation Capital Management Limited (AIM:LIT), a leading international alternative asset manager of disputes financing solutions, announces the outcome of the settlement reached in an Australian class action funded by it. As previously announced (15 May 2023), the class action was brought in the Federal Court of Australia against the Commonwealth of Australia on behalf of persons who are alleged to have suffered loss and damage as the result of the contamination of their land at seven sites around Australia in proximity to Department of Defence military bases. The Commonwealth has agreed to pay the sum of AUD$132.7M in order to resolve the class action. A confidential deed of settlement was executed and has now been approved by the court, allowing the disbursement of funds, subject to the unlikely event of appeal. The claim forms part of LCM's managed Global Alternative Returns Fund ("Fund I") and was funded directly from LCM's balance sheet (25%) and Fund I Investors (75%). Details of the returns are highlighted below: *AUD$m Investment performance LCM performance metrics Invested capital 13.5 3.4 Investment return 28.6 7.2 Total revenue 42.1 10.6 ROIC on investment 2.12 2.12 Performance fee* – 6.4 Gross profit 28.6 13.6 ROIC after performance fees 2.12 4.03 *The investment returns are subject to change based on the prevailing FX rate and timing of distribution Patrick Moloney, CEO of LCM, said: "This settlement is a positive start to the fiscal year, demonstrating the momentum LCM's portfolio has gained over the last six months. We continue to scale our portfolio of investments through increased commitments which are a key indicator of future growth and long term shareholder value." About LCM Litigation Capital Management (LCM) is an alternative asset manager specialising in disputes financing solutions internationally, which operates two business models. The first is direct investments made from LCM's permanent balance sheet capital and the second is third party fund management. Under those two business models, LCM currently pursues three investment strategies: Single-case funding, Portfolio funding and Acquisitions of claims. LCM generates its revenue from both its direct investments and also performance fees through asset management. LCM has an unparalleled track record driven by disciplined project selection and robust risk management. Currently headquartered in Sydney, with offices in London, Singapore, Brisbane and Melbourne, LCM listed on AIM in December 2018, trading under the ticker LIT. [GN] BARBA CONCRETE: Munoz Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Oscar Munoz, Arturo Munoz, Jesus Carrillo, and Guadalupe Mendiola, on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated, known and unknown v. BARBA CONCRETE, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-07257 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 6, 2023), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL"), and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act ("IWPCA") for Defendant's failure to pay overtime wages and a promised regular rate of pay to Plaintiffs and other hourly paid current and former employees. The Plaintiffs and other similarly-situated employees worked for Defendant in excess of 40 hours per week but were not paid overtime at a rate of one and one-half times their regular rates of pay. The Plaintiffs and other similarly-situated employees worked for Defendant for over 40 hours per week but were not paid for all hours worked, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs worked as hourly, manual laborers for Defendant on various construction projects. The Defendant specializes in residential and commercial concrete work.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas M. Werman, Esq. Maureen A. Salas, Esq. Joseph E. Salvi, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 77 West Washington St., Suite 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 419-1008 Email: dwerman@flsalaw.com msalas@flsalaw.com Jsalvi@flsalaw.com BIB MEDICAL: Faces Ortiz Suit Over Unpaid Overtime for Drivers -------------------------------------------------------------- YAREYSIS ORTIZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BIB MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION LLC, BALBINO PEREZ REY, and LEXY TURINO, Defendants, Case No. 6:23-cv-01681 (M.D. Fla., August 31, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempted driver from approximately April 10, 2023, to August 04, 2023. BIB Medical Transportation LLC is a provider of patient transportation services based in Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com BLENDJET INC: Figueroa Files Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Blendjet, Inc. The case is styled as Luisset Figueroa, Jean Joseph, individually on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Comoto Holdings, LLC, Case No. 7:23-cv-07911-PMH (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 6, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. BlendJet -- https://blendjet.com/ -- engages in sales of portable blender products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adrian Gucovschi, Esq. GUCOVSCHI ROZENSHTEYN, PLLC 140 Broadway, Suite 4667 New York, NY 10005 Phone: (212) 884-4230 Email: adrian@gr-firm.com BLENDJET INC: Rittenhouse Sues Over BlendJet 2's Defective Design ----------------------------------------------------------------- GREGORY RITTENHOUSE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BLENDJET, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:23-at-00883 (E.D. Cal., September 5, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for breach of contract, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, fraudulent omission, quasi-contract, and violations of the New York General Business Law and State Consumer Protection Statutes. According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of BlendJet 2, a battery-powered personal portable blender. The Defendant advertises the BlendJet 2 as having a more powerful motor and battery capacity that is double that of its predecessor, the BlendJet One. But the design and/or manufacture of the BlendJet 2's battery, charging cable, and blending blade assembly make the product dangerously defective. The blending blades are not sufficiently durable to remain intact and free from breakage during normal use. Unbeknownst to consumers at the point of sale, pieces of the blending blades or the blade assembly shaft may break off during routine use of the BlendJet 2. The Defendant fails to disclose this defect to consumers. As a result of the Defendant's breaches, the Plaintiff and Class members were deprived of the benefit of their bargained-for exchange and have suffered damages in an amount to be established at trial, says the suit. BlendJet, Inc. is a manufacturer of consumer products, with a principal place of business in Benicia, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christin Cho, Esq. Simon Franzini, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 656-7066 Facsimile: (310) 656-7069 E-mail: christin@dovel.com simon@dovel.com - and - Alan M. Feldman, Esq. Edward S. Goldis, Esq. Zachary Arbitman, Esq. FELDMAN SHEPHERD WOHLGELERNTER TANNER WEINSTOCK & DODIG, LLP 1845 Walnut Street, 21st Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 567-8300 Facsimile: (215) 567-8333 E-mail: afeldman@feldmanshepherd.com egoldis@feldmanshepherd.com zarbitman@feldmanshepherd.com BP EXPLORATION: Wins Bid for Summary Judgment in McDaniel B3 Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Jane Triche Milazzo of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana grants the Defendants' motion for summary judgment and motion in limine to exclude expert opinion in the lawsuit titled RONALD MCDANIEL v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL. SECTION: "H," Case No. 2:17-cv-04069-JTM-MBN (E.D. La.). Before the Court are Defendants BP Exploration & Production, Inc.; BP America Production Company; BP p.l.c.; Transocean Holdings, LLC; Transocean Deepwater, Inc.; Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc.; and Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. ("collectively BP")'s Motion in Limine to Exclude the General Causation Opinions of Plaintiff's Expert, Dr. Jerald Cook and Motion for Summary Judgment Due to Plaintiff's Inability to Prove Medical Causation. The case is among the "B3 bundle" of cases arising out of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill (In Re Oil Spill by the Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon" in the Gulf of Mexico, on April 20, 2010, No. 10-md-02179, R. Doc. 26924 at 1 (E.D. La. Feb. 23, 2021)). This bundle comprises claims for personal injury and wrongful death due to exposure to oil and/or other chemicals used during the oil spill response (e.g., dispersant). These cases were originally part of a multidistrict litigation ("MDL") pending in the Eastern District of Louisiana before Judge Carl Barbier. During this MDL, Judge Barbier approved the Deepwater Horizon Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement Agreement, but the B3 plaintiffs either opted out of this agreement or were excluded from its class definition. Subsequently, Judge Barbier severed the B3 cases from the MDL to be reallocated among the judges of this Court. The instant case was reassigned to Section H. Plaintiff Ronald McDaniel filed a lawsuit against the Defendants based on their alleged exposure to toxic chemicals following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. He was allegedly involved in cleanup or recovery work after the oil spill and contends that his resulting exposure to crude oil and dispersants caused a litany of health conditions. He brings claims for general maritime negligence, negligence per se, and gross negligence against the Defendants. In their Motion in Limine, the Defendants argue that the Plaintiff's expert on medical causation, Dr. Jerald Cook, fails to satisfy the Fifth Circuit's requirements for an admissible general causation opinion in toxic tort cases and should, therefore, be excluded as unreliable. In their Motion for Summary Judgment, the Defendants argue that assuming their Motion in Limine is granted, the Plaintiff lacks expert testimony on general causation and, therefore, fails to present a genuine issue of material fact as to whether his injuries were caused by exposure to oil and dispersants. The Plaintiff has failed to oppose either Motion. Judge Milazzo notes that B3 plaintiffs must prove that the legal cause of the claimed injury or illness is exposure to oil or other chemicals used during the response. The plaintiff's burden with respect to causation in a toxic tort case involves proof of both general causation and specific causation. On the topic of general causation, the Plaintiff has put forth a report from Dr. Cook entitled "Health Effects Among Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Response and Cleanup Workers: A Cause and Effect Analysis." This report is not unique to this case; another judge of this Court has described it as "an omnibus, non-case specific general causation expert report that has been used by many B3 plaintiffs. At least nine sections of the Eastern District of Louisiana, including this one, have excluded every version of Dr. Cook's report, holding generally that Dr. Cook's opinions are unreliable and unhelpful where he fails to identify the level of exposure to a relevant chemical that can cause the conditions asserted in the plaintiffs' complaints. Accordingly, for the same reasons already articulated by Judges Africk, Ashe, Barbier, Guidry, Morgan, Vance, Vitter, and Zainey, the Court grants the Defendants' Motion in Limine. Because the Plaintiff cannot prove general causation, the Court also grants the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. For these reasons, Judge Milazzo rules that the Defendants' Motion in Limine and Motion for Summary Judgment are granted. Judge Milazzo adds that all of the Plaintiff's claims are dismissed with prejudice. A full-text copy of the Court's Order and Reasons dated Aug. 31, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/yc69mj2b from PacerMonitor.com. BP EXPLORATION: Wins Summary Judgments in Cintra & Stallworth Suits ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Jane Triche Milazzo of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana grants the Defendants' motions for summary judgment in the lawsuits captioned ELVIS CINTRA v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL. SECTION: "H." MARLON STALLWORTH v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL. SECTION: "H," Case Nos. 17-3889, 17-4183 (E.D. La.). Before the Court are nearly identical motions submitted in two different cases. Defendants BP Exploration & Production, Inc.; BP America Production Company; BP p.l.c.; Transocean Holdings, LLC; Transocean Deepwater, Inc.; Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc.; and Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. ("collectively BP") filed Motions in Limine to Exclude the General Causation Opinions of Plaintiffs' Expert, Dr. Jerald Cook and Motions for Summary Judgment Due to Plaintiff's Inability to Prove Medical Causation in each of these cases. In response, each of the Plaintiffs has filed a motion entitled Motion for Admission of Plaintiffs' Expert Opinions Because of BP Defendants' Spoliation of Evidence of Plaintiffs' Exposure. Both of these cases are among the "B3 bundle" of cases arising out of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill (In Re Oil Spill by the Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon" in the Gulf of Mexico, on April 20, 2010, No. 10-md-02179, R. Doc. 26924 at 1 (E.D. La. Feb. 23, 2021)). This bundle comprises "claims for personal injury and wrongful death due to exposure to oil and/or other chemicals used during the oil spill response (e.g., dispersant)." The B3 cases were originally part of a multidistrict litigation ("MDL") pending in the Eastern District of Louisiana before Judge Carl Barbier. During this MDL, Judge Barbier approved the Deepwater Horizon Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement Agreement, but the B3 plaintiffs either opted out of this agreement or were excluded from its class definition. Subsequently, Judge Barbier severed the B3 cases from the MDL to be reallocated among the judges of this Court. The two instant cases were reassigned to Section H. Plaintiffs Elvis Cintra and Marlon Stallworth each filed lawsuits against the Defendants based on their alleged exposure to toxic chemicals following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Each Plaintiff was allegedly involved in cleanup or recovery work after the oil spill, and each contends that his resulting exposure to crude oil and dispersants caused a litany of health conditions. The Plaintiffs bring claims for general maritime negligence, negligence per se, and gross negligence against the Defendants. Now before the Court in each of the cases are the Defendants' Motions in Limine and their Motions for Summary Judgment. In each of the Motions in Limine, the Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs' expert on medical causation, Dr. Jerald Cook, fails to satisfy the Fifth Circuit's requirements for an admissible general causation opinion in toxic tort cases and should, therefore, be excluded as unreliable. In each of the Motions for Summary Judgment, the Defendants argue that assuming their Motions in Limine are granted, each of the Plaintiffs lack expert testimony on general causation and, therefore, fail to present a genuine issue of material fact as to whether his injuries were caused by exposure to oil and dispersants. Also before the Court in each of the cases is the Plaintiff's motion entitled Motion for Admission of Plaintiffs' Expert Opinions because of BP Defendants' Spoliation of Evidence of Plaintiffs' Exposure. In each of these motions, the Plaintiffs ask the Court to allow Dr. Cook's expert testimony in light of the Defendants' failure to preserve evidence of exposure to toxic chemicals by clean-up workers or perform biomonitoring and dermal monitoring of those workers. B3 plaintiffs must prove that the legal cause of the claimed injury or illness is exposure to oil or other chemicals used during the response. The Plaintiff's burden with respect to causation in a toxic tort case involves proof of both general causation and specific causation. On the topic of general causation, each Plaintiff has put forth a report from Dr. Cook entitled "Health Effects Among Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Response and Cleanup Workers: A Cause and Effect Analysis." This report is not unique to these cases; another judge of this Court has described it as "an omnibus, non-case specific general causation expert report that has been used by many B3 plaintiffs." At least nine sections of the Eastern District of Louisiana, including this one, have excluded every version of Dr. Cook's report, holding generally that Dr. Cook's opinions are unreliable and unhelpful where he fails to identify the level of exposure to a relevant chemical that can cause the conditions asserted in the plaintiffs' complaints. Indeed, in their oppositions, the Plaintiffs acknowledge that "about two hundred of BP's motions to exclude Dr. Cook's general causation opinions have been granted. In light of this, Judge Milazzo notes, the Plaintiffs take a different tack and focus their oppositions on the scientific robustness of Dr. Cook's reliance literature and the fact that there are no alternative studies on which he could properly rely to support his opinions. They argue that it is not possible to establish a quantitative exposure to a given chemical at a given level based on the data that was collected after the oil spill and that Dr. Cook's opinion relies on the best literature available. These new arguments, however, neither cure nor explain the deficiencies of Cook's report, Judge Milazzo opines. Accordingly, the Court agrees that these new arguments do not alter the outcome of the Defendants' Motions in Limine. For the same reasons already articulated by Judges Africk, Ashe, Barbier, Guidry, Morgan, Vance, Vitter, and Zainey, the Court grants the Defendants' Motions in Limine. In response to the Defendants' Motions, each of the Plaintiffs has filed a motion seeking admission of Dr. Cook's report through a different mechanism--as a sanction for spoliation. The Plaintiffs each argue that the Defendants acted in bad faith when they chose not to record quantitative data on the exposure of clean-up workers to specific chemicals and that the Court should allow the Plaintiffs to rely on Dr. Cook's report as a sanction for that spoliation. As previously explained, however, the lack of quantitative data regarding the clean-up workers' exposure to a given chemical at a given level does not affect Dr. Cook's ability to opine on whether a specific chemical is capable generally of causing certain health issues for the general population, Judge Milazzo says. Thus, his report still fails to provide evidence of general causation as is required by the Fifth Circuit for toxic tort cases. Put simply, Judge Milazzo opines, Dr. Cook's report is flawed in ways unrelated to BP's decision not to conduct monitoring. Accordingly, even assuming that the Plaintiffs could prove that the Defendants spoliated evidence, Dr. Cook's opinion remains unhelpful, unreliable, and inadmissible. Other sections of this Court have reached the same result. The Plaintiffs' Motions are, therefore, denied. Because the Plaintiffs cannot prove general causation, the Court also grants the Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment. For these reasons, Judge Milazzo rules that the Defendants' Motions in Limine and Motions for Summary Judgment are granted. The Plaintiffs' Motions are denied. Judge Milazzo also rules that all of the Plaintiffs' claims are dismissed with prejudice. A full-text copy of the Court's Order and Reasons dated Aug. 31, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/bdf8p5hb from PacerMonitor.com. BURTON CORPORATION: Morgan Class Suit Removed to D. Vermont ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled DAVID MORGAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE BURTON CORPORATION d/b/a BURTON SNOWBOARDS, Case No. 23-cv-03080, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Vermont, Chittenden Unit, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont on August 31, 2023. The Clerk of Court for the District of Vermont assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-00366-gwc to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, invasion of privacy-intrusion upon seclusion, and violations of the Vermont Consumer Protection Act, the California Consumer Privacy Act, and the California Customer Records Act. The Burton Corporation, doing business as Burton Snowboards, is a privately-owned snowboard manufacturing company based in Burlington, Vermont. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Stephen J. Soule, Esq. PAUL FRANK + COLLINS PC One Church Street, P.O. Box 1307 Burlington, VT 05402 Telephone: (802) 658-2311 E-mail: ssoule@pfclaw.com - and - Edward J. McAndrew, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 1735 Market Street, Suite 3300 Philadelphia, PA 19103 E-mail: emcandrew@bakerlaw.com - and - Evan M. Mannering, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 1050 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 861-1500 E-mail: emannering@bakerlaw.com CANADA: Amnesty Int'l Provides Update on Black Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Amnesty International has provided information on Black Class Action that after experiencing anti-Black racism within the Public Service of Canada, Black workers are pursuing justice in the courts through a proposed class action. The claim is brought on behalf of current and former workers and job applicants who allege they were excluded from hiring and promotion opportunities throughout the Public Service because of systemic discrimination. What does the Black Class Action Seek? The Black Class Action is seeking compensation for discrimination, the implementation of a Justice and Equity Promotional Plan for the hiring and promotion of Black employees, and the implementation of a mental health fund to support people dealing with the devastating effects of discrimination. How does this relate to Canada's obligations under international human rights law? International law protects the right to equality and non-discrimination, and has specific protections in the context of employment, including: The right to just and favourable conditions of work and remuneration The right to equal opportunity to be promoted based only on seniority and competence The right to equal pay for work of equal value without discrimination The right to equality of treatment in work evaluations Under international law, Canada has an obligation to take "special and concrete measures" to eliminate discrimination, including in hiring and promotion. Canada has taken some measures to address this obligation, but the measures fail to account for the unique and intersecting forms of discrimination that Black workers face. People who experience rights violations are entitled to an effective remedy. This includes financial compensation. Canada has a duty to ensure that rights violations are not repeated. What is the Status of the Case? Before the case can proceed, the court must determine whether the case should be certified as a class action. The court will consider whether the claims of the class members are common, and whether a class action is preferable to other methods of advancing the claim. The Government of Canada has filed a motion to strike, which means it has asked the court to dismiss the entire case on the basis that people subject to discrimination in the Federal Public Service should use a union grievance procedure or file a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission. What is Amnesty's Role? Amnesty has asked the court for permission to make submissions on Canada's international legal obligations that are relevant to determining whether the case should be certified as a class action and whether the court should grant the motion to strike. At the international level, Amnesty supported the Black Class Action Secretariat's complaint to the United Nations on anti-Black racism faced by Black workers. Stay tuned for more information on the case! [GN] CANADA: RCMP Members Urge Court to Continue Bullying Suit --------------------------------------------------------- The Canadian Press of Comox Valley Record reports that mounties waging a class action against the RCMP over bullying and harassment are telling the Supreme Court of Canada to reject a federal move to have the suit thrown out. The lead plaintiffs, veteran RCMP members Geoffrey Greenwood and Todd Gray, say they were among those subjected to a culture of systemic intimidation and harassment that was fostered and condoned by the RCMP leadership. Last September the Federal Court of Appeal upheld a judge's order certifying the action and defined the class as RCMP members and reservists who served from Jan. 1, 1995, until the recent unionization of affected members. Two months later, government lawyers filed an application asking the Supreme Court of Canada to review the case, raising several concerns with the Court of Appeal ruling. In a statement, RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki said the government is seeking clarity on whether the courts should certify a class action relating to workplace disputes when there are already administrative resolution processes in place. "The Government of Canada has a range of comprehensive administrative mechanisms to deter, detect, investigate, correct and provide compensation to RCMP employees for workplace disputes, including harassment complaints," Lucki said. The RCMP has made an ongoing effort to address harassment in the organization, she added. "In response to several RCMP and government commissioned reports and recommendations, we have implemented numerous policy and program change initiatives to create a more respectful, inclusive and diverse workplace." In a submission to the Supreme Court urging it to hear the appeal, federal lawyers say that where Parliament has provided for a specialized administrative regime for the resolution of workplace disputes, the role of the courts is limited to exercising exceptional jurisdiction in individual cases. The submission says allowing otherwise vastly expands the reach of the courts "into the everyday workplace disputes of non-unionized employees." [GN] CARESOURCE: ClassAction.org Investigates MOVEit Data Breach Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- ClassAction.org disclosed that this Alert Affects: Anyone who received a letter from CareSource stating that their personal information was exposed in a data breach. What's Going On? CareSource has begun notifying over 3 million individuals that their personal and medical information was exposed during a massive data breach that impacted MOVEit, a third-party file transfer software used by CareSource. Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are now looking into whether a lawsuit can be filed on behalf of victims. How Could a Lawsuit Help? A class action lawsuit could help compensate data breach victims for any harm they experienced as a result of the hack, including loss of privacy and fraudulent charges. Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed on behalf of individuals who were affected by the CareSource data breach. In late August, CareSource, an Ohio-based nonprofit that administers Medicaid, Marketplace and Medicare plans, began notifying members that their personal and medical information was exposed during a massive hack of the third-party MOVEit file-transfer software used by the company to share data. It's been reported that patients' names, Social Security numbers, health plan information, medical conditions and other sensitive data were accessed and copied during the hack. Attorneys believe CareSource may not have taken the proper steps to protect consumers' data from unauthorized access. They're now looking to hear from people who were affected by the breach as they work to determine whether a class action lawsuit can be filed to help compensate victims. CareSource Hack: What Happened? On July 27, 2023, CareSource reported to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that 3,180,537 individuals were affected by a data breach. In a sample data breach letter, the company explained that the MOVEit file-transfer software provided by one of its vendors was hacked by "a bad actor" on May 31, 2023. On June 27, CareSource was identified as "one of the victims of hacked data," and an investigation into the incident revealed that sensitive consumer information had been stolen, according to the letter. The following patient information was reportedly accessed and copied: Full names Addresses Dates of birth Genders Social Security numbers Member IDs Health plan names Health conditions Medications Allergies Diagnoses The MOVEit hack, which has reportedly impacted more than 1,000 organizations and affected over 60 million people, was perpetrated by a notorious Russia-linked ransomware gang known as Clop. Cybernews.com reported on August 2 that Clop published 40GB of CareSource data on the dark web that contained "sensitive healthcare information such as drugs prescribed, risk groups, and patients' treatment details." The group wrote of CareSource that "[t]he company doesn't care about its customers, it ignored their security!!!" CareSource reportedly began sending data breach notices to affected individuals beginning the week of August 22. [GN] CAVE ENTERPRISES: Parking Areas Inaccessible to Disabled, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- LINDA MILLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CAVE ENTERPRISES OPERATIONS, LLC; and DOES 1 to 25, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-07418 (N.D., Il., Sept. 6, 2023) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is with mobility disability who uses a wheelchair for mobility. The Plaintiff's claims arise from her own experience with excessive sloping conditions in purportedly accessible parking spaces, access aisles, and curb ramps at places of public accommodation owned, operated, controlled, and leased by Defendants and from site investigations at the Defendants' facilities also finding excessive sloping conditions. The Plaintiff asserts that these excessive sloping conditions persist in part as a result of the Defendants' existing but inadequate internal maintenance procedure, which fails to ensure compliance with the sloping requirements of the ADA's implementing regulations. Cave Enterprises Operations, LLC owns and operates restaurants. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin J. Sweet, Esq. NYE, STIRLING, HALE, MILLER &SWEET, LLP 1145 Bower Hill Road, Suite 104 Pittsburgh, PA 15243 Telephone: (412) 857-5350 Email: ben@nshmlaw.com -and - Jordan T. Porter, Esq. NYE, STIRLING, HALE, MILLER &SWEET, LLP 33 West Mission Street, Suite 201 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Telephone: (805) 963-2345 Email: jordan@nshmlaw.com CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Suit Over Disney Carriage Fee Fight ----------------------------------------------------------------- Erik Waxler and Tim Kephart, writing for ABC Action News, report that David Harwood was like many fans on Aug. 31, ready for college football, specifically the University of Florida vs. the University of Utah on ESPN. Then, the joy that would have been the opening game of the season disappeared. "I thought someone at the game unplugged the wrong thing or something, and it was just an accident because you see two coaches standing on the sideline, and all of a sudden the screen goes black," said Harwood. Instead of the kickoff of the game, a message from Spectrum eventually came up that read, "Disney is demanding an excessive increase and wants to limit our ability to provide greater customer choice in programming packages, facing you to take and pay for channels you may not want." College football fans' desire to watch the game was intercepted by the fight between two media industry behemoths. Charter, owner of Spectrum Cable, lost access to all Disney channels because the two sides couldn't agree on a payment/streaming plan. "I think there should have been more communications saying this might be coming," said Harwood. While Harwood was frustrated, Tampa attorney Billy Howard decided it was time to take action. He said Spectrum customers were not getting the service they were promised, so he's filed a class action lawsuit against the company. "This was used as a negotiating tool. And then you blame Mickey Mouse? Mickey Mouse did it. We didn't do it. It's not really greed. It's Mickey Mouse's fault that we decided to wait one minute before kickoff to pull the plug on college football," said Howard. Disney says Spectrum and Charter want to include Disney's streaming services for free in its package. Disney also says Charter declined their offer to extend negations so viewers wouldn't have missed college football and the US Open. In the days since Disney programming has gone off Spectrum Cable, the two sides seem to be digging in on their plans. Spectrum has encouraged television customers to switch to Fubo TV or other providers like YouTube TV. Disney replied with a message to customers to jump to Hulu Live, owned by Disney, YouTube TV, or other providers. Harwood said he wasn't about to wait and said he's already switched to a new service. "I can only imagine how many people are canceling their Spectrum services now, and I'm one of those. I won't be going back." [GN] CHEMOCENTRYX INC: Homyk Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Investors ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JONNIE HOMYK, et al., v. CHEMOCENTRYX, INC. et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-03343-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Lead Plaintiff Indiana Public Retirement System moves the Court pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a), (b)(3), and (g) for entry of an order: 1. Certifying a class of investors defined as: "All persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of ChemoCentryx, Inc. between November 26, 2019, and May 6, 2021, inclusive, and were damaged thereby. Excluded from the Class are Defendants and their immediate families, the officers and directors of the Company at all relevant times, members of their immediate families, and Defendants' legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns, and any entity in which Defendants have or had a controlling interest. 2. Appointing Lead Plaintiff as Class Representative; and 3. Approving Lead Plaintiff's selection of Lead Counsel Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP as Class Counsel. The action asserts claims under Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20A of the Exchange Act against Defendants ChemoCentryx, Inc. and its Chief Executive Officer, Thomas J. Schall. The case arises from the Defendants' misleading statements and omissions touting the safety, efficacy, and application for FDA approval of ChemoCentryx's most important product: a vasculitis drug called avacopan. Throughout the Class Period, Defendants falsely touted the results of ChemoCentryx's ADVOCATE study, the Company's key clinical trial of avacopan and the basis for its approval application to the FDA. Defendants told investors that the ADVOCATE results demonstrated that the drug was far safer, but no less effective, than existing treatments; that the FDA had raised no serious or unexpected issues that might jeopardize approval with the broad label ChemoCentryx sought; and that the "regulatory path" for avacopan "is clear." ChemoCentryx is a bio pharmaceutical company that discovers, develops and commercializes orally-administered therapeutics for the treatment of cancer, autoimmune diseases and inflammatory disorders A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 25, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ZgdNpl at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Salvatore Graziano, Esq. Abe Alexander, Esq. Stephen Boscolo, Esq. Jonathan D. Uslaner, Esq. Lauren M. Cruz, Esq. Caitlin C. Bozman, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 554-1400 Facsimile: (212) 554-1444 E-mail: salvatore@blbglaw.com abe.alexander@blbglaw.com stephen.boscolo@blbglaw.com jonathanu@blbglaw.com lauren.cruz@blbglaw.com caitlin.bozman@blbglaw.com CHICAGO TRANSIT: Asks Job Seekers' Family Medical Info, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kelly Mehorter of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action out of Illinois alleges the Chicago Transit Authority unlawfully requests that job applicants provide their family medical histories and uses this information to make employment decisions. The 20-page case says the Illinois Genetic Information Privacy Act prohibits employers from directly or indirectly requesting or using an individual's family medical history as a condition of employment or as part of their hiring processes. Enacted in 1998, the state law is designed to protect residents from discrimination in employment settings based on their genetic information, the filing relays. However, the plaintiffs, two Illinois residents who applied for positions with the Chicago Transit Authority in 2021 and 2022, claim the public transportation operator asked them to submit pre-employment physicals that revealed their family medical histories and then used this information to make hiring decisions and staffing assignments. The complaint contends that during these physicals, which were conducted by an outside medical provider, the plaintiffs were asked to reveal in a written questionnaire whether various diseases or disorders with a genetic predisposition had manifested in their family members. For example, the questionnaire inquired if their parents had a history of cardiac health, cancer, diabetes and other ailments, the suit explains. According to the case, the provider also verbally asked the plaintiffs about their medical histories and made note of their answers in their respective files. The plaintiffs allege that the Chicago Transit Authority requests family medical information to evaluate the risk that applicants may have inherited certain genetic conditions from family members, such as hypertension, cancer, heart conditions, diabetes or stroke. Per the case, the defendant wishes to avoid being held liable for workplace injuries or death caused by inherited conditions and makes employment decisions accordingly. The lawsuit looks to represent anyone in Illinois who, within the past five years, applied for employment with or was employed by the Chicago Transit Authority and from whom the defendant or agents acting on its behalf requested and/or obtained genetic information, including family medical history, in connection with their application or their employment with the government agency. [GN] CHOCOLATE FASHION: Murillo Suit Seeks Restaurant Staff's Unpaid OT ------------------------------------------------------------------ ZOHILA MURILLO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHOCOLATE FASHION, INC. and PERSEVERANIA BERGER, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-23353 (S.D. Fla., August 31, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was hired as a line cook, baker, and restaurant employee at Chocolate Fashion Restaurant in Florida from approximately February 15, 2008, to July 21, 2023. Chocolate Fashion, Inc. is the owner and operator of a gourmet bakery/restaurant and catering service under the name Chocolate Fashion Restaurant, located at 248 Andalusia Avenue, Coral Gables, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com CHRISTIAN PRINSLOO: Released From Prison Amid Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Radio Islam International reports that Christian Prinsloo, a former police officer who sold 2,000 illegal firearms to gang members, was released from prison under South Africa President Cyril Ramaphosa's special remissions program. Prinsloo was sentenced to 18 years in 2016 on charges of racketeering, corruption, and money laundering but served only three years and ten months of his sentence before being released on parole in August 2020. The firearms supplied by Prinsloo were linked to gang violence in the Cape Flats, and it is estimated that 89 children's deaths are linked to the illegal guns he supplied to gang members. To shed light on this case and the ensuing legal action, Radio Islam International interviewed Jason Whyte, a director at Norton Rose Fulbright. Christian Prinsloo was the key figure responsible for controlling stockpiled weapons held by the South African Police Service (S.A.P.S.), including confiscated and defunct in-service weapons. He orchestrated the illegal sale of these firearms to gang members through intermediaries. Prinsloo's early release as part of the special remissions program has raised questions about the process. Whyte expressed his concerns, stating, "There's no specific reasons that have been given, and one has really been left to guess at why somebody of that nature should have been let out after having served such a short sentence." Regarding suspicions of illegalities in Prinsloo's release, Whyte clarified, "We really don't know. That's part of the problem. There are specific factors that the administrator is supposed to look at, so whether the culprit is going to commit the offence again, whether they've been properly rehabilitated, or any other special circumstances, but we haven't been given that level of detail, so people do tend to suspect the worst." The class action lawsuit is aimed at the Minister of Police, not Prinsloo himself, as it seeks to establish a precedent for individuals who suffered losses or injuries due to firearms connected to Prinsloo's actions. As for the lawsuit's process, Whyte outlined the steps, stating, "We've instituted what we call the certification application in the High Court in June, and that application will probably be heard in the early part of next year. Once we are confident we will get that certification, we will then proceed with a court case to determine the minister's liability and then the claims of each individual person who might have suffered damages." [GN] CMI GROUP: Prosser Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri ------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Christopher Prosser, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The CMI Group GP, LLC, Credit Management, LP, John and Jane Does 1 though 7 debt collectors for CMI and Credit Management, Case No. 23JE-CC00689 was removed from the Jefferson County Circuit Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on Sept. 5, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:23-cv-01109-HEA to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property. The CMI Group -- https://www.thecmigroup.com/ -- is a 100% employee-owned solutions provider to clients nationwide.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Edwin V. Butler, II, Esq. BUTLER LAW GROUP LLC 1650 Des Peres Road, Suite 220 Des Peres, MO 63131 Phone: (314) 504-0001 Email: edbutler@butlerlawstl.com The Defendants are represented by: Patrick A. Watts, Esq. MARTIN GOLDEN PLLC 1200 S. Big Bend Boulevard St. Louis, MO 63117 Phone: (314) 669-5490 Email: pwatts@swattslaw.com COMOTO HOLDINGS: Castro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Comoto Holdings, LLC. The case is styled as Felix Castro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Comoto Holdings, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-07898 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 6, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Comoto -- https://ridecomoto.com/ -- is America's largest powersports aftermarket retailer serving motorcycle enthusiasts everywhere through Cycle Gear, J&P Cycles and RevZilla.com.[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 COX AUTOMOTIVE: Bid to Remand Touch Suit to State Court Granted --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned SAMNANG TOUCH, Plaintiff v. COX AUTOMOTIVE CORPORATE SERVICES, LLC and COX AUTOMOTIVE MOBILITY SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-01848-TLN-KJN (E.D. Cal.), Judge Troy L. Nunley of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California grants the Defendants' Ex Parte Application to Remand to State Court. The Plaintiff filed this purported wage and hour class action in state court on May 19, 2023. On Aug. 29, 2023, the Plaintiff removed the action to this Court under the Class Action Fairness Act. On Aug. 30, 2023, the Defendants file the instant ex parte application to remand this action to state court. The Defendants argue the Plaintiff's removal was improper and done in bad faith. In opposition, Plaintiff argues there is no exigency to grant ex parte relief and it would be more efficient to keep the action in the Court because the Defendants have indicated they will seek removal once the action is consolidated with a related PAGA action in state court. Judge Nunley notes that the Plaintiff fails to address the Defendants' arguments regarding the impropriety of a plaintiff filing a notice of removal. The Court agrees with the Defendants. The right to remove a case from state to federal court is vested exclusively with the defendant or defendants. Moreover, courts strictly construe the removal statute against removal jurisdiction. For these reasons, the Court grants the Defendants' ex parte application and remands this action to San Joaquin County Superior Court. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Aug. 31, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/4pvphb29 from PacerMonitor.com. CRH CALIFORNIA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Castillo Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- JOSE CASTILLO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CRH CALIFORNIA WATER, INC. dba Culligan of Sylmar, as Culligan 52, as Culligan Water of Los Angeles, and as Hall's Culligan Commercial Water, Defendants, Case No. 23STCV21356 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Sept. 6, 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 Castillo was employed by the Defendant as a warehouseman and lead plant operator. CRH CALIFORNIA WATER, INC. provides water delivery service, including bottled water delivery and water dispensers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary R. Carlin, Esq. William Welden, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF GARY R. CARLIN 301 East Ocean Blvd., Suite 1550 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (562) 432-8933 Facsimile: (562) 435-1656 CVS PHARMACY: Faces Class Suit Over Organized Retail Theft ---------------------------------------------------------- France 24 reports that Ann McGee, a New Yorker from the borough of Queens, doesn't like the recent sensation she has when entering stores: fear. "It's not normal to be scared" when shopping, McGee told AFP. She's behind a recent petition denouncing the insecurity caused by rising retail theft -- sometimes by thieves operating in groups and threatening anyone near them with violence -- in her neighborhood. US retailers across the country have reported a sharp rise in theft in the last few months, alongside a worrying increase in violence. "You cannot accept the fact that these people can go into stores without fear and choose to rob these stores and get away with it," she said. McGee, a grandmother and a resident of the borough for the last 41 years, said she is so concerned for her safety that she now leaves her purse and jewelry -- including her wedding ring -- at home when she goes shopping. "It's not fair" she said. "We can't even go to stores without fear of getting hurt." "It has to stop and the only way to get things done is if people start getting involved," she said. "It's time to rally -- I want to start a class action." In response to the recent rise in theft, some shops have begun locking up basic items like toothpaste, deodorant and tissues behind transparent doors. Petition The drugstore chain CVS was targeted in June by McGee's petition, which she also sent to her local councilman, Democrat Robert Holden. Holden reached out to the group's chief executive Karen Lynch to denounce what he called "rampant retail theft" in four CVS stores and the lack of action by the company to alert the police. "Failing to report retail theft constitutes a dereliction of duty and poses serious consequences," he wrote in a letter to Lynch. "It inadvertently incentivizes criminals to continue their unlawful activities while putting CVS staff and consumers in unnecessary danger," he added. Holden's office told AFP that he received a response from CVS's head of security, who pledged that all incidents would be reported to the police from now on. But on the ground "nothing has changed," when it comes to security, according to McGee. "Everything is all locked up, it's horrible. I feel like a criminal," said McGee, a mother of four. "I don't like shopping like this," she added. "The other day, I went to CVS to buy some air freshener to put in my car. Everything was locked up," she continued. "I didn't buy it, I didn't want to wait for an attendant just for that." In response to the recent rise in crime, McGee now shops in upstate New York where "it's very, very secure and very safe." Another consequence of the recent increase in shoplifters has been rising prices, according to McGee. "Why is it more expensive for us because of criminals getting all that for free?" she said. "The stores make a claim to their insurance and get reimbursed," she continued. "You know what's going to happen there?" she added. "These stores will close down and we're going to be a ghost town." [GN] DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Oct 31 ------------------------------------------------------------------ WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Sept. 5 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of common stock of Discover Financial Services (NYSE: DFS) between February 21, 2019 and August 14, 2023, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October 31, 2023. SO WHAT: If you purchased Discover Financial securities during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Discover Financial class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=7773 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October 31, 2023. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants made false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) DFS maintained deficient risk management and compliance procedures; (2) as a result of the foregoing deficiencies, the Company had, inter alia, failed to comply with applicable student loan servicing standards, misclassified certain credit card accounts, overcharged customers, and failed to stem its ballooning credit card delinquency rate; (3) the foregoing issues, when they became known, would subject DFS to significant financial exposure, regulatory scrutiny, and reputational harm; and (4) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. To join the Discover Financial class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=7773 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contacts: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Stock Price Artificially Raised, Mannacio Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ EUGENE MANNACIO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DISCOVER FINANCIAL SERVICES, ROGER C. HOCHSCHILD, JOHN T. GREENE, and R. MARK GRAF, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-06788 (N.D. Ill., September 1, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the business, operations, and compliance policies of Discover Financial Services (DFS) in order to trade DFS common stock at artificially inflated prices between February 21, 2019 and August 14, 2023. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose that: (i) DFS maintained deficient risk management and compliance procedures; (ii) as a result of the foregoing deficiencies, the Company had, inter alia, failed to comply with applicable student loan servicing standards, misclassified certain credit card accounts, overcharged customers, and failed to stem its ballooning credit card delinquency rate; (iii) the foregoing issues, when they became known, would subject DFS to significant financial exposure, regulatory scrutiny, and reputational harm; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the truth emerged, DFS's stock price fell $9.80 per share, or 8.93 percent, to close at $100 per share on July 21, 2022. Moreover, DFS's stock price fell $9.69 per share, or 9.44 percent, to close at $92.96 per share on August 15, 2023, says the suit. Discover Financial Services is a financial services company, with principal executive offices located at 2500 Lake Cook Road, Riverwoods, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (917) 463-1044 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. Louis C. Ludwig, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com lcludwig@pomlaw.com - and - Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq. PORTNOY LAW FIRM 1800 Century Park East, Suite 600 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 692-8883 E-mail: lesley@portnoylaw.com DMC LOGISTICS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Jones Alleges ------------------------------------------------------- ANDREW JONES; and TERRANCE STOKES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DMC LOGISTICS, LLC; and AIRELLE D. McNEAL, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-07321 (N.D. Il., Sept.6, 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 Jones was employed by the Defendants as a field technician while Plaintiff Stokes was employed as a supervisor. DMC LOGISTICS, LLC is engaged in the business of providing customized logistics and delivery solutions. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chad W. Eisenback, Esq. Mohammed Badwan, Esq. SULAIMAN LAW GROUP LTD. 2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Telephone: (630) 575-8180 Facsimile: (630) 575 - 8188 Email: mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com ceisenback@sulaimanlaw.com DOVENMUEHLE MORTGAGE: Muhammad Sues Over Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------- Ayesha Muhammad, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Dovenmuehle Mortgage, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-07233 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 6, 2023), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL), Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act ("IWPCA"), for Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees all earned minimum and overtime wages. The Plaintiff regularly worked over 40 hours per week. During each and every workweek, Plaintiff, the Collective Members and the Class Members were paid on an hourly basis. Plaintiff, the Collective Members and the Class Members were not exempt from the FLSA and IMWL's overtime requirements. The Plaintiff, the Collective Members and the Class Members regularly worked in excess of 40 hours in any given workweek. Under the FLSA and IMWL, employers must pay all non-exempt employees an overtime wage premium of pay one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all time they spend working in excess of 40 hours in a given workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a full-time employee of the Defendant who has worked as a Special Loans Processer from March, 2021 through the present. The Defendant regularly conduct business in this judicial district.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael L. Fradin, Esq. 8401 Crawford Ave. Ste. 104 Skokie, IL 60076 Phone: 847-986-5889 Facsimile: 847-673-1228 Email: mike@fradinlaw.com - and - James L. Simon, Esq. SIMON LAW CO. 11 1/2 N. Franklin Street Chagrin Falls, OH 44022 Phone: (216) 816-8696 Email: james@simonsayspay.com DSM-FIRMENICH AG: Controls Fragrance Prices, Peychal Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- YVONNE PEYCHAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DSM-FIRMENICH AG, FIRMENICH INTERNATIONAL SA, FIRMENICH INC., AGILEX FLAVORS & FRAGRANCES, INC., GIVAUDAN SA, GIVAUDAN FRAGRANCES CORP., GIVAUDAN FLAVORS CORP., UNGERER & COMPANY, INC., CUSTOM ESSENCE INC., INTERNATIONAL FLAVORS & FRAGRANCES INC., SYMRISE AG, SYMRISE INC., and SYMRISE US LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-16242 (D.N.J., September 5, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, state antitrust statutes, and state consumer protection law, and for unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendants' conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the prices for Fragrances and Fragrance Ingredients and allocate and unreasonably restraint trade in the market for Fragrances and Fragrance Ingredients sold in the United States from January 1, 2018. The Defendants entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade to increase Fragrance prices. The Defendants' conspiracy to fix prices for fragrances was in reaction to increased costs of the raw materials used to manufacture fragrances. To maintain their profitability, the Defendants coordinated with one another to set the price of fragrances for their customers, divided the consumer market by allocating certain customers to certain Defendants, and imposed supply constraints for fragrances. Through this unlawful coordination, the Defendants charged their customers supra-competitive prices, which were in turn passed through to end-user purchasers of products containing Fragrance and Fragrance Ingredients, including Plaintiff and the Classes, the suit alleges. DSM-Firmenich AG is a manufacturer of fragrance and fragrance ingredients headquartered in Switzerland. Firmenich International SA is a manufacturer of fragrance and fragrance ingredients headquartered in Switzerland. Firmenich Inc. is a United States subsidiary of DSM-Firmenich AG, with its principal place of business in Plainsboro, New Jersey. Agilex Flavors & Fragrances, Inc. is a United States subsidiary of DSM- Firmenich AG, with its principal place of business in Piscataway, New Jersey. Givaudan SA is a company that sells fragrances and fragrance ingredients, headquartered in Vernier, Switzerland. Givaudan Fragrances Corporation is a United States subsidiary of Givaudan SA, headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio. Givaudan Flavors Corporation is a United States subsidiary of Givaudan SA, with its headquarters in Cincinnati, Ohio. Ungerer & Company, Inc. is a United States subsidiary of Givaudan SA, with its principal place of business in Lincoln Park, New Jersey. Custom Essence Inc. is a United States subsidiary of Givaudan SA, with its principal place of business in Somerset, New Jersey. International Flavors & Fragrances, Inc. is a company that sells fragrances and fragrance ingredients, headquartered in New York, New York. Symrise AG is a company that sells fragrances and fragrance ingredients, headquartered in Holzminden, Germany. Symrise Inc. is a manufacturer of fragrance and fragrance ingredients, with its headquarters in Teterboro, New Jersey. Symrise US LLC is a United States subsidiary of Symrise AG, with its headquarters and principal place of business in Teterboro, New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William G. Caldes, Esq. Diana J. Zinser, Esq. Cary Zhang, Esq. SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C. 2001 Market Street, Suite 3420 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 496-0300 E-mail: bcaldes@srkattorneys.com dzinser@srkattorneys.com czhang@srkattorneys.com - and - Kimberly A. Justice, Esq. FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC 923 Fayette Street Conshohocken, PA 19428 Telephone: (610) 234-6770 E-mail: kjustice@fklmlaw.com - and - Shpetim Ademi, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com - and - Douglas A. Millen, Esq. Robert J. Wozniak, Esq. Nia Barberousse Binns, Esq. FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC 100 Tri-State International Drive, Suite 128 Lincolnshire, IL 60069 Telephone: (224) 632-4500 Facsimile: (224) 632-4521 E-mail: dmillen@fklmlaw.com rwozniak@fklmlaw.com nbinns@fklmlaw.com DST SYSTEMS: Settles 401(k) Class Action for $124 Million --------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that DST Systems and Ruane, Cunniff & Goldfarb agreed to pay over $124 million to resolve claims that they mismanaged an employee 401(k) profit-sharing plan. The settlement benefits current and former participants, beneficiaries or alternate payees of the DST Systems Inc. 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan. According to the class action lawsuit, DST Systems and Ruan, Cunniff & Goldfarb invested an inappropriate amount of the 401(k)'s assets into Valeant Pharmaceuticals stock. When this stock failed, the plan allegedly lost significant value -- causing financial damage to participants. DST Systems is an advisory company that was acquired by SS&C Technologies in April 2018. The defendants haven't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $124 million settlement to resolve the 401(k) class action lawsuit. Ruane, Cunniff & Goldfarb is an investment advisor that manages investment funds. Under the terms of the DST settlement, class members can receive a proportional share of the settlement fund based on their account information and other factors. Current participants, beneficiaries or alternate payees will receive their settlement share as a deposit into their plan account. Former participants, beneficiaries or alternate payees will receive their settlement share as a check. Class members cannot exclude themselves from the settlement because the class has been certified as a mandatory class under federal law. The deadline for objection is Oct. 13, 2023. The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for Oct. 23, 2023. Class members do not have to file a claim to receive a settlement payment. Former participants who wish to receive their settlement payment as a rollover into a qualified retirement account must submit a former participant rollover form by Oct. 12, 2023. Who's Eligible Current and former participants, beneficiaries or alternate payees of the DST Systems Inc. 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan Potential Award Varies Proof of Purchase N/A Claim Form https://www.strategicclaims.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/DST-Former-Participant-Rollover-Form-JB.pdf NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 10/12/2023 Case Name Ferguson, et al. v. Ruane Cunnif, et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-06685-ALC-BCM, and Ferguson, et al. v. Robert D. Goldfarb, Case No. 1:20-cv-07092-ALC-BCM, both in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Final Hearing 0/23/2023 Settlement Website StrategicClaims.net/DST Claims Administrator DST Settlement Administrator c/o Strategic Claims Services 600 N. Jackson Street, Suite 205 Media, PA 19063 info@strategicclaims.net 866-274-4004 Class Counsel James E Miller Laurie Rubinow MILLER SHAH LLP Defense Counsel Lewis R Clayton Jeffrey J Recher PAUL WEISS RIFKIND WHARTON & GARRISON LLP Gregory F Jacob O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP Myron D Rumeld PROSKAUER ROSE LLP [GN] EC FLORAL: Faces Torres Suit Over Unpaid Wages for Laborers ----------------------------------------------------------- ELIANIS TORRES MARRERO, ARIANNA HECHAVARRIA AVILA, and RUTH RAMOS LOBO, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. EC FLORAL DESIGN & EVENTS LLC and ELEAZAR CASTELLANOS, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-23373 (S.D. Fla., September 1, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum and overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Florida Minimum Wage Act. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as laborers in January 2023. EC Floral Design & Events LLC is a company that creates, delivers, and installs floral arrangements, headquartered in Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nathaly Saavedra, Esq. Juan J. Perez, Esq. P. Brooks LaRou, Esq. PEREGONZA THE ATTORNEYS, PLLC 5201 Blue Lagoon Drive, Suite 290 Miami, FL 33126 Telephone: (786) 650-0202 Facsimile: (786) 650-0200 E-mail: nathaly@peregonza.com juan@peregonza.com brooks@peregonza.com ELI LILLY: Manipulates Insulin Market Price, Sheet Metal Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ SHEET METAL WORKERS LOCAL NO. 25 HEALTH AND WELFARE FUND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-14371 (D.N.J., September 1, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of several state consumer protection laws, consumer fraud laws, unfair trade practices laws in the U.S. Sheet Metal Workers Local No. 25 Health and Welfare Fund brings this proposed class action against three drug manufacturers, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi, for the artificial, deceptive, and unfair manipulation of their respective insulin products' list prices in the United States. Specifically, the drug manufacturers engage in "shadow pricing," a tactic where they tacitly agree to follow each other's list price increases in near unison. Then, with no daylight between their list prices, the drug manufacturers need only compete through kickbacks to pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) in the form of enormous rebates. In other words, instead of lowering their net prices while maintaining their list prices constant, the Defendants all raised their list prices in lockstep while keeping their net prices constant, the suit alleges. As a result, the insulin list prices have become meaningless and divorced from net price. They do not reflect marketplace value for the products or cutting-edge technology. Nor do they reflect some increasing need to recoup investment. Rather, to the extent they are not completely arbitrary, they simply reflect the lengths to which the drug manufacturers have gone to avoid market forces, says the suit. Sheet Metal Workers Local No. 25 Health and Welfare Fund is a health benefit provider based in Carlstadt, New Jersey. Eli Lilly and Company is a pharmaceutical company, headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana. Novo Nordisk Inc. is a pharmaceutical company, headquartered in Plainsboro, New Jersey. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC is a pharmaceutical company, headquartered in Bridgewater, New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Cecchi, Esq. Donald A. Ecklund, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 - and - Steve W. Berman, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 2nd Ave., Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 - and - Thomas M. Sobol, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1 Faneuil Hall Sq 5th Floor, Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 482-3700 EUROPEAN STONE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Urgiles Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- MANUEL ROGDRIGO CRIOLLO URGILES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EUROPEAN STONE MASTERS INC.; EARTH STONE DESIGNS INC.; GEORGE SINOPIDIS JR.; VASILIOS TSIATIS; and IRMA CECI, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-06678 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 7, 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 Urgiles was employed by the Defendants as a marble laborer. EUROPEAN STONE MASTERS INC. provides fine stone fabrication and installation to residential and commercial establishments. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 Facsimile: (718) 263-9598 F&G ANNUITIES: Fails to Safeguard Customers' Info, Miller Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- JORDAN A. MILLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. F&G ANNUITIES & LIFE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:23-cv-00326-SMR-SBJ (S.D. Iowa, August 31, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated customers following a data breach on its network systems that utilized MOVEit file transfer services on May 29, 2023, and May 30, 2023. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the PII of the Plaintiff and Class members were compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. F&G Annuities & Life, Inc. is a life insurance and annuity solutions provider based in Delaware. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Barton Goplerud, Esq. Brian O. Marty, Esq. SHINDLER, ANDERSON, GOPLERUD & WEESE, P.C 5015 Grand Ridge Drive, Suite 100 West Des Moines, IA 50265 Telephone: (515) 223-4567 Facsimile: (515) 223-8887 E-mail: goplerud@sagwlaw.com marty@sagwlaw.com - and - David K. Lietz, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC 5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW Washington, DC 20015 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Facsimile: (202) 686-2877 E-mail: dlietz@milberg.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, 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 - and - Andrew Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com FIELDALE FARMS: Chicken Price-Fixing Class Action Remanded ---------------------------------------------------------- Wisconsin Law Journal reports that 7th Circuit Court of Appeals vacated and remanded the case styled John Andren v. End User Consumer Plaintiff Class. Three separate groups of plaintiffs made allegations of price fixing within the broiler chicken market. This included a class of end users, encompassing individuals and entities that indirectly bought specific broiler types from the defendants or accused co-conspirators for personal consumption in specific jurisdictions during the designated class period. This class reached a settlement agreement with a subset of the defendants, resulting in a $181 million resolution. The district court issued a judgment (pursuant to FRCP 54(b)) concerning the parties that had settled. Class counsel was granted one-third of the settlement amount, which totaled $57.4 million after excluding expenses and incentive awards. However, one class member named Andren contended that the court had made errors by undervaluing bids presented by class counsel in auctions from other cases. Andren also disagreed with the court's implication that the Seventh Circuit had rejected the use of fee structures that decrease over time, and questioned the credibility given to expert reports. When determining the fee award, the district court had considered actual agreements made between the parties, fee arrangements established in the legal services market, the initial risk of not being paid at the case's outset, the performance of class counsel, and the fee awards granted in comparable cases. Upon review, the Seventh Circuit invalidated the fee award. According to Seventh Circuit legal doctrine, the district court's responsibility was to grant fees that aligned with a theoretical "ex-ante bargain" that would have been struck before the case commenced. In this regard, the court's assessment had failed to take into account the bids class counsel had submitted in auctions for other cases and fee awards from jurisdictions outside their own. Vacated and remanded Decided 08/30/23 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Case Name: John Andren v. End User Consumer Plaintiff Class Case No.: 22-2889 Officials: Sykes, Chief Judge, and Brennan and Pryor, Circuit Judges. Focus: Price Fixing-Class Action The copy of the Opinion is available at: https://shorturl.at/etI02 [GN] FIRSTENERGY CORP: Settles Bribery Scheme Class Action for $50MM --------------------------------------------------------------- Morgan Trau, writing for Ohio Capital Journal, reports that a Mastercard being mailed out to FirstEnergy customers raised red flags for consumers. OCJ/WEWS dove in to see if it was real or a scam. This is the second fact-checking story OCJ/WEWS has done on FirstEnergy payments. About the settlement Many Northern Ohioans were included in a nearly $50 million settlement from FirstEnergy and Energy Harbor, FirstEnergy's former spin-off. This also included FirstEnergy-owned companies like Cleveland Electric, Ohio Edison and Toledo Edison. Consumers sued the companies because FirstEnergy bribed lawmakers to pass a law benefiting them, which increased the price of their services. This June, former House Speaker Larry Householder got 20 years in prison for his role in the state's largest bribery scheme. He accepted a $61 million bribe from FirstEnergy and other utilities in exchange for a $1.3 billion bailout to help their struggling nuclear power plants. Fact-checking FirstEnergy's bribery scandal settlement payments are mainly coming from a "sketchy" but legitimate email link. At the beginning of August, OCJ/WEWS verified that the digital card was real. Once OCJ/WEWS aired this story, the official website of the class action settlement updated its site to inform consumers of the payment method. Then on Aug. 31, OCJ/WEWS shared that customers were having trouble accessing the money. After that report, FirstEnergy customer Michael Hernandez reached out with another concern. "There are so many scams out there you don't know what to believe," Hernandez said. "That's why I got a hold of you guys and wondered, is this a scam?" He didn't receive the email that OCJ/WEWS previously reported on but was sent a letter. It had a Mastercard with it and explained briefly about the settlement. "It's different than the usual one that comes in the mail when I get my credit card or my debit card," he said. Case Western Reserve University consumer protection law professor Cathy Lesser Mansfield explained anything that seems "off" should make the consumer pause. "You have to be very careful," Lesser Mansfield said. "The scams are so sophisticated these days that you sometimes can't know what's a scam and what isn't." The red flags were raised for Hernandez. "The letter said nothing about any amount of money," he said. Not having the settlement amount made the letter seem suspicious and not personalized to him. So, is it real? Yes. One of the attorneys from the lawsuit confirmed to OCJ/WEWS that it is legit. If FirstEnergy did not have an email address for a customer's account, they mailed the card instead. The vendor was supposed to put the dollar amount on the letter but forgot to, the attorney added. The cards were then mailed before a claims administrator caught the error. "They definitely should have done this a different way," Hernandez said. "They should have put it in your bill." The attorney in the lawsuit agreed -- and actually tried to push for that. However, FirstEnergy fought adamantly against putting the money back through utility bills. This would require tedious steps through the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, according to the attorney. How much did Hernandez get? Under $8. The average amount is just $15. "What a crock; $7.80," Hernandez said. "Government, Edison and Harbor win again." Accessing money OCJ/WEWS reported on Aug. 31 that some ratepayers feel they are being victimized twice due to how difficult it is to use the money. If a customer received a physical card, they are in a much better position to use their money than if they received a digital one. Digital -- Money can only be used for online purchases -- Unable to deposit the money into a bank account or cash apps like Venmo -- Cannot get cash from it -- Can be added to a digital wallet like Apple Pay -- After having the card for one year, the company has a monthly inactivity fee of $3.95. Physical -- Money can be used online or in person, with exceptions -- Exceptions: ATM, gas pumps, cash access and for recurring payments -- After having the card for one year, the company has a monthly inactivity fee of $5.95. If a customer is getting more than $250.00 from the settlement, they will be mailed a check. [GN] GANNON UNIVERSITY: Faces Suit Over COVID-19 Tuition Refunds ----------------------------------------------------------- Nicholas Malfitano, writing for Pennsylvania Record, reports that an undergraduate student has filed a class action lawsuit against Gannon University, charging that he and others were deprived of the on-campus education and experience they paid for, when the COVID-19 pandemic occurred and learning shifted to remote status. Andrew Engel (individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated) filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on Aug. 18 versus Gannon University, of Erie. "Higher education is no different from any other industry in as much as consumers (i.e., students) have the ability to shop between different educational products offered by competitive institutions before ultimately purchasing the product that is right for them. Some colleges and universities offer an educational product without access to a campus or in-person community, while others offer an educational product with access to a varied suite of services, activities, facilities, and experiences through an on-campus, in-person educational experience," the suit states. "Gannon offers students the option to pick either: (1) Online classes, or (2) an on-campus, in-person educational experience at its Erie, Pennsylvania campus. Plaintiff, an undergraduate student during the Spring 2020 semester, chose and paid tuition and fees to enroll in Gannon's on-campus, in-person education program, including all the benefits and services associated therewith for the entirety of the semester. Plaintiff's paid-for experience was cut short mid-way through the Spring 2020 semester, when that in-person educational experience was taken away from plaintiff and other students at Gannon." The suit continues that in March 2020, Gannon, like many other colleges and universities, transitioned to remote, online-only education, canceled on-campus recreational events, canceled student activity events and ordered students to refrain from going on campus -- thus making all on-campus education, services and amenities no longer available to Gannon students for the remainder of the Spring 2020 semester. "Despite the harsh reality that students could no longer enjoy the benefit of the bargain for which they pre-paid, Gannon refused to provide a prorated refund of tuition or fees tied to on-campus education, services, and amenities that were not available to students for a significant part of the Spring 2020 semester. Indeed, upon transitioning to online-only education in March 2020, Gannon only pro-rated room and/or board charges for students for the Spring 2020 semester. Accordingly, Gannon's students lost the benefits of the bargain for services and the experience they paid for but could no longer access or use following the school's transition to remote learning in March 2020. By not giving pro-rated refunds for tuition or fees charged for on-campus education and services not provided, Gannon breached its contracts with students or was otherwise unjustly enriched," the suit says. "It cannot be disputed that the circumstances underlying this legal action are unfortunate and unprecedented. However, the students did not choose these circumstances, and they certainly did not agree to pay tuition and fees for online-only education and services. It is unfair and unlawful for Gannon to retain tuition and fees for campus-based, in-person education and services not being provided and to pass the financial losses on to its students. Importantly, plaintiff does not challenge Gannon's discretion in adhering to federal, state and local health guidelines, but rather challenges Gannon's decision to retain the tuition and fees, paid by plaintiff and other students for in-person education, experiences, access to campus, and services, without providing such for the entire duration of the Spring 2020 semester." Specifically, the lawsuit seeks "disgorgement of the pro-rated, unused amounts of the fees that plaintiff and other putative class members paid, but for which they (or the students on behalf of whom they paid) were not provided the benefit, as well as a partial pro-rated tuition reimbursement representing the difference in fair market value between the on-campus product for which they had paid, and the online product that they received." For counts of breach of implied contract and unjust enrichment, the plaintiff is seeking: *An order certifying the Class under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and naming plaintiff as representative of the class and plaintiff's attorneys as class counsel to represent the class; * An order finding in favor of plaintiff and the class on all counts asserted herein; * Compensatory damages in an amount to be determined by the trier of fact; * For an order of restitution and all other forms of equitable monetary relief; * Reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses; * Pre- and post-judgment interest on any amounts awarded; and * Such other and further relief as may be just and proper. The plaintiff is represented by Gary F. Lynch of Lynch Carpenter, in Pittsburgh. The defendant is represented by Jamie R. Schumacher and Nathan P. Venesky of MacDonald Illig Jones & Britton, in Erie. U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania case 1:23-cv-00244 From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com [GN] GENERAC HOLDINGS: Faces Consolidated Shareholder Action ------------------------------------------------------- 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 January 20, 2023, the California Ironworkers Field Pension Trust filed a putative securities class action, in the United States District Court for 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 the two actions. 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: Zukas 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 "Zukas, et al., v. Generac Power Systems, Inc., et al., Case No. 23-cv-00874 (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. GENERAL MILLS: Averts Amended Video-Info Sharing Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Brown, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that General Mills Inc. defeated -- for the second time -- a lawsuit alleging it shared information with Facebook Inc. and Google Inc. about videos watched by visitors to its website in violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act. Keith Carroll and Rebeka Rodriguez failed to show that General Mills was a "video tape service provider" within the meaning of the VPPA, or that they were "consumers" under the act, Judge Dale S. Fisher of the US District Court for the Central District of California said Sept. 1. [GN] GENERAL MOTORS: Bid to Amend Class Cert Deadlines OK'd in Hurry --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DOMINGUEZ HURRY, et al., v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Case No. 3:21-cv-00673-ECM-JTA (M.D. Ala.), the Hon. Judge Emily C. Marks entered an order granting the Defendant's motion to amend to the extent that all deadlines tied to the trial of the case, including the pretrial conference, jury selection and jury trial, are continued generally pending resolution of the pending motion for class certification, motion for summary judgment, and Daubert motions. -- There remains pending before the Court the Plaintiff's motion for class certification, the Defendant's motion for summary judgment, and several Daubert motions. -- The Defendant's motion is denied in all other respects. The Court will reset any unexpired pretrial deadlines and the trial date, if applicable, following its ruling on the pending motions. General Motors is a worldwide maker and marketer of automobiles. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 23, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44Obb3p at no extra charge.[CC] GENERAL MOTORS: Court Modifies Class Cert. Order in Jefferson Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit styled RILLA JEFFERSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-02576-JPM-tmp (W.D. Tenn.), Judge Jon P. McCalla of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, Western Division, issued an order modifying the Court's prior order regarding the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Court entered an Order Granting in Part Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification on May 11, 2023. The Defendant requests reconsideration of that portion of the Court's Order that addressed class certification. The Plaintiff filed a Response in Opposition on June 7, 2023. The Defendant filed a Reply on June 11, 2023. The Complaint in the instant case was filed in this Court on Aug. 7, 2020. The Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss on Oct. 29, 2020. The Court granted that Motion in part, striking the Plaintiff's request for punitive damages and dismissing her implied warranty of merchantability claim. The Defendant filed an Answer to the Plaintiff's Complaint on Oct. 18, 2021. The Parties filed a Joint Motion to Stay the instant case on May 25, 2022. The Parties moved the Court to stay this case for 90 days, or until the resolution of the summary judgment and class certification motions, which was then outstanding in Napoli-Bosse v. Gen. Motors, LLC, No. 18-cv-1720-MPS (D. Conn). The motions in Napoli-Bosse were resolved on Aug. 22, 2022. The Parties jointly moved the Court to lift the stay in the instant case on Sept. 14, 2022. The Court granted the Parties' Joint Motion to Lift Stay on Sept. 15, 2022. The Plaintiff filed a Motion to Certify Class on Nov. 2, 2022. The Plaintiff's Motion was filed with a Memorandum of Law, the Declaration of Sergei Lemberg, and the Declaration of Joshua Markovitz. The Plaintiff also filed 23 exhibits along with her Motion. She additionally filed unredacted, sealed copies of her Memorandum of Law and of Exhibit 1. The Defendant filed a Response on Dec. 9, 2022. That Response was filed with the Declaration of Joseph J. Orzano, several excerpts from depositions, and the Complaint in Napoli-Bosse v. Gen. Motors, LLC, No. 18-cv-1720-MPS (D. Conn). The Plaintiff filed a Reply on Jan. 10, 2023. The Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on November 22, 2022. The Defendant's Motion was filed with a Memorandum of Law in Support, a Statement of Undisputed Facts, the Declaration of Joseph J. Orzano, and several excerpts from depositions. The Plaintiff filed a Response on Jan. 10, 2023. The Defendant filed a Reply on Jan. 31, 2023. In the instant case, Judge McCalla finds that modification of the Court's prior Order Granting in Part Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification is appropriate. The Defendant moves the Court to reconsider its prior order as the class definition the Court crafted raised legal questions that the Defendant did not have the opportunity to raise and the Court has not had the opportunity to consider. In Response, the Plaintiff argues that the Court erred in its finding that she had proposed a fail-safe class. Upon reconsideration, the Court made an error of law in determining that the Plaintiff's proposed class was a fail-safe class. The Plaintiff's initial proposed class definition was as follows: All persons or entities who (1) bought or leased a 2017-2018 GMC Acadia in Tennessee; (2) sought a repair from a GM dealer regarding the STP Issue (instances where the driver puts a 2017-2018 GMC Acadia vehicle in the Park position, the driver then tries to turn the ignition off, however a 'Shift to Park' message appears) during GM's 36 month/30,000 mile warranty period; and (3) were not provided with either a silicon-free replacement shifter assembly or silicon-free shifter control wire harness during the warranty period at no charge to the person or entity. In its prior Order, the Court rejected the Plaintiff's proposed class as a fail-safe class. A "fail-safe class" is one that "cannot be defined until the case is resolved on its merits" and is, therefore, impermissible. The Court stated that if the Plaintiff is unsuccessful in meeting her burden of proof, regarding her proposed class, the class does not exist and the class is not bound by the judgment in favor of the Defendant. This was not correct, Judge McCalla points out. Judge McCalla opines that the Plaintiff's proposed class is not a fail-safe class because all facts that must be determined to establish membership in her proposed class can be objectively determined without any decision on the merits of her case. First, Judge McCalla explains, whether an individual bought or leased a 2017-2018 GMC Acadia in Tennessee is an objective characteristic. Second, whether an individual sought a repair from a GM dealer regarding the shift to park ("STP") defect is an objective fact that can be determined using the Defendant's records. Finally, whether an owner or lessee received a silicon-free shifter repair or replacement is an objective criterion that can be determined using the Defendant's records. The Plaintiff's proposed class isolates an impacted population that will, in fact, be bound by the judgment of the Court following a merits determination of the issues in the instant case, Judge McCalla says. Such facts as will be required to prove liability include whether there was a defect and whether the Defendant's alleged failure to repair that defect or replace parts free of charge constituted a breach of warranty. The Plaintiff, therefore, proposed a proper, not a fail-safe, class. Pursuant to its prior Order, the Court will adopt the Plaintiff's proposed class as limited to initial purchasers and lessees. The Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration requests that the Court reconsider the class definition that it crafted in its Order Granting in Part Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification. The Defendant does not seek reconsideration of the Court's findings regarding Rule 23. In modifying its prior Order, the Court no longer adopts a "new" class definition, instead adopting the class definition that the Defendant has already opposed and briefed. The Court's prior Order, therefore, stands, excepting the portions that address the fail-safe class question and the class definition itself, which are modified by the instant Order. The Court modifies its prior Order Granting in Part Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification for the reasons set forth here, and in the fashion set forth here. The class definition is as follows: (1) Initial purchasers and lessees of new 'class vehicles,' 2017-18 GMC Acadias, who purchased or leased their vehicles in Tennessee; and who (2) sought a repair from a GM dealer regarding the STP Issue during the warranty period; and who (3) were not provided with either a silicon-free replacement shifter assembly or silicon-free shifter control wire harness at no charge. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Aug. 31, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/msd95f6k from PacerMonitor.com. GRAZIA ITALIAN: Faces FLSA Ismail Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D. Tex. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ROBIN V. ISMAIL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GRAZIA ITALIAN KITCHEN PEARLAND LLC d/b/a Grazia Italian Kitchen, Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-00286 (S.D. Tex., September 1, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay full minimum wages and tip credit violations pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed as a server at Grazia Italian Kitchen & Pizzeria in Pearland, Texas from April 2022 until approximately August 2023. Grazia Italian Kitchen Pearland LLC, doing business as Grazia Italian Kitchen, is a restaurant owner and operator located in Pearland, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Drew N. Herrmann, Esq. HERRMANN LAW, PLLC 801 Cherry St., Suite 2365 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Telephone: (817) 479-9229 Facsimile: (817) 840-5102 E-mail: drew@herrmannlaw.com GREENE COUNTY BANCORP: Oct. 11 Hearing on Final OK of Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Greene County Bancorp 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 final approval hearing for the settlement of the Broockmann class suit is scheduled on October 11, 2023. On April 26, 2022, Andrew Broockmann, a customer of The Bank of Greene County, filed a putative class action complaint against the Bank in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York. The complaint alleges that the Bank improperly assessed overdraft fees on debit-card transactions that were authorized on a positive account balance but settled on a negative balance. Mr. Broockmann, on behalf of the putative class, seeks compensatory damages, punitive damages, enjoinment of the conduct complained of, and costs and fees. The complaint is similar to complaints filed against other financial institutions pertaining to overdraft fees. The Bank denies that it improperly assessed overdraft fees or breached any agreement with Mr. Broockmann or with members of the putative class. On February 28, 2023, the parties entered into a settlement agreement which contemplates, among other things, that the Bank will (a) pay a cash payment of $1.15 million, (b) forgive, waive, and not collect an additional $64,500 in uncollected overdraft fees, and (c) cease collecting certain types of overdraft fees. On May 26, 2023, the Court preliminarily approved the class action settlement and set a final approval hearing for October 11, 2023. Greene County Bancorp, Inc. is a bank holding company based in New York. GRENVILLE CHRISTIAN: Settles Class Suit Over Boarding Students -------------------------------------------------------------- CNW Group of Yahoo! Finance reports that a settlement has been reached in the Grenville Christian College ("GCC") class action lawsuit between the Plaintiffs and the now defunct school's insurers. The Settlement must be Court approved before it is implemented and before Class Members can participate in it. The hearing date for Court approval is November 16, 2023. Class Members can review the Settlement and provide their comments to Settlement Class Counsel: McKenzie Lake Lawyers LLP, by October 31, 2023 for the Court's consideration at that hearing. The class action alleged that GCC was negligent and its staff failed to fulfill and/or were grossly negligent in fulfilling their fundamental obligations to its former boarding students between September 1973 and July 1997, and that this could cause those students harm, and that the Defendants are liable for those harms. These allegations were confirmed by both the Ontario Superior Court (in February 2020) and Ontario Court of Appeal (in April 2021). The Courts held that GCC had created an environment of control, intimidation and humiliation that fostered and inflicted enduring harms on its students. Sabrina Lombardi, of McKenzie Lake Lawyers explains: "The proposed Settlement intends to address the harms endured by the former boarding students of GCC and provide them some closure and support for healing. The financial compensation also serves a symbolic function by acknowledging those harms and validating Class Members experiences". If the Settlement is approved, then all Class Members will have an opportunity to make claim for payment. Class Members that want to participate in the settlement do not need to take any steps at this time. Another Notice will be issued if the Settlement is approved, and it will include all of the details on how to make a claim in the Settlement. Anyone that attended and boarded at GCC between September 1973 and July 1997 (excluding children or grandchildren of Charles Farnsworth and/or Alastair Haig and excluding those that previously opted-out of the lawsuit) is encouraged to visit: www.GCCSettlement.ca or call 1-877-786-0546 for more information about the proposed Settlement. For further information: Sabrina Lombardi, McKenzie Lake Lawyers LLP, 140 Fullarton Street, Suite 1800, London, ON N6A 5P2, Tel: (519) 667-2645, E-mail: gcc@mckenzielake.com. [GN] HARRY'S NURSES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Williams Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- CLAUDIA WILLIAMS, f/k/a CLAUDIA GAYLE, Plaintiff v. HARRY'S NURSES REGISTRY, INC.; and HARRY DORVILIER, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-06661 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 7, 2023) is a class action seeking to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Williams was employed by the Defendant as a nurse. HARRY'S NURSES REGISTRY, INC. operates as a provider of nursing care. The Company provides registered nurses, licensed practical nurses, home health aids, and live-ins. Harry's Nurses Registry was founded in 1991 and is based out of Jamaica, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan A. Bernstein, Esq. ISAACS BERNSTEIN, P.C. 2108 Yardley Road Yardley, PA 19067 Telephone: (917) 693-7245 Email: jb@lijblaw.com HEALTH CARE SERVICE: Investigation Over Data Breach Conducted ------------------------------------------------------------- ClassAction.org reports that anyone who received a notice stating that their information was compromised in a data breach affecting Health Care Service Corporation (HCSC). What's Going On? On August 21, 2023, Health Care Service Corporation filed a notice of a data breach with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. More than 190,000 individuals are reportedly affected by the breach, and now attorneys are investigating whether a class action lawsuit can be filed. How Could a Lawsuit Help? A class action lawsuit could help compensate data breach victims for any harm they've experienced as a result of the incident, including out-of-pocket expenses and time lost responding to the breach. What You Can Do If you got a letter about the Health Care Service Corporation data breach, fill out the form on this page. You may be able to help get a class action lawsuit started. Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a lawsuit can be filed against Health Care Service Corporation (HCSC) in light of a data breach reportedly affecting nearly 200,000 individuals. On August 21, 2023, HCSC filed a notice of a data breach with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services indicating that 192,231 individuals were affected by a "hacking/IT incident" involving a network server. It's now being investigated whether the health insurance company took proper steps to protect sensitive and private information and whether a class action lawsuit could be filed to help compensate data breach victims. What Information Was Affected? Little information is currently known about the Health Care Service Corporation data breach, including who may be affected, how the security incident occurred and what information may have been exposed. In general, however, only breaches involving protected health information are reported to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. That being said, if you received a notice about the breach via email or regular mail, you could help attorneys with their investigation by filling out the form on this page. How Could a Lawsuit Help? If a class action lawsuit can be filed against HCSC over the data breach, affected individuals may be able to recover money for any harm resulting from the incident. This could include compensation for time lost responding to the breach, related out-of-pocket expenses, loss of privacy, and more. What You Can Do Did you receive a letter stating that your information may have been compromised in the Health Care Service Corporation data breach? If so, fill out the form on this page on September 1, 2023 to help this investigation. You may be able to help get a class action lawsuit started. [GN] HOME SOLUTIONS: Moore Sues Over Unpaid Proper Compensations ----------------------------------------------------------- Benny R. Moore, individually and on behalf of all other Aggrieved Employees v. HOME SOLUTIONS MARKETING LLC, a Limited Liability Company, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 23VECV03846 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Sept. 5, 2023), is brought pursuant to the California Labor Code as a result of the Defendants failure to pay the Plaintiff proper compensations. The Defendants failure to provide employment records; failure to pay overtime and double time; failure to provide rest and meal periods; failure to pay minimum wage; failure to keep accurate payroll records and provide itemized wage statements; failure to pay reporting time wages in violation of California Code of Regulations, Title 8; failure to pay split shift wages in violation of California Code of Regulations; failure to pay all wages earned on time; failure to pay all wages earned upon discharge or resignation; failure to reimburse necessary, business-related expenses; failure to provide notice of paid sick time and accrual; employers, and individuals acting on behalf of employers, violating or causing to be violated a section of the Labor Code or any Wage Order in violation of the Labor Code and the applicable Wage Orders, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from June 17, 2022 until February 17, 2023. HOME SOLUTIONS MARKETING LLC is a Limited Liability Company, licensed to do business and actually doing business in the State of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq. Diana Zadykyan, Esq. HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN LAWYERS, APC 801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 970 Glendale, CA 91203 Phone: 1-818-696-2306 Facsimile: 1-818-696-2307 Email: haig@hbklawyers.com diana@hbklawyers.com HOMETRUST MORTGAGE: Clients Get Free Disbursement From Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jacob Willeford of The U.S. Sun reports that clients who worked with Hometrust Mortgage during or before 2022 might be able to get a free $400 disbursement. The loan services company reportedly suffered a data breach in July of last year and failed to prevent some customer information from leaking, per the settlement. Names, Social Security numbers, and various contact information about clients were compromised during the hack. Those who had data breached can qualify for the $400 if they file a claim for reimbursement. There's also no limit to how much data was stolen as a prerequisite for payment, either. That means any amount of data stolen, no matter how small, would make a customer eligible for up to $400. Additionally, clients with Hometrust Mortgage who suffered any lost time from the data breach could get refunded at a rate of $40 per hour. A "$50 cash payment if you didn't experience economic losses or lost time" was also listed as an option. Clients who lost data and fill out the application will supposedly be awarded "one year of free credit monitoring and identity restoration services from Equifax," per Life Hacker. Eligible Hometrust Mortgage customers should act fast to take advantage of the financial reimbursement. The deadline to submit a claim is on September 11. As The U.S. Sun previously reported, some travelers who could be awarded extra cash or benefits from a class-action settlement with a prominent airline company have a fast-approaching deadline. Delta Airlines reached a settlement after it was accused of not refunding passengers who had tickets canceled during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic between 2020 and 2021. The airline company initially offered travel credit to some customers, but a clause in its ticket contracts required that a cash option be offered as well, per Top Class Actions. Eligible Delta customers would include those customers who purchased trips between March 1, 2020, and April 20, 2021, and were awarded a company credit for a non-refundable ticket when they requested a cash refund instead. An additional qualification included those applicants having unused or partially used credits as of January 12, 2023. To obtain payment, a claim form must be submitted by October 5, 2023. Delta flyers who were displaced can still choose to get the payment in cash or as a flying credit. Cash payments will refund Skymiles members for any unused credit. Credit card payments with the company will also add an interest credit of 7 percent to any unused ticket credit. [GN] HONEST COMPANY: Consolidated Securities Suit Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------- The Honest Company, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2023, that it is facing a consolidated class action complaint filed on February 21, 2022. A putative class action complaint alleging federal securities law violations by the company, certain current officers and directors, and certain underwriters in connection with the company's IPO was filed by Stephen Gambino on October 8, 2021 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. This and other related complaints have been transferred to the same court and a Lead Plaintiff has been appointed in the matter, and a putative consolidated class action complaint was filed by the Lead Plaintiff on February 21, 2022. The Honest Company, Inc. is a digitally-native consumer products company with products spanning baby care, beauty, personal care, wellness and household care, selling its products through digital and retail sales channels in the following product categories namely diapers and wipes, skin and personal care, and household and wellness. HONEST COMPANY: Sida and Yerby Putative Class Suit Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------------- The Honest Company, 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 10, 2022, Catrice Sida and Kris Yerby filed a putative class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California alleging violations of California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, Consumers Legal Remedies Act, breach of warranty, and unjust enrichment related to plant-based claims on certain of the company's wipes products and seeking declaratory relief, injunctive relief, monetary damages, punitive damages and statutory penalties, and attorneys' fees and costs. The company filed its motion to dismiss on October 17, 2022. On December 6, 2022, the company's motion to dismiss was denied. The company filed a motion to stay on July 25, 2023 pending the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' review of the Central District of California's decision in "Whiteside v. Kimberly-Clark Corp.," No. 5:22-cv-1988 JGB (SPx), 2023 WL 4328175 (June 1, 2023, C.D. Cal.) The Honest Company, Inc. is a digitally-native consumer products company with products spanning baby care, beauty, personal care, wellness and household care, selling its products through digital and retail sales channels in the following product categories namely diapers and wipes, skin and personal care, and household and wellness. I-HEALTH INC: Warren Sues Over Mislabeled Probiotic Products ------------------------------------------------------------ ETHEL WARREN; and CHRISTIAN CAMPOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. I-HEALTH, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:23-at-00895 (E.D. Cal., Sept. 7, 2023) alleges that the Defendant sells, market and distribute a mislabeled Culturelle Ultimate Balance for Antibiotics products. According to the complaint, the Defendant's representations that the Products "rebuild bacterial balance lost to antibiotic use" is false, misleading, and reasonably likely to deceive the public. The Defendant's prominent and systematic mislabeling of the Products and its false and deceptive advertising form a pattern of unlawful and unfair business practices that harm the public and, if unstopped, could lead to substantial societal harm. When Defendant's representations are viewed in their totality, they are either explicitly or implicitly claiming to mitigate or prevent diseases. These representations mislead consumers into believing they can use the Products to self-diagnose and treat without the supervision of a licensed practitioner, says the suit. As a result of Defendant's alleged deceptive marketing, the Plaintiffs and other consumers suffered injury in fact and lost money or property. I-HEALTH, INC. manufactures pharmaceutical products. The Company offers drugs, over-the-counter medicines, and nutritional supplements. i-Health serves customers in the State of Connecticut. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq. Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Las Olas, Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 Email: cardoso@kolawyers.com ostrow@kolawyers.com - and - Nick Suciu III, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 6905 Telegraph Rd., Suite 115 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301 Telephone: (313) 303-3472 Email: nsuciu@milberg.com - and - J. Hunter Bryson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 405 E 50th Street New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (202) 640-1167 Email: hbryson@milberg.com INSTANT CHECKMATE: Settles Privacy Class Suit for $10M ------------------------------------------------------ Scott Holland of Cook County Record reports that online background check providers, including Instant Checkmate, are in line to pay $10 million to settle class action claims alleging the companies violated privacy rights. In an Aug. 30 filing in Chicago, attorneys Kevin Tucker and Kevin Abramowicz, of East End Trial Group, of Pittsburgh; joined by lawyers from Beaumont Costales, of Chicago; Edelson PC, of Chicago and San Francisco; and Bursor & Fisher, of New York; asked U.S. District Judge Manish Shah to approve the deal on behalf of 13 named plaintiffs suing Instant Checkmate, Truthfinder, Intelius, Control Group Media Company and PeopleConnect. According to the motion, the common claims are the nonconsensual use of plaintiffs' identities to advertise "people-search websites," falling under right of publicity laws in Alabama, California, Illinois, Indiana, Nevada, Ohio and South Dakota. The terms of the deal call for creating seven state-specific funds collectively worth $10.1 million, with each fund's amount being "based on a percentage of the available statutory damages under each state's right of publicity law." Class members will have to submit claims for approval, showing a search of their name led to one of the defendant websites making a subscription sale. Presuming a claim rate of between 15 and 25 percent, approved claimants "are reasonably expected to receive settlement payment amounts as follows: Alabama, $577 to $960; California, $82 to $137; Illinois, $635 to $1,058; Indiana, $111 to $185; Nevada, $82 to $137; Ohio, $286 to $477; and South Dakota, $107 to $178." Different recovery is available to people whose identities are found in the defendants' search engine optimization directories, but who are not linked to a subscription purchase. Those people would fall under a multistate injunction class, with the websites agreeing to stop displaying those claimants' names on any page including a subscription offer. Those claimants, who do not have to submit for inclusion in the injunction class, also are not relinquishing their ability to pursue future monetary damages claims connected with allegations of nonconsensual identity use. According to the motion, class counsel will seek up to 35% of the money remaining after administrative expenses and service awards, which also will be prorated based on where each class representative lives. The motion describes each service award as "marginally more" than what other class members would obtain and estimates each state class includes "hundreds or thousands of members." The underlying legal action stretches back to 2019. Now spanning several states, the first lawsuit originated in Cook County Circuit Court, where named plaintiffs Robert Fischer and Stephanie Lukis sued Instant Checkmate. Lukis also sued Whitepages.com on the same allegations. The companies removed the complaint to federal court where they argued unsuccessfully for dismissal, including by contending their advertisements are protected free speech and that their background-check databases are works of literature. The defendant websites operate in a similar manner: Users input a first and last name, and the site scours a database for matches. Previews of potential matches are shown with identifying information such as age and city of residence. Users then are invited to buy a "full report" on the individual or subscribe to a monthly service for access to multiple background reports. In advertisements for their services, both websites feature Lukis' and Fischer's preview screens, though neither sought consent from the plaintiffs. The Whitepages.com ad includes Lukis’ first and last name, middle initial, age range, a phone number and a list of addresses. The Instant Checkmate ads included Lukis' and Fischer's first and last names, middle initials, exact ages, cities of residence, lists of former cities of residence and lists of possible relatives. [GN] INSURANCE CORP: MLT Aikins Attorneys Discuss Ruling in Privacy Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Kristel Kriel, Jason Mohrbutter, K.C., Lynsey Gaudin, Cael Hibbert of MLT Aikins, disclosed that the recent Court of Appeal decision, ICBC v. Ari, has generated widespread interest and debate amongst the privacy and class action community. This significant decision reinforces the importance of stringent data protection, the heavy onus on employers to prevent their employees from wrongly accessing and using confidential information of their customers and the potential for employer vicarious liability, even in cases where employees have acted criminally. Background In ICBC v. Ari, an employee unlawfully accessed personal information of ICBC customers, which was then provided to a criminal organization. This resulted in a series of crimes targeting the affected customers. Despite having workplace privacy policies in place, ICBC was found vicariously liable for its employee's actions. At its core, the case posed questions about the nature of privacy, the extent of vicarious liability and the potential for aggregate damages in a class action setting. Privacy Act liability Central to this case is the BC Privacy Act, which establishes that violating another person's privacy, intentionally and without rightful claim, is an offence regardless of whether actual damage occurs. The court found that: The Act requires a nuanced examination of the situation, looking at the context, relationships, and the degree of expected privacy. Customers had a valid expectation that their information would be used only for legitimate ICBC purposes. The information accessed in this case was deemed private under the Privacy Act. Furthermore, the case examined the common law tort of intrusion upon seclusion, an Ontario-based precedent. To establish liability under this tort, intentional or reckless actions leading to a deliberate invasion of privacy must be proven. Despite ICBC's assertion that this precedent should apply, the court did not deem it determinative in this particular case. Vicarious liability An important consideration in the case was ICBC's vicarious liability. It is a well-established principle that employers can be held liable if there's a sufficient connection between the employee's wrongful act and the conduct authorized by the employer. This holds true even where the employee's wrongful conduct is criminal and is in specific defiance of the employer's policies. The court confirmed that a policy rationale behind vicarious liability is explicitly based on shifting losses to employers where the injured party would most likely otherwise not be able to collect on a remedy. This is considered "fair" because "it is the employer who put the enterprise into the community, and it is the employer who is best positioned to absorb any losses, whether through insurance, higher prices or otherwise." The reality of this policy is also considered to be a deterrent to the employer because its harshness encourages employers to exercise "imaginative and efficient administration and supervision" to "reduce the risk that the employer has introduced." Even in cases where "it may be difficult to guard against a determined employee's deliberate and secretive abuse . . . vicarious liability serves as an important social purpose in encouraging employers to guard against" such actions. Here, inherent to the nature of ICBC's business is collecting and storing personal data. By giving the employee unrestricted access to this data, ICBC provided the means for potential abuse. It was determined in this case that ICBC was vicariously liable for the employee's actions. Class action and general damages The court's decision to award general damages on a class-wide aggregate basis was a contentious point. ICBC took issue with this, asserting that damages should and could only be proven on an individual basis. Aggregate damages are available in class proceedings only where class-wide damages can be reasonably determined without proof by individual class members. Additionally, section 1 of the Privacy Act requires the context in which the act or conduct occurs to be considered along with the individual circumstances of the person claiming the breach. However, the court found it was acceptable to pursue damages from the perspective of the "lowest common denominator," meaning a value could be determined for the whole of the class based on the class member who experienced the least amount of damage due to the privacy breach. This amount would be available to all class members. Those who experienced more significant damages could also seek further damages during the individual issues phase that follows the common issues trial. Implications for employers Employers should be alert to the broader implications of this judgment. With strict rules in place, an organization can still face vicarious liability if an employee's unlawful actions are linked to their job duties. For companies looking to strengthen their defenses: Limit data accessibility: Ensure only essential staff members have access to sensitive information. Maintain transparency: Employ an "access register" that records all instances of data access. Stay up to date: Regularly refresh and revise privacy guidelines to ensure they're in line with provincial standards. By understanding the nuances of both vicarious liability and class action implications, employers can position themselves more securely in an ever-evolving legal landscape. [GN] J.D.B MARKET: Tepale Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Grocery Workers --------------------------------------------------------------- MIGUEL TEPALE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. J.D.B MARKET CORP., GOURMET CITY WOOD RIDGE INC., JOHN BURDO, and RAFAEL DIVINO, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-07755 (S.D.N.Y., August 31, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide wage notices, failure to provide accurate wage statements, failure to pay timely wages, and failure to pay spread-of-hours compensation. The Plaintiff worked as a cook at the Defendants' grocery store located at 40 Rosie Square Wood-Ridge, New Jersey from in or around September 2020 until April 2021. J.D.B Market Corp. is a grocery store owner and operator, with its principal place of business at 40 Rosie Square Wood-Ridge, New Jersey. Gourmet City Wood Ridge Inc. is a grocery store owner and operator, with its principal place of business at 40 Rosie Square Wood-Ridge, New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq. Jason Mizrahi, Esq. LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 792-0046 E-mail: Joshua@levinepstein.com JHDHA INC: Ruiz Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------- Enrique Ruiz, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. JHDHA, Inc., Wardorp Foods, Inc., Angel's Spot Inc., and Angel Amigon, Case No. 1:23-cv-07896 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 6, 2023), is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated and statutory damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and violations of Articles 6 and 19 of the New York State Labor Law ("NYLL") and their supporting New York State Department of Labor regulations and the NYLL's Wage Theft Prevention Act ("WTPA"). The Plaintiff was required to work in excess of 40 hours per week, but never received an overtime premium of one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for those hours. No notification, either in the form of posted notices, or other means, was ever given to Plaintiff regarding wages are required under the FLSA or NYLL. the Defendants did not provide Plaintiff a statement of wages, as required by NYLL. the Defendants did not give any notice to Plaintiff of his rate of pay, employer's regular pay day, and such other information as required by NYLL. The Defendant's failure to provide accurate wage notices and accurate wage statements denied Plaintiff their statutory right to receive true and accurate information about the nature of their employment and related compensation policies, says the complaint. The Plaintiff Ruiz was employed as a general worker at Defendants' restaurant. The Defendants own, operate and/or control the restaurant, known as "Paul's Da Burger Joint" located in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq. Jason Mizrahi, Esq. LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East, 42nd Street, Suite 4700 New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 792-0046 Email: Joshua@levinepstein.com JUST PLAY LLC: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Just Play, LLC. The case is styled as Kevin Yan Luis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Just Play, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-07904-MKV (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 6, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Just Play -- https://justplayproducts.com/ -- is a passionate toy company and global leader across a broad range of children's consumer goods including figures, playsets, dolls, plush, role-play and dress-up.[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 KIMBA INDUSTRIES: Underpays Construction Laborers, Reyes Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- RAMON REYES, LUIS ESCOBAR, ALEX MORALES, and ALEX SANTAMARIA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. KIMBA INDUSTRIES INC. and BRIAN DODD, Defendants, Case No. 0:23-cv-61689 (S.D. Fla., August 31, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages and overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as non-exempted, full-time construction laborers approximately between June 26, 2023, and July 20, 2023. Kimba Industries Inc. is a construction and remodeling company doing business in Florida. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP: Flushable Wipes Class Suit Partially Certified ------------------------------------------------------------------- Akshay Kulkarni of CBC News reports that the B.C. Supreme Court has partially certified a class-action lawsuit against Kimberly-Clark Corporation, the maker of Kleenex, after the company produced flushable wipes that were contaminated with bacteria. The suit was brought forward by Linda Bowman, a British Columbia resident who purchased Cottonelle wipes at Costco on July 17, 2020. She allegedly experienced exacerbated body pain and developed inflamed skin follicles and sores from using the wipes. According to the court decision released on Aug. 28, that may have been due to the wipes being contaminated with the bacteria Pluralibacter gergoviae, which Kimberly-Clark maintained was "intermittent and infrequent" in a certain production line. The product was subsequently recalled, and some customers were refunded. Bowman, however, argued the manufacturing giant did not do enough to compensate those who bought the contaminated wipes, and its recall notice was not circulated widely enough. In the decision, Justice Sharon Matthews agreed that those who suffered an injury from using the wipes may be compensated from a successful class-action lawsuit. "Kimberly-Clark has not provided any evidence of the quantum of compensation provided to personal injury claimants, the method by which they obtained the compensation, or how appropriate compensation was determined," the judgment reads. "I am not satisfied that the compensation provided has been adequate because there is simply no evidence about it." What a blow! Kleenex pulling out of Canadian consumer market VIDEO How do Vancouverites feel about Kleenex leaving Canada? Matthews, however, did not agree with all of the plaintiff's claims, including that the recall program was not well circulated and that Kimberly-Clark misled customers who suffered economic consequences. In an emailed statement to CBC News, a spokesperson for Kimberly-Clark said the company was "disappointed" in the decision but plans to "vigorously defend" the Cottonnelle brand in court. "We appreciate that the Court significantly narrowed the scope of the case and noted that Kimberly-Clark 'takes its responsibilities as a manufacturer seriously' and that the company should be 'recognized and lauded' for its efforts," the spokesperson wrote. "Kimberly-Clark and its Cottonelle brand are deeply committed to the safety and quality of our products, and the well-being of the consumers who use them is a priority to us." Bacteria could cause serious infection According to Dr. Abdu Sharkawy, who provided a deposition, the bacteria P. gergoviae could cause serious infections, "including life-threatening infections in persons with compromised immune systems." Kimberly-Clark said the bacteria had been detected in some wipes due to a faulty sanitization cabinet in its production facility. The company, through notices from Health Canada and an FAQ on its website, issued a recall on all Cottonelle flushable wipes produced on that line between Feb. 7 and Sept. 14, 2020. In total, the company recalled more than 1.76 million packages of the wipes from Canada alone, and issued more than $214,000 in refunds. "As of June 23, 2022 ... Kimberly-Clark had received 149 claims from Canadian consumers alleging personal injury related to the use of recalled lots, and that all but eight claims had been resolved," the court's decision said. Bowman argued that a class-action lawsuit was the only way for customers who may have bought the contaminated wipes to access fair compensation and "access to justice." Judge certifies class action lawsuit against B.C. health authority that hired fake nurse B.C.-led lawsuit nets $150M proposed settlement with Purdue Pharma over opioid harms Kimberly-Clark argued Bowman's claims were too broad, and that too few of the contaminated wipes may have been bought by consumers for the class action to proceed. Matthews agreed with Bowman, in part, saying even those who may have received compensation from the company may be entitled to access the benefits provided by a class-action lawsuit — such as making the costs of a lawsuit more economical and having multiple claims heard in a single setting. The judge asked the plaintiff, Bowman, to come back to her with amendments, clarifying which personal injury claims would be heard in court. Neither Bowman's nor Kimberly-Clark's assertions have been proven in court. A class-action certification demonstrates there is a group that may benefit from the case going before a judge. [GN] KIRIN TRANSPORTATION: Filing of Proposed Pretrial Order Due Nov. 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as WANG et al v. KIRIN TRANSPORTATION INC., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-03254 (E.D.N.Y., Filed June 8, 2021), the Hon. Judge Taryn A. Merkl entered an order that the deadline to file a joint proposed pretrial order is Nov. 10, 2023, in the absence of any dispositive motions. -- A telephonic status conference will be held on Nov. 1, 2023, at 10:45 a.m. before Magistrate Judge Taryn A. Merkl. -- The parties are directed to call the toll-free number (877) 336- 1839. The access code is 3914302. -- The parties shall dial in five minutes before the scheduled conference. The suit alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). KNIGHT HAWK: Seeks More Time to File Reply on Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as TOBY DYE, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. KNIGHT HAWK COAL, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-01329-DWD (S.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge entered an order granting their motion and entered an order extending the time for Defendants to file their response to Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification, to be filed on or before September 18, 2023, and for such further relief as the Court deems just and proper under the circumstances. The Plaintiff filed his Motion for Conditional Certification on August 7, 2023. Under the Local Rules of this Court, for all motions other than to remand, dismiss, for judgment on the pleadings, for summary judgment, to suppress, or any post-judgment motion, the non-moving party's response is due fourteen days after the service of the motion. Knight Hawk provides coal mining services. The Company produces and delivers chlorine coal. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 18, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3L3x33K at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: A. Courtney Cox, Esq. Benjamin R. Wesselschmidt, Esq. SANDBERG PHOENIX & von GONTARD P.C. 600 Washington Ave. - 15th Floor St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 231-3332 Facsimile: (314) 241-7604 E-mail: ccox@sandbergphoenix.com bwesselschmidt@sandbergphoenix.com - and - Edward J. Heller, Esq. REED, HELLER & CANNELL, LLC 1100 Walnut St. Murphysboro, IL 62966 Telephone: (618) 687-2376 Facsimile: (618) 684-5554 E-mail: rhc@rhc.legal KULKEA LLC: Castro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kulkea, LLC. The case is styled as Felix Castro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Kulkea, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-07850-KPF (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 5, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Kulkea -- https://www.kulkea.com/ -- is a wholesale company that offers ski bags, OTRmost cycling, backpacks, biking, and travel packs.[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 LABOR SOURCE: Parties Must Submit Joint Class Cert Report & Plan ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Speight v. Labor Source, LLC, Case No. 4:21-cv-00112 (E.D.N.C., Filed Aug. 12, 2021), the Hon. Judge Louise Wood Flanagan entered an order directing the parties, within 14 days of entry of the order, to provide a joint report and plan informing the court whether discovery on class certification has been completed, as required by section A of the Court's May 19, 2022, order, and proposing deadlines for filing motions for class certification and responses. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Labor Source is a staffing company.[CC] LABOR SOURCE: Plaintiffs Seek Relief from July 12, 2023 Order ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BILLY SPEIGHT, JASON HAGENS, SCOTTIE WILLIAMS, TANGELA FLANAGAN, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LABOR SOURCE, LLC, Case No. 4:21-cv-00112-FL (E.D.N.C.), the Plaintiffs file a motion for relief from the Court's July 12, 2023 partial denial of Plaintiff Billy Speight's Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 60(b)(1). Specifically, the Plaintiffs seek leave to file a new amended complaint to add the following parties as Defendants: (1) BluSky Restoration Contractors, LLC; (2) BMS Cat, LLC; (3) Interstate Restoration LLC d/b/a First OnSite Restoration; (4) DSI Holdings Corporation d/b/a Service Master DSI Corporation; And (5) Servproof Greater Birmingham, Inc. In denying the Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to add New Defendants, the Court applied a two-year statute of limitations to Plaintiffs' Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") claims, even though Plaintiffs pleaded a three-year statute of limitations ("SOL") for willful violations. In support of this Motion, Plaintiffs submit the accompanying memorandum of points and authorities, attorney's declaration, and proposed order. Labor Source is a temporary and full-time staffing agency. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Aug. 23, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LgnoH3 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Eugene Zinovyev, Esq. John J. Nestico, Esq. Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq. Ori Edelstein, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP 6000 Fairview Road, Suite 1200 Charlotte, NC 28210 Telephone: (510) 740-2946 Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 E-mail: jnestico@schneiderwallace.com oedelstein@schneiderwallace.com ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com ezinovyev@schneiderwallace.com The Defendant is represented by: Kevin S. Joyner, Esq. Justin M. Dean, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART P.C. 8529 Six Forks Road, Forum IV, Suite 600 Raleigh, NC 27615 Telephone: (919) 787-9700 Facsimile: (919) 783-9412 E-mail: kevin.joyner@ogletree.com justin.dean@ogletree.com LABORATORY CORPORATION: Howard Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Connie Howard, Yadira Yazmin Hernandez, and Deborah Reynolds, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA, LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS, and META PLATFORMS, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-02773 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina on Sept. 5, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-00758-UA-JEP to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions. Labcorp -- https://www.labcorp.com/ -- provides lab diagnostic information to help doctors, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, researchers & patients make clear & confident decision.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael W. Sobol, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: 415.956.1000 Email: msobol@lchb.com - and - Doug I. Cuthbertson, Esq. Margaret J. Mattes, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10013 Phone: 212.355.9500 Email: dcuthbertson@lchb.com mmattes@lchb.com - and - Brian Levin, Esq. LEVIN LAW, P.A. 2665 South Bayshore Drive, PH2B Miami, FL 33133 Phone: 305.539.0593 Email: brian@levinlawpa.com - and - Matthew R. Wilson, Esq. MEYER WILSON, P.A. 305 W. Nationwide Blvd Columbus, Ohio 43215 Phone: 614.224.6000 Email: mwilson@meyerwilson.com The Defendant is represented by: Allison M. Holt-Ryan, Esq. Adam Cooke, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 555 Thirteenth Street, NW Washington, DC 20004 Phone: (202) 637-5872 Fax: (202) 637-5910 Email: allison.holt-ryan@hoganlovells.com adam.a.cooke@hoganlovells.com - and - Vassiliki Iliadis, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 3 Embarcadero Center, Suite 1500 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (310) 374-2300 Email: vassi.iliadis@hoganlovells.com - and - Lauren R Goldman, Esq. Darcy Caitlyn Harris, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166-0193 Phone: (212) 351-4000 Email: lgoldman@gibsondunn.com dharris@gibsondunn.com - and - Abigail Augus Barrera, Esq. Elizabeth Katharine Mccloskey, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN AND CRUTCHER LLP 555 Mission Street, Suite 3000 San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 393-8200 Email: abarrera@gibsondunn.com EMcCloskey@gibsondunn.com LASERSHIP INC: Deadlines to Amend Pleadings Held in Abeyance ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL WEST, ROMAINE CLARKE, RYON MORGAN, and SAADALA ABOULESSAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. LASERSHIP, INC., SO SURE TRANSPORTS INC., RICHARD GRACE AND RICHARD LLC, and UNKNOWN SUBCONTRACTOR COMPANIES A-Z, Case No. 1:21-cv-05382-LTS-SLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Sarah L. Cave entered an order as follows: 1. The telephone conference scheduled for August 22, 2023, is cancelled. 2. The Court continues to hold in abeyance the deadlines to amend any pleadings, join other parties, and file motions, including Defendant Lasership Inc.'s anticipated motion for judgment on the pleadings and Plaintiffs' anticipated motions for conditional collective and class certification LaserShip is a regional last-mile delivery company that services the Eastern and Midwest United States. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 21, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45RkLU8 at no extra charge.[CC] LENOVO INC: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Extended to Feb. 5, 2024 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW AXELROD and ELIOT BURK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 4:21-cv-06770-JSW (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jeffrey S. White entered an order granting sixth stipulation to extend class certification deadlines modified: 1. The Plaintiffs' deadline to file their motion for class certification and to serve expert disclosures and reports shall be February 5, 2024. 2. The Plaintiffs' deadline to produce experts for deposition shall be March 25, 2023. 3. The Defendant's deadline to file its opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and to serve expert disclosures and reports shall be May 20, 2024. 4. The Defendant's deadline to produce experts for deposition shall be July 1, 2024. 5. The Plaintiffs' deadline to file their reply re motion for class certification shall be August 5, 2024. 6. The hearing on the motion for class certification shall be on September 20, 2024. Lenovo operates as a technology engineering firm. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 22, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3RdQASL at no extra charge.[CC] LIGHTFIRE PARTNERS: Court Tosses Parties' Request to Stay Discovery ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Aley v. Lightfire Partners, LLC, Case No. 5:22-cv-00330 (N.D.N.Y., Filed April 7, 2022), the Hon. Judge Therese Wiley Dancks entered an order denying the parties' request to stay discovery while they explore settlement. However, the remaining unexpired deadlines are extended as follows: -- The Defendant's expert disclosure due: Oct. 11, 2023 -- Rebuttal due: Oct. 26, 2023 -- Class Certification Motion to be Dec. 11, 2023 filed by: -- All Discovery due: Dec. 21, 2023 -- Discovery Motions due: Jan. 4, 2024 -- Dispositive Motions to be filed by: Feb. 12, 2024 -- The Plaintiff shall file a status Sept. 11, 2023 report by: The nature of suit states restrictions of use of telephone equipment. Lightfire is a full-service, business-to-consumer marketing, advertising and branding firm.[CC] LOBO'S ENERGY: Rhea Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- William Rhea, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lobo's Energy Services, LLC, Case No. 7:23-cv-00141 (W.D. Tex., Sept. 6, 2023), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages. The Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and the Class Members in accordance with the FLSA. Specifically, Plaintiff and the Class Members were paid as independent contractors instead of as employees. As a result, Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and the Class Members time and one half their regular rate of pay for hours worked in a workweek in excess of forty hours, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a Welder. The Defendant is a full-service construction contractor, focused on serving the oil and gas industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chris R. Miltenberger, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRIS R. MILTENBERGER, PLLC 1360 N. White Chapel, Suite 200 Southlake, TX 76092 Phone: 817-416-5060 Fax: 817-416-5062 Email: chris@crmlawpractice.com LOUIS DREYFUS: Court Sets Nov. 20 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline --------------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK IN RE: TERM COMMODITIES COTTON FUTURES LITIGATION This Document Relates To: All Actions: Master Docket No. 12-cv-5126 (ALC) (JW) NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION TO: All persons, corporations and other legal entities that (a) purchased between March 30 and May 6, 2011 a May 2011 ICE Cotton No. 2 futures contract in order to liquidate a short position in such contract, including short positions held as part of spread positions; or (b) contracted to purchase cotton on call based on the May 2011 Contract price, and set the price on this contract between March 30 and May 6; or (c) purchased between June 7 and July 7, 2011, a July 2011 ICE Cotton No. 2 futures contract in order to liquidate a short position therein, including short positions held as part of spread positions; or (d) contracted to purchase cotton on call based on the July 2011 Contract price, and set the price on this contract between June 7 and July 7, 2011. PLEASE READ THIS ENTIRE NOTICE CAREFULLY. A UNITED STATES FEDERAL COURT AUTHORIZED THIS NOTICE. YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROCEEDINGS IN THIS CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT. YOU ARE NOT BEING SUED, AND YOU MAY HAVE A RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN ANY POTENTIAL RECOVERY IN THIS ONGOING LAWSUIT. THIS IS NOT NOTICE OF A SETTLEMENT If you are a clearing firm, futures commission merchant, brokerage firm or trustee through which (a) May 2011 ICE Cotton No. 2 futures contracts traded between March 30 and May 6, 2011 (inclusive) or (b) July 2011 ICE Cotton No. 2 futures contracts traded between June 7 and July 7, 2011 (inclusive), then you should forward this Notice to your customers or provide the name(s) and last known address(es) of such customers or beneficiaries to the Notice Administrator at the address listed below within 14 days of receiving this Notice. Please preserve your records or your clients' records of transactions in May and July 2011 ICE Cotton No. 2 futures contracts as well as in cotton on call contracts in respect of May and July 2011 ICE Cotton No. 2 futures contracts during the time periods specified at the start of this paragraph. Similarly, if you are an ICE certified cotton warehouse or other cotton warehouse that operated during March 30-July 7, 2011, you should forward this Notice to your customers during that time period who stored cotton at your warehouse or provide the name(s) and last known address(es) of such customers to the Notice Administrator at the address listed below within 14 days of receiving this Notice. **** You could be affected by and may have a right to participate in any potential recovery in this class action lawsuit alleging claims against Louis Dreyfus Company B.V. (formerly known as Louis Dreyfus Commodities B.V.); Louis Dreyfus Company Cotton LLC (a/k/a Allenberg Cotton Company, formerly known as Louis Dreyfus Commodities Cotton LLC); Louis Dreyfus Company Holding Inc. (formerly known as LDC Holding Inc.); Term Commodities, Inc.; Louis Dreyfus Company LLC (formerly known as Louis Dreyfus Commodities LLC); and Joseph Nicosia (collectively, "Defendants") for alleged manipulation of the prices of May and July 2011 ICE Cotton No. 2 futures contracts and cotton on call contracts between March 30 and May 6, 2011 (inclusive) and June 7 and July 7, 2011 (inclusive). WHAT IS A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT? A class action is a lawsuit in which one or more representative plaintiffs (in this case, Mark Allen) bring a lawsuit on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated persons (i.e., a class) who have similar claims against the defendants. The representative plaintiff, the court, and counsel appointed by the court to represent the class have a responsibility to make sure that the interests of class members are adequately represented. Importantly, class members are NOT individually responsible for attorneys' fees or litigation expenses. In a class action, attorneys' fees and litigation expenses are paid from any judgment award or any settlement fund that may be created for the benefit of the Class and any such fees or expenses must be approved by the Court. If there is no judgment award or settlement fund, the attorneys do not get paid. WHAT IS THE NAME OF THE LAWSUIT? The lawsuit is titled In re Term Commodities Cotton Futures Litig., Case No. 12-cv-5126, and is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York before the Honorable Andrew L. Carter, Jr. On February 17, 2022, the Court issued a decision finding that this lawsuit could proceed as a class action on behalf of a group of people and entities (the "Class," defined below) that might include you. A copy of the Court's February 17 decision certifying the Class (and other documents from the lawsuit such as the complaint and prior decisions issued by the Court) are available for review on the following website that has been created for this case: www.2011cottonfuturesclassaction.com WHAT IS THIS CASE ABOUT? The Plaintiffs in this lawsuit seek recovery from Defendants on behalf of the Class of persons and entities that traded the May and July 2011 ICE Cotton No. 2 futures contracts and cotton on call contracts during the Class Period, between March 30 and May 6, 2011 (inclusive) and June 7 and July 7, 2011 (inclusive). Plaintiffs assert claims against Defendants under the Commodity Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. §1 et seq. ("CEA"), and the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2, et seq. ("Sherman Act"). Plaintiffs allege Defendants engaged in substantial manipulative conduct, including making large late purchases of long cotton futures positions, and seeking to take large deliveries of cotton in satisfaction of those long positions all in the face of a known market congestion. Plaintiffs further allege that Defendants uneconomically withheld liquidating orders and uneconomically refused to buy back cotton they had previously sold despite the alleged availability of favorable prices, and avoided and delayed purchasing physical cotton in the cash market that was cheaper than futures market cotton. As a result of Defendants' conduct, Plaintiffs allege that May and July 2011 ICE Cotton No. 2 futures contract prices increased to, and Class members paid, artificially high prices to liquidate their short positions in such futures contracts, and/or paid artificially high prices pursuant to their cotton on call contracts. After the May and July 2011 contracts expired, the InterContinental Exchange ("ICE"), which regulates the cotton futures trading at issue here, hired a cotton market participant who had warned ICE of distorted prices and potentially unlawful behavior in the cotton market in April 2011. Plaintiffs also allege Defendants were positioned to profit from the alleged increases in prices and did profit by as much as $185 million. Defendants deny all of Plaintiffs' allegations and deny that Defendants violated any laws or engaged in any wrongdoing. Defendants contend that high cotton prices in 2011 resulted from global supply and demand forces, including supply shortages caused by adverse weather events and increased demand as the 2008 recession subsided. Defendants further contend that their long positions in cotton futures were bona fide hedges against their contractual obligations to deliver cotton, and that their positions were monitored by the ICE. Defendants also contend that the ICE and Commodity Futures Trading Commission ("CFTC") investigated Plaintiffs' allegations of manipulation and did not make any findings that Defendants manipulated the prices of the May or July 2011 ICE Cotton No. 2 futures contracts. Defendants intend to assert these and other defenses against Plaintiffs' claims at trial. Plaintiffs dispute all of Defendants' defenses. The Court has not ruled on the merits of the claims against, or the defenses asserted by, Defendants. By establishing the Class and approving the issuance of this Notice, the Court has not found that Defendants did or did not commit the violations that Plaintiffs allege or that the Class will recover any amount. Defendants intend to vigorously defend against Plaintiffs' claims at trial. HISTORY OF THE LITIGATION This Action was filed in June 2012 by Mark Allen. In September 2012, Plaintiffs amended their complaint to include Stuart Satullo as a Class representative. On December 20, 2013, the Court issued a Memorandum & Order granting in part and denying in part Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims. The Court denied Defendants' motion to dismiss as to Plaintiffs' CEA manipulation claims, CEA aiding and abetting claims and Sherman Act Section 1 and 2 claims. The Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claims. On September 30, 2014, the Court issued a Memorandum & Order concerning Defendants' motion for reconsideration of the Court's December 20, 2013 Order. The Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants' motion for reconsideration, dismissing Plaintiffs' claim under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The parties thereafter engaged in fact and expert discovery. On October 30, 2016, named Plaintiff Stuart Satullo sought to withdraw as a named plaintiff and class representative. The Court granted Satullo's withdrawal. On March 16, 2018, Plaintiffs filed their Third Consolidated Amended Complaint, naming Mark Allen and Brian Ledwith as Class representatives. On September 30, 2020, the Court denied Defendants' Rule 56 summary judgment motion in all respects and held that "Plaintiffs have alleged enough facts and evidence that a reasonable jury could render a verdict in Plaintiffs' favor" on Plaintiffs' CEA and Sherman Act claims. On February 17, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiffs' Rule 23 motion to certify the Class. The Court appointed Mark Allen (but not Brian Ledwith) as a Class representative. On July 7, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied Defendants' Rule 23(f) petition that sought immediate review of the Court's class certification decision, finding that "an immediate appeal is not warranted." Copies of the foregoing Court orders are available for review on the case website listed below. WHO IS A MEMBER OF THE CLASS? The Class certified by the Court is defined as: All persons, corporations and other legal entities that (a) purchased between March 30 and May 6, 2011 a May 2011 Contract in order to liquidate a short position in such contract, including short positions held as part of spread positions; or (b) contracted to purchase cotton on call based on the May 2011 Contract price, and set the price on this contract between March 30 and May 6; or (c) purchased between June 7 and July 7, 2011, a July 2011 Contract in order to liquidate a short position therein, including short positions held as part of spread positions; or (d) contracted to purchase cotton on call based on the July 2011 Contract price, and set the price on this contract between June 7 and July 7, 2011. Excluded from the Class are Defendants, any parent, subsidiary, affiliate, agent or employee of any Defendant, and any co-conspirator. WHO REPRESENTS THE CLASS? The Court appointed Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP, 500 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2440, New York, New York 10110 as "Class Counsel" to represent the Class. In order to participate in the class action, you do not have to pay Class Counsel or anyone else. Instead, if Class Counsel recovers money or benefits for the Class, they will ask the Court for an award of attorneys' fees and costs to be paid from such recovery for the Class whether by judgment award or settlement fund. You may hire your own lawyer to represent you in this lawsuit, but if you do, you are responsible for paying that lawyer. YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPTIONS IN THIS LAWSUIT This notice summarizes your rights and options at this time. More information is available on the website listed below. If you are a member of the Class, you will need to decide whether to: (a) remain in the Class; or (b) request to be excluded from the Class. WHAT HAPPENS IF I WANT TO OPT OUT OF THE CLASS? If you opt out, you cannot make a claim against any money or benefits that might be recovered by the Class from Defendants as a result of a judgment or settlement, if any. You have the legal right to opt out of this class action. If you choose to exercise your right to opt out of the Class, you will not be bound by any court orders, judgments, jury verdicts or settlements approved by the Court, and you keep your right to sue or otherwise resolve your potential claims against Defendants on your own. To opt out of the Class, you must mail, e-mail or submit through the case website a written statement to the Notice Administrator (mailing address, e-mail address and case website address referenced below) no later than November 20, 2023 stating: (1) you are a member of the Class in In re Term Commodities Cotton Futures Litig.; and (2) you request to be excluded from the Class. Your written request for exclusion must also include your full name, address, telephone number, e-mail address (if any) and signature, and must be received no later than November 20, 2023. The Court will exclude from the Class any member who submits a valid and timely request for exclusion. Commodities Cotton Futures Litigation EXCLUSIONS c/o A.B. Data, Ltd. P.O. Box 173001 Milwaukee, WI 53217 877-884-4619 info@2011cottonfuturesclassaction.com WHAT HAPPENS IF I WANT TO REMAIN IN THE CLASS? To remain in the Class, you do not need to do anything. If you do not opt out pursuant to the procedures set forth below, you will remain in the Class. If you remain in the Class, you will give up the right to file (or continue) your own lawsuit, or seek any other form of resolution of claims you might have against Defendants concerning the claims in this lawsuit, and you will be legally bound by all Court orders, judgments, or settlements approved by the Court. If money or benefits are obtained for the Class as a result of judgment or settlement, you may be entitled to share in a portion of such money or benefits. If money or benefits are obtained in this class action, the Class will be separately notified as to how to make a claim to participate and request a share of any money or benefits recovered for the Class. However, no money or benefits are available now because the case is not resolved. The Class must still prove its claims, including the amount of any damages, and Defendants maintain their rights to challenge liability and assert defenses with respect to Class members. Plaintiffs do not believe Defendants have any legitimate liability challenges or defenses to individual Class member claims in this class action. The Court has not yet ruled on these issues, and Plaintiffs reserve the right to challenge any defenses that may be raised by Defendants. Individual defenses to liability and individual damages calculations will be resolved at a time and through a method to be determined by the Court at a later date. In the event of a judgment award or settlement, Class members, in order to obtain their share, may be required to produce evidence, including but not limited to trading records for all accounts in which they have a financial interest, showing all trades in the May and July 2011 ICE Cotton No. 2 futures contracts and on-call contracts during the Class Period. Class members should therefore preserve records of their transactions in such contracts. Class members should also preserve records of any purchases and/or sales of options on May and July 2011 ICE Cotton No. 2 futures contracts and/or physical cotton in the cash market during the Class Period, as well as any other documents that may be relevant to their claims. Defendants' position is that some Class members have entered into agreements creating a right and/or obligation to arbitrate any claims they have against Defendants. Defendants' position is that they have a right to arbitrate the claims herein with two types of Class members: (1) members of the ICE who, Defendants argue, supposedly agreed to an arbitration before the ICE and (2) certain customers of Defendants who supposedly agreed in cotton on call contracts made with Defendants to arbitrate. Plaintiffs do not agree with Defendants' position. Their position is that the deadline to submit a claim to ICE for arbitration was more than nine years ago and that Defendants' conduct has waived any rights that Defendants may have to compel Class members to arbitrate their claims. In particular, Plaintiffs argue that Defendants chose to litigate this case on the merits for ten years, including by engaging in extensive motion practice and discovery, without ever disclosing any intent to arbitrate. Class Counsel take no position on whether Defendants have also waived their rights to arbitrate against any potential Class member who decides to opt out of this action and try to pursue an action on an individual basis. The Court has made no determination as to whether Defendants have any rights to arbitration. If you remain in the class and Defendants file a motion to compel arbitration, Class Counsel will represent you free of charge in opposing that motion, unless you wish to hire your own lawyer. HOW CAN I GET MORE INFORMATION? If you have questions related to this lawsuit, your rights or wish to review other documents related to this lawsuit, you may visit www.2011cottonfuturesclassaction.com or call 877-884-4619. You may also contact Class Counsel with any questions: Christopher Lovell Christopher McGrath Ben Jaccarino LOVELL STEWART HALEBIAN JACOBSON LLP 500 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2440 New York, New York 10110 Telephone: (212) 608-1900 PLEASE DO NOT CALL OR CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING THIS NOTICE OR FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. DATED: August 10, 2023 BY ORDER OF THE COURT Clerk of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York LUCERO AG SERVICES: Ortiz Files Suit in E.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lucero Ag Services, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Azucena Ortiz, Gustavo Meza, Dominga Espinoza, on behalf of themselves, and those similarly situated and the State of California v. Lucero Ag Services, Inc., 559 Ag Corp., Paragroup Farms, Inc., Ricardo Ulices Lucero-Ambrosio, Artemio Fidel Salazar Luna, Case No. 1:23-cv-01319-JLT-EPG (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 5, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Agriculture Acts for Farmworker Rights. Lucero Ag Services, Inc. is a farm in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Hector Rodriguez Martinez, Esq. Stan S. Mallison, Esq. Gonzalo Quezada, Jr., Esq. MALLISON & MARTINEZ 1939 Harrison Street, Suite 730 Oakland, CA 94612 Phone: (510) 832-9999 Fax: (510) 832-1101 Email: hectorm@themmlawfirm.com stanm@themmlawfirm.com gquezada@themmlawfirm.com MAPFRE USA: Ma Sues Over Failure to Safeguard Data -------------------------------------------------- Richard Ma and Fred Devereaux, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MAPFRE U.S.A. CORP. and THE COMMERCE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:23-cv-12059 (D. Mass., Sept. 6, 2023), is brought for damages against Defendants for their failure to exercise reasonable care in securing and safeguarding highly sensitive consumer data in connection with a information massive data breach of approximately 266,142 individuals' personal that started between July 1 and July 2, 2023 (the "Data Breach") and impacted the highly sensitive data including Plaintiffs' and putative Class Members', resulting in the unauthorized public release and subsequent misuse of their driver's license information, including, but not limited to, names, dates of birth, driver's license numbers, and vehicle information including make, model, year, and vehicle identification number (collectively, the "Private Information"). The security of MAPFRE's Private Information is, therefore, of the utmost importance. MAPFRE understood and appreciated the value of this Information by requesting it. yet chose to ignore it by failing to invest in adequate data security measures that would protect Plaintiffs and the Class from the unauthorized access to, and copying of, their Private Information. The Defendants readily provided Plaintiffs' and putative Class Members' driver's license and vehicle information to unknown parties from their online quoting platform. Thus, customers and even members of the public who were not MAPFRE customers, but potential customers, may have had sensitive information compromised. Because Defendants access and store personal information--including driver's license numbers--from motor vehicle records as defined by the Drivers' Privacy Protection Act, Defendants are legally required to protect Private Information from unauthorized access and exfiltration. With their Private Information now in the hands of cybercriminals looking to profit from the theft, Plaintiffs' and Class Members' Private Information is no longer secure, causing Plaintiffs and Members of the Class to suffer (and continue to suffer) economic and non-economic harms, as well as a substantial and imminent risk of future economic and non-economic harms. Had Plaintiffs and the Class known that the Private Information they entrusted to Defendants in exchange for the services offered would not be adequately protected, they would not have entrusted their valuable Private Information to Defendants in order to use its product. Thus, on behalf of the Class of victims also impacted by the Data Breach, Plaintiffs seek, under state common law and consumer protection statutes, to redress Defendants' misconduct, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs signed up to use MAPFRE insurance. MAPFRE insures private passenger automobiles and provides homeowner and other types of insurance for qualified applicants.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick J. Sheehan, Esq. WHATLEY KALLAS LLP 101 Federal Street, 19th Floor Boston, MA 02110 Phone: (617) 203-8459 Facsimile: (800) 922-4851 Email: psheehan@whatleykallas.com - and - Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. Jason S. Rathod, Esq. MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD, LLP 412 H Street, NE, Suite 302 Washington, DC 20002 Phone: 202-470-520 Fax: 202-800-2730 Email: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com jrathod@classlawdc.com MARLETTE FUNDING: Happy Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Marlette Funding, LLC. The case is styled as Michele Happy, Chad Gordon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Marlette Funding, LLC doing business as: BEST EGG, Case No. 1:23-cv-00265-SPB (W.D. Pa., Sept. 6, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Marlette Funding, LLC doing business as Best Egg -- https://www.bestegg.com/ -- is an online lender that offers unsecured and secured personal loans for borrowers with fair to good credit.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kevin Abramowicz, Esq. EAST END TRIAL GROUP 6901 Lynn Way, Suite 215 Pittsburgh, PA 15208 Phone: (717) 491-9162 Email: kabramowicz@eastendtrialgroup.com MDC STEEL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Utria Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------- GERMAN UTRIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MDC STEEL SERVICES, INC.; MICHAEL D. CHEPENIK; and SHALA D. EGAN, individually, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-14280-XXXX (S.D., Fla., Sept. 7, 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 Utria was employed by the Defendants as a welder. MDC STEEL SERVICES, INC. is a specialty contractor that serves the Fort Pierce, FL area and specializes in demolition, and structural Steel. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF ZANDRO E. PALMA 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd. Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com MERCEDES-BENZ GROUP: Court Dismisses Suit Over Agency Sales Model ----------------------------------------------------------------- John Bowman of CarDealer reports that car dealers in Australia have lost their court battle to claim millions in compensation from Mercedes-Benz over its switch to agency sales. Hearings began a year ago in the federal court Down Under after the AUS$650m (circa GBP331.8m) action was launched in 2021. However, following nine agonising months of waiting because of the complexity of the case, the 38 Mercedes dealers who brought the class action out of Australia's 49 Mercedes dealerships were told on August 30, 2023 that all their claims had been dismissed. Delivering his 567-page verdict, which followed seven weeks of proceedings, Judge Jonathan Beach labelled the case 'forensically complex although legally straightforward', reported The Conversation - an independent news analysis source that sees academic experts working with professional journalists. The 38 dealers claimed that Mercedes-Benz had bullied them into accepting the no-haggle agency sales model, which sees the manufacturer keeping ownership of the vehicles and fixing the selling price, with dealers being paid a fixed commission instead of being able to set their own margin. Mercedes-Benz UK 'delighted' with agency model feedback despite mixed reaction and market share dip They had contended that the agency model meant the end of 'customer goodwill' and as their interaction with customers would be reduced, so would their profitability. But lawyers for the manufacturer said it was entitled to make the change, which didn't breach the country's franchise code, adding that it had acted in good faith since it had to respond to competitors that were changing their sales models. The judge said the case brought by the dealers was 'successful on many issues of fact' but it failed on fundamental law issues. His verdict upholds the right by Mercedes-Benz to replace its franchisee contracts with agency agreements. Justice Beach also rejected the dealers' claim that they were made to agree to the agency model under economic duress, and threw out the goodwill claim as well. Mercedes looks to roll out agency sales model in Germany following UK launch Responding to the verdict, the Australian Automotive Dealer Association (AADA) said in a statement: 'This is clearly a very disappointing outcome and AADA will work hard to understand this judgment and fight for a better system for franchised new car dealers.' It also emphasised, as did The Conversation, that the judge had pointed out that the case 'although unsuccessful, concerns statutory unconscionable conduct', adding that 'further consideration needs to be given to the terms of the franchising code and possible modification'. [GN] META PLATFORMS: Court Tosses Bid to Dismiss Gershzon Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MIKHAIL GERSHZON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. META PLATFORMS, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-00083-SI (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Susan Illston entered an order denying the Defendant's motion to dismiss and denying requests for judicial notice. The Court concludes that plaintiff has stated claims under the federal Driver's Privacy Protection Act (DPPA) and California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), and therefore Meta's motion to dismiss is denied. The Court shall set a pretrial schedule at the September 1, 2023 case management conference. The Court agrees with plaintiff that the question of tolling cannot be decided on the pleadings, and that Meta can renew its arguments on a fuller factual record. On June 23, 2023, the Court held a hearing on defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint. The Court concludes that the complaint states a claim and therefore the motion to dismiss is denied. On January 6, 2023, the plaintiff Gershzon filed this class action lawsuit against Meta. Gershzon alleges that Meta violated his privacy rights under federal and state law by knowingly obtaining statutorily protected personal information and communications, including names, disability information, and e-mail addresses, through the use of a "hidden tracking code" created by Meta and installed on the website of the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). Gershzon alleges that this software code, known as the "Meta Pixel," "sends to Meta time-stamped, personally-identifiable records of Plaintiff and Class members' personal information, activities and communications on the [California] DMV website." Meta is "an advertising company which sells advertising space on the social media platform it operates." A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 22, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/4817n1r at no extra charge.[CC] META PLATFORMS: High Court Denies Algorithm Discrimination Appeal ----------------------------------------------------------------- Elizabeth Thompson of CBC News reports that a class action lawsuit alleging Facebook allowed advertisers to discriminate is set to go ahead after the Supreme Court of Canada this week refused to hear an appeal filed by the social media giant. The case, which could include thousands of Quebec residents, will return to Quebec Superior Court to be heard after the Supreme Court of Canada this week refused to give Facebook leave to appeal a ruling by the Quebec Court of Appeal. "We're very happy," said lawyer Jean-Michel Boudreau, a member of the IMK LLP team spearheading the class action. "I think this is an important case and now we know for sure that the class action can move forward." Boudreau's law firm has estimated the class action could lead to $100 million in damages. Lisa Laventure, head of communications for Facebook's parent company Meta Canada, declined to comment on the Supreme Court's decision or the company's next move. 'Microtargeting' ads The Supreme Court's decision is the latest development in a case that began in 2019 which centres on the practice of allowing advertisers to "microtarget" ads to Facebook users according to their ages or genders. The application to launch the class action suit, which had been in the works for a while, was filed days after a CBC News investigation revealed that nearly 100 employers -- including government departments -- posted microtargeted job ads on Facebook that experts said could violate Canadian human rights law. Under federal and provincial human rights law, employers aren't allowed to restrict who sees job ads based on age, gender, race or religion, unless the restriction is a bona fide occupational requirement or is part of a specific initiative like a student summer job program. Use of Facebook targeting on job ads could violate Canadian human rights law, experts warn Federal departments may have broken law by microtargeting job ads In December 2020, in response to calls from the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the Ontario Human Rights Commission, Facebook announced it would begin enforcing new rules for advertisers in Canada to prohibit discrimination in ads for jobs, housing and credit services. But while the new rules are supposed to stop advertisers from targeting those kinds of ads based on such criteria as age, gender or postal code, they do not prohibit microtargeting for other kinds of ads. Court of appeal clears class action The application for the class action suit was filed in the name of Lyse Beaulieu, who was between 63 and 65 years old when she was searching Facebook and other sites for a job between 2017 and 2019. It was rejected initially by the Quebec Superior Court on the grounds that the definition of the class involved was too broad and could cover "several thousand if not millions of members." The Quebec Court of Appeal overturned that decision. It said the case raises questions about new forms of discrimination in the digital world, whether social media platforms can be held responsible for third-party ads they post and whether platforms are able to control the ads on their platforms. The Supreme Court's refusal to hear Facebook's appeal means the Quebec Court of Appeal ruling stands. Boudreau said the case now returns to Quebec Superior Court, where a new judge will have to be assigned to hear the case. The official notice of the class action likely will be published this autumn, he said. Facebook to crack down on discriminatory job ads Facebook enforcing new rules to prevent discrimination in advertising Under Quebec law, people who fit the description covered by the class action are automatically included in the class action suit unless they opt out. Unless there's an out-of-court settlement, Boudreau said he expects to wait 3 to 5 years for a day in court. He said he hopes the court case and the discovery process also will shed light on how the social media giant has been using algorithms to direct ads to Facebook users. "Everybody is talking about AI," he said. "There is a component of our lawsuit that is about algorithmic discrimination." The class action could also have an impact on other social media companies, Boudreau said. [GN] MIDLAND FINANCIAL: Strucke Files Suit in W.D. Oklahoma ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Financial Co., et al. The case is styled as Darryl Strucke, individually on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Midland Financial Co., Ipswitch Inc., Progress Software Corporation, Case No. 5:23-cv-00782-D (W.D. Okla., Sept. 6, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Contract / Business Cases. Midland Financial Company provides financial services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tyler J Bean, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave., Oklahoma City Phone: (405) 235-1560 MIDLAND FUNDING: Third Circuit Remands Appeal in Hejamadi Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned SHANTHI HEJAMADI; RICARDO VARELA, Appellants v. MIDLAND FUNDING LLC; MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC.; JOHN DOES 1 to 10, Case No. 22-1846 (3d Cir.), the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit remands the case for further proceedings. Appellants Shanthi Hejamadi and Ricardo Varela appeal from the District Court's order granting the motion to compel arbitration filed by Appellees Midland Funding LLC and Midland Credit Management, Inc., and dismissing the Appellants' amended complaint. The matter is on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Case No. 2:18-cv-13203, District Judge: Honorable Katharine S. Hayden). Because of a change in governing authority that post-dates the District Court's order, the Court of Appeals will remand for further proceedings. The Appellants each opened Home Depot credit card accounts with Citibank, N.A., which were subject to the same written credit card agreement. The agreement was amended in December 2016 upon written notice to the Appellants. The agreement contains an arbitration provision that permits Citibank or the cardholder to elect mandatory arbitration of any claim, dispute or controversy between the cardholder and Citibank arising out of or related to the account, a previous related account or their relationship. The arbitration provision also contains both an assignment clause and a survival clause. On Sept. 29, 2017, Midland Funding purchased from Citibank a group of credit card accounts, including the Appellants' accounts. The transaction was effectuated by a "Purchase and Sale Agreement," among other documents, which set forth Citibank's agreement "to sell, assign and transfer to" Midland, and Midland's agreement to purchase from Citibank on the Closing Date all right, title and interest of Citibank in and to the Accounts, as well as Midland's agreement to assume, with respect to each Account, all of Citibank's rights, responsibilities, and obligations that arise as a result of its purchase of the Accounts. In attempting to collect money allegedly owed on the accounts, Midland sent collection letters to the Appellants and later filed a debt-collection action against Hejamadi in New Jersey state court. Hejamadi responded by filing a class action counterclaim against Midland, asserting that its collection letters violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Midland voluntarily dismissed its debt-collection action, and the court realigned the parties to reflect that Midland was now the defendant with respect to the only claim that remained in the case. Midland then removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey and moved to compel arbitration. While in federal court, Hejamadi filed an amended class action complaint that added Varela as a named plaintiff and added Midland's affiliate, Midland Credit Management, Inc. ("MCM"), as a defendant. After limited discovery on arbitrability, the District Court granted Midland's and MCM's renewed motion to dismiss the amended complaint and compel arbitration. Hejamadi and Varela timely appealed. Circuit Judge Arianna J. Freeman, writing for the Panel, says the Panel need not address the propriety of the removal procedure because the Appellants waived that challenge. The Appellants never filed a motion to remand; they instead proceeded to litigate this matter in the District Court for almost four years--never complaining about the removal procedure until the District Court entered the arbitration order now on appeal. The Appellants' failure to comply with the 30-day time limit was a waiver, Judge Freeman holds. That brings the Panel to a separate waiver question: the Appellants assert that Midland and MCM waived their right to compel arbitration. In a well-reasoned opinion, the District Court applied this Court's then-existing precedent and concluded that Midland and MCM did not waive their arbitration right. But the precedent has since changed, Judge Freeman says. In Morgan v. Sundance, Inc., 142 S. Ct. 1708 (2022), the Supreme Court rejected the prejudice-focused arbitration waiver inquiry established by this Court and other Courts of Appeals. Under Morgan, courts must apply the general waiver inquiry: they must ask whether a party has intentionally relinquished or abandoned a known right. Judge Freeman notes that the Panel must focus on the actions of the party, who held the right--not on prejudice to the opposing party--and consider the circumstances and context of each case. Because the District Court has not had an opportunity to address arbitration waiver using the inquiry required by Morgan, the Court of Appeals will remand so the District Court can do so in the first instance. Apart from any waiver questions, the Appellants argue that MCM cannot seek to compel arbitration because MCM did not sign the card agreement that contains the arbitration provisions. But, Judge Freeman opines, the Appellants have not appealed the District Court's conclusion that Citibank assigned all of its rights under the card agreement--including the right to arbitrate--to Midland. So Midland is a party to the agreement, and absent any waiver of its arbitration rights (see Section III.B), Midland can compel arbitration of claims made "against anyone connected with" it, including its affiliate MCM. Even if MCM could not independently enforce the arbitration provisions, Judge Freeman points out that that would not affect the outcome of Midland's motion to compel arbitration of the Appellants' claims against Midland and MCM. For these reasons, the Court of Appeals will remand so the District Court can consider whether there has been any arbitration waiver under the inquiry the Supreme Court recently announced. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated Aug. 31, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/3fwyr88u from PacerMonitor.com. NASHVILLE, TN: Faces Class Suit Over Sidewalk Ordinance ------------------------------------------------------- Nate Rau of Axios reports that Metro was hit with a class-action lawsuit on August 30, 2023 from plaintiffs seeking to be repaid fees collected under a sidewalk ordinance that was struck down by a federal court. Catch up quick: The ordinance, championed by then-Councilmember Angie Henderson, required certain developers to either build new sidewalks or pay fees into a fund. With the backing of the government watchdog group the Beacon Center, different plaintiffs challenged the law in court. Metro successfully defended the ordinance initially, but the plaintiffs appealed to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and won earlier this year. That opened the door for this new class-action lawsuit for those who paid into the fund to get their money back. Henderson defeated incumbent Jim Shulman in last month's general election to become Metro's new vice mayor. Why it matters: Metro has been scuffling in its efforts to force developers to pay for more infrastructure costs. A new state law blocks Metro from implementing development impact fees, which function similarly to the sidewalk ordinance and allow governments to offset infrastructure costs associated with new developments. Henderson's goal was to address Metro's uphill battle to build more sidewalks while development booms across the county. What's next: The city collected over $4 million in fees under the sidewalk ordinance, according to the Nashville Banner. The class-action suit is from two firms seeking to be repaid the thousands of dollars they combined to pay into the fund. Nashville attorney Dave Garrison is the lead attorney for the plaintiffs in the class-action suit and other property owners who paid fees may be eligible to join it. [GN] NEW HAMPSHIRE: Bid to Seal Exhibit OK'd in G.K. Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as G. K., et al., v. Governor, NH, State of, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00004 (D.N.H., Filed Jan. 5, 2021), the Hon. Judge Paul J. Barbadoro entered an endorsed order granting assented to motion to seal Exhibit to the Plaintiffs' reply in further support of their motion for class certification.[CC] The suit alleges violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). NEW RELIC: Juan Monteverde Investigates Proposed Francisco Sale --------------------------------------------------------------- Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner of the class action firm Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a national securities firm rated Top 50 in the 2018-2021 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report and headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating: New Relic, Inc. (NYSE: NEWR), relating to its proposed sale to Francisco Partners. Under the terms of the agreement, NEWR shareholders will receive $87.00 in cash per share they own. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/new-relic-inc. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. American National Bankshares Inc. (Nasdaq: AMNB), relating to its proposed sale to Atlantic Union Bankshares Corp. Under the terms of the agreement, AMNB shareholders will receive 1.35 shares of Atlantic per share they own. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/american-national-bankshares-inc. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. Decibel Therapeutics, Inc. (Nasdaq: DBTX), relating to its proposed acquisition by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Under the terms of the tender offer, DBTX shareholders will receive $4.00 in cash plus one non-tradeable CVR worth up to $3.50 per share they own. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/decibel-therapeutics-inc. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. Reata Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Nasdaq: RETA), relating to its proposed sale to Biogen, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, RETA shareholders are expected to receive $172.50 in cash per share they own. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/reata-pharmaceuticals-inc. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. About Monteverde & Associates PC We are a national class action securities and consumer litigation law firm that has recovered millions of dollars for shareholders and is committed to protecting investors and consumers from corporate wrongdoing. Monteverde & Associates lawyers have significant experience litigating Mergers & Acquisitions and Securities Class Actions, whereby they protect investors by recovering money and remedying corporate misconduct. Mr. Monteverde, who leads the legal team at the firm, has been recognized by Super Lawyers as a Rising Star in Securities Litigation in 2013, 2017-2019 and a Super Lawyers Honoree in Securities Litigation in 2022-2023. He has also been selected by Martindale-Hubbell as a 2017-2023 Top Rated Lawyer. Our firm's recent successes include changing the law in a significant victory that lowered the standard of liability under Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act in the Ninth Circuit. Thereafter, our firm successfully preserved this victory by obtaining dismissal of a writ of certiorari as improvidently granted at the United States Supreme Court. Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian, 139 S. Ct. 1407 (2019). Also, over the years the firm has recovered or secured over a dozen cash common funds for shareholders in mergers & acquisitions class action cases. If you own common stock in any of the above listed companies and wish to obtain additional information and protect your investments free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4405 New York, NY 10118 United States of America jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com Tel: (212) 971-1341 Attorney Advertising. (C) 2023 Monteverde & Associates PC. The law firm responsible for this advertisement is Monteverde & Associates PC (www.monteverdelaw.com). Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. [GN] NEW SOUTH WALES: Faces Beekeepers Class Suit Over Varroa Payout --------------------------------------------------------------- William Ton of Yahoo! News reports that Beekeepers will seek millions of dollars in compensation in a potential class action after their hives were destroyed in a bid to stop the varroa mite. Devastated keepers say existing government compensation payouts are inadequate and fail to account for the impact of the forced destruction on their income and other agricultural sectors that rely on beekeeping The deadly varroa mite was first detected near the Port of Newcastle in June 2022, leading to more than 14,000 hives being euthanised in the following four months as authorities tried to halt the spread. The parasite has since been detected around Newcastle, on the northern NSW coast near Coffs Harbour and hundreds of kilometres inland. Keepers are seeking up to $140 million from the state and federal government over a "vain undertaking of eradication" that has never been achieved anywhere else, class action lawyer Stewart Levitt said. "They're not only destroying the beekeepers, they're also threatening other industries in the agricultural and horticultural sector, and they're doing it because of misguided and misconceived optimism which wasn't accompanied by a fair and just attitude to compensation," he said on September 1, 2023. Some businesses have been crippled after their unaffected colonies were eradicated because they were located in emergency eradication and surveillance zones. Mr Levitt said 100 "highly motivated and very angry" people registered their interest in the class action during a meeting on the state's central coast to gauge reactions. Agriculture Minister Tara Moriarty said she wasn't aware of the potential class action, but her department was holding meetings with industry bodies on plans to move hives out of new affected zones on the border of NSW and Victoria. A department spokeswoman said more than $16 million has been paid out to about 3000 NSW beekeepers since the emergency response began. With a varroa detection in the Sunraysia region on the southern border of NSW, beekeepers in Victoria are on high alert despite the mite not yet detected there. Mr Levitt left the door open to the class action also incorporating interstate beekeepers if the parasite jumped the border. "It depends on how contained the spread is in Victoria, but if it continues to proliferate then (it depends) if they adopt a similar compensation mechanism," he said. A federal Department of Agriculture spokeswoman said the honey bee industry council was a signatory to an emergency response deed that laid out the management and funding of the response to pest incidents. "The (compensation amounts) for the honey bee industry were reviewed in August 2022 and (the industry) was consulted and supported the review outcomes," she said. The varroa mite mainly feeds and reproduces on larvae and pupae, causing malformation and weakening of honey bees as well as transmitting numerous viruses. Australia is the only major honey-producing country that is largely free of varroa mite, considered the most serious pest affecting bees worldwide. [GN] NEWPRO OPERATING: Joyce Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Newpro Operating, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Patrick Joyce, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Newpro Operating, LLC, Anthony N. Cogliani, Case No. 2381CV02519 (Mass. Super. Ct., Middlesex Cty., Sept. 6, 2023). The case type is stated as "Contract/Business Cases." NEWPRO -- https://www.newpro.com/ -- is New England's most trusted provider of windows, doors, roofing, siding, and bathroom remodeling.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Stephen S. Churchill, Esq. FAIR WORK, P.C. 192 South St., Suite 450 Boston, MA 02111 NORTHERN DYNASTY: $6.38MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Dec. 7 ---------------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK IN RE NORTHERN DYNASTY MINERALS LTD. SECURITIES LITIGATION Case No. 1:20-cv-05917-ENV-TAM SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED NORTHERN DYNASTY MINERALS LTD. SECURITIES FROM DECEMBER 21, 2017 THROUGH NOVEMBER 24, 2020, BOTH DATES INCLUSIVE, (I) ON ANY STOCK EXCHANGES LOCATED IN THE UNITED STATES, (II) ON ANY ALTERNATIVE TRADING SYSTEMS LOCATED IN THE UNITED STATES, OR (III) PURSUANT TO OTHER DOMESTIC TRANSACTIONS, AND WHO WERE ALLEGEDLY DAMAGED THEREBY. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, that a hearing will be held on December 7, 2023, at 10:30 a.m., before the Honorable Taryn A. Merkl, at the United States District Court, Eastern District of New York, Courtroom 324 North, 225 Cadman Plaza East, Brooklyn, New York 11201, for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed Settlement of the claims in the above-captioned Action for the sum of $6,375,000 in cash should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation to distribute the Settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable, and adequate; (3) whether the application of Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees of no more than one third plus interest of the Settlement Amount, reimbursement of litigation expenses of not more than $80,000, and awards of no more than $25,000, in aggregate, or $20,000 for Lead Plaintiff Lawrence Kelemen and $5,000 for Named Plaintiff Charles Hymowitz, should be approved; and (4) whether this Action should be dismissed with prejudice as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement dated June 7, 2023 ("Stipulation"). Lead Counsel has also applied for up to $500,000 to pay for Administrative Costs. The Court reserves the right to hold the Settlement Hearing telephonically or by other virtual means. The Court appointed Pomerantz LLP as Lead Counsel to represent you and the other Settlement Class Members. However, you have the right to retain your own counsel and the right to appear at the Settlement Hearing through counsel of your choosing. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. ("Northern Dynasty") securities during the period from December 21, 2017 through November 24, 2020, both dates inclusive ("Settlement Class Period"), (i) on any stock exchanges located in the United States, (ii) on any alternative trading systems located in the United States, or (iii) pursuant to other domestic transactions, and: (i) have not asserted claims against any or all of the Defendants in any cross-border litigation initiated outside of the United States, including in, but not limited to, the cases captioned Haddad v. Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. et al., Case No. VLC-S-S-2012849 and Woo v. Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. et al., Case No. VLC-S-S-211530 in Canada; (ii) have been deemed by a court to be a member of a class in such litigation, for settlement purposes or otherwise; and (iii) are entitled to a settlement or other distribution payment – regardless of whether such payment is cashed – in connection with the resolution of the cross-border litigation, your rights may be affected by this Settlement, including the release and extinguishment of claims you may possess relating to your ownership interest in Northern Dynasty securities. If you have not received a detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Notice") and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release Form, you may obtain copies by writing to, calling, or contacting the Claims Administrator: Northern Dynasty Securities Settlement, c/o Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions, Inc., PO Box 4990, Portland, OR 97208-4990; 888-270-9130; Info@NorthernDynastySecuritiesSettlement.com. Copies of the Notice, Proof of Claim and Release Form can also be downloaded from the website maintained by the Claims Administrator, www.NorthernDynastySecuritiesSettlement.com. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release Form electronically or postmarked no later than December 14, 2023, establishing that you are entitled to recovery. Unless you submit a written exclusion request, you will be bound by any judgment rendered in the Action whether or not you make a claim. If you desire to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must submit to the Claims Administrator a request for exclusion so that it is received no later than November 16, 2023, in the manner and form explained in the Notice. All members of the Settlement Class who have not requested exclusion from the Settlement Class will be bound by any judgment entered in the Action pursuant to the Settlement Stipulation. Any objection to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or Lead Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses and awards to Plaintiffs must be in the manner and form explained in the detailed Notice and received no later than November 16, 2023, to each of the following: CLERK OF THE COURT: United States District Court Eastern District of New York 225 Cadman Plaza East Brooklyn, New York 11201 LEAD COUNSEL: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, New York 10016 DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL: Ashwin J. Ram, Esq. STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP 633 W. 5th Street, Ste. 1900 Los Angeles, CA 90071 If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may call or write to Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs: Emma Gilmore Dolgora Dorzhieva Villi Shteyn POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10606 (212) 661-1100 egilmore@pomlaw.com ddorzhieva@pomlaw.com vshteyn@pomlaw.com PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING THIS NOTICE. Dated: August 24, 2023 BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK URL: www.NorthernDynastySecuritiesSettlement.com. NUWEST GROUP: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due March 15, 2024 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANGELA HAMILTON, et al., v. NUWEST GROUP HOLDINGS LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-01117-RSM (W.D. Wash.), Hon. Judge Ricardo S. Martinez entered an order: Deadline for Plaintiffs to file motion for March 15, 2024 class certification: Opposition to Motion to Certify Class: April 29, 2024 Reply in Support of Motion to Certify Class: June 6, 2024 Hearing on Motion to Certify Class: To be set by the Court after briefing completed Nuwest provides employment and management consulting services such as staffing, contract employment, direct hire, payroll, compliance, and recruitment process outsourcing. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 18, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Emn05U at no extra charge.[CC] O'GRADY-PEYTON: Garchitorena Suit Removed to E.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Maricor Maria Garchitorena, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. O'GRADY-PEYTON INTERNATIONAL (USA), INC., a Massachusetts Corporation; AMN HEALTHCARE, INC., a Nevada Corporation; and DOES 1 TO 50, Case No. BCV-23-101036 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Kern, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on Sept. 5, 2023, and assigned Case No. 1:23-at-00760. The Complaint asserted eight causes of action against Defendants: failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay overtime wages; failure to provide rest periods and pay missed rest period premiums; failure to provide meal periods and pay missed meal period premiums; failure to maintain accurate employment records; failure to pay wages timely during employment; failure to furnish accurate itemized wage statements; and violations of California's unfair competition law.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Nicole R. Roysdon, Esq. Leticia C. Butler, Esq. Brittney S. Slack, Esq. WILSON TURNER KOSMO LLP 402 West Broadway, Suite 1600 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 236-9600 Facsimile: (619) 236-9669 Email: nroysdon@wilsonturnerkosmo.com lbutler@wilsonturnerkosmo.com bslack@wilsonturnerkosmo.com OAK GROVE: Filing for FLSA Conditional Cert. Bid Due March 15, 2024 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHELLE KLUENDER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. OAK GROVE ASSISTED CARE, LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-00473-jdp (W.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge Stephen L. Crocker entered a preliminary pretrial conference order. -- Plaintiffs' motion for conditional March 15, 2024 certification of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) class: -- Motions & Briefs to Certify/Decertify Sept. 30, 2024 Classes: -- Deadline for plaintiffs to seek certification of a Rule 23 class or for defendant to seek decertification of a conditional FLSA class. Responses: Oct. 28, 2024 Replies: Nov. 12, 2024 -- Deadline for filing dispositive April 18, 2025 motions: -- Settlement Letters: Aug. 22, 2025 -- Discovery Cutoff: Aug. 4, 2025 -- First Final Pretrial Conference: Oct. 8, 2025 -- Second Final Pretrial Conference: Oct. 15, 2025 A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 17, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/480KXNJ at no extra charge.[CC] OKTA INC: Nebraska Investment Council Seeks Class Certification --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re Okta, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:22-cv-02990-SI (N.D. Cal.), the Lead Plaintiff Nebraska Investment Council will move the Court, pursuant to Rules 9(b), and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for an order granting class certification. The Class is defined as: "All persons and entities who or which, during the period from March 3, 2022, through August 31, 2022, inclusive, purchased the publicly traded Class A common stock of Okta, Inc. and were damaged thereby." The Lead Plaintiff also moves the Court for an order of appointment as Class Representative and, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g), appointing Lead Counsel Labaton Sucharow LLP as Class Counsel. Okta is a data security company that provides identity and access management (IAM) software aimed at helping companies secure user authentication for applications and allowing developers to build identity controls into applications and devices. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 18, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3R7QZpY at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael P. Canty, Esq. James T. Christie, Esq. Nicholas Manningham, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 Facsimile: (212) 818-0477 E-mail: mcanty@labaton.com jchristie@labaton.com nmanningham@labaton.com - and - James M. Wagstaffe, Esq. Frank Busch, Esq. WAGSTAFFE, VON LOEWENFELDT, BUSCH & RADWICK, LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 2250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 357-8900 Facsimile: (415) 371-0500 E-mail: wagstaffe@wvbrlaw.com busch@wvbrlaw.com OLLIE'S BARGAIN: Plaintiff Expert Disclosure Due Nov. 27 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Pauli v. Ollie's Bargain Outlet, Inc., Case No. 5:22-cv-00279 (N.D.N.Y., Filed March 22, 2022), the Hon. Judge Miroslav Lovric entered an order extending the schedules and deadlines as follows: (1) Plaintiff Expert Disclosure Deadline is Nov. 27, 2023. (2) Defendant Expert Disclosure Deadline is Jan. 11, 2024. (3) Rebuttal Expert Disclosure Deadline is Feb. 1, 2024. (4) All Discovery, including all depositions, shall be completed by Feb. 27, 2024. (5) Class Certification Motion shall be filed by Dec. 8, 2023. (6) Dispositive Motions shall be filed by March 12, 2024. The suit alleges violation of Fair Labor Standards Act. Ollie's is an American chain of discount closeout retailers.[CC] OMEGA HEALTHCARE: Bids to Amend Pleading Due Nov. 15 ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD CANTER, et al., v. OMEGA HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-01037-EAS-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Kimberly A. Jolson entered an order vacating the Preliminary Pretrial Conference set for August 29, 2023, and adopting the following schedule: -- The parties will not make initial disclosures. -- Any motion to amend the pleadings or to join additional parties shall be filed by November 15, 2023. -- The motion for class certification shall be filed by July 1, 2024. -- The Plaintiffs assert claims for uncompensated wages and unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Ohio law due to Defendants' alleged failure to total all hours worked by hourly employees each workweek for purposes of computing overtime wages owed and failure to pay for travel time during shifts and other off-the-clock work performed by hourly employees. The Plaintiffs bring these claims on behalf of themselves and a proposed collective class. -- The Plaintiffs will make a settlement demand by January 15, 2024. The Defendants will respond by February 15, 2024. -- The parties understand that this case will be referred to an attorney mediator for a settlement conference March 2024. Omega offers medical coding, billing, accounts receivable management, claims processing, and health care revenue management services. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 22, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/485iTZK at no extra charge.[CC] OOMA INC: Continues to Defend Chiu Class Suit in Canada ------------------------------------------------------- Ooma Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending July 31,2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 7, 2023, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Chiu class suit in the Federal Court of Canada. On February 3, 2021, plaintiff Fiona Chiu filed a class action complaint against the Company and Ooma Canada Inc. in the Federal Court of Canada, alleging violations of Canada's Trademarks Act and Competition Act. The complaint seeks monetary and other damages and/or injunctive relief enjoining the Company to cease describing and marketing its Basic Home Phone using the word "free" or otherwise representing that it is free. On November 9, 2021, the Federal Court of Canada removed Ms. Chiu and substituted John Zanin as the new plaintiff in the proceeding. In connection with the substitution of Mr. Zanin as the new plaintiff, the Federal Court of Canada deemed the proceeding as having commenced on November 8, 2021 instead of February 3, 2021. In January 2022, the Federal Court of Canada heard arguments from counsel representing each of the Company and Mr. Zanin regarding jurisdiction and class action certification issues, and the parties are awaiting the Court to issue its ruling. The Company intends to continue to defend itself vigorously against this complaint. Ooma Inc. provides communications services and related technologies based in California. OPA ORLAND: Koufou Sues Over Nonpayment of Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------- Aikaterini Koufou, Angeliki Koufou, and Andreas Liodos, and all others similarly situated v. OPA ORLAND INC., GEORGE KARUNTZOS, individually, MAUREEN KARUNTZOS, individually, and JOHN KARUNTZOS, individually, Case No. 1:23-cv-07021 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 5, 2023), is brought against the Defendants for: nonpayment of overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL"); for tip theft, in violation of the FLSA and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act ("IWPCA"); for non-payment of agreed and earned wages, in violation of the IWPCA; for common law assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress by the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs were not paid for all time worked, including for any hours worked over 40 hours in a week. As a result, the Plaintiffs were not paid overtime as required by the FLSA for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in individual workweeks. Additionally, the Plaintiffs were not paid their earned tips in violation of the FLSA because the Defendants permitted management to unlawfully accept tips, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are current and former hourly employees who have worked for Defendants. The Defendants own and manage Opa! Modern Greek Cuisine is a restaurant located in Cook County, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexandros Stamatoglou, Esq. THE GARFINKEL GROUP, LLC 701 N. Milwaukee Avenue, The CIVITAS Chicago, IL 60642 Phone: (312) 736-7991 Email: alex@garfinkelgroup.com PACERS RUNNING: Gonzalez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pacers Running, LLC. The case is styled as Yanilza Gonzalez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Pacers Running, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-07808 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 1, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Pacers Running -- https://runpacers.com/ -- is a multi-channel operation focusing on running specialty retail and events.[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 PALISADES ACQUISITION: McCrobie's Bid for Class Certification OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER McCROBIE, v. PALISADES ACQUISITION XVI, LLC, et al., Case No. 15-cv-00018-LJV-MJR (W.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lawrence J. Vilardo entered an order granting McCrobie's motion for class certification. -- The class shall include consumers who (1) meet the criteria set forth in McCrobie's proposed class definition, and (2) purportedly owed a debt included in the Great Seneca portfolio. McCrobie’s attorneys are appointed as class counsel. The case is referred back to Judge Roemer for further proceedings consistent with the referral order of February 15, 2019. The Palisades defendants contend that a class action is not superior because McCrobie "is asking the proposed class to waive claims of allegedly significant value in exchange for an undisclosed amount of consideration." More specifically, they argue that the R&R "proposes incorrectly that a class action is superior based upon [McCrobie's] assertion that the Palisades [d]efendants had a combined $90 million net worth" and that McCrobie "did not offer any evidence of Palisades' individual net worth as a standalone entity." McCrobie seeks to certify a class "consisting of consumers with New York addresses" who: a. Within one year of August 27, 2015; b. Had an income execution forwarded to their employer bearing the signature of Todd Houslanger (or any other attorney employed by Houslanger & Associates, PLLC); or c. Had their bank account restrained after a subpoena and/or restraining notice bearing Todd Houslanger’s signature (or any other attorney employed by Houslanger & Associates, PLLC) was forwarded to their bank; On January 6, 2015, the plaintiff, Christopher McCrobie, commenced this putative class action under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). He alleges that the defendants, Palisades Acquisition XVI, LLC; Asta Funding, Inc.; Houslanger & Associates, PLLC; and Todd Houslanger attempted to unlawfully collect a debt from him. On February 15, 2019, the case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Roemer for all proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B). On June 4, 2021, McCrobie moved for class certification, on July 5 and 15, 2021, the defendants responded: and on July 26, 2021, McCrobie replied. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 18, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PoDcKc at no extra charge.[CC] PAPA JOHN'S: Class Cert Bid Filing in Guerra Due April 18, 2024 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDDIE GUERRA, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, v. PAPA JOHN'S INTERNATIONAL INC, Case No. 3:23-cv-01933-LB (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Laurel Beeler entered a case-management and pretrial order as follows: Case Event Filing Date/Disclosure Deadline/Hearing Date Updated joint case-management- Nov. 9, 2023 conference statement Further case-management conference Nov. 16, 2023 ADR completion date March 29, 2024 Class-certification non-expert Feb. 23, 2024 discovery completion date Plaintiff's class-certification Feb. 23, 2024 expert disclosures required by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Defendant's class-certification Feb. 23, 2024 expert disclosures Class-certification expert discovery March 4, 2024 completion date Last day to file class-certification April 18, 2024 motion Last day to file opposition to class- May 23, 2024 certification motion Last day to file reply in support of June 20, 2024 class-certification motion Hearing on class-certification motion July 11, 2024 and/or further case management conference Expert discovery completion date Oct. 24, 2024 Papa John's is an American pizza restaurant chain. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 17, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OZ1bhP at no extra charge.[CC] PATRICK GARRETT: Bid for Provisional Class Status Partly OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WALTER BETSCHART, JOSHUA SHANE BARTLETT, CALEB AIONA, TYRIK DAWKINS, JOSHUA JAMES-RICHARDS, TANIELA KINI KINI LATU, RICHARD OWENS, LEON MICHAEL POLASKI, ALEX SARAT XOTOY and TIMOTHY WILSON, on their behalf, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SHERIFF PATRICK GARRETT, Washington County Sheriff, in his official capacity, and WASHINGTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT JUDGES, in their official capacities, Case No. 3:23-cv-01097-CL (D. Or.), the Hon. Judge Michael McShane entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Petitioners' motion for provisional class certification. -- The Court provisionally certifies as a class all unrepresented indigent defendants held in Washington County Detention Centers. Furthermore, the Petitioners' motion for temporary restraining order is granted in part and denied in part. 1. If counsel is not secured within ten days of this Order for any class member currently in physical custody, the Washington County Sheriff is ordered to release that class member. 2. Any future class member who has not secured counsel within ten days of their initial appearance must be released from physical custody. 3. Released class members are subject to the conditions of release set forth in ORS 135.250 and any other conditions that the Circuit Court may impose that are related to assuring the appearance of the class member and the safety of the community. 4. The Circuit Court shall ensure that a release agreement is presented to and executed by the class member at the time of their release. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 17, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PpMJkq at no extra charge.[CC] PEGASYSTEMS INC: Dismissal Bid in Shareholder Class Suit Denied --------------------------------------------------------------- Ballard Spahr LLP of JD Supra reports that a recent ruling on a motion to dismiss in a shareholder putative class action, brought by an investor against software company Pegasystems (Pega) in the District of Massachusetts, should give legal leaders and communications management of publicly traded companies pause about making routine public statements disdaining the merits of pending claims. The Upshot The plaintiff alleged that Pega reassured investors in a Form 10-K filing that claims brought in a separate lawsuit alleging theft of trade secrets were "without merit"—and that such reassurance was false and misleading because Pega's CEO and other senior executives had taken part in the supposed misconduct at issue. The court held that "reassur[ing] investors" that claims are "without merit . . . is an actionable opinion statement." The court also emphasized that, when discussing any pending claims, companies "must do so with exceptional care, so as not to mislead investors." The Bottom Line Companies facing pending legal action should either refrain from commenting on the merits of pending claims, or consult with knowledgeable counsel and proceed with caution before doing so. A recent ruling on a motion to dismiss in the District of Massachusetts should give legal leaders and communications management of publicly traded companies pause about making routine public statements disdaining the merits of pending claims. The ruling came in a shareholder putative class action brought by an investor against Massachusetts software company Pegasystems (Pega) for federal securities violations. Plaintiff alleged that Pega reassured investors in a Form 10-K filing that claims brought in a separate lawsuit in Virginia alleging theft of trade secrets (the Virginia action) were "without merit" -- and that such reassurance was false and misleading because Pega's CEO and other senior executives had taken part in the supposed misconduct at issue in the Virginia action. This second lawsuit against Pega was filed after a jury in the Virginia action returned a verdict of over $2 billion against Pega, causing Pega's stock value to decline precipitously. In rejecting Pega's motion to dismiss the securities case, the court made a number of statements relevant to companies crafting a 10-K filing, or indeed any public statement, about pending litigation involving their company. In particular, the court held that "reassur[ing] investors” that claims are “without merit . . . is an actionable opinion statement," noting "a reasonable investor expects not just that the issuer believes the opinion (however irrationally), but that it fairly aligns with the information in the issuer's possession at the time." The Massachusetts District Judge highlighted the choice to single out claims as being "without merit" -- a phrase that has arguably become public relations boilerplate in response to incipient litigation -- as one which can almost inevitably lead to "reasonable investors . . . underst[anding the company]'s message that [the] claims were 'without merit' as a denial of the facts underlying [those] claims -- as opposed to a mere statement that [the company] had legal defenses against those claims." The court went on to emphasize that this doesn't mean the company has to bestow credibility on pending claims, either -- even if it has knowledge that the underlying facts are true. " [H]owever, it must do so with exceptional care, so as not to mislead investors." The safe ground, in the court's estimation, is the Stoic approach: focus on what the company can control -- namely, how it plans to approach the litigation. For instance, a company "may validly assert its intention to oppose the lawsuit." "It may also state that it has 'substantial defenses' against [the lawsuit], if it reasonably believes that to be true." According to at least one federal judge, avoiding an assessment or value judgment of the validity of the claims -- and, by implication, of the veracity of the factual basis for those claims -- is what's crucial. [GN] PENNSYLVANIA: Settles Class Suit Over Students With Disabilities ---------------------------------------------------------------- Maggie Mancini of PhillyVoice reports that Pennsylvania students with disabilities now are eligible to attend school until age 22 after a lawsuit filed on behalf of a Lower Merion student reached a settlement with the state. The settlement of the class-action lawsuit was announced on August 31, 2023. It has resulted in the Pennsylvania Department of Education changing the age when public school students no longer qualify for free special education services. Previously, students with disabilities were qualified until the end of the school year in which they turned 21 years old. The new policy is retroactive for students who turned 21 during the 2022-2023 school year. The Department of Education has sent letters to caregivers and families of those students, informing them the new age-out limit is 22 years old. The Department of Education has also informed superintendents and school administrators about the change, advising them to contact families, too. The change takes effect on August 29, 2023. Each year, there are about 17,000 special education students in Pennsylvania between the ages of 18-21, and approximately 300 of them are 21 years old, the Associated Press reported. Among the special education services provided to students with disabilities are occupational therapy and speech therapy. "The PA Department of Education's new policy complies with federal law and allows students to receive the support they are entitled to until they turn 22," the Public Interest Law Center and Berney & Sang, the law firm representing the plaintiff, said in a statement. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of a 19-year-old student with multiple disabilities in the Lower Merion School District. It argued that Pennsylvania was not complying with the federal Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, which guarantees disabled students the right to receive special education services until they earn a high school diploma or turn 22 years old. In school, the 19-year-old works with personal-care assistants and receives occupational therapy, speech therapy and transition services to help him prepare for adulthood. Prior to the age change, he would have become ineligible for special education services in the summer 2025. Now he is eligible until February 2026 when he turns 22. "For children with significant disabilities who are not yet ready to transition out of high school, another school year can make a huge difference in their lives," attorney David Berney, a partner in Berney & Sang, said when the lawsuit was filed earlier this year. In similar lawsuits filed in other states, federal courts have enforced state to comply with the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. On September 1, 2023, the Department of Education spokesperson Taj Magruder said the state is "committed to ensuring that every student receives a high-quality education. Building on that commitment, PDE has updated its policies to better serve special education students." The Department of Education's website has been updated with information to reenroll eligible students in public schools. [GN] PEPSICO INC: Gatorade Protein Bars "Not Healthy," McCausland Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------- IAN MCCAUSLAND, CARLO GARCIA, and MICHAEL ZURL, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PEPSICO, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:23-cv-04526-SVK (N.D. Cal., September 1, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the California Business & Professions Code, California Civil Code, and the New York General Business Law. The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of Gatorade Protein Bars. PepsiCo markets its Gatorade Protein Bars as a nutritious food for consumers comprised of ingredients that will build muscle, and thereby enhance athleticism and overall well-being. In reality, the product contains excessive added sugars, which ingredient leading health authorities advise restricting or omitting from the diet in order to promote physical fitness and well-being. The Plaintiffs would not have purchased, purchased as many of, or paid as much for Gatorade Protein Bars had they known the truth that the product contains excessive added sugars, says the suit. PepsiCo, Inc. is an American multinational food, snack, and beverage corporation headquartered in Harrison, New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Maia Kats, Esq. JUST FOOD LAW PLLC 5335 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Ste. 440 Washington, DC 20015 Telephone: (202) 243-7910 E-mail: maiakats@justfoodlaw.com - and - Michael D. Braun, Esq. KUZYK LAW, LLP 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Ste. 800 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (213) 401-4100 Facsimile: (213) 401-0311 E-mail: mdb@kuzykclassactions.com PERRIGO CO: Shareholders Suit Over Meds Price-Rigging Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------- Perrigo Company 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 shareholder suits with various pending motions against the company are currently ongoing. Beginning in May 2016, purported class action complaints were filed against the company and its former CEO, Joseph Papa, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, one of which is "Roofers' Pension Fund v. Papa, et al.," purporting to represent a class of shareholders for the period from April 21, 2015 through May 11, 2016, inclusive. The original complaint alleged violations of federal securities laws in connection with the actions taken by the company and the former executive to defend against the unsolicited takeover bid by pharmaceutical company Mylan N.V. in the period from April 21, 2015 through November 13, 2015. The plaintiff also alleged that the defendants provided inadequate disclosure concerning alleged business developments during the alleged class period including integration problems related to the Omega acquisition. The operative complaint is the first amended complaint filed on June 21, 2017, and named as defendants the company and 11 current or former directors and officers of Perrigo (Mses. Judy Brown, Laurie Brlas, Jacqualyn Fouse, Ellen Hoffing, and Messrs. Joe Papa, Marc Coucke, Gary Cohen, Michael Jandernoa, Gerald Kunkle, Herman Morris, and Donal O'Connor). The amended complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws arising out of the actions taken by us and the former directors and executives to defend against the unsolicited takeover bid by Mylan in the period from April 21, 2015 through November 13, 2015 and the allegedly inadequate disclosure throughout the entire class period related to the business developments during that longer period (April 2015 to May 2017) including purported integration problems related to the Omega acquisition, alleges incorrect reporting of organic growth at the company and at Omega, alleges price fixing activities with respect to six generic prescription pharmaceuticals, and alleges improper accounting for the Tysabri(R) royalty stream. During 2017, the defendants filed motions to dismiss, which the plaintiffs opposed. On July 27, 2018, the court issued an opinion and order granting the defendants' motions to dismiss in part and denying the motions to dismiss in part. The court dismissed without prejudice defendants Laurie Brlas, Jacqualyn Fouse, Ellen Hoffing, Gary Cohen, Michael Jandernoa, Gerald Kunkle, Herman Morris, Donal O’Connor, and Marc Coucke. The court also dismissed without prejudice claims arising from the Tysabri accounting issue described above and claims alleging incorrect disclosure of organic growth described above. The defendants who were not dismissed are the Company, Joe Papa, and Judy Brown. The claims that were not dismissed relate to the integration issue regarding the Omega acquisition, the defense against the Mylan tender offer, and the alleged price fixing activities with respect to six generic prescription pharmaceuticals. On November 14, 2019, the court granted the lead plaintiffs' motion and certified three classes for the case: all those who purchased shares between April 21, 2015 through May 2, 2017 inclusive on a U.S. exchange and were damaged thereby, all those who purchased shares between April 21, 2015 through May 2, 2017 inclusive on the Tel Aviv exchange and were damaged thereby and all those who owned shares as of November 12, 2015 and held such stock through at least 8:00 a.m. on November 13, 2015. Plaintiffs' counsels have sent notices to the alleged classes. The parties took discovery from 2018 through 2020. After discovery ended, defendants filed motions for summary judgement and to exclude plaintiffs' experts, which were fully briefed. The case was then re-assigned to a new federal judge, who heard oral argument on the motions in April 2022. In July 2023 the court reassigned the case to another federal judge. Perrigo Company PLC is a provider of over-the-counter health and wellness solutions. It is headquartered in Ireland and markets around the world. PERRIGO COMPANY: Meds Price-Sigging Suit Ongoing in Canadian Court ------------------------------------------------------------------ Perrigo Company 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 it is facing a Canadian class action complaint, where in June 2020, an end payor sued Perrigo and 29 manufacturers alleging an overarching conspiracy to allocate customers and/or fix, raise, or stabilize prices of Clobetasol, Desonide, Econazole, and Nystatin. In December 2020, Plaintiffs amended their complaint to add additional claims based on the State Attorney General Complaint of June 2020. Perrigo Company PLC is a provider of over-the-counter health and wellness solutions. It is headquartered in Ireland and markets around the world. PETALUMA HEALTH CENTER: Gerson Suit Removed to N.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Darlene Gerson, J.J. minor, individually and as next friend on behalf of J.J. (minor), and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Petaluma Health Center, Inc., Case No. SCV-273620 was removed from the Superior Court of California, Sonoma County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on Aug. 2, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-03870-SK to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Med. Malpractice. Petaluma Health Center -- https://phealthcenter.org/ -- provides patient-centered medical, dental and specialty healthcare services for the communities.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Danielle Lynn Perry, Esq. MASON LLP 5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 640 Washington, DC 20015 Phone: (202) 429-2290 Fax: (202) 429-2294 Email: dperry@masonllp.com The Defendants are represented by: Kathryn Ellen Doi, Esq. FELDESMAN TUCKER LEIFER FIDELL LLP 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2580 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: (916) 425-3477 Email: kdoi@ftlf.com - and - Matthew Sidney Freedus, Esq. FELDESMAN TUCKER LEIFER FIDELL LLP 1129 20th Street NW, 4th Floor Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (202) 466-8960 Email: mfreedus@ftlf.com PETRO-CHEMICAL TRANSPORT: Saunders Seeks Unpaid OT for Dispatchers ------------------------------------------------------------------ DANA SAUNDERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PETRO-CHEMICAL TRANSPORT, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-01974-S (N.D. Tex., September 1, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a dispatcher in Texas from April 2021 through June 2023. Petro-Chemical Transport, LLC is an operator of a nationwide trucking service based in Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas B. Welmaker, Esq. WELMAKER LAW, PLLC 409 N. Fredonia, Suite 118 Longview, TX 75601 Telephone: (512) 799-2048 E-mail: doug@welmakerlaw.com PETTICOAT JUNCTION: Rhone Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Petticoat Junction, Inc. The case is styled as Tonimarie Rhone, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Petticoat Junction, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-07814 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 1, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Petticoat Junction, Inc. -- https://petticoatjct.com/ -- has 30+ years of experience in dance clothing and shoes will help customers find comfortable, stylish dance clothing and shoes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noor H. Abou-Saab, I, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB 380 North Broadway, Suite 300 Jericho, NY 11753 Phone: (718) 740-5060 Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com PHARMACARE US: Case Management Conference Sched Sought in Corbett ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MONTIQUENO CORBETT and ROB DOBBS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PHARMACARE U.S., INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-00137-JES-AHG (S.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs request that the Court schedule a case management conference to enter a new briefing schedule for the remaining briefing deadlines for their motion for class certification and related motions. PharmaCare is a Wellness and Fitness Services, Health & Nutrition Products, and Nutricueticals company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 18, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45z1BCz at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Russell Busch, Esq. Trenton R. Kashima, Esq. Alex Straus, Esq. Rachel Soffin, Esq. Nick Suciu III, Esq. Martha A. Geer, Esq. Erin Ruben, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 979 Green Bay Rd. Highland Park, IL 60035 Telephone: (630) 796-0903 E-mail: rbusch@milberg.com kashima@milberg.com astraus@milberg.com rsoffin@milberg.com nsuciu@milberg.com mgeer@milberg.com eruben@milberg.com PHI KAPPA: Faces Schimborski Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D. Ohio ------------------------------------------------------------ HAYDEN SCHIMBORSKI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE PHI KAPPA TAU FRATERNITY, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-00555-DRC (S.D. Ohio, September 5, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to pay overtime wages and failure to tender pay by regular payday in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act. On June 1, 2021, the Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a recruiter. He accepted a success manager role from January 2022 until August 11, 2023. The Phi Kappa Tau Fraternity is a nationwide non-profit fraternity, with a principal place of business located in Oxford, Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Greg R. Mansell, Esq. Rhiannon M. Herbert, Esq. MANSELL LAW, LLC 1457 S. High St. Columbus, OH 43207 Telephone: (614) 796-4325 Facsimile: (614) 547-3614 E-mail: Greg@MansellLawLLC.com Rhiannon@MansellLawLLC.com PLATINUM SECURITY: Edwards Sues Over Unpaid Compensations --------------------------------------------------------- Dwayne A. Edwards, on behalf of herself and current and former aggrieved employees v. PLATINUM SECURITY, INC.; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV21171 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Sept. 1, 2023), is brought against the Defendants' violation of the Labor Code based on Defendants' failure to pay proper minimum and overtime compensations. The Defendants' failed to provide all legally required and/or legally compliant meal and rest periods, failed to pay wages on a weekly basis, failed to timely pay earned wages during employment, failed to provide complete and accurate wage statements, and failed to timely pay all unpaid wages following separation of employment. The Plaintiff seeks on a representative basis, following notice to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency, civil penalties, reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to Labor Code and costs brought on behalf of Plaintiff, the State of California, and others aggrieved, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a former employee of the Defendants. PLATINUM SECURITY, INC. is authorized to do business within the State of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. N. Nick Ebrahimian, Esq. Vincent C. Granberry, Esq Alan A. Wilcox, Esq. Melanie S. Rodriguez, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W Olympic Blvd., Ste. 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: 310-432-0000 Fax: 310-432-0001 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com nebrahimian@lelawfirm.com vgranberry@lelawfirm.com awilcox@lelawfirm.com mrodriguez@lelawfirm.com PLS CHECK CASHERS: Calva Sues Over Failure To Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------- Maria Calva, an individual, on behalf of herself, all other aggrieved employees, and the general public v. PLS CHECK CASHERS OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV21300 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Sept. 5, 2023), is brought based on the Defendants' policy and practice of unlawfully classifying such Store Managers as "exempt" and consequently failing, among other things, to provide payment for all hours worked, including overtime, legally compliant meal and rest breaks, and failing to provide accurate wage statements from June 30, 2022 to the present ("Relevant Time Period"). In particular, as a result of such unlawful misclassification, Defendants fail to provide timely and adequate meal and rest breaks, fail to timely compensate employees for all wages earned, and fail to properly and accurately calculate overtime and report wages earned, hours worked, and wage rates. The Defendants' classification and compensation scheme did not fully compensate Plaintiff with at least minimum wages and/or designated rates for all hours worked. The Defendants' classification and compensation scheme did not fully compensate Plaintiff with overtime compensation for all overtime hours worked. And as a matter of policy and/or practice of such unlawful misclassification, Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff with adequate off-duty meal periods and meal period compensation --, says the complaint. The Plaintiff commenced her employment with Defendants in 2018, initially starting as a Shift Supervisor, before being elevated to a salaried Store Manager in 2020. PLS Check Cashers of California, Inc. is a financial institution that provides check cashing and payday lender services with locations that operate throughout the United States, including in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael H. Boyamian, Esq. Alfred Movsesyan, Esq. BOYAMIAN LAW, INC. 550 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 1500 Glendale, CA 91203-1922 Phone: 818.547.5300 Facsimile: 818.547.5678 Email: michael@boyamianlaw.com PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Marshall Alleges Disclosure of Personal Info --------------------------------------------------------------- EDWARD MARSHALL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION, PENSION BENEFIT INFORMATION, LLC d/b/a PBI RESEARCH SERVICES, and TEACHERS INSURANCE AND ANNUITY ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-07822 (S.D.N.Y., September 1, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, breach of third-party beneficiary contract, breach of contract, negligence per se, unjust enrichment, declaratory and injunctive relief, and violations of the New York General Business Law. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated customers following a data breach on their network systems that utilized MOVEit file transfer services on May 29, 2023 and May 30, 2023. The Defendants also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the PII of the Plaintiff and Class members were compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. Progress Software Corporation is a software company, with its principal place of business located at 15 Wayside Road, Suite 4, Burlington, Massachusetts. Pension Benefit Information, LLC, doing business as PBI Research Services, is a search services provider based in Minnesota. Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America is a provider of insurance and financial services based in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Brown, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 E-mail: JBrown@LeedsBrownLaw.com - and - Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. THE SULTZER LAW GROUP P.C. 85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Telephone: (845) 244-5595 E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com - and - Steve W. Berman, Esq. Sean R. Matt, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com sean@hbsslaw.com - and - Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq. GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA 4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490 Cincinnati, OH 45242 Telephone: (513) 345-8291 Facsimile: (513) 345-8294 E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com - and - Charles Schaffer, Esq. Nicholas J. Elia, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 592-1500 Facsimile: (215) 592-4663 E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com nelia@lfsblaw.com - and - Joseph M. Lyon, Esq. THE LYON FIRM 2754 Erie Ave. Cincinnati, OH 45208 Telephone: (513) 381-2333 Facsimile: (513) 766-9011 E-mail: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Smiley Sues Over Compromised Customers' Info --------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES SMILEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION, PENSION BENEFIT INFORMATION, LLC d/b/a PBI RESEARCH SERVICES, MILLIMAN, INC. d/b/a MILLIMAN INTELLISCRIPT; MILLIMAN SOLUTIONS LLC; THE INDEPENDENT ORDER OF FORESTERS d/b/a FORESTERS FINANCIAL; and FORESTERS FINANCIAL HOLDING COMPANY, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-01354 (W.D. Wash., August 31, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, breach of third-party beneficiary contract, negligence per se, unjust enrichment, and declaratory and injunctive relief. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated customers stored within their network systems that utilized MOVEit file transfer services following a data breach. The Defendants also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the PII of the Plaintiff and Class members were compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, the suit alleges. Progress Software Corporation is a software company, with its principal place of business located at 15 Wayside Road, Suite 4, Burlington, Massachusetts. Pension Benefit Information, LLC, doing business as PBI Research Services, is a search services provider based in Minnesota. Milliman, Inc., doing business as Milliman Intelliscript, is a provider of risk assessment services based in Washington. Milliman Solutions LLC is a provider of insurance agent and broker services based in Washington. The Independent Order of Foresters, doing business as Foresters Financial, is a life insurance and financial services provider based in Toronto, Ontario. Foresters Financial Holding Company, Inc. is an international financial services provider, headquartered in Toronto, Ontario. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. Sean R. Matt, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com sean@hbsslaw.com - and - Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq. GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA 4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490 Cincinnati, OH 45242 Telephone: (513) 345-8291 Facsimile: (513) 345-8294 E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com - and - Charles Schaffer, Esq. Nicholas J. Elia, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 592-1500 Facsimile: (215) 592-4663 E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com nelia@lfsblaw.com - and - Joseph M. Lyon, Esq. THE LYON FIRM 2754 Erie Ave. Cincinnati, OH 45208 Telephone: (513) 381-2333 Facsimile: (513) 766-9011 E-mail: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com PROGRESSIVE UNIVERSAL: Nov. 2 Hearing on Sealed Class Status Bid ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kroeger v. Progressive Universal Insurance Company, Case No. 4:22-cv-00104 (S.D. Iowa, Filed March 25, 2022), the Hon. Judge Stephen H Locher entered an order setting hearing regarding sealed motion for class certification filed by Amy Kroeger. -- Motion hearing will be held on Nov. 2, 2023. The nature of suit states Diversity-Breach of Contract. Progressive provides property and casualty insurance services.[CC] PROJECTION PRESENTATION: Montano Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Projection Presentation Technology, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Eric Montano, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. Projection Presentation Technology, Inc., Does 1 Through 100, Inclusive, Projection Video Services, Inc., Case No. CGC23608843 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Sept. 5, 2023). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints." Projection -- https://projection.com/ -- is a full service, nationwide audio visual and computer rental company serving the meetings and convention industry for over three decades.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Arby Aiwazian, Esq. LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 410 Arden Ave., Ste. 203 Glendale, CA 91203-4007 Phone: 818-265-1020 Fax: 818-265-1021 Email: arby@calljustice.com PUETZ EVERGREEN: Rhone Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Puetz Evergreen Golf Course, Inc. The case is styled as Tonimarie Rhone, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Puetz Evergreen Golf Course, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-07818 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 1, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Puetz Evergreen Golf Course, Inc. -- https://www.puetzgolf.com/ -- operates as a sporting goods store.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noor H. Abou-Saab, I, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB 380 North Broadway, Suite 300 Jericho, NY 11753 Phone: (718) 740-5060 Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: ERISA Suit Ongoing in NJ Court -------------------------------------------------- Quest Diagnostics Incorporated disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 25, 2023, that in 2020, two putative class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for New Jersey against the Company and other defendants with respect to the company's 401(k) plan. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the fiduciaries of the 401(k) plan breached their duties by failing to disclose the expenses and risks of plan investment options, allowing unreasonable administration expenses to be charged to plan participants, and selecting and retaining high cost and poor performing investments. In October 2020, the court consolidated the two lawsuits under the caption "In re: Quest Diagnostics ERISA Litigation" and plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint. In May 2021, the court denied the Company's motion to dismiss the complaint. Discovery is proceeding. Quest Diagnostics Incorporated is a medical laboratory company based in New Jersey. QUICK BOX: Parties in Tan Seek to Defer Class Certification Ruling ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEANNE TAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. QUICK BOX, LLC et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-01082-LL-DDL (S.D. Cal.), the Parties file a joint motion for second deferral of ruling on the Plaintiff's motion for class certification pursuant to civil rule 7.2. 1. The Parties have fully briefed Plaintiff's motion for class certification, and it is now under submission to the Court. 2. The Plaintiff and the Quick Box Parties participated in an in- person mediation in Santa Ana, California on August 3, 2023, before mediator Jill Sperber, which resulted in a tentative settlement between these parties. 3. The Plaintiff and the Konnektive Parties have agreed and have been ordered to participate in an in-person Settlement Conference before Magistrate Judge David L. Leshner on September 27, 2023. 4. The parties believe that the Settlement Conference between plaintiff and the Konnektive Parties will be most productive before a ruling on the Motion for Class Certification. 5. A settlement by plaintiff and the Konnektive Parties would eliminate, entirely, the need for a ruling on the pending Motion for Class Certification. 6. The Plaintiff, the Quick Box Parties, and the Konnektive Parties agree to the relief requested by this Joint Motion. Quick Box is a Business-to-Business (B2B) company offering last-mile delivery, same day & on-demand delivery service. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Aug. 21, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/480LLlM at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Kneupper, Esq. A. Cyclone Covey, Esq. KNEUPPER & COVEY, PC 17011 Beach Blvd., Ste. 900 Huntington Beach, CA 92647-5998 Telephone: (512) 420-8407 E-mail: kevin@kneuppercovey.com cyclone@kneuppercovey.com The Defendants are represented by: Ryan M. Poteet, Esq. Damon W.D. Wright, Esq. Christopher b. Queally, Esq. GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP 101 West Broadway, Suite 2000 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 696-6700 E-mail: rpoteet@grsm.com dwright@grsm.com cqueally@grsm.com - and - David T. Biderman, Esq. Eudeen Chang, Esq. Thomas J. Tobin, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 1888 Century Park East, Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067-1721 E-mail: DBiderman@perkinscoie.com EChang@perkinscoie.com TTobin@perkinscoie.com RANGOON RESTAURANT: Naing Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ Sai Yan Naing, and Pablo Ventura, and other similarly situated employees v. RANGOON RESTAURANT CONCEPTS LLC d/b/a Rangoon, DANIEL BENDJY, and MYO MOE, Case No. 1:23-cv-06606 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 5, 2023), is brought alleging that pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), to recover from the Defendants: unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages and civil penalties pursuant to the New York Labor Law and the New York State Wage Theft Prevention Act, including liquidated damages on all wages paid late, prejudgment and post judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiff Nanig was paid on a weekly basis. But Defendants paid the Plaintiff more than seven days after the end of the week in which his wages were earned, in violation of NYLL. No notification, either in the form of posted notices or other means, was ever given to the Plaintiff regarding overtime and wages under the FLSA and NYLL. Defendants failed to notify the Plaintiff in writing that Defendants were taking a tip-credit towards his basic minimum hourly rate of pay. Throughout his employment with Defendants, the Plaintiff Ventura worked in excess of forty hours per week. Defendants never paid Ventura at the overtime rate of one and one-half times his straight time rate, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as a bartender, server and cook. The Defendants operate two Burmese restaurants under the trade name Rangoon.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Arthur H. Forman, Esq. 98-20 Metropolitan Avenue Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (718) 268-2616 Fax: (718) 575-1600 Email: ahf@ahforman.com REALPAGE INC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Hollins Due June 13, 2024 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KATHLEEN HOLLINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. REALPAGE, INC., d/b/a LeasingDesk Screening, Case No. 1:23-cv-02247-MLB-LTW (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Linda T. Walker entered an scheduling order and guidelines for discovery and summary judgment practice. -- Discovery will end on April 29, 2024. -- Motions for summary judgment and motions for class certification must be filed by June 13, 2024. -- If no motions for summary judgment are filed, the Proposed Consolidated Pretrial Order will be due June 17, 2023. -- If a motion for summary judgment is filed, the Consolidated Pretrial Order will be due thirty days after the District Court's final ruling on the motion for summary judgment, if there are matters left to be tried. RealPage provides data analytics, property management software, and services to efficiently manage rental properties and real estate. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 17, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PoV0VA at no extra charge.[CC] REALREAL INC: Settlement in Shareholder Class Suit Gets Final Nod ----------------------------------------------------------------- The RealReal, 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 July 28, 2022, the court entered an order finally approving a settlement and dismissing a purported shareholder class action complaints against the company, its officers and directors and the underwriters of its initial public offering (IPO) in the San Mateo Superior Court, Marin County Superior Court and the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Said complaints were filed on September 10, 2019. On July 27, 2021, the company reached an agreement in principle to settle the shareholder class action. On November 5, 2021, plaintiff filed the executed stipulation of settlement and motion for preliminary approval of the settlement with the federal court. On March 24, 2022, the court entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement. The financial terms of the stipulation of settlement provide that the company will pay $11.0 million within thirty days of the later of preliminary approval of the settlement or plaintiff’s counsel providing payment instructions. The RealReal, Inc. is an online marketplace for authenticated, consigned luxury goods across multiple categories, including women's fashion, men’s fashion, and jewelry and watches. RENT THE RUNWAY: Continues to Defend Sharma Class Suit in E.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Rent the Runaway Inc. 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 Sharma class suit in the Eastern District of New York. On November 14, 2022, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a putative class action lawsuit in the Eastern District of New York against the Company, certain of its officers and directors, and the underwriters of its IPO, entitled Rajat Sharma v. Rent the Runway, Inc., et al. 22-cv-6935. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), by making allegedly materially misleading statements, and by omitting material facts necessary to make the statements made therein not misleading concerning, inter alia, the Company's growth at the time of the IPO. The lawsuit seeks, among other things, compensatory damages, an award of attorneys' fees and costs and such other relief as deemed just and proper by the court. On June 8, 2023, the court appointed Delaware Public Employees' Retirement System and Denver Employees Retirement Plan as lead plaintiffs. On August 21, 2023, lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint against the Company, certain of its officers and directors, and the underwriters of its IPO. The amended complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act by allegedly making certain false and misleading statements, and by omitting material facts necessary to make the statements made therein not misleading, concerning, among other things, the Company's growth prospects and fulfillment costs at the time of the IPO. The lawsuit seeks an award of damages, attorney's fees and costs, and such other relief as the court deems just and proper. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against these claims. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims asserted in the amended complaint and any liability for such claims is not currently probable and the potential loss or range of loss is not reasonably estimable. Rent The Runway, Inc. is an e-commerce platform offering fashion services. RESTAURANT BRANDS: Faces Suit Over Sherman Act Violations --------------------------------------------------------- Restaurant Brands International Limited Partnership (RBI) disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2023, that a consolidated complaint alleging violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act by incorporating an employee no-solicitation and no-hiring clause in the standard form franchise agreement all Burger King franchisees are required to sign, is currently ongoing. On October 31, 2018, a class action complaint was filed against Burger King Company (BKC) and Burger King Worldwide, Inc. (BWK) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida by Geneva Blanchard and Tiffany Miller, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. On March 24, 2020, the court granted BKC's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and on April 20, 2020 the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend their complaint. On April 27, 2020, BKC filed a motion opposing the motion for leave to amend. The court denied the plaintiffs motion for leave to amend their complaint in August 2020 and the plaintiffs appealed this ruling. In August 2022, the federal appellate court reversed the lower court's decision to dismiss the case and remanded the case to the lower court for further proceedings. Restaurant Brands International Limited Partnership franchises and operates quick service restaurants serving premium coffee and other beverage and food products under the Tim Hortons(R) brand, fast food hamburgers principally under the Burger King(R) brand, chicken principally under the Popeyes(R) brand and sandwiches under the Firehouse Subs(R) brand. RESTAURANT BRANDS: Plaintiffs' Appeal on Suit Dismissal Tossed -------------------------------------------------------------- Restaurant Brands International Limited Partnership (RBI) 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 March 21, 2023, the Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal with regards to the plaintiffs' move to the Court of Appeals of the State of New York. On October 26, 2020, City of Warwick Municipal Employees Pension Fund, a purported stockholder of RBI, individually and putatively on behalf of all other stockholders similarly situated, filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court of the State of New York County of New York naming RBI and certain of its officers, directors and shareholders as defendants alleging violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, in connection with certain offerings of securities by an affiliate in August and September 2019. The complaint alleges that the shelf registration statement used in connection with such offering contained certain false and/or misleading statements or omissions. The complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification of the lawsuit, unspecified compensatory damages, rescission, pre-judgement and post-judgement interest, costs and expenses. On December 18, 2020 the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and on February 16, 2021 RBI filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. The plaintiffs filed a brief in opposition to the motion on April 19, 2021 and RBI filed a reply in May 2021. The motion to dismiss was heard in April 2022 and the motion to dismiss was denied in May 2022. On June 6, 2022, the company filed an answer to the complaint and on July 8, 2022, it filed an appeal of the denial of the motion to dismiss. On November 10, 2022, the appellate division reversed the trial court and ordered that the complaint be dismissed. Plaintiffs moved for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals of the State of New York, which RBI opposed, and on March 21, 2023, the Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal. Restaurant Brands International Limited Partnership franchises and operates quick service restaurants serving premium coffee and other beverage and food products under the Tim Hortons(R) brand, fast food hamburgers principally under the Burger King(R) brand, chicken principally under the Popeyes(R) brand and sandwiches under the Firehouse Subs(R) brand. REVANCE THERAPEUTICS: Faces Shareholder Suit Over Wrinkle Meds --------------------------------------------------------------- Revance Therapeutics, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2023 that it is facing a putative securities class action complaint filed on December 10, 2021, against the company and certain of its officers on behalf of a class of stockholders who acquired its securities from November 25, 2019 to October 11, 2021, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of Exchange Act by making false and misleading statements regarding the manufacturing of DaxibotulinumtoxinA-lanm, DAXXIFY(R) and the timing and likelihood of regulatory approval and seeks unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the putative class and an award of costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees. The court appointed the lead plaintiff and lead counsel on September 7, 2022. The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on November 7, 2022. On January 23, 2023, the company filed a motion to dismiss. On March 8, 2023, the lead plaintiff filed an opposition to its motion to dismiss. On April 7, 2023, the company filed a reply in support of its motion to dismiss. A hearing on its motion to dismiss was scheduled on August 10, 2023, Revance is a biotechnology company focused on developing and commercializing innovative aesthetic and therapeutic offerings for muscle movement disorders, cervical dystonia and upper limb spasticity. RIVIAN AUTOMOTIVE: Bid for Leave to File Reply Tossed ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANGELA BETANCOURT, v. RIVIAN AUTOMOTIVE, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-01299-JES-JEH (C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge James E. Shadid entered an order denying the Defendant Rivian's motion for leave to file a reply. -- The Defendant's motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the second amended complaint is also denied. -- The Court reserves ruling on Plaintiff's request for class certification, finding the request premature. -- The Plaintiff here has pled that she was subjected to sexual harassment and a hostile work environment which started in December 2021 and continued until she left her employment in April 2022. -- The alleged misconduct represents a continuing violation which was ongoing on the date the EFAA was enacted with the result that the Arbitration Agreement and joint-action waiver are non-enforceable. -- The Court additionally denies Rivian's motion to the extent that it requests. -- The Plaintiff be required to arbitrate her claims, that the class claims be dismissed with prejudice, and that the jury demand be stricken. Rivian's motion to dismiss is denied in its entirety The Plaintiff Betancourt has filed a second amended complaint and requested a jury trial under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq., and the Illinois Human Rights Act (IHRA), asserting sexual discrimination and sexual harassment against her former employer, Rivian. The Plaintiff worked as a Battery Team Member at Rivian, a manufacturer of electric vehicles, from December 6, 2021, through "about June 1, 2022.". The Plaintiff asserts that throughout her employment, "she was regularly subjected to unwanted sexual advances by several of her male coworkers" who pinched her sides, breathed down her neck, and showed her inappropriate sexual pictures and videos on their phones. Rivian is an American electric vehicle manufacturer and automotive technology and outdoor recreation company. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 21, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3P7Figd at no extra charge.[CC] ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due March 8, 2024 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as COOPER MOORE and ANDREW GILLETTE, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 2:21-cv-01571-BJR (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Barbara J. Rothstein entered an order granting the parties' stipulated motion: Event Current Date Requested Date Plaintiffs' expert report(s) Aug. 28, 2023 Oct. 27, 2023 served on defendant Deadline for class certification Sept. 15, 2023 Nov. 22, 2023 fact discovery Defendant's expert report(s) Oct. 2, 2023 Dec. 4, 2023 served on plaintiffs Plaintiffs' rebuttal expert Nov. 14, 2023 Jan. 15, 2024 report(s) served on Defendant Deadline for the parties to Oct. 31, 2023 No change engage in private mediation Deadline to complete class Dec. 1, 2023 Feb. 2, 2024 certification expert discovery Deadline for Plaintiffs to file Jan. 10, 2024 Mar. 8, 2024 motion for class certification Deadline for Defendant's class Feb. 7, 2024 Apr. 5, 2024 certification response Deadline for Plaintiffs' class Feb. 28, 2024 Apr. 19, 2024 certification reply Fact discovery cut off Sept. 23, 2024 Nov. 22, 2024 Robinhood is a stock brokerage firm, which provides brokerage clearing services. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 21, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3R6em3b at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jennifer Rust Murray, Esq. Beth E. Terrell, Esq. TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP 936 North 34th Street, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98103 Telephone: (206) 816-6603 Facsimile: (206) 319-5450 E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com jmurray@terrellmarshall.com - and - Sophia M. Rios, Esq. E. Michelle Drake, Esq. Mark DeSanto, Esq. Zachary Vaughan, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 401 B Street, Suite 2000 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 489-0300 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 E-mail: srios@bm.net mdrake@bm.net mdesanto@bm.net zvaughan@bm.net The Defendant is represented by: Lauren Burdette Rainwater, Esq. Kenneth E Payson, Esq. Eric Franz, Esq. Theo A. Lesczynsk, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE (SEA) 920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98104-1610 Telephone: (206) 622-3150 Facsimile: (206) 757-7700 E-mail: kenpayson@dwt.com laurenrainwater@dwt.com ericfranz@dwt.com theolesczynski@dwt.com ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Nov. 17 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re Robinhood Order Flow Litigation, Case No. 4:20-cv-09328-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their stipulation as follows: -- Motion for Class Certification due by: Nov. 17, 2023 -- Disclosure of Experts with complete Nov. 17, 2023 documentation due by: -- Defendants Depositions of Plaintiff's Jan. 5, 2024 experts to be completed by: -- Opposition to Motion for Class Jan. 26, 2024 Certification due by: -- The Plaintiff Depositions of Defendant's Feb. 23, 2024 experts to be completed by: -- Reply in Support of Motion for Class March 22, 2024 Certification due by: -- Hearing on Motion for Class Certification April 23, 2024 requested for: On February 6, 2023, the Court issued an Order setting forth a September 11, 2023, deadline for the filing of Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Parties have been working diligently to complete discovery. The Defendants began rolling document productions on April 7, 2023 and produced documents on a regular basis through August 3, 2023. The Defendants' most recent document production consisted of 22,795 pages of documents. The Plaintiff is in the process of reviewing the 260,306 pages of documents produced by Defendants from April 7, 2023, through the present. The Plaintiff served Defendants with a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice on July 26, 2023. Robinhood operates a financial services platform. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 22, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3RagczX at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tina Wolfson, Esq. Robert Ahdoot, Esq. Bradley K. King, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 2600 West Olive Avenue, Suite 500 Burbank, CA 91505 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com bking@ahdootwolfson.com - and - Scott A. Bursor, Esq. Sarah N. Westcot, Esq. Stephen A. Beck, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 701 Brickell Ave, Suite 1420 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 330-5512 Facsimile: (305) 679-9006 E-mail: sbursor@bursor.com swestcot@bursor.com sbeck@bursor.com - and - Nicholas A. Coulson, Esq. LIDDLE SHEETS COULSON P.C. 975 E. Jefferson Ave. Detroit, MI 48207 Telephone: (313) 392-0015 Facsimile: (313) 392-0025 E-mail: ncoulson@ldclassaction.com The Defendants are represented by: Maeve L. O'Connor, Esq. Elliot Greenfield, Esq. Brandon Fetzer, Esq. DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON LLP 66 Hudson Boulevard New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 909-6000 E-mail: mloconnor@debevoise.com egreenfield@debevoise.com bfetzer@debevoise.com - and - Karen P. Kimmey, Esq. FARELLA BRAUN + MARTEL LLP 235 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 954-4400 E-mail: kkimmey@fbm.com ROCK ISLAND: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Sanchez Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sanchez v. Rock Island County Health Department, Case No. 4:23-cv-04007-SLD-JEH (C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Jonathan E. Hawley entered a standing order as follows: -- Rule 16 scheduling conference The Court will set a Rule 16 scheduling conference approximately 30 days after the answer or other responsive pleading is filed. The conference will generally be conducted by telephone. -- Discovery plan The discovery plan shall be filed with the Court at least three calendar days before the Rule 16 scheduling conference. -- Waiver of the Rule 16 scheduling conference If the parties agree on all matters contained in the discovery plan, then the parties may waive the Rule 16 scheduling conference. To do so, the parties shall indicate in the discovery that the parties agree upon all maters contained within the discovery plan, and they request that the Rule 16 scheduling conference be cancelled. -- Failure of counsel to attend a scheduled telephone hearing For the convenience of counsel, the Court conducts most hearings by telephone when possible. Counsel's failure to appear for a telephone hearing will be treated as a failure of counsel to appear for an in-person hearing. -- Discovery disputes brought to the Court's attention after the discovery deadline has already passed The parties may not raise a discovery dispute with the Court after the relevant discovery deadline has passed; all discovery disputes must be brought to the Court's attention before the relevant discovery deadline passes. Any discovery disputes raised with the Court after the expiration of the relevant discovery deadline shall be deemed waived by the Court, even if the parties agreed to conduct discovery after the relevant discovery deadline has passed. If the parties agree to conduct discovery after the expiration of a deadline set by the Court, they must still file a motion requesting that the Court move that deadline as agreed by the parties in order to avoid any subsequent discovery disputes being deemed waived. -- Settlement conferences and mediation The parties are encouraged to seek a settlement conference or mediation with a magistrate judge. Where parties request a settlement conference or mediation in a case referred to Judge Hawley, Judge Hawley will conduct said conference or mediation. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 23, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LjikBT at no extra charge.[CC] RYZE INC: Faces Len Suit Over Unfair Debt Collection Practices -------------------------------------------------------------- ROBYN LEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RYZE, INC., Defendants, Case No. CACE-23-017985 (Fla. Cir., Broward Cty., Sept. 6, 2023) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. RYZE, INC. is engaged as a debt collection agent. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq. Jennifer G. Simil, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 110 SE 6 th Street, Suite 1744 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 907-1136 Facsimile: (855) 529-9540 Email: jibrael@jibraellaw.com jen@jibraellaw.com geral@jibraellaw.com S E PIPE LINE: Lopez Suit Removed to S.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Juan Angel Lopez, on behalf of the general public as private attorney general v. S E PIPE LINE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, a California Corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 37-2023-00026443 was removed from the Superior Court for the County of San Diego, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on Sept. 5, 2023, and assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-01626-AJB-BLM. The Complaint asserts one cause of action for alleged PAGA violations for Defendant's alleged failure to adhere to specific requirements under the Cal. Labor Code including: the Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees with minimum and overtime wages; the Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees all wages earned and owned upon separation from Defendant's employment; the Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees wages timely during employment; the Defendant's failure to provide Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees accurate itemized wage statements; the Defendant's failure to reimburse Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees necessary business expenses.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Erick J. Becker, P.C., Esq. Garrett M. Fahy, Esq. Joshua Park, Esq. CUMMINS & WHITE, LLP 2424 S.E. Bristol Street, Suite 300 Newport Beach, CA 92660-0764 Phone: (949) 852-1800 Facsimile: (949) 852-8510 Email: ebecker@cwlawyers.com gfahy@cwlawyers.com jpark@cwlawyers.com S E PIPE LINE: Lopez Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Welder Helpers --------------------------------------------------------------- JUAN ANGEL LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. S E PIPE LINE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-01605-BEN-KSC (S.D. Cal., August 31, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the California Labor Code, and the California's Business and Professions Code including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay timely wages, failure to timely pay wages during employment, failure to indemnify necessary business expenses, and unfair business practices. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a welder helper from March 2021 until approximately April 22, 2022. S E Pipe Line Construction Company is a construction company based in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James R. Hawkins, Esq. Gregory Mauro, Esq. Michael Calvo, Esq. Lauren Falk, Esq. JAMES HAWKINS APLC 9880 Research Drive, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 387-7200 Facsimile: (949) 387-6676 E-mail: James@jameshawkinsaplc.com Greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com Michael@jameshawkinsaplc.com Lauren@jameshawkinsaplc.com SANCTUARY SKIN CARE: Gubba Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wage ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jada Gubba, and all persons similarly situated v. SANCTUARY SKIN CARE & SPA d/b/a SANCTUARY SPA; and DOES 1 through 10, Inclusive, Case No. 23STCV21298 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Sept. 5, 2023), is brought against the Defendants' failure to pay minimum wage for all hours worked, failure to timely pay final wages at termination, and unfair business practices. The Defendant had and still have a policy of knowingly failing and failing to pay to Plaintiff minimum wage compensation for all hours she worked. The Defendant willfully violated the provisions of Section 1194 of the California Labor Code, and any additional applicable Wage Orders, which require such compensation to non-exempt employees. Accordingly, Plaintiff Jada Gubba 4 20. is entitled to recover minimum wages for all non-overtime hours worked for Defendant. By and through the conduct described above, Plaintiff Jada Gubba has been deprived of her rights to be paid wages earned by virtue of her employment with Defendant, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a California resident that worked for the Defendant as an Esthetician from February 2, 2022, to April 17, 2023. Sanctuary Skin Care and Spa d/b/a Sanctuary Spa is a full-service day spa specializing in facials, massage, body treatments, dermaplaning, chemical peels in the beauty industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Walter Michalski, Esq. Christina R. King, Esq. MICHALSKI LAW OFFICES 17011 Beach Blvd. Suite 900 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Phone: (818)-489-5069 Email: james@jamesmichalskilaw.com christina@jamesmichalskilaw.com SANTA FE SPRINGS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Sanchez Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ SELERINO SANCHEZ; and GUADALUPE SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SANTA FE SPRINGS CHRISTIAN SCHOOL, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-07427 (C.D. Cal., Sept. 7, 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. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as janitors. SANTA FE SPRINGS CHRISTIAN SCHOOL owns and operates a private preschool and primary school, teaching both a religious and secular curriculum. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ramin R. Younessi, Esq. Heather N. Phillips, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF RAMIN R YOUNESSI A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP. 3435 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2200 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 480-6200 Email: ryounessi@younessilaw.com hphillips@younessilaw.com SANTA MONICA, CA: Murcia Suit Seeks to Certify Damages Classes -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as REYES CONTRERAS MURCIA and SHERMAN A. PERRYMAN, individually and as class representatives, v. CITY OF SANTA MONICA, a municipal corporation; SANTA MONICA POLICE DEPARTMENT, a public entity; CHIEF RAMON BATISTA, individually and in his official capacity; CITY MANAGER DAVID WHITE; individually and in his official capacity; MATTHEW J. LIEB, individually and in his official capacity; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 2:22-cv-05253-FLA-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying two related damages classes as follows: -- Impound Class: "Owners of vehicles impounded by employees of the Defendants city of Santa Monica and/or Santa Monica Police Department at any time from July 28, 2020 through October 31, 2022, where such impounds were pursuant to Cal. Veh. Code section 14602.6(a)(1)." -- Hearing Class: "Owners of vehicles impounded pursuant to Cal. Veh. Code section 14602.6 to whom employees of the Defendants delivered, at any time from July 28, 2020 through October 31, 2022, a "Notice of Stored Vehicle (22852 CVC)." The Class Representatives for both classes are Plaintiffs Reyes Contreras Murcia and Sherman A. Perryman. The Plaintiffs also sue as class representatives for persons whose vehicles defendants impounded under section 14602.6. Santa Monica is a city in Los Angeles County, situated along Santa Monica Bay on California's South Coast. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 18, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3P407sV at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christian Contreras, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF CHRISTIAN CONTRERAS, A PROF. CORP. 360 E. 2nd Street, 8th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90012 Telephone: (323) 435-8000 Facsimile: (323) 597-0101 E-mail: cc@contreras-law.com - and - Donald W. Cook, Esq. ATTORNEY AT LAW 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 2910 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 252-9444 Facsimile: (213) 252-0091 E-mail: manncooklaw@gmail.com - and - Cynthia Anderson-Barker, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF CYNTHIA ANDERSON-BARKER 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 2910 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 381-3246 Facsimile: (213) 252-0091 E-mail: cablaw@hotmail.com SBS TRANSPORT: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Feb. 20, 2024 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MANASSEH STOKES, v. SBS TRANSPORT, LLC, Case No. 4:20-cv-02084-JSW (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jeffrey S. White entered an order scheduling trial and pretrial matters and vacating case management conference. -- The deadline to exchange initial Sept. 18, 2023 disclosures is: -- The Plaintiff shall file the motion Feb. 20, 2024 for class certification by no later than: -- By agreement of the parties, this matter Nov. 19, 2023 is referred to private ADR, to be conducted by: SBS is a licensed and DOT registred trucking company running freight hauling business from Grand Rapids, Michigan. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 21, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45QqjOy at no extra charge.[CC] SCOTT SEMPLE: Court Tosses Vega Class Cert Bid w/o Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as HARRY VEGA, et al., v. SCOTT SEMPLE, et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-00107-JBA (D. Conn.), the Hon. Judge Janet Bond Arterton entered an order denying without prejudice the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification: -- "Current Inmate Damages Class" and a " Former Inmate Damages Class," each of which would include inmates exposed to dangerous levels of radon while housed at Garner. -- "Inmate Injunctive Relief Class" of current Garner inmates for "ongoing violations of their federal constitutional rights as a result of Defendants' failure to remediate the excessive radon levels at Garner and provide the inmates with proper medical screening and management." The Plaintiffs represent they have identified "approximately 500 potential class members" to date who have claims arising from Defendants deliberate indifference to the harmful effects of radon exposure. The Plaintiffs represent that their motion "is based on all of the papers and records on file in this action, including the Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, and on any oral argument or evidence that may be presented at the requested hearing of this Motion." -- Any renewed motion for class certification, accompanied by appropriate documentation, is due October 6, 2023. -- Any opposition will be due October 27, 2023, and any reply will be due November 13, 2023. But Plaintiffs fail to point to any substantiating expert affidavit or medical studies with their motion or subsequent briefing. The Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have failed to engage with the more rigorous requirements established by the Supreme Court and Second Circuit at the class certification stage. The Court agrees. Because it lacks a sufficient record on which to determine if Plaintiffs satisfy the requirements of Rule 23, the Court finds it appropriate to deny Plaintiffs’ motion. However, such a denial is without prejudice. The Court assumes familiarity with the factual background of this case. The Plaintiff Harry Vega brought this putative class action on behalf of all present and former post-conviction inmates and pre-trial detainees incarcerated at Garner since June 18, 1993, who were exposed unknowingly to unsafe levels of indoor radon gas. The Defendants are current and former Department of Corrections (DOC) officials with supervisory responsibility for all DOC facilities, including Garner. The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to Plaintiffs' safety by failing to detect or remediate their radon exposure. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 22, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3P9I6tr at no extra charge.[CC] SEASIDE PALACE: Soleymani Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ Fatemeh Soleymani, an individual, Shima Razipour, an individual v. SEASIDE PALACE RESTAURANT, INC., a California Corporation, SAEID RAZIPOUR, an individual, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV21179 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Sept. 1, 2023), is brought against the Defendants' violation of the California Labor Code by failing to pay the Plaintiff minimum and overtime wages. The Plaintiff alleges that, during the past four years that she was employed by Defendants failed to pay minimum wage, failed to pay overtime, failed to provide meal breaks, failed to provide rest breaks, retaliation, wrongful termination in violation of public policy, failed to reimburse expenses, failed to pay wages in a timely manner, unfair business practices, conversion in violation of California law, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was an individual residing in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. SEASIDE PALACE RESTAURANT, INC., is a corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the State of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. DesJardins, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL DESJARDINS, INC. 17130 Van Buren Blvd #435 Riverside, CA 92504 Phone: (714) 265-2100 Fax: (714)494-8215 Email: md@desjardinslaw.com SELECT REHABILITATION: McLaughlin Seeks to File and Serve TAC ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTINE MCLAUGHLIN, CRYSTAL VANDERVEEN, and JUSTIN LEMBKE, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SELECT REHABILITATION LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-00059-HES-MCR (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 15(a)(2) granting leave of Court for them to file and serve the Third Amended Complaint and permit Plaintiff Hovorka or another Illinois opt-in class member to join the action as a named Plaintiff/Representative of the therapists' claims under the IMWL. The operative complaint is Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint, which includes claims under the Illinois Minimum Wage Law (IMWL) for failure to pay overtime premiums to a class of Therapists. Before filing the SAC, the Plaintiffs moved for conditional collective action certification under the FLSA. The Parties jointly filed their Case Management Report on April 26, 2022, which was followed by the Court's Scheduling Order on April 27, 2022. The Court's Scheduling Order provides for a discovery deadline of September 18, 2023, and incorporates the dates contained in the Case Management Report. The deadline for Plaintiffs to move for Rule 23 Class Certification was December 20, 2022. However, in August 2022, the parties entered a joint stipulation. The Defendant filed the unopposed stipulation, and the Court stayed all discovery until briefing was completed on the Conditional Certification. The Court then determined that final briefing was not complete until March 20, 2023, and thus discovery was stayed until March 20, 2023. Select offers outpatient care and rehabilitation programs to patients. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 23, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/462QvFG at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mitchell Feldman, Esq. FELDMAN LEGAL GROUP 6916 W. Linebaugh Ave 101 Tampa, FL 33625 Telephone: (813) 639-9366 Facsimile: (813) 639-9376 E-mail: mfeldman@flandgatrialattorneys.com - and - Benjamin Lee Williams, Esq. WILLIAMS LAW P.A. 464 Sturdivant Ave Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 Telephone: (904) 580-6060 Facsimile: (904) 417-7494 E-mail: bwilliams@williamslawjax.com SERENITY ASSISTED: Miller Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Caregivers ------------------------------------------------------------------ PATRISHA MILLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SERENITY ASSISTED LIVING, A & M INC., MARY ABUAITA, and JORDAN ABUAITA, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-12251-GCS-APP (E.D. Mich., September 1, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Improved Workforce Opportunity Wage Act, and for false information return. Ms. Miller was employed by the Defendants as a caregiver at the Serenity Assisted Living senior living facility in Clio, Michigan from February 2001 until May 22, 2023. Serenity Assisted Living, A & M Inc. is a caregiver companionship and assisted living services provider based in Clio, Michigan. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Blanchard, Esq. BLANCHARD & WALKER, PLLC 221 N. Main Street, Suite 300 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Telephone: (734) 929-4313 E-mail: blanchard@bwlawonline.com SG AND ARL VENTURES: Castro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against SG And ARL Ventures, LLC. The case is styled as Felix Castro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. SG And ARL Ventures, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-07903 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 6, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. SG AND ARL VENTURES LLC is a Texas Domestic Limited-Liability Company.[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 SHAMROCK TOWING: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Jan. 10, 2024 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL G. ANDERSON, v. SHAMROCK TOWING, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-02517-MHW-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers entered a preliminary pretrial order as follows: -- Any initial disclosures shall be made by Sept. 15, 2023. -- Any motion to amend the pleadings or to join additional parties shall be filed by Oct. 15, 2023. -- If this case is a class action, the parties agree that the motion for conditional collective certification and class certification shall be filed by Jan. 10, 2024. -- All discovery shall be completed by December 11, 2023. -- Any dispositive motion on the Plaintiff's claims shall be filed by April 12, 2024. -- The Plaintiff shall make a settlement demand for his individual claims or for the Opt-in Plaintiffs' claims as appropriate by the April 12, 2024, dispositive motion deadline. The case is a putative overtime collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, on behalf of all similarly situated hourly tow truck drivers who participated solely intrastate travel for a period of at least four months or longer and were subject to Defendant's Commission Amount and/or Hourly Amount policy, employed within the FLSA's 3-year statute of limitations. The Plaintiff also asserts related, individual claims under Ohio's Minimum Wage Fair Standards Act, the Ohio Prompt Pay Act, and Ohio Revised Code section 2307.60. Named Plaintiff and the Putative FLSA Collective seek all available relief under the FLSA. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 22, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45EWf8W at no extra charge.[CC] SHI INT'L: N.J. Court Grants in Part Bid to Dismiss Mantagas Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Zahid N. Quraishi of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey grants in part and denies in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss the lawsuit styled MICHAEL MANTAGAS, et al., Plaintiffs v. SHI INTERNATIONAL CORP., Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-06739-ZNQ-TJB (D.N.J.). Plaintiffs Michael Mantagas and Michael Robina, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, filed an Opposition to the Defendant's Motion to which it replied. The Defendant removed this action from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Somerset County. On Aug. 24, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on behalf of a putative class in connection with a data breach suffered by the Defendant for "at least 11,000 persons whose data was compromised in [the] Data Breach." The Defendant is an international provider of information technology services, which held in its possession certain personally identifiable information ("PII") and private health information ("PHI") (collectively, "Personal Information") of the Plaintiffs and the putative Class Members. The Defendant offers the full spectrum of IT solutions, including IT lifecycle services, data centers, cloud computing, data management, professional and technical training, digital infrastructure, and most pertinently, cybersecurity solutions. According to the Complaint, the Plaintiffs' and Class Members' sensitive Personal Information––which was entrusted to the Defendant––was compromised and unlawfully accessed due to a Data Breach. According to the Notice of Data Breach letter that the Defendant sent to state Attorneys General, the private information compromised in the Data Breach included at least full names, Social Security numbers, home addresses, job titles, dates of employment, salary, tax, banking and loan information, and employees' COVID-19 vaccination status and dates of COVID-19 illness. The Plaintiffs allege that the Private Information compromised in the Data Breach was exfiltrated by the cyber-criminals, who perpetrated the attack, and remains in the hands of those cyber-criminals and was a direct result of the Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect employees' Private Information. In the Notice letters sent to the Plaintiffs on July 27, 2022, the Defendant admits that it discovered "unauthorized access to its computer systems" and that employee data was "compromised." Although the Defendant had the resources necessary to prevent the Data Breach, the Plaintiffs contend that it neglected to adequately implement them and invest in security measures commensurate with the foreseeable risk involved. The Defendant also failed to comply with industry standards on securing PII and ran afoul of the Federal Trade Commission's guidelines on security standards. The Defendant, therefore, breached its obligations to the Plaintiffs or was otherwise negligent and reckless because it failed to properly maintain and safeguard its computer systems, networks, and data. As a result, the Plaintiffs assert that class Members are now, and for the rest of their lives will be, at a heightened and substantial risk of identity theft. The Plaintiffs have also incurred (and will continue to incur) damages in the form of loss of privacy and costs of responding to the Data Breach, including engaging adequate credit monitoring and identity theft protection services. Specifically, Plaintiff Mantagas alleges that he experienced an increase in the number of spam phone calls, emails, and texts, in particular emails related to payday loans following the Data Breach. On the other hand, Plaintiff Robina's credit card information was used to make fraudulent charges following the Data Breach. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant also failed to give timely and accurate notice of the Data Breach as the breach was discovered on July 4, 2021, but notice was not sent out until July 27, 2022. The Defendant's notice is further incomplete and misleading as it does not disclose the specific information pertaining to each Class Member that was accessed in the Data Breach, the precise means of the attack, and whether the Plaintiffs' Private Information is still in the hands of the attackers. To date, the Defendant has offered its employees whose data was compromised, only two years of credit monitoring. The Plaintiffs' Complaint alleges Negligence (Count I), Breach of Implied Contract (Count II), Unjust Enrichment (Count III), and Invasion of Privacy (Count IV). The Defendant moves to compel Plaintiff Robina to arbitrate his claims pursuant to an Arbitration Agreement he signed in 2021. In his Opposition, Robina argues that the Arbitration Agreement is unenforceable because the event underlying this suit--the Data Breach--occurred almost nine months after he resigned from his employment with the Defendant. Robina also argues that he did not agree to arbitrate claims arising out of the Data Breach and that, even if he did, the Arbitration Agreement is substantively unconscionable and, therefore, unenforceable. Judge Quraishi notes that the Complaint makes no reference to Robina's Arbitration Agreement, nor is it attached as an exhibit. The Defendant raises this issue for the first time in its Motion to Dismiss and attaches a copy of the relevant document to its Motion. Given that the question of arbitrability cannot be resolved without considering the arbitration agreement, which constitutes evidence extraneous to the pleadings, Judge Quraishi says it would be inappropriate to apply a Rule 12(b)(6) standard in deciding the instant motion. Thus, the Court will deny the Defendant's motion without prejudice, and order the parties to conduct limited discovery on the issue of arbitrability. Afterwards, Judge Quraishi holds that the Defendants may file a renewed motion to compel arbitration, which the Court will review under a Rule 56 standard. Insofar as Plaintiff Robina's participation in this lawsuit first depends upon whether he is properly bound by a valid arbitration agreement, the Court does not address his standing or whether he pleads plausible claims for relief. The Defendant initially argues that the Plaintiffs lack Article III standing because they have not alleged an "actual" or "imminent" injury-in-fact, and because they have not established that any injury from the Data Breach is fairly traceable to the Defendant. The Defendant contends that the Plaintiffs' "heightened and substantial risk of identity theft . . . for the rest of their lives" is too speculative to establish a future injury. Lastly, the Defendant argues that, even if the Court concluded that any of the Plaintiffs suffered harm, they nonetheless fail to allege that their injuries were traceable to the Defendant because the "Plaintiffs' alleged increase in spam calls and fraudulent credit card charges occurred after the breach does not mean they happened because of the breach." The Complaint alleges that subsequent to the Data Breach, Plaintiff Mantagas experienced an increase in the number of spam phone calls, emails and texts, in particular emails related to payday loans and that he spent time dealing with these suspicious communications and monitoring his financial accounts for suspicious activity. Judge Quraishi finds that the Complaint alleges no other facts to support an inference that Plaintiff Mantagas' particular information was accessed, stolen, or misused. He instead seeks to establish an Article III injury based on (1) an increased risk of future identity theft; (2) expenses incurred to prevent future identity theft; (3) the allegedly diminished value of his Personal Information; and (4) a lost "benefit of the bargain" regarding the Defendant's security measures. None of these provides a sufficient injury-in-fact, Judge Quraishi holds. Notably, unlike Plaintiff Robina, Mantagas has not alleged that he was a victim of fraudulent credit card charges, nor has he pled any other particularized facts that would corroborate a fear of identity theft. The Plaintiffs cannot manufacture standing merely by inflicting harm on themselves based on their fears of hypothetical future harm that is not certainly impending, Judge Quraishi opines. Moreover, courts in this circuit have consistently held that injuries in the form of spam calls and the fear of speculative future harm are not enough to establish an injury-in-fact. The Defendant seeks dismissal of Plaintiff Mantagas' claims for lack of standing but, importantly, given that the Defendant removed this matter to this Court, the proper remedy would be remand rather than dismissal, Judge Quraishi holds. The case, however, is not ripe for remand insofar as an issue remains as to whether Plaintiff Robina is bound by an arbitration agreement. Accordingly, the Court will stay Plaintiff Mantagas' claims pending a determination as to the arbitrability of Plaintiff Robina's claims. For the reasons stated, the Court will grant-in-part and deny-in-part the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss as follows: -- the Defendant's request to compel Plaintiff Robina to arbitration will be denied without prejudice; the parties will conduct expedited discovery related solely to that issue for 30 days following the issuance of this decision; the Defendant may file a renewed Motion to Compel Arbitration by Oct. 13, 2023, to be made returnable Nov. 6, 2023; -- Plaintiff Mantagas' claims will be stayed pending a determination as to the arbitrability of Plaintiff Robina's claims; and -- the Defendant's Motion will otherwise be denied. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated Aug. 31, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/36vt6yyy from PacerMonitor.com. SINOVAC BIOTECH: Gestion Sues Over Breach of A Rights Agreement --------------------------------------------------------------- MW Gestion, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SINOVAC BIOTECH LTD., WEIDONG YIN, NAN WANG, SIMON ANDERSON, YUK LAM LO, KENNETH LEE, MENG MEI, SHAN FU, and WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Case No. 2023-0907- (Del. Chancery Ct., Sept. 6, 2023), is brought to redress Defendants' breach of a rights agreement that Sinovac Biotech Ltd. ("Sinovac" or the "Company") enacted on March 28, 2016 (the "Rights Agreement"), in connection with a battle between Sinovac's CEO and a competing group of investors for control of the Company. On January 30, 2016, Defendant Weidong Yin, Sinovac's longtime President, Chief Executive Officer, and Chairman of its Board of Directors, offered to buy the Company for $6.18 per share, or $350 million. On February 3, 2016, a competing group (the Sinobioway Group) topped Yin's proposal by offering to pay $7 per share. Sinovac responded by enacting a rights agreement containing a "poison pill" to discourage competing bids for the Company (the "Rights Agreement"). The Rights Agreement is triggered if any shareholder acquires beneficial ownership of 15% or more of Sinovac stock or if they form an agreement with other shareholders with combined ownership of at least 15% of Sinovac stock. Ten business days after it becomes known that a shareholder has triggered the Rights Agreement, the Rights to acquire additional shares under the Rights Agreement automatically become exercisable and stop trading in tandem with Sinovac's common stock. If Sinovac's Board decides to conduct an Exchange of Rights after that time, it must do so with the correct set of Rightsholders who owned Sinovac stock as of the earlier date when the Rights stopped trading with the common stock. The Sinovac Defendants have repudiated this basic component of the Rights Agreement. The Company's Board learned as early as April 2016, and several subsequent times over the course of the struggle for control of the Company, that 1Globe Capital LLC ("1Globe")--Sinovac's largest shareholder--and the Sinobioway Group triggered the Rights Agreement by acquiring beneficial ownership of new shares above the agreement's 15% threshold. Sinovac has also cited emails that it received on July 24, and October 16, 2017, in which the Sinobioway Group stated expressly that they and 1Globe collectively represented over 30% of Sinovac stock and agreed to support the Sinobioway Group's bid for the Company. No single shareholder had disclosed owning anywhere close to 30% of Sinovac stock at that time. These communications thus provided Sinovac's Board with additional clear evidence that these shareholders triggered the Rights Agreement by acquiring beneficial ownership of each other's shares through their agreement to support the Sinobioway Group's bid for the Company. That information automatically made the Rights accrue to owners of Sinovac stock as of that time, regardless of when the Board decided to conduct an Exchange of Rights for new shares. This feature of the Rights Agreement is important because the Rights Agreement is not intended to allow Sinovac's Board to choose the precise moment when the composition of the Company's shareholders favors Company insiders. As Defendant Yin acknowledged when it was in his personal favor, in a December 9, 2021 press release contesting 1Globe's position, the purpose of the Rights Agreement is for "valid rights holders to receive the economic value to which they are entitled." Otherwise Sinovac's Board could exercise unfettered discretion to implement the Rights Agreement in a way that favors the interests of Sinovac insiders, to the detriment of innocent minority shareholders that are not part of the group that triggered the Rights Agreement. Sinovac's delay in implementing the Rights Agreement has caused substantial harm to Plaintiff and the Class. All of the Sinovac shares that they sold between the time Sinovac's Board learned in 2016 that the Rights Agreement was triggered, and when the Board finally decided on February 22, 2019 to conduct the Exchange, should have been eligible for the Exchange. Because of the Board's repudiation of the Rights Agreement and other wrongful conduct in connection with Yin's offer to purchase the Company, Plaintiff and the Class stand to receive millions fewer shares under the Board's improperly delayed Exchange. Plaintiff and the Class are even further harmed by the dilution caused from the 11.8 million shares issued to parties aligned with Yin receiving the benefit of the Rights Agreement. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all holders of Sinovac securities (other than Defendants and the parties that triggered the Rights Agreement) who sold their securities between April 11, 2016 (the earliest possible Distribution Date under the Rights Agreement) and February 22, 2019, when Sinovac finally announced an Exchange under the Rights Agreement (the "Class Period"), to redress the harm that Defendants' misconduct has caused them to Suffer, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is an institutional asset manager based in France that manages investment assets through separate funds and is authorized to bring legal action on their behalf. Sinovac is a biopharmaceutical company that focuses on the research, development, manufacturing and commercialization of vaccines that protect against human infectious diseases including, among other diseases, hepatitis A and B, hand foot and mouth disease caused by enterovirus 71, seasonal influenza, H5N1 and H1N1 pandemic influenza and mumps.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. Michael Grunfeld, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 661-1100 Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com mgrunfeld@pomlaw.com - and - F. Troupe Mickler IV, Esq. Tiffany Geyer Lydon, Esq. ASHBY & GEDDES, P.A. 500 Delaware Avenue P.O. Box 1150 Wilmington, DE 19899 Phone: (302) 654-1888 Email: tmickler@ashbygeddes.com tlydon@ashbygeddes.com SOLE SPORTS: Castro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sole Sports, Inc. The case is styled as Felix Castro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Sole Sports, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-07856 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 5, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Sole Sports, Inc. -- https://www.solesportsrunning.com/ -- offers quality running shoes, apparel, and gear at great prices.[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 SPARKY'S CONSULTING: Perez Asks Court to Issue Class Member Notice ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Esteban Perez, on behalf of himself and all other plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown v. Sparky's Consulting & Tactics, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, and Timothy Moore, individually, Case No. 1:23-cv-02058-NRN (D. Colo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting his motion and authorize notice be issued to the Putative Class Members. Pursuant to D.C.Colo.LCivR 7.1(a), the Plaintiff did not confer with Defendants because Defendants have yet to appear through counsel or pro se. On August 14, 2023, Plaintiff Esteban Perez filed his class and collective action complaint on behalf of himself and other similarly situated past and present employees of Defendants. The Plaintiff's Complaint alleges violations of Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). Mr. Perez filed the collective action on behalf of past and present employees who worked for Sparky's as "directors" and "managers". The Plaintiff alleges that he and other similarly situated directors and managers, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and state wage laws, were denied overtime pay for hours worked in excess of 40 in individual work weeks. The Plaintiff alleges Defendants subjected them and numerous other director/manager level employees to a common but illegal wage practice of compensating them as salary-exempt employees and as a result, denied them the additional "half-time" as overtime premiums for hours worked over 40 in individual works weeks. The Plaintiff moves here for stage-one conditional certification of a Putative Class consisting of: "All "Director" and "Manager" employees who worked for Defendants in either role since August 14, 2020, and were paid on a salary basis." Sparky’s owns and operates a security firm that serves the Denver-metro area. Sparky’s provides armed security services for private events, security consulting, defense training courses and seminars across the State. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 17, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sGSmSf at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel D. Engelson, Esq. John William Billhorn, Esq. BILLHORN LAW FIRM 7900 E. Union Avenue, Suite 1100 Denver, CO 80237 E-mail: sengelson@billhornlaw.com jbillhorn@billhornlaw.com SPIKE INC: Simpkins Suit Removed to W.D. Texas ---------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Angelo Simpkins, and others similarly situated v. SPIKE INC. d/b/a OLYMPIA MOVING & STORAGE INC., KRAFT BUSINESS, LLC d/b/a MERCHANTS MOVING AND STORAGE, CROWN MOVING & STORAGE INC. d/b/a WHEATON MOVING & STORAGE, and WHEATON VAN LINES, INC. d/b/a WHEATON WORLD WIDE MOVING, Case No. C2023-0291D was removed from the 433rd Judicial District Court, Comal County, Texas, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas on Sept. 5, 2023, and assigned Case No. 5:23-cv-01118. This Action arise out of an alleged incident in Comal County, Texas that occurred on July 9, 2021 when Plaintiff Angelo Simpkins was allegedly forced off the road by a vehicle driven by Defendant Horton. The Plaintiffs seek damages under the legal theories of negligence, negligent entrustment, and gross negligence.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Bryan P. Reese, Esq. Anthony R. Lascalea, Esq. FEE, SMITH & SHARP LLP Three Galleria Tower 13155 Noel Road, Suite 1000 Dallas, TX 75240 Phone: 972-980-3256 Fax: 972-934-9200 Email: breese@feesmith.com alascalea@feesmith.com SPORTIE LA LLC: Castro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sportie LA, LLC. The case is styled as Felix Castro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Sportie LA, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-07863 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 5, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Sportie LA, LLC -- https://www.sportiela.com/ -- offers The coolest limited edition sneakers, boots, apparel, accessories and other gear for the Los Angeles lifestyle - in the heart of West Hollywood on Melrose.[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 STAGE DOLLS: Completion of Fact Discovery Extended to Nov. 8 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DOE v. STAGE DOLLS, et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-07312 (D.N.J., Filed Dec. 15, 2022), the Hon. Judge Rukhsanah L. Singh entered an order as follows: -- The deadline to complete fact discovery Nov. 8, 2023 is extended through: -- The parties shall electronically file Nov. 1, 2023 a joint status letter no later than: The Court will reset the deadline for any motion for Rule 23 Class Certification /or Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Collective Action Certification at a date. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.[CC] STALLION EXPRESS: Pires Files Bid for Conditional Certification --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ADRIANO PIRES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. STALLION EXPRESS, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-10943-TSH (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge entered an order granting conditional certification of collective action, and authorizing notice to issue to a putative class consisting of the following group of individuals: "All individuals who worked as Couriers for Stallion Express, LLC within the three years preceding the filing of the complaint (April 30, 2020) in this matter through the present." Stallion Express provides pharmaceutical courier services that help pharmacies. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 21, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sFk7e2 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam J. Shafran, Esq. RUDOLPH FRIEDMANN LLP 92 State Street Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 723-7700 Facsimile: (617) 227-0313 STANDARD INSURANCE: Schmidt Reply on Class Cert Due Oct. 12 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANICE SCHMIDT and JUDY A. VANN-EUBANKS on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY, PROTECTIVE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, and DOES 1 TO 50, inclusive, Case No. 1:21-cv-01784-JLT-CDB (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered an order pursuant to the stipulation of the Parties that: -- The Defendant's opposition to class certification shall be filed on or before September 18, 2023; and -- The Plaintiff's Reply on Class Certification shall be filed on or before October 12, 2023. Standard is an American insurance and financial company which is a subsidiary of StanCorp Financial Group. A copy of the Parties dated Aug. 23, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45ITnaV at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Cindy M. Rucker, Esq. Michael D. Mulvaney, Esq. Edward M Holt, Esq. Katharine A. Weber, Esq. MAYNARD NEXSEN PC 10100 Santa Monica Blvd, Suite 550 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (323) 987-3356 E-mail: crucker@maynardnexsen.com mmulvaney@maynardnexsen.com tholt@maynardnexsen.com kweber@maynardnexsen.com - and - David S. Klevatt, Esq. Timothy M. Howe, Esq. KLEVATT & ASSOCIATES, LLC 77 W Wacker, Suite 4500 Chicago, IL 60602-2619 Telephone: (312) 782-9090 E-mail: dklevatt@insurancelawyer.com Tim@Chicagolaw.biz STANDARD INSURANCE: Wins Bid to Seal Exhibits in Schmidt Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANICE SCHMIDT and JUDY A. VANNEUBANKS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY, PROTECTIVE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, and DOES 1 TO 50, inclusive, Case No. 1:21-cv-01784-JLT-CDB (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered an order granting Defendant's request to seal. -- Pending before the Court is Defendant Protective Life Insurance's notice and request to seal a document, filed and emailed to the undersigned's chambers on August 18, 2023, described as Exhibit 11 to the Declaration of Christopher R. Pitoun in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification, Appointment of Class Representative and Class Counsel. -- The Court finds that, for the reasons stated in Defendant's Notice and Request, sealing the Policy List serves a compelling interest. The Court further finds that, in the absence of closure, the compelling interests identified by Defendant would be harmed. Due to the extensive presentation of personal identifying information throughout the Policy List, the Court further finds that there are no additional alternatives to sealing the document that would adequately protect the compelling interests identified by Defendant. -- Accordingly, pursuant to Local Rule 141(b) and based upon the representations contained in Plaintiffs' Notice and Request to Seal, the Court ordered that Exhibit 11 to the Declaration of Christopher R. Pitoun in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification, Appointment of Class Representative and Class Counsel, shall be sealed until further order of this Court. Standard is an American insurance and financial company which is a subsidiary of StanCorp Financial Group. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 21, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sMY44S at no extra charge.[CC] STATE FARM: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Arthur ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Arthur v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Case No. 1:23-cv-01220-MMM-JEH (C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Jonathan E. Hawley entered a standing order as follows: -- Rule 16 scheduling conference The Court will set a Rule 16 scheduling conference approximately 30 days after the answer or other responsive pleading is filed. The conference will generally be conducted by telephone. -- Discovery plan The discovery plan shall be filed with the Court at least three calendar days before the Rule 16 scheduling conference. -- Waiver of the Rule 16 scheduling conference If the parties agree on all matters contained in the discovery plan, then the parties may waive the Rule 16 scheduling conference. To do so, the parties shall indicate in the discovery that the parties agree upon all maters contained within the discovery plan, and they request that the Rule 16 scheduling conference be cancelled. -- Failure of counsel to attend a scheduled telephone hearing For the convenience of counsel, the Court conducts most hearings by telephone when possible. Counsel's failure to appear for a telephone hearing will be treated as a failure of counsel to appear for an in-person hearing. -- Discovery disputes brought to the Court's attention after the discovery deadline has already passed The parties may not raise a discovery dispute with the Court after the relevant discovery deadline has passed; all discovery disputes must be brought to the Court's attention before the relevant discovery deadline passes. Any discovery disputes raised with the Court after the expiration of the relevant discovery deadline shall be deemed waived by the Court, even if the parties agreed to conduct discovery after the relevant discovery deadline has passed. If the parties agree to conduct discovery after the expiration of a deadline set by the Court, they must still file a motion requesting that the Court move that deadline as agreed by the parties in order to avoid any subsequent discovery disputes being deemed waived. -- Settlement conferences and mediation The parties are encouraged to seek a settlement conference or mediation with a magistrate judge. Where parties request a settlement conference or mediation in a case referred to Judge Hawley, Judge Hawley will conduct said conference or mediation. State Farm provides banking and insurance products offering life, auto, home property, business, and health insurance. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 21, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LgATX9 at no extra charge.[CC] STATE FARM: Joyner Sues Over Improper Total Loss Claim Deductions ----------------------------------------------------------------- ZENIA JOYNER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-02406-LKG (D. Md., September 1, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for breach of contract and declaratory and injunctive relief. The case arises from State Farm's alleged scheme and uniform business practice of taking improper and arbitrary Typical Negotiation Reduction on all Maryland total loss claims to systematically undervalue and underpay total loss claims and illegally increase its own profits. In or around October 2021, State Farm transitioned from using Audatex to using CCC to adjust total loss claims in Maryland. In its total loss valuation reports, CCC applies a "take price" deduction to the advertised price of several vehicles that it identifies as comparable to the total loss vehicle, instead of using the actual sales price of the comparable vehicle(s). Each time State Farm undertakes to determine the value of a total loss vehicle, it takes several steps that are to be expected for vehicle valuation. But before State Farm makes any of those expected adjustments, it applies the Typical Negotiation Reduction, regardless of which vendor it uses for the total loss valuation. The parties' insurance policies do not mention any Typical Negotiation Reduction, let alone authorize it. Likewise, there is no authorization under Maryland law permitting the arbitrary Typical Negotiation Reduction, says the suit. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company is an automobile insurance company, with its corporate headquarters at One State Farm Plaza, Bloomington, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Cyril V. Smith, Esq. Aiza H. Siddiqi, Esq. ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP 100 East Pratt Street, Suite 2440 Baltimore, MD 21202 Telephone: (410) 332–0444 E-mail: csmith@zuckerman.com asiddiqi@zuckerman.com - and - David A. Muncy, Esq. PLAXEN ADLER MUNCY 10211 Wincopin Circle, Suite 620 Columbia, MD 21044 Telephone: (410) 730-7737 E-mail: dmuncy@plaxenadler.com - and - R. Brent Irby, Esq. IRBY LAW LLC 2201 Arlington Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 545-8334 E-mail: brent@irbylaw.net - and - J. Benjamin Finley, Esq. Kirkland E. Reid, Esq. N. Nickolas Jackson, Esq. THE FINLEY FIRM, P.C. 200 13th Street Columbus, GA 31901 Telephone: (706) 322-6226 E-mail: bfinley@thefinleyfirm.com kreid@thefinleyfirm.com njackson@thefinleyfirm.com - and - MaryBeth V. Gibson, Esq. THE FINLEY FIRM, P.C. Piedmont Center 3535 Piedmont Road Building 14, Suite 230 Atlanta, GA 30305 Telephone: (404) 320-9979 E-mail: mgibson@thefinleyfirm.com SUNCOAST CREDIT: Solomon Class Suit Remanded to Florida State Court ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled DARLA C. SOLOMON, Plaintiff v. SUNCOAST CREDIT UNION, Defendant, Case No. 8:23-cv-778-SDM-SPF (M.D. Fla.), Judge Steven D. Merryday of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, grants the Plaintiff's motion to remand. Suing for negligence on behalf of herself and a putative class of Florida citizens, Darla Solomon alleges that Suncoast Credit Union negligently permitted third parties to open a checking and savings account without authorization from the account holder. For example, Solomon alleges that an unknown third party accessed Suncoast's "SunNet Online Banking platform" and without Solomon's authorization opened a "Regular Savings" account and a "Smart Checking" account under Solomon's name. Attempting to invoke either federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d), or federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1331, Suncoast removes this action. Solomon moves to remand and argues that under CAFA, Suncoast cannot invoke federal jurisdiction and that this action presents no federal question. Suncoast responds in opposition, and with leave Solomon replies in support of the motion to remand. Judge Merryday notes that to invoke federal jurisdiction under CAFA, Suncoast must demonstrate that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million and that at least one-third of the members of the putative class are citizens of a state other than Florida. The complaint alleges that the putative class comprises "all Florida citizens who had a checking or savings account opened under their identity by Suncoast without their authorization using personal identifying information] for the Unauthorized Account Opening via Suncoast's SunNet Online Banking platform." Because the putative class includes Florida citizens only, each member of the putative class shares citizenship with Suncoast, and Suncoast cannot invoke federal jurisdiction under CAFA, Judge Merryday opines. Suncoast admits that the putative class is "seemingly" limited to Florida citizens but argues that the allegations in the complaint somehow expand the class to include the more than "one million members that opened share accounts" with Suncoast. Judge Merryday finds that Suncoast adduces nothing to establish that the putative class includes anyone, who is not a Florida citizen. And Suncoast's assertion that the putative class includes any Suncoast member that opened a "share account" contradicts the proposed class definition, Judge Merryday points out. Also, without citing any support, Suncoast argues that many of the class members have left Florida with no intent to return or are planning to leave Florida. Even if Suncoast is correct, Judge Merryday opines that diversity jurisdiction is determined at the time of removal. An anticipated change in citizenship is irrelevant to the determination of diversity. The putative class includes those who were Florida citizens at the time of this action's removal. Judge Merryday adds that Suncoast presents no evidence demonstrating that at least one-third of the purported class are citizens of a state other than Florida. Further, Judge Merryday opines, Suncoast fails to demonstrate that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million. The complaint alleges only that damages exceed $30,000. Suncoast must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy more likely than not exceeds $5 million. Because Suncoast's declaration fails to demonstrate that the class sustained more than $5 million in damages and because Suncoast adduces no other evidence supporting the claim that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million, Suncoast fails to invoke federal jurisdiction under CAFA, Judge Merryday holds. As an alternative to federal jurisdiction under CAFA, Suncoast attempts to invoke federal question jurisdiction. According to Suncoast, although the complaint asserts a single claim for negligence, the claim "substantially involves a dispute over the validity, effect, and construction" of the Federal Trade Commission Act (the FTC Act). As Suncoast argues in the pending motion to dismiss, the putative class can assert no claim under the FTC Act because the FTC Act confers no private right of action. But the alleged violation of the FTC Act is neither "necessarily raised" nor "substantial," Judge Merryday finds. The complaint uses the alleged breach of the FTC Act as "part of the basis of Suncoast's duty" but presents several other allegations to support the negligence claim without any mention of the FTC Act. In other words, the alleged breach of the FTC Act might inform the duty of care, but the success of the negligence claim remains independent from the alleged violation of the FTC Act. For these reasons and others stated in the motion and reply, Judge Merryday rules that the motion to remand is granted. This action is remanded. The pending motion to dismiss is denied as moot. In accord with 28 U.S.C. Section 1447(c), the Clerk must mail a certified copy of this order to the clerk of the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit in Hillsborough County, Florida, and must close the case. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Aug. 31, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/fsj4v859 from PacerMonitor.com. SUNDEK NATIONAL: Dillon Suit Removed to D. South Carolina --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Mike Dillon, Kimberly Hardy, Joseph Odom, Robert Mastromarino, Sharon Moody, William Lavoice, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. Sundek National Accounts doing business as: CGI Commercial, Barefoot Resort Yacht Club Villas Condominium Association, Sto Corp., Jenkins Hancock & Sides Architecture Interiors Engineering, Inc. formerly known as: Jenkins Hancock & Sides Architects and Planners, Inc, Case No. 2023-CP-26-04672 was removed from the Horry County Court of Common Pleas, to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on Sept. 1, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:23-cv-04417-JD to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property. Sundek National Accounts -- https://www.sundek.com/ -- has been specializing in servicing commercial projects with decorative concrete solutions since 1970.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert L Wylie, IV, Esq. MULLEN LAW FIRM PO Box 1980 Myrtle Beach, SC 29577 Phone: (843) 449-4800 Fax: (843) 497-0449 Email: rwylie@mullenwylie.com - and - James L Hills, Jr., Esq. MULLEN WYLIE LLC (MB) 4717 Jenn Drive Second Floor Myrtle Beach, SC 29577 Phone: (843) 449-4800 Fax: (843) 497-0449 Email: jhills@mullenwylie.com - and - Robert E Lee, Esq. ROBERT E LEE LAW OFFICE PO Box 1096 Marion, SC 29571 Phone: (843) 423-1313 Email: rel@rellawfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Drew Hamilton Butler, Esq. RICHARDSON PLOWDEN AND ROBINSON (CHA) PO Box 21203 Charleston, SC 29413 Phone: (843) 805-6550 Fax: (843) 805-6599 Email: dbutler@richardsonplowden.com - and - Cameron Dane Berthelsen, Esq. RICHARDSON PLOWDEN AND ROBINSON (MT PL SC) 235 Magrath Darby Blvd., Suite 100 Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 Phone: (843) 805-6550 Fax: (843) 805-6599 Email: cberthelsen@richardsonplowden.com James H Elliott, Jr., Esq. Paul Thomas Mandel RICHARDSON PLOWDEN AND ROBINSON (MT PL SC) 235 Magrath Darby Blvd., Suite 100 Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 Phone: (843) 805-6550 Fax: (843) 805-6599 Email: jelliott@richardsonplowden.com pmandel@richardsonplowden.com - and - Kenneth Ray Moss, Jr., Esq. WRIGHT WORLEY POPE EKSTER AND MOSS 1180 Highway 17 North, Suite 2 Little River, SC 29566 Phone: (843) 281-9901 Email: kennethmoss@wwpemlaw.com SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY: Class Cert Discovery Bids Granted in Part -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHELBY POSTON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY, Case No. 5:21-cv-01386-TJM-TWD (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Therese Wiley Dancks entered an order granting in part and denying in part the parties' respective discovery motions: -- The parties shall provide all directed disclosure in the manner and time frame as directed. -- The Plaintiff's expert disclosure is due Nov. 30, 2023. -- The Defendant's expert disclosure is due Nov. 30, 2023. -- Rebuttal expert disclosure is due Dec. 15, 2023. -- Class certification motion is due Nov. 20, 2023. -- The Defendant's response to the Class certification motion is due Dec. 20, 2023. -- All other deadlines are held in abeyance. The Plaintiff's Demands to the Defendant: (1) Contract formation documents -- Defendant shall provide documents beginning in the 2016-17 academic year through the 2019-20 academic year that pertain to the fees at issue. (2) Documents related to COVID-19 campus closure decisions and determinations -- Defendant shall provide ESI from two senior level individuals, one from the Chancellor's Office and one from the Office of Student Life, regarding decisions on whether to refund monies for the fees at issue. The Defendant's Demands to Plaintiff: (1) The alleged premature requests regarding documents and information related to plaintiff’s adequacy and typicality as a class representative, etc. -- Plaintiff is directed to respond to this request no later than 15 days before the filing of the Class certification motion. (2) Payment source(s) -- Plaintiff shall provide a response that indicates whether and how she was charged for the fees at issue, whether the charges were paid, and how much was paid. (3) Damages mitigation information -- while Plaintiff apparently responded to this demand informally, a formal response is required. Syracuse University is a private, student-focused research university. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 21, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44J8Ma1 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Tompkins, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, PC 1 Old Country Rd Ste 347, Carle Place, NY 11514 - and - Patrick Lannon, Esq. CHERUNDOLO LAW FIRM, PLLC AXA Tower 2, 120 Madison St 16th Floor Syracuse, NY 13202 Telephone: (315) 544-3332 The Defendant is represented by: Paul Rietama, Esq. JENNER & BLOCK, LLP 353 N Clark St Chicago, IL 60654-5474 T-MOBILE US: Faces Dale Antitrust Suit Over Sprint Merger --------------------------------------------------------- T-Mobile Us, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2023, that on June 17, 2022, plaintiffs filed a putative antitrust class action complaint against its parent company in the Northern District of Illinois captioned "Dale et al. v. Deutsche Telekom AG, et al.," Case No. 1:22-cv-03189, against stockholders Deutsche Telekom, T-Mobile, and SoftBank Group Corp., alleging that the merger with Sprint violated the antitrust laws and harmed competition in the U.S. retail cell service market. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief and treble monetary damages on behalf of a purported class of AT&T and Verizon customers whom plaintiffs allege paid artificially inflated prices due to the merger. T-Mobile US, Inc. is a telecommunications company based in Washington. Deutsche Telekom AG, which as of April 2023, holds a 53.3% majority stake in the company. T-MOBILE US: Faces Dinkevich Shareholder Suit Over Sprint Merger ---------------------------------------------------------------- T-Mobile US, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2023, that on June 1, 2021, a putative shareholder class action and the derivative lawsuit was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery, "Dinkevich v. Deutsche Telekom AG, et al.," Case No. C.A. No. 2021-0479, against stockholders Deutsche Telekom, SoftBank Group Corp., and certain of its current and former officers and directors, asserting breach of fiduciary duty claims relating to the repricing amendment to the merger with Sprint Corporation and to SoftBank's monetization of its T-Mobile shares. T-Mobile US, Inc. is a telecommunications company based in Washington. Deutsche Telekom AG, which as of April 2023, holds a 53.3% majority stake in the company. T.L. CANNON: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Jan. 24, 2024 ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dees, et al., v. T.L. Cannon Corp. et al., Case No. 5:20-cv-01537 (N.D.N.Y., Filed Dec. 10, 2020), the Hon. Judge Andrew T. Baxter entered a scheduling order as follows: -- Deadline to complete depositions by: Dec. 14, 2023 -- Deadline for Plaintiffs to file class Jan. 24, 2024 certification motion by: -- Deadline for Defendants to file Feb. 26, 2024 opposition to class certification and/or any cross-motion for summary judgment by: -- Deadline for Plaintiffs to file March 18, 2024 reply in support of class certification motion, and opposition to any cross-motion for summary judgment by: -- Deadline for Defendants to file any April 1, 2024 reply brief in further support of any cross-motion for summary judgment by: The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. TL Cannon is a restaurants, food and beverage, and casual dining company.[CC] TARGET CORP: Faces Boyd Class Suit Over Beauty Products' False Ads ------------------------------------------------------------------ Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit claims Target has misled consumers by attaching its "Target Clean" label to numerous beauty products that, in fact, contain a litany of harmful or unwanted ingredients. The 163-page lawsuit says that the retailer has effectively "greenwashed" the cosmetics at issue by labeling them with the green, hexagonal Target Clean icon. Per the case, the Target Clean seal, launched in 2019, leads consumers to believe that the items are safe for the environment and personal use, and have been formulated without certain unwanted ingredients. Contrary to Target's representations, however, a number of beauty products tagged as Target Clean contain dangerous ingredients that "'clean' conscious consumers would seek to avoid using," such as known carcinogens, skin irritants, allergens and chemicals that disrupt the body’s hormones, the suit alleges. As the lawsuit tells it, the Target Clean seal is no more than a marketing tool for Target, one invented to both increase sales and gain a leg up on competing beauty product retailers. Target created and utilized the 'Clean' label for its own profit, marketing the Target Clean label as an easy way for consumers to identity [sic] purportedly cleaner products, without having to do any of their own analysis, and thereby creating an easier buying experience for consumers and increasing the likelihood that consumers would choose to shop at Target, over other retailers, for their beauty products.” Target Clean? Far from it, lawsuit says To earn the Target Clean label -- which the retailer has attached to more than 4,000 cosmetics and skin, hair, baby and personal care products in-store and online -- an item must be free of a handful of "banned" ingredients with proven adverse effects on human health and the environment, the suit relays. Per the case, in-store signs identify the harmful ingredients that products marked with the Target Clean label purportedly avoid, a list that includes chemical components such as parabens, formaldehyde, butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA) and butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT), among others. The complaint contends that these signs are wholly misleading, as certain products with the Target Clean label contain some of the purportedly banned ingredients. As the filing tells it, the in-store signs also create the impression that items formulated without the retailer's banned ingredients are "clean," when, in fact, many Target Clean-stamped products contain other equally and even more harmful components not included on the company's list. The suit alleges that despite being marketed with the Target Clean icon, many cosmetics sold by the retailer contain dangerous ingredients such as parabens -- a potential hormone system disruptor explicitly included on Target's banned list. Per the case, certain products at issue also contain talc, a known human carcinogen, and tocopheryl acetate, a chemical with a high risk of being contaminated with hydroquinone, another substance identified on Target's list of banned ingredients. More disturbing is the presence of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in many of the cosmetics given the Target Clean label, the complaint charges. PFAS, a group of synthetic compounds commonly called "forever chemicals" because of their accumulative nature, are "unequivocally dangerous to humans," the filing stresses. Even at very low levels, exposure to PFAS chemicals is linked to certain types of cancer, liver and kidney failure, reproductive complications and developmental problems in children, the lawsuit says. The current Environmental Protection Agency's health advisory for PFAS limits PFAS for safe consumption to just 70 nanograms per liter. To put this in perspective, Target purports that the ingredients banned from Target Clean labeled products must be less than 100 part [sic] per million, or the equivalent of 100,000,000 nanograms per liter. Said another way, [the defendant] uses its Target Clean Label to independently designate products as "clean" that may contain over 1.4 million times more nanograms per liter of harmful PFAS chemicals than is recommended by the EPA. The "intentional" misrepresentation of the cosmetics at issue has an "undeniably harmful effect" on consumers who rely on the Target Clean label to buy safer, more eco-friendly beauty products, the lawsuit claims. Target "knowingly" misleads shoppers by "greenwashing" cosmetics, suit alleges In response to increasing consumer demand for safer and more natural and sustainable goods, many companies such as Target have begun to "greenwash" their products, or advertise them as "cleaner" than they truly are, the case contends. According to the complaint, the defendant has "taken advantage" of consumers' desire for clean beauty products by establishing and "over-using" the Target Clean label on items that actually contain some of the ingredients specifically banned by the retailer, or otherwise include other dangerous components known to have adverse effects on humans and the environment. Indeed, "[r]elying on a narrow subset of ingredients to make a "clean" claim and ignoring other harmful or potentially harmful ingredients is misleading and a form of greenwashing by Target," the filing argues. Further, the lawsuit contests that many of the beauty products at issue are not marketed as "clean" by their manufacturers or other retailers that carry them. The filing alleges the defendant simply created and "independently [applied]" its Target Clean label to the items "for its own profit." "To put it plainly, doing corporate good is "in" these days and corporations, like [Target], will do whatever it takes, even in some cases participate in greenwashing or other forms of related deception to consumers, to appear environmentally conscious, safe, and clean," the suit describes. Which Target products are mentioned in the lawsuit? According to the case, the Target beauty products misleadingly labeled as Target Clean include: Almay Multi-Benefit Mascara; CoverGirl Clean Fresh Pressed Powder; CoverGirl TruBlend Matte Made Liquid Foundation; Maybelline Green Edition Balmy Lip Blush with Mango Oil; Maybelline Green Edition Mega Mousse Mascara; Physicians Formula Matte Monoi Butter Bronzer; Physicians Formula Magic Mosaic Light Bronzer; Physicians Formula Murumuru Butter Believe It! Blush; Physicians Formula Powder Palette Pressed Powder; Wet n Wild Bare Focus Tinted Hydrator; Wet n Wild Color Icon Blush; Wet n Wild MegaGlo Contouring Palette; and Wet n Wild Photo Focus Loose Setting Powder. According to the case, the above-listed items are only a small sample of a much larger "greenwashing" for products touted by the defendant as Target Clean. "This subset of Target Clean marked beauty products represents the large-scale problem with the Target Clean label -- it does not identify actual, clean products for consumers and misguides consumers looking for clean products to bring into their homes, and apply directly to their or their loved ones' bodies, (in some cases every day) in sensitive areas like their skin, face, mouth, and eyes," the filing charges, stressing that the items at issue are certainly "not an exhaustive list of all Target Clean marked beauty products that contain unwanted or harmful ingredients." Who's covered by the lawsuit? The case looks to represent anyone in the United States who purchased one of the products listed on this page from Target within the country. I bought one of these beauty products from Target. How do I join the lawsuit? There's normally nothing you need to do to join or add your name to a class action lawsuit when it's first filed. The time to act is typically if the lawsuit reaches a settlement, at which time the people covered by the deal -- known as class members -- may be notified directly by email or regular mail with instructions on what to do next. Remember, it can take months or even years for a class action lawsuit to be resolved. If you've purchased any of these cosmetics from Target, or just want to keep up with class action lawsuit and settlement news, sign up for ClassAction.org's free weekly newsletter. [GN] TESLA INC: Cohen Sues Over Unlimited Free Supercharging False Ads ----------------------------------------------------------------- Abraham Jewett of Top Class Actions reports that Tesla falsely promised three years of supercharging for consumers who purchased its Model S and Model X vehicles between April and June 2023, a new class action lawsuit alleges. Plaintiff Sean Cohen claims Tesla did not actually intend to provide free supercharging to Tesla Model S and Model X buyers, despite allegedly advertising that it would and tricking consumers into paying more for the vehicles because of it. Cohen argues Tesla effectively ran an online marketing scheme that included falsely advertising unlimited free supercharging for customers who purchased the Model S and Model X vehicles between April 20 and June 30. "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," the Tesla class action states. Cohen wants to represent a California class of consumers who have purchased a Tesla Model S or Model X vehicle for personal use since May 17, 2019. Tesla knows car buyers place emphasis on supercharging costs when buying an electric vehicle, says class action Cohen argues Tesla chose to advertise three years of free unlimited supercharging for Model S and Model X purchasers since the automaker allegedly knew 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 Tesla class action states. Cohen claims Tesla is guilty of fraud, unjust enrichment, and negligent misrepresentation, and of violating California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumers Legal Remedies Act. The plaintiff is demanding a jury trial and requesting declaratory and injunctive relief along with an award of compensatory, statutory and punitive damages for himself and all class members. A separate class action lawsuit was filed against Tesla earlier this month by a trio of consumers arguing the automaker grossly overestimates range for its electric vehicles in advertisements. Have you purchased a Tesla Model S or Model X vehicle since May 17, 2019? Let us know in the comments! The plaintiff is represented by Shalini Dogra of Dogra Law Group PC. The Tesla supercharging class action lawsuit is Cohen, et al. v. Tesla Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-07057, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. [GN] THIRD CIRCUIT: McCarren Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Michael David McCarren, et al., v. Third Circuit Court Chief Judge et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-12135-LVP-EAS (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting Rule 23 class certification. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 21, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LdMR3Y at no extra charge. The Plaintiff appears pro se.[CC] TMG HEALTH: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Herman Alleges -------------------------------------------------------- TAMA HERMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TMG HEALTH, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-03465 (E.D. PA., Sept. 6, 2023) is an action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the Plaintiff's and Class Members' protected health information and personally identifiable information stored within Defendant's information network. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant is responsible for the harms it caused and will continue to cause the Plaintiff and, at least, 192,231 other similarly situated persons in the massive and preventable cyberattack purportedly discovered by the Defendant on June 23, 2023, in which cybercriminals infiltrated the Defendant's inadequately protected network servers and accessed highly sensitive PHI or PII that was being kept unprotected. The Defendant disregarded the rights of the Plaintiff and Class Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, and negligently failing to take and implement adequate and reasonable measures to ensure that Representative Plaintiff's and Class Members' PHI and PII was safeguarded, failing to take available steps to prevent unauthorized disclosure of data and failing to follow applicable, required and appropriate protocols, policies, and procedures regarding the encryption of data, even for internal use, says the suit. As a result, the Plaintiff's and Class Members' PHI and PII was compromised through disclosure to an unknown and unauthorized third party—an undoubtedly nefarious third party seeking to profit off this disclosure by defrauding the Plaintiff and Class Members in the future, the suit asserts. TMG HEALTH, INC. provides health program solutions. The Company offers Medicare, premium, claims processing, medical management, and reporting services. TMG Health operates in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Randi Kassan, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC 100 Garden City Plaza Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (212) 594-5300 Email: rkassan@milberg.com - and - David K. Lietz, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC 5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW Washington, D.C. 20015-2052 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Facsimile: (202) 686-2877 Email: dlietz@milberg.com - and - Daniel Srourian, Esq. SROURIAN LAW FIRM, P.C. 3435 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 1710 Los Angeles, CA 94607 Telephone: (213) 474-3800 Facsimile: (213) 471-4160 Email: daniel@slfla.com TORRID HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Waswick Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------- Torrid Holdings 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 Waswick class suit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. In November 2022, a class action complaint was filed against us in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, captioned Sandra Waswick v. Torrid Holdings Inc., et al. An amended complaint was filed in May 2023. The amended complaint alleges that certain statements in the Company's registration statement on Form S-1 related to its IPO and in subsequent SEC filings and earnings calls were allegedly false and misleading. The Company believes that these allegations are without merit and intend to vigorously defend itself against these claims. Torrid is a fashion retailer specializing in plus-size apparel and intimates.[BN] TRANSPAK INC: Viloria Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Transpak, Inc. The case is styled as Celena Viloria, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Transpak, Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2023-0009508 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Sept. 5, 2023). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." TransPak -- https://www.transpak.com/ -- is a global leader in crating, packaging, logistics and design.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kent L. Bradbury, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF KENT BRADBURY 2999 Douglas Blvd., Ste. 180 Roseville, CA 95661-4219 Phone: 916-587-9105 Email: kb@castleemploymentlaw.com TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Brown Must File Class Cert Bid by Feb. 27, 2024 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TOMMY BROWN, v. TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-00680-DGE (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge David G. Estudillo entered an order re parties' stipulated motion schedule: Plaintiff's disclosure of experts relating Aug. 31, 2023 to class certification and disclosure of available deposition dates Defendants' disclosure of experts relating Oct. 30, 2023 to class certification and disclosure of available deposition dates Discovery deadline for class certification Nov. 29, 2023 fact issues Plaintiff's disclosure of rebuttal experts Nov. 29, 2023 re: class certification and disclosure of available deposition dates for rebuttal expert Defendants' disclosure of rebuttal experts Jan. 5, 2024 re: class certification and disclosure of available deposition dates for rebuttal expert Deadline to complete expert depositions Jan. 28, 2024 Plaintiff's motion for class certification Feb. 27, 2024 due Any defendant may file a dispositive motion Feb. 27, 2024 relating to loan ownership related to Plaintiff due Defendants' response to Plaintiff's motion March 28, 2024 for class certification due Plaintiff's response to any dispositive March 28, 2024 motion relating to loan ownership related to Plaintiff due Plaintiff's reply to motion for class April 26, 2024 certification due Any reply on motion relating to loan April 26, 2024 ownership related to Plaintiff due Transworld provides receivables collection and management services. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 17, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sMpFDe at no extra charge.[CC] TRULY NOLEN: Arizona Court Tosses Data Breach Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Judy Greenwald, writing for Business Insurance, reports that a federal district court in Tucson, Arizona, agreed to dismiss a putative class action suit that was seeking damages in connection with a data breach, stating the plaintiff's complaint reflects only "speculative" damages. Tucson-based Truly Nolen of America Inc., which provides pest control services across the United States and in 30 countries worldwide, learned in May 2022 that it was the victim of a data breach that occurred between April 29, 2022, and May 11, 2022, according to the Aug. 31 ruling by the U.S. District Court in Crystal Gannon v. Truly Nolen of America Inc. The information breached included personally identifiable information, such as Social Security numbers, and personal health information such as medical information and medical insurance information. The company began informing potential victims of the data breach in August 2022. Injuries alleged by Ms. Gannon include lost time investigating issues and services relating to the data breach; the diminution of her PII and private health information; annoyance and interference; and the substantial risk of fraud. The company's response to the complaint states there is no evidence any putative class members had experienced actual fraud or misuse because of the breach. "Plaintiff's case is without merit," the ruling said, in dismissing it. "Negligence damages must be actual and appreciable, non-speculative and more than merely the threat of future harm." It said while the plaintiff asserts damages because of out-of-pocket expenses spent on prevention, detection and recovery, she did not demonstrate that these expenses were "reasonable and necessary." Attorneys in the case did not respond to requests for comment. "This is a very, very conservative pro-company ruling" that will be often cited by defense attorneys, said Gerald Maatman, a partner with Duane Morris LLP in Chicago, who is not involved in the case. The ruling contrasts with an earlier ruling last month by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York, which overturned a lower court and held in Nancy Bohnak v. Marsh & McLennan Cos. Inc. that plaintiffs can pursue damages from data breaches even where there was no evidence the information was improperly used. [GN] UNICREDIT: Court Sets Nov. 13 Class Settlement Opt-Out Deadline --------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENTS If you entered into a European Government Bond Transaction from January 1, 2005 through and including December 31, 2016 ("Class Period"), your rights may be affected by pending class action settlements and you may be entitled to a portion of the settlement fund. This notice is to alert you to new and additional proposed settlements reached with UniCredit and Natixis in In re European Government Bonds Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:19-cv-2601 (VM) (S.D.N.Y.) and the creation of an additional settlement fund totaling $27,000,000. Together with the prior settlements with JPMorgan and State Street (collectively with UniCredit and Natixis, the "Settling Defendants"), the settlement fund total is $40,000,000. UniCredit and Natixis also agreed to provide cooperation in connection with Plaintiffs' continued prosecution of claims against the non-settling Defendants. The settlements with UniCredit and Natixis will resolve all claims that were or could have been asserted against them in the action (as detailed in the respective settlements). UniCredit and Natixis deny any liability, fault, or wrongdoing. Litigation remains ongoing against the non-settling Defendants. The capitalized terms in these paragraphs, as well as other capitalized terms, are explained or defined below or in the (i) Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement with JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., J.P. Morgan Securities PLC (f/k/a J.P. Morgan Securities Ltd.), and J.P. Morgan Securities LLC (f/k/a J.P. Morgan Securities Inc.); (ii) Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement with State Street Corporation and State Street Bank and Trust Company; (iii) Amended Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement with UniCredit Bank AG; and/or (iv) Amended Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement with Natixis S.A. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "Court") authorized this notice. The Court appointed the lawyers listed below to represent the Settlement Class: Vincent Briganti LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C. 44 S. Broadway, Suite 1100 White Plains, NY 10601 Kristen M. Anderson SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP 230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10169 Gregory S. Asciolla DICELLO LEVITT LLC 485 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1001 New York, NY 10017 Todd A. Seaver BERMAN TABACCO 425 California Street, Suite 2300 San Francisco, CA 94104 Who Is a Member of the Settlement Class? Subject to certain exceptions, the Settlement Class consists of all persons that purchased or sold one or more European Government Bond(s) in the United States directly from a Defendant, Deutsche Bank, or Rabobank (or a direct or indirect parent, subsidiary, affiliate, or division of a Defendant, , Deutsche Bank, or Rabobank, or any of their alleged co-conspirators) from January 1, 2005 through December 31, 2016. "European Government Bonds" means euro-denominated sovereign debt or bonds issued by European governments (e.g., Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Spain). If you are not sure if you are included in the Settlement Class, you can get more information, by visiting www.EuropeanGovernmentBondsSettlement.com or by calling toll-free 1-877-883-7336. What Is This Lawsuit About? Plaintiffs allege that Defendants, including UniCredit, Natixis, JPMorgan, and State Street, conspired to fix the prices of European Government Bonds in the primary and/or secondary markets. In the primary market, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants furthered this conspiracy by agreeing to artificially inflate European Government Bond prices at auction through a process known as "overbidding" and to otherwise coordinate their bidding strategies, thereby outbidding rivals and raising the benchmark for resale in the secondary market. In the secondary market, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants, in control of the supply of newly issued European Government Bonds, agreed to fix bid-ask spreads. This includes, Plaintiffs allege, agreeing on higher prices to charge investors for European Government Bonds. Defendants are alleged to have coordinated this scheme via online chatroom communications, where they explicitly fixed prices and bids and exchanged other sensitive, confidential information necessary to carry out the scheme. Plaintiffs allege they were injured by these artificially inflated prices and fixed bid-ask spreads each time they transacted in European Government Bonds directly with a Defendant (or Defendant affiliate) and therefore pursue claims under the Sherman Act for themselves and on behalf of the class. What Do the Settlements Provide? To settle the claims against them (as detailed in the respective settlements), JPMorgan agreed to pay a total of $13,000,000, UniCredit agreed to pay a total of $13,000,000, and Natixis agreed to pay a total of $14,000,000. Settling Defendants also agreed to provide cooperation in connection with Plaintiffs' continued prosecution of claims against the non-settling Defendants. If the Settlements are approved, the Settlement Amount, plus interest earned and less any Taxes, Notice and Administration Costs, Court-awarded attorneys' fees and Litigation Expenses, any service awards for Plaintiffs, and any other expenses approved by the Court will be divided among all Settlement Class Members who submit valid claim forms. Will I Get a Payment? If you are a member of the Settlement Class and do not opt out, you will be eligible for a payment under the settlements if you file a valid claim form. Claim forms must be submitted online at www.EuropeanGovernmentBondsSettlement.com on or before 11:59 p.m. Eastern time on November 28, 2023 OR mailed so that they are received by November 28, 2023. What Are My Rights? If you are a member of the Settlement Class and do not opt out, you will release certain legal rights against Settling Defendants and the other Released Parties, as explained in the Court's detailed notice and the Settlement agreements, which are available at www.EuropeanGovernmentBondsSettlement.com. If you do not want to be a member of the Settlement Class with respect to these Settlements, you must opt out by November 13, 2023. You may object to these settlements, the Distribution Plan, application for an award of attorneys' fees and Litigation Expenses, and/or service awards for Plaintiffs by November 13, 2023. Information on how to opt out or object is contained in the Court's detailed notice, which is available at www.EuropeanGovernmentBondsSettlement.com. When Is the Settlement Hearing? The Court will hold a Settlement Hearing at the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl St., Courtroom 15B, New York, NY 10007, on January 5, 2024 at 10:00 a.m. to consider whether to finally approve the settlements, Distribution Plan, application for an award of attorneys' fees and Litigation Expenses, and any service awards for Plaintiffs. You or your lawyer may ask to appear and speak at the hearing at your own expense, but you do not have to. For more information, call toll-free 1-877-883-7336 or visit www.EuropeanGovernmentBondsSettlement.com. **** Please do not call the Court or the Clerk of the Court for information about the settlements. **** UNITED STATES: Astakhov Suit Seeks Class Status ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Stanislav Astakhov, Alona Astakhova, Yevhenii Shapiro, and Anastasiia Volkova, for themselves and all others similarly situated, v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, United States Department of Homeland Security, and United States of America, Case No. 1:23-cv-01502-JEB (D.D.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: -- Granting their motion for class certification; -- Appointing Stanislav Astakhov, Alona Astakhova, Yevhenii Shapiro, and Anastasiia Volkova, as class representatives; and -- Appointing the law firms of Motley Rice LLC, Bless Litigation LLC, Kuck Baxter LLC, Joseph & Hall, P.C., Siskind Susser PC, and Sarraf Gentile LLP as class counsel. The plaintiffs propose the following class-notice plan. First, the plaintiffs propose that class counsel retain a national, reputable class-action-administration firm to provide class notice. Second, to the extent possible, plaintiffs propose that email notice be sent to each class member using the contact information maintained by the government for each class member. Third, plaintiffs propose that if the government does not have the class member’s email address on file, or if follow-up notice is required, notice then be sent via U.S. mail. Class counsel would pay all costs incurred to send the notice, and all responses would go to the class-action administration firm. The case challenges agency action by the Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services that denied Ukrainian and Afghan humanitarian parolees benefits to which they were entitled. Tens of thousands of Ukrainians and Afghans who fled their countries were denied employment authorization incident to status -- status that would have authorized them to work immediately without a lengthy application period -- and were forced to pay $410 to apply for an employment authorization document (EAD). The Plaintiffs and the tens of thousands of class members were denied the same benefits and seek the same relief. Because the theory of liability and relevant facts apply equally to every class member, plaintiffs move to certify the case as a class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Civil Rule 23.1 on behalf of themselves and the following class: "All individuals or entities who paid the $410 filing fee for Form I765, Application for Employment Authorization, filed by Afghan and Ukrainian parolees who were entitled to "other benefits available to refugees" under the Afghanistan Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2022, Pub. L. No. 117-43 section 2502(b) and the Additional Ukraine Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2022, Pub. L. No. 117-128 section 401." U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services is responsible for processing immigration and naturalization applications. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 23, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/487rGKF at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: William H. Narwold, Esq. Meghan S. B. Oliver, Esq. Charlotte E. Loper, Esq. MOTLEY RICE LLC One Corporate Center 20 Church Street, 17th Floor Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (860) 882-1676 Facsimile: (860) 882-1682 E-mail: bnarwold@motleyrice.com moliver@motleyrice.com cloper@motleyrice.com - and - Joseph Gentile, Esq. Ronen Sarraf, Esq. SARRAF GENTILE LLP 10 Bond Street, Suite 212 Great Neck, NY 11021 Telephone: (516)-699-8890 Facsimile: (516)-699-8968 E-mail: joseph@sarrafgentile.com ronen@sarrafgentile.com - and - Aaron C. Hall, Esq. JOSEPH & HALL, PC 12203 E. Second Ave. Aurora, Co 80011 Telephone: (303) 297-9171 Facsimile: (303) 733-4188 E-mail: aaron@immigrationissues.com - and - Gregory Siskind, Esq. SISKIND SUSSER, PC 1028 Oakhaven Road Memphis, TN 38119 Telephone: (901) 682-6455 E-mail: gsiskind@visalaw.com - and - Jesse M. Bless, Esq. BLESS LITIGATION LLC 6 Vineyard Lane Georgetown, MA 01833 Telephone: (781)-704-3897 E-mail: jesse@blesslitigation.com - and - Charles H. Kuck, Esq. KUCK BAXTER LLC 364 Northridge Rd., Suite 300 Atlanta, GA 30350 Telephone: (404)-949-8154 Facsimile: (404)-816-8615 E-mail: ckuck@immigration.net UNITED STATES: Women Prisoners Seek Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CALIFORNIA COALITION FOR WOMEN PRISONERS; R.B.; A.H.R.; S.L.; J.L.; J.M.; G.M.; A.S.; and L.T., individuals on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, a governmental entity, et al., Case No. 4:23-cv-04155-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. Provisionally certifying a class of "all people who are now, or will be in the future, incarcerated at FCI Dublin and subject to FCI Dublin's uniform policies, customs, and practices concerning sexual assault, including those policies, customs, and practices related to care in the aftermath of an assault and protection from retaliation for reporting an assault for purposes of issuing the concurrently filed request for a preliminary injunction;" 2. Certifying the class of "all people who are now, or will be in the future, incarcerated at FCI Dublin and subject to FCI Dublin's uniform policies, customs, and practices concerning sexual assault, including those policies, customs, and practices related to care in the aftermath of an assault and protection from retaliation for reporting an assault under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2) as to each of Plaintiffs' causes of action;" 3. Appointing CCWP, R.B., A.H.R., S.L., J.L., J.M., G.M., A.S., and L.T. as class representatives; and 4. Appointing counsel of record as class counsel. Federal Bureau of Prisons is a United States federal law enforcement agency under the Department of Justice that is responsible for the care, custody, and control of incarcerated individuals who have committed federal crimes. The Defendants include BUREAU OF PRISONS DIRECTOR COLETTE PETERS, in her official capacity; FCI DUBLIN WARDEN THAHESHA JUSINO, in her official capacity; OFFICER BELLHOUSE, in his individual capacity; OFFICER GACAD, in his individual capacity; OFFICER JONES, in his individual capacity; LIEUTENANT JONES, in her individual capacity; OFFICER LEWIS, in his individual capacity; OFFICER NUNLEY, in his individual capacity, OFFICER POOL, in his individual capacity, LIEUTENANT PUTNAM, in his individual capacity; OFFICER SERRANO, in his individual capacity; OFFICER SHIRLEY, in his individual capacity; OFFICER SMITH, in his individual capacity; and OFFICER VASQUEZ, in her individual capacity, A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 17, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3L7UtVn at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael W. Bien, Esq. Ernest Galvan, Esq. Kara j. Janssen, Esq. Ginger Jackson-Gleich, Esq. ROSEN BIEN GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP 101 Mission Street, Sixth Floor San Francisco, CA 94105-1738 Telephone: (415) 433-6830 E-mail: mbien@rbgg.com egalvan@rbgg.com kjanssen@rbgg.com gjackson-gleich@rbgg.com - and - Susan M. Beaty, Esq. CALIFORNIA COLLABORATIVE FOR IMMIGRANT JUSTICE 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1800 Oakland, CA 94612-4700 Telephone: (510) 679-3674 E-mail: susan@ccijustice.org - and - Oren Nimni, Esq. Amaris Montes, Esq. D Dangaran, Esq. RIGHTS BEHIND BARS 416 Florida Avenue N.W. #26152 Washington, D.C. 20001-0506 Telephone: (202) 455-4399 E-mail: oren@rightsbehindbars.org amaris@rightsbehindbars.org d@rightsbehindbars.org UNITED WATER: Adoption of 1st Amended Class Cert Sched Order Sought ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AARON KNOTT, et al., v. UNITED WATER SYSTEM, INC., Case No. 6:23-cv-00401-DCJ-DJA (W.D. La.), the Parties file a joint motion to adopt first amended class certification scheduling order. United Water is a non-profit water treatment and distribution corporation. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Aug. 17, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44BmBr0 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gordon J. Schoeffler, Esq. GJS LAW OFFICE 730 Jefferson St. (70501) Lafayette, LA 70502 Telephone: (337) 234-5505 Facsimile: (337) 261-0799 E-mail: gordon@gjslawoffice.com The Defendant is represented by: John E.W. Baay II, Esq. J. Michael Digiglia, Esq. GIEGER, LABORDE & LAPEROUSE, LLC 701 Poydras Street, Suite 4800 New Orleans, LA 70139-4800 Telephone: (504) 561-0400 Facsimile: (504) 561-1011 E-mail: jbaay@glllaw.com mdigiglia@glllaw.com - and - Nicholas P. Arnold, Esq. Bette R. Metheny, Esq. Hailey E. Lyonnais, Esq. BLUE WILLIAMS, LLC 3421 N. Causeway Boulevard, Suite 900 Metairie, LA 70002 Telephone: (504) 831-4091 Facsimile: (504) 837-1182 E-mail: narnold@bluewilliams.com bmatheny@bluewilliams.com hlyonnais@bluewilliams.com - and - Thomas Kent Morrison, Esq. David I. Clay, II, Esq. PHELPS DUNBAR LLP Canal Place. 365 Canal Street, Suite 2000 New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 566-1311 Facsimile: (504) 568-9130 E-mail: kent.morrison@phelps.com turk.clay@phelps.com UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA: Shackelford Sues Over Inadequate Security ------------------------------------------------------------------ Justin Shackelford, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. University of Minnesota, Case No. 27-CV-23-14056 (Minn. 4th Judicial Dist. Ct., Hennepin Cty., Sept. 6, 2023), is brought seeking relief for his injuries and those of persons who were similarly impacted by the Data Breach caused by Defendant's inadequate data security. Students, employees, applicants, and others affiliated with the UMN provide it with highly sensitive personal information, including Personally Identifying Information ("PII") including, among other things, names, addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses, and social security numbers. The UMN gathers this information and stores it on its servers in a database. The PII that Defendant collects and stores is the type of personal and sensitive data that is highly targeted by hackers who seek to exploit this data for nefarious purposes. Indeed, PII and, in particular, social security numbers, have inherent value, and are routinely marketed and sold on the dark web. In the wrong hands, the personal and sensitive data that the UMN collects and stores may be utilized to cause significant harm to the those who provided this information, including being used to orchestrate a swath of fraudulent schemes. The value of this information on the dark web is well recognized in the modern data economy, and the foreseeable risk to individuals' identities as a result of a criminal hacking event is known and recognized by technology companies that gather and store data, including Defendant. The UMN gathers, stores, and uses sensitive information it collects from students, applicants, employees, and other individuals, including their highly sensitive Social Security numbers. As such, the UMN has a duty to protect the sensitive data it chooses to collect and store. The UMN recognizes the importance of protecting this data. Defendant admits to being governed by the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act and that it cannot release personally identifying information without consent. Despite these requirements and its understanding of the need to implement reasonable security measures to keep students and employees' information safe, the UMN failed to do so. Instead, a hacker active on the dark web with a username of "niggy" reported that he infiltrated UMN's database and gained access to PII and other sensitive information, including over 7 million unique social security numbers ("Data Breach"), says the complaint. The Plaintiff applied to attend school as an undergraduate at the UMN in 2008. The UMN is a public land-grant research university founded in 1851, located in the Twin Cities of Minneapolis and Saint Paul, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anne T. Regan, Esq. Nathan D. Prosser, Esq. Lindsey L. Larson, Esq. HELLMUTH & JOHNSON PLLC 8050 West 78th Street Edina, MN 55439 Phone: (952) 941-4005 Facsimile: (952) 941-2337 Email: aregan@hjlawfirm.com nprosser@hjlawfirm.com llabellelarson@hjlawfirm.com VASSAR COLLEGE: Faces Graham Class Suit Over Gender Pay Gap ----------------------------------------------------------- Kelly Mehorter of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action alleges Vassar College deliberately underpays, underpromotes and unfairly evaluates female professors. The 25-page lawsuit was filed by five female professors at Vassar who claim the institution has for decades maintained a widening gender pay gap, systematically delayed their promotions, and consistently awarded them lower merit ranks than male professors during performance reviews. "[The] Plaintiffs -- and all Vassar female full professors -- are leaders in their fields who are highly regarded by their contemporaries and by the student population," the case says. "For far too long, Vassar has failed to fairly and equitably value their contributions to the College." A private liberal arts college in Poughkeepsie, New York, Vassar was founded in 1861 "to provide women an education equal to that once available only to men," the filing relays. On September 1, 2023, Vassar still proudly identifies as a "pioneer for women's education" that claims to strive for equity and inclusion, the complaint says. In stark contrast to these purported values, average salary data shared with the Chronicle of Higher Education reveals the existence of a gender pay disparity for full professors at Vassar for every year dating back to 2003, the case alleges. For instance, during the 2021-2022 academic year, male full professors were paid an average of $153,238, while female full professors were paid $139,322, which comes out to a 10 percent pay gap, the lawsuit says. The 2010-2011 academic year saw the highest pay gap within the past two decades at 13.4 percent, the filing notes. The complaint explains that historically, Vassar systematically offered men higher starting salaries than women. Because pay increases are offered as a percentage of a professor's prior salary, these initial pay disparities have grown exponentially over the class members' "often multi-decade" careers, the case contends. "There is no doubt that Vassar has long known about—and long failed to correct— this pay disparity," the suit contends, noting that employees have approached the administration with concerns about pay inequality "since at least as early as 2008." According to the suit, Vassar has repeatedly refused to cooperate with professors' initiatives to address the issue and instead decreased transparency around faculty salaries. Per the lawsuit, Vassar has attempted to explain that male faculty members have higher salaries because they are promoted to the rank of full professor faster than female faculty members. However, the filing contends, Vassar's justification ignores that promotion to full professor takes longer for women because the process requires department support and peer reviews that "fundamentally favor men over comparable women." Moreover, state and federal law prohibits Vassar from intentionally paying women less than men for "substantially similar work," regardless of title, the case claims. "Associate and full professors perform the same job duties," the lawsuit says. "Further, at Vassar there is no salary increase associated with the promotion to full professor." Finally, the suit argues that the merit rating system Vassar relies on to make compensation and promotion decisions systematically disadvantages women because it is "tainted with bias." During performance reviews in which the faculty appointment and salary committee, the dean of faculty and the president participate, professors are assigned a merit rating on a four-point scale, the filing explains. The complaint says that as part of their annual faculty salary increase, professors can receive a merit raise that positively correlates with their merit rating. According to the case, Vassar consistently awards female professors lower merit designations than men despite comparable or superior performance. The lawsuit looks to represent any women currently or formerly employed by Vassar as full professors since May 14, 2015. [GN] VAXART INC: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Dec. 1 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Himmelberg v. Vaxart, Inc. et al, Case No. 3:20-cv-05949-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria entered a stipulation and case management plan. Event Date Substantial Completion of Party Oct. 20, 2023 Document Discovery Amended Pleadings Nov. 1, 2023 Further Case Management Statement Due Jan. 12, 2024 Further Case Management Conference Jan. 19, 2024 Motion for Class Certification Dec. 1, 2023 Class Certification Motion (including expert reports, if any) Class Certification Opposition (including Jan. 26, 2024 expert reports, if any) Class Certification Reply (including March 7, 2024 supporting rebuttal reports, if any) Class Certification Hearing March 21, 2024 Fact Discovery Cutoff May 8, 2024 Vaxart is an American biotechnology company focused on the discovery, development, and commercialization of oral recombinant vaccines. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 17, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Ppd6H9 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Reed R. Kathrein, Esq. Lucas E. Gilmore, Esq. Steve W. Berman, Esq. Raffi Melanson, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202 Berkeley, CA 94710 Telephone: (510) 725-3000 Facsimile: (510) 725-3001 E-mail: reed@hbsslaw.com lucasg@hbsslaw.com steve@hbsslaw.com raffim@hbsslaw.com – and – John T. Jasnoch, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP 600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-4565 Facsimile: (619) 233-0508 E-mail: jjasnoch@scott-scott.com The Defendants are represented by: Neal R. Marder, Esq. Joshua A. Rubin, Esq. Sina Safvati, Esq. AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 600 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 229-1000 Facsimile: (310) 229-1001 E-mail: nmarder@akingump.com rubinj@akingump.com ssafvati@akingump.com VETERAN GOVERNMENT: Lyszaz Suit Seeks Call Center Agents' Unpaid OT ------------------------------------------------------------------- MEGAN LYSZAZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VETERAN GOVERNMENT SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-01178 (E.D. Va., September 1, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to pay full minimum and overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a call center agent in Virginia from May 23, 2022, to April 6, 2023. Veteran Government Services, Inc. is a provider of customer service outsourcing telecommunication services, with a principal address located at 5515 Dunsmore Road, Alexandria, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Curtis Daniel Cannon, Esq. GOLDBERG FINNEGAN 8401 Colesville Road, Suite 630 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: (301) 589-2999 Facsimile: (301) 589-2644 E-mail: ccannon@goldbergfinnegan.com - and - Nicholas Conlon, Esq. Edmund C. Celiesius, Esq. BROWN, LLC 111 Town Square Place, Suite 400 Jersey City, NJ 07310 Telephone: (877) 561-0000 Facsimile: (855) 582-5279 E-mail: nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com ed.celiesius@jtblawgroup.com WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Fails to Properly Pay Employees, Rivera Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- JENNELL RIVERA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC.; SAM'S WEST, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 23STCV21324 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., September 5, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code's Private Attorneys General Act including failure to provide required meal periods, failure to provide required rest periods, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay all wages due to discharged and quitting employees, failure to furnish accurate itemized wage statements, failure to maintain required records, and failure to indemnify employees for necessary expenditures. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a member service associate from approximately March 27, 2006, to present. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. is a multinational retail corporation, headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas. Sam's West, Inc. is a retail company based in Midwest City, Oklahoma. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Matern, Esq. Mikael H. Stahle, Esq. MATERN LAW GROUP, PC 1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Telephone: (310) 531-1900 Facsimile: (310) 531-1901 E-mail: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com mstahle@maternlawgroup.com WASTE PRO: Settles FCRA Class Action Suit for $150,000 ------------------------------------------------------ Top Class Actions reports that Waste Pro USA agreed to pay $150,000 to resolve claims that it failed to adhere to federal regulations when taking adverse action based on consumer reports. The settlement benefits individuals who applied for or worked in a position with Waste Pro USA who were subject to a consumer report procured by the company on or after June 5, 2020. Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit claim the company violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by failing to provide applicants with pre-adverse action notices before taking adverse action. The class action lawsuit also claims that the company obtained consumer reports on consumers without the proper authorization required by FCRA. Waste Pro USA is a garbage and recycling company that operates in Florida. Waste Pro USA hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay $150,000 to resolve the FCRA class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the settlement, class members can receive an equal share of the net settlement fund. Based on anticipated administrative costs and other deductions, each class member is estimated to receive $59.74. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Oct. 6, 2023. The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for Oct. 18, 2023. In order to receive a settlement payment, class members must submit a valid claim form by Oct. 6, 2023. Who's Eligible Individuals who applied for or worked in a position with Waste Pro USA who were subject to a consumer report procured by the company on or after June 5, 2020 Potential Award $59.74 Proof of Purchase N/A Claim Form https://www.broadyclassaction.com/auth/eclaimverify/Njcx NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 10/06/2023 Case Name Broady v. Waste Pro USA Inc., Case No. 2022 11719 CIDL, in the Circuit Court of the 7th Judicial Circuit in and for Volusia County, Florida Final Hearing 10/18/2023 Settlement Website BroadyClassAction.com Claims Administrator Broady v. Waste Pro USA Inc. c/o Settlement Administrator P.O. Box 23369 Jacksonville, FL 32241 Class Counsel Brandon J Hill Luis A Cabassa Amanda E Heytstek WENZEL FENTON CABASSA PA Defense Counsel Matthew J Pearce Amy S Shay Lance D King STOVASH CASE SHAY & PEARCE PA [GN] WAYNE COUNTY, MI: Court Dismisses Santana Homeowners Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Laurie J. Michelson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, issued an Opinion and Order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss the lawsuit titled MARIBEL REYES SANTANA, Plaintiff v. COUNTY OF WAYNE and WAYNE COUNTY TREASURER, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-12376-LJM-CI (E.D. Mich.). Plaintiff Maribel Reyes Santana owed $319.64 in property taxes on her Detroit home, which was allegedly worth $35,000 when Wayne County seized it. The County then sold it at a November 2015 tax foreclosure auction for $6,100 and refused to refund the difference. Over seven years later, Santana filed this lawsuit on behalf of herself and a class of all other similarly situated homeowners. She alleges that Wayne County and the Wayne County Treasurer violated the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause and the Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause by not returning the excess proceeds or excess equity from the foreclosure sale after recouping the unpaid taxes. She also brings a takings claim and an inverse-condemnation claim under Michigan law. The Defendants believe the case was filed too late, among other legal deficiencies, and have moved to dismiss all of Santana's claims. Judge Michelson notes that although Santana's tax delinquency was significantly less than the amount Wayne County received from the foreclosure sale--a difference of over $5,700--the County never returned any excess proceeds to her. Instead, consistent with state law at the time, the County kept the proceeds. The Defendants say state law "directs foreclosing governmental units to spend the 'excess surplus' in specific ways, none of which include reimbursing the delinquent taxpayer." Indeed, under the Michigan General Property Tax Act, no matter what the sale price of a foreclosed home, the property's former owner has no right to any of the proceeds. But the law has recently changed, Judge Michelson says. Indeed, the Michigan Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court have both held that withholding surplus proceeds from a tax-foreclosure sale is an unconstitutional taking without just compensation in violation of both the Michigan Constitution and the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Ms. Santana filed this action on Oct. 5, 2022. She brought a Fifth Amendment Takings Clause claim and Eighth Amendment Excessive Fines Clause claim under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983; she also brought a Takings Clause claim arising directly under the Fifth Amendment (rather than under Section 1983), a takings claim under the Michigan Constitution, and an inverse-condemnation claim under Michigan law. In time, the Defendants moved to dismiss all of Santana's claims. They argue that: (1) Santana's federal takings claims are time-barred; (2) she has failed to state a claim under the Eighth Amendment; (3) she has failed to state an inverse-condemnation claim; and (4) the Court should not exercise jurisdiction over her Michigan Constitution takings claim. Whatever the merits of her Takings Clause claims, the Defendants argue that Santana was too late in bringing them. The Court agrees. Accordingly, Santana's takings claim brought directly under the Fifth Amendment (Count II) is dismissed. Now to Santana's takings claim brought under Section 1983. The parties dispute whether the limitations period on Santana's claim began to run on the date of seizure or on the date of sale. Judge Michelson holds that the Defendants are correct that, in Hall v. Meisner, 51 F.4th 185, 188 (6th Cir. 2022), reh'g denied, No. 21-1700, 2023 WL 370649 (6th Cir. Jan. 4, 2023), the Sixth Circuit found that the unconstitutional taking occurred when the county took absolute title of the plaintiff's property. Importantly though, in Hall, unlike here, the county never held a foreclosure auction. But if the property interest that gives rise to Santana's takings claim is the surplus proceeds Wayne County kept after the foreclosure sale occurred, it follows that the act that provided the basis for her injury was the County selling her home at the foreclosure auction and failing to return any excess proceeds, Judge Michelson opines. But the Court need not resolve this issue because, either way, Santana's claims are time-barred, Judge Michelson holds. In other words, even giving her the benefit of the doubt and using the later date of the foreclosure sale, Santana's claim would have accrued in November 2015 when the property was sold at auction. Thus, it would have expired in November 2018, almost four years before she filed this suit in October of 2022. So, Judge Michelson notes, that leaves only the question of tolling--that is, Santana's takings claim under Section 1983 will be time-barred unless the Court finds that the statute of limitations should be tolled. Ms. Santana argues that her claims were tolled while two related class actions were litigated. In American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974), the Supreme Court stated that "the commencement of a class action suspends the applicable statute of limitations as to all asserted members of the class who would have been parties had the suit been permitted to continue as a class action." Later, Judge Michelson says, the Court applied this rule in a Title VII case and clarified the duration and effect of the tolling, citing Andrews v. Orr, 851 F.2d 146, 148–49 (6th Cir. 1988) (citing Crown, Cork & Seal Co. v. Parker, 462 U.S. 345 (1983)). There, the Court stated that once the statute of limitations has been tolled, it remains tolled for all members of the putative class until class certification is denied. At that point, class members may choose to file their own suits or to intervene as plaintiffs in the pending action. Here, Ms. Santana says the Court should toll her claims under American Pipe because she was a putative class member in two class-action lawsuits: Bowles v. Sabree, No. 20-12838 (E.D. Mich. 2020) and Wayside Church v. Van Buren Cty. No. 14-01274 (W.D. Mich. 2014). But neither class action warrants application of American Pipe tolling here, Judge Michelson holds. For one, the complaint in Bowles was not filed until Oct. 22, 2020, almost two years after Santana's claims expired in November 2018. So, Judge Michelson finds Bowles does nothing to toll Santana's statute of limitations because her claims expired before that class action was filed. As for Wayside, it was filed on Dec. 11, 2014--before Santana's home was seized by Wayne County and later sold at auction on Nov. 10, 2015. But because the Court finds that the Defendants were not named defendants in the Wayside class action, American Pipe tolling is not available to Santana, Judge Michelson holds. The Sixth Circuit has explained that "the tolling of limitations periods against a defendant by a class action would not apply to a subsequent action against a different defendant even if the claims arise out of the same or similar transaction," citing Guy v. Lexington-Fayette Urban Cnty. Gov't, 488 F. App'x 9, 21 (6th Cir. 2012. Consistent with this principle, the Court cannot say that the Defendants here--despite being members of a putative class of defendants in a different suit--were on notice of the substantive claims brought against them. To the contrary, the Defendants have avowed that they were never participants or parties to the litigation in Wayside, never filed an appearance, and thus, never received notice of the litigation, the substantive claims filed against them, or the potential plaintiffs that may participate in the ultimate judgment. As the Sixth Circuit emphasized, tolling under American Pipe is consistent with purposes of putting defendants on notice of adverse claims and preventing plaintiffs from sleeping on their rights. Judge Michelson points out that tolling the statute of limitations here would be inconsistent with both of those purposes, and the Court declines to do so. In sum, at best, Judge Michelson says Santana's Section 1983 claims expired in November 2018. She waited almost four years after the limitations period on her claim ran out--and almost seven years after the act that gave rise to her claim occurred--to file this lawsuit. Thus, her claim is untimely and American Pipe tolling cannot save it. While the Court sympathizes with Santana's plight, she simply waited too long before seeking redress. Accordingly, Santana's Section 1983 takings claim (Count I) must be dismissed. The Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment limits the government's power to extract payments, whether in cash or in kind, as punishment for some offense. The Defendants argue that Santana has failed to state a claim under the Eighth Amendment. Specifically, Defendants rely on Hall, which they say stands for the proposition that a tax foreclosure, and the withholding of excess proceeds from a tax-foreclosure sale, are not punishments, and thus, would not be governed under the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment. In her response, Santana concedes that the Sixth Circuit's holding in Hall forecloses her Eighth Amendment claim. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss Santana's Eighth Amendment claim (Count V). That leaves Santana's state-law claims. In a one-line footnote citing only the Sixth Circuit's opinion in Hall, the Defendants argue the Court should dismiss Santana's Michigan Constitution takings claim on jurisdictional grounds. The Defendants also argue that Santana's inverse-condemnation claim (Count III) must be dismissed because she does not have any right or title to the Property. Judge Michelson notes that the Defendants appear to be asking the Court to apply Pullman abstention, citing Railroad Commission of Texas v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S. 496 (1941). But Pullman abstention does not apply here since Santana's federal claims have been dismissed, Judge Michelson holds. Nonetheless, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Santana's state-law claims. Federal courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. Because the Court has dismissed all federal claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Santana's inverse-condemnation and Michigan Constitution claims. Accordingly, Judge Michelson rules that Santana's inverse-condemnation claim (Count III) and Michigan Constitution claim (Count IV) are dismissed without prejudice. For the reasons stated, the Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated Aug. 31, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/4smceyjz from PacerMonitor.com. WEST COAST: Rajeh Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection Practices -------------------------------------------------------------- AYMEN RAJEH and REEM RAJEH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WEST COAST SERVICING, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-12052 (D. Mass., September 5, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Truth in Lending Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and the Real Estate Settlement and Procedures Act. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to provide monthly mortgage statements and a timely notice of servicing transfer to the Plaintiffs and similarly situated consumers. As a result of the Defendant's omission, the Plaintiffs and Class members are harmed as they were denied the ability to know the status of their loans and take any necessary actions regarding their debts. This suit seeks only damages and relief for recovery of economic injury on behalf of the Class and it expressly is not intended to request any recovery for personal injury and claims related thereto. West Coast Servicing, Inc. is a debt collection company, with its principal place of business located in Huntington Beach, California. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Nicola Yousif, Esq. Matthew A. McKenna, Esq. SHIELD LAW 157 Belmont St. Brockton, MA 02301 E-mail: nick@shieldlaw.com matt@shieldlaw.com - and - Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Pamela E. Prescott, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com WHEATLEIGH CORPORATION: Class Settlement in Mongue Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARLETA MONGUE, v. THE WHEATLEIGH CORPORATION, L. LINFIELD SIMON, SUSAN SIMON, and MARC WILHELM, Case No. 3:18-cv-30095-KAR (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Katherine A. Robertson entered an order: -- Granting the Plaintiff's motion insofar as Plaintiff seeks an order preliminarily approving the settlement of this class action as reflected in the parties' December 22, 2021, and December 23, 2021, emails and enforced by the court; -- Provisionally appointing the Plaintiff as Class Representative; and -- Directing Class Counsel to cause the settlement administrator to provide notice. The court directs Class Counsel to cause the Settlement Administrator to provide notice to all class members in accordance with the notice provisions outlined above. The court will hold a fairness hearing at 11:00 a.m. on December 7, 2023. The Plaintiff Mongue, a former wait staff employee of Wheatleigh Corporation, brings this class action alleging Massachusetts wage law violations on her own behalf and on behalf of other similarly situated wait staff employees. Pursuant to those negotiations, on December 22, 2021, Class Counsel sent an email to Defendants’ then-counsel with a settlement demand for a "Gross Settlement Fund" or "GSF" of $580,000.00 to be allocated as follows: -- $8,103.00 to Brown (1.5 times single damages); -- $11,961.00 to Harris (1.5 times single damages); -- $8,124.00 to Hamel (single damages); -- $5,000.00 to Plaintiff (individually, as a service award for being the class representative); -- $261,986.80 to the Class for tip pool and other violations; and -- $284,825.20 in attorneys' fees and costs (to be allocated between the four cases as Class Counsel chose) Wheatleigh operates as a hotel. The Company offers rooms and suites, meeting and event space, and dining services A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 23, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45O2Z4u at no extra charge.[CC] YES TELEVISION: Faces Class Action Over Unlimited Plan Breach ------------------------------------------------------------- Bezeq-The Israel Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. (the "Company") disclosed that on September 4, 2023, the subsidiary, yes Television and Communication Services Ltd. ("yes") informed the Company that yes received notice regarding a motion for certification of a class action that was filed against yes, together with a lawsuit, with the Central-Lod District Court. Pursuant to the allegations set out in the motion, yes has breached its commitments towards its customers who subscribed under the yes Unlimited plan, by not allowing them, as promised, free and full viewing, without additional payment, of all the channels that it broadcasts, whether they existed at the time of the engagement and whether they were added or will be added during the years of its broadcasts. In addition, the motion claims that yes charges additional payment for the set top boxes that support HD or 4K broadcasts despite its commitment to provide yes Unlimited content subscribers up to seven (7) set top boxes without additional fees, where the terms of the subscription is not limited to any type of set top box. The motion notes that the class action is estimated to amount to NIS 107,318,800 with respect to all members of the class. yes is currently studying the specifics of the motion and at this stage neither it and/or the Company is able to estimate the chances of it succeeding. [GN] ZIPRECRUITER INC: Parties to Settle FCRA Row in California Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ziprecruiter, 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 the parties agreed to settle a putative class action lawsuit filed by a former employee in the Los Angeles Superior Court in April 2019, pending the court's approval. The company was named as a defendant alleging that it violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) as well as owed certain compensation to employees. In January 2020, the former employee filed a related representative action in the Los Angeles Superior Court under the Private Attorney General Act alleging similar claims regarding compensation owed to employees. In January 2021, the company filed a motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication, which was granted in part and denied in part. ZipRecruiter, Inc. is a two-sided marketplace that enables employers and job seekers to connect with one another online to fill job opportunities. ZUORA INC: $75.5MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Jan. 12 ---------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CASEY ROBERTS, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff, ZUORA, INC., TIEN TZUO, and TYLER SLOAT, Defendants. No. 3:19-cv-03422-SI CLASS ACTION SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION Judge: Hon. Susan Illston IF YOU (A) PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED ZUORA, INC. ("ZUORA") COMMON STOCK FROM APRIL 12, 2018 THROUGH MAY 30, 2019, INCLUSIVE, AND/OR (B) PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED SHARES OF ZUORA, INC. COMMON STOCK PURSUANT OR TRACEABLE TO THE REGISTRATION STATEMENT AND PROSPECTUS ISSUED IN CONNECTION WITH ZUORA'S APRIL 12, 2018 INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY A PROPOSED SETTLEMENT IN A LAWSUIT PENDING IN FEDERAL COURT (THE "ACTION").1 PLEASE READ CAREFULLY. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a hearing will be held on January 12, 2024, at 10:00 am., before the Honorable Susan Illston, United States District Judge, at the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (the "Court"), 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California 94102 for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed settlement in the Amended Stipulation and Agreement of Global Settlement, dated June 22, 2023, of the Action for $75,500,000 in cash (the "Settlement Amount") should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Class Members; (2) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation of the Settlement Amount is fair, reasonable, and adequate; (3) whether the application by Lead Counsel and Class Counsel, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP ("Class Counsel"), for attorneys' fees and expenses and for an award to the Court-appointed Lead Plaintiff and Class Representative New Zealand Methodist Trust Association ("Class Representative") should be approved; (4) whether the application by State Class Counsel for attorneys' fees and expenses and for an award to the State Class Representative should be approved; and (5) whether the proposed Judgment should be entered. The Court may adjourn the Settlement Hearing to another time (i.e., reschedule) without further notice to the Class. Before the Settlement Hearing, Class Members who plan to attend should check the Settlement Website or the Court's PACER site. The Action (or "Federal Action") has been certified as a class action on behalf of all investors (individuals and entities) who purchased or acquired Zuora common stock from April 12, 2018 through May 30, 2019, inclusive, and who were damaged thereby ("Class Members"). The Action asserts claims against Zuora and certain individual defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act"). A detailed description of the Action, including the parties, the claims and defenses, and other important information about your rights and options are in the detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action (the "Notice"). Class Representative alleged that during the period between April 12, 2018 and May 30, 2019, the Federal Action Defendants made materially false and misleading statements in violation of §10(b) of Exchange Act, Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and §20(a) of the Exchange Act, which caused the price of Zuora stock to trade at artificially inflated prices. Specifically, Class Representative alleged that the Federal Action Defendants misled investors during the Class Period by making public statements that did not reflect the actual state of the functionality of Zuora's platform as a combined solution, the integrated nature of its flagship products, Billing and RevPro, through the "Keystone" integration project, and Zuora's path for growth via cross-selling and upselling Billing and RevPro. Class Representative alleged that persons who purchased Zuora stock during the Class Period suffered economic losses when the price of Zuora stock declined as a result of the May 30, 2019 disclosure addressing the integration failure, sales execution issues, and disappointing financial performance and outlook. During the course of the Litigation, the parties engaged a third-party mediator, Robert A. Meyer, Esq., of JAMS. After the submission of comprehensive mediation statements and other materials, the parties participated in a mediation via videoconference with Mr. Meyer on January 18, 2022. The parties did not reach a resolution with Mr. Meyer at that time. On May 31, 2022, the Court entered an order referring this action to Magistrate Judge Kandis Westmore for settlement. As part of the conferences with Judge Westmore, the parties agreed to resume further mediation with Mr. Meyer. On February 2, 2023, the parties conducted an in-person mediation with Mr. Meyer. Although no resolution was reached during the mediation, the parties continued discussions with Mr. Meyer. On March 31, 2023 – one week before oral arguments on the Federal Action Defendants' summary judgment motion and motion to exclude expert testimony and Class Representative's motions to exclude expert testimony – the parties reached an agreement to settle the litigation, subject to approval by the Court. After Class Representative filed its motion for preliminary approval of the Settlement on May 15, 2023, the parties conducted additional negotiations with the State Class Counsel from Olsen v. Zuora, Inc., Lead Case No. 20-CIV-01918 (the "State Action"), pending in the Superior Court of California for the County of San Mateo (the "State Court"). The State Action claims concern Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and relate to the purchase or other acquisition of Zuora common stock pursuant or traceable to the Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with Zuora's April 12, 2018 initial public offering. On June 1, 2023, with the assistance of Mr. Meyer, the Settling Parties reached an amended settlement agreement in principle which would resolve the Federal Action and State Action concurrently for $75,500,000, subject to approval by the Court. The Settlement further releases and calls for the dismissal of all claims for damages by Class Members in State Action. At the Fairness Hearing, Class Counsel will request that the Court award aggregate attorneys' fees according to the terms of the retainer agreement between the Class Representative and Class Counsel. These attorney's fees are estimated to be no more than 30% of the Settlement Amount, or $22,650,000. Class members are not personally liable for any such fees or any other expenses (estimated not to exceed $1,250,000 for litigation expenses, and $275,000 for Notice and Administration Expenses). In addition, Lead Plaintiff may seek payment not to exceed $25,000.00 for its time and expenses incurred in representing the Class. The net recovery for Class Members (also referred to as the Net Settlement Fund) is estimated to be at least $51,300,000 ($75,500,000 minus all of the foregoing fees and expenses). Based on the benefit added to the Federal Action through their efforts in the State Action, State Class Counsel intends to seek attorneys' fees and expenses not to exceed $1,000,000. Any award of attorneys' fees and expenses to State Class Counsel will come out of the award of attorneys' fees and expenses to Class Counsel. Any award to State Class Representative will be paid from the award to State Class Counsel. To obtain the Notice or a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release form ("Proof of Claim and Release"), visit the settlement website at www.ZuoraSecuritiesLitigation.com or write to Zuora Securities Litigation, c/o Epiq Class Action and Claims Solutions, Inc., P.O. Box 5530, Portland, OR 97228-5530. To get a payment from the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release establishing that you are entitled to a recovery so that it is postmarked or submitted online no later than December 30, 2023. Failure to submit your Proof of Claim and Release by December 30, 2023 will subject your claim to possible rejection and may preclude you from receiving any payment from the settlement. If you are a Class Member, you will be bound by the settlement and any judgment entered in the Action, whether or not you submit a Proof of Claim and Release. To object to any aspect of the settlement, including the Plan of Allocation, or the applications for attorneys' fees and expenses, you must submit a written objection in accordance with all the instructions set forth in the Notice that is received or filed, not simply postmarked, on or before December 22, 2023. If you object, but also want to be eligible for a payment from the settlement, you must still submit a timely Proof of Claim and Release. EXCLUSION FROM THE CLASS - On March 15, 2021, the Court certified the Class in this case. On October 14, 2021, the State Court certified the Class in the State Action. On August 12, 2022, the Court and State Court-ordered notice was disseminated to potential Class Members. That notice required Class Members seeking exclusion to make a formal request to the Court and/or State Court postmarked no later than October 30, 2022. If you validly sought to be excluded from the Class, you are not eligible to receive any payment out of the Net Settlement Fund. There is no further opportunity to exclude yourself from this Settlement. If you are a Class Member, your options, as stated in detail above, are: (1) submit a Claim Form and participate in the Settlement Fund; (2) object to the Settlement; or (3) do nothing. Regardless of the option chosen, if the Court approves the Settlement, it will bind Class Members. This Notice contains only a summary of the terms of the proposed settlement and does not describe all of the details of the Stipulation. For the precise terms and conditions of the settlement, please see the Stipulation available at www.ZuoraSecuritiesLitigation.com; by contacting Class Counsel at 510-725-3000; by accessing the Court docket in the Action through the Federal Court's Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system at https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov, or by visiting the office of the Clerk at the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California 94102, between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Court holidays. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING THIS NOTICE. If you have any questions about the settlement, you may contact Class Counsel at the following address: Class Counsel Steve Berman Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 steve@hbsslaw.com Lucas E. Gilmore Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP 715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 300 Berkeley, CA 94710 Telephone: (510) 725-3000 Facsimile: (510) 725-3001 lucasg@hbsslaw.com 1 All capitalized terms used in this Notice that are not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings provided in the Amended Stipulation and Agreement of Global Settlement dated June 22, 2023 (the "Stipulation"), which is at www.ZuoraSecuritiesLitigation.com. URL// www.ZuoraSecuritiesLitigation.com ********* 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 ***